Planning Speed Read: Section 106 is under scrutiny again – plus other planning updates from the week
9th October, 2024
Our regular update for those who work in and alongside the planning sector. We aim to keep you, and your teams informed of changes in legislation, important cases signposting to the guidance and providing our own insights and experience.
Ahead of the new Conservative leadership race, planning reform has been raised once again, this time focusing on Section 106 Agreements
Another day, another Tory leadership contest, and once again planning is in the crosshairs! Prior to being knocked out of the leadership race, Tom Tugendhat vowed to reform section 106 “planning gain agreements”. With all the added complexities and costs loaded on to s106 agreements in recent years (First Homes, Nutrient Neutrality and most recently, Biodiversity Net Gain), you’re often left wondering who actually stands to “gain” from 106s these days. But the rhetoric at the leadership hustings held at the party’s conference in Birmingham is clearly understood, if a little played out – are these “gain” agreements fit for purpose? Developers get their development now but, in the words of Tom Tugendhat, “the money comes later” “it never goes into the right thing” and the drafting is often lead by developers responsible for “piecemeal profiteering”. All sentiments that seemed to be shared among some of the other candidates including Kemi Badenoch blaming housebuilders for “causing problems for local communities and the people who buy their homes”.
The former planning minister Rachel Maclean said that s106 agreements were “a good idea” but “don’t work effectively everywhere”. She expressed concern that the outgoing government’s proposal for the new Infrastructure Levy was abandoned citing the rather emotive issue of the funding of new doctor’s surgeries as being dependent on that reform and querying whether the new Labour government will seek to reintroduce the levy to tackle the issue. For the moment therefore, a lot of the arguments seem familiar, and it will be interesting to see what actual real policy objectives a Tory opposition under new effective leadership will actually bring to the fore.
The Planning Inspectorate has recently updated its guidance in relation to planning appeals
The guidance now requires a section 106 to be finalised before/a the time of appealing a decision, so that the “executed” deed must be submitted with the appeal. This raises the question: when Pins say “executed” do they mean “completed”? And if they mean “completed”, why don’t they say “completed”? There will clearly be issues with filing a “completed” deed so early in the process.
issues with filing a “completed” deed so early in the process.
For more information please click here.
The Revised NPPF may be delayed until 2025
The NPPF closed on the 24th September and ministers are already stating that the revised NPPF could be delayed until 2025.
For more information, please click here.
At appeal, the Secretary of State has approved a part green belt site
Notwithstanding the recent focus and debate concerning the development potential for grey belt land, the use of green belt land still has an important role to play as demonstrated by the Secretary of State in relation to a recent 1000 unit proposal in Cambridge.
For more information, please click here for the planning application and here for the decision letter and inspector’s report for the recovered appeal application.
The number of homes permitted by and applications submitted to councils in the past year are at the lowest in over a decade
The New Government is keen to boost housing, in particular affordable housing, however it seems they have a long way to go.
For more information, please click here.
The RTPI states a clear plan is needed to assist local authorities to deliver ‘impractical’ housing targets
In their consultation response the RTPI explain that the housing targets are ambitious, clearly needing a plan and direction.
For more information, please click here.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
