Planning matters blog | Lichfields

Planning matters

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

In light of the Government’s recent review of the London Plan and the consultation on further changes to the NPPF,  the focus has been sharpened on the regions and their contribution towards meeting housing needs. The 20 largest cities and urban centres across England are already subject to an ‘urban uplift’, i.e. a 35% increase to their standard method housing need figures, but the proposed changes will result in the presumption in favour of sustainable development being triggered in respect of previously developed land where Housing Delivery Test performance drops below 95% in these local authority areas. The consultation also proposes to add significant weight to the delivery as many homes as possible on brownfield land, whilst taking a flexible approach to internal layout.
In the context of a challenging period for the residential development industry, the Build to Rent (BtR) market continues to go from strength to strength. Savills report that the sector generated £4.5 billion of investment during 2023 – the second highest year on record[1]. This asset class is often seen delivering homes at scale and regenerating brownfield land in many of our biggest towns and cities, but did it get any airtime as part of the raft of recent Government announcements? No, nothing.
However, in light of the new presumption in favour of previously developed land and the contribution BtR is making where many others are stuttering along, it seems fitting to understand what level of policy support there is for BtR across England, and in particular in those 20 largest cities and urban centres. Of course London takes top spot, and the policy picture for BtR in the Capital has been covered previously by colleagues Georgia Crowley and Adam Donovan (see here), but have the other 19 largest cities and urban centres caught-on?  
There are three national trends beginning to emerge from our analysis:
 
  • From our sample of the 19 largest cities and urban centre authorities outside of London, none have an ‘anti BtR’ policy position. However, the five southern urban uplift authorities are more likely to have an adopted or draft policy that explicitly supports BtR when compared to their seven counterparts in the Midlands and seven in the North of England. A case of following London’s lead with a policy pathway for BtR, or simply a reflection of longstanding BtR developer interest in these areas that has influenced policy formulation? Those five southern authorities have all either adopted local plans or begun work on a new plan in the last 5 years, whereas perhaps unsurprisingly, all six of the authorities with a local plan older than 5 years are either silent or have no explicit reference to BtR in their policy (Coventry, Derby, Hull, Newcastle, Stoke and Wolverhampton).
     
  • There are very few examples of adopted or draft policy that explicitly support BtR in the largest northern authorities, including some of the largest: Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle. This is somewhat at odds with experience on the ground, particularly in Manchester and Leeds, where there has been a buoyant BtR development market for some time.
     
  • Three of the top five largest cities or urban centres, Birmingham, Bristol and Sheffield, do have adopted policy that explicitly supports BtR. These big population centres are clearly open for BtR business, and Birmingham and Sheffield are bucking the policy trend when compared to other authorities in their respective patches.
     
Of the 19 largest cities (excluding London), only seven local plans provide positive support for BtR and five of these are located in the south of England (Bristol, Southampton, Brighton, Reading and Plymouth). Considering that BtR is well established in cities across the country, particularly in the northern cities of Manchester and Leeds, it is unhelpful that local policy is not keeping pace with the market to avoid mixed messages to BtR developers and investors about whether they are welcome or not. The often glacial local plan preparation and review process clearly doesn’t help matters, but given that the NPPF makes very little reference to BtR and contains no specific policy support, the most recent proposed changes from Government seem like a missed opportunity. As is often the case, the planning policy environment is failing to keep pace.
There is a real opportunity for a new government to get behind the residential development market nationally by specifically recognising and strengthening the role that BtR has in national planning policy – it is one of the few tenures that can be delivered on brownfield land at higher density, and in a viable way given its differing economic profile based on secure long term rental income. A national emphasis on the role that BtR can play in regenerating brownfield sites, and meeting the rental needs of the population who either chose not to purchase or are struggling to get onto the housing ladder, would then put the onus on local authorities to reflect this in their own local plans and ultimately assist in giving developers and investors confidence to bring forward new projects.
As uncovered by our recent ‘Planning for Rent’ insight work on the London policy position, development management policies within Local Plans rarely differentiate or provide flexibility for BtR schemes when compared to traditional open market tenure. This often results in a requirement for BtR planning applications to provide justification for departures from established residential policies which were designed for traditional ‘for sale’ schemes. With a lack of detailed national planning policy or guidance on BtR, save for the NPPF requiring Affordable Private Rent tenure rather than affordable homes for sale, it is left up to individual local authorities and their local plan to set the bar.
If not through the NPPF changes, the new national development management policies (NDMPs) facilitated through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 do provide a potential vehicle to deliver a much clearer basis for BtR developments to come forward. The forthcoming NDMPs will override local plan policies where there is any conflict and therefore could provide a consistent picture at national level which in turn will mean greater confidence from the market.
With interest rates stabilising and costs of construction projected to fall, coupled with the exit of many Buy-to-Let landlords from the market (which will further deplete the availability of rental homes), now is the time to prime the national planning policy landscape so that there is a sure footing for the next wave of BtR development and investment. In our opinion, the role of BtR in the NPPF should be strengthened, and the NDMPs used to create a more level playing field for BtR design and development across England.
The NPPF consultation runs until 26 March 2024 and the first draft NDMPs remain subject to future consultation. If you are interested in preparing representations, or would like to discuss Lichfields’ track record in promoting BtR development in London and across the country then please get in touch.
  

