A waste of paper - the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

Out of idle curiosity, I took a look the other day at the so-called Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill introduced in the Commons on 11 May (when it received its purely formal First Reading).

We can dispose very quickly of the “levelling up” content of the Bill. It comprises a mere six sections, which are among the most meaningless legislative provisions that have ever been drafted. Ministers are enjoined to publish statements of “levelling-up missions” for their ministries, replete with targets and progress reviews. Those of us who have ever worked in any kind of corporate body are depressingly familiar with meaningless and content-free mission statements, which are promptly forgotten before the ink has even had time to dry on them. This pathetically thin part of the Bill is no more than the regurgitation of an empty slogan, devoid of any policy or plan actually to deliver any meaningful change or improvement to the lives of citizens in those parts of the country that have been left behind as a result of de-industrialisation, lack of public investment in infrastructure and, above all, lack of revenue support from central government for vital public services. In truth, the idea of ‘levelling-up’ is entirely devoid of content. The government has absolutely no idea how to deliver on their election promises to those parts of the country that have suffered from the government’s previous long-term neglect, and they have no real intention of doing so.

As for “Re-generation”, this appears only in the title of the Bill. There is apparently an unwritten assumption that re-generation will miraculously occur, simply through the magical thinking of ministers. Harry Potter-like they have only to intone “Regeneramus!” and, lo, it will happen (although don’t ask how or when). [It seems from the Explanatory Memorandum that ministers are relying on Parts 6 and 7 of the Bill, dealing with Urban Development Corporations and Compulsory Purchase, to deliver ‘regeneration’. But where’s the funding?]

The rest of the Bill is a mish-mash of miscellaneous tinkering with local government and the planning system. So far as the structure of local government is concerned, the Bill provides for more ‘regional’ mayors, presiding over combined county authorities. There are currently 12 of these combined authorities. We already have one of these in the West Country, and so far it has been absolutely useless and its Mayor a mere cipher.

The provisions relating specifically to Town and Country Planning are really designed only to tinker with various administrative procedures. Some minor reforms are welcome, for example beefing up temporary enforcement notices, and some additional protection against unlawful works to listed buildings, but the overall impact of the changes to the planning system is minimal.

Even the much vaunted proposal for ‘street votes’ [Clause 96] is only a skeleton provision, giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations (which may or may not be forthcoming). The universal mirth that has greeted this proposal may prove to be fatal to the concept, and I strongly suspect that this bright idea may turn out to be dead on arrival. No doubt ministers will huff and puff, and claim that this Bill will herald a wonderful new dawn for the country, but any such claims are nonsense. Like so many other initiatives of this government, there is an almost complete lack of substance, and this Bill will not deliver any significant economic benefits, let alone ‘levelling-up’ those parts of the country that are in dire need of government support – not simply a rag-bag of infrastructure projects that it will take years to deliver, and some of which may be quietly dropped on grounds of cost once the fanfare with which they are announced has been forgotten. What is really needed, and which the present government will never deliver, is a major increase in current revenue support to local authorities and other public bodies at a local level to boost existing public services.

Roll on the next General Election!

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Permitted Changes of Use – unravelling the increasing complexities of the GPDO

As readers of this blog will be aware, the changes to the GPDO last year, following on from the substantial amendment of the Use Classes Order in 2020, has necessitated the publication of a FOURTH EDITION of A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use. Bath Publishing organised another very successful seminar yesterday to launch the new edition. This was held once again in the splendid surroundings of the Institution of Civil Engineers in Great George Street, Westminster and also online. The seminar was ably chaired by Lee Mallett. Qualified as a chartered surveyor, with an MA in urban design, Lee is an urbanist, writer and regeneration consultant. He directs the Urbik consultancy, and is co-editor and publisher of Planning in London magazine. In addition to chairing the event, Lee delivered an interesting introduction and personal insight into the current state of the planning system.

