Planning matters

Last week the GLA adopted its Purpose-built Student Accommodation (PBSA) London Plan Guidance (LPG) which builds upon London Plan Policy H15. This is a document which those of us working in the PBSA sector have been eagerly awaiting. It is intended to facilitate and shape the next generation of London’s PBSA schemes.

London is suffering from a structural undersupply of PBSA accommodation relative to the growing full time-student population in the capital. Supportive GLA guidance could play an instrumental role in addressing this need. We give our verdict here on the LPG and whether it will help or hinder future PBSA schemes in the capital. 

A common planning issue encountered on some PBSA projects involves evidencing the need for student housing and demonstrating how PBSA can contribute positively to London’s mixed and balanced communities.

The LPG recognises the shortfall in PBSA supply against London’s burgeoning student growth and identifies the role of well-designed and appropriately located PBSA in meeting a defined need. It acknowledges the role of PBSA in meeting housing need on a ratio of 2.5:1 (in line with the London Plan). The role of PBSA in meeting housing need is twofold: (i) directly providing accommodation for students; and, (ii) indirectly alleviating pressure on traditional rented homes/HMOs (which could otherwise provide family sized homes to the wider market). This is explicitly acknowledged within the LPG.

The LPG also helpfully recognises the role PBSA can play in strengthening the capital’s mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods; helping diversify housing stock and contributing positively to vibrancy and character. It provides guidance on how to maximise the positive effects of student housing schemes in the context of overarching London Plan objectives.

The guidance discusses the wider economic and regenerative benefits of PBSA. It continues to position PBSA development as an important contributor to London’s knowledge economy; leveraging high-quality student accommodation to attract domestic and international students and, in turn, reinforcing and strengthening London’s world-class higher education offer.

The LPG’s explicit recognition of the pressing need for new PBSA, its contribution towards housing targets, its role in delivering mixed and balanced communities and its economic/regenerative benefits are all positive facets of the LPG. The guidance provides constructive material to strengthen the ‘benefits case’ supporting PBSA development in the capital.

It is important that PBSA is appropriately located, though locational considerations should be applied with flexibility reflecting the nuances of individual schemes. The LPG encourages positive planning for PBSA; directing student housing developments towards well-connected locations including metropolitan and town centres, the CAZ, Inner London Opportunity Areas and centres with high or medium residential growth potential. Helpfully, it also acknowledges that PBSA can also be appropriate outside these areas, where sites are well connected to university campuses, in medium to high PTAL areas or in Outer London Opportunity Areas.

London’s universities are disproportionately concentrated in central and inner London, particularly within the CAZ. PBSA development has typically been clustered in such locations. The LPG acknowledges that local-level concerns can be encountered regarding the dominance of PBSA in such areas, both spatially and in delivery pipeline terms. In our view, the spatial agglomeration of centrally located PBSA is partly a logical function of the expectation in Policy H15 for nominations agreements linking student housing to local higher education provider (HEP) campuses. Indeed, despite advocating against over-concentration, the LPG does also recognise the value of such clustering as opposed to the dispersal of PBSA schemes in certain Outer London locations remote from HEPs.

London Plan Policy H15 does not itself reference overconcentration of PBSA; however, in our experience it can often be cited by communities as a concern. The LPG suggests measures to address perceived over-concentration of PBSA (and by association dilution of conventional housing) both in Local Plan policy and in decision making. The guidance suggests, for example, that LPAs could introduce ‘thresholds of concern’ (i.e. ratios of PBSA to conventional housing stock); encourage separation distances between parallel/ cumulative PBSA schemes; or identify PBSA bedspace caps within a defined area to restrict overconcentration.

In the interest of developing mixed and balanced communities across London, it is of course important that PBSA (or any other single housing product/typology) does not become singularly dominant in a neighbourhood; however, the LPG guidance could be seen to give LPA’s free reign to introduce rigid and restrictive PBSA policy to limit an area’s student housing development. The GLA has helpfully set out the evidence required to support such policies, but it will be incumbent on PBSA developers and professional teams to actively monitor emerging Local Plans and guidance documents to ensure such thresholds do not curtail and stifle otherwise acceptable and beneficial new PBSA development.

As an aside, the LPG also recognises that positive local PBSA policy can facilitate a balanced housing stock. It notes that boroughs with a shortage of family homes should look to include policy advocating PBSA in Local Plans, cognisant of the benefits PBSA stock provides in releasing larger HMOs, which are often occupied by student sharers, back to the stock of single family dwellings.

