Planning matters

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

All stick and no carrot - New planning performance measures and a crackdown on the extension of time
Alongside the 19 December 2023 publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP issued policy set out in a Written Ministerial Statement “The Next Stage in Our Long Term Plan for Housing, Update” regarding the NPPF and wider matters.
Lichfields’ blogs reflecting on the revised NPPF can be found here and blogs outlining and analysing policy announced in the WMS can be found here.
In a speech launching the revised NPPF and other national policy, new measures to monitor and improve planning performance were explained, building on announcements that accompanied the increase to planning fees.
“I am setting new expectations for faster delivery, strengthening accountability so poor performers can be better identified, taking further steps to enforce effective delivery of new housing where local authorities have failed most egregiously and putting other, failing, local authorities on notice of my intention to intervene if performance does not improve significantly”.
The measures to improve performance have been launched on “four fronts”: greater transparency, additional financial support, faster processes and direct action.
Several specific policy approaches and intentions fall under these four fronts, as explained below

LPA performance dashboards to be introduced

The Government is going to publish a Local Planning Authority (LPA) performance dashboard in 2024. The aim of the dashboard will be to clearly show which LPAs are underperforming and not meeting their targets. While it has not been explicitly outlined what criteria this will be based on, a reasonable assumption is that speed and quality of decision making will be the crux of the assessment.

Reducing use of the extension of time

It has also been outlined that the use of Extension of Time Agreements will be stripped back and a consultation will take place on limiting when in the process they can apply, prohibiting repeat agreements and banning their use entirely for householder applications. This reflects the Government’s desire to speed up decision making and tackle the backlogs of planning departments, but without having full addressed the lack of resourcing in LPAs. Therefore, there is a concern that this could lead to more refusals of planning permission. The loss of the “free go” means that the ability for developers and LPA officers to discuss the merits of a scheme post submission will be seriously diminished. The Government might say that pre-application discussions should be used for this process, but often there is no capacity to provide this service in a timely manner.

 

Planning fees must be spent on planning services

The Government has made clear that the increase to planning fees which came into force on 6 December 2023 is expected to coincide with an improvement in the performance of LPAs. Planning fees have increased by 35% for major applications and 25% for other applications. While fees have not been ringfenced for planning departments, Michael Gove has made clear that “Local authorities are obliged to spend these fees on planning services, and I am clear there should be no decrease in authorities’ spend on planning from their general fund”. Related to this, he made reference to the forthcoming local government finance settlement, which may be the only way to seek to control how LPAs spend planning fees in practice.
The Lichfields Insight Mo money, no problems? provides a detailed analysis of the changes to planning fees and the debates that surrounded them. The Insight notes the Government’s estimate that there will remain a funding shortfall of approximately £160 million annually, even after planning fees are taken into account. That is an important context for the planning performance measures outlined in this blog – notably the LPA performance dashboard and the intention to control and limit use of the extension of time process. 
The 180 LPAs that have been allocated a share of £14.3 million from the first round of funding from the Planning Skills Delivery Fund have been announced. The fund is designed to help clear application backlogs and provide LPAs with the skills needed to deliver the changes set out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act.

 

Consultation on structured PPA procedures

The Government is also seeking to regularise Planning Performance Agreements so that they are offered across England, have clear deadlines in place and that fees are set at an appropriate level. Fees will also need to be refunded when targets are missed. A consultation will follow on this in the new year.

 

Discouraging councillors from refusing against officer recommendation

The SoS’s WMS expresses concern that there are too many instances of refusals against officer recommendations and too many consequent award of costs appeals. Notwithstanding the second concern, the SoS has already “reminded the inspectorate that where it cannot find reasonable grounds for the committee having overturned the officer’s recommendation, it should consider awarding costs to the appellant”.
The Planning Inspectorate will now monitor and report back cases to the Government where a successful appeal is made against a planning committee decision, and the appeal decision is the same as the original officer’s recommendation. This information will be used to “lay out the details of which local authorities are most promiscuously rejecting planning applications against officers’ advice. And we will make transparent the amount that it is costing the local council taxpayer”.
And while the SoS has made clear that he considers the determination of significant applications by elected representatives to be important, he also intends to “consider what more we can do to support planning officers and the committees they serve to focus on the right applications. This might be about providing more training, or using guidance to share best practice on the tools that can help to prioritise a committee’s time – including the schemes of delegation that authorities adopt to determine which applications get determined by officers and which warrant committee airing”.


