Viability assessments at the plan-making stage, a step toward zoning?
The first blog in this series of three discussed some of the Government’s proposed changes to policy and guidance on viability assessments and developer contributions[i]. In short, the proposals aim to introduce a standardised approach to appraising land values, whilst front-loading viability assessments to the plan-making stage - suggesting a subtle move toward a more prescriptive, zonal approach to planning.
In theory, such a move could potentially bring a number of benefits in light of the UK’s housing crisis.
For one, the changes could give planners and the public far greater control over what is built and the contributions expected from developers.
Funding for infrastructure could be better aligned to the uplift in local land values arising from granted permissions, whilst people living in the vicinity of new development may feel less likely to oppose it, due to there being greater certainty of the related benefits being delivered.
Taking matters one step further, a further shift toward a zonal approach could also offer the opportunity for more detailed, statutory guidance over design. Housing density, internal space standards and public realm requirements could be written into ordinances alongside or within plans, in theory at least helping ensure safe, vibrant and well-loved places are created, while speeding up the planning process for individual projects too.
Design codes prescribe spatial standards for new development, helping individual schemes conform to a wider vision for an area
Whilst a fully developed system of zoning is unlikely to be rolled out across England any time soon, for certain site allocations a more prescriptive approach could work well. Local authorities could take on the role of master planner, clearly indicating what kind of development is required and the associated contributions sought from specified site allocations. This could also help garner public support and provide reassurance over potentially sensitive projects, such as estate regeneration schemes or the development of Green Belt sites.
Used in conjunction with land-pooling and a plot-based approach to urban design, this zoning-type approach could also help to reduce some of the risk associated with development, levelling the playing field for smaller developers and simultaneously increasing the diversity of housing on offer, contributing to the genuinely mixed neighbourhoods the Government wants to deliver.
A culture shift in planning?
Wider questions remain as to whether local authorities have the capacity or the will to take on the task, as this would require a wide range of professional expertise outside the normal remit of local planning departments.
Those drawing up plans would have to work closely with architects, urban designers, social scientists, economists and community groups, as well as those from the development industry delivering the changes. Whether some of these skills would be brought in-house or outsourced is another question, either way a major change in the culture of planning would be needed.
There does appear to be a growing appetite in the development sector for change along these lines.
The recent interim report of the Raynsford Review has called for the profession to welcome a ‘new kind of creative and visionary planner into the system’, arguing that ‘planners and planning need to communicate their creative and visionary ambition’, as well as calls to reform the system of developer contributions [ii].
In the same week, the GLA-commissioned report ‘Capital Gains - A Better Land Assembly Model for London’ has called for powers to be granted to London boroughs that would allow them to designate ‘Land Assembly Zones’
[iii]. Although some London boroughs like Croydon and Hackney have taken a very pro-active approach to regeneration in their areas, this has tended to be on a site-by-site basis and is far from being comprehensive. By assembling smaller plots together, development and infrastructure could be better consolidated, whilst the cost and risk of development could - in the right circumstances - be shared through land-pooling, in a similar fashion to that outlined above.
Without a huge culture shift, further devolution and a relaxation of local authority spending restrictions, zoning in the English system is likely to be limited for now.
A long way to go
At present, draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policies and Planning Practice Guidance on viability testing are not linked to any stricter controls over what can and cannot be built. Given the amount of flexibility this bestows, it makes it more difficult to set developer contributions at a level which is sensitive to market conditions, whilst delivering the community infrastructure needed and not deterring development.
With paragraph 34 of the draft NPPF stating that “plans should also set out any circumstances in which further viability assessment may be required in determining individual applications”, without any stricter controls over development in plans themselves, it seems likely that this will be an option which many applicants decide to pursue.
See our other blogs in this series:
[i] HMCLG - Draft Revised National Planning Policy Framework HMCLG - Draft Planning Practice Guidance
[ii] Interim Report of the Raynsford Review of Planning in England
[iii] Capital Gains - A better land assembly model for London
