The top 10 CIL charges

While most charges put forward so far have been in the region of £100 per square metre for residential development, some – particularly in London – have far exceeded this. Last week, the London of Borough of Merton published its initial CIL plans, which revealed that residential schemes in Wimbledon could face a charge of £385 per square metre. The news caused a stir on social networking site Twitter (see below – “astonishing sums” appears to be the verdict of the Twitterati).

With this in mind, CIL Watch has trawled through councils’ CIL documents to produce a list of the highest residential charges to be published to date (we think it’s comprehensive, but there’s always the possibility that a preliminary draft charging schedule or two may have slipped through the net). The top 10 is ranked by the CIL payments that developers would, under councils’ published plans, be required to make on an average-sized house * (we’ve used a figure of 76 square metres for an average house, based upon research published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment in 2009).

The list is as follows:

1. £43,700 – Nine Elms area A (the London Borough of Wandsworth’s draft charging schedule proposes a charge of £575 per square metre for residential development in the riverside section of the Nine Elms area, which is earmarked for major regeneration, and pictured above. £575 per square metre multiplied by 76 is £43,700)

2. £29,260 – Wimbledon (the London Borough of Merton’s preliminary draft charging schedule, which goes out to consultation on Monday 30 January, proposes a charge of £385 per square metre for this leafy corner of south-west London)

3. £20,140 – Nine Elms area B (Wandsworth’s draft charging schedule proposes a charge of £265 per square metre for this part of the Nine Elms area).

4. £19,000 – Wandsworth (the London borough’s draft charging schedule sets out a charge of £250 per square metre for other areas within its boundaries, not including the Nine Elms district and Roehampton, which is exempt from the charge).

5. £16,036 – Poole – zone A (the Borough of Poole’s preliminary draft charging schedule, which is split into three zones, proposes a charge of £211 per square metre for a seafront section of the borough)

6. £15,200 – Brent (in its preliminary draft charging schedule, which was consulted on last year, the London Borough of Brent proposed a charge of £200 per square metre for residential development across the whole of the borough)

7. £12,768 - Poole – zone B (the Borough of Poole’s preliminary draft charging schedule proposes a charge of £168 per square metre in a zone stretching along the northern shoreline of Poole harbour)

8. £12,160 – Greater Norwich (the Greater Norwich Development Partnership, comprising Broadland District, Norwich City, and South Norfolk Councils, is preparing a joint CIL and has proposed a charge for residential development of between £135 and £160 per square metre. The higher charge would require a payment of £12,160 for an average home)

9. £11,400 – zone B, Wycombe (Wycombe District Council’s preliminary draft charging schedule, consulted on at the end of 2011, proposes a charge of £150 per square metre in part of the district)

10. £10,640 – Colliers Wood/Raynes Park (the London Borough of Merton’s preliminary draft charging schedule proposes a charge of £140 per square metre for these districts)

* A caveat to the above… these charges may not be representative of the full developer contributions that housebuilders may be required to make once levies are introduced. Affordable housing contributions may still be sought from developers on top of CIL – councils will still be able to use section 106 agreements to fund affordable homes. Developers in London also face additional CIL charges from April – the mayoral CIL to raise funds towards the Crossrail project will be charged on top of London boroughs’ own CIL tariffs. Another point to note is that CIL is only payable on net additional floorspace, that is, after the area of demolished buildings has been deducted.

*** This week’s CIL newsflash ***

- Steve Woolley, the leader of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s CIL team, is leaving, Planning revealed today. A DCLG spokeswoman told us: “Now that the implementation of CIL is under way and the Localism Act is in place, the CIL team is being restructured and Steve Woolley is leaving the department. A small team will continue to support implementation.”

- Planning consultancy Roger Tym & Partners has picked up three contracts to support local authorities who are working together to consider introducing CIL in their sub-regions.

- Huntingdonshire District Council has modified its draft charging schedule. It includes a revised CIL rate for health developments, such as health centres and GP surgeries. The local authority’s draft charging schedule had proposed a rate of £140 per square metre for this type of development. But the modified draft charging schedule proposes to slash this to £65 per square metre. A viability report carried out for the council by consultancy Drivers Jonas Deloitte said: “It is recognised that this type of development has been reliant upon the funding regime and that as the wider healthcare sector is currently undergoing a change in structure it is not yet known how development might take place in the future. The additional testing has demonstrated the sensitivity of the appraisal to the CIL rate and the recommended rate has been reduced to accord with the balance between setting the maximum achievable rate while ensuring the majority of development would not be prevented.”

Send your CIL news to jamie.carpenter@haymarket.com. Follow Jamie on Twitter at @J_J_Carpenter

Portsmouth on track to be next council to introduce CIL…

Portsmouth City Council is set to become the fourth local authority to introduce a CIL charge after an independent examiner found that its proposed charging schedule is sound. In a report, examiner David Hogger described the council’s approach as “pragmatic”. The report said: “The evidence suggests that, overall, residential, retail and employment development will remain viable across the city, if the charges are applied.”

John Slater, head of planning services at the council, said that the council would vote on whether to formally adopt CIL at a meeting next month. The council’s current thinking is that the charge will be implemented on 1 April, according to Slater. “It’s nice to get it through public examination,” he said.

Should Portsmouth begin charging the tariff on 1 April, the council is likely to be only the fourth to have a CIL charge in operation. So far only Newark and Sherwood (which began charging last year) and Shropshire and the London Borough of Redbridge (which began charging on 1 January) have introduced CIL.

The first signs emerge of how CIL might work in practice…

With CIL charges now in force in three local authorities, CIL Watch has been trawling through council planning documents to try to find out whether any developers have been affected.

The first project of note that we came across was an outline application for a commercial scheme in Nottinghamshire, which is eligible to pay CIL, according to Newark and Sherwood planning committee papers. Newark and Sherwood’s CIL charging schedule stipulates that industrial developments in the Newark Growth Point must pay a levy of £20 per square metre. This means that the project, to build three commercial buildings on a freight yard in Newark-on-Trent – which would result in an increase in net additional floorspace of 325 square metres – faces a CIL charge of £6,500. The scheme has been recommended for approval and is likely to be considered at a planning meeting on 14 February (a decision was deferred earlier this month).

A spokesman for Newark and Sherwood District Council said that there are currently nine applications in the system which could potentially generate a CIL payment, depending on whether or not they are approved.

Meanwhile, over in Shropshire, a small housing development in Bridgnorth will also trigger a CIL payment. The project, to build four two-bed properties, was granted full planning permission earlier this month. There are no details in the planning papers as to what level of CIL charge the project will be required to pay, but Shropshire’s charging schedule stipulates a charge of £40 per square metre for developments in market towns and key centres.

Plymouth revises proposed levy rates to aid viability…

Plymouth City Council is the latest local authority to reduce its proposed CIL rates in response to concerns over viability. Plymouth was selected as a CIL frontrunner in 2011, and released its preliminary draft charging schedule in November.

 Next Tuesday (17 January) the council is set to approve its draft charging schedule, which will see reductions in the proposed charges for small shops, small housing developments and high rise student accommodation.

This follows a move before Christmas by a group of councils in Norfolk to set their CIL rates at a level below those first put forward.

Frontrunner progress update…

Before Christmas, the Planning Advisory Service published a useful update on the progress of the councils selected as CIL frontrunners. You can read it here.

Latest CIL contract news…

Real estate adviser DTZ has recently completed CIL viability studies for New Forest District Council and the New Forest National Park Authority and has been advising Milton Keynes Council on the development of their CIL charging policy, advising on the assessment of residential development viability, and undertaking CIL viability analysis on non-residential development.
 