Lichfields recognises the importance of ensuring PBSA is appropriately located and does not dominate a neighbourhood; however, student housing plays a positive role in London’s communities, and it is rare that the proportion of PBSA will become so singularly dominant that it harms an area’s housing stock composition. In this context, it is critical that the LPG’s guidance on the spatial distribution and agglomeration of PBSA is implemented at the local level through well-evidenced policy or guidance, and that it is applied in a suitably flexible manner. It should not be allowed to unduly suppress otherwise acceptable PBSA developments and curtail their housing, economic and regenerative benefits.

PBSA can contribute meaningfully to place-making and regeneration objectives through a well-considered mix of uses, design and management strategy that serves to activate and enliven London’s neighbourhoods. The LPG acknowledges that incorporating publicly accessible uses, such as shops, services and community facilities, and open space, alongside PBSA, can contribute towards place-making objectives and capture student spending locally. Similarly, employment floorspace, including affordable workspace and co-working accommodation can be beneficial.

At Lichfields, we are well versed in managing PBSA-led mixed use schemes and producing bespoke PBSA community integration strategies to address these criteria and effectively communicate the benefits of complementary mixed use development including PBSA – one recent example being Devonshire Place, Southwark.

London Plan Policy H15 states that boroughs should seek to ensure that the maximum level of PBSA is secured as affordable student accommodation (ASA). Such provision can unlock the GLA’s fast-track affordable housing route, at levels of 35% ASA (or 50% ASA on public or industrial land).

Notwithstanding this, the LPG acknowledges that the inclusion of conventional C3 housing alongside PBSA can be acceptable on larger sites, and is often desirable. The LPG suggests that such mixed use schemes can be acceptable on sites where C3 housing delivery is subdued and on sites where C3 permissions have not been built out. The guidance identifies a number of considerations relating to the provision of, and the prospective balance between, ASA and C3 affordable housing.

On this basis, the LPG does provide scope to introduce C3 housing alongside PBSA, though the priority affordable component remains ASA. Indeed, the guidance states “it will rarely be acceptable for ASA to be entirely replaced by C3 affordable housing”. From our experience in the sector, however, the delivery of PBSA can unlock affordable C3 housing in a way that is unattainable through conventional private housing led schemes. The proportionally greater value of PBSA can cross-fund conventional affordable housing, which presents a greater strategic housing need than ASA. Whilst there is clearly a need for both ASA and C3 affordable housing across London, and the more flexible approach to affordable housing advocated in the LPG is a positive step, we wonder whether the guidance could have done more to facilitate and promote conventional affordable homes alongside PBSA – the benefits of mixed tenure development has of course been acknowledged in the recently proposed amendments to the NPPF.

Finally on affordable housing, the LPG recognises that ASA is not eligible for CIL relief. To overcome this, the LPG suggests boroughs may wish to consider applying nil or reduced CIL rates compared to market PBSA. This is helpful, though will clearly only take effect when a LPA updates its CIL charging Schedule.

The LPG provides qualitative guidance on design quality, functionality and inclusivity. It does not set specific design standards for PBSA development. The decision to not quantify explicit standards is considered appropriate and provides suitable flexibility as the PBSA sector in London continues to rapidly evolve and innovate.

The LPG is helpful with respect to inclusive design and meeting the needs of disabled students. Notably, it adopts a pragmatic approach that reflects the underlying need for this specialist accommodation, reducing the conventional C3 requirement for 10% wheelchair accessible dwellings (London Plan Policy D7) to 5% wheelchair accessible PBSA units, plus 5% adaptable accommodation. The GLA’s Wheelchair Accessible Student Accommodation Practice Note has been withdrawn in parallel; it is now superseded by the adoption of the LPG.

London Plan Policy H15 seeks to align PBSA provision with established need through the use of nominations agreements. The agreements establish the right of the signatory HEP to allocate students to a majority proportion of PBSA bedspaces within a development (including all ASA). Nominations agreements have historically been rigidly imposed, though certain boroughs are now applying greater flexibility, particularly where PBSA schemes are delivering wider benefits (notably affordable housing) or where a development is not directly connected to, or in the immediate vicinity of, a single HEP.

