Robbie Calvert is the RTPI's Head of Policy and Public Affairs
The long enduring, consistent and stable hand of a planning system is something which I believe can provide immense benefit to society. We are one of the few professions that simultaneously gazes deep into the future, has to be acutely aware of the issues in the present, but also recognises the deep and irretractable connection with political and social history. The recent parliamentary debate around the Planning and Infrastructure Bill at its second reading really encapsulated this. The persisting, perennial and perpetual nature of the planning system and some key societal issues it aims to address once again bellowed through the House of Commons.
I think it’s very clear that the incumbent Government is trying to relight the spirit of growth and ambition of a post-war Britain, aspirations of which were instigated and embodied through the Town and Country Planning Act 1945. And forecasts have suggested that recent NPPF reforms may be supporting this, with the OBR concluding that £6.8bn worth of GDP could be gained by 2029/30 (although with serious and sustained investment we believe this can be a lot more). Securing high-quality developments that are located in sustainable locations forms the bedrock of future economic prosperity for places, but an easier and more immediate quantification of the value of a planning system is the use of planning obligations.
Planning obligations are used to mitigate the impact of developments through securing contributions towards infrastructure, affordable housing and other public benefits. They are the most common and recognisable approach in this country of a recurring and entrenched planning issue known as land value capture. Land value capture encompasses methods of capturing increases in land value derived from the grant of planning permission or from public infrastructure investment, for the public good.
Reasserting the historically entangled and path dependent nature of the planning system, at the Common’s debate there was reference to Winston Churchill in relation to the parliamentarian wishing to see improvements brought into the planning system to better capture land value for the public good. The reference was made in relation to one of his important but less famous quotes:
The RTPI has recently responded to the Housing, Communities and Local Government inquiry relating to land value capture, where we provided some tangible and pragmatic means of refining our current CIL/S106 planning obligations system in England to better serve the public good.
For example, the current CIL/S106 regimes seems to have been more successfully targeted at residential development proposals. So could there be benefit from careful exploration of how to better engage a broader range of development types under the S106 and/or CIL regime, such as purpose-built student housing, large retail and warehousing? And what opportunities can be gained through the expanded role of Mayoral CIL/Strategic Infrastructure Tariffs through the emerging Strategic Development Strategies and the devolution agenda?
The success of approaches to land value capture has varied markedly across the country. Areas of high land value and strong market demand have been more successful, but variation in approaches to planning obligation policy and practice across local authorities in comparable market conditions has also been highlighted in research. CIL/S106 negotiations can add significant delay and complexity to the planning process, particularly with regards to development viability which can be dependent on a range of factors including construction costs and additional policy asks. This has manifested as a significant resource burden for planning authorities which is alarming given the deep and sustained resourcing cuts experienced by planning departments in recent years.
So where next with land value capture and planning obligations? Fundamentally the RTPI believes that a wholesale reform at this current time could hinder the ability of the private sector to meet the Government’s ambitious housing targets. Focus, instead, should be centred on reform of CIL/S106 regimes to make them simpler and more flexible and, most importantly, the preparation and implementation of a resource plan to ensure local authorities have what they need to make this system work effectively.
