Why the silence on neighbourhood plans?

We have now seen the first wave of ‘Regulation 20’ scoping consultations undertaken by local planning authorities (LPA) producing their Local Plans under the new system.

Given the variety of efforts to publicise them, we have read as many as we have found (nearly 60 so far). We can already note the huge variety in approaches in content, style and timing adopted by the LPAs, itself a signal that the intention of MHCLG to standardise all this has not yet been understood.

However, the way in which these consultations have dealt with neighbourhood planning is remarkably consistent: only a tiny number set out how the LPA intends neighbourhood plans (NP) to complement their Local Plans (LP).

Strangely, some of those with the least number of NPs, or none, have been those LPAs that have something (however small) to say. Whereas, LPAs that have a legacy of significant neighbourhood planning activity over the last decade - most especially in making non-strategic housing site allocations - have said nothing.

Having supported more than 250 projects to date, we know how important NPs have been in areas that struggle to maintain a five year housing land supply. They bring forward suitably sized sites, on a regular basis, that can quickly lead to approved planning applications and homes and community benefits delivered. Maintaining that five year supply matters to everybody, it's a key metric that influences how speculative planning decisions are made.

So, what is going on if MHCLG invented this scoping exercise precisely for LPAs to explain what their new Local Plans will, and won’t, be doing? Its guidance seems clear: “we recommend you … know the main areas or locally specific subject matters it will address, based on data from the existing local plan, as well as information gathering, baselining and early engagement”.

If the LPA has seen NPs do much of the site allocation heavy lifting in recent years - and there are plenty of them across England – encouraging them to continue to play that role seems obvious. So why now choose to ignore the help they can still offer and exclude discussion about it from early engagement? Most analysis of the new Standard Method, the new NPPF 2026 and other planning policy changes and guidance make it clear that it is still going to be hard for much of the country to grant enough planning permissions and build 'enough homes' at a suitable speed to reach the government's targets.

We think there may be a couple of clues to the answers: the new NPPF and the ‘Project Initiation Document’ (PID) template produced for LPAs by the Planning Advisory Service (PAS).

The new NPPF and Local Plans

The new NPPF giveth and taketh away. On the one hand its core provisions for encouraging NPs to allocate housing sites to meet defined local needs per indicative housing figures and to retilt the tilted balance if they do are still there. On the other, it has removed the reference to ‘strategic’ and ‘non-strategic’ and in doing so may have given LPAs the impression, especially with Policy HO3, that Government expects them to do it all. And there’s no doubt that some LPAs saw the ending of the national NP support programme last year as more than a coincidence.

Whilst we have read the guidance to mean that LPAs should consult on how they will go about allocating land for housing and other development and to be explicit about the role NPs will play in that, we’re starting to get concerned we're in the minority.

By not consulting on how neighbourhood plans will be part of the overall Local Plan picture, the implication is that they are not - that in effect all neighbourhood areas will have a 'zero' figure as the Local Plan will meet all need. Note that clause 5a to Policy HO2 says that "Local planning authorities should avoid setting housing requirement figures for neighbourhood planning areas at nil..." Well, if that’s what is proposed by LPAs, then they should come forward and say so.

Planning Advice Service PID Template

PAS is a key source of guidance and support for LPAs. It has produced a series of templates and guidance notes for LPAs on the new system. Unfortunately, this one is silent on this matter, even though it advises the Reg 20 proposal to state the intended relationship of the LP to other relevant plans and programmes. This should have been the obvious prompt for LPAs to acknowledge legacy NP site allocation activity and use the consultation to invite town and parish councils to express their intention to make new, or bring forward modified, NPs to make their contribution.

Is any LPA referencing neighbourhood plans?

We have found a few examples:

• Mid Devon - its simple six page consultation document references "Neighbourhood plan housing targets" as a matter to be considered through the Local Plan scoping process but still doesn’t indicate clearly enough that above-zero housing target figures will be provided.

• Warrington, Somerset, North Norfolk, Mid Suffolk and Babergh and others have made very minor passing references to neighbourhood plans with nothing to confirm the role they intend these plans to make in housing delivery.

• City of Wolverhampton - whilst the consultation references made NPs it notes they are out of date and that the new LP will instead provide more up-to-date planning policies and designations for these NP areas. It notes that as its new LP “will be required to provide all necessary housing and other allocations for the NP areas over the Plan period it is not considered necessary for the (LP) to provide a housing target for each NP area”.

It's a great shame to have such poor examples when some LPs coming through the old system are making efforts to accommodate NPs. For example, the draft West Northamptonshire LP provides specific housing figures for more than 50 NP areas.

Does it serve Planning Authorities to ignore neighbourhood plans?

Bluntly, of course not. We know for some LPA areas, site allocating NPs have been their only hope of enabling the plan-led system to properly plan for most settlements at the higher end of the hierarchy and to operate whilst the 30 month plan making process plays out. Those LPAs have fewer, not more, resources than before and many will be disrupted by impending local government reorganisation and spatial development strategies in this same period.

It is just utterly daft that NPs have been ignored at a time when the plan-led system desperately needs all the help it can get. But it’s not too late for MHCLG to act. There’s enough evidence already to highlight this problem and time to correct the guidance before too many more LPAs make the same mistakes.

How can town and parish councils best take part in regulation 20 consultations?

In the meantime, we will continue to make representations on behalf of our Town and Parish councils clients, and for some of their county associations, to scoping consultations, as well as on consultations for those local plans further into the process. Do enquire early if you would like our services to ensure we can book your Council in.

Although none have yet asked the question, we strongly recommend that every town and parish council wanting to bring forward a new or reviewed NP makes it clear in their response to the consultation that they intend to use their NPs to plan for their towns and villages. We think that an LPA that then attempts to reach Gateway 2 of the new process having ignored those intentions may find out the hard way what MHCLG and the Inspectorate really think.