In addition, DTZ has also been advising the Leeds City Region Partnership on the potential impact of CIL across the area and the basis for a strategic approach to its implementation and provided joint advice to Newcastle City Council and Gateshead Council in connection with the development of the framework for CIL in area.

Send your CIL news to jamie.carpenter@haymarket.com.

Read earlier CIL Watch updates here.

You can let us know what you think of the proposals in our HS2 poll here.

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI): “The Government’s decision to give the go ahead for High Speed 2 raises the important question about how this kind of investment can be linked in planning for housing and jobs and to rebalancing our economy. To make the most of transport investment, and to minimise the disruption and negative impact, transport decisions need to take account of the big picture and be allied with complimentary and remedial measures.

“The RTPI believes that spatial planning at a national level can provide the much needed overview of social, environmental and economic considerations which would enable Government to better judge the need and effect of transport schemes. Crucially, spatial planning also has the ability to unlock growth by providing businesses and local communities with the information they need to make well informed decisions.

“The proper planning of high speed rail links could be the catalyst for the kind of spatial dimension which the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) lacks, and which the RTPI and the recent Select Committee report on the NPPF asks for.

“The RTPI welcomed the Government’s decision to consider the long term infrastructure needs of the country in the National Infrastructure Plan, and welcomes in principle serious attempts to deal with the long term transport needs of the country in a manner which takes account of climate change. The Institute does not comment on individual planning cases, and therefore has no comment on the choice of route for High Speed 2″.

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) chief executive Shaun Spiers said: “We are pleased the Government has shown its commitment to Britain’s railways while being sensitive to the impact that HS2 will have on communities and the countryside.

“It appears that Ministers really have engaged with the consultation responses.  So we welcome the changes that have been announced, notably the further tunnelling in the Chilterns and alterations to the route to avoid important heritage sites. Justine Greening is right that in delivering this important scheme we must safeguard the natural environment and our beautiful countryside.

“Today’s announcement is just one step in a very long process. There is still much more work to be done.  The route proposed today requires detailed study and it is likely that further changes will need to be made.  In particular, CPRE would like to see flexibility on the maximum design speed to allow more sensitive routing with greater curvature of the track. This will allow for necessary alterations following further local consultation.

“But the Government deserves congratulation for showing commitment to the future of our railways and to addressing regional economic imbalances, rather than concentrating development in the south east.  We are particularly pleased that this appears to have been a genuine consultation and that legitimate concerns about the likely impact of HS2 on the landscape have been heard.

“CPRE has branches and member parish councils across the country and we will continue to engage closely with the Government and HS2 Ltd to ensure that the new railway is as environmentally sensitive and beneficial to local communities as possible.”

Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) UK Head of Policy Jeremy Blackburn: “RICS supports the development of high speed rail and welcomes the government’s commitment to deliver the HS2 scheme in England. It has huge potential to contribute to economic growth, as well as lowering carbon emissions and expanding the capacity and speed of the UK’s transport network. However, the UK still seriously lags behind other countries which already have well developed high speed rail networks in place.

“The impact of HS2 on communities along the route is a critical issue and every practical step must be taken to minimise disruption and negative impacts. Adequate compensation procedures must be in place for those affected by the line and RICS is willing to work with the Government to advice on dispute resolution and compulsory purchase issues.

“High speed rail should be used to support economic growth and recovery by linking major economic centres for trade and investment, and effectively integrated with existing transport networks including airports to offer an alternative to short haul flights.

“Capacity freed up on the existing rail network must be used to full advantage for both passenger and freight services to ensure the wider benefits of investment are fully realised. We hope DfT’s consultation on major networks will be able to give an insight into the government plans to do this.

“Major public infrastructure schemes, such as HS2, require state-of-the-art project, carbon and cost management techniques to ensure optimum value for money and accountability. Through the use of new procurement models, information modelling and data benchmarking, RICS believes that prior investment in the relevant techniques and skills will ensure project success.”

National Trust director-general Dame Fiona Reynolds said: “We are pleased that Government has responded to local concerns over HS2 by promising a longer tunnel to protect the Chilterns Area of Outstanding National Beauty.

“However, we are disappointed that a tunnel at Hartwell House has not been included in the changes, given its international significance.

“This would be hugely beneficial both for the residents of Aylesbury and Hartwell, and would also protect the Grade I listed Hartwell House and its Grade II* Park and Garden. We hope to see this omission corrected as a result of the full environmental impact assessment which has not yet been completed. We will also be assessing the impact on Hartwell of lowering the line past Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville.”

The Country Land & Business Association (CLA) said the government’s decision must include reform of compulsory purchase laws to “give fair compensation to owners of homes, land and businesses along the route”. CLA president Harry Cotterell said: “We are launching this campaign because current compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) do not provide adequate protection for property owners when the State has to acquire private land or property without consent for a project such as HS2.

“Much of the work on reform has been done by previous governments but has not been implemented. Instead, they have offered a mere 10 percent extra in compensation to those affected by major infrastructure projects, and failing to fix the unfairness of CPO procedures or take steps to address blight to land and properties.”

Cotterell said the Association was urging the transport secretary to order an immediate and comprehensive review of compulsory purchase law for all private acquisitions and to commit to including legally binding provisions in the Act required for developing the HS2 line.

He said CLA lobbying on this issue had already helped persuade Government to promise more mitigation measures in HS2 including a £500million tunnel for part of the line.

The CLA President added: “A fair compensation package must include a duty of care, compensation for early access and a Bond Scheme to address blight. It is also good for the developer in the long run because fair compensation tends to reduce public opposition to projects.

“An independent assessor is needed for people affected by HS2 to ensure the acquisition and construction is conducted fairly.”

Warwickshire County Council Deputy Leader Cllr Bob Stevens said: “We are disappointed that the Transport Secretary has decided to go ahead with the HS2 scheme. It will have a devastating impact on the countryside and it will have little benefit for us. The county council remains committed to protecting Warwickshire’s heritage, environment and communities.

“We based our strong opposition to the scheme on the fact that it presents a flawed business case and offers poor value for money to the taxpayer. It is an expensive project which we believe will have only a very limited impact on the regional economy and certainly nowhere near as substantial as estimated in some quarters. There will also be unquantifiable hidden costs to the local authority.

“Now that HS2 is to proceed, we must ensure that the interests of Warwickshire residents are best served. In the immediate future, we will continue to work with the 51M Group to put forward the county’s case against this scheme.”

Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Director-General John Cridland said: “The Government’s green light for high speed rail is welcome.

“Without new capacity, by the 2020s the main West coast line would be gummed up, and rail freight would be likely to be squeezed out. We are right to plan for the infrastructure which the next generation will need, and the biggest prize will come from phase two – the link with the North. This will help to spread the benefits of future economic growth across the country.”

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) HS2 Expert Panel chair Steve Hayter, said: “We agree that the opportunity should be taken to invest in a new railway that is fit for the 21st century – significantly increasing capacity, strengthening connectivity between our city-regions and boosting the UK economy in the long term. The time to invest is now and we endorse the Government’s strategy.

“Going forwards, a robust and effective high speed railway that achieves the environmental and economic aims must have the very strongest commitment and support, both politically and financially. Government should also now develop an integrated transport policy that serves the nation’s future transport needs – HS2 in itself can only form part of that plan and ideally should not be developed in isolation.”

Commenting on the decision to tunnel, Hayter added: “Government’s willingness to exploring different engineering options to minimise the impact on those communities affected must be welcomed. Tunnelling on this scale is a proven, effective engineering solution with many advantages. Engineers will now stand ready to do what they do best – overcoming any challenges and ensuring the project succeeds.”

