Consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically-led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.  

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems. 

• A genuinely local, plan-led system delivers positive outcomes for places and communities. The LGA are supportive of the plan-making process being sped up in order to help achieve greater coverage of plans across the country, but only where there is no dilution of plan quality, and democratic and community engagement.
• The LGA are fully supportive of the Government’s ambition to bring planning into the digital age and harness digital technologies to improve plan-making. We agree with the opportunities and challenges identified in the consultation, though we are not convinced that digitisation alone will be the answer. Overall, there is a significant challenge in resourcing local planning authority teams. Councils all over England are struggling to recruit and retain planners. Steps have started to be taken by Government, such as the planning skills delivery fund, the Pathways to Planning and Public Practice schemes and the committed (but as of yet unimplemented) uplift to planning fees, though sudden changes will not appear overnight and we are likely to continue to face the same resourcing and capacity challenges for a while yet. This may have a distinct impact on the roll-out of these plan-making reforms and the laudable aims of digitisation.
• It is clear from the consultation proposals that the 30-month timeframe is an aspirational timeframe set out by Government for plan preparation. Whilst we support faster plan production, given the uncertainty that remains on necessary plan content, including the scope of national and local DM policies, what evidence will be considered proportionate to collect, and the type of data standardisation and template availability, it is not possible at this time to lend our full support to a 30-month timeframe. 
• The purposes of undertaking gateway assessments, such as ensuring compliance with legal and procedural requirements and supporting early resolution of potential soundness issues, are supported. Where capacity and timing allows, the same Inspector should undertake the gateway assessments as well as the examination to ensure consistency of advice and approach. Where this is not possible, the advice of one Inspector at later gateways or the examination must not conflict with or change the direction given by another at an earlier stage. We do not agree with the Government’s proposal to charge planning authorities for gateway assessments. 
• The proposals set out in the consultation to speed up the examination process, including revisions to the Matters, Issues and Questions stage and shortening the length of consultation for main modification consultation, are supported. We welcome the Government’s statement that they are working closely with the Planning Inspectorate; the Government must feel confident in the capacity and resourcing of the Inspectorate in order for these reforms to have any impact.
• The LGA has previously set out its position on the Government revoking Supplementary Planning Documents and Area Action Plans in our response to the March 2023 consultation on reforms to the planning system. Whilst we do not intend to repeat those concerns, we do welcome the Government amending its proposals to ensure that existing SPDs remain in force until such a time that new-style plans are adopted.

Question 1: Do you agree with the core principles for plan content? Do you think there are other principles that could be included?

Yes, we broadly agree with the core principles for plan content set out in this consultation. This includes the creation of ambitious locally distinctive policies, a clear vision, and a key diagram and policies map which is digital, interactive and easily accessible. 

Clarification will be required on the spatial scale and required detail of both the key diagram and policies map, as plans developed by unitary authorities, for example, will cover a wide geographic area. 

We are supportive that the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) establishes an overarching requirement for local plans and minerals and waste plans to be designed to secure that the use and development of land, and minerals and waste development, in the planning authority’s area contributes to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. It will therefore be imperative that the next iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), due to be consulted on in Spring 2024, enshrines this requirement and places more significant weight on climate change in the planning process.

Further, the consultation proposals set out that “sustainable development should run as a golden thread throughout plans, with growth being directed to suitable locations and supported by required infrastructure and good design”. This is inconsistent with the Government’s continued pursuit to extend permitted development (PD) rights to allow changes of use without subjecting such proposals to the planning application process and undermines the plan-led system and subverts local leadership and democratic accountability. In our recent submission to the Government’s consultation on permitted development rights, we set out that PD is an ad hoc, disconnected approach to development that undermines councils’ and their communities’ strategic long-term decisions and place-making ambitions. It also affects their ability to make decisions that reflect local need and preserve and enhance the unique and distinctive character of their area. We question the Government’s intention to enshrine both a locally-led planning system with emboldened local leaders through powers in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, whilst also pushing forward with new PD rights which disenfranchise those same leaders.

Question 2: Do you agree that plans should contain a vision, and with our proposed principles preparing the vision? Do you think there are other principles that could be included?

Yes – we agree that all local plans should contain a vision for their area which articulates the way in which it will be developed, protected, and enhanced over the plan period. A clear, succinct, and spatially delineated vision should also improve and increase engagement with local communities in the plan-making process. 

