There is no one right interpretation of NPPF, and our review reflects this with authors across the firm taking a personal view on its implications.

One could say that the NPPF is refeshingly strong and clear on what the planning system is for, and how sustainable development should be delivered through plan-making and decision taking. Another slant might be that in striving for a simpler approach, the NPPF leaves the interpretation and implementation of policy uncertain.

To find out more and form your own view, I invite you to dip into our comprehensive review, and share your thoughts with our authors. The extracts below provide a flavour of their personal opinions.

Download: Our comprehensive review (pdf)

On building a strong, competitive economy…
“Specific mention of avoiding the potential for over-burdening business ‘by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations’ is a clear signal from Government that it wishes to see a reduced burden on development from associated infrastructure and other safeguarding requirements.”  John Parmiter

On local plans…
“The NPPF is refreshingly strong and clear on plan making, demonstration itself that all that needs to be said to drive a professional service can be said in a few pages. This is plan-led planning, not just the plan-led development control system introduced in 1991.”  John Baker

On transport…
“We believe that local authorities will need to be able to demonstrate that there has been engagement on the issues of development and infrastructure, and demonstrate that the outcomes of the plan have resulted in shared understanding of how development and infrastructure is to be provided.”  Bob Pinkett

On flooding…
“The inclusion in the NPPF of ‘opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding’… could open the door to truly sustainable floodplain development, which was often frustrated in the past.” Ben Mitchell

On strategic planning…
“The NPPF is very helpful on the issue of strategic planning across local authority boundaries. Where an authority lacks the capacity to meet demand, it should export this demand to its neighbours, and these neighbours should accept it.”  John Baker

On housing supply…
“Government, through the NPPF, is being clear that artificially low housing targets do not meet its policy aspirations by closing off common loopholes that some authorities have been using to justify low housing targets.”  Cristina Howick

National Infrastructure Planning

On 1 April, responsibility for the planning of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) passed from the Infrastructure Planning Commission to the National Infrastructure Directorate of the Planning Inspectorate. Where decisions were previously made by the independent commission, now the Planning Inspectorate examines the application and will make a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State, who will in turn make the decision on whether to grant or to refuse development consent.  Whilst this imposes additional time and uncertainty in to the decision making process, it should also make it possible for more proactive pre-application engagement, which is to be greatly welcomed.

On 13 April, DCLG published its ‘Light Touch Review’, or, more accurately, the snappily titled “Consultation on proposed changes to the suite of guidance documents for the major infrastructure planning regime”. This review relates only to guidance documents (reduced to six from seven) which cover associated development, the pre-application process (including the vexed question about the submission of alternatives), the conduct of examinations, infrastructure planning fees, application form guidance, and the compulsory acquisition of land. It does appear that the opportunity has been taken to gather together useful advice that has been issued over recent months to provide an more accessible source of guidance for the benefit of promoters, professionals, local authorities and communities who are involved in the process.

NPPF and National Infrastructure Planning

Bearing in mind that the Planning and Localism Acts provide the determining legislative instruments, and the National Policy Statements provide the determining policy instruments, it should not be anticipated that NPPF has much to say on the subject. This is true. However, NPPF does make reference to the need for Local Plans to ‘take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas’ (paragraph 162). It does not however explain what this might entail, or how this should be dealt with in relation to the Localism Act’s ‘duty to co-operate’.

Experience suggests that local authorities interpret these issues in a wide variety of ways. Whilst some authorities have understood the need for Local Plan policies to ‘take account’ of the potential delivery of an NSIP in their area, others have taken the view that the Local Plan itself should contain local policies setting out requirements which an NSIP would need to meet. It does not appear that this is what was intended, as it is the relevant National Policy Statement that sets the policy framework, and the National Infrastructure Planning process that determines its acceptability. This would be an area where further clarification would be most welcome.

NPPF and Local Infrastructure Planning

The NPPF attaches considerable importance to infrastructure planning but there are some distinct differences from what was in PPS12.  The following is a short summary of some of the key messages relating to the role of infrastructure in the NPPF.

