2024 Response to National planning policy framework (September)

INTRODUCTION

The real tragedy of these proposals to up-date the NPPF is the apparent underlying assumption by politicians that planners build dwellings. It is understood their role is to facilitate development by granting planning consent that ensures it is built in the right place and fit for purpose. They have no power to enforce developers to build, only that by planning they do decide where they may and where they may not build. 

The proposals to ease more planning consents only provides more choice of site, which allows developers to pick the easiest and cheapest sites. It does not oblige them to build. There is no need to emphasise to developers the need for more dwellings for sale, since their business plans oblige them to build dwellings for sale at 20% profit in order to attract investors to support them. They will only build if the demand is there, and they sell them. When the affordability reaches a factor of eight the market dramatically declines, and no exhortation will change the commercial decisions in the private sector. A rise in new-builds is only likely in the public sector where charity and local and central government provide adequate funding primarily for dwellings for rent with no added profit motive.

ONS history tells us that building dwellings for rent by local authorities stopped in 1980. Since local authorities were building over a third of all new-builds, the annual new-builds declined dramatically. 1980 was as a result also the last year that ended a five-year total of 1.5 million new dwellings being built when half of them were in the public sector. Sir Keir Starmer’s target may be laudable, but it is a Sisyphean task

he cannot possibly achieve without a major campaign not dissimilar from that of Aneurin Bevan in 1946. But there is no funding, not enough skilled staff to undertake it and no-one of his foresight and endeavour to organise it.

We have produced a response to the government consultation paper based on the responses of our members, who in turn represent nearly 2 ½ million residents in England. The draft NORA response was circulated to its members, and their comments and suggestion in the final response. On questions relevant to residents’ concerns, our answers reflect the opinion expressed by them. Most are owner occupiers, who have  concerns not only for their own environment and amenity but also for the next generations who are in great need for adequate housing. Over 4 million households do not have their own separate accommodation, but either stay at home with their parents or share with other families, both undesirable ways of living today.

These points determine the responses to the 106 questions in Chapter 14 of this Consultation Paper on the NPPF for England.

Chapter 14 – Table of questions

Question 1: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made to paragraph 61?

NO. This deletion of the word ‘sufficient’ will have little or no effect on the rate of new dwellings being built and seems pointless.

Question 2: Do you agree that we should remove reference to the use of alternative approaches to assessing housing need in paragraph 61 and the glossary of the NPPF?

YES.

Question 3: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on the urban uplift by deleting paragraph 62? 

YES.

Question 4: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on character and density and delete paragraph 130?

NO. Paragraph 130 is an excellent listing of valued assets.

Question 5: Do you agree that the focus of design codes should move towards supporting spatial visions in local plans and areas that provide the greatest opportunities for change such as greater density, in particular the development of large new communities?

YES.

Question 6: Do you agree that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be amended as proposed?

YES, provided the following provisos remain in the list. Although the need for land for development is the key, it is important that the land for development is listed in order of desirability so that for example brownfield sites come first, otherwise developers will choose first to use land that is easier and cheaper to develop.

Residents main concern is the conservation and improvement of their environment not only for today’s community but for future generations, so this response reflects their worries when development has an adverse effect on existing and future residents.

It is always preferable to build sustainable development. It is also important to protect areas and assets of particular importance. Conformity with relevant Local Plans need to be respected and observed.

Question 7: Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific, deliverable sites for decision making purposes, regardless of plan status?

YES.

Question 9: Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to add a 5% buffer to their 5-year housing land supply calculations? 

YES.

Question 10: If yes, do you agree that 5% is an appropriate buffer, or should it be a different figure?

5% is appropriate.

Question 15: Do you agree that Planning Practice Guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is housing stock rather than the latest household projections?

Changing the method of calculating housing needs is pointless since the rate of building of new dwellings is decided not by planners but by the business plans of the private sector developers and the funding of public sector developers. The different formula will not change the rate of development nor determine where the new builds will be. The targets set will be different, but it is not clear how this would change the plans of builders.

