The long-awaited National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is published today. Although there have been some significant concessions to countryside campaigners, ministers are still claiming that its policy is ‘unashamedly pro-growth’.
The Government should also be congratulated for replacing 1,000 pages of ‘impenetrable jargon’ with a concise and readable document that is comprehensible to the general public. Let’s hope local councils follow suit when preparing their local plans.
The NPPF will not lead to a development free for all – it was never going to. But it should prevent local authorities retreating to the automatic ‘planning says no’ nimbyism that the localism agenda threatened to usher in.
Over the last two years, many Councils have ripped up their development plans and reduced housing targets. No more. The NPPF will still allow Councils to turn down developments they do not want, but to do so they will need a credible local plan that allows for an adequate amount of alternative development sites to come forward to support economic growth.
Although the introduction of the NPPF has been broadly welcomed by the property industry, there remain a number of uncertainties in how planning will evolve over the coming years. Some of the key factors will be:
Political interpretation – how will the Secretary of State use the new framework in his judgements on future planning appeals?
Legal interpretation – the brevity of the new regime is also a weakness, and will open up future planning decisions to legal challenge.
Loopholes – all new policies create unintended consequences that the entrepreneurial can exploit. The NPPF will be no different.
Policy creep – The wholesale review of the planning policy has generated a concise and relatively consistent policy framework. The problem now is that future Secretaries of State will go back to amending it on a piecemeal basis.
Public opinion – the Government has emphasised that it wants public support to play an increasing role in planning decisions but how will this be reconciled on schemes which are policy compliant but bitterly opposed by local people?
Political change – It will take a few years for the new regime to settle down, by which time there will probably be a new Secretary of State and possibly a change of administration. How long will this current regime last before there are demands for further planning reform?
Key announcements
The NPPF was presented to Parliament by Planning Minister, Greg Clark MP. A copy of the NPPF can be found here. Some of the key features in today’s announcment include:
The NPPF retains a presumption in favour of sustainable development but the assumption that the default answer to a development proposal is "yes", except where this would compromise key sustainable development principles, has been removed.
Transitional arrangements – Local authorities with a post-2004 local plan that is broadly in line with the NPPF will be able to use those policies for 12 months. For local authorities with no up to date plan, the NPPF will come in to force today.
The definition of sustainable development has been strengthened.
The Brownfield first policy has been strengthened to prioritise more clearly the use of previously developed land.
Five-year land supply – Local Authorities with a good track record at allocating land for housing must earmark a five-year supply plus 5%. Others must earmark a five-year supply plus 20%
The intrinsic value of countryside has been included in the NPPF following its removal from the first draft.
The town centre first policy has been strengthened.
There is support for Garden Cities - so urban extensions and new settlements are back on the agenda.
Showing posts with label Planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Planning. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Britain’s real planning scandal
Figures released today in HBF’s latest Housing Pipeline report reveal that approvals for just 32,900 homes across England were granted in Q3 of this year, a 10% decrease on the same period last year. This number is half that required to build the homes needed to meet demand – and half the permissions granted each quarter in 2006 and 2007.
These shocking statistics come on the same day that the media are reporting the awful experiences for those suffering homelessness at Christmas and a report from a Select Committee of MPs saying that the Government’s planning reforms are too biased in favour of developers at the expense of the environment.
The MPs biggest gripe appears to be the default ‘Yes’ that is built into the proposed National Planning Policy Framework. What they have failed to miss is that if a local authority adopts a local plan, there is no presumption in favour of development – the local plan takes precedent.
The local plan led system is the essence of localism. Local councils have been required to maintain an up to date local plan since 2004. However, eight years on, two-thirds still have no such plan in place. Why is this?
Local plans require local councils to undertake housing assessment studies to identify what housing demand and housing need is expected over the plan period. Once they have done that, they have to allocate a credible amount of land to meet those housing requirements. The reality is that many Council’s do not want to face up to this challenge. They don’t want to make the difficult decisions about where we build the homes of the future.
