Are the proposed changes in the NPPF enough to deliver the necessary housing?

My view is that meeting the government’s ambitious housing targets does not require a new system.

In theory, the current system works well. Nationally led policy on the broader issues (the NPPF), strategic planning on a local level to determine the allocation of development (local plans), local input on the siting of that development (neighbourhood planning), the master planning and detailed consideration of types, tenures and proportions of affordable housing (planning applications) and, as necessary, the appeal system jointly provide a good structure for delivery.

As anyone in the housing sector will know, issues arise when the system fails.  

“For the requisite number of affordable and social homes to be met, the regional tier must be reintroduced”

Local plans often fail to meet nationally set housing targets (not least to address unmet need in social housing provision); neighbourhood plans more often than not take on the role of opposing housing rather than accommodating it; planning applications are refused because of opposition to the principle of development; and the appeals system takes the ultimate decision out of local jurisdiction.

The problems within this system are generally the result of an absence of regional planning and (as a direct result) too much politics in planning. For the requisite number of affordable and social homes to be met, the regional tier must be reintroduced.

I am not advocating a top-down approach, but one which makes it easier for local planning to succeed. If, for example, housing targets were determined on a regional level and passed down to the local planning authority, local councillors would no longer risk the electoral unpopularity which comes with justifying housing targets or the consequences of failing to meet them.

There is likely to be some politics at a regional level (and there should be some accountability, to avoid the criticism of the former method of regional planning, the Regional Spatial Strategy), but it will be felt less acutely.

Many local authorities are constrained by genuine impediments to development – primarily environmental and geographical – but the system whereby unmet need is dealt with by neighbouring local planning authorities (the duty to cooperate) is inadequate. Consideration at a regional level would allow a more suitable distribution of homes and infrastructure.

The pressure on local authorities to prepare comprehensive local plans is immense: local authorities have responsibility for everything from taxes to bin collection and are universally under-resourced. Many fail in their local planning, partly through lack of resources and also because local people, confused by their council’s broad remit, overlook the importance of engaging on the local plan. Or if they do so, they approach on the basis of concern over housing (too much or too little provision), the environment, local services or other single issues. 

“Another problem that currently plagues the planning system is that planning is all too often seen as synonymous with new homes, rather than the broader social and environmental issues”

This shows a lack of understanding of the interdependencies and the process of strategic development as a whole. I’ve never seen a genuinely successful consultation on a local plan which addresses development more holistically.

Another problem that currently plagues the planning system is that planning is all too often seen as synonymous with new homes, rather than the broader social and environmental issues. Of course, planning is much more than just creating a roof over people’s heads – it has an important role in stewardship of the natural environment (not least through Biodiversity Net Gain and mitigating the impacts of climate change). In doing so, it helps to create well-functioning communities. 

A regional approach is both better placed to plan on a broader scale (while also taking on responsibility for issues concerning environmental protection/mitigation and utilities), while providing greater objectivity and overcoming the local objections which can thwart the development of much-needed social and affordable housing.

Peter Canavan, partner, Carter Jonas