1. Thatcher told to abandon Liverpool to ‘managed decline’

Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher was urged to abandon Liverpool to “managed decline” by her chancellor, according to newly-released National Archives files made available under the 30-year rule. The documents revealed cabinet discussions following the 1981 Toxteth riots. But Lord Howe, the former chancellor, has said that his letter was misunderstood.

The revelation prompted much discussion about regional policy. In an editorial, the Observer said that 30 years on, the “problem of how to coax declining regions back to life remains acute”. And in a new blog, Regen.net economic development blogger David Marlow says: “Beyond the controversial emotive terminology, what is most striking is development and regeneration’s enduring struggles with the relative balance between investing in success and tackling deprivation; and that tackling deprivation still needs to present a compelling case for interventions sustaining better futures as opposed to making present poverty bearable.”

2. MPs urge ministers to hold second NPPF consultation

The government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework requires ‘significant changes’ and the government should hold a second consultation into the proposed reforms, according to a report by MPs.

The report, published in the week before Christmas by the Communities and Local Government select committee, welcomes the government’s aspiration to make the planning system simpler and more accessible by reducing the amount of planning legislation to a single document. However, it says the document, as currently drafted, contains a weighting towards economic growth that risks allowing unsustainable development.

3. New DCLG director-general to oversee planning reforms

The Department for Communities and Local Government has appointed Peter Schofield as director-general for neighbourhoods. According to the DCLG, Schofield’s responsibilities will include housing, planning and regeneration. “He will take a lead role in implementing the housing strategy, major reforms in the planning system and delivering local economic growth,” a statement said. Schofield joins the DCLG from the Treasury, where he was director of the enterprise and growth unit.

4. Government launches private rented review

Housing minister Grant Shapps confirmed in the week before Christmas that Sir Adrian Montague will lead a review of barriers to investment in rented homes. The Department for Communities and Local Government said that the review would “examine how best to encourage greater investment in rental properties – helping support the rapid growth of the private rented sector by increasing the supply of affordable homes”.

5. High Court rules solar subsidy cut unlawful

Campaign group Friends of the Earth and two solar energy firms have won a legal challenge against government plans to reduce the rate of subsidy available under the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) scheme for solar energy installations.

A Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) consultation document issued in October proposed to cut the FiT rate from 43.3p to 21p per kilowatt-hour for the smallest band of solar installations. The claimants argued that DECC’s decision to cut rates from 11 December – almost two weeks before the consultation ends on 23 December – was unlawful. In the week before Christmas the High Court agreed that the proposals are unlawful.

6. Local finance bill to pave wave for Tax Increment Financing

The week before Christmas also saw the government publish its Local Government Finance Bill. The bill will introduce the Tax Increment Financing mechanism, which allows public bodies to borrow money to fund the infrastructure required to get a project off the ground against the anticipated uplift in business rates expected from that development. In a statement, Pickles said the bill would “provide local authorities with the framework to implement Tax Increment Financing”.

7. Get Britain Building fund guidance issued

Housing and regeneration quango the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) issued detailed guidance before Christmas for developers wishing to apply for the new £420 million Get Britain Building programme. The programme, unveiled in November as part of the Government’s housing strategy and managed by the HCA, is intended to enable work to start on stalled sites with planning permission. The quango says that the programme will unlock up to 16,000 new homes by December 2014.

8. Scottish wind farms win approval

Two wind farms which could power nearly 100,000 homes in the north of Scotland have been approved by the Scottish government’s energy minister. Fergus Ewing gave the green light to the 59-turbine 177MW Dorenell wind farm on the Glenfiddich estate, near Dufftown, Moray. He also granted permission for a six-turbine, 21 MW extension to the 104 MW Muaitheabhal wind farm in Lewis.

9. IPC accepts two more applications for examination

Two more major project applications, both in Lancashire, have been accepted for examination later this year by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). The commission has decided that the pre-application consultation procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 were correctly followed for Halite Energy’s gas storage facility in the Preesall Saltfield. It has also accepted Lancashire County Council’s development consent application for a five-kilometre road between Torrisholme, near Morecambe, and junction 34 of the M6.

10. Planners recognised in New Year’s honours list

Scotland’s chief planner and a past president of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) were among the key figures from the planning and regeneration sectors to feature in the New Year Honours List 2012.

Click here to view PlanningResource.co.uk’s 10 most popular stories of 2011.

jamie.carpenter@haymarket.com. Follow Jamie on Twitter at @J_J_Carpenter

Greening has told the House of Commons that she expects to announce in January whether or not the High Speed Two London to Birmingham rail link will proceed. Whichever way it goes, her decision will be hugely controversial, either alienating conservationists in the Chilterns, or champions of big cities in the North and Midlands.

Niall McNevin, director of planning, Olympic Park Legacy Company

Scrutiny of plans for legacy development of London’s Olympic Park is certain to intensify during 2012. McNevin, who was previously head of town planning at the Olympic Delivery Authority, is charged with shepherding the legacy application through the planning process.

Peter Soulsby, Leicester City mayor

Referendums are due in May on the establishment of executive mayors in 11 of England’s 12 largest cities. The twelfth city, Leicester, already has an elected mayor, the former Labour MP Peter Soulsby. Soulsby will no doubt be the subject of strong media interest in the run-up to the referendum, as voters weigh the merits of the mayoral and existing models.

Melissa Mean, convenor, Redcliffe Neighbourhood Planning Forum

Mean leads RNPF, a Bristol group that has been selected as one of the government’s frontrunner neighbourhood forums, the organisations that are entitled to draw up neighbourhood plans. The group has high ambitions, including closing a dual carriageway to cars as part of plans to reinvigorate the area. With the Localism Act due to be fully enacted in April, neighbourhood plans will begin to be brought forward for approval, and pioneers such as Mean seem set to become prominent figures.

Derek Mackay, Scottish government minister for local government and planning

Mackay’s appointment this month marked a meteoric rise for a Scottish National Party politician who had only become an MSP seven months previously.  The 32-year old former Renfrewshire Council leader will be watched closely by councils. They will be keen to see if he shares predecessor Aileen Campbell’s wish to make them more pro-development, and equally eager to see details of the new planning fee regime that is promised for early 2012.

Sir Michael Pitt, chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate and chairman of the Infrastructure Planning Commission

Pitt has to manage the merger of PINS and the IPC, which is due to take place on 6 April, while reducing the headcount of the combined bodies from 800 to 600. At the same time, the applications that so far have been trickling into the commission will turn into a steady flow. All of this will take place against the backdrop of the government’s recently announced review of planning appeals procedures.

Adrian Kerrison, growth point manager at Newark & Sherwood District Council

On December 1, Newark and Sherwood District Council became the first local authority in the country to start charging the community infrastructure levy, the new method of raising contributions from developers to fund the infrastructure needed to service their developments. Expect to see Kerrison on a conference platform near you sometime in the near future.

John Griffiths, Welsh planning minister

While Whitehall is promoting a presumption in favour of sustainable development in England, Griffiths is consulting on a similar measure for Wales. His proposed redrafting of part of Welsh planning policy would instruct councils to look favourably on applications for economic land uses which are not in accordance with their development plans if the economic benefits outweigh adverse impacts.  He has also commissioned a wider review of the system, which reports next summer.

JANUARY

1 January: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges come into effect in Shropshire and the London Borough of Redbridge. January could also see an independent examiner deliver his verdict on London mayor Boris Johnson’s plans to raise £300 million towards the Crossrail project through CIL.