The principles set out in the consultation are supported, though we question the Government’s intention to reduce the length of visions whilst simultaneously setting out in regulation that they must contain the plan’s aims and objectives as well as measurable outcomes. A balance must be struck. 

We are therefore supportive of the Government providing a user-tested digital template which sets out what a vision should do and contain. The digital template should remain suitably flexible to allow individual local authorities or groups of authorities to shape their vision. Providing exemplars to show how these new and improved visions can be used to their full potential is also supported, though it should be noted that many existing visions will be exemplar. 

We refer the Government to our response to Question 6 with regard to the point at which local plan visioning should take place in the new timeframe for plan development, and when evidence would need to be collected or community engagement undertaken in order to support a visioning exercise. 

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed framework for local development management policies?

Whilst we broadly agree with the proposed framework for local development management policies at this time, more clarification will be required on what the Government considers as “appropriate justification” for such policies, given the proposals, which we broadly support, to remove the requirement for plans to be justified at examination through the tests of soundness. 

Also, we urge the Government to bring forward the consultation on National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) as swiftly as possible. In our response to the Government’s consultation on reforms to the planning system in March 2023, we raised our concerns that the “absence of any material detail on the type and scope of NDMPs, beyond what is set out in the consultation, it is impossible to comment on the real impact they may have on local authorities to plan effectively at the local level” – this fact remains and the sector needs certainty of the scope and therefore impact of the proposed framework for local development management policies.

Question 4: Would templates make it easier for local planning authorities to prepare local plans? Which parts of the local plan would benefit from consistency?

Yes – we support and welcome the digitisation of the planning system including the plan-making process. Digital templates should be widely tested with different local authorities prior to the Autumn 2024 introduction of the new-style plan-making process to ensure they are appropriate and meet the needs of plan-making. We welcome the Government’s commitment that the templates will “provide sufficient flexibility, for example to allow individual local circumstances and to enable local innovation” as a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. 

We provide further responses related to digitisation in response to questions 8, 9, 10 and 11 in Chapter 3: Digital plans. 

Question 5: Do you think templates for new style minerals and waste plans would need to differ from local plans? If so, how?

We do not perceive there to be reason for templates for minerals and waste plans to vary from those for local plans. Feedback from local authorities at the testing/pilot stage should inform any necessary differentiation between the two types of plans, and templates should be adaptable in the early adoption of the new-style plan-making system.    

Question 6: Do you agree with the proposal to set out in policy that planning authorities should adopt their plan, at the latest, 30 months after the plan preparation process begins?

A local plan-led system delivers positive outcomes for places and communities. The LGA are supportive of the local plan process being sped up in order to help achieve greater coverage of plans across the country, but only where there is no dilution of plan quality, and democratic and community engagement.

It is clear from the consultation proposals that the 30-month timeframe is an aspirational timeframe set out by Government for plan preparation. The successes of those local authorities who have achieved plan preparation and adoption in just over 30 months recently should be celebrated, but their individual circumstances, including plan content and local constraints as well as team resource and capacity, is likely to be the reason for speedy plan-making and these circumstances are not necessarily replicated everywhere across the country. There are examples of local planning authorities where plan-making teams are made up of one or two planners only, and following significant budget cuts to planning services and wider cost crises in local authorities, resources for plan-making are at a low. 

A 30-month timeframe is aspirational and whilst we support faster plan production, given the uncertainty that remains on necessary plan content, including the scope of national and local DM policies, what evidence will be considered proportionate to collect, and the type of data standardisation and template availability, it is not possible at this time to lend our full support to a 30-month timeframe. 

Further, any timeframe for plan preparation set out in policy should be accompanied by an announcement of resourcing and capacity increases for the wider plan-making sector, including not only local authority plan-making teams but those statutory consultees that must engage in the process and can often delay plan-making through their own resourcing constraints. We continue to call for local authorities to be able to set their own planning fees, so that they can recoup the cost of determining applications and re-invest in their own staff and teams. 

The Government should work closely with the Planning Inspectorate to determine the resourcing and capacity requirements for their organisation as they will take on a key role for local authorities during the 30-month timeframe – both in examination and the gateway assessments. Any capacity or resourcing issues, or other delays to the examination and subsequent adoption of plans, should not result in unintended consequences to those plan-makers who met the stipulations of the proposed timeline.

