Consultation:
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy
Response:
I am very pleased that it is acknowledged that changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the support offered to local authorities are necessary in order to put communities at the heart of the planning and make sure the objectives of the Levelling-Up Bill are fully met. Local authorities, such as Castle Point Borough Council in my constituency, and the community they represent, have become very frustrated that the stated aspirations of the Government regarding Green Belt protection, and frankly the application of common sense in areas such as flood prevention, do not seem to be reflected by the Planning Inspectorate in their interpretations of the NPPF. I also know that Castle Point as a local authority has not been alone in experiencing the situation where local councillors’ interpretations of provisions in the NPPF have turned out to be vastly different to those of their own planning officers whose professional views they are duty-bound to take into account when making decisions. The reforms proposed will make such frustrating situations that slow down the plan-making process far less likely and I believe will make communities feel far more empowered to shape future development in the area they live. It is entirely accurate to say that ‘if communities know they can protect valuable green space and natural habitats as well as requiring new developments to be high quality and beautiful, plans are more likely to be both durable and robust’. I also believe from experience, they will be completed far more quickly.
Q.1: Do you agree that local planning authorities should not have to continually demonstrate a deliverable 5-year housing land supply (5YHLS) for as long as the housing requirement set out in its strategic policies is less than 5 years old?
Yes. I think the prospect of having to continually demonstrate a five-year housing supply after a plan has been accepted puts an unnecessary organisational strain on local authorities when they have just gone through a great deal of effort to get a plan together in the first place. Also, when local plans are supposed to give surety to residents about the shape of future development in their area. The possibility of the next five year’s supply of housing being altered in regular reviews will increase the anxiety of residents and councillors who want to protect certain sites from development if they possibly have to go through the same battle to do so every few years.
Q.2: Do you agree that buffers should not be required as part of 5YHLS calculations (this includes the 20% buffer as applied by the Housing Delivery Test)?
Yes. A lot of the factors that determine whether or not a local authority meets the Housing Delivery Test are outside of its control. Build out rates are heavily influenced by macroeconomic factors and industry-specific factors like availability of labour and fluctuations in the cost of materials. The Housing Delivery Test has also created a perverse incentive for big unit developers to delay build outs in a local authority area if they want to acquire more land designated for development. If a developer secures a site within the 5YHLS of a local authority that it doesn’t build out, it increases the likelihood that at the next revision of the 5YHLS the local authority will fail the test and have to include 20% more developable land. This increases the chances of any other developable land the developer may have an interest in being included. Big unit developers have the most influence over this, as the larger the number of units they have in their sites within a 5YHLS, the greater the percentage of the total quantum of potential housing that would need to be built out to meet the test they control. Scrapping the buffer would be a very positive change that would avoid local authorities being punished for factors beyond their control, which is sadly all too often the case.
Q.3: Should an oversupply of homes early in a plan period be taken into consideration when calculating a 5YHLS later on, or is there an alternative approach that is preferable?
Q.4: What should any planning guidance dealing with oversupply and undersupply say?
Yes, an oversupply of housing should be counted against a local authorities housing requirement in later 5YHLS numbers. When crafting guidance on over or undersupply, local authorities should not be punished for supply factors outside of their control. As many areas have a historic undersupply of housing, local authorities should be incentivised to ‘front load’ as much delivery on brownfield land as possible, as long as the infrastructure is provided to support them. I believe the best way to incentivise this would be to allow oversupply to be counted against the quantum of development necessary in local plans. It would also incentivise local authorities to front load their supply if they were allowed to discount any further housing need arising from the building out and occupation of an early oversupply in any further revisions to their housing need formula for the remainder of the plan period.
Q.5: Do you have any views about the potential changes to paragraph 14 of the existing Framework and increasing the protection given to neighbourhood plans?
The proposals are positive as they would decrease the chances of Neighbourhood Plans that have close democratic buy-in from local communities due to their requirement to be confirmed by local referenda, from being undermined by speculative development in their later stages.
