RTPI’s response to MHCLG’s Planning Reform Working Paper: Reforming Site Thresholds

The RTPI champions the power of planning in creating prosperous places and vibrant communities. As learned society, we use our expertise and research to bring evidence and thought leadership to shape planning policies and thinking. As a professional body, we have over 27,000 members across all sectors, and are responsible for setting formal standards for planning practice and education.

1. Would a medium-sized site threshold help reduce barriers and accelerate delivery for SMEs, if linked to the proposed changes to regulatory requirements set out in the working paper?

The RTPI is broadly supportive of a medium-sized site threshold. If carefully thought through, such proposals could potentially reduce barriers and accelerate delivery for SMEs alongside a wider range of stakeholders, including volume housebuilders. However this very much depends on the nature and implementation of the streamlining proposals, which would have to bring about genuine efficiencies. If such efficiencies were not to be achieved, proposals could instead create a more complex and resource intensive system.

There is a careful balancing act between the need to support SMEs and deliver housing quickly whilst ensuring the continual promotion of quality placemaking and support for nature recovery. Therefore, a full analysis of the ramifications of a simplified BNG metric, exemptions from the proposed Building Safety Levy and streamlining of the role of statutory consultee involvement would be welcomed. The proposals may have a varied effect across the country, being particularly significant for rural local authorities where developments coming through in this threshold would represent a substantial part of the authorities’ housing land supply. As set out in response to the build-out technical consultation, if medium-sized developments are to be exempt from the build-out measures, there may be issues relating to establishing accurately an LPA’s 5 year housing land supply (5YHLS).

2. Should the threshold be 10–49 units, or could other size ranges provide a better balance of simplicity and impact?

Whilst the RTPI appreciates that the specific size proposal for a threshold is to some degree arbitrary, we believe this is an appropriate starting point. Further changes to the size of the threshold can be made if deemed necessary in the future. The suitability of the initial size threshold will be reliant on a clear and defined set of proposals for exemptions and streamlining in this threshold. For example, if this threshold were to be delegated entirely to officers for determination, planning committees in rural authorities may have very few applications to determine.

3. Should the medium threshold apply to commercial and other non-residential development and how should mixed uses be reflected?

As set out in response to Q2, the appropriateness of a threshold would hinge on the nature of the streamlining of proposals. The RTPI recognises that support for SME housebuilders is the main thrust of the proposals, however, we would advocate for a fuller understanding of the role of SME construction companies in delivering economic development proposals. Fundamentally if such a change was deemed appropriate, the proposed reform of plan making would need to refine the process by which an economic development land requirement is calculated and sites allocated to better reflect a range of size and use need.

4. If the medium-sized site threshold were introduced, should the exemption from paying the proposed Building Safety Levy for fewer than 10 dwellings be extended to align with medium-sized development sites?

An understanding of what the ramifications are for the intended purpose of the Building Safety Levy, that is the pace of remediation works on unsafe buildings, would be beneficial. We are unclear how such proposals would fit with the Government’s intentions to review the levy every 3 years.

5. Should there be solely area-based size thresholds (ha) given the different contexts and densities, particularly for very small, small and medium-sized sites? Or would it be more appropriate to also specify a unit size threshold?

To some degree this depends on whether economic development land is also subject to the reclassification. The consultation alludes to issues relating to brownfield passports proposals which are expected to be brought through in the emerging NDMPs. If higher densities are mandated then many developments could be outside of the unit size threshold, potentially disincentivising denser development on previously developed land on urban infill plots.

6. Are the proposed streamlining options the right ones for government to consider?

It is unclear what other streamlining options have been considered by government. Around validation, a balance is needed struck in streamlining validation requirements between supplying proportionate amount of information and having an adequate amount of information to efficiently determine the application.

7. Are there further changes that could and should be linked to new or existing thresholds? Are there wider changes that could be made through national planning policy that would be beneficial?

We note the interrelated nature of current and emerging planning reform proposals, which will require careful consideration from the Government. This includes emerging proposals for brownfield passports, as dealt with in the next question, but also around reforms to build-out rates, BnG and planning committees.

8. Is the planning application process for small sites more challenging on brownfield land than greenfield land? If so, then what are these challenges or barriers?