[1] Savills UK | UK Build to Rent Market Update – Q4 2023

 

CONTINUE READING

Sky's The Limit: Go Tall to Meet Housing Needs
Whilst the development industry remains occupied by the latest raft of proposed changes to the planning system (see my colleague, Jennie’s Baker’s succinct blog), I cannot help but feel that the persistent political meddling will result in less homes being delivered, rather than more. Whilst the Government continue to bang the drum for LPAs to prepare and maintain up-to-date Local Plans, the recent political turmoil is actually slowing down LPAs from doing this, and the proposed changes to the NPPF dilute the requirement to meet objectively assessed needs in full. This is typified by the consultation on reforms to the NPPF which propose a transitory reduction in the minimum number of years of supply that LPAs are required to maintain for housing, watering down the soundness tests insofar as needs are now met “so far as possible” with strategies no longer needing to be justified, as well as a strengthening of Green Belt protection by ruling out boundary reviews to meeting housing needs (even though the amount of green belt has actually increased over recent years!).
By way of offering up some sort of solution, the Government has, however, been making positive noises around the ‘brownfield first’ approach. This isn’t anything new, far from it, and won’t deliver all of the homes we need (see my colleague, Matthew Spry’s musings on this issue), but if we are to optimise the density of brownfield sites then we need to braver and deliver an efficient use of these often sacred pieces of real estate. Whilst doing this we need to be careful not to promote development considered “out of character” with existing context, or out of line with design guides, codes, or supplementary guidance that advocate higher densities (i.e. to address proposed amendments to NPPF Para 11 (b) ii.). The indicative changes to the NPPF now specifically reference uplifts to the Standard Method figures for urban local authorities in the top 20 most populated cities and urban centres. From a London perspective, this shouldn’t be anything new since the London Plan already designates Opportunity Areas (often supported by OAPFs) and there is a requirement in Policy D9 to identify tall building zones (as was originally requested by the Secretary of State in 2020 in the interests of ‘character’ and empowering local communities). It is clear that national policy is being strengthened in this sphere, but does it go far enough on tall buildings and higher density residential? Footnote 30 to the NPPF consultation version states that ‘brownfield and other under-utilised urban sites should be prioritised, and on these sites density should be optimised to promote the most efficient use of land… This is to ensure that homes are built in the right places, to make the most of existing infrastructure, and to allow people to live near the services they rely on, making travel patterns more sustainable.’ – well that sounds simple enough, hurrah!
However, having spent my professional career advising on urban development projects, in particular higher density residential schemes and tall buildings, there is usually a default position in most urban communities, local planning authorities and committee chambers that tall buildings are a bad thing, often using heritage, townscape or daylight impacts to beat down heights, or concerns around capacity of local infrastructure provision (whether that be transport, health, education or open space). Of course, our historic environment is important, and so is the ability of our community infrastructure to meet the needs of residents, but does it warrant depriving people of a place of their own whether that be owning, renting or to take them off Council waiting lists and out of emergency accommodation and into purpose built affordable homes? A balance needs to be struck between these competing issues, and we must remember that many affordable homes are brought forward as part of private sector development, including those that include tall buildings.
Aside from the typical consideration of townscape and heritage impacts on listed buildings and conservation areas, one restrictive London planning policy in respect of height and density is the protection of ‘Strategically Important Landmarks’ from views identified in the London View Management Framework (LVMF). Published in 2012 as a follow-on to the 2011 London Plan, I would suggest this strategy needs a refresh to ensure it is fit-for-purpose as our Capital’s housing needs continue to go unmet. For example, the continued protection of views towards St. Paul’s Cathedral – is it still a ‘strategically important landmark’ given there are many other buildings in the Capital that allow a viewer to orientate themselves within the City, and it could be said that its setting has already been compromised in medium and longer range views. Just imagine how many additional homes could be provided in some of its viewing corridors! The Mayor’s office don’t seem shy when it comes to preparing new guidance, so I’d suggest a refresh of the LVMF might be a worthwhile exercise.