20 January: Consultations on the eight strategic environmental assessments into the government’s decision to scrap regional strategies come to an end. The Department for Communities and Local Government says that the revocation of the strategies is subject to the outcome of the assessments and will not be undertaken until the secretary of state and Parliament have had the opportunity to consider the findings of the assessments.

FEBRUARY

In Scotland, amendments to the General Permitted Development Order will come into force in February. The move will mean that householders will be able to undertake a larger range of works to their homes with out the need to seek planning permission.

MARCH

21 March: Chancellor George Osborne will deliver his next key statement, the Budget. Osborne’s two previous statements – the Autumn Statement last month, and the Budget earlier this year – contained proposals to streamline the planning system. Will he announce further steps in March?

31 March: Decentralisation minister Greg Clark has promised to publish the final version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) “well ahead” of 31 March 2012.

March is also expected to see the government publish a prospectus setting out its plans for a competition to promote locally-planned large-scale developments, according to the housing strategy published in November. And the month should see the coalition’s land auctions pilot programme take a step forward – the housing strategy says that the government expects to “secure heads of terms and fund local authorities” in March 2012.

APRIL

6 April: The Infrastructure Planning Commission and the Planning Inspectorate will merge. At the same time, decision-making powers on nationally significant infrastructure project return to the appropriate secretary of state.

According to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Structural Reform Plan the government intends that its National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will come into force in April. The plan also says that, by this time, all secondary legislation needed to implement provisions laid out in the Localism Act will have been passed.

MAY

3 May: Referendums on whether to create elected mayoralties in the 12 largest cities outside of London will go ahead, alongside local elections. In London, Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone will battle it out to become the capital’s next mayor.

JUNE

In Wales, the independent advisory group set up by the Welsh planning minister John Griffiths has been asked to produce its recommendations by summer 2012. The Welsh government says that its recommendations will inform a planning reform white paper to be published in 2013.

A full preview of the year ahead will be published in the next issue of Planning, due out on 13 January 2012.

jamie.carpenter@haymarket.com

Follow Jamie on Twitter at @J_J_Carpenter. Picture by Annie Mole (Flickr).

Bob Robinson, Chairman at DPP, said: “Whilst I welcome the endorsement of the presumption in favour of sustainable development along with the necessary clarification of what is meant by sustainable development, I am concerned that the Select Committee have sought to develop this further by placing the burden of proof upon the applicant. To my mind this represents a reinterpretation of the Practitioners Advisory Group(PAG) recommendation which the Select Committee claim to have supported and presents a general barrier to development which actually exceeds that in place at present.

“I am also concerned that whilst the Select Committee recognise the need for Local Plans to be in place, there appear to be no penalties in place for those planning authorities who continue to drag their heels often to avoid making what they know will be politically difficult decisions on the scale and location of development. The ability to then in turn hide behind the ‘burden of proof’ argument to further stall development where politically expedient to do so will bring further delay and cost to the development process”.

Country Land and Business Association President Harry Cotterell said: “The English countryside is not Disney World; it is a place where rural people live and work. Without sensible and well-designed sustainable development, the countryside and those who manage it will not be able to offer the jobs, housing and services that are vital for rural communities to survive.

“Our rural areas have real potential to become an economic powerhouse of creativity, enterprise and opportunity through the balanced use of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is the only way forward if our rural areas are to be truly sustainable and help power national economic growth.”

“There are strong concerns from the people who live and work in rural areas that their needs for jobs, homes and services are being ignored at a national level.  It is therefore unfortunate the Select Committee took evidence from organisations opposed to all change in the countryside. The report fails to acknowledge the needs of rural businesses and communities.

“A more balanced approach would have been to take evidence from organisations that actually represent those who live and work in the countryside. The CLA has never advocated concreting over the countryside but the delivery of landscape, biodiversity, jobs, homes and services must be underpinned by economic reality.”

David Brock, Consultant Solicitor at Keystone Law: “The “default is yes” may have been deleted but the committee agrees that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is a golden thread running through the planning system and affirms that there should be a presumption for sustainable development, albeit in accordance with the development plan.  But how really do you operate a transitional period?  The presumption is there because of the global economic crisis and the desire to make Britain the destination of choice to establish and grow a business. Is it realistic to put that aspiration on hold while we update plans?”

Roger Hepher, Head of Planning and Regeneration, Savills: “Despite the dramatic headlines (once more), the Communities and Local Government Select Committee report on the NPPF actually starts by saying that most witnesses seemed content with the concept and approach of the NPPF, and agreed that reforms were needed, and that there is no need to rewrite the NPPF as a whole.

“The main concern of the Committee seems to be that too much weight is attached to economic growth and that other considerations are placed too far down the list; and that undesirable development might get through because sustainability is not precisely defined and because not enough emphasis is placed on the local plan.  None of this is particularly surprising.

“We will have to wait and see how the Government responds, but I fear the likely result is redrafting which will have the effect of making the NPPF more ambiguous. If this happens, we will all be left struggling to work out the implications, and awaiting appeal decisions from Ministers in order to establish what the new groundrules really are.

“The Report concludes by recommending a further consultation on the technical aspects of the NPPF. I hope the Government will resist this. The draft has already been the subject of considerable consultation. What we need now is to move swiftly into the new policy environment, without more delay and yet more opportunity for interest groups to try to distort the process.”

Alison Eardley, Policy Manager for Action for Market Towns: “A lack of clear definition within the NPPF has been at the centre of debate for some months, and was raised in AMT’s response to the draft NPPF back in the Autumn.  AMT welcomes Greg Clark’s indication that he will ‘carefully consider’ a new definition of sustainable development produced by the committee.  We would urge the government to define sustainable development in terms of assessing proposed developments by weighing up their impacts on environment, population and economy equally in order to come to an informed and balanced decision.

“We need to ensure that unscrupulous developers cannot use presumption to avoid presenting plans that are well-constructed and abide by appropriate standards. We also must ensure that developers cannot just bamboozle a community into approving a plan that is against the community’s interests.  The planning process should become more, and not less, democratic.

“We also welcome the reinstatement of a reference to the effect that any new development should be guided by the principles of ‘brownfield first’ and ‘town centre first’ and that new provisions for communities to secure ‘absolute protection’ of town centres from out-of-town development be added.”

British Council for Shopping Centres Executive Director Edward Cooke welcomed the report’s recommendations to strengthen the town centres first mechanism in the NPPF, arguing that thriving city and town centres are vital for a prosperous economy, and that uncertainty in the current wording could undo the Government’s central goal to streamlining the system. He said: “The Government is right to reform the planning system, but without a strengthened town centre first policy the argument about development would simply shift from the planning committees to the courts. This would only further delay the town centre regeneration that will play a huge role in delivering an economic recovery.

“As well as retail development, the committee’s recommendation to include offices in the sequential test is significant. Both uses are vital to increasing footfall in town centres, enabling them to become hubs for sustainable economic growth. We are pleased the CLG committee has listened to us and come up with some sensible conclusions which the Government must take on board.”

Stewart Baseley, Executive Chairman of the Home Builders Federation: “Disappointingly the committee’s report appears to discount the seriousness of the housing crisis and the need for the planning system to tackle it. Indeed, a number of the Committee’s recommendations would risk creating additional barriers to housing delivery.