The obstacles to deliver on brownfield land are often multifaceted and interconnected and can manifest before and after planning consent has been granted. This can, for example, be related to land assemblage, off-site highway works, remediation, decision-making timescales, funding issues, construction costs and viability and infrastructure delivery. Such complexity and associated risk can prove particularly problematic for SME housebuilders.

9. Are the determination periods detailed in this working paper the correct ones? Would shorter determination periods be appropriate for a particular site size once wider reforms to planning fees have been implemented - including those set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Whilst the reinvestment of fee income provision set within the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is greatly welcomed, it is countering years of disinvestment in planning services. Therefore it is unlikely to drive wholesale performance improvements in planning services in the short to medium term. This is especially important to consider as many LPAs are experiencing severe issues relating to recruitment, which additional capital alone will not fix. The RTPI is particularly concerned that recent Government funding announcements mean that from January 2026, applicants for the L7 apprenticeship must be aged 16-21 to receive Government funding for a L7 course. This will dramatically affect our apprenticeship route, as nearly 100% of our apprentices since 2019 have been over 21 at the point of entry onto the course. This change to funding puts at risk a pipeline of around 200 apprentices a year, equating to approximately 30% of our current planning workforce pipeline.

It is also unclear how the proposals for a new threshold size of application could impact upon fee income. Therefore, any changes would need properly evaluating in terms of their impact upon the resources and performance of planning services.

It is important to acknowledge that the performance of the planning system as a whole is reliant on a wider array of actors beyond planning teams, especially internal specialist and statutory consultees. We support the new clause tabled by the Government in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to allow a surcharge in planning fees to cover to cost of engaging statutory consultees and await the impending consultation around the future role of statutory consultees in the planning process. 

10. What are the specific barriers SMEs face during s.106 agreements and what would be the most effective action for government to take, in line with its manifesto commitments on affordable housing?

The regulatory burden of agreeing, varying or removing s.106 agreements can be disproportionately high for SMEs. We are aware SME developers have encountered difficulties attracting Registered Providers to take on s.106 affordable homes, especially in small numbers of mixed tenure units, and particularly in remote locations.

A key barrier is the resourcing, capacity and skills available to LPAs dealing with s.106 agreements. The Local Authority Planning Capacity and Skills Survey 2023 from MHCLG identified specific resourcing issues relating to planning obligations, with local authorities reporting bottlenecks in the capacity of their legal teams and nearly half of authorities reporting CIL, s.106 and viability assessment as areas with significant skills gaps.

s.106 agreements should only be agreed if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The RTPI would welcome further guidance on how the statutory tests within the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 should be met to ensure that efficient use is made of legal capacity and that proportionality is fully applied in throughout the process.

11. What are the barriers to developing very small sites as defined above and what parameters could be helpfully addressed in a design code?

Whilst the RTPI does not consider this to be the most significant area delaying delivery, upfront design work could provide a framework for a slightly more streamlined assessment of very small sites at the development management stage. We note the GLA has published site codes for small sites, which could usefully inform such work, but note this is directed at the small sites inclusive of very small sites. Beyond the preparation of an updated National Model Design Code and the provision of template design codes, there is an important need to upskill planning workforces with 63% of planning authorities reporting a skills gap in masterplanning and design codes in the MCHLG Skills and Capacity 2023 research.

12. What types of rules set out in design codes would be most beneficial in unlocking development?

Clarity over how national Model Design Codes and emerging National Decision Making Policies (NDMPs) will be aligned would be welcomed.

13. Are there other issues or opportunities to consider for ensuring the success of these proposals?

Whilst the use of a medium category threshold for development may assist in delivery through the streamlining of proposals, a fuller appraisal of barriers experienced by SMEs will be necessary to improve their market share significantly. Matters relating to how SMEs obtain sites and leverage financing are of particular importance.

14. Do you anticipate any environmental impacts from these proposals that the government must consider under the Environmental Principles Policy Statement?

Depending on the nature of reform to the BnG process, mapped on to the proposed new thresholds, proposals may have significant impact upon the environment.

15. Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for you, or the group or business you represent and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

No comment.

Streamlining S106 Negotiations

Q1. The specific barriers facing SMEs in agreeing s.106 obligations – including availability of willing and suitable Registered Providers

Whilst acknowledging that there are ways to improve the way developer contributions are dealt with through the planning system, recent HBF work identifying that 17,000 Affordable homes are stalled due to lack of bid from Housing Association points to other structural issues relating to the Registered Providers and the affordable housing market^[1]. This is principally that of financial pressures, an increased focus on grant-funded development and a renewed emphasis on investment in existing stock.