Reviewing the role of statutory consultees

The Government has noted that many statutory consultees meet their 21 day deadline by sending holding responses, which “disguises foot-dragging and delays development”. A three month review will look into the wider statutory consultee system to understand how best to direct their advice and resources to support speedy and effective decision making. A potentially proactive way forward is mooted: the SoS considers that too much caution serves no one, so the review “will look at whether the current group of consultees is right, whether the performance reporting is effective, and whether the absence of a reply within an appropriate timeline should be treated as a green light, rather than a red one”.

 

Intervening in the plan-making process

The Secretary of State outlined that when LPAs are failing in their duty, he will not hesitate to intervene. Although this has been said before, on the day of the SoS’s announcements, letters were sent to seven LPAs directing them to revise their local plan timetables within 12 weeks of the publication of the new NPPF with the threat of further intervention after this should they fail to do so. Isabella Tidswell’s blog
analyses the implications of the changes to the NPPF and other national policies on plan-making.

 

Housing Delivery Test

The Government identifies the Housing Delivery Test as a form of direct action. Twenty further LPAs have become liable to the presumption in favour of sustainable development (set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF) after the publication of the 2022 Housing Delivery Test.  The Housing Delivery Test’s consequences have changed somewhat, as explained in this blog.   

 

Designating LPAs so that certain applications may be made directly the SoS

The LPAs of Chorley and Fareham[1] were directly targeted as they have been designated as ‘Section 62A authorities’ based on their “poor quality of decision making for applications for major development”,  linked to the percentage of appeals which go against the LPA. For these designated councils in special measures, along with Uttlesford Council that was designated in 2022, applications for major development may be submitted directly to the Secretary of State, via the Planning Inspectorate, for determination. The Planning Inspectorate also receives the fee. Both LPAs will be required to produce improvement plans which set out how they will improve planning performance. Failure to do so may result in further direct intervention from the Secretary of State, albeit it is unclear what form that might take. The designation lasts indefinitely.
The SoS intends to review the thresholds for designation “to make sure to make sure we are not letting off the hook authorities that should be doing better”.



London Plan Independent Review Panel

The Secretary of State has requested a review of the London Plan to identify where changes to policy could speed up housing delivery. The Housing Minister told Parliament: “We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed by the capital are simply not being built and opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration go begging as a result of the Mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. […] If directing change in London becomes necessary, this Government will do that”.

Closing thoughts

When taken together, the new performance measures announced in this Written Ministerial Statement represent a substantial shift in the way planning performance is monitored and driven, building on the measures previously announced.
As discussed in more detail here, it is clear throughout the revised NPPF and associated announcements that the Government is placing great emphasis on LPAs having up-to-date local plans and improving timescales for making decisions and proposed changes to performance metrics and the wider policy context reflect these fundamental objectives.
While these objectives are laudable and desirable, this latest tranche of performance measuring approach appear to be all stick and no carrot. However, if consequences are not followed through or are not of a concern to the LPA, then these policies will not have widespread effect.
 


[1] It is worth noting that Fareham is a local planning authority which has had to consider nitrate mitigation for housing developments, which may or may not have impacted on its performance.

 

 

CONTINUE READING

Khan you do it like that? Or Cam you do it like this? Gove’s targeted housebuilding armament

Update 22 December 2023 - The Government has published the terms of reference and objectives for the panel of expert advisers who are to consider any changes to the London Plan which might facilitate housing delivery in London. This states that the Panel's report must be delivered by 15 January 2024.

