This site uses cookies, as explained in our cookie policy. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Privacy Policy

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Housing Land and Delivery in Edinburgh and the Lothians

Housing Land and Delivery in Edinburgh and the Lothians

Kyle Morrison 31 Aug 2023
Over the past two weeks of my internship, I have been involved in various projects that have allowed me to deepen my understanding of the planning sector. One of the main projects I have been working on involved analysing the Local Development Plans (LDPs) and Housing Land Audits (HLAs) of the local authorities that cover Edinburgh and the Lothians to establish how each authority is meeting or failing to meet their Housing Land Requirement (HLR) set in their current LDPs.
The basis for my investigation was the recent Hens Nest Road judgement[1] that essentially crystalised the point that a LDP sets out how many homes should be built in their area over the plan period and that number of new homes should be delivered over the plan period. I then looked at the National Planning Framework 4’s (NPF4’s) Minimum All-Tenure Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR) to assess how these same local authorities were going to perform against the new NPF4 requirement.

 

So, what did I find?

In terms of the HLR vs delivery/supply set out in the LDPs / HLAs for Edinburgh, East Lothian, Midlothian, and West Lothian, Edinburgh is the only one of the 4 local authorities that has a chance of delivering their housing land requirement by end March 2024. East Lothian might come close, but Midlothian and West Lothian will fall far short.
The Minimum All-Tenure Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR) is a component of the new NPF4, and each local authority is expected to exceed these new minimum HLRs through setting a Local Housing Land Requirement (LHLR) with a 10-year delivery pipeline. To see how the local authorities of Edinburgh and Lothians were likely to perform against the MATHLR I looked at the future development programming set out in each of the 2022 Housing Land Audits.
East Lothian, Midlothian, and West Lothian will all exceed the MATHLR as these authorities all have supply/expected completion figures that are higher than the total MATHLR in the short and medium term (years 1-3 and 4-6). However, this is not the case with Edinburgh, which will fall well short of delivery against the MATHLR in the short and medium term. Edinburgh is the only local authority looked at that has a MATHLR that is significantly higher than the HLR previously set by their LDP.
For East Lothian and West Lothian, the per annum HLR is hugely reduced by the MATHLR from that set by the LDPs. Midlothian’s has largely remained the same.
Of the four local authorities, Edinburgh is the only one that has an overall shortfall in the supply of housing set out in its LDP when held against the MATHLR from 2023-2033. This housing supply shortfall is equivalent to 3 years’ worth of the MATHLR. In contrast, if the MATHLR is applied to the other three local authorities, then all three would successfully meet the MATHLR based on their current scheduled supply. This is not to say that these authorities necessarily have sufficient land to meet their next Local Development Plan’s land requirements.
Once a LHLR is set for each authority in their next LDP, this position may change.

 

In Summary

  • Edinburgh will likely delivery its Housing Land Requirement set in the LDP. East Lothian might just but Midlothian and West Lothian will not.

  • There is a significant per annum uplift in deliverable housing land required for Edinburgh to meet the MATHLR, East Lothian and West Lothian have seen their per annum requirement reduce significantly and for Mid Lothian it has largely stayed the same.

  • If the MATHLR is to be applied from the period 2023/24 onwards, then Edinburgh is the only local authority that would fail to meet the MATHLR’s requirements.

Final Thought

If we compare the delivery of new homes in each of these local authorities in 2021/22 with the per annum rates suggested by the MATHLR then there will be an overall net reduction per annum of 830 new homes across Edinburgh and the Lothians:
My internship is at an end now, but I hope what I have found out has been interesting to you.  If you wish to discuss any of the above please contact Nicola Woodward or Gordon Thomson in our Edinburgh office.

[1] 2023csih3.pdf (scotcourts.gov.uk)

CONTINUE READING

Primary School Capacity in Edinburgh and the Lothians

Primary School Capacity in Edinburgh and the Lothians

Fergus Fisher 31 Aug 2023
At the beginning of my internship with Lichfields in the Edinburgh office I was assigned an interesting research project looking into proposed new housing developments and whether there is sufficient primary school infrastructure within the catchment area to educate additional pupils. The project focused on the City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Midlothian, and West Lothian using key data from government sources to identify which primary schools were either under or over capacity. I then compared where these schools were in relation to the potential for new housing developments. Some of the key sources I used within my research include; school estates supplementary statistics, primary school information dashboard, the local development plan for each of the council areas as well as their housing land audits. These sources provided the necessary data which I could then analyse highlighting key findings that I will discuss further throughout this blog.

