The Government must ensure ‘supplementary plans’ are easy to introduce
Why replacing SPDs with Supplementary Plans could weaken a key planning tool if the reforms are not handled well.
Why replacing SPDs with Supplementary Plans could weaken a key planning tool if the reforms are not handled well.
There are Ìýlots of positiveÌýchanges being made to the planning system at the moment, including Ìý designed to ensure all places are covered by an up-to-date local plan.ÌýÌý
But one change included in this raft of reforms – replacing Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) with Supplementary Plans (SPs) – risks effectively removing a key tool from the planning system if it isn’t managed correctly.
are used by planning authorities to provide more information on local planning policy than is already in the local plan.
SPDs are used for a wide variety of purposes, from creating Ìýmasterplans for large sites and urban extensions toÌýcreating rules forÌýallowableÌýsmall-siteÌýdevelopment.ÌýÌý
In short, they increase certainty on what development is allowable in a given location and can be the difference between development happening and not.
As part of the new reforms, activating legislative changes made in theÌý, SPDs will be replaced by ‘Supplementary Plans’.
In the , existing SPDs will remain in force until an authority introduces a new-style local plan. No new SPDs can be brought in after 30 June 2026.
Supplementary Plans will be able to play the same function as SPDs in terms of what they provide information about, but there are also some substantial changes:
There are potential benefits to these changes. SPs having the same weight as the local plan will make them a more powerful tool. The fact they can change existing policy could also be important: there is a potential future where SPs are used more widely to introduce moreÌýrules-based planning,Ìýand,Ìýas happens inÌýsuccessful zoning systems in other countries, planning authorities could take decisions to up-zone particular locations outside of the plan review cycle.
But the changes could make SPs much more difficult to introduce than SPDs have been.
In discussions with planners who have made good use of SPDs, we have heard that scrutiny of SPs by the Planning Inspectorate will likely increase the time and resource required to introduce an SP. This process will also introduce uncertainty – authorities won’t know that the resource poured into preparing SPs will be worth it, so they may not try at all. In resource-limited planning teams, this hurdle could mean a significant reduction in the use of SPs compared to SPDs.
Currently, gives no information on how long the examination of an SP will be expected to take. And beyond a on the direction of travel, the Government has not produced additional guidance to support the production of SPs. With the end of SPDs arriving very soon, there is a risk this uncertainty leads to, at the very least, a pause in the use of these tools.
The Government needs to be proactive in minimising the administrative burden for authorities introducing SPs.
When the British planning system works at its best – when local planners are being proactive about facilitating and guiding development – SPDs are often the tool used. As 911±¬ÁÏÍø hasÌýlong argued, expanding the use of this kind of tool should be a priority for the planning reform agenda.
The dropping of the word ‘document’ isn’t as innocuous as it seems, and the Government needs to ensure reforms aiming for simplification don’t unintentionally make using a key tool in the planning system more complicated.
Leave a comment
Be the first to add a comment.