Back in July 2023, when delivering his speech entitled the ‘Long-Term Plan for Housing’, Michael Gove said, in relation to housing under-delivery in London:
I also will not hesitate to act in the national interest when politicians fail.” […] “I reserve the right to step in to reshape the London Plan if necessary and consider every tool in our armoury – including development corporations.”
Five months later, the Secretary of State released a Written Ministerial Statement entitled 'The Next Stage in Our Long-Term Plan for Housing Update', which alongside other publications and announcements (such as the contents of the revised National Planning Policy Framework, December 2023, as you may have heard by now), contains some more information on some ‘tools in the armoury’ that are being used, not only in London, but elsewhere too, in a hope to deliver much needed housing.
This blog explores two targeted steps for two cities, from the Long-Term Plan for Housing Update:

    1. Ordering a review of the London Plan to examine factors that could be causing housing under-delivery in the capital, and threatening intervention if the necessary actions are not taken.

    2. Establishing a Development Corporation in Cambridge to help realise plans for ‘Cambridge 2040’, alongside a revised building regulation to allow local planning authorities to introduce tighter water efficiency standards in new homes, to ensure “an approach towards water that reflects the nature of Cambridge’s geography.”

Independent Review of the London Plan

In a letter to Sadiq Khan, published during Michael Gove’s address to the Royal Institute of British Architects on the 19 December (but issued to the Mayor on 18 December), the Secretary of State announced the appointment of an expert panel to conduct a review of the London Plan to consider “aspects of [it] which could be preventing thousands of homes being brought forward, with a particular focus on brownfield sites”.
The panel comprises Christopher Katkowski KC, Cllr James Jamieson, Paul Monaghan and Wei Yang. Lichfields is pleased to have been appointed to support the Panel, working alongside DLUHC officials.
The Secretary of State's letter includes as a response to the recommendations of the Mayor's London Housing Delivery Taskforce, prepared after Mr Gove first suggested possible intervention in the first ‘Long-Term Plan for Housing’ speech in July 2023[1]. In that speech, the Secretary of State also announced his ambitions for ‘Docklands 2.0’ as a 3,500-home eastern extension to the city, citing development corporations and the power to reshape the London plan as ‘tools in the armoury’ to make this happen.
In the letter on the 19 December, Mr Gove re-states the threat of intervention, saying, in one line:
If you cannot do what is needed to deliver the homes that London needs, I will.”
This back and forth over housing delivery has been described by London newspapers - the London Evening Standard and CITY.AM - as a political “row” between the Mayor and the Secretary of State on the undersupply of housing in London. However, it is common ground between the Mayor and the SoS that the pace of housing delivery in the capital needs to increase.
The long awaited 2022 HDT results reveal that over half of the London planning authorities (18 of 35 [2]) will now be subject to the policy consequences set out in the December 2023 revised NPPF. Nearly three quarters (13) of the 18 failing the HDT have underdelivered by at least 25% of their requirement. They will therefore be subject to the application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the inclusion of the 20% buffer on 5YHLS (except for those authorities with an up-to-date local plan) and the preparation of an action plan. For a more detailed explanation of the housing delivery test’s new policy consequences, see Harry Bennett’s blog.
The focus of the independent review will be to explore the relationship between the policies of the London Plan and the pace at which new homes are being brought forward and developed on brownfield land.

Mr Gove and Mr Rowley both said - in their respective 19 December written and oral statements to Parliament - that “opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration [in London] go begging” as a result of under-delivery. However, the Mayor has identified a significant number of housing starts and the GLA argues[3], based on the findings of the Housing Delivery Task Force’s August report, that a general lack of 2021-26 Affordable Homes Programme funding available to London, coupled with a lack of certainty around funding beyond 2026, means affordable housing developers lack the certainty they need to bring forward complex schemes, including estate regeneration[4].
On the topic of grant funding and affordable housing, he SoS suggested in his RIBA speech that affordable housing policy for residential developments in the London Plan is a barrier to delivery due to viability. The perceived impact of high affordable housing targets is not a new concern, and one held by a number of those in the development industry.

