After another exciting week in the madcap, rock and roll, ever-changing world of town and country planning, it was striking to read this from Everton manager Sean Dyche in a Sunday Times interview with Matthew Syed.
“And I think love is shown by telling the truth. The whole truth. Sometimes, the brutal truth. Sure, you need to say it respectfully. Sometimes, you need to say it gently. But unless you are prepared to say it how it is, you are misleading someone. Maybe even lying to them. But this is the problem in the world today: people prefer perception over reality.”
The reality of the housing crisis is the image below that was included in a Sunday Times article the week before in which Housing Secretary Michael Gove sought to make the case for new homes on the basis that, if young people cannot live in their own, they might give up on democracy and capitalism (and the Conservative Party).
The public’s perception of the housing crisis, the Housing Secretary hopes, is that the Government is doing something about it. The same Sunday Times article refers to leasehold reform, a ‘housing moment’ in the forthcoming budget, and trailed the reforms that were subsequently revealed a few days later on what might, for a short time at least, be remembered by some as ‘Brownfield Reform Day’.
For completeness, this is everything that emerged.
“Build on brownfield now, Gove tells underperforming councils.
Big city councils must prioritise brownfield development, building new homes in right places and protecting the Green Belt.”
Firstly, it is proposed that the NPPF be changed “to make clear that when considering planning applications, LPAs should give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible, especially where this involves land which is previously developed”.
Furthermore, LPAs “should take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to the internal layout of development in these circumstances, where they would otherwise inhibit making the most efficient use of a site”.
Secondly, it is proposed that in the twenty places subject to the 35% standard method “urban uplift” a presumption in favour of sustainable development in respect of previously developed land where LPAs score 95% or less against the housing delivery test (HDT) (the threshold for the presumption being triggered against the HDT is 75% presently).
Thirdly, the consultation seeks views on amending the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 such that the threshold for the number of homes over which the Mayor of London can intervene and determine applications is increased because “the government is aware that in some instances this threshold is considered to be too low, requiring what may amount to duplicative interactions by developers with the relevant London Borough and with the GLA which is not always considered proportionate to the nature of the development in question.”
The threshold for large scale residential development was first set in 2000 as development providing more than 500 houses, flats, or houses and flats or residential development on more than 10 hectares. In 2008, this threshold was reduced to 150 houses, flats or houses and flats.
This includes:
- Changes to certain permitted development rights which enable householders to improve and enlarge their homes;
- Changes to the building upwards permitted development rights which enable the upward extension of a range of existing buildings;
- Changes to the permitted development right which allows for the demolition of certain buildings and rebuild as homes;
- Changes to the permitted development rights which enable the installation of electrical outlets and upstands for recharging electric vehicles; and
- Changes to the permitted development right for the installation of air source heat pumps.
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024.
This was laid on Brownfield Reform Day and comes into force on 5 March 2024.
It makes two major changes to the class MA right (class E commercial, business and service uses to class C3 residential use) that came into force on 21 April 2021. First, the 1,500m² floorspace upper limit for building changing use under the right is removed. Secondly, the removal of the requirement that the building must have been vacant for a continuous period of at least three months immediately prior to the date of an application for prior approval.
This Simon Ricketts blog cover the “topsy turvy ride” that has led to this point.
Housebuilding in London: London Plan Review – report of expert advisors.
On 19 December 2023, the most recent Planning Reform Day, the Housing Secretary appointed a panel of expert advisers – Christopher Katkowski KC, Cllr James Jamieson, Dr Paul Monaghan and Dr Wei Yang – to consider any changes to the London Plan that might “facilitate housing delivery on brownfield sites in London.”
The report, received by the Secretary of State on 15 January 2024, recommends the introduction of a planning presumption in favour of brownfield development.
An accompanying letter from the Housing Secretary to the Mayor of London can be found here.
This is how The Times introduced it’s readers to Brownfield Reform Day.