What did my research reveal?

Edinburgh at the start of the 2021/22 school year had capacity for 5,830 non-denominational primary school pupils if each of their schools was at 100% capacity. For the same school year East Lothian had capacity for 2,698 pupils; Midlothian had capacity for 2,064 pupils; and West Lothian for 4,236 pupils. That is a total of 14,828 pupils if all non-denominational primary schools were 100% full.  If we assume it is reasonable to plan for each school to be 95% full and if we assume that a new house will generate 0.3 non- denominational primary school pupils (each local authority uses a different pupil product ratio, 0.3 is a good approximation) we can assume that in the order of 38,000 new homes could be supported by the existing school estate – 14,000 in Edinburgh, 7,200 in East Lothian, 5,300 in Midlothian and 11,300 in West Lothian. 
In recent years there has been significant housing development around Gilmerton and the Danderhall/Shawfair areas with around 1,559 new homes planned at Gilmerton and a further 4,870 new homes at Danderhall/Shawfair. In these areas there will be a significant arrival of new families to the area in the near future. This increase in family homes led to the construction of Frogston primary school within the Gilmerton catchment area in June 2021 which has capacity for 420 pupils and is currently at 70% capacity steadily increasing annually as the new homes continue to be completed providing families with the necessary education infrastructure. Similarly, in the Danderhall/Shawfair area Danderhall primary school was upgraded in April 2021 providing facilities for up to 600 pupils to meet the demand. Danderhall primary was at 60% capacity in 2022 therefore still has plenty of spaces however the roll is increasing significantly annually as more houses are finished within the development and people are moving in. It is positive to see that both councils have recognised the need for more education infrastructure in these areas as a result of the developments providing additional primary schools to meet demand but, why not build new homes where capacity already exists?
Similarly, in East Lothian plans have been approved to construct 800 new homes on a site at Letham Mains on the outskirts of Haddington which could bring an additional 240 school pupils to the area. With the education infrastructure in Haddington already at full capacity the decision was made to include a primary school within the development providing the new homes with adequate education infrastructure. Letham primary school was completed in February 2021 and has capacity for up to 411 pupils however in 2022 the school was only at 26% capacity therefore is being massively underutilised. Some of the bigger towns within West Lothian are continuing to grow with significant housing development planned in Livingston, Whitburn, Winchburgh, East Calder, and Mid Calder. Winchburgh has 3,335 new homes planned to be constructed in the housing land audit. Winchburgh primary school is currently over capacity with 328 pupils enrolled for the 2021/22 school year.  The school only has capacity for 273 pupils therefore is currently at 120% capacity and this is continuing to increase annually.  A new non-denominational primary school is planned to support the ongoing housing development here. 

 

What about areas where school rolls are low?

Looking at the Edinburgh’s non-denominational primary schools 16% have capacity of more than 30% (12 schools). Looking at the Council’s interactive maps it is clear that 50% of these school catchments have no housing allocations in the 2022 Housing Land Audit.  
One third of Midlothian’s non-denominational primary schools have capacity of more than 30% (8 schools).  Looking at the Council’s interactive maps it is clear that 25% of these school catchments have no housing allocations in the 2022 Housing Land Audit. 
East Lothian’s non-denominational primary schools with capacity of more than 30% = 9 schools and in West Lothian 42% of schools have capacity of 30% or more (22 schools).  Unfortunately, neither East Lothian nor West Lothian have interactive maps showing their Housing Land Audit sites, so it wasn’t possible to easily determine whether or not there were housing sites identified in the catchment areas of the under-capacity schools.
Throughout the Lothians there a number of small primary schools located in rural villages which are struggling to maintain capacity with school rolls falling year on year as pupils progress onto high school and very few new pupils coming into the school to replace them. West Lothian has 6 schools with rolls of less than 90 pupils and capacity of more than 30%.  Woodmuir Primary and Dechmont Infant school have rolls of 13 pupils and 16 pupils respectively.  East Lothian in particular has a number of primary schools which are a good example of this issue. In 2022 Humbie Primary had only 28% of full capacity, Saltoun Primary had 37%, and Stenton Primary had 52% therefore all have critically low school roles 15 pupils, 29 pupils and 21 pupils respectively. Without new housing developments it is difficult to see how such schools will be sustained.    

