NPPF Consultation 2022 – Housing

“Our house, in the middle of a self-build, key-worker neighbourhood community” 

Might the changes to housing be the radical reform long awaited by so many in the planning industry? I’ll let you decide, before I comment.

A lot of the terminology is set to remain, which should make the transition relatively smooth – which is good, seeing as part of the reason for change is to apparently streamline the system – but whilst we recognise the terms, their application is proposed revision.

Starting with the dilution of local housing need being the mandatory starting point in favour of it being advised. Still based on the standard method assessment*, which allows for alternative approaches where the authority can justify its delivery of appropriate and effective use of land and meeting all other reasonable housing need. Specific mention is made of nuance locations and the ability for local authorities to address those e.g. in university cities where students are the largest demand on residential accommodation the local authority may include specific provision for that ‘local characteristic’ which might otherwise buck the trend within its larger administrative area.

*the standard method includes an urban uplift of 35% for the top 20 most populated cities and urban areas, although only the Greater Manchester authorities have taken it on board in their Places for Everyone emerging policies.

Despite reasserting the need to focus development on brownfield, there’s no proposed change to the requirement for affordable housing not to be triggered by residential schemes of less then 10 units (except in designated rural areas, where the need may be triggered lower, usually 5 units).

The ‘suggestion’ for specific types of affordable housing – including various tenures – is retained, to be applied, unless the local need demonstrates a greater need for other types.

The current system sees a buffer applied to local authorities who have a history of underdelivery of housing against their Housing Delivery Test requirement. This means that if a local authority fails to deliver the housing numbers it planned for, the requirement effectively increases. The result of this is that housing policies may be considered outdated and in absence of a proven delivery of housing, applications for housing could be considered in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and be granted, even where there may have been conflict with other policies of the local plan.

The proposed change now prescribed that a delivery less than 75% of the requirement over 3 years will result in the presumption in favour of sustainable development applying to new applications.

It’s not all doom and gloom, because to the contrary, if a local authority can demonstrate an overdelivery for several years it’s able to take that into account in its future housing delivery numbers.

Protection for rural areas has remained largely untouched, with only rare circumstances being entertained to justify homes in the countryside and ‘isolated homes’ being avoided

There’s also a suggestion that housing need can be reviewed and in some cases, excepted if, by meeting it on a specific scheme/proposal, there might be an adverse impact on the community which outweighs the benefits of meeting the need. It’s difficult to think of a situation where failing to provide sufficient housing will be of greater benefit to the community it’s seeking to provide for, but illustrations given in the consultation include density; if meeting housing need can only be done by significantly out-of-character densities then it might be acceptable to apply a lower density.

Simplification will take the appearance of removal of the current requirement to prove that neighbouring authorities have cooperated with each other in producing their respective local plans. Instead, there will be an ‘alignment policy’, which initially sounds semantic in that authorities who prove cooperation often point to policies which align i.e. cross boundary provision of for example housing. One common aligned policy/provision is Gypsy and Traveller accommodation which the consultation envisages will remain deliverable against a 5 year supply whereas other types of housing provision will reduce to 4 year supply (after a 2 year transitional period for emerging policy provision).

So, once again, I’m left wanting after reading this consultation. There’s a lot in there, without much detail or explanation in terms of mechanics and criteria when it comes to ‘proving alternative’ justification, or providing for exceptional circumstances, or greater benefit.

The only thing upon which I do remain confident is that there’s a lot of change proposed by central government for what’s supposed to be a striping-down or simplification of an overly-bureaucratic process! As always, I guess the devil remains in the detail, which remains to follow.

Keep watching this space!