If the formula changes to use housing stock as the baseline for calculation modified by the local affordability ratio it will produce radical changes in targets. Nearly all England has a current affordability ratio above 4, so the numbers will rise in many places to absurd unfeasible levels and create local opposition and anger, even though implementation of the targets is highly unlikely.

A key issue is sustainability. In many local authorities in the south-east of England where demand is high, development is unsustainable. In some areas the effect would be to urbanise rural settlements against all local wishes. If community cohesion is to be maintained, it is vital that the environment and amenity of existing residents is not seriously damaged.

In our view government should be concentrating on bringing life to those areas of Britain that are currently deprived.  These areas would benefit enormously from a planned programme of new housing, coupled with employment opportunities, services and infrastructure.  This would draw demand away from those areas that are currently being inundated with an unsustainable level of government demands for more housing provision.

Question 16: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio, averaged over the most recent 3 year period for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline, is appropriate?

See response to Q15.

Question 17: Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the proposed standard method?

See response to Q15.

Question 18: Do you consider the standard method should factor in evidence on rental affordability? If so, do you have any suggestions for how this could be incorporated into the model?

See response to Q15.

Question 19: Do you have any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing needs?

See response to Q15.

Question 20: Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?

YES.

Question 21: Do you agree with the proposed change to paragraph 154g of the current NPPF to better support the development of PDL in the Green Belt?

YES. The assessment of PDL development must include the lack of transport and service facilities.

Question 23: Do you agree with our proposed definition of grey belt land? If not, what changes would you recommend?

YES, but we object to the inclusion in paragraph 10 of (b)iv, ‘Land which contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns’. Our concern is the use of the term, ‘contributes little’, because it is open to interpretation and abuse at the expense of historic towns.

Question 24: Are any additional measures needed to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria?

YES. Such behaviour is most likely first observed by local residents, so their concerns should be addressed to the local planning authority, who should take immediate action. The public need to be informed of the problem.

Question 25: Do you agree that additional guidance to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution of Green Belt purposes would be helpful? If so, is this best contained in the NPPF itself or in planning practice guidance? 

YES. Seek local residents’ opinion. It is arguable that the most valuable opinion on the suitability of ‘highly performing Green Belt land for consideration as ‘green belt’ is that held by the local community. They live with it, and they expect the next generations should continue to live with it.

This should be present in both the NPPF and planning practical guidance. 

Question 26: Do you have any views on whether our proposed guidance sets out appropriate considerations for determining whether land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes?

YES. It is important to seek the opinion of local residents, whose opinions should be sought by consultation and respected. It is essential that there should be no adverse effects on neighbouring settlements.

Question 28: Do you agree that our proposals support the release of land in the right places, with previously developed and grey belt land identified first, while allowing local planning authorities to prioritise the most sustainable development locations?

YES. See answer to Q.25 and 26.

Question 29: Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?

YES.

Question 30: Do you agree with our approach to allowing development on Green Belt land through decision making? If not, what changes would you recommend?

NO. Green Belt should be sacrosanct. It is pointless to label land as Green Belt and then regard it as suitable for development because argument and political pressure prevail.

A more appropriate way to provide more new-builds is to create new towns with good access to public transport, such the railway network, and adequate infrastructure including water supplies, sewage facilities, and the electricity grid.

The towns should be designed to provide self-supporting employment, so that they will not become commuter towns. It is also vital that good quality agricultural land is not used for the new towns.

Question 31: Do you have any comments on our proposals to allow the release of grey belt land to meet commercial and other development needs through plan-making and decision-making, including the triggers for release?

YES. Presumably the prime reason for using Grey Belt land is the need for residential development, and though it might be appropriate to include commercial and other developments to support the community, to use it solely for commercial and other development would be ‘inappropriate’. The effect on the local environment is a vital consideration, and Local Plans should be respected.

Question 32: Do you have views on whether the approach to the release of Green Belt through plan and decision-making should apply to traveller sites, including the sequential test for land release and the definition of PDL?

YES. Using Green Belt land for this specific use is undesirable, since it is a potent incentive and precedent for further uses of Green Belt land.