 

In Summary

It is evident that throughout Edinburgh and Lothians the impact of new housing developments on education infrastructure has been given greater consideration in some areas more than others. Positive housing developments around Gilmerton and Danderhall/Shawfair have considered the effect of the development on existing education infrastructure and as a result have invested in new primary schools within their plans to ensure sufficient primary school capacity is available. On the other hand, primary schools in Winchburgh are over capacity meaning significant investment is needed to provide additional infrastructure. On the contrary there are primary schools in Edinburgh and the Lothians which are significantly under capacity and struggling to remain viable. Some councils such as Midlothian have recognised these issues approving plans to develop around 1,000 new homes in Penicuik which is positive to see and will help increase the primary school roles in both Cuiken and Strathesk primary schools that, prior to such development, were only at around half capacity. On a less positive note, the villages of Humbie, Saltoun, and Stenton in East Lothian have no plans for any housing developments which is bad news for the local primary schools as all 3 are massively under capacity and in desperate need of more pupils to remain viable.
It is clear from this research project the relationship between housing developments and education infrastructure is far from straightforward with significant thought and consideration required to ensure the best outcome.
My internship is at an end now, but I hope what I have found out has been interesting to you.  If you wish to discuss any of the above please contact Nicola Woodward or Gordon Thomson in our Edinburgh office.

CONTINUE READING

Creating change in carbon policy – what’s happening in London?

Jonathan Hoban & Nancy Stuart 30 Aug 2023
With the recent opposition to the expansion of ULEZ throwing a spotlight on how hard and fast Government can run with progressive climate change policies we examine how London Boroughs are pushing the agenda through local plans.

We have focussed this solely on local plan policies relating to operational carbon because it represents the largest portion of the UK’s Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, and the built environment is one of the biggest contributors.

Why London Boroughs? Well, there is already a plethora of planning policy relating to net zero, largely stemming from the London Plan 2021. If London is a frontrunner, it will give us a good indication of what might follow elsewhere in England.

Those working in London will be aware of Policy SI2 (Minimising greenhouse gas emissions) of the London Plan (2021) which sets the Energy Hierarchy. For operational carbon, the policy targets a minimum on-site reduction of carbon of at least 35% beyond the current Building Regulations Part L[1].

The London Plan (2021) sets strategic policy and the Boroughs then set their own policies, provided they are in general conformity. Given 96% of London Boroughs have declared a Climate Change Emergency, including 33% with targets to achieve Net Zero borough-wide by 2030 (Figure 1), it is clear that London Boroughs want to play a part in tackling climate change. But we wanted to explore whether London Boroughs are using their Local Plans to strive for more than the Building Regulations and the minimum targets set by the London Plan?

Figure 1: Borough wide targets for reaching net zero or carbon neutral

The map below illustrates which London Boroughs have set policies for carbon reductions requiring developers to comply with the London Plan targets, and who is going beyond this benchmark. Using the arrows at the side you can see both the adopted and emerging policy targets.

What is the London Plan policy? Policy SI2 of the London Plan says ‘A minimum on-site reduction of at least 35% beyond Building Regulations is required for major development. Residential development should achieve 10%, and non-residential development should achieve 15% through energy efficiency measures. Where it is clearly demonstrated that the zero-carbon target cannot be fully achieved on-site, any shortfall should be provided, in agreement with the borough, either:

1) through a cash in lieu contribution to the borough’s carbon offset fund, or

2) off-site provided that an alternative proposal is identified and delivery is certain.’
Most boroughs are sticking comfortably with the London Plan when considering adopted and recently adopted plans. This is expected given the lag between the London Plan being adopted and emerging plans coming forward. Southwark is the exception and is aiming for well above the London Plan targets.
When considering the emerging Local Plans, a much more mixed-picture emerges.