Q.6: Do you agree that the opening chapters of the Framework should be revised to be clearer about the importance of planning for the homes and other development our communities need?
Yes. The addition of extra wording about ensuring that development can be integrated into the local infrastructure is particularly positive. It would also be beneficial to make clear at the beginning of the document the crucial importance of demonstrably proving the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate development and actively planning to improve infrastructure where necessary before new development is occupied.
Q.7: What are your views on the implications these changes (making the status of constraints on development clearer for planning officers and councillors when it comes to determining housing need) may have on plan-making and housing supply?
Q.8: Do you agree that policy and guidance should be clearer on what may constitute an exceptional circumstance for the use of an alternative approach for assessing local housing needs? Are there other issues we should consider alongside those set out above?
Q.9: Do you agree that national policy should make clear that Green Belt does not need to be reviewed or altered when making plans, that building at densities significantly out-of-character with an existing area may be considered in assessing whether housing need can be met, and that past over-supply may be taken into account?
This for me is by far and away the most welcome reform to the NPPF proposed. My own local authority, Castle Point, has not had a local plan in place for over twenty years principally because of disagreements between planning officers and members about the status of Green Belt as a constraint on development. It has always been my interpretation that the NPPF counts Green Belt as a key constraint and that even if historically low delivery rates force it to be considered, local authorities can put up strong cases to planning inspectors as to why it should be kept that would succeed if argued well enough at examination. From the advice given to councillors it would appear that in execution, some planning officers and even some planning inspectors believe otherwise. I also believe that there is an overwhelming and not unjustified fear among council planners that if they were to ever make such an argument at an examination, big unit developers would be able to outspend local councils on legal counsel and the compilation of evidence increasing the chances that the plan would be found unsound at a great financial cost to the council and potentially leaving the council defenceless against speculative development.
This singular ambiguity regarding the status of Green Belt as a planning constraint has led to devastating delays with local plans being completed and the subversion of local democratic will, both of which have disproportionately benefitted big unit developers. Council planners are incentivised to include Green Belt into local plans against the wishes of councillors and local populations for two reasons. The first is the risk of being outspent by developers at examination as described above. The second is because prospective Green Belt developers tend to be large big unit developers who propose fewer but larger sites that can proportionately meet more of the local housing need, and who are also more likely to provide more evidence and resource into justifying and preparing their sites for inclusion. Including these sites means that less officer time and council resource needs to be put into finding and justifying many typically smaller parcels of brownfield land, the proposers of whom are likely to need significantly more guidance from planners on preparing the site and engaging in the local plan process. At a time when many planning departments in local authorities around the country find themselves under-manned and under-resourced, the inclusion of big Green Belt sites proposed by big unit developers no doubt appears far more practical and reasonable to planners.
Invariably this causes friction with councillors when they are presented with options to develop Green Belt to meet local housing needs (or in Castle Point’s case, only options to meet housing needs via Green Belt development), as this conflicts with their own interpretation of the NPPF, local sentiment and statements made by the Government stating local authorities have the power to defend the Green Belt. Ultimately, planning officers tend to win those arguments as they are the only ones who can provide suitable development options for councillors to consider in local plans based on their own professional judgements. Of course, once those options are presented to councillors in formal reports, their determined suitability as options by council planning officers can be used as weapons against local authorities in examinations and planning appeals should councillors seek or choose other options that may be more acceptable to the residents they serve, but on paper are less deliverable in comparison. This friction is what in my view leads to long delays in submitting and adopting local plans by councils. I have witnessed councillors that are not in favour of Green Belt development being constantly ground down by pressure from Senior Council Officers, who maintain including Green Belt sites for development is the best or only option, and advise that any other choice (if there is one even presented to councillors), is only likely to be overturned at examination and they will get Green Belt development they don’t want anyway, without the opportunity to masterplan it and actively mitigate the effects of development on residents.