“The NPPF is not a recipe for unsustainable development. Under the proposals, local areas will have full power to determine the most suitable locations for new housing. But with this power comes responsibility and a duty to plan positively to meet their identified housing requirements.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) response: “Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark today welcomed a Select Committee report that showed people supported the concept of a streamlined planning system. The Committee concluded that “we can report that most witnesses to our inquiry were broadly content with the concept and approach of the NPPF in simplifying planning guidance and did not want a wholesale rewrite.” (p7)

In particular, the Committee considered that “it is reasonable and practical for the NPPF to have as an overarching principle a presumption in favour of sustainable development.” (p32)

And indeed that “if the final NPPF contains an agreed definition of sustainable development which is balanced and comprehensive, then the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ becomes a very constructive part of the Government’s wider environmental, social and economic agendas.” (p22)

The Committee helpfully provides its own suggested definition of sustainable development (p28) which it considers would achieve this purpose.

It is a definition that respects the core Brundtland definition but reflects the balance between economic, social and environmental dimensions. The Government will carefully consider the proposed approach.

Mr Clark said: “I warmly welcome the DCLG select committee’s constructive recommendations to the draft Framework consultation. I invited the Committee to make specific suggestions to the draft framework and am grateful for the practical and measured way they have approached the exercise.

“The Government will consider carefully each of the suggestions that have been made, along with all responses to the consultation. We are determined that the National Planning Policy Framework will put power into the hands of local people, through a simpler, clearer system, which safeguards our natural and historic environment while allowing the jobs and homes to be created that our country needs.”

Richard Summers, President of the Royal Town Planning Institute said: “We warmly welcome the Select Committee’s report which strongly endorses many of our views. Like the Committee, we believe that the planning reforms need a sensible transition period and that the language in the draft NPPF needs to be tightened up. We also believe that the Government should think about how best it can map its policies and programmes so the public can see how they will affect local communities. We agree with the Committee that there is still much to do to produce an NPPF that play an effective role in a workable planning system.”

Emmalene Gottwald, senior planning advisor at WWF-UK: “It’s a welcome relief to see that the Committee has taken such a pragmatic and constructive approach to its report on the inquiry into the draft NPPF. They haven’t shied away from really investigating the tough issues and providing strong recommendations to Government on how to amend and improve the NPPF so that it provides a clear, balanced framework.

“They’re absolutely right about the need to better define what ‘sustainable development’ is and to highlight that the planning system must address the environmental and social aspects of development as well as the economic ones. We are pleased that the Committee has recognised the role the planning system has to play in achieving long term economic prosperity for Britain, where all aspects of sustainable development are treated equally and not traded off against each other.

“We welcome the recommendation to remove the ‘default yes’ for development, as it did run the risk of unchecked, poorly planned development that would harm the natural environment and local communities for many generations to come. Hopefully we can all now resolve in the New Year to agree a planning framework that suits everyone.”

Head of Planning at Colliers International, Anthony Aitken: “Due to the substantive comment on the draft NPPF earlier in 2011 it’s of little surprise that politicians and various Committees are expressing their views on the shape, form and content of the forthcoming NPPF, ahead of its publication, early in 2012. In a period of economic strife, with housebuilding at the lowest levels since the 1920’s and retailers struggling, one way in which an economic stimulus could be created is via new development and the wide reaching and beneficial consequences (e,g. job creation), it delivers to an economy. There should be no reward for local authorities who fail to plan for future growth and who fail to keep up to date development plans. Planning has always dealt with the balance between development and protection of the countryside since 1947 and there is no reason to doubt that this balance can continue to be struck going forward.”

Adam Marshall, Director of Policy at the British Chambers of Commerce: “Businesses have long called for greater speed, clarity and certainty in the planning system. The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set forward a planning regime that balanced economic growth with environmental concerns. Suggestions by the committee that the draft needs significantly altering, including the removal of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, risk the ability of businesses up and down the country to grow, and help our economy to recover.

“The debate on planning reform has to be based on common sense, not the predictable responses of a few opponents. The current system has developed into an overly complex, costly, uncertain and time-consuming process that discourages investment. The Communities and Local Government Select Committee has failed to recognise the extent to which the planning system is a constraint on economic growth. We all want to protect areas of the countryside, but business’s experience of planning on even the most modest developments shows that the system, and its bureaucracy, is a serious brake on economic growth, prosperity and jobs.

“Further consultation will just result in greater delays when reform is needed now. The government has made commitments to both simplifying the planning system, and helping businesses to grow. The two go hand in hand, and we urge ministers to hold fast on both by delivering a planning system that helps not hinders business growth.”

Kate Henderson, Town and Country Planning Association chief executive: “We are pleased to see that the Communities and Local Government Select Committee has made a number of recommendations around central TCPA concerns on the draft NPPF, such as the definition of sustainable development, transitional arrangements and the vulnerability to litigation from imprecise language.”

“Sustainable development must be at the heart of the planning system and a principled and measured definition, such as that contained within the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy, is pivotal to delivering the kind of inclusive, attractive and resilient communities we want to see both now and in the future. We hope that the Government takes on board the Committee’s recommendations to form the basis of a positive planning framework for England.”

Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation: “This report and much of the rhetoric surrounding the NPPF exposes the vast disparity of views when interpreting the framework. Ministers must stand up and be counted and explain exactly what certain sections of the NPPF will mean in practice.

“Many of the committee’s findings we have long supported, such as the reintroduction of a brownfield first policy. The commercial property industry, by-and-large, already develops on previously used land in town and city centres.

“We could support the committee’s definition of sustainable development and re-worded ‘presumption in favour’ as long as local authorities were compelled to produce a local plan. As it stands, only 47% of local authorities have got around to producing one and the committee’s suggestion risks a complete development hiatus in the remaining 53% of areas.

“To some extent, much of the debate around the different definitions of sustainable development and the obsession with the length of the NPPF itself misses the point that the new system will only succeed if all local authorities have a robust local plan.”

Cllr David Parsons, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Environment and Housing Board: “The CLG Select Committee report strongly endorses many of the views of the Local Government Association regarding the Government’s planning changes, which is positive.

“Allowing councils to balance the economic, social and environment benefits from new developments is something the LGA has long called for. They have come down strongly in favour of ensuring that this is a reality.

“The LGA also been clear that local people should be able to decide what developments they wish for through their Local Plans. The report raised concerns that the proposed ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ may undermine the importance of these. We support calls for clarity to ensure that Local Plans continue to determine what developments occur in neighbourhoods.

“It is promising that the report calls on the Government to establish a timetable for implementing Local Plans. By the day more and more councils are putting these together but some delays were inevitable due to the bureaucratic approval process of the Planning Inspectorate. The LGA agrees that the Inspectorate should be given the resources they need to process the Local Plans to avoid any future delays.”

Friends of the Earth’s Planning Advisor Naomi Luhde-Thompson: “The Committee is right that we need a planning system which means we live within our planet’s limits, tackles climate change and protects local plans for development which are already on the table.

“Local people must always have their voices heard when it comes to planning decisions, rather than developers having ever more new superstores, roads and shopping centres waved through regardless of people’s views.

“The Government should accept the Committee’s proposals and make sure the planning system is a level playing field, not rigged in favour of developers.”

“The principle of sustainable development must be properly defined – rather than a planning free for all we need support for new green industries and infrastructure, affordable homes and protection for the environment.”

Tony Burton, Civic Voice Director: “There has been widespread concern about the Government’s planning reforms which would bias decisions and put everyday England at risk. This Select Committee report should be heeded by the Government to take the heat out of the controversy over planning reforms and bring sensible improvements to planning policy.”

Simon Marsh, RSPB Head of Planning Policy: “This report delivers a healthy dose of common sense when it comes to planning reform. It is clear to anyone who cares about our natural environment that the Government’s plans are too biased in favour of development.  This report recognises this and reflects the concerns many people have raised over the draft policy’s presumption in favour of sustainable development.