Our key findings are:

  • Out of those boroughs where data is available (24), 11 are targeting becoming zero-carbon boroughs by 2030, 20 years earlier than the Government and GLA goal.

  • Four adopted Local Plans are above the London Plan requirements (Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Richmond Upon Thames and Sutton). Of these four:

    • Two (Richmond Upon Thames and Sutton) keep the requirement for a 35% reduction but apply this to minor residential developments as well as major.

    • Two (Tower Hamlets and Southwark) strive for well beyond the 35% requirement with Southwark seeking a 100% on site carbon reduction.
  • Seven (Enfield, Bexley, Merton, Kingston Upon Thames, Richmond Upon Thames, and Wandsworth) out of sixteen emerging local plans, are aiming towards more ambitious targets. Of these:

    • Four (Merton, Richmond Upon Thames, Kensington & Chelsea, and Enfield) are seeking higher on site carbon reductions, with Richmond and Merton seeking the highest, both applying the same standards at 60% for all residential and 50% for all non-residential over 500sqm.

    • Three (Kingston Upon Thames, Bexley, and Wandsworth) are seeking to be more ambitious by applying the threshold to include minor residential developments as well as major.
  • 100% (Southwark) is the maximum target above building regulations that London Boroughs are targeting.

  • 45% (Enfield and Tower Hamlets) is the minimum operational emissions policy target above the London Plan.
Islington is the only borough with an emerging Local Plan which seeks a lower on-site carbon reduction. At 27% this is eight percent lower than the London Plan target.  Ealing does not have a policy target within its emerging plan; however, we expect that as per its adopted plan, a carbon policy will be included in the Regulation 19 draft.
       
Geographically, there seems to be a pattern emerging where Local Plans in southwest London appear to be more ambitious. When combined with Southwark’s adopted plan, there seems to be a clear pattern working westwards[i].     
It is clear from the maps that the majority of the London Boroughs are following the London Plan requirements. However, as emerging plans come forward, some, particularly in the southwest and in some outer boroughs such as Enfield and Bexley are going beyond the London Plan requirements.
Where London Boroughs have gone well beyond the London Plan requirements, such as Tower Hamlets and Southwark, they are explicit that that there is still scope to offset the difference through carbon offset payments. Although Southwark has published a number of planning FAQs advising that applications must still deliver to reductions against the 2021 Part L and securing shortfalls offsite or as a financial contribution should only be used in ‘exceptional circumstances’. Interestingly, we note that Newham state that shortfall payments ‘will only be accepted where it can be demonstrated that the reduction targets are impossible to meet in full on-site’.
Like these, Westminster also requires evidence to be demonstrated before accepting an off-setting payment. However developers in Westminster may be more inclined to deliver the policy requirements onsite in the future, with the LPA currently consulting on it’s new Planning Obligations SPD which proposes to increase its carbon offset payment from £95 to £880/tCO2 over a period of 30 years. This is more than 9 times the price recommended by the Mayor, showing another way in which local boroughs are pushing the climate agenda beyond the status quo.
We would expect this trend of higher targets to continue at a greater pace. What we have noted is that there is limited correlation between those London Boroughs that have declared a climate change emergency and set ambitious targets to become a carbon neutral borough, and how they have translated this into policy. For example, Southwark has set the highest policy targets, and is targeting 2030 to be a carbon neutral borough – earlier than the UK and GLA targets by 20 years.
The Mayor and his policies in the London Plan upped the ante on controlling the impacts of operational carbon from what went before in the Capital, and are ahead of most other towns and cities in England. As Local Plans catch-up with changes at strategic level, a clearer picture is emerging about which boroughs want to be at the vanguard of the climate change agenda and others which are moving their policy bars upwards but within more cautious parameters. The Capital’s policy response to the Climate Emergency that many boroughs have called, is now really starting to take shape. Lichfields has significant knowledge and expertise advising on highly sustainable schemes through the planning system. Please get in touch if you need help navigating planning policy or with one of your developments proposals.

