We've all heard about the recent NPPF,
which was published just a few weeks ago and came in to play immediately. The
updated version from the original draft was also largely welcomed across a wide
range of sectors. The main argument for the changes were for planning to become
more streamlined; the removal of multiple documents in the form of Planning
Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance in to one single document of
just 50 pages.
What does this mean though for housing and
specifically housing in London? Well yesterday I went along to the good people at the NLA for an
event on these changes titled 'NPPF: Planning
for growth' to try and find out. Guest speakers ranged from government departments and representatives from local authorities (Westminster, Camden, Enfield), along with developers (Berkeley, Derwent) and consultants/architects (AECOM, DPP, GL Hearn, Drivers Jonas Deloitte, bptw, Berwin Leighton Paisner) as well as CABE and English Heritage.
The event kicked off with a keynote address from
Steve Quartermain; Chief Planner at the DCLG who spoke at length on what has
probably been the most contentious aspect, that of the 'presumption in favour
of sustainable development'. He stated that the 'presumption', "is
positive and designed to make things happen" but also stressed point 14,
which states permission will be granted, 'unless any adverse impacts of doing
so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits', not a charter then to concrete over the countryside...
Another point mentioned throughout the day was that
the NPPF is designed to bring about a 'change in mindset', with local
communities deciding on how they want their areas to develop. The 2011 Localism
Act designed with bottom-up principles at its heart, is also the main theme
within the NPPF. Quartermain stated it is 'essentially about working to a
plan'. It is now in the communities' hands to set their local plans and to work
to them. 'Local plans are the cornerstone of the system'.
Bob Robinson of DPP highlighted that 25 out of the
33 London boroughs had Core Strategy's in place and being worked to (local
plans). Two however are still working to pre-2004 UDPs. Other councils across
the country are still using plans from 1997 apparently. When asked about
government targets for house building Quartermain stated that there wasn't any. It's not as if previous targets had in any way worked anyway is it? It's
up to local planning authorities to set their own targets within local plans. What sustainable development means is also for each
LPA to decide, which makes sense. Every area or community is different to the
next.
Another point which features in the 50 page document is viability. What
does this mean? Well it means less affordable housing probably. Point 173
states that requirements such as affordable housing should be taken into account
of the normal cost of development to 'provide competitive returns to a willing
land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable'. Speakers on the day mentioned the inflexibility of CIL being another argument for developers to build less affordable housing.
Essentially however, what I took most from the event is that the NPPF will have a limited impact
upon London. Most LDAs already have pro-growth local plans in place. The new National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration to their own local plans, designed to put greater pressure on councils to keep them up-to-date.
All of this however remains just words. The new NPPF has been designed to bring
more clarity over the long-term which most agree probably will. However in the
short-term don't be surprised if things slow up with more decision making done
by appeal. Developers will test the boundaries of what the new policies mean
and how they are to be interpreted. These decisions are then likely to set
precedents.
Just this Tuesday in fact, Councillors in
Bermondsey refused a payday loan scheme recommended for approval by planners,
with the interpretation of the NPPF apparently at the centre
of the 1-hour discussion. Cllr Mark Gettleson declared:
"Someone has to test the NPPF and it might as well be us." (london-se1.co.uk)