“A particular sentence in the NPPF that has caused much concern is one which recommends that the default answer to development is ‘yes’. The committee has called for this to be removed. This is exactly what we, and others, have been saying for months, but now it is clear that it’s not just ‘scaremongering’ conservation groups kicking up a fuss about nothing.

“The ball is now firmly in the Government’s court to publish a revised NPPF that meets the concerns of MPs, environmental groups and the thousands of members of the public who wrote in to make their views known. One thing we would also urge the Government to consider is a strong and explicit reference to the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which in the current document are under threat from damaging development.”

Mary Portas – The self-styled ‘Queen of Shops’ made headlines when she was appointed the government’s ‘High Street Tsar’ back in May. Announcing the appointment Prime Minister David Cameron said Portas’ “straight talking, no nonsense approach” would help create vibrant and diverse town centres.

“The high street should be at the very heart of every community, bringing people together, providing essential services and creating jobs and investment; so it is vital that we do all that we can to ensure they thrive,” he said. Portas’ review was published earlier this month to a mixed response.

National Trust director general Dame Fiona Reynolds – The government got more than it bargained for when the National Trust mobilised its considerable forces against the draft National Planning Policy Framework in July. Central to the campaign was the National Trust director-general Dame Fiona Reynolds. Reynolds’ comments that the NPPF could lead to “unchecked and damaging development in the undesignated countryside on a scale not seen since the 1930s” ignited a powder keg of protest across middle England and led to planning minister Bob Neill saying the campaign against the framework was a “carefully choreographed smear campaign by left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups”. Reynolds’ campaign was backed by the Daily Telegraph which launched its ‘Hands off Our Land’ campaign against the NPPF.

Planning and decentralisation minister Greg Clark MP – While the planning minister was by no means unheard of at the start of 2011, the year saw Clark rise to challenge of defending his draft national planning policy framework from attacks from all directions and seeing the successful passage of the Localism Act through Parliament. Unlike some of his DCLG colleagues, Clark’s handling of the NPPF row was mostly calm, considered and good-humoured, gaining him respect, even from those who disagreed strongly with his position. The planning minister leaves 2011 in a strong position.

Policy Exchange senior research fellow Alex Morton – Morton ruffled more than a few feathers in the planning world this year with his controversial right-of-centre suggestions on planning reforms. In March, a report authored by Morton urged changes to planning rules to allow vacant commercial units to be turned into housing without the need for planning permission”. Morton said councils were holding back the conversion of vacant and under-used urban space into housing and relaxing the planning rules to make it easier to convert commercial property would encourage investment, increase regeneration and create large numbers of jobs. The government announced a review of the use class system shortly after. Writing in Planning again in March, Morton argued that the Prime Minister’s criticisms of planning were “correct and should be used to catalyse change in our bureaucratic system”, while in June he argued that government “must use the new national planning policy framework to move away from development planning by councils”. Planning’s letters page saw a surge in activity.

Basildon Council leader Tony Ball – Ball had a busy year as tensions around the illegal Dale Farm traveller site escalated. Ball’s indefatigable line in his numerous live TV news interviews that the issue was purely a planning matter about an illegal development on green belt land and not about racial intolerance gained him as many admirers as critics. In the end, after countless legal challenges, last minute surprises and many millions of pounds of tax payers’ money, the council won the day and the site was finally cleared in October.

Shadow housing minister Jack Dromey MP – The shadow housing minister started the year leading Labour’s scrutiny of the Localism Bill as it edged its way through the committee process. Dromey’s grasp of planning and housing was demonstrated in his regular press statements haranguing the coalition, in particular the housing minister Grant Shapps, whilst defending the previous government’s record on housing delivery and regeneration. Following his appointment to Labour leader Ed Miliband’s shadow team in October, Dromey revealed his old Labour roots pledging a “decent home for all at a price everyone can afford”.

RTPI president Richard Summers – The RTPI may not always be known for being outspoken against government policies but this year’s present Richard Summers has been an, at times, outspoken critic of the government’s planning reforms. Following the Budget in March, Summers slammed government proposals to ensure that the default answer to development is ‘yes’. In a statement Summers said: “If sweeping changes announced to the planning system result in the default position being ‘yes’ to development then there is real danger that within a decade we will end up with an England of tin sheds, Lego land housing and US-style shopping malls. “Where will the incentive be in the future for developers to address issues such as climate change, environmental protection, design quality and affordable housing, if they know that the Government has tied the hands of local councillors who will be required to nod through most development projects? This could mean developers building what they like, where they like, and when they like. It’s a policy that finally buries localism.” Later in the year Summers launched a campaign to “dispel planning myths” in response to what the RTPI described as “a great deal of recent misinformation and misunderstanding about planning”. Days later the government launched its own ‘myth busting’ document to tackle criticism of the NPPF.

Planner, walker and blogger Tim Stansfeld – Planning’s latest blogger made a name for himself in July when a walked the length of the proposed high-speed rail route between London and Birmingham. Writing exclusively in Planning in August Stansfeld reflected on his journey: “Why did I do it?…well, I was looking for a new challenge after being made redundant, and writing about High Speed 2 (HS2) from the perspective of a pedestrian seemed perfect. Oh, and nobody else appeared to be doing it.”

Later adventures for his regular ‘On the Ground’ blog saw Stansfeld visit Rochester, Margate and Southampton. He is putting his feet up over the Christmas period.

Chancellor George Osborne - With an economy in the doldrums, Osborne looked for new ways to unleash the slumbering ‘forces of enterprise’ and, unsurprisingly, targeted the planning system. In his March budget speech Osborne echoed the Prime Minister’s ‘enemies of enterprise’ comments saying the planning system was a “chronic obstacle to growth”. Planning reappeared again in his autumn statement in which he announced a second wave of planning reforms scheduled for next spring. “We need to go further to remove the lengthy delays and high costs of the current system, with new time limits on applications and new responsibilities for statutory consultees”, he said.

John Rhodes, director, Quod – Last year, John Rhodes made waves in the planning sector when he traded in a nine-year career running multidisciplinary consultancy RPS’s London planning office to set up Quod, his own firm based in the capital. But it was 2011 that saw Rhodes really make his mark on the planning sector. He was a member of the practitioners advisory group that drafted a suggested version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for the government. He later appeared in several Daily Telegraph articles, described as the man “who helped write the draft NPPF” and was called to give evidence before the communities and local government select committee. Rhodes’ consultancy, Quod, also went from strength to strength in 2011, acquiring regeneration consultancy Hunt Dobson Stringer in April.

Have we missed anyone? Make your suggestions below.

Boroughs fire warning over Crossrail CIL…

Earlier this month, a public examination of London mayor Boris Johnson’s plans to raise £300 million towards the cost of Crossrail through a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) closed. At the public examination, boroughs warned that the mayor’s proposed levy could stymie regeneration schemes in parts of the capital and hit developer contributions for affordable housing. Johnson wants to raise £300 million towards the cost of Crossrail by requiring councils to set a charge on new development in their areas. He has set out proposed charges for the levy, splitting boroughs into three groups.

But at the public examination into the proposed levy representatives from London boroughs warned that it could hit developer contributions for affordable housing. They say that, as the mayor’s levy is the first call on developer contributions, boroughs could struggle to raise enough cash through their own CIL charges and section 106 (S106) planning deals to make schemes in their areas viable. S106 contributions for affordable housing could be squeezed as a result, boroughs warn.

At the examination, north London councils opposed the mayor’s plans to impose a flat CIL charge on each borough, saying that some boroughs, such as Haringey, have large variations in residential values. Stephen Knight, deputy director of sub-regional partnership the North London Strategic Alliance, said: “There’s a huge difference between Highgate and Tottenham. A charge of £35 per square metre is a heck of a lot of money somewhere like Tottenham.”

