The Levelling Up White Paper (LUWP) is a beast of a policy document, in terms of the sheer number of pages and the vast range of issues it covers from digital connectivity to skills to crime. It has been criticised for heavily recycling existing policy initiatives and funding pots, but if you delve into the detail, it does provide some interesting snippets on the direction of travel for the Government’s planning reforms.
The ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper (PWP) was published so long ago (August 2020) that you could be forgiven for forgetting the detail of its contents. To recap, there were three ‘pillars’ to it covering: (1) local plans and the development management system; (2) design guides and codes; and (3) a new infrastructure levy proposal to replace S106 and CIL.
Pillar 2 did not require primary legislation and has largely been delivered already through the National Model Design Code and associated guidance.
When the PWP was published, there was widespread concern about the Pillar 3 infrastructure levy proposal and how this could be delivered in practice. I am aware that the Government has since been working extensively on detailed proposals for this and the LUWP reiterates a high-level commitment to bring this forward to enable a form of land value capture.
Meanwhile, it’s Pillar 1 that we learn the most about from the LUWP. This aspect has proven controversial through its proposal to change the way that local communities and stakeholders interact with the planning system and are able to influence the development pipeline in an area; the premise being to speed up the planning process by focusing community engagement at the local plan stage rather than commenting on individual planning applications. It is this part of the PWP that received mainstream media attention and provided emotive material for opposition parties in local by-elections such as Chesham and Amersham in June 2021.
Fundamentally, the LUWP states that, local communities will continue to have “a meaningful say on individual planning applications”, thus confirming there has been a U‑turn on this controversial aspect of the planning preforms. The LUWP also reiterates a commitment to making local plans “simpler and shorter” and “transparent”, which is a welcome move given they have become such unwieldy tomes that take years to adopt.
And what could the LUWP mean for planning in London specifically? We support its commitment to further devolution of power across the country and the fact the Mayoral Combined Authorities, including the GLA, will be invited to “bid for sweeping further powers, through a new devolution framework”. The two-tier planning system in London and the Mayor’s planning powers are part of what helps to maintain London’s global competitiveness and must be maintained, and enhanced, as broader reform is undertaken.
There are also references to funding for housing delivery being focused away from London and the wider South East to brownfield sites in the North and Midlands. This could mean a further review of the Standard Method for calculating housing need, which currently focuses housing growth largely on London and the wider South East.
Beyond the PWP reforms, we welcomed a LUWP promise to enhance compulsory purchase powers to support town centre regeneration, something we called for in our High Streets Manifesto. We also support the commitment to “encouraging more accessible hybrid models for planning committees in England” allowing a combination of virtual and in-person attendance to be reinstated.
Finally, one of our overarching concerns about the PWP, which we voiced strongly in our consultation response, was its sole focus on housing and the need for the planning system to maintain an appropriate land supply for commercial development to maintain employment growth in line with housing growth and ensure the new homes can be adequately serviced. It is therefore reassuring to see a change of tone in the LUWP and reference to “a more positive approach to employment land in national policy to support the provision of jobs”.
We now await a further update from the Government on the Planning Bill, which Chief Planner Joanna Averley has promised in “the Spring”.