Planning matters

Self- and custom-housebuilding has become more prominent as one of the ways to address the UK’s housing shortage. In particular – and as of the end of October - the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016 require local authorities to maintain a register of individuals and groups who want land to self-build homes, and to grant sufficient development permissions in response.

But what is a novelty in the UK is commonplace elsewhere. Having spent a term of my undergraduate degree studying spatial planning at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, I have noticed how differently the Dutch look at planning compared to the British. In particular, there is the more positive, liberal and experimental approach to planning that has led the way for places like Almere - a large scale, widely recognised self-build programme on polder land to the north of Amsterdam.

Almere is an example of how the UK could improve the affordability and sustainability of homes, as well as opening up the housebuilding market to greater competitiveness. Self-built homes also have the potential to provide bigger, more desirable homes - significant when it has been recognised that the UK is building the smallest new homes in Europe (76m² on average compared to the Netherlands’ 115m²).

In Almere, the approach to self-building is relatively straightforward, with the whole area master planned by the local council and split up into different “I-build” districts (sustainable, terraced, lower-income etc.). Plots are sold at a fixed per sq.m rate and come with an A4 sized “passport” which has a short list of restrictions. The Almere authorities have promoted the land and installed all of the infrastructure required. This element of the approach may not however be suited to the UK, where local authorities do not deliver infrastructure themselves and are unlikely to have the funds to buy large land parcels for self-building (not to say that local authorities could not promote self-build housing on land already in public ownership however).

Almere highlights some benefits worth introducing to the UK housing market. It encourages a more diverse community not just through the built form but through the communities that live there. It also caters for different budgets while still allowing an individual or family to build a house they want to live in. As part of a suite of other policy initiatives, self- and custom-housebuilding could be part of the answer to the UK’s affordability issues.

Some of the most obvious drawbacks of Almere include the fact that the zones are likely to resemble construction sites for far longer than would a regular developer’s site. Self-build on a larger scale can also lead to some contrasting designs, where neighbours have had very different ideas for their homes.

If the UK government intend to move forward with its self- and custom-housebuilding agenda in a way that will maximise results, Almere could help illustrate the opportunities and pitfalls, in particular as an example adopting a deliberately plan-led approach. This means moving beyond land registers and permissions, and embracing a greater commitment towards the principle of the approach. A strong plan-led approach would allow people to build the houses they want to the specifications they need, creating places which they are proud of and which are more sustainable.

Self-building would support the Government’s evolving direction towards increasing the numbers of homes in all tenures and sectors of housebuilding. The Dutch example perhaps shows how a plan-led zoned approach might help take it to the next level.

As solar farm developers continue to adjust to life after Government subsidies, there are many positive ingredients to indicate that the sector is here to stay. Investors continue to want to back the delivery of, and see the returns from, ground-mounted solar schemes; the capital costs and performance of the technology continues to improve whilst landowners - particularly of agricultural land - still see solar power generation as a way of achieving diversification in their rural businesses.

What is working against the sector however, it seems, is the lack of availability of viable points of connection to the grid that have the capacity to accommodate the electricity generated. In the words of one of NLP’s solar farm clients, viable points of connection are becoming “as rare as hens’ teeth”. Identifying a viable point of connection is one challenge, another is then finding a site nearby that is capable of ‘plugging’ into it, whilst not being too sensitive to hosting such a significant feature as a solar farm in the landscape. This is where the planning challenges begin, particularly where the developer takes the big bold step of entering the Green Belt to explore site availability…

The statistics stack against planning permission being granted for large scale ground-mounted solar farm developments in the Green Belt. In our involvement with solar farm proposals on Green Belt land, we often find the focus of local authorities is on why such proposals have been refused elsewhere (for example in Lancashire[1]) rather than looking at the particular circumstances of the proposal in front of them and bearing in mind the reasons why solar farm developments have already been found acceptable on Green Belt sites (such as at Arnold in Gedling[2], Watnall[3] in Broxtowe and at Bletchingdon in Oxfordshire[4]).

A Green Belt designation undoubtedly adds a whole set of challenges which need to be addressed as part of the planning process for a prospective solar farm development. To this end, paragraph 91 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises:

“When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed.”