Faraz Baber, executive director for policy at business group London First, said: “London First supports Crossrail and the funding package. But the approach that has been adopted could dissuade development from coming forward in some parts of London.”

The examiner is expected to report at the beginning of 2012.

Government mulls changes to levy rules…

Today’s issue of Planning reveals that the government is considering calls for the regulations governing CIL to be amended to ensure that developers do not face unanticipated liabilities should they seek to change the conditions of their planning permissions. This follows lobbying by the London mayor’s office, business group London First and lobby groups the British Property Federation and Home Builders Federation, who are concerned about the implications of the current CIL regulations for developers seeking to use section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to amend schemes that already have permission.

More charging schedules published…

Torbay District Council has published a preliminary draft charging schedule setting out its emerging CIL plans. The council has divided its levy into three zones – town centres, out of town centres and out of built-up areas. Charges for town centre development will be levied at a nil rate, except for housing, in an attempt to direct commercial and retail development to the town centres of Brixham, Paignton and Torquay. Charges for residential development for all three zones will be £100 per square metre.

In the two non-town centre zones, food and drink development will be charged at £100 per square metre, retail warehousing and “bulky” retail will be charged at £300 per square metre and convenience retail with floorspace over 300sq metres charged at £150 per square metre. Smaller retail will only face a charge – £150 per square metre – in areas outside of built-up areas. All other types of development will face no charges in any of the zones. The consultation closes on 6 February 2012.

Havant Borough Council has also published a preliminary draft charging schedule. It proposes charges of between £84 and £105 per square metre of residential development and charges of up to £84 per square metre for out of town retail development. Town centre retail development will not have to pay the tariff. The consultation closes on 20 January 2012.

Viability concerns prompt councils to reduce proposed levy rates…

A group of councils in Norfolk are considering plans to fix CIL charges a lower rate than they initially intended. Three local authorities – Norwich City Council and South Norfolk and Broadland district councils – are working together to draw up plans for introducing a CIL.

The authorities’ preliminary draft charging schedules, published for consultation in October, had recommended charges of up to £160 per square metre of residential floorspace in Norwich and areas closest to the city, meaning that developers would have had to pay a levy of around £15,000 per property. But a meeting of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership board has been asked to recommend to its three constituent authorities that the levy is set at up to £115 per square metre of residential floorspace, meaning that developers would be asked to pay a charge of around £11,000 per property.

Contract wins for Roger Tym and CIL Knowledge…

The final CIL Watch update of 2011 concludes with news of contract wins for consultancies Roger Tym and Partners and the CIL Knowledge Partnership.

Roger Tym & Partners have been contracted by Fareham Borough Council, the London Borough of Sutton and Chelmsford Borough Council to undertake CIL viability studies and provide ongoing support.

The CIL Knowledge Partnership has been appointed by Bracknell Forest Council to deliver a CIL viability study and undertake an infrastructure healthcheck and support CIL rate setting. It has also been appointed by Bath and North East Somerset Council to deliver a CIL viability study and support the rate setting process.

Please send your CIL news to jamie.carpenter@haymarket.com

Follow Jamie on Twitter at @J_J_Carpenter

UPDATE The Planning Officers Society has issued its response to the review. On the plans to introduce secretary of state “exceptional sign off” for all new out-of-town developments and require all large new developments to have an “affordable shops” quota, spokesman John Silvester said: “The secretary of state already has intervention powers if they choose to use them; what would be wrong, in my view, is a blanket approach to requiring the SoS to determine all such proposals. Such powers need to be used as and when appropriate.” The full POS response is available here.

Bob Robinson, Chairman, DPP said: “The vision underpinning Mary Portas’ review is spot on. The core issue she recognises is that town centres can’t operate as they were 20 years ago; retailers and customers’ expectations have moved on and reinvention and differentiation is important. Simply stopping all out of centre development, which is popular with customers, is not the solution and would do nothing to stem the trend to on-line retailing which is perhaps the real threat to traditional town centres.

“It is the detail of the Review however that lets it down. It also demonstrates a lack of market understanding on Ms Portas’ behalf. Whilst the concept of ‘town teams’ is a good one in principle, town centre property is of course under disparate ownerships, with all landlords having different priorities. Whilst local landlords may be amendable to the co-operative approach she proposes within this wider town team idea, the larger funds have a mandate to maximise the returns for their investors, so the suggestion of letting their stores in centres to independent retailers at below market rents is fundamentally misguided as an idea unless they are also to benefit financially from an uplift in the wider centre.

“Her proposals for specific neighbourhood plans for town centres also suggest limited knowledge of the recently approved Localism Act 2011 which restricts duplication of such plans within any defined area. Her suggestion that the Secretary of State ought to have the final say on approval of planning applications for out of centre retail development also runs contrary this Act and would tend to reinforce the ‘one size fits all’ approach that Ms Portas reportedly sees as part of the problem.

“This report is strong in terms of vision, which is where Mary Portas’ strengths lie. However, much more consideration of how this vision is to be carried forward in practice is needed.”

Chris Goddard, senior director and head of planning development and regeneration at GVA, said: “The report does nothing to address the viability issues which face town centre developments, and a strengthening of the wording of the NPPF misses the real issue. Government needs to respond with a workable solution that can unlock the town and city centre pipeline in order to provide retailers with the right kind of space.”

“The recommendation for the secretary of state’s ‘exceptional sign off’ for out of town development appears on the face of it to go against the presumption in favour of development in the draft NPPF, and does nothing to tackle the reasons why town centre retail led schemes are stalling.”

Adam Pyrke, Head of Retail Planning at Colliers International commented: “Many of our town centres are unsuited to modern retailer requirements.  Shops are simply too small.  All too often it is not possible to create larger units because of the strength of the conservation lobby.  Unless there is a more commercial approach to reconfiguring shop sizes in our town centres, they will continue to struggle to fight out of centre competition.

“In order to have a chance of competing against retail channels such as internet and shopping channels, our town centres have to offer something different.  Certainly the regulatory and tax climate needs to be eased to relax the burden on shopkeepers, and convenient and cheap parking needs to be made available, but this in itself is unlikely to allow town centres to compete effectively.  Instead they need to build upon their strengths and turn themselves into desirable places to visit for social purposes and not just shopping destinations.

“It is important to understand that not all town centres fulfil the same function or serve a similar local market.  Larger centres provide a broader choice and serve a much larger geographic region, with people from further away perhaps visiting on a less regular basis.  In between they visit local and smaller town centre offering a lesser range of goods, and more focus towards meeting day-to-day shopping needs.  In response to rising costs, retailers are reducing the number of outlets they have which means whereas in the past they may have been represented in both the larger and smaller centres, in the future they will only have a presence in the larger ones.  Whilst this will suit our major shopping destinations, it is a challenge for our smaller towns to address.

“It is essential to understand the function which a town centre does, and potentially can, fulfil in devising a strategy for its future development.  Colliers International has advised on town centres as diverse as Twickenham, Scunthorpe, Paisley and Welwyn Garden City through its Colliers Catalyst service looking to marry together specialist expertise on retailing and retailers with our destination consulting experience in order to devise strategies which allow centres to create a distinct character and thereby distinguish themselves from other centres.   Every centre is different and the appropriate strategy needs to understand and build on this.  Whilst Mary places emphasis on markets, which is one of the means of doing this, it is important not to overlook simply providing the right size unit to meet local demand.”