Question 33: Do you have views on how the assessment of need for traveller sites should be approached, in order to determine whether a local planning authority should undertake a Green Belt review?

YES. See answer to Q 32.

Question 34: Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix?

NO. By selling similar dwellings at different prices in a development according to the status of the purchaser is an unnatural distortion of the market. The developer has to increase the price of ‘unaffordable’ dwellings to compensate for the loss on ‘affordable’ dwellings in order to meet the business plan’s 20% profit on the whole development. When sold ‘unaffordable’ dwelling suffer a greater loss, which means the purchaser is paying the subsidy for the ‘affordable’ dwelling. It is grossly unfair. The subsidy should be funded either by central or local government.

It may be desirable for large developments to be planned for a mix of dwellings, but the pricing of any discounting should not fall on residents paying the full price. It should fall on central government and so fall more appropriately on all residents rather than just a few. See answer to Q51.

Question 35: Should the 50 per cent target apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), or should the Government or local planning authorities be able to set lower targets in low land value areas?

See answer to Q34.

Question 42: Do you have a view on how golden rules might apply to non-residential development, including commercial development, travellers sites and types of development already considered ‘not inappropriate’ in the Green Belt?

YES. The whole proposal is ‘inappropriate’ in the Green Belt.

Question 43: Do you have a view on whether the golden rules should apply only to ‘new’ Green Belt release, which occurs following these changes to the NPPF? Are there other transitional arrangements we should consider, including, for example, draft plans at the regulation 19 stage?

YES. See answer to Q42.

Question 44: Do you have any comments on the proposed wording for the NPPF (Annex 4)?

See answer to Q42.

Question 47: Do you agree with setting the expectation that local planning authorities should consider the particular needs of those who require Social Rent when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements?

YES.

Question 48: Do you agree with removing the requirement to deliver 10% of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership?

NO. See answer to Q34.

Question 49: Do you agree with removing the minimum 25% First Homes requirement?

NO. See answer to Q34.

Question 50: Do you have any other comments on retaining the option to deliver First Homes, including through exception sites?

NO. See answer to Q34.

Question 51: Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?

YES, but the market should be left to control itself. The style of housing would need to be varied. Interfering with the costing will lead to distortion of the market. If discounting is proposed then central or local government should provide it.

Question 52: What would be the most appropriate way to promote high percentage Social Rent/affordable housing developments?

Since the private sector only provides accommodation for sale, it is not organised to provide adequate affordable housing for rent, so it falls on the public sector to build dwellings for rent, social or otherwise. The funding will need to be provided by the banks and central government, since it cannot fall on local government in the poor financial situation it is now placed.

Question 54: What measures should we consider to better support and increase rural affordable housing?

See Q51 and Q52.

Question 55: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 63 of the existing NPPF?

YES.

Question 56: Do you agree with these changes?

YES.

Question 59: Do you agree with the proposals to retain references to well-designed buildings and places, but remove references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ and to amend paragraph 138 of the existing Framework?

NO. Maybe ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ are concepts that cannot be defined in physical terms, but there is a need to ensure that new developments give pleasure rather than pain. This is one way of expressing it.

The excellent document, ‘Nationally Agreed Space Standards’ produced by the Department should be included in the NPPF and the planning practical guidance. This ensures the development of dwellings is fit for purpose,

Question 60: Do you agree with proposed changes to policy for upwards extensions?

NO. When this was first introduced as permitted development it led to ugly extensions damaging the environment especially when they were close to neighbouring residential properties. They should be treated as ordinary planning applications and the proposal does not merit promotion.

Question 61: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

NO.

Question 62: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 86 b) and 87 of the existing NPPF?

NPPF 2023 paragraphs 86 and 87 deal with the viability of town centres. We support the development of digital infrastructure but not in town and city centres.

Question 89: Do you agree with the proposal to increase householder application fees to meet cost recovery?

YES. Provided it is used to fund the planning department and not vired for use elsewhere in the budgets.

If yes, please explain what you consider an appropriate increase would be and whether this should apply to all applications or, for example, just applications for major development?

NONE.