Key message one: Infrastructure planning needs to be part of the ‘strategic priorities’ for the Local Plan preparation (paragraph 156)

Paragraph 156 outlines the strategic priorities framework for preparing the Local Plan. Of the five
bullet points relating to strategic priorities, two are dedicated to infrastructure:
•  The provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk, coastal change management and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);
•  The provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities.
The text goes on to say that Local Plans should plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area and based on cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Key message two: New instructions on how to assess infrastructure are included in the NPPF (paragraph 162 and 179)

There are some important changes from PPS12 in the instructions for assessing the evidence for infrastructure at paragraph 162 and 179.  Previously, it was necessary to assess requirements, cost and funding and this was spelt out in PPS12. Instead, we have bullet points which focus on quality, capacity, strategic infrastructure and cross border working.

Paragraph 162 on infrastructure states that local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:
•  Assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; and
•  Take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their area.

Paragraph 179 – Duty to cooperate and joint informal infrastructure and investment plans:
•  Local planning authorities should work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual Local Plans……as part of this process, they should consider producing joint planning policies on strategic matters and informal strategies such as joint infrastructure and investment plans.

Key message three: Infrastructure is part of the soundness test for Local Plan Examination (paragraph 182)

Infrastructure now features explicitly in one of the tests of soundness (positively prepared test) that the Inspector will be looking for in examining local plans (paragraph 182) and implicitly (effectiveness test).  The Inspector will also be looking for evidence of cross boundary working.  These are abbreviated as follows:
•  ‘Positively prepared….objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements …’
•  ‘Effective …the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities’.

What are the implications?

As it stands, the NPPF in relation to infrastructure planning raises some interesting quandaries that will no doubt unfold and become clearer over time.  Here we list just a few:

Issue 1: Existing capacity or new provision?
Paragraph 162 states that we should assess capacity of infrastructure…and its ability to meet forecast demands. This was always included in PPS12, but has been made much more explicit in the NPPF.  Recent experience suggests that developers are keen to use existing capacity, service providers too are keen to use existing or expand existing rather than to develop new provision (particularly in the case of schools, utilities, libraries, community centres) and most especially in the case of new highway schemes. Indeed, the constraints of road space and funding means that creative ways of making better use of existing capacity is likely to be the way forward to support deliverable solutions in the future.

Issue 2: Quality vs Quantity?
Paragraph 162 states that we should assess ‘quality’ as well as capacity. This is admirable, but some parameters will no doubt be required so as to avoid making a ‘mountain out of a molehill’.  On the other hand, there are considerable benefits to be gained from qualitative improvements. During the current austerity period, there have been moves to improve the quality of existing provision before spending on increasing capacity.  In our opinion, there is considerable sense in this, for instance, when seeking to improve the carbon emissions of a new development Vs improving the carbon emission from an older established development, the latter option can achieve better outcomes for the local authority for the same level of cost. 

Issue 3: Demand based assessment or standards based?
An interesting twist contained at paragraph 162 is the requirement for infrastructure being able to meet forecast demand.  Too often in the past infrastructure requirements were based on national or at best regional ‘standards’ that bore little relation to actual forecast demand or that took account of changes in technology, demographics, preventative policy  measures (for example library space, GP surgeries, fire callouts, waste recycling etc). This is no longer affordable, and our toolkit designed to assess demand based on a refined assessment of demographics and land take over time is aimed at overcoming this problem. 

Issue 4: Do we now include minerals as infrastructure?
Paragraph 156 has included the provision of minerals within the definition of infrastructure and we are left wondering how and why this has been included here.  Does this mean that in future infrastructure assessment will need to take account of mineral provision?

Issue 5: Genuine cooperation?
Section 110 of the Localism Act sets out the ‘duty to co-operate’. This applies to all local planning authorities, national park authorities and county councils in England. The new duty is reflected in NPPF, (at paragraph 182)  which highlights the need for joint working to meet development requirements that cannot be wholly met within a single local planning area, through either joint planning policies or informal strategies such as infrastructure and investment plans.