This policy is to be read alongside the cornerstone paragraph of the NPPF which sets the key principle for determining Green Belt proposals:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” (paragraph 88)

Often, when determining whether ‘very special circumstances’ (VSC) exist for ground-mounted solar schemes in the Green Belt, applicants and determining authorities tend to focus on the benefits of the solar scheme, essentially the level of contribution that the scheme will make to renewable energy supply, together  with other benefits that might include ecological enhancements, rural diversification and community contributions. However, focussing too much on the benefits, in weighing up whether VSC exist, can lead to an overly simplistic approach – the larger the MW energy generation, the greater the prospects of there being VSC.

What we find, however, is that before looking at the benefits, it is equally (and probably more) important to establish the extent of harm on a site-by-site basis. Green Belt is not uniform and the contribution that one part of the Green Belt makes to the stated five purposes can be quite different to another part. The ability to screen and visually contain one site, in a way that is not possible in another location, is all-important when starting to consider whether the scales can start to be rebalanced away from the default position of the scheme’s inappropriateness because of its impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. Knowing  how much weight there is on the harm side of the scales leads to a better understanding of the ‘weight’ that the counteracting benefits need to have, sufficient enough to tip the scales and create the VSC.

Here at NLP, we use a range of tools and services to analyse both the value of Green Belt sites and their vulnerability to “alien intrusions” (in the words of Greg Clark^[5]) in the form of ground-mounted solar farms. We build up an evidence-based picture of the relative value of sites within a given search area, so as to assist developers both at site finding stage and in preparing alternative site assessments that national policy now seeks as part of the application determination process.

We have seen considerable success in the methodical approaches that we have devised in assessing site suitability and the strength of case for VSC, with one local authority recently considering that NLP’s demonstrated absence of a more suitable site in the search area was, in itself, a contributing factor to there being VSC. Once we know we have a Green Belt site that touches lightly on the harm side of the scales (or certainly lighter than its neighbours) then we have a springboard from which to elevate the scheme, through the promotion of its wide-ranging benefits, into the realms of VSC.

In recent months, NLP has successfully applied this approach and secured planning permissions for over 20MW of ground-mounted solar farms on sites in the Nottingham - Derby Green Belt.

The stand-off between Unilever and the UK’s major food retailers in recent weeks brought some of the new challenges facing the town centre and retail sector into sharp focus and onto the front pages. The result of the June referendum on EU membership and subsequent fluctuations in the value of the pound will undoubtedly present further challenges over time, albeit challenges which can hopefully be overcome just as swiftly. However, even before the EU Referendum, the UK’s town and city centres were facing a number of challenges and continuing to evolve in response to changes in the retail and leisure market.

NLP’s new research paper, What Next for Town Centre and Retail Development? - the latest in a series aimed at Supporting Scotland’s Growth - considers recent trends alongside future projections to identify those sectors and locations where opportunities for growth continue to exist.

In Scotland, town centres have been subject to many of the same challenges as those experienced across the UK, with pressure on household finances and the rise of internet shopping changing the way that consumers shop and the way that communities use their local centres.

The contribution which the retail sector makes to the Scottish economy cannot be understated, with nearly 10% of enterprises in Scotland being registered retailers, a figure that is notably higher than the UK average. Total consumer spending in Scotland is double and treble that of Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, and the sector is undoubtedly essential to supporting Scotland’s growth.

Our latest research finds that expenditure on both leisure and retail-based GVA is forecast to increase by more than 20% over the next 15 years in Scotland, but that there is still a significantly lower level of provision of food-based leisure services than the UK average (12% compared to 16%). With town centres playing an increasing social role for communities in comparison to their historical focus upon retailing, there is evidently more scope for related social and leisure uses which will complement current retail functions.

Projections in population growth and household expenditure illustrate significant regional variation in growth potential, with ‘centre regions’ – particularly Edinburgh - emerging as key locations and opportunities for further investment. This pattern is reinforced by the improving performance of certain Scottish centres in Venuescore’s retail rankings. It is of particular note that Edinburgh has the lowest level of shopping centre and retail warehouse floorspace per head of Scotland’s four major cities, with Glasgow close behind, yet both have significant population and household expenditure growth forecast.

The national policy context exists for Scotland’s town and retail centres to thrive. With increasing emphasis on a variety of uses and the night-time economy, as well as Scottish Planning Policy’s proactive approach to the designation of commercial centres within local retail hierarchies, the conditions necessary and desirable for the continued diversification of town centres are in place.