Gentle densification, mansion block typologies and even mansard roof extensions (which have for some reason slipped into the NPPF consultation!) are all ways to deliver beautiful new development in urban areas, but the reality is that tall buildings offer much quicker wins to deliver the market and affordable homes that our communities need, at scale. Comparatively, London is not a tall building city compared to many others around the globe, and our Capital stands out against our regional cities which have few *very* tall buildings, save for a couple of recent developments in Birmingham or Manchester.
I was lucky enough to spend 2019 travelling the globe and to my surprise I saw that the rest of the world has made far greater progress on delivering new homes in many a tall building, located conveniently near transport hubs, health and education services, and open spaces for residents to enjoy. You only need to scan some of the world’s leading cities to see that we are lagging behind when it comes to optimising site capacity through the use of tall buildings. Of course, many of our Asian counterparts have higher population densities that dictate such building typologies, and there are some examples of unnecessarily elaborate tall buildings in Middle Eastern cities that were more about architectural statement and status than residential needs, but we could certainly catch-up if the political will was there to support a new-age of ‘beautiful’ tall buildings, designed to achieve the highest sustainability standards to combat the effects of climate change. There has rarely been much concern about going bigger in North America, whether that be your fast-food meal or the tall buildings of New York – in Manhattan alone there have been three very tall residential buildings completed since 2015 which rise in excess of 425 metres. In comparison, London’s tallest buildings are sub-300m, and are often non-residential office uses (see the City of London cluster) or indeed mixed-use (the Shard being the most obvious example).
Tall building developments are not straightforward, and there are a myriad of planning matters to consider (viability, design, heritage, fire safety, aviation, wind microclimate, daylight/sunlight and overshadowing let alone how to deliver high performing buildings in carbon terms to combat the climate emergency), but they will certainly help us reduce pressure on green belt and green fields, providing liveable new communities in close proximity to the services that people need. If our elected politicians are going to deliver the homes we need on brownfield land, then they need to introduce specific national policy support for tall buildings within urban areas, in particular the top 20 most populated areas, taking a lead from the London Plan’s approach to strategically planning tall building areas, and winning the hearts and minds of local communities in these areas who could all see the benefit of such development. Perhaps it might be too late for the incumbent Government, but it could be possible for a future Labour administration to put cranes in the air given their typically strong mandates in urban areas – the sky’s the limit when it comes to meeting our housing needs.
Lichfields’ has a demonstrable track record advising on some of London’s tallest residential buildings. We are currently advising on the Borough Triangle development in Southwark, a residential-led tall building scheme comprising 838 new homes in buildings up to 46 storeys, a new public piazza, retention and refurbishment of two local heritage buildings, and new commercial space. The proposal is designed by RIBA Stirling Prize winning architects Maccreanor Lavington. The scheme’s two tall buildings will enable the delivery of high quality new homes in an accessible location that has been identified for high density in an adopted Local Plan, coupled with delivery of new public open space and amenity areas, urban greening and other benefits to the local community that will help to reinforce and enhance its opportunity area character. I sincerely hope that more high quality schemes like this will be brought forward to deliver the homes we urgently need in London and urban areas across the country.

Image Credit: Maccreanor Lavington, Cityscape, Berkeley Homes (South East London) Limited

CONTINUE READING