Rishi Sunak has pledged to drive through plans to build hundreds of thousands of new homes in Britain’s biggest cities, as he admitted that the Conservatives had “much more to do” to help young people get on the housing ladder.
Under new rules to be unveiled on Tuesday urban councils that are not meeting housing targets will be told they can refuse planning permission on brownfield land only in exceptional circumstances.
Shops, offices and other commercial buildings will also be able to be converted into homes without the need for full planning permission as the government promises to do far more to “put rocket boosters” under construction in areas that are already built-up.
This is how The Times covered the industry and Labour response.
The move was welcomed by some of Britain’s larger developers, who described it as a “positive” step.
However, they warned that it would be offset by other recent changes to the planning rules which would allow councils in suburban areas to reduce their housing targets.
“Whilst we welcome any moves to bring land through for development more quickly, this consultation announcement will do little to tackle our housing crisis,” said a spokesman for the Home Builders Federation.
“It comes just weeks after ministers capitulation to the nimby wing of the party with the removal of housing targets, which could see supply drop by 77,000 homes a year. If we are to reverse the sharp falls in housing supply we are now seeing, we need some serious joined-up policies, not tinkering around the edges.”
Angela Rayner, the deputy leader of Labour, said: “A threadbare announcement consisting of old, failed policies and minor tweaks to brownfield planning policy is not going to paper over Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove’s reckless decision to capitulate to anti-housebuilding Tory backbenchers. Labour has a plan to get Britain building again.”
Where does the spin end and the substance begin? Are these ‘announceables’ or actual ‘deliverables’?
It should always go without saying that densifying urban areas, especially around public transport nodes, is patently a good thing.
It should also always go without saying that brownfield sites are usually difficult to deliver without public and private sector investment.
It does needs to be said though that a presumption in favour of brownfield housing development is not new. As Matthew Spry noted in The Times, “a brownfield-first approach became a national mantra when introduced by New Labour and — with periodic tweaks and reformulations — it has been part of the policy furniture ever since.”
Whilst from a technocratic point of view there is a case, and indeed a need, to drive delivery in the twenty places subject to the 35% “urban uplift” so to as least try to maintain the credibility of the widely discredited current iteration of the standard method, the title of the Prime Minister’s Brownfield Reform Day comment piece in The Times, ‘Stick with our house building plan or let Labour tarmac the Green Belt’ does not leave room to doubt that the primary motivation for this initiative is to draw a clear policy dividing line with the current opposition.
The first element of the new consultation is that “significant weight” should be given to all housing delivery, but “especially” that on brownfield sites. According to the consultation document, the government is proposing “to make clear that when considering planning applications, LPAs should give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible, especially where this involves land which is previously developed”.
It proposes that councils should be “less bureaucratic and more flexible in applying policies that halt house building on brownfield land”, as long as any new housing provides “acceptable living standards”. The consultation proposes a change to national policy to make clear that LPAs “should take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to the internal layout of development in these circumstances, where they would otherwise inhibit making the most efficient use of a site”.
It adds: “This would extend existing national policy related to the consideration of daylight and sunlight, and the efficient use of land, when determining planning applications. National policy would continue to expect that new development would provide acceptable living standards.”
It goes on to say that the proposal “does not remove legal requirements nor the importance of other considerations relating to beauty or undermine wider considerations of character as part of the plan-making process”.
Whilst not as explicit as the recommendation in the London Plan Review for a brownfield presumption, this paragraph of the Review is instructive.
However, there is persuasive evidence that the combined effect of the multiplicity of policies in the London Plan now works to frustrate rather than facilitate the delivery of new homes, not least in creating very real challenges to the viability of schemes. We heard that policy goals in the Plan are being incorrectly applied mechanistically as absolute requirements: as ‘musts’ rather than ‘shoulds’. There is so much to navigate and negotiate that wending one’s way through the application process is expensive and time-consuming, particularly for SMEs who deliver the majority of London’s homes.