It is encouraging to see major new developments investment being planned or taking place in both Edinburgh and Glasgow city centres, and outwith the centres such as at intu Braehead in Renfrewshire, and at Chesser Avenue in Edinburgh. The outlook is positive and our research clearly points to there being significant potential for new or increased investment in the food and leisure sectors alongside retail in key locations. What is essential now is that local policy and decision-makers recognise these trends and plan positively for the future success of city and town centres.

Click here for What Next for Town Centre and Retail Development?

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has published ‘A City for all Londoners’, which marks the first step towards the creation of a new London Plan, as well as new strategies for wide-ranging policy areas that will be published in draft next year. ‘Interim’ supplementary planning guidance (SPG) on maximising affordable housing provision will be published later in 2016, at some point after the Government’s Housing White Paper that is due in late November (most likely on the 23rd, the date of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement).

‘A City for all Londoners’ is referred to by Khan as ‘a statement of my ambition as mayor’ and is out for consultation until 11 December 2016. With the Mayor advising that the publication should be read as a whole, rather than as separate themed sections on housing, the economy or environment etc., Khan’s stated intention is to build on his election manifesto and the announcements he has made since May. The consultation document therefore sets the direction of travel for Mayoral policies, focusing more on proposed lines of intervention and strategies, rather than setting specific targets and goals.

‘A City for all Londoners’ is split into five parts, with the main highlights being as follows:

• It does not set an annual target for new homes, although it states that experts have said that the need is to build ‘at least 50,000 homes every year between now and 2041’ (page 19);
• The intention to protect Green Belt and other designated green spaces is reiterated early in the document (page 19);
• It pledges to protect the job-creating role of central London, by resisting ‘moves to convert offices to housing unless this can be justified’ (page 21) and protecting existing workspace and identifying new workspace areas (page 53);
• Transport development and infrastructure are recognised as crucial (including river crossings in the east) in delivering development in non-central locations, and to creating new opportunities for homes and jobs (page 21);
• There should be more development in town centres, particularly those with good links to central London; similarly, the potential of areas around stations as locations for ‘significant and much higher density housing development’ will be explored (page 23);
• Hotel provision will be increased in both Opportunity Areas and town centres in Outer London, where good transport links are available. The document sets a target for ‘at least additional 40,000 hotel rooms in London’ by 2036 (page 53);
• It aims to agree ‘joint infrastructure investment corridors […] that stretch out beyond London’s borders’, by working with neighbouring authorities in the wider South East (page 25);
• Ways to deliver more infrastructure will be explored, by focusing on mechanisms ‘to ensure that London as a whole benefits from the future uplift in land prices following development’ (page 47);
• It set the goal for a zero-carbon London by 2050 (pages 27 and 61);
• It states the intention to move to ‘all new buildings in London to be air quality positive’ - they will have to ‘contribute actively to progressive reduction in the total amount of London’s emissions and associated exposure’ (page 59);
• It reaffirms the intention to explore the ‘agent-of-change’ principle, whereby developers would bear the costs for soundproofing new homes (details are expected in proposed Night-Time Economy SPG, due ‘in the coming months’) (page 27);
• The affordable housing target is still set at 50%, in terms of ‘working towards’ it (page 39); interestingly, starter homes are not mentioned in the document at all - ‘low-cost rented, the London Living Rent and shared ownership’ are the housing types the Mayor aims to offer (page 9);
• It confirms that an ‘interim’ SPG on maximising affordable housing provision will be published later in 2016 (page 91);
• It states that the Mayor is currently ‘reviewing plans for the two Mayoral Development Corporations’ (London Legacy and Old Oak and Park Royal), ‘to make sure they deliver as many new and affordable homes as possible’ (page 41);
• It confirms the Mayor is focusing on attracting finance into ‘new high-quality build-to-rent developments’ (page 41); and
• In several parts of the document the Mayor reiterates his call for the devolution of powers from central government (on fiscal policies, railway services, etc.).

The Mayor is making it clear that in forming the new Plan and his strategies for key policy areas, he is receptive to others’ ideas. He wants to be made fully aware of stakeholder and public needs as early as possible therefore invitation-only stakeholder workshops, plus community focus groups and online discussions are beginning to be arranged. No details have been published yet however.