56 | INSIGHT | F INANCE AND MARKETS Read a related story: click here ALL IN THE PLANNING
Polly Reynolds, a senior associate in the planning team at leading education law firm Veale Wasbrough Vizards, looks at changes to the planning process and the implications for higher education institutions
Planning law and policy is never far from the headlines. While parts of the media draw atention to the alleged weakening of protection of Green Belt land, others exclaim that we are on the verge of a catastrophic housing crisis unless more land is freed up for development. Those involved in higher education development
schemes will be aware that the planning regime has been undergoing a period of transformation. The aim has been to simplify the process and remove excessive barriers to growth. However, to fully appraise the feasibility and costs of proposed developments a deeper understanding is required. This article provides a review of recent changes in the planning process and considers their impacts in relation to higher education institutions. It goes on to analyse the implications of these changes with a focus on development in the Green Belt and those developments comprising student accommodation.
A planning system in transition Councils are facing significant cuts to planning budgets at a time when there has never been greater need for a strategic approach to tackle
consideration to the overriding status of the NPPF. For a year following the introduction of the NPPF,
planning decisions could continue to give full weight to policies in the pre-existing Local Plan even if there was limited conflict with the NPPF. However, since March 2013 these transitional provisions have been discounted and now Local Plans are only given weight to the extent that they are consistent with policies in the NPPF. While it was hoped that councils would be able
to produce revised Local Plans before the March 2013 deadline many have failed to do so. Some Councils delayed the process in order to gauge the effect of the NPPF, while others have blamed cuts to planning departments for the slow progress. What is clear is that with the abolition of regional level planning under the NPPF, there is now a policy vacuum within the local authorities which do not have up-to-date Local Plans in place. The 'streamlined' nature of the NPPF means that the courts, through the process of planning application appeals, are now playing a key role interpreting and enforcing the NPPF. Notably, the courts have the task of deciding which Local Plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and can, therefore, be given weight in planning decision-making.
Development in the Green Belt Last year several applications for housing development in the Green Belt were granted consent on appeal. One of the arguments raised in those appeals was that the councils' housing policies were
"RECENT LEGAL CHANGES MAY MEAN THE COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT BECOME PROHIBITIVE"
local environmental and social challenges. It is against this backdrop that the government is undertaking large-scale reforms of the national and local planning process. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
published in March 2012 set out a new suite of planning policies for England and how they should be applied at the local level. It rationalised over 1000 pages of planning guidance into a single 59-page document, and introduced a general presumption in favour of sustainable development. This aims to remove barriers to development unless the adverse impacts significantly outweigh the benefits. Prior to the publication of the NPPF, local
authorities set out their planning policies within development plan documents collectively known as the Local Plan. Of all the documents comprised within the Local Plan the central planning policies were contained within the Core Strategy. Since March 2012, however, those involved in local development decision-making have been required to give
not up-to-date. This is because paragraph 49 of the NPPF requires councils to demonstrate a five-year deliverable housing land supply and in these cases the councils were unable to do so. The resulting policy vacuum was filled by the policies in the NPPF. This requires planning permission to be granted for development unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits. This question is to be considered against both the policies in the NPPF as a whole and against any specific policies in the NPPF indicating that development should be restricted. Such a specific policy exists in relation to Green Belt land. The NPPF provides that housing development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and so should not be permited unless 'very special circumstances' exist. Applicants were able to argue that the lack of a five-year housing land supply presented such a very special circumstance. The emerging case law presented a considerable threat to the protection of Green Belt land. However,
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80