Summary DCLG consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy January 2016 1. Introduction DCLG is proposing changes to the national planning policy framework (NPPF) specifically on: Broadening the definition of affordable housing to encompass more home ownership products (starter homes) Supporting delivery of more homes overall and more starter homes Increasing the density of development around commuter hubs Putting in place transitional arrangements It has also issued an equalities statement alongside the consultation. This paper provides a summary, with CIH s initial responses. We are calling for members comments and evidence to shape our response to DCLG. Comments are requested by 1 st February. The closing date for responses to DCLG is 22 nd February 2. Affordable housing broadening the definition Local planning authorities have the lead role in planning proactively to meet local housing needs across tenures for current and future populations; critically this needs to align with wider planning functions to ensure a strategic approach to supporting the economic social and environmental wellbeing of communities. Government is concerned that this role should support their commitment to widening the accessibility of home ownership for those who aspire to it, but who are currently struggling to meet this through the market. They therefore propose to extend the definition of affordable housing to include more home ownership products and starter homes in particular. This requires a definition that is not necessarily constrained as currently by the requirement for the property to remain affordable in perpetuity or for any subsidy to be recycled into other affordable housing provision. At the same time, the Housing and Planning bill will introduce a statutory duty on local planning authorities to promote starter homes and require a proportion of these on all reasonably-sized developments. CIH is concerned that broadening the definition of affordable housing in this way, when coupled with the other proposed measures which give priority to the development of starter homes within the overall target for increased housing delivery, will weaken the ability of local planning authorities to ensure that other affordable models (for rent and shared
ownership) will be delivered. Although the requirement will remain in NPPF for local planning authorities to promote balanced communities, we do not believe that this is enough to ensure other housing for rent or other low cost home ownership models will be developed (as is implied in the draft equalities statement) in the light of the cumulative impact of measures prioritising starter homes. In particular, developers will prefer starter homes as their contribution through section 106 agreements, which have provided 37% or over 16,000 affordable homes in 2013-14 (and historically have delivered significantly more). Including starter homes within the affordable homes definition will lead to higher land value expectations. This will have significant implications for rural areas, where the guarantee of properties remaining affordable in perpetuity is often critical to the provision of low cost sites and gaining community support for development. We believe the expectation that starter homes will be the affordable element will lead to many landowners holding onto sites in the expectation of an increase in value. The loss of the in perpetuity requirement is likely to lead to less community support as they see future generations of local people unable to benefit. 3. Increasing density around commuter hubs Local planning authorities can set density levels for new housing developments, which can be set either as an overall target in Local Plans or site specific, and with flexibility to respond to local contexts. The changes proposed would require local planning authorities to set higher density levels around commuter hubs where this is feasible. The definition of commuter hubs is where there is: A public transport interchange which enables people to continue journeys by public transport, walking or cycling; Currently or in the future, the potential for a frequent service (e.g. every 15 minutes during normal commuting hours) However, a minimum density level will not be set nationally, in order to enable the LPA to take account of local requirements. CIH supports development to higher density where the sites are well connected and transport links are sustainable in the long term. We agree that density levels should remain a local decision, depending on the sustainability of those hubs, and to mitigate against any detrimental unintended consequences. 4. Supporting delivery: New settlements, brownfield and small sites In order to step up delivery in the numbers of new homes, the consultation proposes changes to provide greater support for new settlements within local plans, where these can meet sustainable development objectives.
The Housing and Planning bill includes a requirement for local planning authorities to maintain brownfield registers, using these as a vehicle for granting planning permission in principle on suitable sites (aiming for 90% to have permission by 2020). The consultation proposes that substantial weight should be given to the use of brownfield land (a presumption in favour) unless there are conflicts with the local plan or NPPF that cannot be mitigated. Similarly it is proposed that the NPPF will be changed to provide strong support for all sustainable development proposals on small sites of less than ten homes, including careful consideration of and support for development proposals for small sites adjacent to settlement boundaries. They aim to increase the certainty and transparency of treatment for small windfall schemes through local plans. We agree with measures that support local planning authorities to be proactive in identifying all opportunities for sustainable housing development, as part of their strategic approach. Clarity on the use of small sites and approaches to windfall sites will be helpful in particular for rural areas, where most development is on small sites. We previously responded to the measures on encouraging more development on brownfield land (LINK); the focus must be on its suitability, which should include consideration of how well the locality of that land ties in with the wider plans for a local area, and the connection with adequate facilities, transport links and plans for economic and employment growth and development. Linking these sites with planning permission in principle must allow scope for the local planning authority to include a range of affordable models and not only starter homes at that stage, as to introduce this too late in the process may lead to increase expectation on land values and challenges for viability a particular challenge for high value and rural areas. Action against significant under-delivery The paper includes proposals to take action where there is a significant shortfall between homes set out in Local Plans and numbers being built tracked through a housing delivery test. Where there is significant under delivery, action will be taken to address it, which could include requiring identification of additional sites, through a partial review of the local plan or area action plans. The paper invites comments on the test and the actions to address significant under-delivery. The baseline for the test could be either: Data in authority monitoring reports against local plan targets, or Proposed housing trajectories. The test could express the under delivery as a percentage below expected delivery, over a two-year period to smooth out short term fluctuations.