 

Development Corporation to be set up in Cambridge

No independent review of housing or economic development delivery is proposed for Cambridge. Instead, the Government is following up on an announcement earlier in the year on its ambitious housing and industry plans for ‘Cambridge 2040’, in a bid to make the city the Science capital of Europe.
Back in July, this involved the establishment of a ‘Cambridge Delivery Group’ to help realise this vision. It was also announced that the Delivery Group would be supported by a “super-squad of planners” to realise this ambition[5].
These plans have now been taken further, as Mr Gove’s Written Ministerial Statement confirmed the Government’s intentions to establish a new development corporation for Cambridge. The WMS continues (armament imagery strong still):
“[We will arm this development corporation] with the right leadership and full range of powers necessary to marshal this huge project over the next two decades, regardless of the shifting sands of Westminster.”
In response to Mr Gove’s announcement, the leaders of Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, and the Combined Authority Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough released a joint statement[6] the same day. In it, the council leaders express concerns around the prospects of the Secretary of State’s plans to deliver sustainable growth. They said:
“We note in the latest announcement that the number of new homes put forward by Rt Hon Michael Gove MP has come down from 250,000 to 150,000, but this is still substantially more than the over 50,000 homes we have identified as needed in the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan (to 2040) – a number which will already be incredibly challenging to bring forward. We are ambitious for high quality sustainable, green growth but can’t stress enough how vital it is that Government supports us to tackle the issues that will otherwise act as roadblocks to sustainable growth.”
The Secretary of State previously visited Cambridge in Summer 2023, after his July speech, to discuss the Government’s plans for Cambridge 2040.

 

Conclusion

The Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement and related speech on 19 December, which announced the London Plan’s independent review and the proposed Cambridge development corporation, among many other England-wide interventions and policy changes indicate the Government is prepared to explore different tools in different locations in the interest of housing delivery. Lichfields will continue to monitor closely how the Government’s local interventions play out, with a particular interest in the success of such wholly different approaches taken in these two very different cities.

 

[1] See our Think Tank Blog The Government’s long-term plan for housing – what’s new?

[2] Including the London Legacy Development Corporation and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation - HDT technical note says “for the local planning authorities whose boundaries overlap with a development corporation, for the periods that the local planning authority’s delivery is based on the London Plan or the Current Borough Plan, the net homes delivered in the development corporation are removed from the net additional dwellings statistics based on the data provided to the department by the Greater London Authority.”

[3]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65816753fc07f300128d4429/18122023_SoS_DLUHC_to_Mayor_of_London_-_housebuilding_in_London.pdf

[4] The recommendations of the Task Force, and government responses to these recommendations,  can be found here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65816753fc07f300128d4429/18122023_SoS_DLUHC_to_Mayor_of_London_-_housebuilding_in_London.pdf

[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/long-term-plan-for-housing-secretary-of-states-speech

[6] https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2023/12/19/joint-statement-from-local-leaders-and-the-combined-authority-mayor-on-cambridge-2040-announcement

 

 

CONTINUE READING

Changes to 5YHLS under the revised NPPF: Not Great, Not Terrible
Update 5 February 2024: The Government has published updated planning practice guidance on housing supply and delivery, including the following:
“Both the 5 year housing land supply and the 4 year housing land supply that authorities should demonstrate for decision making should consist of deliverable housing sites demonstrated against the authority’s five year housing land supply requirement, including the appropriate buffer."
__________________________________________________
The Government has finally published much anticipated changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) and related changes to the operation of ‘Five Year Land Supply’ (‘5YHLS’) and the ‘Housing Delivery Test’ (‘HDT’). See here to take a look at the changes yourself:
My blog last year (Buffer the Land Supply Slayer) reviewed the then draft changes to 5YHLS and its ending struck a bit of a depressing tone: concluding that more Local Planning Authorities (‘LPAs’) would be able to demonstrate a 5YHLS but fewer homes would ultimately be built.
Reviewing the changes now adopted, the Government has not implemented its previous proposals in full. They have listened to concerns regarding the impacts of the proposals on housing supply however and, in doing so, have tried to strike a new balance between the push for plan-making while retaining some release valve for where plan-making fails. In summary, the changes are:

  1. LPAs with a plan adopted in past 5 years (in most cases) don’t need to demonstrate a 5YHLS (some caveats apply to the determination of existing applications);

  2. LPAs at the Reg.18 or Reg.19 stage (with caveats out the contents of relevant material) or with plans submitted for examination only need to demonstrate a 4-year supply;

  3. 5% and 10% buffers are gone but 20% buffers remain;

  4. Oversupply will count towards 5YHLS in the future but how this works in to be determined;

  5. The eligibility criteria for Annual Position Statements is now wider; and

  6. Paragraph 14 has been beefed up to protect areas with made neighbourhood plans.

The below flowchart sets out how 5YHLS now operates and more detailed analysis of the changes and potential implications are set out below.