[1] The GLA has confirmed the ‘Part L’ changes to the Building Regulations which came into effect in June 2022[1], will be applied to its policy targets - GLA Part L and the Energy Assessment Guidance 2022 – Cover Note [Energy Planning Guidance | London City Hall

CONTINUE READING

A division of Labour? The policies for housebuilding in Wales and England

A division of Labour? The policies for housebuilding in Wales and England

Arwel Evans 18 Aug 2023
“We choose the builders, not the blockers; the future, not the past; renewal not decline. We choose growth.” These were the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer’s words at a speech to the British Chambers of Commerce in May 2023 signalling a commitment from the Labour party to “drive housebuilding at pace.” However, the Labour party has been in power in Wales since the Senedd was established in 1999 and homes do not appear to be being delivered at pace. In the year 2022/23 the statistics showed that the number of new houses started in Wales was the lowest (with the exception of 2020/21 which was impacted by covid 19) it has been since StatsWales started compiling statistics in 1974.
 

Revocation of TAN1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies

About three years ago the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James, announced that Technical Advice Note 1 (TAN1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies) had been revoked and that the Five-Year Housing Land Supply section of Planning Policy Wales had been replaced by an interim policy statement. See my blog from July 2020.
The requirement to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply in Wales had been removed and replaced by a new method of monitoring housing delivery based on trajectories set out in Local Development Plans (LDPs). The requirement for decision makers to afford ‘substantial weight’ to the lack of housing delivery had also been withdrawn.
This signified a clear message from Welsh Government that a Plan-led approach to the delivery of homes is paramount with ‘speculative’ applications for residential development on unallocated sites outside of the settlement boundary not being looked at favourably. At face value, the new approach made it harder for such sites to be promoted.
Three years on I wanted to revisit the situation to understand how this change in policy has impacted on housing delivery. Clearly the time period since March 2020 has not been without its events, with the COVID-19 pandemic lasting until early 2022, the financial effects of Liz Truss’ mini budget in September 2022 as well as a cost-of-living crisis, soaring inflation and sharply rising interest rates.
Since that change in policy there have been several appeals[1] that are worth reviewing to understand how PEDW (which itself was only formed in October 2021) is considering housing delivery matters.
PEDW Inspectors position on the weight to apply to housing supply appears consistent with previous appeals that I reviewed, with the Inspector in APP/A6835/A/20/3251359 in Flintshire stating that the changes to PPW and revocation of TAN1 in March 2020 have not reduced the importance of delivering new housing, but the way delivery is planned, measured and monitored. In terms of the weight to be afforded to under delivery the Inspector noted that the following were relevant:
“…the extent of the shortfall, the length of time there has been a shortfall and how soon the Council will be able to demonstrate through an adopted LDP, how the housing needs of the area are to be met.”  (paragraph 9)
In APP/H6955/A/19/3238474 in Wrexham the Inspector noted that substantial weight should be given to the significant contribution to meeting the Council’s identified housing requirement and addressing the shortfall in supply that has persisted for some years. The site (located within the green barrier) was a draft allocation in the emerging plan and was allowed at appeal for 112 dwellings.
In the call in appeal qA1479296 (appeal reference APP/A6835/A/21/3275487) in Flintshire, the critical factor in deciding to dismiss the appeal was that there was increased confidence that the emerging LDP was nearing adoption and that allocations would start to deliver in the near future. Therefore, the Minister noted that “it has not been shown there would be a need to bring forward the appeal proposal to assist in meeting the housing requirements and the associated need in Flintshire.”
We also note call in appeal qA1399761 (appeal reference (APP/K6920/A/19/3226294) at Bedwellty, Caerphilly. Whilst an older appeal, the call-in decision made in October 2020 has been quashed and a re-determined decision is awaited. In this quashed call-in decision, the Minister overturned the Inspector’s recommendation and noted the primacy of the adopted LDP (despite it nearly being time expired and not delivering) and that there were other nearby LDP allocated sites that had not been developed. It will be interesting to see how the reconsidered decision is made, especially with the adopted LDP now being time expired and a replacement LDP subject to WG objections and being at least a couple of years away from adoption.
 