This Fourth Edition of the book, which we tend to refer to among ourselves as “PCU4”, has been a joint effort on the part of Alistair Mills, David Evans and myself. Each of us addressed the seminar in turn, and a particular point we touched on during the course of the morning is the increasing complexity of the law governing permitted changes of use, so that what was originally billed as a ‘simplification’ of planning law requires a book which (including its Tables, introductory notes, Appendices and Index) totals some 550 pages. It was Alistair Mills who put his finger on the underlying reason for this. The primary motivation on the part of the government was not to simplify the planning system; it was conceived as a political device to curtail the ability of local planning authorities to resist certain types of development that they would otherwise seek to resist in their areas. This particularly applies to the residential conversion of agricultural buildings (under Class Q) and of offices (formerly under Class O), now widened to embrace all buildings in business, commercial or service use within the very broad Use Class E (under Class MA).

LPAs do, of course, have the power to make Article 4 directions to prevent these types of permitted development in their areas (or in some parts of them), but ministers made it abundantly clear last year, both in a written ministerial statement and in a new paragraph 53 of the NPPF that Article 4 Directions, where they relate to change from non-residential to residential use, should be limited to situations where the Direction is necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts (such as the loss of the essential core of a primary shopping area which would seriously undermine its vitality and viability), but they should rarely extend to the whole of a town centre. Article 4 Directions should, in all cases, be based on robust evidence and should apply to the smallest geographical area possible. The Secretary of State has power to cancel Article 4 Directions, and has done so in the past. It is clear that he is fully prepared to make more use of this power in future where LPAs attempt to use Article 4 Directions too widely in their areas.

David Evans pointed out that, notwithstanding this, Kensington & Chelsea has made a Borough-wide Article 4 direction (not yet in force) banning residential conversions of business and commercial premises under Class MA. Meanwhile, in Richmond-upon-Thames the Council has made a similar direction in 67 separate areas of the Borough, and the Cities of London and Westminster both have plans in train to make similar directions. David also drew attention to the Mayor of London’s Strategic Evidence to support London Borough Article 4 Directions. This was published on 31 July 2021. Its timing may have been fortuitous, but it is a remarkable coincidence that it followed so hard on the heels of the ministerial guidance referred to above.

All three of us drew attention to various pitfalls that await both developers and LPAs. Some of these have been a problem for quite a time, and yet developers and LPAs continue to fall into them. They really should buy our book, and read it! There nevertheless remain a few unresolved issues, some of which were raised in the Q&A session at the end of the morning, and even the combined brainpower of the joint authors was unable to resolve some of these. One delegate asked whether some of the more contentious issues that have arisen might be addressed by sensible amendments to the GPDO designed specifically to tackle them. However, the panel could not discern any appetite on the part of the present government to deal with these issues. It would take a change of government to make this possible, and even if a government of a different political complexion were to take office after the next General Election, there can be no guarantee that they would necessarily grasp this particular nettle.

Since the Third Edition of A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use was published in November 2019, there has continued to be a steady stream of High Court challenges to appeal decisions in prior approval cases, which are dealt with in the new edition of the book, and Alistair Mills took the audience through some of these, together with some of the more noteworthy Inspectors’ decisions in prior approval appeals. There isn’t time to summarise those here, but you will find succinct summaries of them in the book.

My own contribution to the seminar included a look at ‘protected development’ under the transitional provisions in last year’s amendment order. This is development that was permitted by the GPDO before last August and which continues to be development (because the pre-existing and the new use do not both fall into Use Class E following the 2020 changes to the Use Classed Order, so that such a change of use is not covered by section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act) but is no longer permitted development, because it has now been removed from the GPDO. Getting one’s head around this new (temporary) type of permitted development is not made any easier by the omission from the amendment order of any list identifying the Classes of development that are ‘protected’. However, we have identified these classes of PD in the book (in paragraphs 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 of Chapter 1) and have drawn attention to the 31 July deadline for either completing this development or, where a prior approval application is required, making an application. In the latter case, the other steps in the prior approval process can then follow on, including an appeal against refusal, plus the three-year period from the prior approval event for completing the development. As we point out in the book, some of this ‘protected development’ could potentially have a ghostly after-life of several years in some cases. If you want further details of this ‘protected development’, then I strongly recommend that you study the relevant paragraphs in Chapter 1 of this new edition of the book. The relevant paragraphs where these Classes of development are also be found in the main text are listed in the revised Table 1 at the end of Chapter 1.

So “PCU4” has been well and truly launched, and I hope that it will be as valuable a resource to property owners, developers and planning practitioners (including local authority planning departments and the Planning Inspectorate) as each of the three previous editions.

© MARTIN H GOODALL