Mark Williams, Senior Director in DTZ’s UK and continental shopping centre investment team and executive board member of the BCSC (British Council of Shopping Centres) said: “It is especially pleasing that Mary Portas has recognised the need to support Local Authorities in forcing owners of town centre assets that are failing to meet the needs of the community to either invest in them to make them desirable shopping destinations or sell them on to another owner who is prepared to do so.

“Owners unable to invest because they do not have the funds should not be allowed to sit on their investment and do nothing as this is contributing to the problems town centre developments are facing. For the good of the high street, the message to owners has to be ‘move forwards or move out’. Local Authorities have the powers through the Compulsory Purchase Order process to do this, and the solvent private sector is supportive.”

Peter Box, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Economy and Transport Board said: “Councils have long recognised that our high streets need an urgent revamp, which is why the Local Government Association called for councils to have the power to take over empty shops and use them to provide services such as training centres, libraries or youth clubs, while tenants were found. Councils are keen to shape town centres as social and community, as well as vibrant shopping hubs.

“While some of the report’s recommendations are positive, such as an increased role for businesses and cracking down on the number of new betting shops, the LGA is extremely concerned that removing regulations around market stalls will result in rogue traders taking advantage of cash strapped families and flooding the market with dangerous and counterfeit goods.

“Councils play a crucial role in growing local economies and improving high streets, and need to be suitably consulted if they are to achieve this. The LGA wants to ensure that any decisions take on board the knowledge of councils, protect their ability to respond to local circumstances, and target the anti-social behaviour, such as littering, metal theft and graffiti which is too often seen on our high streets.”

Beth Struthers from BNP Paribas Real Estate retail team said: “The Town Team concept is a good one and should work similar to a Tenant’s Association in a shopping centre, but who will pay for this? The Government? Local Authorities? Landlords? Retailers? This needs more careful thought.”

“It is essential to ease the business rates burden for small and independent traders to encourage investment. However, Local Authorities should also provide a better service in assisting small retailers if they are paying Rates. We agree that Local Authorities should use their discretionary powers to give business rate concessions to new local businesses. But we must also get rid of the red tape and simplify the process to speed up such concessions.’

“High town centre parking charges do need addressing but so do the ease of access and in town congestion which also dissuades people from going to town in the first place.”

Darina Kerr, partner with national law firm Dundas & Wilson said: “Mary Portas has identified that High Streets must be “vibrant places that people choose to visit. They must be destinations.”

“In that one comment she has struck the nail on the head. The only problem is that this nail may the final nail in the coffin for Britain’s High Streets.

“Shopping habits have changed. This Christmas, canny consumers are asking not only “can I buy this?” but “can I buy this cheaper online?” For many, the High Street is not an option. Too expensive. Not convenient. And, as storms batter Britain this Christmas, wouldn’t you want to shop somewhere indoors which is safe and dry and warm?

“Today, the High Street must compete with shopping centres and out-of-town retail. But are Mary’s recommendations the solution to the High Street problems or an attempt to mimic ideas we already know?”

Peter Drummond, British Council of Shopping Centres president and chief executive at architects BDP said: “Mary Portas’ review has pushed the key issue of our town centres into the limelight. BCSC is committed to keeping the momentum and excitement surrounding the report going into 2012, and the delivery of Mary’s recommendations should now be a key priority for Government. We must not let our town centres fail, but they also need to move with the times.

“As Mary said this morning, each town centre needs to find its niche and become a destination that people have a reason to visit. This means full partnership from all stakeholders in a community, including businesses, local authorities and crucially, customers themselves.

“A strong commitment to town centres in the planning system is vital so that investment is delivered to the heart of communities, and we’re delighted to see our own position on the NPPF mirrored in the report.

“An aspiration that more schemes not in accordance with local plans – and which may harm a town centre – are effectively ‘called in’ by the Secretary of State could be part of a solution, but we believe that the heart of the matter lies in proper social, environmental and economic assessments of any project’s impact, based on a robust town centres first mechanism.”

The British Property Federation has questioned the wisdom of giving the secretary of state “exceptional sign off” for new out-of-town schemes, and for all new developments to have an “affordable shops” quota.

BPF chief executive Liz Peace said: “We have to acknowledge that out of town shopping has some impact on trade in our town centres. As a society, however, we also want retail goods that are cheap and a sector that is efficient. Town Centre First is therefore supported in our sector as something which helps to guide that balance.

“However, for independent retailers to thrive they must be places where people wish to shop. Forcing landlords to offer reduced rent through affordable units is a sticking plaster over a much deeper problem. We will look at the tweaks Mary Portas is suggesting and will do so with an open mind, keen to support town centres, but also to protect UK retail competitiveness.”

Graeme Willis, senior rural policy campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), says: “We welcome this report, which gives the government a perfect opportunity to make improvements to its proposed changes to planning policy.

“Portas makes it clear that it is not good enough to take a ‘laissez-faire’ approach to planning if we want to achieve the right kind of economic growth. This approach will lead to more out of town mega stores and supermarkets that suck the life out of town centres.”

Ian Wilson, National Trust head of government affairs, said: “In her independent review into the future of our high streets, Mary Portas makes 28 good recommendations that would help to reinvigorate our high streets.

“Mary has taken a common sense approach and it’s refreshing to see her direct references to the importance of community involvement and neighbourhood planning in ensuring our high streets do have a future.

“We particularly welcome her recommendation that there should be an explicit presumption in favour of town centre development in the wording of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive of business group London First, said: “Recognising that high streets need to adapt to meet changing customer expectations is a good step forward. One size does not fit all and for high streets to thrive alongside out of town and online offerings they need strong management at the local level and a good mix of uses. Providing greater planning flexibility and releasing units where there is over-provision will increase vibrancy and create demand for those shops that remain.”

Action for Market Towns chief executive Chris Wade said: “AMT welcomes the Portas review and is delighted to see that so many of the ideas that we submitted to support the development of more prosperous and diverse high streets have been included in Mary’s recommendations.

“The report recognises the unique importance to communities of town centres – and the need to intervene and re-invent them for the 21st Century. Its rhetoric about learning from, rather than blaming, multiple retailers is realistic and we are pleased to read of the recommendation for a more level playing field through planning regulations – which AMT has long called on the Government to adapt.”

Paul Jayson, a partner at law firm DLA Piper, said: “Of the 30 or so recommendations, at least half involve overhaul or changes in the law to facilitate. To some degree, this supports what is already happening with the Localism Act which is aimed at empowering communities. The review calls for a relaxation of use classes which would enable the high street to be more nimble footed and react quicker to changes in customer demand.

“Out of town shopping centres have always had the advantage of being acquired, zoned and developed by a single owner acting from a position of strength alongside a local authority. The high street, in contrast, is invariably in multiple ownership, fracturing common decision making. This reduces bargaining power against a local planning authority and builds in delay and diversity of interests and points of view. The review is keen to both hamper out of town developments and to innovate “Town Teams” to artificially create a more homogenous management team to compete with those in place in shopping centres.”

Dr Neil Bentley, CBI Deputy Director-General, said: “The Portas Review makes some sensible suggestions about how we can inject life back into town centres, including increased use of Business Improvement Districts and relaxing planning restrictions on the high street, in particular on change of use.

“More importantly, she recognises the growing burden business rates are placing on companies right across the country at a critical time.

“We need to make sure the UK remains attractive to investors, as it’s their decisions that will ultimately lead to regeneration of our town centres. Any changes to the planning and business rate regimes must therefore encourage investment in the broadest sense, and not just rob Peter to pay Paul.”

(Picture by Department for Business, Innovation and Skills)