It will also be critical to ensure that complementary processes, such as Environmental Outcome Reports or Habitat Regulation Assessments and Sustainability Appraisals can all be completed within the appropriate stages of the 30-month timeframe. These are long and complex procedures and their quality should come before an arbitrary timeframe. 

Further, whilst Spatial Development Strategies (SDS) will not be subject to the 30-month timeframe, there will be knock-on considerations for those local authorities that must adhere to, or be in compliance with, their area’s SDS such as London boroughs.

We have reservations about the key activities that are currently set out to take place in the ‘Scoping and early participation’ phase. The proposals set out that, amongst other activities, the Infrastructure Levy and Infrastructure Delivery Strategy should be introduced for those authorities in the test and learn phase. We have significant concerns about the Infrastructure Levy as proposed as it is a complex and burdensome approach to collecting developer contributions for infrastructure, and we do not believe that such an activity is possible to be completed in such a short timeframe, and should happen concurrently with the next two stages in the plan-making process. 

Further, evidence collection and analysis is key to any visioning exercise, particularly one which should result in a clear, concise and highly localised vision. It is important for councils to be transparent with their local communities about how an area may develop over the plan period, and evidence is key to that. The ‘Evidence gathering and drafting the plan’ is proposed to take place following the first stage of public consultation, which will involve the plan’s vision. Whilst it is recognised that evidence evolves and can be iterative, we believe that a truly local vision is led by evidence and community engagement. Should the vision change upon evidence analysis, this may damage the perception of the plan-making process and communities’ willingness to engage. We therefore recommend that the vision should be developed at the same time that evidence is gathered, before consultation. 

It is vital that a local, plan-led planning system underpinned by community engagement remains in place. The push to a 30-month timeframe for plan preparation may reduce the opportunity for or commitment to meaningfully consult the public, particularly in those circumstances where a change may occur to the plan content part-way through the plan-making process. We urge the Government to clarify whether or not a local authority would be permitted to hold a second consultation at either mandatory consultation stage in those circumstances, and permit flexibility in the timeframe to allow for meaningful engagement with communities. 

We welcome the timeframe will be set out in policy as opposed to regulation, and it would be helpful to understand what actions may be taken against local authorities who are not successful in achieving plan adoption within 30 months. We advocate that no negative actions should be taken against local authorities who do not meet the timeframe, and Government should consider flexibilities in these circumstances. The Gateway Assessments could provide a useful and official way of setting out timetable concerns. 

Question 7: Do you agree that a Project Initiation Document will help define the scope of the plan and be a useful tool throughout the plan making process?

Yes – in principle a Project Initiation Document (PID) will help to define the scope of the plan and help to guide an authority through the new-style plan-making process. The PID should be piloted and tested thoroughly with the “front runner” authorities and be made available for all other authorities to review prior to their commencement of a new-style plan.

We welcome the Government not placing a time-limit on the ‘Scoping and early participation’ stage, as individual authorities will have distinct challenges and factors to consider prior to plan-preparation commencement.  Early participation in the plan-making process is welcomed however it is unclear how this stage, which invites “views on what the plan should contain and feedback on key issues that should be addressed”, differs from the first mandatory consultation which would be an opportunity to “formally comment on the issues an area is facing and how they may be tackled in the local plan or minerals and waste plans”.

Question 8: What information produced during plan-making do you think would most benefit from data standardisation, and/or being openly published?

The LGA are fully supportive of the Government’s ambition to bring planning into the digital age and harness digital technologies to “provide faster, simpler, more accessible plans and policies to deliver better outcomes, informed by up-to-date data and shaped more actively by communities and other stakeholders”.

In order to do so, we support the clauses in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill which ensure planning authorities receive data in consistent formats and that data is open and free for use. This will not only help to reduce the cost burden of producing a local plan, but also the time and resource for officers to process data. We would urge the Government to engage with local authorities to understand the current data systems and software used in plan-making, to ensure any attempts to standardise data can still be read and analysed by the software.

Every local authority produces an Authority Monitoring Repot annually as part of plan-making, and so it would be sensible to seek to standardise the data supplied in these reports, where appropriate, to aid plan preparation and review. 

Question 9: Do you recognise and agree that these are some of the challenges faced as part of plan preparation which could benefit from digitalisation? Are there any others you would like to add and tell us about?

