Planning for the future: From the expected to the surprises

As expected, increasing housing delivery was the primary focus. Plans to digitise the planning system, build upwards, convert land to residential use and empower councils to use compulsory purchase orders were among measures announced to this end. 

In a sign of the government’s priority to meet its housebuilding targets to build 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s, it is also consulting on expanding permitted development rights to include the upwards extension of existing residential premises and the repurposing of empty commercial, industrial and residential blocks as ‘new build’ housing. 

The government is set to launch a national brownfield map in April 2020 and make a call for proposals for building above and around rail stations. 

With a view to accelerating planning decision making, councils are being ordered to have adopted Local Plans by December 2023.  A new housing need assessment formula is to be introduced.  Councils are also being encouraged to fast track planning approval of ‘beautiful’ developments and planning application fees will be increased to assist local government resourcing but only where local planning authorities are performing to an acceptable level.

The ideas will form part of a Planning White Paper to be published in the Spring as well as an Affordable Housing White Paper and a series of Bills dealing with Building Safety and Rental Reforms to be published later in the year.

The announcement follows a raft of measures already floated during the Budget yesterday (11 March), and much of Jenrick’s announcement was an extension of these proposals. The Budget promised more investment in affordable housing, over £1bn of allocations from the Housing Infrastructure Fund to build nearly 70,000 new homes in “high demand areas” across the country, £5.2bn towards flood defences and also £400m to regenerate brownfield land.  

Four new development corporations are proposed along the route of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc to help facilitate growth.

However, there were a few surprises in the announcement. According to Stuart Baillie, Head of Planning at Knight Frank, there were three key eye-catching and unexpected ideas:

• A commitment to considering ‘zoning’ as an alternative to the current land use planning system – if implemented this would be a fundamental change within the planning system.

• Creating transparency on who has “land options” on what land – which could be a move to expose businesses that are in control of development land but potentially not bringing it forward for development.

• Commitment to creating new ‘move on’ accommodation via a £640m fund to combat homelessness – the format of which is yet to be clarified.

But a number of these policies require “detailed guidance”. Stuart explained: "This includes a commitment to amend the National Planning Policy Framework, with more focus on design and placemaking.  New permitted development rights will need a clear framework to understand how these are to be controlled and implemented.  New natural light standards will need to be further detailed to understand the implications for development particularly in densely developed areas.”

Charlie Dugdale, Knight Frank Residential Development Partner, added: “It is encouraging to see an acknowledgement of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. Knight Frank’s recommendations to the Commission included the importance of a long-term flexible infrastructure fund to support those landowners seeking to adopt a stewardship role. We hope that private landowners will be able to access the fund as well as Local Authorities, Communities and Developers.

“Planning for the Future endorses the use of geospatial data applications within the creation of a brownfield map and a zoning approach to planning. Whilst we caveat that any zoning must be accompanied by a rigorous approach to defining the form of development at a local level, we believe that geospatial systems will bring many efficiencies to the planning system and the wider housing market.

“The Commission highlighted the perverse incentive to demolish buildings that exists within our tax regime. We have concerns with the proposals which seek to further encourage demolition through permitted development. Research regularly supports that heritage assets bring social and economic benefits with strong correlations to where businesses want to locate, and where people want to live, shop and engage. Why are we incentivising demolition before buildings can become heritage assets? We believe the test must include dereliction, not just vacancy, and there is a danger that the rights will miss a significant opportunity that exists with derelict agricultural buildings.”

“We continue to have concerns over the use of blunt supply-side policies such as the Housing Delivery Test. On the one hand, Planning Authorities are under-resourced and applying yet more pressure on them will simply push more talent out of the sector. On the other hand, many locations have ample supply and it is the lack of demand that is limiting delivery. This was a relationship that became evident in Knight Frank’s case study of Great Yarmouth published within its report to the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. For both reasons, planning and delivery will function better through investment.”