Putting your mouth where the money is

This blog is about a new initiative from the senior planning managers at Swindon Borough Council Called “Rising to the Challenge”.  They have rightly appreciated that to meet current challenges in local areas, it’s necessary that more than just the Planners and Economic Development officers understand the advantages of a managed, growing economy alongside all the other challenges of a healthy population and vibrant places.

Swindon Borough Council do have a strong wish to grow their economy.  They were the fastest growing area of the country in the 1970s and then had a bit of a decline in fortunes as the heavy industries that this blue collar town relied on moved away or died.  But now Swindon is back and hungry.

Swindon had an “Open for Business” peer challenge from PAS a couple of years ago.  They say that helped to make the step towards the planning service (officers and members) becoming more aligned to the needs of delivering investment growth through new developments and being responsive to the needs of businesses.  It also helped to foster an appreciation that success was going to be more assured if the development was high quality and aligned to a planned spatial strategy that set a framework for decision making.

The new initiative is to run a series of  seminars called “Rising to the challenge”.  The purpose of the Seminars is to help Swindon grapple with the big planning challenges ahead by getting in leading thinkers / practitioners to speak on the issues to help guide their approach.  Speakers are being brought in from a range of local and national organisations, other towns and other parts of the council.  The audience is as wide as they can manage from councillors, community voices , interest groups and people from a range of council services and public sector bodies and developers.  The seminars are hosted in Swindon’s great Steam Museum – a potent reminder of how heritage can be conserved and turned in the direction of the future – and a venue that made people feel good/valued at having been invited.

I went along to the seminar last week when the topic was  “Delivering Good Growth”.  Speakers included an inspirational talk from Peter Studdart about the Cambridge experience and a pithy talk about where Swindon is among the galaxy of similar (maybe competing) towns in terms of a range of indicators of economic health from Andrew Carter of the Centre for Cities. The afternoon sessions looked at working with the LEP and the work going forward in partnership with the HCA on a range of schemes especially delivering the necessary infrastructure for  essential town centre regeneration schemes and the housing urban extension at Wichelstowe (2 of several). The final speaker wrapped up the day with a great talk that pulled together all the threads of activity in their growth strategy, and set them in the context of the aligned local plan, business plan and economic development strategies.

The audience were clearly caught by the ideas judging by the animated discussion that followed.  I didn’t catch any whiff of NIMBYist “alright in principle, but…”.  There was plenty of talk about what was good design in terms of Swindon.

The seminar topics are

  • Good Design (presentations here)
  • Delivering Infrastructure to support growth  (presentations  here)
  • Delivering Good Growth (presentations here)
  • Planning for an ageing population ( seminar 15 December)
  • Planning for a Healthy Swindon
  • Citizen engagement in the Planning of Swindon

This was about a council really taking the time not just to do consultation with their community, but really pulling out the stops to change hearts and minds about attitudes to development – making the situation real, talking about consequences without shroud waving and showcasing the breadth of ambition across the whole local authority area… and it was being lead and coordinated by planners.





Community Infrastructure Levy hits Housebuilding – If only it were that simple!

Savills’ recent report, referred to by Planning and the FT – http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/NewsAttachments/RLP/SpotlightCILIs_it_delivering.pdf – seem to suggest the correlation between introducing a CIL and an area not being attractive for house building is simple. I don’t think it is a clear correlation to say CIL makes the area less attractive for house building.

Firstly there are very few authorities with CIL – many of them have relatively recently adopted it – Savills’ evidence base is not huge (16 local authorities). Nearly all of those that have a CIL already had a plan in place. These may have already consented much of their growth and will have allocated sites that have been the subject of planning consents that are already being built out – in the best plan led fashion. That cannot be said for all the authorities in the country.

Also, as identified by Savills, there is a huge a spike in the numbers of planning applications being granted subject to s106 obligations at every authority pre the adoption of a CIL. Many of these schemes have been in negotiation for years and to start again with discussions in a CIL world would not be desirable –although the decision rests with the developer. It is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of applications will have been hanging around for some time pre CIL as developers want a planning ‘decision’ and by that they often mean the resolution to grant subject to a s106. They are not always in a hurry to complete the s106 as they are not intending to go straight on site and the resolution will be enough for them to work on. However an authority’s decision to adopt CIL gives a new imperative to get the s106 sorted.

To compare these limited CIL authorities with the rest of the country is very misleading- it should be noted that areas without CIL are also usually areas without a plan and probably, in a lot of cases, without a five year housing land supply. These areas are magnets for developers seeking consents on unallocated land under the NPPF- the rush has been on to get planning permission on these non-plan led sites – increasing the number of houses granted in some areas.