See response to Q10 in the related working paper for further comment on this area.

Q2. What role national government should play in improving the process – including the merits of a standardised s.106 template for medium sites

The RTPI strongly supports the standardisation and provision of s.106 templates.

Q3. How the rules relating to suitable off-site provision and/or appropriate financial payment on sites below the medium site threshold might be reformed to more effectively support affordable housing delivery, where there is sufficient evidence that onsite delivery will not take place within a suitable timeframe and noting the government’s views that commuted sums should be a last resort given they push affordable housing delivery timescales into the future. In instances where commuted sums might be used as a last resort, we understand that local planning authorities and communities would want assurance that they are channelled as quickly as possible into affordable housing delivery. As such, we welcome accompanying views on what steps government could take to support this. To take two examples:

Q3.1 Would guidance for local planning authorities and developers on calculating commuted sum payments to ensure these reflect the value of onsite delivery be effective?

The RTPI believes that the use of offsite delivery or commuted sums needs to be guided by clear policies that ensure appropriate contributions are made and delivery occurs. To ensure the benefit of commuted sums are maximised, LPAs must adopt robust methods of calculation. The RTPI understands that across the country, the methods of calculation and their effectivenoff-siteess have been variable. Therefore in this regard, the provision of national guidance could bring benefit. Such guidance would have to be able to provide some flexibility to ensure realistic assumptions can be built into the calculation such as private and affordable values, land values and profit levels. The impending update of viability guidance from MHCLG provides an additional opportunity to improve this process.

Q3.2 Are there safeguards that can be put in place to ensure that local planning authorities do not accrue commuted sums where there is limited evidence of an authority’s deliverable pipeline opportunities in relation to affordable housing to ensure that commuted sums can be spent? If so, what would these be?

There is a clear and present issue in England in terms of local plan coverage with fewer than one third of local planning authorities having an up-to-date local plan in place. If an LPA does not have an up-to-date local plan, it may be unable to coordinate the appropriate amount of developer contributions and risk not delivering the new homes it needs in the right location to meet local demand. The Government has set out ambitious targets of reducing average time plan production time from 7 years to 30 months. However as highlighted in our commissioned research local plans can experience delays when adapting to changes in national planning policy, navigating contentious debates over housing numbers and land use or aligning plans with uncertain transport and other infrastructure investments.

Fundamentally, in order to improve local plan coverage, the Government needs to establish a clear resourcing and workforce strategy for local plan teams.  The provision to reinvest planning fee income, as set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, is aimed solely at development management teams and therefore will not address disinvestment in local plan teams, especially considering the financial difficulties currently being experienced across the country by local authorities. The RTPI recognises and welcomes the recently announced Local Plans Delivery Funding 2024/25 but wishes to see this superseded with significant and long-term multi-year funding arrangements. Furthermore, we are particularly concerned about the future workforce pipeline of policy planners. Future demand for policy planners is likely to increase with the impending establishment of an estimated 30-40 strategic authorities, strategic plan production will require 150-200 new planners across a range of experience levels. The creation of more development corporations, especially to support the government new towns agenda, will also require such skilled personnel. This expected increase in demand needs to be mapped back to issues relating to the intake of individuals into the profession especially relating to the Chartered Town Planner L7 Apprenticeship. The L7 apprenticeship is a vital route into our profession. Recent Government funding announcements mean that from January 2026, applicants must be aged 16-21 to receive Government funding for a L7 course. This will dramatically affect our apprenticeship route, as nearly 100% of our apprentices since 2019 have been over 21 at the point of entry onto the course. This change to funding puts at risk a pipeline of around 200 apprentices a year.

Alongside local plans, Infrastructure Funding Statements (IFS) annual reports are a key tool for local authorities to report spend on developer contributions, primarily from s.106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), on infrastructure projects. Therefore, the production of detailed and robust IFSs represents a safeguard measure to ensure that authorities have a deliverable pipeline of affordable housing alongside its associated infrastructure. However, their preparation and form has been inconsistent across the country, pointing to the need to provide national guidance on the matter. To support this the RTPI would welcome the creation of a national IFS database.

The RTPI would also welcome proposals as to how the recently announced National Housing Bank can help support, through financing and partnership models, the delivery of a local authority’s affordable housing pipeline.

[1] Bid farewell