If there is no local plan in place, councils can throw out major planning applications on the grounds that they are ‘premature’, i.e that the applications must come after the local plan. If the local plan does not come forward, nor can those planning applications. It is a loophole NIMBY councils have exploited time and time again to throw out legitimate plans for development.
The consequence of this action has been a substantial fall in planning approvals, as reported by the HBF. It is time the Government put a stop to it and this is exactly what the National Planning Policy Framework will do. Those councils that do not adopt a plan will find the presumption in favour kicking in. My guess is that at that moment, councils will stop dragging their heels and start working on their local plans.
The Localism agenda gives huge powers to local councils. The NPPF will ensure that they use those powers responsibility.
These shocking statistics come on the same day that the media are reporting the awful experiences for those suffering homelessness at Christmas and a report from a Select Committee of MPs saying that the Government’s planning reforms are too biased in favour of developers at the expense of the environment.
The MPs biggest gripe appears to be the default ‘Yes’ that is built into the proposed National Planning Policy Framework. What they have failed to miss is that if a local authority adopts a local plan, there is no presumption in favour of development – the local plan takes precedent.
The local plan led system is the essence of localism. Local councils have been required to maintain an up to date local plan since 2004. However, eight years on, two-thirds still have no such plan in place. Why is this?
Local plans require local councils to undertake housing assessment studies to identify what housing demand and housing need is expected over the plan period. Once they have done that, they have to allocate a credible amount of land to meet those housing requirements. The reality is that many Council’s do not want to face up to this challenge. They don’t want to make the difficult decisions about where we build the homes of the future.
If there is no local plan in place, councils can throw out major planning applications on the grounds that they are ‘premature’, i.e that the applications must come after the local plan. If the local plan does not come forward, nor can those planning applications. It is a loophole NIMBY councils have exploited time and time again to throw out legitimate plans for development.
The consequence of this action has been a substantial fall in planning approvals, as reported by the HBF. It is time the Government put a stop to it and this is exactly what the National Planning Policy Framework will do. Those councils that do not adopt a plan will find the presumption in favour kicking in. My guess is that at that moment, councils will stop dragging their heels and start working on their local plans.
The Localism agenda gives huge powers to local councils. The NPPF will ensure that they use those powers responsibility.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Mobilising the silent majority
Forty Shillings recently hosted a breakfast seminar with Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP) and Com Res on how developers can mobilise the silent majority on major planning applications.
At the seminar, we revealed some opinion research that had been carried out by ComRes exclusively for this event. The research showed that:
A report of the seminar, including the ComRes findings is available at http://nlpplanning.com/uploads/ffiles/2011/10/411102.pdf
At the seminar, we revealed some opinion research that had been carried out by ComRes exclusively for this event. The research showed that:
- 75% of Councillors believe that the silent majority is overlooked in planning decisions
- 82% of Councillors believe consultation only capture the views of the most vocal people
- 64% believe there is a lack of robust evidence of public opinion
- 46% are likely to more swayed by the opinions of local constituents than national or local planning policy
- 52% believe the National Planning Policy Framework means local authorities will have less say in local planning decisions
- 46% believe the National Planning Policy Framework will be adopted similar to its current form.
A report of the seminar, including the ComRes findings is available at http://nlpplanning.com/uploads/ffiles/2011/10/411102.pdf
Thursday, August 25, 2011
In defence of the National Planning Policy Framework
Middle England is in revolt and the issue that is attracting their fury is planning. Or more precisely, the Government’s proposed new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The Editor of Country Life, Clive Aslet, claims that “the object (of the NPPF) is to let development rip through those parts of Britain that aren’t formally protected as National Parks or part of the Green Belt. This is most of what us still regard as our green and pleasant land – ‘all fields, high hedges, and deep-rutted lanes’, as George Eliot put it.”
Shaun Spiers from CPRE adds, that “the presumption in favour of development is clearly about development, not sustainability. The message for local authorities is ‘build, build, build.’”
Government Ministers appear to be at war with the countryside’s leading advocates. The complaints from groups such as the National Trust and CPRE, hitherto seen as part of the true blue brigade, are dismissed by Ministers as “a carefully choreographed smear campaign by Left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups."