Transport infrastructure in particular, but also education, waste management and utility plant are most likely to be affected by this issue, and the equation of who pays and who benefits is the crucial question.  With the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy, it is possible for a Charging Authority to charge for strategic infrastructure within its boundary from new development sited just within its boundaries, but contribute little to cross border service providers where the greatest impact is felt!  Resolving such issues will be crucial to reaching deliverable agreement on these issues.

Issue 6: How do we prove deliverability?
A critical requirement of the NPPF is the need to prove deliverability and assess viability of the plan based on ‘a willing buyer and willing seller’ assumptions.  PPS12 always included the need to prove delivery of infrastructure.  However the viability assessment of the whole plan is new to the NPPF.  We expect this to lead to many questions, one of which we suspect will be ‘how to deal with viability assessment and in particular land cost assumptions inputs’.  The Government has not yet spelt out how some key assumptions for viability such as land costs should be assessed – should it based on existing use value, open market or alternative use value?  As most of you will recognise, there in lies the potential for substantial difference of opinion between developers and local authorities and landowners.

There has already been much comment in the media on this issue, but we are keen to get behind the headlines to understand the implications of the new policy framework for our clients, and to consider how it will work with the provisions of the Planning Act, the Community Infrastructure Levy and the Localism Act 2011.

In truth, no one will know of the implications until the new planning framework has been tested through the planning process, and the courts. However, we do expect that there will be a significant ’settling in’ period, and the need for a great deal of supporting guidance to set out how the provisions of the NPPF are to be interpreted. This is a task DCLG is keen to transfer to the various professions to generate, and one in which we are already involved through our work with the various professional bodies.

Next week will also see the transition of responsibility for the major infrastructure planning regime, from the Infrastructure Planning Commission to the National Infrastructure Directorate of the Planning Inspectorate. This will introduce political oversight into the regime as well as other, more minor changes envisaged in the Localism Act 2011.

At the same time, Government is working on further refinements and adjustments to the regime. Proposals for change emerging from its ‘light touch review’ are expected to be published during April. This will have a bearing on a number of Nationally Significant Infrastructure projects on which we are working.

As you would expect, we will be watching this space carefully and we will share our thoughts on these and other issues in the next few days.

The East and South East England already have less water per head than dry countries such as Morocco. Both regions are now officially in drought. However, there may be practical and deliverable solutions close at hand. For example, community management of water could prove to be a simple and very effective way of conserving water, including more effective provision and management of recycled water from rainwater harvesting, grey water reuse or effluent reuse.

Currently, water management in the UK is fragmented across a number of bodies, including the Environment Agency as the resources regulator, OFWAT as price and investment regulator, privatised utilities (some are water supply only), and Internal Drainage Boards.

However, a ‘town water company’ can bring the management of water in the local community under one water services provider. The biggest advantage of such an arrangement is that local people can partly own and manage the infrastructure as local shareholders. This radical approach of community ownership can bring about the behaviour change needed to conserve water and achieve water neutrality. This can be brought about through the delivery of new development.

A town water company can be established through an Inset Agreement – a licence from OFWAT for an alternative operator within an incumbent Water Co area. The company administers the distribution of potable water and green water (treated sewage effluent which is returned in secondary mains to supply the non-potable demand). It also manages and maintains surface water in SUDS. This involves balancing rainwater harvesting with the needs of receiving water bodies.

There needs to be a set of new local by-laws to ensure proper implementation and standards for green water. But the treatment standards would be no different than for a discharge to a watercourse, with only additional sterilisation needed. Separate metering and advantageous rates should be applied to the green water supply.

For the town water company to succeed, a skilled team will need to engage with the public about how they can take practical ownership. The infrastructure should be planned in a manner which results in a financial return for local people and not a burden on the development.