There can, however, be a tension between the requirement for nominations agreements which direct development to specific locations surrounding HEPs and local concerns relating to overconcentration of student schemes. Will the LPG’s continued insistence on nominations agreements accentuate this tension and limit otherwise acceptable PBSA schemes that are more remote from HEPs?

From our own experience, HEPs are often cautious when entering into nominations agreements due to the commercial liabilities involved, with a low appetite for financial risk resulting in nominations agreements being increasingly challenging to secure.

The LPG does provide some flexibility around nominations agreements. It encourages s106 obligations to require ‘reasonable endeavours’ to secure nominations agreements covering the majority of student bedspaces, including all ASA (i.e. over 50% of net bedspaces). The LPG provides clear guidance on what is meant by ‘reasonable endeavours’ and how this can be evidenced. This includes details of constructive engagement, timelines, accommodation strategies and any suitable proxies.

In the event that a nominations agreement cannot be secured, the LPG allows for a fallback cascade mechanism of direct lets to be secured via the S106. Where applicable, this would apply to all unlet and un-nominated market rate bedspaces. Nominations agreements can also contain cascade mechanisms that could be invoked if a HEP is not able to nominate all allocated bedspaces by the end of the summer holiday period (by 31 August). Such a mechanism will enable HEPs to manage the risk of any unforeseen demand downturns.

In the absence of a nomination’s agreement for ASA, the LPG also clarifies that (as a last resort) the fallback position would be for the provider to allocate according to need, with an appropriate audit trail of the allocation strategy to be provided to the LPA on request.

Further guidance is also provided in the LPG on how best to evidence interest and discussion from HEPs during pre-application engagement on projects. For example, the guidance discusses how ‘letters of comfort’ and evidence that a PBSA scheme meets an institution’s requirements can assist in pre-application discussions and encourage LPAs to support the principle of PBSA.

Finally, the LPG provides guidance on a new process for applying to become an approved proxy for nominations agreement purposes. This will apply to charitable organisations and other collectives. We envisage such proxy engagement will be most beneficial for smaller schemes, essentially brokering the nominations process to lessen the disproportionate administrative burden encountered by smaller developments in securing such agreements. The GLA has prepared a document covering process and eligibility criteria for proxy organisations and collectives.

The LPG’s additional clarity and detail on nominations agreements is certainly helpful. However, we do feel that it misses an opportunity to endorse greater flexibility in the application of nominations agreements to ensure development is not stymied. The guidance could have encouraged nominations agreements in appropriate circumstances in London, whilst also allowing a greater proportion of PBSA schemes without nominations agreements, perhaps where locational considerations support a more open approach to direct lets and/or to incentivise the delivery of wider planning benefits, including mixed tenure developments and C3 affordable housing on site.      

 

     

In summary, London is facing a pressing need for well designed, effectively managed and suitably located PBSA accommodation. The latest generation of PBSA schemes have an important role to play in meeting an evidenced housing need, strengthening mixed communities and supporting London’s knowledge economy and globally renowned HE offer. The need for PBSA in London is greater than supply and the planning system has an important role to play in fostering and facilitating new PBSA schemes.

The GLA’s new PBSA LPG helpfully recognises this need and acknowledges the benefits that can be generated by PBSA schemes. Many aspects of the LPG are logical and helpful, providing clarity and detail to assist in the practical application of London Plan Policy H15. For instance, the guidance actively supports PBSA schemes in the right location and recognises the economic and regenerative benefits of student housing. It highlights the place-making attributes of PBSA and its prospective role in developing vibrant, mixed and sustainable communities across the capital. It strikes the right balance between clarity and flexibility in terms of design measures and accessible units. The LPG also includes some constructive guidance on the scope for mixed use schemes combining PBSA and affordable housing, and it provides further detail on the application of nominations agreement.

There are, however, some elements of the LPG which remain overly restrictive and certain aspects which could be more progressive. The measures suggested to address perceived over-concentration of PBSA in an area could, for example, give LPA’s ammunition to rigidly inhibit otherwise acceptable PBSA schemes. Similarly, given the opportunities for PBSA to unlock other uses and benefits for example C3 affordable housing delivery, the guidance could have done more to facilitate mixed tenure sites and conventional affordable homes alongside PBSA. We also feel that the LPG misses an opportunity to endorse more flexible approaches to nominations agreements in the right circumstances.

Perhaps these are points which could be addressed in the forthcoming new London Plan, but until then it is important to remember that the LPG is guidance, not policy or law, so is not a strict rulebook but should be treated as a material consideration in the planning process.

