Planning and approvals
Development strategy, planning and approval solutions for buildings, infrastructure, transport and city projects and investments.
No Content Set
Exception:
Website.Models.ViewModels.Components.General.Banners.BannerComponentVm
In her Ministerial Statement on 30th July 2024, the UK Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner set out the first steps to achieve the Labour manifesto commitment to build the homes the country needs and secure sustained economic growth.
RPS Planning Directors Adam Pyrke and Karen Jones share their analysis of the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
UK Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner emphasised that the country is in the middle of the most acute housing crisis in living memory, with home ownership out of reach for too many and the shortage of houses driving high rents, leaving too many without access to a safe and secure home.
She also acknowledged that planning is principally a local activity, and it is right that decisions about what to build and where should reflect local views. But she was also clear that these decisions should be about how to deliver the housing an area needs, and not whether to do so.
Her statement introduced the consultation on the promised review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with the proposed changes being nearly all about housing and how it will be delivered. The mechanics of the proposed approach are simple:
i). Mandatory housing targets are reinstated.
ii). Legislation is proposed to achieve universal coverage of strategic planning in England, including potentially the introduction of Spatial Development Strategies across all Mayoral Combined Authorities.
iii). The ‘standard method’ for calculating local housing need is revised to uplift targets to approximately 370,000 dwellings p.a.
iv). The scope to use alternative methods for calculating housing need is removed
v). Local plans will be expected to allocate enough land to meet the identified housing and other needs.
vi). Planning authorities have to demonstrate a continuous 5-year housing land supply, plus 5% buffer, irrespective of how up to date their local plan.
vii). A 20% buffer will be required where there has been significant under delivery of housing over the previous three years.
viii). The 5-year supply is measured against local plan targets, or where these are more than 5 years old, against their local housing need under the revised methodology.
ix). The brownfield first approach is retained and housing growth in larger urban areas supported but the 35% urban uplift is deleted.
x). Growth will consequently be distributed to a wider range of urban areas.
xi). Where a local planning authority cannot meet its identified housing, commercial or other needs, it must review its green belt boundaries, adopting a sequential approach to meet its development needs in full – unless this would undermine the Green Belt function across the local plan area as a whole:
· First consideration should be to reusing previously developed sites and the definition is amended to make such development simpler
· Second consideration is poorly performing sites when measured against the identified green belt objectives
· Finally, higher performing sites where these can be made sustainable.
xii). Land falling within the first two bullets above is defined as ‘grey belt’.
xiii). In the period before a local plan review, where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply or has delivered less than 75% against the Housing Delivery Test (or there is other unmet commercial or other need), development of sustainable grey belt land will not be considered ‘inappropriate’ where the ‘Golden Rules’ are satisfied.
xiv). The Golden Rules are intended to benefit local communities and nature – they relate to sites released through local plan review and which are subject of planning applications and require:
· 50% affordable housing provision (with an ‘appropriate’ proportion being Social Rent)
· Necessary improvements to national or local infrastructure, such as schools, GP surgeries, transport links, care homes to deliver well-designed, connected places
· The provision of new or improved local green spaces within a short walk of new housing
xv). Green Belt land released for development will be subject to a benchmark land value in viability assessments to ensure the delivery of policy-compliant developments. Where Green Belt is transacted above the benchmark land value and cannot deliver policy-compliant development, then planning permission should not be granted.
xvi). The Duty to Cooperate is strengthened to require the cross-border meeting of unmet needs and a consistent approach to infrastructure delivery.
xvii). Legislation is proposed to achieve universal coverage of strategic planning in England, including potentially the introduction of Spatial Development Strategies across all Mayoral Combined Authorities.
The revisions were not solely about housing – there were changes to support economic growth and the provision of renewable energy infrastructure. The key changes of note include:
· A new duty is introduced requiring local plans to identify ‘appropriate sites for commercial development which meets the needs of a modern economy’, including specifically sites for laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.
· An enhanced duty to not just ‘consider’ identifying, but to identify suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources in local plans.
· Increased weight to be given to the contribution to renewable energy generation.
