December 2023 brought a plethora of measures relating to housing and planning from the Secretary of State, as indeed did December 2022. This blog considers the implications of of ‘character’ analysis and value in the context of suburban densification.
Back in January 2023, I prepared a blog expressing numerous reservations on the proposed changes in the NPPF (December 2022) regarding acceptable new density in suburban areas. Some of the text and rhetoric in the new NPPF on this issue has changed in the final published version adding clarity, but the limitations to delivering the new homes that we need in sustainable suburban locations remains.
I start with an overview of Mr Gove's Written Statement (WMS) on 19th December, as this will have been very carefully crafted to detail his intent for the changes to the NPPF. On character’, Mr Gove makes the position very clear early on by advising that the new NPPF provides “certainty on the responsibility of urban authorities to play their full part in meeting housing need” so far so good, but “…. and protections for the character of precious neighbourhoods, safeguarding the gentle density of suburbs". “Protections" is a strong word, more commonly used with reference to designated assets and “safeguarding" of minerals etc. I would question whether these are worthy of all our suburban areas across the country.
Reading on however, the final version also appears to have more pragmatism for policy and decision making with, what I see as a series of tests.
Firstly, the test for “new development" in such areas of local ‘character’. The WMS clarifies that the new NPPF will “safeguard local plans from densities that would be wholly out of character". This clearly indicates that ‘character’ is an issue to be considered at the Local Plan stage and that the test is wholly out of character – a high bar, which allows for some change to occur.
Secondly, Mr Gove identifies that the objectively assessed housing need figures have sometimes been difficult to achieve in some areas and are “… blind to the exceptional characteristics of a local community". So, potentially, another high bar is set with the need for LPAs to demonstrate exceptional characteristics. It will be interesting to see how this is framed in the all-important forthcoming Design Guides or Codes and how Inspectors at Examinations in Public will deal with this across a whole Borough/District.
Thirdly, supporting Gentle Densification. The SoS notes that England's cities are already less dense than those of most of our European neighbours and “That is environmentally wasteful and economically inefficient". A strongly worded diagnosis of the issue that would surely require a powerful and meaningful policy response, presumably targeting suburban areas? Alas, the approach taken is more of a whimper … “We seek to support the gentle densification of urban areas”. Gentle can be interpreted in many ways, none of which lead to the transformation of our sustainable suburban areas to meet significant housing needs.
But stitching this all together, we have the SoS' definitive statement on the matter “The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations where significant uplifts in residential densities would be inappropriate as they would be wholly out of character with the existing area". The tests here are clear – ‘may’, ‘significant uplifts’ and ‘wholly out of character’. The NPPF also clarifies that this will apply only where there is a design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the local plan – so there should be time to be involved with the all-important early analysis on character and scope for change.
While this position would appear to be clear from the WMS, the text of the NPPF retains seemingly conflicting statements. On one hand, paragraph 128(d) which refers to “the desirability of maintaining an area's prevailing character and setting", which is clearly at odds with wholly out of character. On the other, and hopefully resolving this, paragraph 129 (a) includes a statement that “These [density] standards should seek a significant uplift in the average density of residential development within these areas, unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate”. Paragraph 130 clarifies this further, referring to the tests I mention above.
What are the practical implications of this? Only after the outcome of a few Examinations in Public on Local Plans covering suburban areas will we know in practice how character and changes in density will be managed, and the extent to which a Design Code may control this.
Deviating a little from the significance of Local Plans and Design Codes in determining appropriate densities and perhaps by way of confirmation of intent on the matter of character and changes in density, there have been a few recent planning appeal decisions by the Secretary of State in London where impact on character in suburban areas, has been one of the main considerations.
At Isleworth there were two appeals [Homebase and Tesco: APP/F5540/V/21/3287726 and 3287727]. For the Homebase scheme the SoS overruled the Inspector on character. “The Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector's conclusion in IR14.34 that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area” determining that the development would not appear excessively large in its context but would rather create a gateway position on the Great Western Road and create “an appropriate transition in scale to the residential areas on Syon Lane". In the decision letter it is encouragingly added that, unlike the Inspector, the Secretary of State concludes that the scheme (in compliance with LonP Policy D3) “takes a design-led approach to the proposal which optimises the capacity of sites”, and he found that the development is of the "most appropriate form for a site responding to the existing character of the place". In the Tesco case, both the Inspector and SoS agreed that the scheme demonstrated a layered form which would satisfactorily mediate the transition in scale between the existing and emerging contexts and create interest in the skyline.
At Cricklewood [APP/N5090/W/22/3307073] it was a slightly different scenario, as the application was called in by the SoS. In this case, Barnet Council noted that the 2010 Barnet Characterisation Study identifies that Barnet is predominantly suburban in character, with terraced housing the most common form. It was also noted that although there are some taller buildings in the surrounding area, these are some distance from the application site and the model presented at the Inquiry and the applicant study demonstrated the predominantly low-rise nature of the area. The Council was, therefore, of the view that such tall buildings as those proposed would be exceptional within the area and that “The application scheme's height, scale and massing represent incongruous overdevelopment, out of context with the character of the area and harmful to nearby heritage assets". However, the SoS took a contrary view, concluding that “Although the proposal envisages tall buildings in a predominantly low-rise area, their quality, and their place in the surrounding London context of scattered clusters of tall buildings, together with their location in a town centre next to a railway station, warrants a development of tall buildings".
From these recent SoS decisions, it would appear that there are still troubles ahead, with LPAs seeking to protect their suburban character, but that there is still a case to argue that tall buildings/higher density development can be appropriate within a predominantly suburban area. However, my concern remains that it will be difficult to make these site-specific cases through the District/Borough wide Design Guide/Code and Local Plan processes and that once this opportunity is missed, it will be harder, in this context, to argue for anything more than a few storeys higher (perhaps) in suburban areas. This will not deliver the homes needed across our cities and particularly in their accessible and well serviced suburbs.
To conclude there is an opportunity, albeit accompanied with a note of caution, to seek to address or clarify such matters in the forthcoming Design Guides or Codes on future density in suburban areas. These should “… provide maximum clarity about design expectations at an early stage…" and should “…reflect local character and design preferences" (NPPF, paragraph 133). It will therefore be essential to engage in the production of these documents, with specialist townscape advisers, to seek to ensure that there is scope for new development to do more than reflect local suburban character, where this is not appropriate or necessary.
In the meantime, for applications being considered in advance of authority wide Design Codes/Guides, there will be a heightened need for robust area-based character assessments to support proposals which seek to uplift the density of the existing area.
