CIH response to MHCLG consultation on planning powers for mayors in England

Partially disagree.

We disagree with the new proposed threshold for residential applications to be categorised as having potential strategic importance (PSI). The consultation document proposes that any application for a development of more than 150 homes could be categorised as PSI and therefore be called in by a mayor. We believe that, without a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) in place, this threshold is too low and potentially draws a large number of applications into the call-in process.

While this threshold has been in place in London for a number of years, a proposed development must be considered to have a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan to be classified as a PSI. The proposal that these powers should be available to mayors outside London before an SDS is in place means the threshold for call-in would be lower in Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) across the rest of England than in London. The English Devolution White Paper proposed that mayors will have access to development management powers allowing them to intervene in planning applications of potential strategic importance only after an SDS is adopted. We believe this is the right approach to ensure that call-in powers are used constructively and proportionately, and are accompanied by the clear accountability mechanisms that an SDS provides. We also believe that this would provide an incentive for MSAs to develop their SDS in a timely fashion so they can unlock the mayoral planning powers that could help them deliver on their strategic objectives.

In addition, we have some concerns about the capacity of MSAs outside of London to assess the number of applications that would be received following call-in under the current proposed threshold. The Greater London Authority has a large and experienced planning and housing team to assess planning matters. In contrast, capacity differs significantly between different MSAs, with some newer and smaller MSAs having no designated planning teams at all. This could cause significant delays to planning processes and/or the development of new homes. We encourage the government to support MSAs to develop housing and planning capacity to ensure these new powers can be used effectively to deliver social and affordable homes. 

No.

We consider that applications for development of this size should not usually be classed as strategically important and therefore should not fallwithin the scope of the call-in process. However, mayors in London and outside London should be able to call in Category 3J applications (50 homes or more) where local planning authorities are minded to refuse schemes that deliver 60% or more affordable housing. In line with call-in powers more broadly, these should only be granted to mayors when an SDS is in place. 

Partially agree.

As stated in our answer to question 1, we believe the power for mayors to classify an application as PSI should only apply when an SDS is in place. 

Partially disagree.

We believe refusal/call-in powers should only be provided to mayors when an SDS is in place. The proposal as currently written is clearly designed to provide mayors with powers to unblock stalled developments. However, there is a risk that these powers could be used by mayors to refuse applications supported by local authorities. Providing call-in and refusal powers to mayors only after an SDS is adopted would reduce the risk of mayoral planning powers being used to block developments that would otherwise go ahead. Providing these powers only after SDS adoption would also incentivise the production of ambitious and policy-compliant SDSs. 

Strongly agree.

The consultation document states that following adoption of an SDS, mayors will be able to direct refusal or call-in an application if it is contrary to good strategic planning in the area and/or it would have significant implications for the implementation of the SDS. We support the principle of enhanced mayoral planning powers being provided only once an SDS has been adopted. We believe this will encourage the development of evidence-led SDSs that reflect the long-term needs and aspirations of the areas they cover, and provide scope to align social and affordable housing delivery with action to address climate change and its impacts, and to promote economic growth and employment. This proposed change would align the planning powers available to mayors across England with those available to the mayor of London. 

Partially agree.

Partially agree.

We believe there should be some distinction in how Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) and New Town Development Corporations (NTDCs) are treated in respect of the proposed approach to mayoral planning powers. UDCs that fall within aan MSA area should be aligned with the priorities and objectives of elected leaders in those areas and, where possible, should be designated as Mayoral Development Corporations to enable direct control and accountability. However, we agree that new towns are a national strategic priority and that NTDCs, when developing genuinely new settlements (as opposed to urban extensions or regeneration schemes) should sit outside the proposed PSI process for mayors. NTDCs should be established as long-term delivery vehicles.  Whilst outside the scope of this consultation, further work is required to ensure NTDCs can effectively deliver on the government’s new towns agenda. 

Strongly agree.

The proposed process aligns with that currently in place for preparation of Local Development Orders – it is sensible to align these processes. 

Partially agree.

We broadly agree with the proposed approach to consultation. However, we recommend that, if a MDO covers development including social housing, that local housing associations should be included as statutory consultees. We believe this will help to facilitate early consultations with potential delivery partners and ensure, where it is proposed, that the right mix of social housing is provided through MDOs. This consultation could be delivered through a housing partnership, where one is in place. 

We agree with the proposal that an SDS should be in place before a mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy [CM2.1][TA2.2](MCIL) can be introduced. 

Any MCIL should be reviewed regularly to ensure it does not negatively impact the viability of development. In addition, MSAs should work with local authorities to ensure CIL is delivered at the right level. For example, if a local authority CIL is already in place, MSAs should be encouraged to work with the relevant local authority to explore whether a local or MCIL is the right mechanism. CIL and Section 106 (S106) agreements are necessary to ensure that infrastructure is in place to support existing and new communities through new developments. Earlier this year, the Housing and Planning Minister set out plans to comprehensively review and reform the S106 system to ensure it is simpler, more transparent and more resilient, and progress has been made on this in recent months. We recommend that the design of any CIL programmes should reflect and complement this work so that all developers have a clear idea of their role in contributing to supporting infrastructure. 

An SDS should set out clear infrastructure priorities for the area, including transport, energy and water requirements. In setting out the MCIL, it should be clear how the CIL will fund this infrastructure and how this will support future housing growth. 

Strongly agree.

We agree with the principle of providing more flexibility for mayors to deliver strategic infrastructure funded by MCILs and believe an SDS is the right mechanism to lay out these priorities. 

Collection of the MCIL in London is carried out by local authorities and pooled. We believe this model works well and should be replicated outside London.