The message from Government to LPAs might now be interpreted then as ‘if in doubt, on height, design, layout, the number and type of homes, or even alternative uses of the land, always go with the numbers, which, given that the number of new homes granted consent in 2023, around 235,000, was the lowest for a decade, is perhaps surprising.
It will be very interesting to see though how this new “less bureaucratic and more flexible” approach to policies that halt house building will interact with National Development Management Polices if, as or when they emerge.
In relation to the brownfield presumption, the consultation states that the Government is “of the view that the principle of applying a presumption to brownfield development has merit, but that addressing any barriers to brownfield development should not be constrained to London alone”.
As stated, there is a technocratic case to applying it to the nineteen other ‘urban uplift’ towns authorities (especially since they cannot now rely on neighbouring authorities for help unless they are willing and no sign out with a proposed alignment test as to how they could help anyway), but based upon the 2022 HDT result (and it will apply to 2023’s in due course), the new presumption would apply in four of the nineteen and five more London Boroughs that are not already subject to it.
The following two tables are from this Lichfields blog.
It seems legitimate to question then given this limited impact why the brownfield presumption cannot apply everywhere. Portsmouth, for example, is the twenty first largest town in the country. Why would a presumption in favour of brownfield development apply down the road in Southampton, but not there?
A presumption in favour of brownfield development that will apply in some places in some circumstances is something, but it is very much not a substitute for a coherent plan for transformative urban renewal.
The below is an extract from this Catriona Riddell column in Planning.
In the late 1990s, the Labour government established an urban task force with the renowned architect Richard Rogers chairing and the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott providing the essential political leadership. The main purpose of this Task Force was to help the government find a way to deliver 4.4 million new homes.
Vitally, its purpose was to develop a vision for cities, founded on the principles of design excellence, social well-being and environmental responsibility. It was not simply about boosting housing supply through whatever means possible, but about delivering a vision of cities for people, as Lord Rogers said – cities that people wanted to live in.
The work of the Urban Task Force, and its report Towards and Urban Renaissance, defined the Labour government's policy on regeneration and planning throughout its terms of office. It helped to implement good design principles through the establishment of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), and directly influenced national planning policy.
However, it was also part of a wider national strategy for growth, sitting alongside strategic plans, which were initially structure plans, but latterly regional spatial strategies, and transport investment plans.
The Urban White Paper, which was born from the reports of the Task Force, sat alongside a Rural White Paper, which, together with John Prescott's other legacies, the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the South East and the Northern Way, is the last time we had anything that resembled a clear national plan for growth.
So, much of what we had decades ago is now being rehashed, but with even more urgency in terms of meeting housing needs, less money available and none of the civil governance structures in place to deliver it.
CABE was dismantled alongside the regional architecture, and more than a decade of public sector austerity has significantly impacted on the ability of councils to plan and invest in their areas. Then, 25 years ago, there was a plan for an urban renaissance, with housing numbers being just one output, albeit an important one.
Brownfield first was, is and will always be a legitimate planning mantra, but first cannot come to mean only.
Research published in 2022 by Lichfields shows that although there is enough brownfield land to build 1.4 million homes (less than five years of supply), it cannot all be built right now.
Permitted development rights are kryptonite for paternalistic, left-leaning planners, catnip for right-leaning free market Think Tanks and the last refuge of a Government presiding over a fall in planning permissions.
Two key points made by Simon Ricketts in his blog are worth highlighting.
By way of reminder, these class MA conversions are not of course subject to requirements as to affordable housing and contributions to schools, health provision and so on.
No doubt some authorities will contemplate a protective rear-guard action by way of introducing further article 4 directions, although DLUHC has been vigilant in modifying those orders which it considers are wider than is appropriate.
It is also worth highlighting, as the TCPA did very shortly after the Brownfield Reform Day announcements, “that homes created through permitted development are not subject to national and local planning policies or guidance: the quality of these homes relies almost entirely on building regulations and a limited set of ‘prior approval’ conditions.”