The Countryside Alliance’s Dylan Sharpe, says “It's time to call an armistice and for all parties to get back round the table.”
It’s funny, they weren’t calling for that when the Government ripped up the regional strategies and introduced localism. Some 220,000 homes that were planned under the previous Government, have now been scrapped as a consequence of the abolition of the regional plans.
The reality is that no local authority that puts in place a local plan has anything to fear by the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. What the Government are trying to do is prevent a repeat of the 2004 Planning Act. Between 2004 and 2010, despite requirements to do so, just 13% of councils put in place a local plan. If you believe in localism and a plan led system, it requires a local authority to have a plan. You can’t allow them to drag their heels in the hope that difficult decisions will go away.
Aslet is wrong when he says that “a carefully evolved system of checks and balances has been junked in favour of a presumption that big development will get its way.” The NPPF is an attempt to ensure that a system of checks and balances remains in place under localism, and that councils face up to their new responsibilities.
In opposition, the Conservatives always said they wanted more development and to build more homes. They argued that the problem with the top-down regional strategies was that it built the wrong homes in the wrong places, where they were not wanted. Their solution was localism.
There are legitimate debates to be had about whether we concrete over greenfields or whether we cram more people into our built up areas; whether we create sustainable new settlements or whether we disperse development over wider areas. Under localism, it will be for local communities and their community leaders to grapple with these issues and policy dilemmas.
This could result in a loss of greenfields in certain areas, but that is only because those communities have decided that is a more desirable outcome than cramming people into high rise, small boxes in our town centres.
The rural countryside lobby is quite happy to take the bits of localism that empowers people to say no, but they don’t want councils to face up to the responsibility that goes along with having these new localist powers. The NPPF does just that.
Ministers, stick to your guns.
The Editor of Country Life, Clive Aslet, claims that “the object (of the NPPF) is to let development rip through those parts of Britain that aren’t formally protected as National Parks or part of the Green Belt. This is most of what us still regard as our green and pleasant land – ‘all fields, high hedges, and deep-rutted lanes’, as George Eliot put it.”
Shaun Spiers from CPRE adds, that “the presumption in favour of development is clearly about development, not sustainability. The message for local authorities is ‘build, build, build.’”
Government Ministers appear to be at war with the countryside’s leading advocates. The complaints from groups such as the National Trust and CPRE, hitherto seen as part of the true blue brigade, are dismissed by Ministers as “a carefully choreographed smear campaign by Left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups."
The Countryside Alliance’s Dylan Sharpe, says “It's time to call an armistice and for all parties to get back round the table.”
It’s funny, they weren’t calling for that when the Government ripped up the regional strategies and introduced localism. Some 220,000 homes that were planned under the previous Government, have now been scrapped as a consequence of the abolition of the regional plans.
The reality is that no local authority that puts in place a local plan has anything to fear by the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. What the Government are trying to do is prevent a repeat of the 2004 Planning Act. Between 2004 and 2010, despite requirements to do so, just 13% of councils put in place a local plan. If you believe in localism and a plan led system, it requires a local authority to have a plan. You can’t allow them to drag their heels in the hope that difficult decisions will go away.
Aslet is wrong when he says that “a carefully evolved system of checks and balances has been junked in favour of a presumption that big development will get its way.” The NPPF is an attempt to ensure that a system of checks and balances remains in place under localism, and that councils face up to their new responsibilities.
In opposition, the Conservatives always said they wanted more development and to build more homes. They argued that the problem with the top-down regional strategies was that it built the wrong homes in the wrong places, where they were not wanted. Their solution was localism.
There are legitimate debates to be had about whether we concrete over greenfields or whether we cram more people into our built up areas; whether we create sustainable new settlements or whether we disperse development over wider areas. Under localism, it will be for local communities and their community leaders to grapple with these issues and policy dilemmas.
This could result in a loss of greenfields in certain areas, but that is only because those communities have decided that is a more desirable outcome than cramming people into high rise, small boxes in our town centres.
