00:00 The new MPPF now more clearly upholds the spirit of the original intention.
00:07 Local authorities have the comfort of knowing that they need not redraw the
00:12 green belt or sacrifice protected landscapes to meet housing numbers. But
00:17 let me be clear. While this is a more robust assertion of previous principles
00:21 and protections, it is not a route to the evasion of responsibilities. Local
00:27 authorities must provide rigorous evidence justifying their departure from
00:30 assessed housing need. They must do everything to identify other land
00:34 suitable for development. And while the Planning Inspectorate will respect
00:38 well-made cases, it will not accept undershooting that is not firmly rooted
00:42 in environmental or other safeguards. This is about sensitive adjustment in
00:47 meeting targets, not their abandonment. And we will now be just as rigorous and
00:54 robust in routing out the delays, blockages and bad practice in our
00:57 planning system as ever. I will make sure that every local authority is held to
01:02 account for delivery against its plan, for the speed with which planning
01:06 applications are processed and also the rationality of their decision-making. At
01:12 the Department for Education I saw that nothing so concentrated the mind of
01:15 system leaders as sharper accountability. Rigorous inspection, robust lead tables.
01:22 I will apply the same principles and approach to the performance of local
01:25 planning authorities. We will publish lead tables revealing the real
01:29 performance of local planning authorities, the speed with which they
01:32 respond, the level of approvals, their delivery against targets. We will ensure
01:38 that these lead tables reflect how the system is gained at the moment by some.
01:42 Some authorities use so-called extension of time agreements, that is to say an
01:47 insistence on delays to slow down the system. The developers have little
01:52 option but to agree to such delays or face the frustration of their plans
01:56 altogether. Strip these agreements out of the system and in the two years to
02:00 September only 9% of local authorities determined 70% or more of non-major
02:06 applications within the statutory eight-week period. On major applications
02:11 it's even worse. Strip out the extension of time agreements and only 1%
02:17 of local authorities managed to get through at least 60% of planning
02:21 applications within the statutory 13-week period. By revealing how many
02:27 planning applications are actually processed within the proper time limit
02:30 and how many simply appear to be because of the use of these extension of time
02:34 agreements we will more clearly identify the good planning authorities and those
02:38 who are hiding behind these agreements to mask the dilettanous. Two very
02:43 important points. On the first, absolutely not. As I hope I laid out in my speech
02:48 there are perfectly reasonable reasons to resist development if it is
02:52 unattractive, if it's unaccompanied by infrastructure, if it dramatically
02:55 changes the character of an area, if it harms the environment. It's only right
03:00 that local people should have the chance through the planning system to safeguard
03:05 the environment and to protect the character of the places in which they
03:08 live. But as I made clear, sensitive adjustment is not evasion or abandonment.
03:14 It has always been the case that the housing targets that we've had have been
03:19 an advisory starting point. We reaffirm that today but what we also do is make
03:24 clear that now there is no excuse for not having a plan in place, no excuse for
03:29 not delivering against that plan, no excuse for not making sure there is more
03:33 housing need and we're providing the resource in the planning system and the
03:36 tools for local authorities to deliver.
Comments