The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill is a new draft piece of legislation which builds on the proposals laid out in February’s White Paper

Here, experts from across Boyer’s offices, representing a wide range of expertise, discuss how the proposals within the Bill would impact on their work.

?The mandatory introduction of Design Codes: Ananya Banerjee (Head of Design)

We know from the extensive polling that informed the ‘beauty’ agenda and the creation of a National Model Design Code that in the design of new homes, traditional building design was much preferred over contemporary architecture. The implementation of design codes was based on the belief that NIMBYism can be overcome if design better reflects people’s desire for traditional architecture.

The implementation of Design Codes will involve various challenges: ensuring that residents have a full understanding of their purpose and function; clarity over the methods of consultation to be used in local residents engagement, and substantial demands on local authorities’?time and resources, experience and expertise.

The simplest solution is that each local authority Design Code is a ‘one size fits all’ document: one which addresses universal concerns such as climate change and biodiversity but refrains from being too specific about variation in character or building design. But will this homogeneity led approach deliver good design??

With good intentions, the results of design codes could be transformational. But good intentions must prevail – this process cannot be used to stop progression, innovation.?A local Design Code must not become a NIMBY Charter and its potential to end identikit architecture must be realised.

A new development tax: Lawrence Turner, Associate Director (Bristol)

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill introduces the Infrastructure Levy: a levy based on the final sales values of developments (rather than on floor space) and applied above a minimum build cost threshold which will replace CIL (except in London and Wales).

While the current broken system is in need of change, the new Infrastructure Levy remains fairly similar in principle to CIL, albeit it will operate alongside a scaled back s106 regime.

The benefit of a ‘non-negotiable’ set levy is that it would reduce last-minute, multi-party negotiations on both infrastructure and affordable housing, creating greater certainty for local authorities. Furthermore, having a levy that is based on final sales values, and applied above a minimum threshold, will allow a greater land value uplift to be captured for local authorities – and potentially remove the need for future negotiation on the viability of planning obligations For the developer, this will enable infrastructure costs to be better factored in to land values.

Much of the detail of the Infrastructure Levy will be the focus of upcoming Government consultation ahead of detailed Regulations coming into force. In this regard, the Bill seeks to introduce a new ‘right to require’ which will replace the current negotiation on the percentage of affordable housing. The Government’s objective here is to provide greater power for LPAs determine the proportion of the Levy that they receive as ‘in-kind’ on-site affordable housing.

This raises the question as to whether this new Levy will enable the delivery of a greater number of affordable homes than the current system? If new affordable homes are delivered ‘in-kind’ by developers, will this leave sufficient funds in the pot to deliver all the other items of infrastructure that are needed to support new development? As always, the devil is in the detail and we will have to wait for the Government consultation to understand better how the new levy will function in practice.

Enhanced CPO powers to enable local authorities to take control of buildings for the benefit of their communities: Simon Atha, Associate Director (Midlands)

Enhanced compulsory purchase powers proposed for town centre regeneration and the extension of the High Street Taskforce is a positive step but does not address wider issues with digital economy, online shopping and restrictive approaches to retail protection within town centres.

An extension of consultation and engagement methods, giving local people a greater voice, and enhanced Neighbourhood Planning powers: Katherine Dowdall (Principal Planner, Cardiff)

The Government stated in the Levelling Up White Paper that it will ‘look to pilot greater empowerment of communities to shape regeneration and development plans’.?The paper also included a promise to widen the accessibility of Neighbourhood Planning. Is this what is needed to making planning more accessible and reduce NIMBYism??Few Neighbourhood Plans plan for future housing growth and many are opposed to strategic housing sites, even if there is a local housing need. It is generally true that those who are supportive of growth tend not to get involved in the process.

A greater emphasis on local neighbourhood planning could widen the housing crisis and delay developments due to local opposition or unfinished Neighbourhood plans.

The Government has recently made a commitment to the use of technology in local resident engagement, through the Proptech Engagement Fund. Will digitalisation enable greater accessibility, improve communities’ understanding of how to engage, and reduce delays? We may find instead that increased local involvement slows the planning process and results in unnecessary planning appeals, resulting in costs and delays for the developer.

While the Bill announced some quite considerable changes, there were also some notable omissions.?In the Levelling Up White Paper, the Government has committed to enhancing and maintaining the protection of the Green Belt and refers to ‘further greening’ the Green Belt.?And yet there was not a single mention of the Green Belt in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.

Green Belt: Karen Charles (Director, Wokingham)

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill is a very broad piece of legislation. While it includes some significant changes for planning, it demonstrates that the Government does not see Green Belt reform as necessary to the levelling up agenda. An yet Green Belt reform is long-overdue, as currently the Green Belt has a significant impact on house prices. True to its original objectives (almost 70 years ago!) the Green Belt acts as a restraint on growth. But the impact is an undersupply of new homes and an increase in house prices. Without change, house prices will remain high in the South East – thereby maintaining, rather than ‘levelling up’ geographic disparity.

We had hoped for softening of Green Belt legislation to allow for development on suitable sites Green Belt (some of which are technically brownfield sites) and for those of us based in the Thames Valley in particular, the Green Belt will continue to pose an unnecessary bureaucratic burden.

In conclusion, we consider what should have been included in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill: how should the planning system change to ensure that housing targets can be met across the country?

The need for a National Plan: Lawrence Turner, Associate Director (Bristol)

The best way to boost housing growth and regeneration would be through the creation of a National Plan, which would identify locations for growth and propose sites for development accordingly, while still allowing for local involvement on the specifics. It would be a more positive, pro-development approach to solving the housing crisis which builds on the NPPF’s principle of ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

The ‘levelling up’ benefits of such a plan are numerous. The housing market is one of the biggest catalysts to economic development and (as the Levelling Up White Paper states) and, combined with an appropriate investment in employment and transport infrastructure, can kick-start regeneration in the parts of the country that need it most – facilitating a better spread of new development in line with the Levelling Up White Paper. It would bring together housing allocations and distribution in a way that has been lacking since the RSSs of the early 2000s - keeping contentious decisions free of local politics. The approach would be better joined-up, allocating sites for development in the context of national and regional transport proposals, freeports and development initiatives. Furthermore, landowners considering the release of land would have more certainty that their land might come forward in the future and consequently would be more likely to promote land through Local Plans – providing great choice to LPAs.