After much delay and anticipation, the report of the Older People's Housing Taskforce was published on 26^th November. It brings together a range of important research and what older people want from their housing and how older people’s housing (OPH, also termed Later Living Homes or ‘LLH’) operates within the planning system to make recommendations for how Central Government, Local Government, developers, providers and other stakeholders can help meet the needs and demands of our ageing population.

Research has noted for some time now that the UK falls well short of meeting its need for OPH, with the Taskforce confirming again that “the UK is significantly far behind other developed countries in delivering the volume of stock required”. Clearly, planning plays a central role in delivering the homes we need. Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework has specifically referred to older people’s housing needs as far back as its inception in 2012, our research ‘Solutions to an Age Old Problem’ (originally published in 2019, and subsequently updated in 2024) has found that the pace of progress in local plans to address these needs has been somewhat underwhelming. Unsurprisingly, the role of planning therefore features heavily throughout the taskforce’s report and its recommendations.

Whilst most plans now address older people’s needs in their evidence base (albeit with varying levels of consistency and detail), our research found there is a lack of follow-through within local plans; many do no create positive policy environments which support and encourage the delivery of OPH, most do not set clear targets, many do not reflect OPH needs within strategic allocations or in standalone allocations, and fewer than half of authorities monitor delivery of OPH. Figure 1 summarises the findings of our research in terms of how older people’s needs are considered in various parts of the plan-making process, based on when those plans were adopted.

One of our findings – related to the lack of allocation of sites for OPH and the issues this can create – was directly mirrored in the report ‘Research into Patterns and Trends in Planning Applications for Older Persons Housing’ (herein ‘the planning report’) which accompanied the Taskforce’s main report, which stated “unlike general housing, most Local Plans do not make specific allocations for OPH, meaning that schemes either have to compete with general housing for sites, or try and gain permission on sites either not identified or not allocated for residential development.” The planning report also noted some of the other planning barriers, including competition with open market sites, urban design factors (with scale and massing needed for viable schemes potentially conflicting with design policies) and the broader difficulties associated with pursuing schemes on unallocated sites.

In this context, it is somewhat concerning that the planning report highlighted a worrying trend that the number of planning applications for OPH has actually halved in less than 10 years, from around 250 in 2015 (of which around 190 were approved and 60 were refused) to around 120 in 2023 (c.80 approved, 40 refused).

Consequently, the number of units approved per year has fallen from a peak of around 7,000 in 2016 to under 4,000 in 2023 – well short of the 30-50,000 per year that the Taskforce estimates is needed. This clearly raises questions as to whether the current policy environment is positive enough to bring forward OPH, reaffirming the observations we made in our research. Worryingly, the planning report also observes that OPH is more likely to be refused than general housing, with 72% of applications for OPH being approved compared with 81% for housing (on sites of 10 or more units).

It comes as no surprise, then, that planning features strongly within the Taskforce’s report – one of the recommendations of the OPH Taskforce is to ‘strengthen planning policies’ and it gives a range of ways this can be done (Figure 2). It notes that the system needs to address the question of use class, create consistent guidance on addressing need, improve awareness of the benefits of providing OPH, and appropriately incorporate OPH into plan-making. Its recommendations are shown in Figure 2, many of which mirror the recommendations we made in Lichfields’ own research earlier this year.

The Taskforce also recommends “a long-term national strategy for OPH/LLH” which it says is ‘vital’ to drive delivery. This might include a national target, which would need to be ‘ambitious’ and ‘translated to a local level’; encouragingly, 83% of Taskforce developers surveyed said they thought it would encourage more supply and 37% thought it would encourage new entrants into the market.

It is difficult to overstate the benefits associated with the delivery of OPH; they are discussed at length in the Taskforce’s report, and range from personal to wider societal benefits to the housing market, health care system and more. The importance of diversification in increasing housing delivery is also well-documented, and specialist housing is a relatively untapped market which is unlikely to compete with other general housing products. This means increasing delivery of housing for older people would clearly go a significant way to helping support the Government target of delivering 1.5m homes in this Parliament (and furthermore, the planning report also showed that OPH applications take less time to be determined than general housing schemes – around 11 months compared to 17 months for schemes of 50-100 units). In turn this would also release a significant amount of housing (particularly family housing) back into the market, and reduce pressures on the health and social care system arising from people living in homes which do not meet their needs (indeed, this is the basis for the Taskforce’s recommendations that Central Government ‘rewards’ high performing authorities). With all these benefits, enabling greater delivery of OPH would seem like a no-brainer.