The Government has correctly identified many of the key challenges facing plan-preparation for local authorities though we are not convinced, through the proposals in this consultation, that digitisation alone will be the answer to solve these issues.

For example, it is not clear how the Government intends to use digital tools to solve the issue of “plans often involve making difficult local decisions but the political nature of local decision making and how it shapes plan content is often not understood”.

We would highlight again our concerns to Government about the resourcing of local plans’ teams within councils – both the number and capacity of officers as well as the team’s and local plan’s funding. Local authorities have experienced a £15 billion reduction, almost 60 per cent in real terms, to core government funding between 2010 and 2020. Planning departments have faced the highest cut of any service between 2009/10 and 2020/21 with net spending per person on planning dropping by 59 per cent. Overall, there is a significant challenge in resourcing local planning authority teams. Councils all over England are struggling to recruit and retain planners. Alongside the difficulties in recruitment and retention of qualified town planners, there is a much more significant challenge in relation to specific planning skills and areas of expertise, such as heritage and conservation.

Steps have started to be taken by Government, such as the planning skills delivery fund, the Pathways to Planning and Public Practice schemes and the committed (but as of yet unimplemented) uplift to planning fees, though sudden changes will not appear overnight and we are likely to continue to face the same resourcing and capacity challenges for a while yet. This may have a distinct impact on the roll-out of these plan-making reforms and the laudable aims of digitisation. 

Question 10: Do you agree with the opportunities identified? Can you tell us about other examples of digital innovation or best practice that should also be considered?

Question 11: What innovations or changes would you like to see prioritised to deliver efficiencies in how plans are prepared and used, both now and in the future?

The LGA are fully supportive of the Government’s ambition to bring planning into the digital age and harness digital technologies to improve plan-making. The opportunities identified are welcomed, though we caution that many of these tools are, as stated, ‘emerging’ and may not be fully piloted or tested and understood by local authorities. The digital vision (Figure 2) is ambitious and we would welcome clarity from Government on both how local authorities can help to shape the digital toolkit, beyond this consultation, and whether or not the composite features will be ready and suitably tested before roll-out in Autumn 2024. 

Question 12: Do you agree with our proposals on the milestones to be reported on in the local plan timetable and minerals and waste timetable, and our proposals surrounding when timetables must be updated?

The proposals appear sensible. Allowing councils to update their timetables more frequently will keep communities and other stakeholders more informed for plan preparation. Assuming the timetable is digital and accessible, and updates are light touch, for example signalling the completion or commencement of a stage and giving a clearer idea of dates for consultation/examination/adoption, then six-monthly updates are supported. The template for timetables will be key to ensuring this does not become a burdensome process for local authorities. 

Question 13: Are there any key milestones that you think should automatically trigger a review of the local plan timetable and/or minerals and waste plan timetable?

Following the submission of a plan for examination, and during the examination itself, a number of key dates will be made available and should be reflected in the timetable, such as hearing dates. Letters sent from the Inspectorate in relation to the plan’s examination could also contain important dates which may need to be reflected in the timetable. An ‘examination pause’ (Question 23) should also trigger a review, or at least update, of the local plan timetable. 

Further, external factors such as changes to or introduction of new legislation, national development management policies and written ministerial statements which impact a local authority may all result in a review and potential pause of the local plan timetable to understand the implications.

Question 14: Do you think this direction of travel for national policy and guidance set out in this chapter would provide more clarity on what evidence is expected? Are there other changes you would like to see?

The direction of travel for national policy and guidance is supported, though there is not enough detail in this consultation to give clarity and certainty to local authorities on ‘what is expected’ for new-style local plans. We welcome the Government’s commitment that they will be consulted upon in more detail during the next consultation on the NPPF in 2024, but this once again delays and adds uncertainty for those local authorities choosing between submission in the current style before June 2025 or waiting and commencing a new-style plan. 

We have concerns about the use of the word ‘proportionate’: who defines this, how it is defined and how might this differ across local authorities with different characteristics? It must be made clear how this term will be applied to give local authorities the certainty that the evidence they collect, as well as its scope, will not be challenged at examination. 

It is welcomed that guidance would be made available which sets out what constitutes ‘up to date’ evidence, as well as how it should be presented. 