This perceived ambiguity on the status of Green Belt as a constraint in the NPPF, and the fact that councillors are legally bound to consider planning officer advice as in the vast majority of cases the only technical source available to them, currently means that councillors as decision-makers who find themselves in that situation are in effect truly powerless to act otherwise. Also, at the back of councillor’s minds is undoubtedly the fact that if they choose to force a change in policy, via a vote at full council say, the successful delivery of that policy ultimately rests in the hands of those same officers who have argued against it and whose professional belief is that it is the wrong course of action. So invariably in order to avoid adopting plans including large unpopular swathes of Green Belt for development, it is understandable that councillors turn to delay, in many cases hoping for either a change of officer opinion bought around by a change in staff, or this exact reform of the NPPF by the Government to provide clarity.
Removing that ambiguity and making it crystal clear to council planners, councillors, and planning inspectors, that Green Belt boundaries do not need to be altered to accommodate housing needs is probably the single most effective thing that can be done to speed up the adoption of local plans, and with it the delivery of housing in large numbers of local authorities.
Oversupply should absolutely be considered when addressing housing needs, as should increasing building density in suitable areas such as town centres. This would also lead to the rejuvenation of local high streets as destinations for shopping and leisure by increasing the immediate local market. It should always be clear however that the infrastructure needs bought on by such development should be provided in full without exception.
Q.10: Do you have views on what evidence local planning authorities should be expected to provide when making the case that need could only be met by building at densities significantly out-of-character with the existing area?
That they are unable to meet their assessed needs without building on Green Belt, other protected land, or land subject to intractable flood risk.
Q.11: Do you agree with removing the explicit requirement for plans to be ‘justified’, on the basis of delivering a more proportionate approach to examination?
Q.12: Do you agree with our proposal to not apply revised tests of soundness to plans at more advanced stages of preparation? If no, which if any, plans should the revised tests apply to?
Yes and yes. I believe that removing the necessity for plans to be ‘justified’ as described and removing the later tests of soundness will make it quicker and cheaper for local authorities to build plans. It will also decrease the risk of big unit developers with bigger legal budgets than most local authorities can muster being able to overturn local plans that have the support of local people at examination.
Q.13: Do you agree that we should make a change to the Framework on the application of the urban uplift?
Q.14: What, if any, additional policy or guidance could the department provide which could help support authorities plan for more homes in urban areas where the uplift applies?
Q.15: How, if at all, should neighbouring authorities consider the urban uplift applying, where part of those neighbouring authorities also functions as part of the wider economic, transport or housing market for the core town/city?
Yes I do, as it is important to maximise the utility of brownfield land. However, not being a planning professional, I can only recommend that close engagement is required with local planning authorities to work out what advice is necessary to support it and the details of practical application.
Q.16: Do you agree with the proposed 4-year rolling land supply requirement for emerging plans, where work is needed to revise the plan to take account of revised national policy on addressing constraints and reflecting any past over-supply? If no, what approach should be taken, if any?
Q.17: Do you consider that the additional guidance on constraints should apply to plans continuing to be prepared under the transitional arrangements set out in the existing Framework paragraph 220?
Yes to both questions. However, these provisions will do little to help Castle Point Borough Council defend against speculative development in the meantime as they are, I believe, some time away from getting close to publishing a proposals map for a Regulation 18 or 19 consultation and they have a large historic unmet housing need. In the summer of last year, Castle Point Council decided to withdraw its local plan which rested post-examination unadopted. Not a single councillor from any party voted to adopt it because it contained large Green Belt sites treasured by the local community. Although it would seem that had they simply waited and altered their pre-existing unadopted plan to reflect the extra clarity on Green Belt as a constraint on development contained in these reforms, they would still be able to argue large speculative planning applications on the Green Belt were premature at appeal as they were at an advanced stage of the plan making process, as they chose to withdraw the plan it appears they will not have the opportunity. Extra clarity would be welcomed by residents, and I am sure also by the council, on their position and what protection they could receive from transitional arrangements that would help them defend against large speculative planning applications until they have a new published draft plan. Developers have already signalled their intention to submit planning applications on Green Belt sites both included and ruled out of the previous plan imminently, I believe to take specific advantage of their position, so if they ask for further clarity the request should please be treated as urgent.