Finally, in relation to the consistency of the PD right agenda with other policy objectives, it is noted that the Government has given its 'full support' to a private member's bill that would introduce a new duty on councils to develop high street 'improvement plans'.
As reported by Planning magazine, according to explanatory notes to the the bill, which were produced by the DLUHC, the legislation would "require local authorities to designate at least one and up to three streets in their area as high streets and to develop an improvement plan for those high streets", with the objective of creating "thriving high streets".
It seems right to ask how LPAs should be expected to create thriving high streets when the owners of buildings can do to all intents and purposes whatever they like with them.
Putting aside the knockabout, ‘Punch & Judy’ nature of interactions between the Housing Secretary and the Mayor of London (‘You’re under-performing!’ ‘No, you’re under-performing and this is a political stunt!’) there is clearly an issue with delivery in London.
According to the Review, since 2019 (the period covered by the London Plan), net housing additions average consistently less than 38,000, which is set against a 52,300 annual target that itself is well below the 66,000 homes a year requirement identified by a 2017 SHMA.
That the standard method figure for London is 98,822 only serves to undermine it’s credibility (and highlights that 300,000 homes a year will be never be achieved for as long as 46,522 of them are not actually being planned for.
Looking ahead, the Panel noted that the number of homes granted permission each year is falling and that an increasing proportion of those being approved were on larger schemes that are built out over a longer period of time.
The panel also found that house building in the capital was “much more dependent on SME housebuilders than other regions of England”, with these builders delivering 60% of homes, compared to between 25% 35% in other regions.
Four other points of note from the Review:
- Only four London Boroughs are delivering at or in excess of their ten-year target;
- Less than a third of London Boroughs have adopted local plans that implement the London Plan strategy;
- The Review highlighted an “increasing trend of overturned appeal decisions”, which has increased from 30% to 45% in two years; and
- The last updates to the Brownfield Land Register published on the GLA Datastore were made in 2020 by the London Borough of Havering and all other entries pre-date 2020.
A further point of note, in a letter to the Housing Secretary, the G15, which represents London’s eleven largest housing associations, stated that it’s members are set to build just 1,769 homes in the capital this year, a fall of 76% compared with the 7,363 started in 2022/23.
Again, where does the spin end and the substance begin? The spin was brazen in it’s boldness:
- “As part of its long-term plan for housing…”
- “…this means shops, offices, and other buildings all quickly repurposed, resulting in thousands of quality new homes by 2030”.
- “Less bureaucratic and more flexible in applying policies that halt house building on brownfield land”.
- “Successive Conservative governments have taken the tough but necessary decisions on housing”.
In terms of practical effect, in this blog Nick Culf at Pocket Living looks at the presumption in two ways.
It might be helpful for schemes which are stuck in the planning process struggling to get consents. These are projects where some investment is committed and the decision has been taken to plough on. Whether this will mean more consents built, or just more consents, remains to be seen. I suspect the latter.
When it comes to new land supply entering the planning process. The picture is different. The scale of adverse regulatory and economic changes that have taken place vastly outweigh this small positive step. New brownfield development for housing schemes, particularly denser typologies are no longer viable once you have factored in the multitude of planning asks.
The second point is perhaps the key one. Will a presumption in favour of brownfield development, in the places to which it will apply, convince a vacillating landowner to bring a site to the market? Where the viability of a policy-compliant scheme is under threat will convince would be applicants to press the button and seek dispensation? Will it be given greater weight, for example, than an historic employment land designation?
Substantially, a presumption in favour of brownfield development is not nothing, and indeed the development industry has been calling for one for some time, but in narrowing it’s introduction to certain circumstances in certain places it is not, as proposed, everything that it
could be. ’We are supportive of development, if or but…’ There is always a caveat…
Perception is one thing. Reality is another.
Comments
Post a Comment