The law of unintended consequences: it’s hard to avoid in the world of property development. Yet is it right that one document’s most subtle wording should determine the built environment of an entire country?
I am talking, of course, about the National Planning Policy Framework, which is due shortly to undergo its first revisions since it was introduced in 2012.
Last month, the Department for Communities and Local Government select committee recommended a raft of changes, and while I welcome some of them, I am also mindful of their knock-on effects.
First, the good news. Whether we like it or not, the NPPF today wields a centrist influence over where, and how, we plan development.
Given the current urgency surrounding housing delivery and economic growth, the suggested updates seem relevant – not least because they clear up confusion caused by 2012’s catch-all “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
The select committee calls for a definition of where this presumption should apply to brownfield sites, for example. I believe this would provide certainty to developers, local authorities and communities.
But what about the actual definition? The committee doesn’t go as far as to suggest one. On greenbelt land, a loosening of policy is being proposed, meaning that development around brownfield sites would be permitted if any “harm to openness” is not substantial. So I would argue that if we are going to apply this weakening of the rules to green belt sites, we should apply it to brownfield across the board.
I would also support the committee’s call for more guidance on when to review green belt boundaries: smart land acquisition does not always involve the most obvious sites, so to make better use of underutilised land for communities, we have to challenge conventional green belt thinking.
If all this represents a loosening of policy — a broad central government shift towards more development — then it is to be encouraged. Population growth and housing shortages mean we need to build.
But then we get to the harder-to-swallow stuff. Another recommendation is to put a statutory duty on councils to produce local plans – a third of planning authorities currently don’t have one in place.
I would support this, because local plans, produced in consultation with communities, enable a co-ordinated approach to large developments. One of U+I’s biggest bugbears is poor community engagement, so I would be thrilled to see more locally approved plans.
But here’s the rub: the CLG, when it brought in NPPF, abolished regional spatial strategies but did not empower local authorities.
Instead, planning departments are overburdened, and at the current rate, their average head counts will be down by two-thirds by 2020.
So we have a system governed by a technical document, without enough ambitious, visionary local leadership to counterbalance those technicalities. Welcome changes to the blunt NPPF instrument will be enforced instead by planning bodies that are up against the ropes.
The government must at least accompany any NPPF changes with funding for the creation of statutory local plans; for visionary, collaborative regeneration; for bolstering communities’ wishes; and for deploying property as a socioeconomic enabler.
Meanwhile, the private sector must promote a more conversational, partnering relationship with overburdened planning authorities.
Let’s encourage private developers to propose innovative regeneration solutions to public bodies. For example, encouraging authorities to work across governmental silos to assemble and then release public land would enable our sector to inspire and excite people.
Better that than a tireless search for loopholes (those “unintended consequences”), aided by professional consultants. And then, prompted by angry petitioners, public inquiries and NPPF-shaped sticks.
Richard Upton is deputy chief executive of U+I