Could our response to drought really be that straightforward? We believe so. In a recent water cycle study we prepared on behalf of East Hampshire District Council, for example, we recommended setting up a town water company for the proposed ecotown at Whitehill Bordon to manage the water cycle, including supply, sewerage, SuDS and demand management.

The study demonstrates that the ecotown should be able to achieve water neutrality without increasing abstraction rates. This is despite the fact that 5,300 new homes are planned, alongside the existing town of 5,000 houses, and officially the area is extremely stretched for water. With the right management and recycling infrastructure in place, the town’s water usage in 2036 should not exceed current water usage – despite an increase in the number of residents.

The study provides the evidence base for the policy framework informing the planning of development in East Hampshire.The policies encapsulating this approach have been adopted by East Hampshire District Council and discussions are now underway with Ofwat and potential operators to take the process forward.

The Localism Act has created a new duty for local authorities to co-operate with each other when making plans. It has also imposed new restrictions on examining Inspectors. The interpretation of what these changes mean on the ground is developing at a dizzying pace – but the jury is still out on the long-term and practical consequences for plan-making.

Two related provisions of the Localism Act, which received royal assent on 15 November 2011 have created new challenges for Inspectors, planning authorities and developers on the front line of plan-making. Section 110 imposes the new ‘duty to cooperate’ on planning authorities and came into force on the same date as the royal assent; Section 112 came into force two months later and imposes restrictions on examining Inspectors, replacing sections 20-23 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 with a new s20. Although the inspector still rules on a plan’s soundness, s20(7C) provides that he or she can only recommend modifications required for a finding of soundness if the authority itself asks for them. 

You might think it is unlikely that the s20(7C) provisions will have any bearing on plans that had reached an advanced stage or had already been submitted when s110 came into force. After all, what changes could an Inspector could conceivably recommend that would fulfil a legal duty that has not been observed at plan preparation stage? If only it were that straight forward!

Please click here to continue reading the article in full (PDF download).

The Department of Transport (DfT) recently issued proposals for consultation on funding larger transport projects after the current Spending Review period ends in 2015. Published in a document called ‘Devolving Local Major Transport Schemes‘, these put the focus back on regional bodies such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

Initial reactions vary, from construction industry concerns over the ‘death of big infrastructure projects’ to councils’ fears of the further erosion of small, local, sustainable travel schemes.

The Government’s objectives are to help the economy whilst developing sustainable solutions, reducing carbon, making transport investment decisions more local and ensuring the process works effectively. It believes that, with spending reduced nationally on major transport schemes (more than £5m), there should be a more streamlined approach to allocating funding. It recognises the delay and cost incurred by the current, centrally managed, scheme appraisals.

This is all very sensible, but how will the few schemes that get funding be selected for implementation after 2015?

The DfT notes that, of the schemes over £5m included in the budget, the majority in recent years have been funded at £30m or less. With substantial reductions in the current transport budget, there will be much less funding available. Realistically, fewer schemes will be supported.

Coincidentally, even if the current budget of £1.7bn were to be maintained in the future, each of the 39 LEPs would get a share of only £43m each for the Spending Review period. So the emphasis on schemes under £30m is unsurprising – big projects like tram extensions or major roads will have to be funded in other ways.

The proposal is to focus on regional bodies, such as Local Enterprise Partnerships, and to encourage voluntary groupings to be established at a high level. Perhaps these will not cover a whole region, like South East or South West England, but they will be probably larger than LEP areas.

These new ‘local transport bodies’ would not be made responsible for building the schemes, which will stay with the councils acting as the statutory transport authorities. The Government is not prescriptive about the bodies’ roles, powers and boundaries since the proposals are out to consultation.

Post 2015, the new local transport bodies (sometimes also described as ‘local transport consortia‘) will need to demonstrate to Government that they are democratically and financially accountable. They will need to show they can achieve value for money and prioritise schemes to local needs. Project appraisal by the new bodies should be set against DfT-agreed minimum benefit:cost ratios and use pre and post evaluation processes, taking the DfT Transport Business Case approach, and either Treasury Green Book or WebTAG guidance.