We urge the Government to ensure that the proposed “statement of compliance with legislation and national policy” is not a burdensome process nor a tick-box exercise for already strained local planning authorities. 

Question 15: Do you support the standardisation of evidence requirements for certain topics? What evidence topics do you think would be particularly important or beneficial to standardise and/or have more readily available baseline data?

Yes – we support the standardisation of evidence requirements and would endorse the topics set out in the consultation including housing and employment land availability assessments and economic development needs assessments. 

Question 16: Do you support freezing of data or evidence at certain points of the process? If so which approach(es) do you favour?

The ability to freeze data at certain points of the plan-making process may indeed make it easier for local authorities to not only meet the 30-month timetable but to reduce the cost and duplication of evidence collation. Local authorities should have the powers to determine the point at which their evidence base should be frozen in order to support their plan and the timetable for examination or adoption. This could also be noted on the local plan timetable. 

The evidence that developers or land promoters submit must also be subject to either a freezing or a cut-off point during an appropriate point in the timetable, and determined by local authorities, in order to prevent any required re-assessment of sites or re-running of supporting evidence.

There may be exceptional circumstances where rolling data may become available, such as those relating to flooding or population statistics, in which a local authority should be able to ‘un-freeze’ evidence to take into account. 

Question 17: Do you support this proposal to require local planning authorities to submit only supporting documents that are related to the soundness of the plan?

We support the Government setting out more clearly through guidance what evidence is required for plan-making and examination. Other documents created during plan-making which do not pertain to soundness should remain available and accessible to ensure transparency. 

Question 18: Do you agree that these should be the overarching purposes of gateway assessments? Are there other purposes we should consider alongside those set out above?

Yes – the purposes of undertaking gateway assessments, such as ensuring compliance with legal and procedural requirements and supporting early resolution of potential soundness issues, are supported. The gateway assessments could also consider the alignment test, though as of yet we do not know how this policy,  intended to replace the Duty to Cooperate, will work in practice. 

Question 19: Do you agree with these proposals around the frequency and timing of gateways and who is responsible?

Notwithstanding our concerns around the 30-month timeframe, the frequency of the gateway assessments is supported, as sufficient progress or decisions will have been made in the intervening periods which will have material impacts on the plan. 

Certain considerations will need to be given to the timing of gateway assessments. It seems implausible for local authorities to set out the exact dates upon which the gateway assessments will take place, owing to for example Inspector or officer availability, so flexibility will need to be built into local plan timetables. A four-week notice period to the Inspectorate or other gatekeeper organisation of wanting to commence a gateway is sensible but likely unworkable in practice - the Government must ensure that the Inspectorate is prepared as far as possible to respond to and commence gateways within four weeks.

Where capacity and timing allows, the same Inspector should undertake the gateway assessments as well as the examination to ensure consistency of advice and approach. Where this is not possible, the advice of one Inspector at later gateways or the examination must not conflict with or change the direction given by another at an earlier stage. Only those approaches would give certainty and confidence to local authorities that their approach to plan-making has been sound throughout the process. A ‘gatekeeper’ organisation to oversee the end-to-end process of gateways is supported. 

We believe there is a role for independent or technical specialists in the gateway assessments to help explore certain topics and themes – we seek clarification on whether or not these individuals are granted the same ‘role’ as an Inspector, in that local authorities are “required to have regard to their observations and advice” or whether they are involved to simply aid discussions and give technical expertise upon which the Inspector can devise advice. 

Question 20: Do you agree with our proposals for the gateway assessment process, and the scope of the key topics? Are there any other topics we should consider?

Overall the gateway assessment process and scope of key topics set out in the consultation appears sensible, and would meet the proposed purposes of undertaking these assessments. 

The requirement on local authorities to prepare a ‘short report detailing progress against a series of key topics’ prior to each gateway should not be a burdensome process and the Government should work with councils to ensure the digital template is flexible and accessible. 

We support assessments moving at pace, but do not consider it appropriate to have a blanket approach of not inviting interested parties to participate in the process. There could well be merit in inviting along statutory bodies, for example, to discuss specific concerns which may relate to compliance and soundness – this should remain at the discretion of the local authority. 

Question 21: Do you agree with our proposal to charge planning authorities for gateway assessments?

No. The consultation sets out that gateway assessments will be a new mandatory process through which local authorities must proceed as part of the new-style plan-making process. As such, any costs should be covered by appropriate new burdens funding from Government to the appropriate body responsible for the gateway assessments. 