Have a plan adopted in past 5 years? Then be free of 5YHLS
LPAs that have an ‘up-to-date’ plan are no longer required to identify and update annually a 5YHLS. Paragraph 76 of the Revised NPPF (Dec 2023) defines whether a plan is up-to-date as per the below extract:
This new policy means – as set out in the Government’s consultation response – the protection of Paragraph 76 only applies only to plans that have been examined by an Inspector in the past five-years. It does not apply to an LPA’s own Reg.10a review of its plan at the 5-year date. The provision is clearly aimed at pushing LPAs to maintain up-to-date and better plans (by virtue of them needing to be examined) to achieve sustainable development goals and provide sufficient housing (as per amended Para 1 of the new NPPF).

Our reading of part (b) of paragraph 76 is that spatial development strategies – i.e., London Plan – or other forms of plans that don’t identify allocations to meet a need won’t offer 5YHLS protections. Those without an up-to-date plan will continue to have to demonstrate a 5YHLS.

 

But….. (very important caveat)

The protections of paragraph 76 do not apply for the determination of applications that were submitted prior to 19 December 2023 (i.e. the Revised NPPFs publication date) in accordance with Paragraph 224, and footnotes 79 and 8.
If, on 18 December 2023, a LPA had an up-to-date local plan but was unable to demonstrate a 5YHLS, it cannot benefit from the paragraph 76 protection for pending applications and will need to apply the titled balance (but at the same time can account for wider changes to 5YHLS – as discussed below).

Two years of transition: 4-Year Supply for some
In much the same as the previous draft text, paragraph 226 of the Revised NPPF sets out that LPAs that meet certain criteria will only need to demonstrate a four-year (not five-year) supply; those criteria being:
  • LPAs with a plan submitted for examination; or,
  • LPAs with a Reg.18 or19 plan that includes both a policy map and proposed allocations to meet a requirement.
The above applies immediately and will do so until December 2025. What a ‘policy map’ is will likely be a point of debate in the short term (i.e. do a series of maps in a plan constitute a ‘policy map’?).
The question follows, how does one calculate a four-year supply?
Our reading of the text at paragraph 77 and 226 is that it is a four-year period test. So, you would only consider the supply expected to be built out over the next four years and compare that to the appropriate requirement for that same four-year period (potentially with a 20% buffer).

This is very different to testing whether over a five-year period an LPAs supply is more than four years’ worth which we do not consider to be an approach supported by policy. For example, the former paragraph 14 (c) of the NPPF (September 23) stated:

14. In situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided all of the following apply:

[…]
  1. c) the local planning authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing sites (against its five year housing supply requirement, including the appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 74);”
(our emphasis)

The revised NPPF however is not worded akin to the above. Paragraph 77 instead states that LPAs should identify “supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide either a minimum of five years’ worth of housing, or a minimum of four years’ worth of housing if the provisions in paragraph 226 apply”.