In terms of getting money in – that only happens in a CIL regime when the development starts and in the cases of authorities with an instalments policy later still. So it is not surprising that these 16 authorities, after only a year, have little to show so far considering: the post adoption lull of consents, then the normal lag to get development on site, the developer focus on areas which are targets for non-plan led housing, and that CIL money at most authorities will only ever be able to contribute a relatively small proportion of the overall infrastructure costs associated with the growth plan.

Savills do make a very good point that CIL does not get collected from the broad range of development originally envisaged and the amount the charging authority are able to collect has been reduced due to the neighbourhood proportion, the changes in exemptions including self-build. Most authorities with large strategic sites appear to be sticking to the use of s106 with zero or low CIL for broader strategic infrastructure – this aids the delivery of key infrastructure on these large sites. Where possible, and the CIL/s106 rules allow, CIL will be best used as match funding or part of a wider funding strategy bring in money from LEPS, City Deals, New homes bonus, business rate retention etc. for strategic or sub regional infrastructure; but all of this takes time to implement. Many charging authorities (District level) have not had the experience of pulling together funding, forward funding, and delivery of major infrastructure. This is a whole new area where they will need to develop the skills and mechanisms to deliver projects themselves or with others. Having available mechanisms for future funding infrastructure and available advice for these authorities will help the delivery of infrastructure projects in these areas.

New fruit in the planning basket for commercial developers

Government initiatives for nudging investment development and housing towards delivery have thrown up a menu of interesting new options for councils and developers to get their heads (or their mouths) around.

Can you stick with me for 1400 words while I chew these over and ponder a more local solution?

Last week’s Waterfront seminar on the development consents order (DCO) regime for large business and commercial development was helpful for analysing the pros and cons of using the new option from the point of view of the applicant.

But what what about  from the perspective of the local authority and the community?  Can we use this knowledge to ” incentivise” commercial developers to stay within the local authority decision making world?  I am thinking local development orders – but on a bigger more ambitious scale than  those tepid examples created to meet the  rules for Enterprise zone. Something more like what might be needed to deliver the new initiative for housing delivery on brownfield sites?

For those who, like me (until last week), have been aware of the NCO option but hadn’t given much thought to the detail,  I will start with a  bit (very summarised because this is a blog not a briefing) of background about the NCO process.

What developments are affected?

Large business and commercial development in this case do have some restrictions – no dwellings, no retail led schemes, no working of peat, coal oil or gas.  So think offices, tourism, sport,  leisure, conference centres, research and development, warehousing and logistics,  and working of aggregates and minerals.  There are tests as to size (and the thresholds are surprisingly low) but the development has to be shown to have national significance – which may include economic impact, straddling more that one administrative boundary or being connected with an infrastructure project that comes within the NSIP regime.  And if it’s in London – the Mayor has to agree.

What is the regime?

If  accepted for the DCO process (application to the Secretary of State), then a proposal will follow a similar process to the NSIP regime.  The applicant will side step the application to the local authority for planning permission and instead have his/her proposal examined by an “examining authority” set up by the Planning Inspectorate; the final decision by the SoS. The applicant drafts their own Development Consent Order  instead of awaiting a decision letter from the LPA, and also picks up compulsory purchase order rights rather than having to rely on the Local Authority to aid them in the site acquisition (albeit still subject to the tests).  There is also an opportunity to roll up other (but not all) regulatory consents in the same process.

But there is a fixed process, with the accelerated project management plan applying equal pressure to  the applicant, the decision makers and the other stakeholders.

The main stages in the process are: apply to the Secretary of State to come within the scheme, acceptance, pre-application, submission,  pre-examination (including a representation period), examination, recommendation to the Secretary of State, decision.

Worth noting that whilst for the NSIP process the policy context is largely given by the national infrastructure policy statements, for business and commercial developments, the policy context is the NPPF and the Development plan – just as it is for planning applications.

The advantages from the Developer’s perspective?

  • The chance to draft your own development consent order  – meaning that you have the flexibility to compile all aspects in a single view and enough powers to set out a process to, for example, deal with discharging conditions or delivering infrastructure esp transport.
  • The single consent regime (mostly) allows for all interests to be considered /engaged at once.
  • The fixed timetable  – once you are in the system you know you will have a consent in 12 months.
  • Unravelling issues caused by x boundary issues.
  • A regime that is deliberately positive (e.g. alternatives can be applied for and  considered  and some very positive comments about the helpfulness and solution building attitude of the PINS pre-application team).