· Greater weight added to the provision of ‘public service infrastructure’ which encompasses a range of public buildings. The ‘significant weight’ which it is proposed should be placed on the delivery of such infrastructure will help the government realise the delivery of new prisons set out in its manifesto.
· A change in the approach to Transport Planning as expressed in planning policy to bring it into line with National Highways circular 01/2022. The traditional predict and provide approach is replaced with the vision-led ‘Decide and Provide’ approach which decides on a preferred future and provides a development path best suited to achieving it.
· The removal of the requirement for new buildings to be ‘beautiful’ albeit they still need to be well-designed.
· Education – the general support for the provision of school spaces to support new communities is removed in favour of support for just early years and post -16 facilities – this change may need to be revisited.
With so many planning authorities having taken the decision to delay the production of their local plans in light of the last changes to the NPPF, hoping to reduce the number of housing sites they have to designate, the transitional provisions are key.
The intention is that those plans already at examination will continue to be examined against the version of the NPPF they were submitted under. However, they will require review ‘as soon as possible’ where the revised Standard Method generates a housing need over 200 dwellings p.a. more than the figure in the plan.
Where a draft plan has reached Regulation 19 consultation but has not been submitted a month after the new NPPF comes into force, if the difference between the revised Standard Method housing need and that in the plan is no more than 200 dwellings p.a., then the plan can progress to examination. However, where the difference is more than 200 dwellings p.a., the plan will need to be reviewed first to increase the housing allocations to meet the revised need before it can progress.
In her delivery, the Deputy PM acknowledged the proposals were ‘radical, ambitious, controversial and urgent’ in order to 'Get Britain Building'. The controversy will be focussed around the green belt proposals and the imposition of top-down targets, but the areas most affected are unlikely to lead to a by-election loss for the Labour party and, even if they did, with such a large majority that would not be a matter of great importance, at least in present circumstances.
Without doubt, firm decisive statements and a consultation document that removes a lot of the previous ambiguity in the NPPF (such as the deletion of ‘beauty’ as a benchmark) is to be lauded. It is now necessary to remove any ambivalence over the document moving forward, and this can be achieved by ensuring that during the consultation period, there is input from the industry on where clarification is needed.
So, what conditions need to be in place to facilitate the delivery of new homes? Fundamentally, a market-led economy has its own checks and balances on when to release housing, notwithstanding how quickly planning permission can be achieved. Will the main bulk housing providers feel compelled to deliver or will there need to be some form of incentivisation? If there is a form of incentivisation, how will the public react to a form of state subsidy for the housing industry?
Let’s turn to the public. Most people understand what is needed to reduce house prices (more homes), but a lot would ruthlessly reject proposals in proximity to theirs. Substantive gains are not going to be made without at least an appreciation of the benefits of soft politicking. This is not an overnight solution, but there would be a lot to be gained through an education programme at secondary schools through urban geography, and more visionary public friendly language during Local Plan reviews.
If the local people get it but don’t want it near them, and the members need a bit more convincing, the early outcome could very well be a lot of confident appeal cases. We note that ministerial call-ins will be given an ambitious 13-week target, but what about the Planning Inspectorate?
All our considerations and meandering of likely delivery issues and outcomes above all lead to one place –all decision makers signing up to the planning manifesto and ensuring that we have enough resource to get the job done. Pressure and diktat is one tool, but as we have referred to above, more innovative, and creative methods should go hand in hand.
There needs to be a variety of providers in the marketplace, including SME and local authorities. Could the government consider some form of technical support for these bodies to facilitate a growth in this market? Also, one way of bringing local communities on board could be through transparent community benefits and for an integrated infrastructure and housing mechanism to demonstrate clearly that if there is not sufficient capacity in schools and doctors’ surgeries, that there is the ability to provide new buildings for these services or to increase capacity in existing facilities parallel with the delivery of new homes.
Telling the industry that a new target for house building must be agreed and that new homes must be built is the easy part. Finding a way to facilitate, encourage, and provide the necessary planning infrastructure is quite another.
Consultation on the promised review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will end on Tuesday 24 September 2024. We hope to see strong and directional consultation responses with pragmatic views and ideas.