The government has published two consultation papers this week setting out major changes in planning. One sets out proposals for a completely new national planning system. The other proposes shorter-term amendments to the current system, which would take effect more quickly.
In the short term, changes to the standard national methodology for working out local housing need would increase the amount to be planned for in Dorset[1]. And the council could only ask for a proportion of affordable housing on sites of 40 or 50 homes, other than in ‘designated rural areas’ such as the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which cover much of Dorset.
Under the longer-term overhaul of the planning system, binding housing targets for every council would be set by national government, taking into account household projections, local housing affordability, and environmental constraints.
Local plans would have to map every part of their area as suitable for growth, renewal or protection – making sure that enough land is identified for growth to meet the housing target. In areas identified for growth or renewal, developers would not need to apply for outline planning permission as this would automatically be secured for the forms and types of development specified in the plan. Communities would be involved at plan-making stage, but would not have the chance to comment again on the principle of development at application stage.
A new infrastructure levy would replace the existing Community Infrastructure Levy and section 106 planning agreements.
These are dramatic changes which would have a huge impact on the preparation of our new Dorset Council plan – the paper suggests that the new style local plans should all be in place by 2024.
Councillor David Walsh, Dorset Council’s Portfolio Holder for Planning, said:
‘Binding national housing targets, and automatic outline planning permission for sites allocated in plans, would severely limit the local control over development.
‘We do not believe that delays in housing delivery are the fault of the planning system.
‘Dorset Council will be examining the proposals in detail and will respond to both consultations, but we would strongly urge residents and local groups to respond directly as well’.
View the consultation papers for changes to the current planning system and for the longer term changes. The deadlines for responses are 1 and 29 October.
[1] Our initial estimate is that the new methodology would result in a figure of 2,075 a year for Dorset, compared with 1,793 currently. But we also think that the figures for the BCP Council area would reduce significantly, so the pressure on Dorset Council to meet some of BCP’s unmet need would be reduced.
Developers get planning permission then sit on it. It is not the fault of the planning system that they do not build the houses they have permission for. If developers dont build then Councils cannot possibly meet housing targets.
Mr Bolwell is quite right. Planning permission should include timescales for developers to begin and complete the works if any progress is to be made.
If affordable housing is only to be mandated on developments of “40 or 50 homes” then very little housing that local people will be able to buy will get built.
I try to take an interest in planning applications – but it is very difficult: the process is immensely comples and usually endlessly protracted. It is almost impossible for someone without a vested interested to keep track of applications – refused, delayed, withdrawn, redrawn, resubmitted.
I am astonished that there has been no mention of houses bought as holiday lets, particularly in these days of covid 19. When developers find sales slow they are only too happy to make a sale, regardless of whether it is for investment or for a home for the new owner to actually live in.
So who actually gains from mandatory numbers fixed by central government? One assumes it is to help people to find a home. This does not necessarily seem to be the case.
Are the planners going to develope our road system, life on the roads in Dorset are just so over crowded.
Hi Liz – through section 106 contributions we can look at local transport systems. But we will be looking at sustainable transport networks too. Generally large road infrastructures are funded by national Government and have to fulfil their criteria.
The overhaul of the planning system will have a large number of unintended and disastrous consequences as a Local Plan or a Neighbourhood Plan can not see sufficiently into the future. A carte blanche approach does not deal with unperceived but significant issues. Climate Change and its impacts are only vaguely understood. Removing the case by case scrutiny and objectivity will mean projects like the Portland Waste to Energy Incinerator will be approved. The idea that the public will respond before the issue hits is simply not how people work. To claim that this is democratic and fully transparent is totally erroneous as so few people engage in a future where their lives are not impacted. The planning system may have its faults but it is better than this new White Paper – much better.
As DC appreciate the delays in delivery of housing are due as Oliver Letwin states:
“the limits on the rate at which the market will absorb such homogenous products, are the fundamental drivers of the slow rate of build out.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/752124/Letwin_review_web_version.pdf
i.e if developers build more they will have to sell at much lower prices and without profit or the houses will sit waiting for a buyer and that is not profitable. The only way to get more affordable housing is to fund housing associations to build or indeed go back to Council Housing. . . .