Analysis

A review of these appeals (and the appeals considered in my previous blog) leads to the following conclusions:
  1. Housing supply / addressing under delivery is still an important consideration in decision making although the Minister (in call in decisions) seemingly attaches less weight to this than planning inspectors;

  2. The weight to be given to the under-delivery of housing is a matter for the decision maker and will depend on the circumstances of each case;

  3. A key consideration in determining the weight to be afforded to boosting housing delivery is the ability/timescales of the emerging LDP to deliver housing to meet the housing shortfall. If an emerging LDP is at an advanced stage then the weight to be afforded to housing delivery at appeal will be limited. However, if the LDP is time expired and there is no prospect of adopting the LDP in the short term then there is greater probability that the appeal may succeed on this basis. It is interesting that this point was drawn out in the Wrexham appeal summarised above. Following the decision by Wrexham Council not to adopt its LDP – despite the Inspector finding it to be sound (see Simon Coop blog) – it is anticipated that that other draft allocations may follow a similar path.

Even where an Inspector agrees that an appeal should be allowed on planning balance, taking into account matters such as housing need, there is no certainty that the Minister will agree with that decision if the appeal is called in or recovered.

Housing delivery – a look at the statistics

We have reviewed housing completions and starts in Wales over the last 20 years to understand whether there are any patterns, especially since the change in five-year land supply policy in March 2020. However, it must be acknowledged that it may be too early to see any effect yet given the time it takes to start on site following obtaining a planning approval – see Lichfields’ ‘Start to Finish’ research.
Within the last 20-year period, housing delivery in Wales was at its peak in the early 2000s where on average 8,558 dwellings were completed per annum. Completions fell over a number of years following the 2008 financial crash to a low of 5,451 dwellings in 2012/13 before slowly increasing to a peak of 6,900 in 2015/16. Housing completions subsequently fell again to 5,777 in 2018/19.
As a result of the pandemic, the number of completions dropped significantly during 2020/21 to 4,616 before rising to 5,273 during 2021/22 and 5,785 in 2022/23. It’s interesting to note that completions in England recovered more quickly, returning to the 2008 heights in 2019. There was no similar resurgence in housebuilding levels in Wales where the figures have not got close to those 2008 heights. Given that macro-economic factors are similar across both countries it raises the question whether planning policy is one explanation for this divergence in the rate of house building between England and Wales.
Figure 1 Annual housing completions