Stakeholders will eagerly await the Government’s response to the Taskforce’s recommendations, but when it comes to planning policy it’s clear that some significant changes are needed to see the country delivering anywhere near it’s true need for housing for older people. With the recent NPPF making minimal changes to the way in which housing for older people is dealt with in plan-making, we could see further changes to the NPPF if the Taskforce’s recommendations are acted upon. The Taskforce is clear that Central Government needs to set clear expectations of local planning authorities, and provide the policy framework and guidance to support, educate and incentivise local authorities to enable delivery of OPH through using both ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’. With only more and more people in old age, quick action is needed to reverse the declining trend in planning applications and approvals, to deliver the homes our older people need.

On Friday, I was delighted to receive a positive decision on the Turnden case. This was 4 years overdue but, from what I hear, perhaps that is not too bad for planning decisions these days!

For those who have not been following this case (notwithstanding national coverage in the press), it is a long story of twists and turns for a proposal of 165 new homes to be delivered by Berkeley Homes.  It all started back in 2020 when Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) identified the site as a housing allocation in their draft Local Plan.  It is within the AONB (National Landscape ‘NL’) so a tough call, but TWBC are a heavily constrained Borough (NL and Green Belt) and they took the decision, not lightly and not without a strong evidence base, that they would aim to meet the housing need in full. Berkeley Homes subsequently submitted an application that year which was supported by officers and, in January 2021, the Planning Committee resolved to accept that recommendation and grant planning permission.  All good so far …

However, in his infinite wisdom, Mr Gove thought he knew best and, in April 2021, directed that the application be referred to him.  So, back in September 2021, there was a public Inquiry over a period of a month to consider reams of evidence.  Meanwhile, the Local Plan moves slowly forwards, with the site still allocated.

In April 2023, Mr Gove eventually made a decision, alongside the independent Inspector’s full report. Not surprisingly, in our view, based on the detailed evidence presented to him, the Inspector recommended that the application should be approved, and planning permission granted, subject to conditions and the obligations in the Legal Agreements. Notwithstanding this positive conclusion from an independent party, Mr Gove steps in again and, for two very strange and unnerving reasons (housing supply and design), he disagreed with the Inspector’s recommendation and decided to refuse planning permission.  The planning world, as I know it, was in turmoil [although TWBC boldly marched on … with the site still allocated in their draft Plan and subsequently ‘supported’ at EiP].

However, … the SoS decision was challenged in the High Court, primarily because the data on housing land supply by then was out of date, and DLUHC conceded on that point. The decision was duly quashed by Order of the Court in October 2023.  It was back with Mr Gove … and the planning world held its breath once more.  There was an even deeper intake of breath, and perhaps a despondent sigh, when the new NPPF came out in December 2023 setting out that there only needed to be a 4 year housing land supply.  The writing was on the wall for this application because it was always accepted, throughout the case, that TWBC had over 4 years of supply. It was thought that this was the end, with national politics prevailing over a local decision and an independent Inspector’s assessment.

But this did not, in fact, turn out to be the final turn of the screw for this application and the end of a long battle to deliver new homes that are needed.  Fortunately, a timely general election (to distract the decision makers) and a turn-around in national politics saved the day. Labour were in control and taking the bold step to ensure that planning would deliver the new homes needed. 

So how did the change in government impact on the decision of the Turnden application?  I set out below how I see this decision reflecting political thinking on key topics and, hopefully, how this can give hope to those looking to deliver more homes through the planning system (should I add … quickly and efficiently).

Throughout this case it was always accepted that TWBC did not have a five year housing land supply and that the supply was over 4.5 years.  Mr Gove agreed with the Inspector that there is a clear need for both market and affordable housing in the Borough and at Cranbrook and that the proposed development would make a significant contribution to the delivery of both and meet a shortfall. However, where Mr Gove differed from the Council and the Inspector was that “the current shortfall could reasonably be described as slight, he does not agree with the Inspector at IR810 that the case which has been made out for the need for development of this type and in Cranbrook is appropriately described as ‘a very compelling case”.

