ANOTHER YEAR, ANOTHER PLANNING U-TURN WITH MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

Last year, an early Christmas present was delivered by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), in the form of a new consultation on ‘Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy’.

What changes are proposed?

Unlike previous consultations, more detail explaining the rationale of the proposed direction of travel has been included. So, what are the key themes that have emerged from the proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) changes?

Most of the proposed changes to the NPPF relate to housing and in turn, the Green Belt.

It’s no surprise given the level of local opposition to large scale residential development proposals and Local Plans including Green Belt allocations, to meet nationally prescribed housing targets.

What effect will the changes have?

Since the announcement regarding the changes, some Local Plans have been put on hold, including South Staffordshire Council, North Somerset Council, Horsham District Council, Isle of Wight Council, Teignbridge District Council, Stockport Council, and Mole Valley, all issuing statements to this effect.

Instead, these figures would be considered as an advisory starting point as opposed to a minimum target which can be negotiated down or up, based on suitable evidence / constraints.

These evidence / constraints can include the Green Belt with the Government clarifying that Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered to meet the objectivelyassessed housing need.

This new approach could create further opportunity for higher density residential development within town centres and on previously developed land.

However, any changes in density increase would need to be delivered ”in keeping with the character of the area” - a subjective assessment providing further reason to refuse residential schemes within town centres. This could have a negative impact on town centre regeneration which require reimaging.

How can we meet housing targets?

The two initial options of building out (settlement expansion) and building up (higher density) seem to have been made more difficult in all but the most urban locations.

Whilst the onus should not fall solely on the Local Authority to deliver housing, the flexibility proposed allowing local authorities to calculate housing targets does not help the case for development, instead reinforcing the argument to retain the status quo.

The government has tried to address build-out rates by suggesting that financial penalties will be applied for developers who are building out too slowly, and that ‘past irresponsible planning behaviour’ should be a material consideration. However, the consultation stops short of clearly defining what such behaviour entails.

The government has also tried to incentivise and support communities in delivering affordable housing.

Whilst this has some merit, it is unlikely to be wholly successful given the level of local opposition to affordable housing delivery and lack in clarification over how this would tie into the existing planning framework. This is highlighted by the current evidence relating to neighbourhood plans which have had limited impact in boosting housing supply.

The renewed emphasis on the character of the area through the introduction of design codes increase the appetite for local authorities to bring forward identified urban sites and those on the brownfield register.

Delays in local plan making may increase as authorities reevaluate the housing target and potential site allocations, and with less weight being given to the five-year housing supply and delivery rates, authorities are likely to push back on the need to meet these targets.

Emphasis will probably turn to known sites as opposed to new sites, however, additional calls for development land (Call for Sites exercises) could provide the opportunity to include areas with high redevelopment potential, particularly outside areas of green belt.

In the longer term, this will place greater emphasis on previously developed land and sites with a high level of redevelopment potential, with urban, town centre and high street sites likely to be an area of particular focus.

In-fill development will likely become the prevailing form of housing delivery as authorities look to protect settlement boundaries from further encroachment with development locations encouraged in sustainable and highly accessible areas.

Another missed opportunity

Setting aside the obvious political motives for the revision of the government’s flagship planning policies, the current consultation stops short of recognising the ability of the planning system to guide sustainable growth through improvements to infrastructure and the environment.

More time needs to be spent working with developers assessing where the most appropriate opportunities for development are, and maximising the positive benefits that development can bring.

The NPPF should be looking to promote a more coordinated, proactive, joined up approach to development at all levels. Instead, this overly pessimistic, restrictive approach will result in a piecemeal approach to development, which is in no one’s best interest and will not deliver significant infrastructure improvements.

Every local authority has a different plan in place, but we work with councils up and down the country on a daily basis. For more on how we can help, contact David Ramsay on dramsay@vailwilliams.com

DAVID RAMSAY