The implication of the above it that over a five-year period an LPA might well have more than four years’ worth of supply (i.e. if the five-year requirement equates to 1,000 dwellings, they might have a deliverable supply of more than 800 units). However, many of those new homes might be on sites with outline permission or allocations that are expected to come on stream in ‘year 5’. Were the assessment to be focused solely on a four-year period, that ‘year 5’ supply would not be counted. Suddenly the could LPA get caught out and find itself unable to demonstrate the requisite requirement.
This is one to watch as we are not sure this is how the policy was intended to work.
Greater reliance on the HDT
The changes above mean that many LPAs will either only need to demonstrate a four-year supply (for the next two years) or will not need to demonstrate a 5YHLS at all (as their plan was adopted in the past five-years or will soon be). The question is then, how do we ensure the homes needed are actually built? The answer: the HDT.
The ultimate sanction of the HDT – the presumption of Para 11(d) being engaged where a measurement is below 75% – will apply to all LPAs regardless of when a plan is adopted or at what stage of plan-making an LPA is at. There is no ‘get out’ of this provision as was proposed in last year’s draft text (which related to how many homes had been granted permission in the same assessment period). Comparing the 2022 HDT with PINS data on ‘strategic plan progress’ there are c. 10 LPAs, at the time of writing, with an up-to-date plan but would fail on this measure.
Other 5YHLS changes:
Other than the above, the following is of note:
  • Buffers: 5% and 10% buffers are gone. But 20% buffers remain. The 20% buffer only applies where an LPA is not protected by paragraph 76 and scores below 85% in the latest HDT (paragraph 79);

  • Oversupply: One for the future, but the NPPF makes it clear that past ‘oversupply’ will be counted in an LPAs assessment of whether it can demonstrate a 5YHLS. However, how it is counted is unknown. Details of this will be published in future changes to Planning Practice Guidance (which do not accompany the NPPF at this time) (paragraph 77);

  • Monitoring supply: While some LPAs will not need to identify and annually update a 5YHLS, all LPAs should set out their deliverable land supply against an adopted housing requirement (paragraph 75); although critically, there is no incentive to do so or punishment for failing to do so. Notwithstanding, this means developers should still be able to calculate an LPAs 5YHLS supply – even if said LPA benefits from paragraph 76 – and demonstrate that there isn’t sufficient supply coming forward; adding weight to a housing case.

  • Annual position statements: Paragraph 78 now confirms that any LPA not covered by the provisions of Paragraph 76 can now submit an Annual Position Statement (‘APS’) to ‘confirm’ (i.e. fix) a 5YHLS. Under the previous NPPF, the eligibility criteria to prepare an APS greatly limited their use so this is a sensible change; and

  • Neighbourhood plan protections: The protections afforded by Paragraph 14 to areas with neighbourhood plans have been made stronger. It now applies to neighbourhood plans for five-years after being made (previously being two years).

Implications
Overall, it is clear that 5YHLS no longer has the teeth it once did (especially for the next few years), but neither is the wider system toothless when combined with the HDT. Considering the changes:

Incentivising plan making:

  • The protections afforded by paragraph 76 place a much greater emphasis on plans being consistently made and examined every five-years. This proposal – while risky (as we will come on to) – is far better than tying the benefits of paragraph 76 to having an up-to-date requirement (as was previously proposed). The former proposals were far too open to abuse while the new approach ties in a third-party examination of the supply.

  • The four-year transitional arrangement might also help some LPAs bridge the gap to allow adoption an up-to-date plan and in doing so protect them against speculative development (albeit that it might also hinder some as set out above). While a plan-making incentive this measure will have some negative impact on housing supply in the shorter term, but it may yield longer term supply benefits (assuming new plans actually plan for sufficient numbers of homes – a big ‘if’ in the context of other changes to the NPPF).

The risky bit: lagging indicators

  • Once plans are adopted and paragraph 76 applies, the HDT will be the only way to tell if they are actually delivering as intended. The HDT is a lagging indicator and shortfalls will take years to show up in it. At the same time, there is also no real incentive for LPAs protected by paragraph 76 to monitor supply annually to enable them to respond ahead of time to any shortfalls in deliverable supply.

  • This all inbuilds risk. The lag of the HDT combined with the long lead-in times to prepare applications in response to a failed HDT (<75%), get said application submitted and approved, and then build out that permission will mean shortfalls might not be addressed for a significant period of time.

  • Looking at this ‘glass half empty’, an LPA protected by paragraph 76 may coast for five-years and then be left with a considerable problem once it comes to review its plan if they are not monitoring effectively post adoption. This will be at a point where it’s too late to bring forward supply given known lead-in times.

Examining and preparing plans:

  • In this context, presumably local plan inspectors will need to examine a plans deliverable supply more intently knowing the supply might not be challengeable for some years to come and will really want to be sure it will actually be delivered.