The disadvantages:

  • It’s relatively expensive – examination fees could be up to £300K if a large team is required ( max planning application fee £250K).
  • Once you’ve applied to enter the DCO system, it looks as if it will be difficult to change to the application process.
  • You don’t get to build relationships with the local authority and you don’t get to test out acceptability with the decision makers in the way that members’ involvement in the planning process can give.
  • The processes at pre-app especially are inflexible – problems if you have overlooked a requirement.
  • Some flexibility is lost by not being able to substitute plans during the consideration.
  • The timetable is fixed – but in some instances getting planning permission  could still be quicker – especially if the site is allocated.

This analysis makes a subtle change to the conventional wisdom of ‘certainty’ and ‘speed’ as the  key to the developers’ wish list.

Looking at the lists of pros and cons, it seems to me that  “time” cuts both ways and that what is desired is simply  to not have the process go on longer than it needs to – transparency in relation to the project management.

Certainty about having most of the relevant consents considered at once  is an understandable advantage.  But there is a expensive potential  trade-off  in not having the chance to get into the mind of the decision makers, meaning that a developer will have to spend an awful lot before he/she gain much sense of certainty.

But what seems to be the biggest attraction for the DCO option is empowerment – being able to influence the form of the consent to develop in such a way that the practical needs of implementation are taken properly into account.  gaining active CPO powers for site assembly.

What are the pros and cons  from the perspective of the local authority and the community?

The cynics will say that the pros of the DCO process include the opportunity to blame someone else for an locally unpopular decision.

But the disadvantage is much costlier for both the disenfranchised council and the community. Its much harder to get the needs of the community threaded into a development if you are simply one of a number of stakeholders.

Then, what can we learn from the NSIP regime to retain that local ability to guide and influence development?

Getting an up to date local plan in place has to be the first stop  (no surprise there).  If one of the attractions of NSIP is that the policy background is clearer by virtue of the national infrastructure policy statements, then having clear up to date policies that conform to the NPPF is a huge step towards greater certainty.

Having council members involved in pre-application discussions gives insight into the decision makers mind.

The LPA taking the role of facilitator to bring other stakeholders into pre-application discussions advances the single discussion if not providing a single consent.

But what about this empowerment of the developer?

A local development order (LDO) could be created through a collaborative approach  involving the applicant; the statutory consultees, the upper and lower tier councils  and the community.

  • All parties would have a contribution to creating a consent framework that would provide reassurance for the community and certainty for the developer.
  • Good project management of the LDO creation would secure timeliness and input appropriate levels of resource to get the job done (probably provided the developer contributes to this).
  • A planning performance agreement (PPA) could provide the mechanisms for discharging conditions or granting subsequent consents as part of a seamless process.

There are now a few strong examples of councils preparing ambitious LDOs.  Look at Thurrock or Vale of White Horse as two of these examples.  Those councils have been prepared to take a much more proactive approach to encourage developments by providing certainty.  The developer is released from the burden of the council wanting to consider every application on its merits from scratch.  The developer is trusted to meet the requirements and get on with delivery. With appropriate liaison, the community can be involved from LDO preparation to scheme implementation.

This is not going to be the cheap option.  But  if developers are prepared to pay for the privilege of wrapping up certainty and the flexibility in a single package this could certainly be a worthwhile addition to the planning basket, along with the DCO option.

No More Pooling – Date is Looming: Thoughts of a CIL Anorak

I have been wearing my CIL anorak a lot recently – fully zipped up and my hood on… It seems that no matter how long I do CIL there are always questions to be pondered on – these are the ones that are exercising me at the moment.

Do people really get that there is no pooling of more than five s106 obligations after 2015? I am not convinced that this has totally sunk in – or that the implications of this has been explained to councillors or management teams. I also think that some think that there is a way around it – if there is please tell me! I can understand that some take the view that they will do everything on large strategic sites with s106 – this might be possible but:

• Have you worked out how you can make sure that these sites are not broken up into more than five parcels?
• Do you have policies that define not only the new developments but also the required infrastructure on the strategic site?
• And will you only accept a master planning application for the whole package? Would you be in a position to refuse applications that came in for chunks of it?

If you have thought this through and have an air- tight approach – I am really interested. It certainly needs a lot of thought.

In areas where the growth is not strategic sites I am truly puzzled if people think the pooling limit will work for them. The assumption must be that they will not bother. That CIL is not worth doing, is too expensive to implement, there’s not enough viability to get a decent rate, and will only provide 5-10% of infrastructure money (a small contribution – but not to be sniffed at I would have thought). So, is the focus on ‘New Homes Bonus’ to provide supporting infrastructure?

I also worry that some think that you can still pool if it is site-specific mitigation – just to be clear –you can’t pool five or more, even if it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

So what will you do? Refuse it?

Oh, to end on some potentially good news – there is no pooling restrictions on s278 of the Highways Act. Hooray!

For more information, see the CIL section on the PAS website.