Interestingly, the lower limit of £5m is removed. It is open to the new bodies to use any funding allocated for much smaller schemes. As funding is likely to be distributed per capita, there will be pressure to ensure ‘everyone gets their share’. Some councils are concerned that the already limited funding will be spread even more thinly.

If the proposals are adopted, the Local Enterprise Partnership areas will get their indicative funding allocations in August. The local transport body or consortium needs to submit its governance arrangements and other details by the end of this year, with a prioritised programme of schemes identified by April 2013. They then have two years to finalise their project business cases so that schemes can progress to construction from 2015.
 
The consultation paper concludes by saying: “This is not about passing the buck of responsibility from the centre, but enabling decision-making to be genuinely local whilst ensuring continued accountability for public funds to the national taxpayer.”

If there is less money around and even harder decisions are to be made, it makes political sense that they are made ‘elsewhere.’ We can only hope that we are not creating another hurdle in the race to fund essential transport infrastructure.

The Consultation Paper can be found here, and the consultation on the proposals closes on 2nd April.

Introduction

I am going to put the issue of insurance into perspective with the technical aspects of flooding and strive to put you in a more informed position when making decisions on the management of your property assets. 

To do this, I am going to tell you that:

•  With the projected impacts of climate change, flood risk is likely to increase (although with the media being full of reports of drought you would be justified in wondering whether we have the correct focus).

•  Be that as it may, I am going to tell you how to assess the level of risk.

•  Then, how to mitigate that risk.

•  Finally, with the government recently consulting on the new National SuDS Standards, I am going to update you on the future implications.

Flooding is a natural phenomenon and there will always be extreme events against which it is uneconomic to provide protection for our property assets.  However, this does not mean that we should allow ourselves to be exposed to unnecessary risk.

While other parts of the world are more accustomed to natural disasters such as tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the British Isles enjoy a temperate climate (thanks to the Gulf Stream) and are a long way from any tectonic activity, so we have to focus on ‘flooding’ as our source of natural disasters.  This is also in line with our national characteristics of always wanting to complain about the weather.

Please click here to continue reading the presentation in full  (PDF download).

Our previous work, including research into the economics of transport by water in London, the feasibility of passenger services for the Olympics, and the £19m grant for the Three Mills Lock, has proved that waterways have tangible economic benefits.

Our philosophy is based around the concept of waterspace strategies as visual business plans, underpinned by core development principles such as value-added development potential, place-making and amenity. But they also need to build on input from regional and national agencies, businesses and developers.

A prime, and high profile, example of this approach is the Lower Lea Valley Waterspace Strategy which we produced with LDA Design for British Waterways and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC).

The Lower Lea Valley is a major focus for development and part of The Thames Gateway, one of the largest regeneration areas in Europe. The area has huge potential, attracting high levels of inward investment, including £120m from the LTGDC.  Incorporating the Olympics venues, by 2030 the Gateway is planned to have four major business centres employing a quarter of a million people at Stratford, Canary Wharf, The Royals and Greenwich Peninsula. All of these will be connected by active waterways, new parks and a network of green links.  

Yet, as London’s second waterway, the River Lee and its tributaries spent many years in the shadow of its more famous rival, the River Thames. The waterways were a neglected asset and it took the Thames Gateway regeneration and the Olympics to recognise their potential. 

Launched at the end of last year, the waterspace strategy puts the waterways at the heart of the ideas that will help shape the legacy of the Games and promote  the redevelopment of East London as a ‘water city’. The strategy sets out to create a sense of place and focus for the waterways whilst helping to maintain their unique historic and cultural heritage. An important part of the work has been making the most of the waterways’ role as the arteries of a much wider development area. 

The strategy builds on the improvements in spatial and environmental quality already in place, to support the local and regional economy and benefit commercial enterprise and the community. The Olympic Park Legacy Company, Westfield Shoppingtowns Limited, Southern Housing and other agencies and local businesses have all had an input into the development of proposals.

