NPPF reforms have plenty of bark, but no bite

The government’s draft reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) were published with much anticipation from the industry. While well intentioned, unfortunately it appears that there is a risk of a number of unintended consequences, say Karen Cooksley and Alex Woolcott, of Winckworth Sherwood. On the face of it, the reforms are ambitious and wide-ranging, bringing together 80 previously announced modifications, including proposals set out in last year’s housing white paper, the Planning for the right homes in the right places consultation and the 2017 Autumn Budget. In seeking to both avoid alienating Conservative backbenchers and appeal to young people struggling to get on the property ladder, the proposed new NPPF promises much, but is at risk of not delivering what government expects, or what the country’s housing crisis needs. The prime minister might have vaunted this as a “rewrite of the planning rulebook” and an “overhaul” of the system, but a number of questions remain unanswered. While these are at present only consultation draft policies, the development industry needs to take them seriously and start considering what the implications may be, and how they need to be changed if they are going to ease the problems faced by the industry when delivering much-needed housing. Partnership and plan-making Taking the reforms as a whole, a few things stand out. First, it is clear that Westminster wants to encourage greater collaboration between councils. Local plans will now need to be “informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated”. This aims to strengthen the duty to co-operate – a policy which has been part of planning for some time but is often seen as a tick box exercise, rather than a cornerstone of effective plan-making. If this is to change, the government needs to give greater assurances that this will now be enforced – but evidence of penalties or stricter provisions remains to be seen. Second, there is a move towards the primacy of plan-making, and front-loading work there, rather than at application stage. This is particularly noticeable when considering the proposed reforms to viability assessments – one area where a real step-change is being considered. However, by dealing with viability at plan-making stage, the ability of the market to react to particular conditions and indicators is potentially stifled. Viability would not be tied to the particular proposals, but to a site in general. If this is the case then housing delivery will struggle to reflect or respond to evolving local need and demand outside of plan reviews, which risks limiting choice in the market and therefore exacerbating the housing crisis, as well as affecting the ability to optimise delivery on a site. Contributions are also to be established at plan level, including the amount of affordable housing and social infrastructure provision. The proposed amendments to the National Planning Policy Guidance include how and when these mechanisms may be used to amend developer contributions – which presumably could move up or down – to account for significant changes in market conditions. It remains to be seen what the triggers for review will be, but there is the very real possibility that this will slow down and have a negative impact on the delivery of new homes. It further risks limiting the ability to make optimal use of a site by tying it into a particular format of delivery through the plan-making process, rather than allowing the market to deliver innovative models that may require a more flexible approach. Land banking? With viability assessments often publicly positioned as “dark arts”, the proposed changes are part of a wider package of reforms included in the draft NPPF that the government holds up to show it taking a tough stance on developers. At the same time, the revisions emphasise priority for brownfield development – including within the green belt. To encourage this, new policy will allow for the costs of any works needed to ready these sites and bring forward development to be taken into consideration when agreeing affordable housing provision and other contributions – this is plainly viability by any other name, however, it is worth noting the CIL-like approach that is being taken to the calculations. While trying to address the perceived problem of “land banking”, the suggestion that developers are solely to blame for long delays between securing planning permission and starting work on site completely misjudges and oversimplifies the issues. If implemented, new policies will allow councils to weigh a developer’s delivery track record as a material consideration – in some cases a two-year (rather than the usual three) implementation period might be imposed. However, this demonstrates that the government has neither a pragmatic nor realistic understanding of development – especially if a brownfield site is being brought forward. Pre-commencement conditions are often the biggest source of delay, and while some progress is being made to limit those, imposing artificially brief lifespans on permissions will not incentivise developers to make the fullest use of the land at their disposal. In order to fix the housing crisis, the government should make ambitious schemes easier, not more difficult. This is no easy task. Councils can struggle to sign-off pre-commencement conditions, due to a lack of capacity and resource. At the same time, the development industry has its own major skills shortages to deal with. Therefore, delays to construction starts can be unavoidable and policy should focus on expediting processes and allowing local authorities to properly resource themselves – with the appropriate carrots and sticks – rather than simply punishing developers who are often bound by red tape. All in all, the NPPF promises much – that the government will “get more of the right homes built in the right places more quickly”. However, when policies are examined more closely, it exposes potential and avoidable flaws. A number of the proposed revisions suggest that the government is not fully appraised of the practical realities of housebuilding and risks slowing down delivery – something that the country can ill afford. The consultation is open until 10 May 2018. Details can be found here.