EELGA issues response to Government's proposals to optimise local plan processes

Please see the full response below:

East of England Local Government Association “Plan-making reforms: consultation on implementation” response

We write to you today in response to the call for information “Plan-making reforms: consultation on implementation” published on 25 July. This response follows engagement with EELGAs members, the fifty local authorities within the East of England. For more granular detail, we would ask you to study the individual responses made by those members.

The core ideas behind the consultation have received positive comments, with councils suggesting that measures to streamline local plans and make them more accessible to the public are welcome. In addition, the proposed use of rigorously tested standardised templates for some elements of planning has been welcomed. However, some concerns around implementation have been raised.

Primarily, the 30-month local plan timeframe is considered unrealistic. Other concerns include how the bridge between the old system and the new would be managed for authorities with an aging local plan, the capacity of the Planning Inspectorate to manage this new system, and the potential accessibility of new-style digital plans for residents lacking digital skills.

Timescales and Resourcing

EELGA appreciates that the Government has turned its attention to planning capacity and resourcing, with the Government’s announcements on 24 July regarding planning fees and additional support representing a step in the right direction for local authorities. However, many local authorities have stressed the difficulty in maintaining business-as-usual services with the creation of a local plan, and this tension has remained during our conversations with member authorities around the consultation proposals. In addition, it has been raised that the increase in planning fees will look to cover the costs in development management, rather than plan-making.

In particular, the 30-month local plan timeline is considered unworkable. While there is a real appetite to speed up the process, an unrealistic timeframe will not assist local authorities and will not lead to plans being published earlier. The plan-making process is not straightforward, and many other processes can slow down plan-making. Objections to the plan taking time to resolve with the Planning Inspectorate, elections can create uncertainty about the future of current proposals. Government policy changes can also create uncertainty around the rate of development, such as the rollout of Nutrient neutrality in Norfolk, which has impacted on housebuilding markedly. Therefore, a more realistic timetable would be useful for creating progress, along with a meaningful schedule of how this increase in speed will be funded.

Transition Arrangements

Many local authorities in our area have raised concerns that the new system inhibits their ability to refresh existing local plans. The provisions outline that any existing local plans will need to be completed by June 2025, with local plans after then to be submitted under the new system. However, with funding tight and new planning reforms on the way, local authorities are considering whether to proceed with local plans under the old system or wait for the new system.

Some local authorities find the June 2025 deadline unworkable and will have to wait for their turn for their 6-month local plan commencement window. This may leave them with a local plan that is out of date for a long period, leaving them open to speculative developments and a lack of local input. However, even local authorities that may be able to submit a local plan application in before 2025 are hesitant to commit. This is because they currently have no confirmation that, should they miss this deadline for any reason, all the work undertaken under the old system would be wasted, and the process would need to restart from the beginning under the new system.

Therefore, local authorities have asked for the Government to enable certain elements of the local planning system to carry over – so that work done before the June 2025 deadline is not invalidated by the new local plan system. They would also appreciate as much guidance as possible as to what local authorities can start work on in preparation for the new system’s deployment, so they are not forced to wait until their turn to start their local plan and can pace their work appropriately.

Planning Inspectorate Involvement

The suggestion that the Planning Inspectorate should be involved earlier in the local planning process through the gated systems is seen as a positive development and could lead to a reduction in lost time and resourcing. However, it is noted that under the current system, the Planning Inspectorate can already take long periods of time to respond to cases and is overstretched in terms of workload. Therefore, there are concerns that there could be limits to the amount that the planning inspectorate could be involved in local plans, which could lead to the 30-month timetable being further compromised. Funding for the Planning Inspectorate must align with its increased involvement with local authorities.

Accessibility and Digitisation

There has been broad agreement that more could be done to make local plans more comprehensible and streamlined for the public, and this has been lauded as something the outlined proposals could achieve. However, the greater push towards the use of digital methods to help develop and publish local plans could be exclusionary towards those who lack the means or ability to engage digitally if implemented in a digital-only or digital-first manner. Digital means should add value but not be the sole form of engagement. We are pleased that the Government notes this in the consultation, and we are eager to see how this balance will be struck.

In addition, local authorities have raised that this proposed digitisation, while welcome, does not come without cost. There has been recognition that the Government has provided local authorities with the opportunity to bid for £100,000 through the Planning Skills Delivery Fund. However, this funding has been framed as a resource to assist in tackling the planning backlog, and not necessarily as an investment fund for the digital systems and training that would enable a more digitised and streamlined local plan going forward. Therefore, local authorities request that new burdens funding be provided to cover the cost of new IT systems to make local planning and plan provision easier in the future.

Duty to Cooperate

The duty to cooperate has worked efficiently for local authorities in the East of England and plays a role in how local authorities bordering London interact with the capital. While it is understood that plans submitted before June 2025 will have to abide by the duty to cooperate, there is widespread uncertainty as to what will succeed it. Therefore, our member authorities need to know how this policy is being replaced and would appreciate information as soon as practicable.

Summary and proposals

In summary, the region supports streamlined and accessible local planning proposals. However, concerns do exist with regards to how these measures are enacted, and whether sufficient resourcing will follow to enable these reforms, both within local authorities and within the Planning Inspectorate. Furthermore, more guidance and clarity would be appreciated for those local authorities who find themselves caught between the two systems, so they can meaningfully prepare their local plan applications for the new system without fear of wasted resources.

The following proposals have been made as key remedies to the issues highlighted above:

• A more realistic timeframe for local planning needs to be considered, as 30 months is not considered enough time to complete a local plan under any meaningful circumstance.

• Any enhanced timescale must be met with additional funding to enable it.
• The Government should publish as early as practicable the elements of local planning that will not be invalidated by the new system, and that can therefore be started immediately.

• The Planning Inspectorate will need additional funding and capacity to avoid being a potential bottleneck in the new process.

• New burdens funding is needed to provide the IT that will streamline planning. Furthermore, existing systems should be maintained to enable residents to access plans.

• Please provide more information on the process that will replace the Duty to Cooperate.

I hope this response has been helpful and look forward to the publication of a response.

Yours sincerely

Graham Butland

Chair of EELGA’s Infrastructure and Growth Panel and Leader of Braintree District Council