To streamline this, the Government should provide the funding directly to the responsible body when each stage of a local authority’s gateway assessment is undertaken.

Question 22: Do you agree with our proposals to speed up plan examinations? Are there additional changes that we should be considering to enable faster examinations?

The proposals set out in the consultation to speed up the examination process, including revisions to the Matters, Issues and Questions stage and shortening the length of consultation for main modification consultation, are supported. We welcome the Government’s statement that they are working closely with the Planning Inspectorate; the Government must feel confident in the capacity and resourcing of the Inspectorate in order for these reforms to have any impact. For example, requiring two or more Inspectors by default for examination may increase efficiencies through parallel working, but it will require significant resourcing, training and management of Inspectors time. 

Question 23: Do you agree that six months is an adequate time for the pause period, and with the government’s expectations around how this would operate?

No – each pause in local plan examination will be instigated for a different reason and will require different steps to be taken in order to satisfy the Inspector on the tests of soundness. It should be for local authorities, with the Planning Inspectorate and any other statutory consultees or commissioned consultants (if related to evidence), to determine the appropriate length of time that a pause in examination should constitute.

We do not support the Government’s proposals that, should a resolution not be finalised within the six-month period, a plan must be withdrawn. This would slow down the plan-making process further by forcing councils to ‘start again’. We would agree however that it is not favourable for plans to end up in a “never-ending” examination process, so agreement or a ‘line in the sand’ should be sought between key parties, including the Planning Inspectorate and local authority(s), for a final date for resolution. 

It should be noted, however, that we are hopeful that the new gateway assessments which seek to ensure compliance with legal and procedural requirements and support early resolution of potential soundness issues as well as the “requirement to assist with certain plan-making” may help to prevent pauses in local plan examinations, as such issues which may delay examination would have been identified and potentially resolved prior. 

Question 24: Do you agree with our proposal that planning authorities should set out their overall approach to engagement as part of their Project Initiation Document? What should this contain?

We are supportive of a focus on community engagement in the new-style plan-making process. Setting out the overall approach to community engagement in the Project Initiation Document (PID) is a sensible method to give clear expectations to both local people and statutory bodies of when a formal consultation may occur during plan preparation. 

However, we are concerned that the timetable set out will undermine the increased emphasis on community engagement as the timetable will restrict the ability of councils to undertake genuinely constructive public engagement in line with the new guidance. We would welcome a commitment by the Government to explore the resource implications on councils as a result of the new, rigid framework for local plan production and periodic review and provide sufficient new burdens funding as appropriate.

Question 25: Do you support our proposal to require planning authorities to notify relevant persons and/or bodies and invite participation, prior to commencement of the 30 month process?

Question 26: Should early participation inform the Project Initiation Document? What sorts of approaches might help facilitate positive early participation in plan-preparation?

Yes we support the proposal to help increase early engagement in the plan preparation process, particularly with statutory consultees. Given this requirement to notify stakeholders and invite early participation will be set out in regulations, the Government should be clear about what level of engagement is expected, how the local authority presents (or publishes) the feedback, and who exactly should be engaged. We welcome the Government’s intention to give discretion and flexibility around what the focus of early participation should be. 

We have already raised concerns around the timeframe for plan-preparation including the Scoping and early engagement phase, but we would reiterate concerns that this timeframe may limit the level of engagement and participation a local authority is able to achieve.

Question 27: Do you agree with our proposal to define more clearly what the role and purpose of the two mandatory consultation windows should be?

Yes we agree that Government should define more clearly what the roles of the two consultation windows will be. It is also necessary for Government to set out how local authorities should respond to the consultation submissions. 

The Government should clarify whether or not a local authority would be permitted to hold a second consultation at either mandatory stage. Currently, owing to reasons such as new sites being submitted or new evidence becoming available, councils may run one or two consultations at Regulation 18 or 19 stages to ensure that the community has had opportunity to have their say on the proposals. 

Question 28: Do you agree with our proposal to use templates to guide the form in which representations are submitted?

The ability to make representations to a local plan and engage with the plan-making process is critical to ensuring that communities can have a say on their local area’s future. The time taken and resource used, however, is great, and the inputting (and even transcription from handwritten submissions) of representations is certainly a priority area for speeding up and digitisation. 