RTPI have demonstrated that, in the last year, planning permissions increased to 216,000; house completions over several years have remained significantly below the 240,000 a year needed, and only 131,060 were delivered in the year to June 2015. So there have been improvements. Further measures could include the requirement to identify other deliverable sites as suggested, but this will not necessarily work in all areas for example rural areas where there are limited numbers of land owners, and delays can be caused by a number of factors. Other measures could include withdrawal of allocations of sites that have not been developed in five years. In addition local planning authorities have experienced significant funding reductions (46% reductions over 2010-2015, NAO 2014 report) which impact on the capacity of local planning authorities to ensure timely action to drive forward delivery. The housing delivery test and interventions should be developed in such a way that can support more effectively working between the authorities and developers to increase scale and pace of delivery. We welcome members comment and evidence to shape an appropriate delivery test. 5. Supporting delivery of starter homes Within the overall increase in housing delivery, the government is proposing changes that drive forward delivery of starter homes in particular. It proposes to change the NPPF to prioritise the development of starter homes on underused or unviable commercial and employment land, on brownfield land within the green belt and other opportunities as identified by local communities in neighbourhood plans. Underused or unviable land previously allocated for commercial or employment use would be released as exception sites for starter homes, unless there is a compelling reason to retain it for employment use, demonstrated through an up to date assessment and evidence of market demand, and appropriate consideration of trends in land values for different usages. Comment is invited on the level of evidence to justify retention of land for employment, and the timeframe, for example; three years. The exception site policy will also be widened to include other forms of unused or unviable brownfield land (retail/ leisure) for starter homes. Planning applications for starter home should be approved unless there conflicts with NPPF policy that cannot be mitigated; but this will be further clarified as to what grounds justify refusal, notably; design issues, infrastructure or environmental issues such as flooding. Regeneration of brownfield land within the green belt will also be supported where it contributes to the delivery of starter homes and subject to local consultation.
Limited affordable housing development in green belt is currently not inappropriate if consistent with the local plan; the paper proposes enabling starter homes to be delivered through the allocation of appropriate smallscale sites in the green belt via neighbourhood plans, where there is local support. It is proposed that starter homes should also be delivered through rural exception sites, subject to the same limits on resale (of five years) but with the potential for additional requirements around local connection to address local rural needs. As above overall we are concerned that these and other housing policies will lead to the loss of other affordable housing options for rent and shared ownership. Our modelling shows that, due to a combination of factors including no new social rented homes built under the Affordable Homes Programme from 2015; conversion of social rents to Affordable Rents; the Right to Buy for council and housing association tenants; and the sale of high value council stock, we can expect an estimated projected loss of 405,000 existing social rented homes over the period from 2012 to 2020. 6. Transitional arrangements Government proposes a transitional period to enable authorities to review local plans to reflect the changes to the definition of affordable housing; a period of 6-12 months is suggested. The other changes are not considered to require a transitional period. CIH welcomes comment and evidence from members on transitional arrangements and timescales 7. Draft Equalities statement The draft equalities statement identifies proposals to change the definition of affordable housing and supporting the delivery of starter homes as having a potential impact on protected groups. However, as it considers starter homes as largely additional to homes that would otherwise be built, and a it is not amending the policies to promote mixed communities in the NPPF, it does not see a significant impact for most protected groups. It acknowledges that, given the higher numbers of households with a disability housed in social and affordable rented housing, the measures that prioritise starter homes and home ownership may adversely affect these households. CIH welcomes evidence from members on potential loss of other affordable models, impacts for households with disabled members, and other protected groups, and potential geographical differences in impacts (e.g for rural areas).