Will the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework deliver growth and much-needed homes or create greater uncertainty?
There are certain planning topics that usually remain the preserve of the real planning enthusiasts. However, the government’s recent consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework saw the less than glamorous topics of housing need and housing land supply thrust into the spotlight – being discussed not just by the usual suspects, but also by fund managers and investors.
Why did these proposals garner so much attention?
How housing need is assessed and the requirement – or lack thereof – for local planning authorities to satisfy that need, are crucial elements of the development cycle. They set the framework for policy making by LPAs, which, in combination with the housing numbers, sets the framework for decision making by those LPAs. In short, the approach to housing need impacts directly on how many homes are granted planning permission – and where. Against a backdrop of sustained demand for more housing nationally, this really matters.
Proposed changes
The potential implications of the changes proposed to the NPPF are stark. Crucially, while noteworthy in their own right, when taken in combination, the cumulative effect on the delivery of homes in England would be even greater.
Key headlines are (i) in many cases LPAs would be able to plan for lower numbers of homes than currently; and (ii) there would be fewer occasions where the “tilted balance” (presumption that planning permission should be granted unless specified factors dictate otherwise) applies. It is easy to see why those invested in the delivery of homes could be concerned about these changes.
But this is only part of the story. Arguably the “why” is almost as important as the “what” in this case.
Talk of planning reform is nothing new. For many years – including through the Planning White Paper, the Levelling Up White Paper and, more recently, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill – there has been discussion around the need to reform the planning system. This has included discussion around the appropriate method for assessing housing need, the suitability of buffers, and a whole host of related matters. However, changes of the magnitude seen in the current consultation were not on the mainstream agenda.
Political influences
Enter Theresa Villiers, her fellow Conservative backbenchers, and their revisions to the Bill. These included the requirement that housing need figures should not be binding and the disapplication of the tilted balance.
There is nothing unusual about backbenchers introducing changes to bills. However, the political upheaval of the second half of 2022 meant that consideration of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was carried out in a peculiar context, arguably giving organised backbenchers more sway than usual. Indeed, certain sessions to consider the Bill were delayed to facilitate discussion between backbenchers and the government. A deal had to be done to avoid this flagship legislation becoming stuck in a political quagmire. The NPPF consultation is the progeny of that deal.
Of course there is nothing wrong or odd about politics driving changes in planning. It is the regular recipient of political attention and crowd pleasing headlines. However, to be positive, change must be coherent, delivering a clear vision (irrespective of whether one agrees with that vision).
The proposed changes are not of themselves necessarily problematic, even if there are plenty who disagree with them. But they pose a conundrum in that they appear at odds with the government’s drive to deliver growth and more housing. The government hasn’t explained how it is satisfied – if it is – that this new direction on housing policy is consistent with its broader aims.
In this vacuum, speculation and uncertainty grows – and uncertainty is the last thing the development industry needs at the moment.
And, as is often the case, uncertainty breeds uncertainty. Despite the NPPF consultation stating that the key to unlocking growth is the adoption of local plans, the consultation is instead setting back the local plan adoption process in many areas, as LPAs prove reluctant to take steps which may burden them with what they see as less favourable policies than will be possible.
Stories abound that other LPAs are delaying determination of applications already in the system, again in the belief that the new NPPF will leave them in a preferable position. There seems to be stagnation in both plan making and decision taking when it comes to housing, and it seems most acute in those areas where the need is greatest.
Brighter days ahead?
But as the weather brightens, focus shifts to local elections, and rumblings that once those are out of the way, some of the measures aimed most squarely at voters may find themselves diluted, or lost altogether.
So, perhaps there is reason for optimism – no-one is denying the need for the additional homes, simply disputing the best way to decide where they are delivered. Here’s hoping that the consultation – and a slightly cooler political climate – provide an opportunity for reflection, resulting in cohesive reforms capable of unlocking sustainable housing growth.
Hannah Quarterman is a partner and head of planning at Hogan Lovells