Source: Stats Wales / ONS

Future Wales (The National Plan) estimates that an average of 5,500 dwellings per annum are required between 2019 and 2039 with 7,400 dwellings per annum required in the first five years of that period. It is important to note that the estimates set out in Future Wales do not reflect positive policy outcomes such as those desired by the Cardiff Capital Region and do not represent a housing requirement for Wales or the regions. They are, therefore, in Lichfields view an underestimate of the levels of house building required to deliver positive social and economic outcomes for Wales. However, Future Wales states that they “provide part of the evidence and context on which housing policy and requirements can be based”.
It is concerning that housing delivery has dropped significantly below the Future Wales number – with an average of 5,300dpa being delivered between 2019 and 2022 (28% below the baseline Future Wales estimate) – and that the number of housing starts in 2022/23 have fallen dramatically to the lowest level in the last 50 years (excluding 2020-2021 where numbers were impacted by the covid-19 pandemic).
When looking at housing completions, it appears that the removal of the five-year land supply policy has not helped and that the timing of the Minister’s announcement in March 2020 came at a time when Government assistance was arguably needed to boost housing supply not restrict it.
At the time of the announcement the Minister wanted to prioritise housing delivery through the plan-led system. However, three years has passed and the position on LDP production has if anything deteriorated. Flintshire and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park are the only Local Planning Authorities to adopt plans during this time and great uncertainty remains on LDPs in other parts of Wales with numerous authorities choosing to delay or re-start their review process and some LDPs (such as Rhondda Cynon Taf, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Denbighshire, Monmouthshire, Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen and Caerphilly) being time expired with no prospect of a replacement plan within the next 12 months.
We note the Minister’s letter to Local Planning Authorities dated 24 September 2020 which discusses the end dates of LDPs. To summarise, this allowed LPAs to be able to use their adopted LDP even if it was time expired. Whilst this may have provided some comfort to the authorities, it did nothing to accelerate the need to get up to date LDPs in place.
In the absence of up-to-date LDPs in large parts of Wales and the removal of the five-year land supply safety net it is unclear how housing delivery can be accelerated.
Lichfields consider that Welsh Government’s policy direction needs to be reviewed if there is to be meaningful delivery of both new open market and affordable homes. A policy review should address the implications of under-supply in relation to affordability and the ability of households to access suitable accommodation.
The existing policy position in Wales can be viewed in contrast to the emerging policy platform of the Labour party in England which is striking a different tone, emphasising the importance of increasing housing supply and positioning itself as the party of home ownership. Sir Keir Starmer gave a speech to the British Chamber of Commerce in May 2023 in which he said:
“We’ve got to drive housebuilding at pace. We need to put local areas in charge of that so change the planning rules, have development corporations as vehicles on the ground to drive building, and make sure that the dream, the aspiration of owning your own home is realised for so many people who at the moment have had their dreams shattered.”
“We choose the builders, not the blockers; the future, not the past; renewal not decline. We choose growth.”
Ironically, the approach of the current Conservative UK government (in relation to planning policy in England) might be said to be converging with that of Welsh Labour. Recent consultations[2], propose to weaken the force of the NPPF requirement for a 5-year land supply test and dilute the drive to meeting housing need as defined by the national Standard Method.
Whilst the UK Government’s Long-Term Plan for Housing[3] talked in bold terms about growth around Cambridge, about ‘Docklands 2.0’, and initiatives to boost regeneration in cities, most in the sector expect house building in England to fall over coming years under prevailing policy[4]. The rationale for these changes is seemingly linked to political positioning ahead of a general election. Whilst the motivation in Wales may be different, the impact is likely the same i.e. a reduction in land available for building new homes.
It will be interesting to see how this divergence might play out in the event that Labour is successful at the next general election and forms a UK-wide government – will the emerging, positive approach of the national party to private sector house building and economic growth in England be transferred to Welsh Labour? We will have to wait and see.
 

Summary

Based on the Inspectors’ interpretations within the planning appeals, where housing delivery is insufficient and the LDP is out-of-date (and a replacement is not forthcoming), then in theory the opportunity exists to promote sites through the appeal process. The reality seems to be that Welsh Government has been giving greater weight to the plan making process (no matter how delayed) than the urgent need to improve housing delivery.
Given the continued delays in plan making, could there be an alternative scenario where the Welsh Government sets out that applications/appeals for well-designed sustainable development sites should be positively considered by authorities in LPAs where there are land shortages, the LDP is time expired, and examination is more than 2 years away? This could assist in ensuring that the supply of new homes is not halted by the lack of an up-to-date LDP. It would also echo the more pro-house building stance coming from the Labour party in England.
Indeed, subject to site-specific considerations, local planning authorities should welcome such proposals at planning application stage as an appropriate short-term intervention. Opportunities should be sought to work positively with those authorities that have housing delivery issues, especially where sites are sustainably located, free from constraints and can demonstrate adherence with Planning Policy Wales’ placemaking principles.
  

[1] Plas Ifan Hotel, Northop Hall, Flintshire (APP/A6835/A/20/3251359) 24 dwellings – Dismissed 23 February 2021Land North of Gatewen Road, New Broughton, Wrexham (APP/H6955/A/19/3238474)112 Dwellings – Allowed 15 February 2021Land Adjacent to Kinnerton Meadows, Kinnerton Lane, Higher Kinnerton, Flintshire – Call-in decision qA1479296 (appeal reference APP/A6835/A/21/3275487) 95 dwellings – dismissed 6 April 2022Land at Heol y Cefn, Cefn Fforest, Bedwellty, Caerphilly (APP/K6920/A/19/3226294)Call in reference qA1399761

[2] See the December 2022 consultation on PPF changes here and the July 2023 proposals for LURB implementation on plan making here

[3] The Government’s Long Term Plan for Housing is here

[4] The Lichfields analysis of the December 2022 changes to the NPPF is here

 

CONTINUE READING

Load More

Subscribe

Receive our latest thinking direct to your inbox.

I want to receive…