The Government must be mindful that, whilst digitisation is supported, it may exclude certain groups of the process, which must be avoided and so local authorities will still need time to be built in for those representations to be input and reviewed. 

Templates are welcome but it is important that they are flexible for end-users and not prescriptive.

Question 29: Do you have any comments on the proposed list of prescribed public bodies?

We broadly agree with the list of prescribed public bodies. It would be welcome for the Government to define the parameters by which a body listed as “where relevant” would become a prescribed body to engage – for example, would a local authority need to engage the Office for Nuclear Regulation if they are a neighbouring authority. We also note the omission of Historic England. 

It is notable that neighbouring local, country or unitary authorities who share a boundary are absent from the list of prescribed public bodies. As it is not yet understood how the Duty to Cooperate’s replacement, the alignment test, will work in practice, it is important for the Government to set out the relationship these authorities will have with their neighbours. 

Question 30: Do you agree with the proposed approach? If not, please comment on whether the alternative approach or another approach is preferable and why.

The proposed approach, which gives local authorities the legal power to require bodies to participate and engage with a local plan process, is sensible in theory. However, in practice the inability for those bodies to participate and engage at earlier stages or during consultations may well have been caused by capacity and resourcing issues, that this legal power will not resolve. 

In fact, with the proposed roll-out and phasing of local authorities commencing new-style plans, we may see peaks and troughs in capacity for these prescribed public bodies. The Government must ensure these prescribed public bodies have the proper resources and are prepared for the implementation of this requirement. At no point should local authorities be required to pay for the public bodies involvement in plan-making. 

Question 31: Do you agree with the proposed requirements for monitoring?

We are supportive of the proposed ‘light touch annual return’ which will include progress against key plan-making activities and a number of nationally prescribed metrics. This should be set out as a digital template and shared early with local authorities to inform data collection with Development Management teams. 

A detailed return in year 4 of the plan is supported to inform the review of the plan. This should be a key document in the scoping and early participation phase of plan review. 

Question 32: Do you agree with the proposed metrics? Do you think there are any other metrics which planning authorities should be required to report on?

Yes – we support the proposed metrics and would encourage Government to work closely with local authorities to ensure that metrics for Environment Outcome Reports and net zero emissions from buildings are developed practically. 

Question 33: Do you agree with the suggested factors which could be taken into consideration when assessing whether two or more sites are ‘nearby’ to each other? Are there any other factors that would indicate whether two or more sites are ‘nearby’ to each other?

The suggested factors to be taken into consideration which would determine if two sites are ‘nearby’ each other, including geographical distance and relationship to sites in other similar sized settlements, are not contested though we question why the scope of Supplementary Plans (SPs) is limited to (other than design codes) specific geographical sites or areas. 

Question 34: What preparation procedures would be helpful, or unhelpful, to prescribe for supplementary plans? e.g. Design: design review and engagement event; large sites: masterplan engagement, etc.

The LGA has previously set out its position on the Government revoking Supplementary Planning Documents and Area Action Plans in our response to the March 2023 consultation on reforms to the planning system. Whilst we do not intend to repeat those concerns, we do welcome the Government amending its proposals to ensure that existing SPDs remain in force until such a time that new-style plans are adopted. 

The consultation sets out that new SPs will allow local authorities to “react and respond positively to unanticipated changes in their area”, such as “unexpected” regeneration opportunities. It is not clear therefore how and when local authorities should set out what SPs they plan to prepare using their timetable.

The preparation procedures set out in the consultation, design reviews for design-led SPs and masterplan engagement for large site SPs are helpful. Any preparation procedures that are set out should be suitably flexible to allow local authorities to meet the needs of the SP. 

Question 35: Do you agree that a single formal stage of consultation is considered efficient for a supplementary plan? If not, in what circumstances would more formal consultation stages be required?

Yes – this is an efficient way to consult statutory bodies and communities formally in SP creation. The consultation also sets out that informal participation and engagement will also be encouraged, and the Government should set out further detail on how they see this occurring most effectively whilst ensuring the speed of plan-making.

Question 36: Should government set thresholds to guide the decision that authorities make about the choice of supplementary plan examination routes? If so, what thresholds would be most helpful? For example, minimum size of development planned for, which could be quantitative both in terms of land use and spatial coverage; level of interaction of proposal with sensitive designations, such as environmental or heritage. 