Q.18: Do you support adding an additional permissions-based test that will ‘switch off’ the application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development where an authority can demonstrate sufficient permissions to meet its housing requirement?
Q.19: Do you consider that the 115% ‘switch-off’ figure (required to turn off the presumption in favour of sustainable development Housing Delivery Test consequence) is appropriate?
Q.20: Do you have views on a robust method for counting deliverable homes permissioned for these purposes?
Q. 21: What are your views on the right approach to applying Housing Delivery Test consequences pending the 2022 results?
Yes. However, not being a planning professional, I can only recommend that close engagement is required with local planning authorities to work out appropriate specific details and methods.
Q.23: Do you agree that we should amend existing paragraph 62 of the Framework to support the supply of specialist older people’s housing?
Yes. This is very important in Castle Point, where local demand for such housing is high and would free up more existing family homes which are currently underoccupied and often needing adaptations
Q.24 Do you have views on the effectiveness of the existing small sites policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (set out in paragraph 69 of the existing Framework)?
Q.25 How, if at all, do you think the policy could be strengthened to encourage greater use of small sites, especially those that will deliver high levels of affordable housing?
Huge importance should be placed on supporting small local developers to bring forward smaller sites, and indeed, especially those which propose high levels of affordable housing where there is a need for it. Not only are small sites developed quicker, but as they are often developed by smaller local builders they support the local economy.
Larger big unit developers that put forward proposals to build on Green Belt sites are better able to take out options for extended periods of time on sites due to their greater financial and legal resources. This means that they have the ability build out and bring to market new homes at an artificially slow rate that doesn’t risk deflating their local market value, and at a time they judge to be most financially advantageous for them. Smaller builders on smaller sites however, are more likely to build them sites quicker due to financial necessity.
The existing provisions of paragraph 69 are well-intentioned but need strengthening. In many, cases for example, I know local authorities do not use all the tools available to support them, such as area-wide design assessments and Local Development Orders.
Local authorities need to be made to focus more on smaller sites and be made to practically assist smaller developers to navigate the process of having their site considered in the plan-making process.
Q.26: Should the definition of “affordable housing for rent” in the Framework glossary be amended to make it easier for organisations that are not Registered Providers – in particular, community-led developers and almshouses – to develop new affordable homes?
Q.27: Are there any changes that could be made to exception site policy that would make it easier for community groups to bring forward affordable housing?
Q.28: Is there anything else that you think would help community groups in delivering affordable housing on exception sites?
Q.29: Is there anything else national planning policy could do to support community-led developments?
Yes and great importance should be placed on encouraging more community-led development. However, not being a planning professional, I am unable to comment on what specific practical measures would support them.
Q.30: Do you agree in principle that an applicant’s past behaviour should be taken into account into decision making? If yes, what past behaviour should be in scope?
Q.31: Of the 2 options above, what would be the most effective mechanism? Are there any alternative mechanisms?
Yes, absolutely! Key examples would be not building out permissions without good reason in a reasonable amount of time, failure to provide or delays in providing surface water drainage and other infrastructure as mandated, and ‘gazumping’ councils in post-application affordable housing and Sec 106 negotiations. Allowing councils to consider such irresponsible behaviour as a material planning consideration and grounds for refusal would be an effective option as a deterrent.
Q.32 Do you agree that the 3 build out policy measures that we propose to introduce through policy will help incentivise developers to build out more quickly? Do you have any comments on the design of these policy measures?
Yes, although not being a planning professional I will not comment on the design of the measures.
Q.33: Do you agree with making changes to emphasise the role of beauty and placemaking in strategic policies and to further encourage well-designed and beautiful development?
Q.34: Do you agree to the proposed changes to the title of Chapter 12, existing paragraphs 84a and 124c to include the word ‘beautiful’ when referring to ‘well-designed places’ to further encourage well-designed and beautiful development?