  • Furthermore – and being quite ‘glass half full’ here – LPAs might be incentivised by the changes to paragraph 76 to take the tough choices on future supply (i.e. years 6-10 and beyond) now to help themselves in future plan reviews. If an LPA allocates sufficient supply in these periods or tees up work through policy to enable the identification of much longer-term supply (i.e. Garden Communities), then plan reviews should be a simple affair.

  • One would hope that if you really focus on years 6-10 and beyond, the five-year supply will eventually take care of itself at examination next time around.

 

Final thoughts
Overall, we are in a better position than we thought we were going to be this time last year. Things still are not really ‘great’ though.

It will remain to be seen though whether, given wider changes to policy now adopted and future changes to the planning system to come, LPAs plan for sufficient numbers of homes and in doing so allocate a sufficient mix of sites (in terms of size and timing of delivery) to ensure needs are met.

 

Lichfields will undertake more analysis on the revised NPPF in the coming weeks. Subscribe to our blog for updates.

CONTINUE READING

Building, growing, daring enough? A revised NPPF and long-term plan for housing update
The Government has issued a revised national planning policy framework (NPPF) and a written ministerial statement (WMS) “The Next Stage in Our Long Term Plan for Housing Update” . Both include policies or proposed policies that also affect non-residential development.
To launch both, the Secretary of State (SoS) gave a 30 minute speech, in which he promoted the reasoning behind the changes made, those still to come, his desire for the nation to be “building, growing, daring” and “falling back in love with the future”.
The Government’s response to the December 2022 consultation of reforms to planning policy, published on the same day, includes a detailed explanation of the changes made to the NPPF, as well as consultation outcomes that will take effect or be consulted upon further in due course.
The Housing Delivery Test 2022 results were also published (having been expected in January 2023 based on the year ending March 2022).
The revised NPPF updates the previous September 2023 NPPF, which was the July 2021 NPPF plus the changes to onshore wind energy policy.
The changes to the NPPF are outlined in this blog and discussed in more detail in these blogs:

Changes to 5YHLS under the revised NPPF: Not Great, Not Terrible by Harry Bennett

Housing need cannot be ignored like an unwanted Christmas present by Simon Coop

No Excuses: Unlocking Local-Plan Making? by Isabella Tidswell

The WMS summarises (in the Government’s words, of course) the key changes to the NPPF and the reasoning behind them.
This is followed by reference to a variety of new performance measures, including, local plan interventions, and an independent review of the London Plan. Planning application performance measures include changes to extension of time policy and the designation of two new s62A planning authorities (Chorley and Fareham).
The WMS also announces a Cambridge Development Corporation, a new traveller policy (following a court judgment) and intended new building regulations relating to water efficiency in new homes and an interim approach to agree tighter standards, in areas under water stress.
In addition, the WMS makes reference to immediate changes and to proposals for the future, including introducing provisions in the LURA, notably enforcement provisions, in the short term. And there will be “a consultation on measures to improve build out rates once the Competition and Markets Authority has published its final report as part of their housebuilding market study in 2024".
The WMS also reminds councils that “development should proceed on sites that are allocated in an adopted local plan with full input from the local community unless there are strong reasons why it cannot; councils should be open and pragmatic in agreeing changes to developments where conditions mean that the original plan may no longer be viable, rather than losing the development wholesale or seeing development mothballed; and better use should be made of small pockets of brownfield land by being more permissive, so more homes can be built more quickly, where and how it makes sense, giving more confidence and certainty to SME builders”.
Some of the announcements in the WMS that will take effect immediately or imminently are discussed in these blogs:

All stick and no carrot - New planning performance measures and a crackdown on the extension of time by Sean Farrissey

Khan you do it like that? Or Cam you do it like this? Gove’s targeted housebuilding armament by Paddy Hynes

Overall, the 20 December 2023 planning announcements and publications are wide ranging and have more than a housing focus. However, the most immediately impactful are those relating to planning for housing.
Lichfields will undertake more analysis on the revised NPPF in the coming weeks. Subscribe to our blog for updates.
 
 

CONTINUE READING