Roll forward 19 months and Ms Rayner looks at the case.  “In reaching her conclusions on housing need and delivery, the Secretary of State has taken into the account the effect of paragraph 226 of the Framework, which means that TWBC can now demonstrate a Framework-compliant housing land supply, and the progress of the eLP since the previous decision. As a result, she considers that some elements of the Inspector’s conclusions at IR801-810 in respect of housing need and delivery are now out of date. However, it is undoubtedly still the case that the ability to respond to the need for housing is heavily constrained (IR803), and on the basis of the evidence now before her, in particular the significant weight which she attaches to policy STR/CRS 1 and draft allocation AL/CRS3 of the eLP, she agrees with the Inspector at IR810 that it is reasonable to conclude that there is a compelling case for the need for development of this type and in Cranbrook.

So, what can we conclude from this? When Gove was presented with a shortfall in the housing land supply, he dismissed this out of hand as only ‘slight’, notwithstanding national policy at the time.  Ms Rayner, on the other hand, was faced with a case where there was, technically, an oversupply of housing against national policy and yet she thought that the delivery of homes should carry ‘significant weight’.  Of course there are other factors that come into play here but, nevertheless, the drive to deliver new homes is a clear message.

A lot has been said about design in housing and planning over the years including the recent speech by Matthew Pennycook where he stated that that the Government had “concluded that support to improve the quality and design of new homes and places can be more efficiently and effectively delivered by the Department itself. The Office for Place will therefore be closed down”.

In the Turnden case, Gove considered design - taking a contrary view to the Inspector.  Gove concluded that “The Secretary of State recognises that both the HWAONB Management Plan and the High Weald Housing Design Guide emphasise that housing development in the HWAONB should be landscape-led. Whilst he agrees with the Inspector that the proposed development would deliver landscape enhancements (IR826), he does not find the proposal to be of a high standard which has evolved through thoughtful regard to its context (IR723). Overall, he does not find that the scheme is sensitively designed having regard to its setting. He finds that the design of the proposal does not reflect the expectations of the High Weald Housing Design Guide, being of a generic suburban nature which does not reproduce the constituent elements of local settlements. He also considers that the layout of the scheme does not respond to its AONB setting. Rather than being a benefit of the scheme, as suggested by the Inspector, the Secretary of State considers that the design of the scheme is a neutral factor in the context of paragraphs 176 and 177 of the Framework and the planning balance”.

So, how did Labour respond to this in the ‘new Labour world’? Ms Rayner concluded that “Whilst the Secretary of State has concerns about the layout and design of the proposal, particularly the sensitivity and appropriateness of the design in the context of its setting, she has taken into account that only 20% of the site would be built on (IR730) and the proposed development would deliver landscape enhancements (IR826). Overall, she considers that the design of the scheme is a neutral factor in this case”.

While Ms Rayner’s conclusion helped to overcome the design issue, it is worth adding that this still baffling as the Inspector, who heard all of the evidence, concluded that “In the context of Settlement as a characteristic of the HWAONB, I do not accept criticism of the kind that describes the proposed development as having a generic layout and design of new housing developments failing to respond to, or reinforce AONB character. As [the applicant’s] evidence illustrates, the design of the proposed development is of a high standard and has evolved having thoughtful regard to its context”.

It is therefore hard to know what more the applicant could have done on design quality. Nevertheless, this does demonstrate the important of keeping design quality as a significant consideration in all application proposals.

This case was all about new homes in the AONB/NL and, as such, it hinged on whether or not exceptional circumstances exist to justify the proposed development in the HWAONB and whether the development would be in the public interest. On this, I would continue to advise that each case must be considered on its merits.

However, there are some useful pointers on some other broader matters, such as the weight to be given to an emerging plan:

… and the weight to be given to benefits, even when the housing land supply is met:

“She has taken into account the changes since the previous decision, including her conclusion at paragraph 42 above that TWBC has a Framework compliant housing land supply, and overall, she considers that the combined weight of the benefits remains as substantial”.

This was a sensitive and complex case and all such cases must continue to be treated on their particular merits.  Many other appeal cases, that I am sure must come down the line, will also be sensitive and will require the same careful consideration.  As always it was a great team effort to, eventually, achieve the right result.  From the beginning we believed in the case and worked hard to present that in the best way. We were vindicated by an independent Inspector, but that turned out not to be enough, as politics at the national level came into play.