Q.35: Do you agree greater visual clarity on design requirements set out in planning conditions should be encouraged to support effective enforcement action?
Yes and they are very welcome proposals.
Q.36 Do you agree that a specific reference to mansard roofs in relation to upward extensions in Chapter 11, paragraph 122e of the existing Framework is helpful in encouraging LPAs to consider these as a means of increasing densification/creation of new homes? If no, how else might we achieve this objective?
I decline to comment, as I am not a planning professional.
Q.37 How do you think national policy on small scale nature interventions could be strengthened? For example in relation to the use of artificial grass by developers in new development?
Strengthening such interventions is crucial, however I will leave it to those with expertise in the field to suggest specific measures. Regulations for planning applications on the amount and permeability of artificial grass would be welcomed.
Q.38 Do you agree that this is the right approach to making sure that the food production value of high value farmland is adequately weighted in the planning process, in addition to current references in the Framework on best and most versatile agricultural land?
Yes.
Q.39: What method and actions could provide a proportionate and effective means of undertaking a carbon impact assessment that would incorporate all measurable carbon demand created from plan-making and planning decisions?
Q.40 Do you have any views on how planning policy could support climate change adaptation further, including through the use of nature-based solutions which provide multi-functional benefits?
These are very important matters and great emphasis is rightly being placed on them, however I will decline to comment on specific methods and measures as I do not have specific expertise or experience in these professional fields.
Q.41: Do you agree with the changes proposed to Paragraph 155 of the existing National Planning Policy Framework?
Q.42: Do you agree with the changes proposed to Paragraph 158 of the existing National Planning Policy Framework?
Q.44: Do you agree with our proposed new Paragraph 161 in the National Planning Policy Framework to give significant weight to proposals which allow the adaptation of existing buildings to improve their energy performance?
Yes to all.
Q.45: Do you agree with the proposed timeline for finalising local plans, minerals and waste plans and spatial development strategies being prepared under the current system? If no, what alternative timeline would you propose?
Yes as the timelines seem reasonable, especially as the extra evidence currently necessary to meet the bar of the plan being ‘justified’ will no longer be necessary.
Q.46: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements for plans under the future system? If no, what alternative arrangements would you propose?
Yes but transitional arrangements should be extended to councils as early as possible in their plan-making process, so they can be applicable as soon as possible to local authorities such as Castle Point.
Q.47: Do you agree with the proposed timeline for preparing neighbourhood plans under the future system? If no, what alternative timeline would you propose?
Q.48: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements for supplementary planning documents? If no, what alternative arrangements would you propose?
Yes to both.
Q.51: Do you agree that selective additions should be considered for proposals to complement existing national policies for guiding decisions?
Yes.
Q.52: Are there other issues which apply across all or most of England that you think should be considered as possible options for National Development Management Policies?
I decline to comment, as I am not a planning professional.
Q.54: How do you think the Framework could better support development that will drive economic growth and productivity in every part of the country, in support of the levelling up agenda?
By placing a focus on enabling and supporting local authorities to better secure development that will provide high-paying jobs in sustainable industries and providing enough practical space in developments to host SMEs and allow them to expand.
Q.55: Do you think that the government could go further in national policy, to increase development on brownfield land within city and town centres, with a view to facilitating gentle densification of our urban cores?
These reforms are a massive step forward and I would support further such policies.
Q.56: Do you think that the government should bring forward proposals to update the Framework as part of next year’s wider review to place more emphasis on making sure that women, girls and other vulnerable groups feel safe in our public spaces, including for example policies on lighting/street lighting?
Yes, absolutely.
Q.57 Are there any specific approaches or examples of best practice which you think we should consider to improve the way that national planning policy is presented and accessed?
I decline to comment on specific examples of best practice but national planning policy should be readily and easily accessible for all.
Q.58 We continue to keep the impacts of these proposals under review and would be grateful for your comments on any potential impacts that might arise under the Public Sector Equality Duty as a result of the proposals in this document.
I have no specific comments.