After months of delay the Housing White Paper (HWP) has finally been published. But has the boldly titled paper, ‘Fixing our broken housing market,’ lived up to the hyperbole?
Overview:
The HWP identifies that we need on average 225,000 – 275,000 homes per year to keep up with population growth and to start tackling the years of under-supply.
It establishes the three key barriers to delivery as:
- Local authorities not planning for the homes they need;
- House building that is too slow; and
- A construction industry too reliant on a small number of big players.
The government’s answer to fixing this crisis is a ‘radical’ re-think of the approach to homebuilding which it sets out across 104 pages.
The content:
So has the HWP lived up to its pre-publication promises? Well, in real terms it won’t be possible to say until we see it in practice and at present the proposed changes are being consulted on for the next 12 weeks.
However, the HWP does provide an indication of where planning is heading under this government. The Plainview Team have flagged the key proposals our clients should be aware of and a look at what they might mean below, with the assistance of some handy colour coding (!):
| Green = positive | Orange = neutral | Red = negative |
| A.12: Local Plans to be reviewed at least once every five years Although Local Plans generally cover a 15 year period there will seemingly be a requirement for formal interim reviews. This will lead to more work for planning policy teams, BUT it will ensure Local Plans are relevant and fit for purpose. However, clarity is required on whether a review needs to simply be started once every 5 years or actually completed. |
| A.13: A Statement of Common Ground between neighbouring authorities This will hopefully fix the numerous failures over “Duty to Co-operate”, but it is questionable whether such a Statement will genuinely provide the level of strategic planning required. |
| A.18: Amend the tests of what is expected of a ‘sound’ plan Councils will only need to set out ‘an’ appropriate strategy for the area rather than having to demonstrate that their Local Plan contains ‘the most’ appropriate strategy. It is perceived that the current wording can encourage disproportionate work and challenges at Local Plan Examinations. But this seems to present a worrying dilution of the Local Plan process and could be abused by NIMBY councils. |
| A.21: A more standardised approach to assessing objectively assessed housing requirements by April 2018 Much needed. The continuous and repetitive battles on housing numbers is becoming very tiresome, it delays applications and results in lengthy appeals. |
| A.24: Addressing the housing requirements of groups with particular needs Vital. So often elderly care housing and student housing is shoe-horned into a Local Plan as an afterthought. |
| A.32: The Government will collate and make openly available a complete list of all unregistered publicly held land by April 2018
This interim step will assist with prioritising registration and provide an early indication of the scale of potential sites for house building and associated infrastructure needs.We are delighted with the steps that take HM Land Registry ever further from privatisation. Time to see what land is out there and where best to build for the communities we need! |
| A.38: Removing the word ‘examples’ from footnote 9 of Paragraph 14 The Government proposes to clarify which national policies it regards as providing a strong reason to restrict development when preparing plans, or which indicate that development should be restricted when making decisions on planning applications: it is proposed that these are limited to the policies listed currently at footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework, with the addition of Ancient Woodland and aged or veteran trees; and that these are no longer set out as ‘examples’ but as a clear list. A subtle point, but this should provide much needed clarity for planners on where development should be restricted. |
| A.42: Great weight on brownfield and undeveloped sites within settlements The Government will amend the National Planning Policy Framework to indicate that great weight should be attached to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes The phrase “great weight” is used sparingly in the NPPF, and so the proposal to give such significant weight to brownfield and undeveloped sites is important. |
| A.52: Support the development of small ‘windfall’ sites (those not allocated in plans, but which come forward on an ad hoc basis) This is brilliant for so many of our small and medium developers. There are many sites out there that can provide 2-10 homes but face resistance as they’re not allocated. There is also a proposed requirement for at least 10% of the sites allocated for residential development in local plans to be of half a hectare or less. |
| A.65: Local planning authorities are expected to provide neighbourhood planning groups with a housing requirement figure Vital. Will stop purposefully NIMBY neighbourhood plans coming forward. |
| A.68/69/70: A support for higher densities in areas of housing need: It makes good sense to review the scope for higher-density housing in urban locations with strong amenity access. We tentatively welcome a pragmatic approach to policy and guidance that could inhibit dense but high quality development. That said, in light of the proposed review of space standards, we agree that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs of a wider range of households. But we are concerned this may represent a slip in standards and quality for the sake of quantity. |
| A.78: LPA’s to get an annual 5 year housing supply fix but with 10% buffer There is an opportunity for LPAs to get their 5YHS fixed for a year, but only if they accept a 10% buffer. It will be interesting to see how many Councils take this up. Such a system would need to be transparent to ensure there is no collusion between large developers and Councils. |
| A.86: Fees for planning appeals This idea is being mooted to reduce the amount of ‘no-hoper’ appeals. Fees would be refunded if the appeal is successful. It could potentially speed up the appeal system, but surely the focus should be on preventing unnecessary refusals. Furthermore, this proposal will need to be carefully consulted on to ensure it doesn’t discourage SME developers from bringing forward legitimate appeals. |
| Box 3: Start date and build out rate to be included on application forms To improve the quality of information available, the HWP proposes a duty on developers to provide local authorities with basic information in terms of actual and projected build out. Whilst we can understand the rationale, we query how accurate and reliable this will be. |
| A.101/102/103: Non-implementation of earlier permissions to become a material consideration The proposals also seek to look at a developer’s track record for build outs when deciding whether to grant planning permission for housing. This should act as a deterrent to land bankers, but there are plenty of examples of legitimate reasons why a landowner is seeking to renew a planning permission. It will needed to be handled carefully. |
| A.104: Shortening timescales for developers to implement a permission for a housing development from 3 years to 2 years Again, it would require careful handling to ensure that shortening the timeframe doesn’t then make developments financially unviable for SME developers. |
| A.113: The Housing Delivery Test and presumption in favour of sustainable development It will be very interesting to see how this works in practice:
|
| A.126/127: A minimum of 10% of all homes on individual sites are affordable home ownership products But this will not apply to schemes of 10 dwellings or under! |
| A.138: Changes of use and minor development will need a Flood Risk Assessment A sensible change and this recognises that in areas susceptible to flooding even small alterations can affect flood risk within or beyond the site, and that changes of use can result in occupation or use by parties which are more vulnerable than the previous occupants/users to harm from flooding. |
| 2.15: Planning fees to increase by 20% from July 2017 Local authorities will only be able to do this if they agree to invest the extra money into their planning department. This will only be worthwhile if, through careful management, the extra fees result in a better standard of response and improved quality control from planning departments. |
Green Belt: A Missed Opportunity?
Despite promises to the contrary, the government reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the green belt. One can’t help but feel this is a missed opportunity to enable a much needed national green belt debate after 60 years. It would have also provided much needed clarity on its definition and its use, in light of increasing pressure on housing supply in our cities.
Get your views heard:
Overall, whilst there are lots of positive ideas in the document, the level of potential complexity in practice will unlikely speed up delivery in the short term.
Consultation on the issues and proposals raised from the Housing White Paper is currently live and will run for 12 weeks.
All responses should be received by no later than 23:45 on 2 May 2017.
How we can help:
This consultation is seeking views on important new planning proposals which will involve amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework and regulations and also sets out some wider changes to national planning policy in relation to sustainable development and the environment.
It is important to get your voice heard and if you think the proposed changes will directly affect your development aims it is vital to ensure representations are made in a timely and constructive manner.
Contact our knowledgeable team if you want to understand how the proposed changes may affect you and wish to make a strategic and comprehensive representation to this most important consultation.
Email: enquiries@plainview.co.uk
Tel: 01242501003
You can read the Housing White Paper in full here: Fixing our Broken Housing Market