I have posted in the past and not been published. Whilst I agree postings need to be moderated and i would consider that my submissions have always been courteous and considered and certainly not offensive. I would suggest that the person making the comment should be advised why their submission is not considered worthy of being posted. Otherwise this system is a route to a potential corruption of power / voice. Transparency is a very necessary part part of democracy.
paula – apologies. We sometimes don’t approve comments until we have an answer to your questions. Generally we approve unless there is obscene language. So I suspect your comments have droped through the net – nothing sinister.
thank you very reassuring. My I suggest that like the Dorset Echo you have a box to tick that sends you an email whenever the topic is discussed and thus one can read other peoples views as they arrive.
Hi Paula – unfortunately the system we use doesn’t have that option. But if we change/upgrade we can look at it.
Document “Planning for the Future”
1. Scientists tell us that if the Earth is to continue to support life beyond 2050, net zero is an imperative. I am pleased to read the government’s commitments and other intentions under Proposal 18, but I would welcome the Council’s insistence on the speedy development and publication of government policies to achieve net zero by 2050.
2. I would like the Council to argue for a definition of “Affordable Housing” which is based on local wage earners’ abilities to pay rather than as a discount on market value. The existing definition does not make housing affordable for those on average wages in the county, particularly young people at the start of their careers.
Document “Changes to the current planning system”
1. The Government’s proposed new approach (para 17 et seq) should seek to establish the local housing need but it does not. Instead, it aims to meet the declared target of 300,000 new homes. It would be helpful if the empirical evidence for this target were produced.
2. Moreover, 300,000 is a national target. Housbuilding should be based on local needs which the Local Authority should know best. I cannot help thinking that the formulaic approach is wrong and that the Local Authority should use its own projections of need.
3. I think that whether 25% or any other number of Affordable Homes is right depends on the local demographic. It coud be nearer 100% in some cases.
may i also draw your attention to the desperate need for land to plant trees not buildings. Look at all our towns empty of people. We should reinvest in renovations and move families back into the town centres and provide all domestic needs within a 15 minute walk. Plus plant a few more town trees too
Bernard. Extra housing required because of current shortage of ‘truly affordable’ homes (count the ‘extra’ cars jammed into front gardens on some of our local estates and you get an idea of how many twenty or thirty somethings are still have to live at home) and also the Demographics Timebomb. UK population due to grow to 77 million by 2050 according to ONS, almost all due to ageing Brits (not EU or other immigrants as the Mail and Telegraph would have us believe). 10 million extra homes over 30 years, means 300,000 per year. Dorset will inevitably get its share of the extra aged Brits. They have the financial ‘fire-power’ to outbid the locals for housing. Currently 27% of Dorset residents are over 65 vs. 17% of UK population, will it be 35% in the future ? The only way to stop this, would be Soviet style internal passports !!
Document “Planning for the Future” – continued
4. Dorset Council will know better than I what is the level of demand for new housing other than Affordable Housing (as redefined). I think that this should determine the answer to questions 18 and 22. If there is no or little demand for such housing, I think that the threshold should be zero or minimal.
5. There is no requirement in this document that new homes started before 2025 should be carbon neutral. Since scientists advise that greenhouse gas emissions must be halved by 2030 if we are to have any chance of reaching the imperative of net zero and a maximum temperature increase of 1.5, degrees C by 2050, we should start immediately to require new homes to be carbon neutral.
I would really like to know to what extent the building of new homes in the past decade has relieved the housing need figures.
Indeed, is there any correlation at all?
It is strange that the proposals seem to express no environmental constraints, either in terms of materials used in building, power production, land use across the whole area; or transport use
I would echo BERNARD WHITE’s comment about zero carbon homes. At present there seems little evidence that Dorset Council are even getting developers to address their responsibilities under Heading “ENV13 ACHIEVING HIGH LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE” of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan. There could be a box or addendum on each planning application to be filled in, with a requirement to show how this is to be achieved in the property or why the application is thought to be exempt.
It is long overdue to streamline the planning system. Only by independent parties in the decision process will we truly have a system without undue influences – an elected councillor usually seeks re election so naturally is conscious of any decision made on that process. That is not a criticism just how it is. We need a national policy fair for everyone