The Government’s Neighbourhood Planning Bill has had its second reading in the Commons this week. The debate covered plenty of issues pertinent to the controversial topic of changes to the way that ‘pre-commencement conditions’ are used and highlighted the concerns that CIfA have previously raised with government officials. The full transcript can be read here.
The Bill has the potential to influence archaeology by changing expectations in relation to pre-commencement conditions which the government believes are partly responsible for low house-building rates.
As previously reported, the Government have repeatedly assured that archaeology is not a target of these changes, and in this debate the Secretary of State Sajid Javid again repeated this line, saying;
“Of course, conditions can play a vital role. They ensure that important issues such as flood mitigation and archaeological investigation are undertaken at the right time. That is not going to change, but pre-commencement conditions should not be allowed to become unreasonable barriers to building. Not only do they delay the delivery of much-needed houses, but they create cash-flow issues for builders—something that is particularly problematic for smaller builders and new entrants to the market. To tackle this, the Bill reflects best practice by stopping pre-commencement conditions being imposed without the written agreement of the applicant. It will also create a power to restrict the use of certain other types of planning conditions that do not meet the well-established policy tests in the national planning policy framework. We are currently seeking views on both measures in a consultation paper published by my Department last month.”
Planning Minister Gavin Barwell also offered direct mention of archaeology saying;
“[the Bill’s proposals] will not restrict the ability of local planning authority to propose pre-commencement conditions that may be necessary—for example, conditions in relation to archaeological investigations or wildlife surveys.”
However, while it is gratifying that Government has recognised concerns, there are still issues with the assumption that archaeology – along with other types of mitigative activity, such as wildlife surveys – will not be affected by the hidden implications of the proposed provisions. CIfA is concerned that the Bill, which provides for developers a chance to ‘negotiate’ conditions, will essentially lead to an erosion of the power of local authorities to insist of fully sustainable schemes – particularly in the light of increased pressure to deliver housing.
Many members were quick to pick up on this issue and wider problems with the government’s focus. Shadow Minister Teresa Pearce stated;
“Behind that lies the fact that pre-commencement planning conditions are not a bad thing. They have an important role in securing sustainable development that is careful and considerate of local communities. Conditions should be imposed only when consent would not be acceptable without them. By allowing room for negotiation, we are changing the nature of how conditions are set and their purpose. We could inadvertently either encourage inappropriate development by lowering our standards of acceptable development or, when disagreement arises between applicant and planning authority, discourage developers from building, which no hon. Member wants.”
She also added;
“I do not anticipate it adding any of the extra homes that we urgently need. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow planning consent, but the chronic underfunding of local planning authorities. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow construction, but the drastic skills shortage in the construction sector. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow new schemes coming forward, but the lack of strategic infrastructure involvement.”
Helen Hayes MP stated that;
“The idea that conditions can be imposed only following the written agreement of the developer greatly underestimates the role that conditions play in ensuring good outcomes. This proposal also sets up an unnecessarily adversarial relationship between applicant and local authority where, in reality, it is best practice for the parties to come together to discuss and agree conditions through the pre-application process. I hope that the Government will reconsider this proposal.”
And Mark Menzies MP pointed out wider problems with the housing market which undermine the potential of generating more housing through deregulatory activity;
“Another key point is that on many sites developers seem to be building just 30 or 40 houses a year, regardless of the market conditions. They drip them out to a steady drumbeat of 30 or 40. That makes it more difficult to deliver against the five-year housing supply number and the local council’s annual build targets. Frustratingly, it does nothing to make houses more affordable for local people. The prices keep going up.”
CIfA is continuing to promote the archaeological sector’s interests as the Bill progresses and will be making its case to parliamentarians in the wider context of changes to the planning system. If you have any questions or comments, please get in touch with us at rob.lennox [at] archaeologists.net.