The rural countryside lobby is quite happy to take the bits of localism that empowers people to say no, but they don’t want councils to face up to the responsibility that goes along with having these new localist powers. The NPPF does just that.
Ministers, stick to your guns.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Full marks for the new national planning policy framework
Wyn Evans
The publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation has been enthusiastically welcomed by the property and development industry. And quite right too. The thousands of pages of turgid, bureaucratic and inconsistent policy guidance of the former regime have been cast aside and replaced with a concise 50 page framework with one overriding objective – growth.
While the Localism Bill gave Britain’s Nimby brigade the tools to frustrate and oppose development, the NPPF will be the developers trump card. Page after page reinforces the case for growth and development. Councils will now need to demonstrate that their local plans are in line with the NPPF. Those that don’t have a sound plan in place (and four fifths don’t at present) will be subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
It was always the Government’s intention to bring in a national planning framework that was supportive of growth to balance the anti-development tendencies of the localism bill. But the depth of the economic downturn and the Government’s priority to get the economy back on track has meant that the framework has a much stronger focus on economic development than would have been the case even twelve months ago.
The Ministers at CLG have played a blinder. By establishing the practitioner’s advisory group to publish an initial draft, they paved the way for a pro-growth agenda. And by waiting to publish the framework until the Localism Bill has passed through the scrutiny of the Lords should ensure that Ministers get their localism bill and NPPF in place for the target start date of April 2012. With the incentive provisions of the New Homes Bonus already established, the Government will feel that the core foundations of its planning reform agenda will have been delivered in less than two years of taking office – a pretty significant achievement.
Yet, there are a number of words of caution.
1. This is still a draft NPPF. The final version needs ratification and ministers will face months of lobbying from interest groups wanting to water it down.
2. Even if the NPPF is implemented as drafted, much will depend on how the Secretary of State administers the new system and interprets the provisions within the new framework. The term “sustainable development” in itself could be interpreted in many ways.
3. Much of the enthusiasm for the new policy is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Yet if this becomes seen as a loophole for developers to exploit the system, the Secretary of State will come under enormous pressure to use it sparingly.
Westminster now packs away for the summer break. CLG Ministers need to re-charge their batteries. When they come back, they will face pressure from councils, lobby groups, backbench MPs and the media to tone down the draft of this NPPF.
Wyn Evans is Founding Director of Forty Shillings.
The publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation has been enthusiastically welcomed by the property and development industry. And quite right too. The thousands of pages of turgid, bureaucratic and inconsistent policy guidance of the former regime have been cast aside and replaced with a concise 50 page framework with one overriding objective – growth.
While the Localism Bill gave Britain’s Nimby brigade the tools to frustrate and oppose development, the NPPF will be the developers trump card. Page after page reinforces the case for growth and development. Councils will now need to demonstrate that their local plans are in line with the NPPF. Those that don’t have a sound plan in place (and four fifths don’t at present) will be subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
It was always the Government’s intention to bring in a national planning framework that was supportive of growth to balance the anti-development tendencies of the localism bill. But the depth of the economic downturn and the Government’s priority to get the economy back on track has meant that the framework has a much stronger focus on economic development than would have been the case even twelve months ago.
The Ministers at CLG have played a blinder. By establishing the practitioner’s advisory group to publish an initial draft, they paved the way for a pro-growth agenda. And by waiting to publish the framework until the Localism Bill has passed through the scrutiny of the Lords should ensure that Ministers get their localism bill and NPPF in place for the target start date of April 2012. With the incentive provisions of the New Homes Bonus already established, the Government will feel that the core foundations of its planning reform agenda will have been delivered in less than two years of taking office – a pretty significant achievement.
Yet, there are a number of words of caution.
1. This is still a draft NPPF. The final version needs ratification and ministers will face months of lobbying from interest groups wanting to water it down.
2. Even if the NPPF is implemented as drafted, much will depend on how the Secretary of State administers the new system and interprets the provisions within the new framework. The term “sustainable development” in itself could be interpreted in many ways.