We believe that the system should be flexible and local authorities should be able to determine the most suitable examination route for their SP. This determination may need to be made using guidance or thresholds set out by Government and considered with local authorities.   

Question 37: Do you agree that the approach set out above provides a proportionate basis for the independent examination of supplementary plans? If not, what policy or regulatory measures would ensure this?

Yes – the approach set out is proportionate for the independent examination of plans. 

Question 38: Are there any unique challenges facing the preparation of minerals and waste plans which we should consider in developing the approach to implement the new plan-making system?

Minerals and waste plans play a vital role in managing the land and use of natural resources within council areas. The Government should work closely with those particular authorities which are required to consider local planning policy for minerals and waste to ensure that any unique challenges are adequately considered and taken into account under the new plan-making system. 

Question 39: Do you have any views on how we envisage the Community Land Auctions process would operate?

Question 40: To what extent should financial considerations be taken into account by local planning authorities in Community Land Auction pilots, when deciding to allocate sites in the local plan, and how should this be balanced against other factors?

Community Land Auctions (CLAs) could present an alternative method of land value capture to help local authorities fund much needed infrastructure in their local areas. 

The consultation sets out high-level detail on how CLAs would work in practice and as such we can only give an advisory response to the proposals - more consideration would need to be made of CLAs when draft regulations are made. In particular, we would encourage the Government to ensure engagement is sought from other teams in councils, not just planning departments, such as estates and property, commercial and legal teams, of the draft regulations to understand the appetite for CLAs as planning is just one function. 

We would encourage the Government to consider, or give clarity, on whether or not pilot authorities would use CLAs as the primary means of allocating sites in the local plan process, as this is unclear in the consultation.

Further, the Government should clarify the role of CIL for pilot authorities who may have charging schedules, as it is unclear in paragraph 231 how or where CIL may play a role in collecting infrastructure contributions from, for example, windfall or other sites. 

We would also raise concerns about how finance and “financial benefits that are likely to accrue from each site” are positioned in the proposals – is it being suggested that these factors become part of the suite of factors that determine a sites suitability for development and therefore allocation in a local plan? For example, in an area with high competition for sites, would a site be more favourable if it brings higher financial benefits than one with greater development potential in a sustainable location? Clarity and guidance will be required to aid these decisions. 

Finally, we would support the Government’s intention to pilot CLAs in councils in “different areas with different characteristics”. This will help to evidence how CLAs may work across different markets and areas of the country. Consideration would need to be made for the length of these pilots and then potential roll-out, given CLAs would be entrenched from the beginning to the end in the 30-month timeframe for plan preparation (Figure 7). 

Question 41: Which of these options should be implemented, and why? Are there any alternative options that we should be considering?

A phased approach to roll out is welcomed rather than an approach which may have seen a significant number of authorities commence plan-making in one go. We do not believe the Government should dictate when a local authority should or could commence preparation of a new-style local plan; rather this decision should be made at a local level and could be driven with regard to the transitional arrangements and protection from speculative development.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to flexibility with the announcement of the ‘cut-off’ date for adoption of local plans under the existing system of 31 December 2026. This will ensure that any authorities, who for whatever reason (perhaps the calendar for council meetings) are on track to adopt shortly after this date, are not penalised. 

We direct the Government to our response to the March 2023 consultation on reforms to the planning system which highlighted our concerns about those local authorities whose adopted and up to date plan is due for review from 2023 and early 2024. The transitionary arrangements still do not adequately cover those authorities with regards to a grace period and cover from speculative development. 

Question 42: Do you agree with our proposals for saving existing plans and planning documents? If not, why?

Yes – we agree that existing Development Plan Documents and saved policies which had been adopted on or prior to 31 December 2026 (including those exceptional cases which may adopt post this date) using the existing system should remain in force until the local planning authority adopt a new-style local plan. 

Question 43: Do you have any views on the potential impact these proposals may have on those with a protected characteristic, together with any supporting evidence and suggestions for any appropriate mitigation which can assist us in the future. Please provide a free text response to explain your answer where necessary. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impacts identified?

Whilst we have not identified any direct potential impacts, we are concerned that the Government continues to put forward proposals for consultation prior to conducting impact assessments on those with a protected characteristic. We recommend that these impact assessments be undertaken prior to any final recommendations and reflected in any proposals taken forward.