The Labour government have come forward with strong rhetoric on the importance of planning to deliver the substantial new homes needed and has begun to flex their muscles on strategic applications.  I would hope that the decision on Turnden is a clear sign that there has been a turn-around in national decision making, with a clear message for local planning authorities on the importance of housing delivery.

Amongst the myriad ministerial announcements pre-empting (and eventually included within) the recent Budget, was a government pledge of a further £1.4 billion to meet a target of rebuilding 50 schools in England per year. Against a backdrop of pressure on the public finances, Labour was also in part responding to concerns that only 23 of more than 500 schools on the School Rebuilding Programme have been completed so far by ambitiously ramping up progress towards 50 rebuilds per year’. [1]

Launched by the previous government in 2021, the School Rebuilding Programme carries out major rebuilding and refurbishment projects on school and sixth form college buildings across England, with buildings prioritised according to their condition.[2] Whilst perhaps not at the pace anticipated by some pundits, the Programme is delivering and, as of the September 2024 term, Lichfields has obtained planning permission for new campuses for Whitley Bay High School and Farringdon Community Academy in the North East of England, working with the Department for Education as part of a well-established team led by contractor BAM Construction and Ryder Architecture.

Whilst it is therefore clearly promising that new additional funding should see the Programme accelerated, its remit is currently focused solely on the most dilapidated existing school premises. This is understandable from both a political and financial perspective, but Lichfields’ work across the planning system, and our understanding of the current agenda for reform (as reported elsewhere on these pages), suggests that the government’s aspirations for a step change in terms of housing delivery and Local Plan adoption will also have major implications for the nation’s school provision.

Fundamentally, the Department for Education (DfE) is responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient new school places to meet local needs, whilst the government is also driving forward an ambitious housing agenda to increase housing delivery, home ownership and the creation of new communities. The relationship between infrastructure provision (including high quality school places) and new housing delivery is critical in meeting these objectives in a sustainable manner.

In August 2023, the previous government updated its non-statutory guidance on delivering school places to support housing growth. A key aspect of this was the publication of a new methodology to assist in estimating pupil yield from housing developments[3]. This is intended to assist local authorities in developing and applying long-term evidence of pupil yield from housing developments, to inform local plans and planning decisions, and justify developer contributions towards education. With significant planned increases in Local Plan housing targets required to achieve the government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes over this parliament, the system is, however, sure to be stretched.

To some extent, a healthy, functioning system of Local Plan preparation would ensure this problem takes care of itself. As mentioned above, Lichfields has worked alongside contractors such as BAM Construction on a number of new projects under the DfE’s existing School Rebuilding Programme, including securing planning permission in January 2023 for the redevelopment of Farringdon Community Academy in Sunderland. This development is an excellent example of the DfE’s funding programmes and pupil yield data working in tandem with an up-to-date Local Plan to deliver a state-of-the-art new facility for the City’s existing and future communities. The development involved the demolition of most of the existing main school buildings and the construction of a new state-of-the-art teaching block and a swimming pool; providing over 10,000 m² of new accommodation.

At feasibility stage, the DfE identified aspirations within the City’s recently adopted development plan for significant housing growth in the local area. Specifically, the ‘South Sunderland Growth Area’ (SSGA) was identified as a target for growth and a priority for housing and economic development, with aspirations for a new sustainable community to the south-east of the school site. Within the SSGA, development is expected to deliver approximately 3000 new homes, including 10% affordable housing. As a result, the new school proposals sought to accommodate a Published Admissions Number of 60 additional pupils per year to future-proof the scheme for planned housing growth. New housing and schools play a fundamental role in supporting the health and wellbeing of communities, and with the opening of the Community Academy in September, the new accommodation provides much needed modern and fit-for-purpose teaching facilities to deliver the highest performance standards for generations to come.[4]

Much rests on the publication of the government’s revised National Planning Policy Framework (still anticipated later this year) and its instruction to local planning authorities to upscale their ambitions in relation to housing delivery. The draft NPPF in July also instructed stakeholders to “give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter early years, schools and post 16 facilities through the preparation of plans and decisions on applications” and, teamed with a significant and welcome boost to the finances of the School Rebuilding Programme, there remains hope this can be realised.

Please get in touch with Lichfields’ Health and Education team if there are any points raised in this blog which you would like to discuss or are perhaps relevant to your own projects or Local Plans. You can see the full range of our recent education projects within our Sector Guide (Education Sector Guide).