COMMENT: This week Steve Quartermain, the government’s chief planner, published an update on the NPPF Review. Its release was somewhat under the radar, writes Catherine Senda, managing director of Curtin & Co, but it deserves attention because it includes proposals that will have an impact on almost every development being brought forward across the country.
As an example, the letter, published on 30 January, states that pre-commencement conditions will not be imposed without “the written agreement of the applicant”.
But is it politically driven? The old adage says that politics is a game of numbers, and the numbers never lie… or so we are led to believe.
Having worked in planning for the past nine years, my take on the announcement is that it will improve the outlook of the government’s delivery numbers and that can be used as a positive story in the media.
After all, while the government is claiming that developers are land-banking, developers are frustrated by the number of conditions that have to be discharged before they can begin to build.
At the moment, conditions are often used as a “get out of jail” card for councillors who know they should — and often want to — approve an application, but who also want to allay community anxieties.
The suggestion from the newly named Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government is that these conditions should now be negotiated before any application reaches committee.
Why? The government wants to increase delivery rates and is especially keen on being seen to stop land-banking and increase the speed of housing delivery.
Regardless of whether you agree with the rhetoric around land-banking (and I don’t) the changes to regulations would certainly make government statistics look more favourable as developments would appear to be going up faster.
But the conditions will still have to be negotiated. So, actually the announcement just moves that particular discussion to an earlier point in the process – and, it is fair to assume, lengthens the pre-application and post-submission processes.
So is it really achieving anything other than a few positive headlines for politicians?
With increasing pressure being put on council budgets and many beginning to share resources, we are continually being asked to come to pre-app meetings armed with well-thought-through and complete applications.
But there is only so much that can be achieved. For the past nine years I have advocated working with communities and politicians to develop masterplans that will benefit both existing communities and future generations.
It gets results and it delivers both housing and infrastructure alongside it. But a major frustration is often the time it takes to get applications through to determination.
If the new policy is just moving the timeframes, it may be good for political rhetoric, but it still isn’t resolving the real issue at the heart of planning delays.
Councils have tough funding decisions to make and planning will often, understandably, fall down the priority list when compared with adult social services or child protection. But investment in the future has to happen at some point and has to be good for everyone. Shuffling statistics may present a different picture, but structural reform will be needed to implement real change.