The strategy defines five character areas; incorporating the waterspace running through Hackney Marshes, Bow, Three Mills, and the Olympic Venues, culminating in the Tidal Waterways of the Thames and the canal spurs of the Limehouse Cut and the Hertford Union.   

At the smaller scale, these proposals include active water frontages at Olympic venues, and, at Hackney Waterside and Olympic Parklands, small-scale commercial moorings to support existing and enlarged residential communities.

At the larger scale, the strategy proposes major refurbishment of British Waterways’ facilities at Bow Locks.  Some of our proposals are being actively incorporated into exciting regeneration plans such as the Strand East development (formerly Sugar House Lane) in the Bow, Three Mills and Sugar House Lane regeneration area. This is being carried out by Inter-IKEA, with PBA acting as consultants on the scheme.

The Lower Lea Valley Waterspace strategy is helping developers, businesses and local authorities to recognise the potential of these different character areas bound together by one common feature – the water.

Proposed revisions to regulations include a new category of notifiable non-licensed work (NNLW). The HSE’s consultation on the proposals to introduce revised Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR 2006) closed last November. The organisation has advised that, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, it hopes to issue new regulations on 6th April 2012.

The consultation was in direct response to the EC’s reasoned opinion, issued on 16 February 2011, that the omission in CAR06 of two terms, ‘non-friable’ and ‘without deterioration of non-degraded material’ from Article 3(3) (a) and (b) respectively of Directive 83/477/EEC, as amended by 2003/18/EC, on the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to asbestos at work meant that the UK had not fully implemented the Directive.

The omission of the two terms in CAR06, in the EC’s view, had the effect of widening the scope of the exemption; allowing more types of work to be exempt than was intended.

Under the HSE’s revised regulations there will effectively be three categories of work with asbestos.

Licensed

There will be no change to the following requirements: notify work with asbestos to the relevant enforcing authority; carry out medical examinations; maintain registers of work (health records); hold a licence; have arrangements to deal with accidents, incidents and emergencies; and designate asbestos areas.

Non-licensed

This will be exempt, as now, from these requirements

Notifiable non-licensed work (NNLW)

This is the new category of non-licensed work. It will be exempt from the requirements to hold a licence; have arrangements to deal with accidents, incidents and emergencies; and designate asbestos areas.

However, employers will be required to notify work with asbestos to the relevant enforcing authority; carry out medical examinations, and maintain registers of work (health records).

Guidance is yet to be developed to describe materials which are likely to fall within the NNLW category. However, broadly, they will include the removal of substantially degraded asbestos cement materials, or where the removal of these materials results in significant breakage (deterioration) of the material.

The required changes mean that, in future, fewer types of lower risk work with asbestos materials will be exempt. Instead, they will require notification.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which was introduced last April, presents an opportunity to deliver investment in power generation and transmission infrastructure. This can, in turn, create long-term income streams. Using CIL to create a cash generative entity in this way means that its value could be multiplied many times over. This contrasts with more traditional approaches to the use of developer levies where infrastructure is delivered with an ongoing operating cost burden, notwithstanding its economic development potential.

This new approach to the CIL works from the perspective of carbon-saving. New developments, especially regenerative ones, are often not ideal locations for renewable energy generation. As a result, asking developers to chase more carbon emissions out of new developments through ‘Merton Rule’ type requirements is costly, especially against the added cost burden of tightening building regulation. The Merton Rule is the planning policy, developed by Merton Council, which requires the generation of renewable energy onsite to reduce annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in the built environment. It has been implemented by the Mayor of London and many councils and has also become part of national planning guidance.

On the other hand, getting developers to support infrastructure which may decarbonise areas of local energy supply through CIL can deliver significant benefits, including unlocking other inward investment opportunities such as increasing strategic energy capacity, creating local jobs and retaining money within the local economy.

With so much to gain, we are now seeing a growing appetite for local authorities to become more involved in energy infrastructure and to work constructively with developers to help achieve this.