3. Much of the enthusiasm for the new policy is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Yet if this becomes seen as a loophole for developers to exploit the system, the Secretary of State will come under enormous pressure to use it sparingly.
Westminster now packs away for the summer break. CLG Ministers need to re-charge their batteries. When they come back, they will face pressure from councils, lobby groups, backbench MPs and the media to tone down the draft of this NPPF.
Wyn Evans is Founding Director of Forty Shillings.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Will there be a public backlash against the New Homes Bonus?
Wyn Evans
Britain desperately needs to build more homes. A recent YouGov poll found that 81% of Britons accepted this. The problem is that they don’t want them built in their own neighbourhoods.
Tackling this dilemma is the single biggest challenge facing the development industry. The last Government’s attempt to impose top-down housing targets only brought resentment and public anger.
The Coalition Government is pinning its hopes on the New Home Bonus. It believes that by giving local councils’ financial incentives to support development, communities will come round to the idea. Asked what Plan B is if it fails, one minister replied that they will simply increase the Bonus.
I’m a big supporter of the New Homes Bonus. I have seen at first hand schemes approved that would have definitely been thrown out under the old regime. But I have also seen its drawbacks.
About six months ago, I was brought in by a developer just two weeks before committee. The scheme was recommended for approval by officers but had generated over 1,800 objections. Ordinarily, the application would have had no chance. However, the site was located in an opposition held ward and the New Homes Bonus brought the council the promise of a £7.5m windfall. Despite there being 400 objectors packed into the public gallery, the councillors from the ruling group voted it through.
I was so impressed at the power of incentives, that it became a central feature of the next consultation I ran. We asked the public how they would want the New Homes Bonus spent? But far from winning people over, it triggered the accusation that we were trying to buy and bribe our planning permission.
This could become the New Homes Bonus’ Achilles heel. In using the incentives’ package to justify development, councils will antagonise local resident groups. Far from winning over community support, it will provoke further cynicism about the planning process.
In three years’ time, it might be Labour that is hoovering up the NIMBY vote by promising to abolish the hated New Homes Bribe.
What do you think? Will the New Homes Bonus help build more homes? Will it help win over local communities to the need for more housebuilding? Or will it be seen by the public as an unacceptable bribe?
Wyn Evans is the Founding Director of Forty Shillings.
Britain desperately needs to build more homes. A recent YouGov poll found that 81% of Britons accepted this. The problem is that they don’t want them built in their own neighbourhoods.
Tackling this dilemma is the single biggest challenge facing the development industry. The last Government’s attempt to impose top-down housing targets only brought resentment and public anger.
The Coalition Government is pinning its hopes on the New Home Bonus. It believes that by giving local councils’ financial incentives to support development, communities will come round to the idea. Asked what Plan B is if it fails, one minister replied that they will simply increase the Bonus.
I’m a big supporter of the New Homes Bonus. I have seen at first hand schemes approved that would have definitely been thrown out under the old regime. But I have also seen its drawbacks.
About six months ago, I was brought in by a developer just two weeks before committee. The scheme was recommended for approval by officers but had generated over 1,800 objections. Ordinarily, the application would have had no chance. However, the site was located in an opposition held ward and the New Homes Bonus brought the council the promise of a £7.5m windfall. Despite there being 400 objectors packed into the public gallery, the councillors from the ruling group voted it through.
I was so impressed at the power of incentives, that it became a central feature of the next consultation I ran. We asked the public how they would want the New Homes Bonus spent? But far from winning people over, it triggered the accusation that we were trying to buy and bribe our planning permission.
This could become the New Homes Bonus’ Achilles heel. In using the incentives’ package to justify development, councils will antagonise local resident groups. Far from winning over community support, it will provoke further cynicism about the planning process.
In three years’ time, it might be Labour that is hoovering up the NIMBY vote by promising to abolish the hated New Homes Bribe.
What do you think? Will the New Homes Bonus help build more homes? Will it help win over local communities to the need for more housebuilding? Or will it be seen by the public as an unacceptable bribe?
Wyn Evans is the Founding Director of Forty Shillings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)