Fixing our broken housing market

Transcription

FIXING OUR BROKEN HOUSING MARKET
The British Property Federation
1.
The BPF represents the commercial real estate sector – an industry with a market value of £1,662bn which
contributed more than £94bn to the economy in 2014. We promote the interests of those with a stake in
the UK built environment, and our membership comprises a broad range of owners, managers and
developers of real estate as well as those who support them. Their investments help drive the UK's
economic success; provide essential infrastructure and create great places where people can live, work and
relax.
2.
The UK’s commercial real estate sector contributes about 5.4% of GDP, and directly employs 1 million
people, or 6.8% of the labour force. It provides the nation’s built environment and is diversifying from its
core investment in the nation’s offices, shops, leisure facilities and factories, to support the new economy
through investments in logistics, healthcare, student accommodation, infrastructure, residential and
increasingly through Build to Rent investment in new housing.
3.
We are pleased to see that the Government is exploring how to bring forward more housing through the
planning system in this White Paper. We have long argued for a more strategic and forward thinking
approach to housing within the UK and we fully support the vast majority of proposals put forward in this
consultation. However, some of the proposals set out need further work to ensure investment is not
stymied in any way.
4.
We welcome the chance to respond to this consultation and look forward to working with the new
Government on developing the policy proposals into real actions that will bring forward the housing that
the UK desperately needs.
Q1.
Do you agree with the proposal to:
a) Make clear in the National Planning Policy Framework that the key strategic policies that each local
planning authority should maintain are those set out currently at paragraph 156 of the Framework,
with an additional requirement to plan for the allocations needed to deliver the area’s housing
requirement?
5.
Yes. Local planning authorities should already include strategic policies in their local plans to ‘deliver the
homes and jobs needed in the area’ (bullet point 1 of paragraph 156 of the NPPF). Local authorities should
also ‘plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area’ (paragraph 157).
6.
Adding an additional express requirement to plan for the allocations needed to deliver the area’s housing
requirements would be a further positive step. It would signal to plan makers that planning for housing
requirements is the priority when preparing local plans.
b) Use regulations to allow Spatial Development Strategies to allocate strategic sites, where these
strategies require unanimous agreement of the members of the combined authority?
7.
Yes, we agree that legislation should be brought into force to ensure that spatial development strategies
can allocate strategic sites. Regulations will need to make it clear that such allocations will supersede any
potentially conflicting policies set out in individual authorities’ local plans, thereby reducing complexity and
the scope for potential delays in the combined authority plan making system.
WE HELP THE UK REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY GROW AND THRIVE
c) Revise the National Planning Policy Framework to tighten the definition of what evidence is required
to support a ‘sound’ plan?
8.
Yes. Although seemingly a subtle change, the proposal that a ‘sound’ plan should set out ‘an’ appropriate
strategy for the area, instead of ‘the most’ appropriate strategy could significantly reduce time and
resources spent in the lead-up to and during plan examination. However, there is a fear that the proposal
could reduce the scope of objection and could lead to a watering down of the quality of spatial strategies.
9.
We would suggest that it might be better to address this in best practice guidance with a set of examples
rather than making the NPPF even longer.
Q2.
What changes do you think would support more proportionate consultation and examination
procedures for different types of plan and to ensure that different levels of plans work together?
10. We agree with the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) recommendation that in relation to amending
legislation, the first stage of consultation on a local plan under Regulation 18 must ‘take place early enough
to allow community engagement on a vision and high level options’ for the area in question. We would also
suggest that the Planning Inspectorate should increasingly engage with the local planning authority (officers
and members) at the very early stage of plan making, so as to ensure that critical issues relating in particular
to assessing housing need and then requirements (including the Duty to Co-operate) are being addressed in
line with national policy.
11. We also endorse the LPEG recommendation that ‘the Local Plans Regulations are amended to allow local
planning authorities to make modifications to the draft of the local plan following consultation and prior to
submission’. As regards the PPG, we support the LPEG recommendation that this should be revised to guide
local authorities on effective engagement when the local plan making process begins. The PPG should also
make it clear that additional, discretionary consultation should only be undertaken exceptionally and if it is
necessary, it should not disrupt the timetable for plan preparation.
12. The introduction of other measures in the Housing White Paper such as the housing delivery test, and the
further legislative, policy or guidance changes to the process of plan making that are proposed should be
theoretically be sufficient: the strengthening of the NPPF, amended secondary legislation and new guidance
from the Planning Inspectorate and in the PPG – and the latest changes to powers of Secretary of State
intervention in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 - should be adequate. However, whilst these changes
should in combination be powerful tools for vastly improving and speeding up plan making, we are also of
the view that financial incentives and perhaps penalties should be considered further, and put in place to
encourage an efficient and timely plan making process. The Government could also consider whether ring
fenced funding should be made available to local planning authorities to ensure policy teams are sufficiently
resourced.
Q3.
Do you agree with the proposals to:
a) Amend national policy so that local planning authorities are expected to have clear policies for
addressing the housing requirements of groups with particular needs, such as older and disabled
people?
13. Yes. The NPPF should be amended to be clear that local planning authorities should address the
requirements of different groups with particular needs. However, any policies that come forward should be
flexible and should not result in a percentage requirement which could overcomplicate local plan making
processes.
b) From early 2018, use standardised approach to assessing housing requirements as the baseline for
five year housing supply calculations and monitoring housing delivery, in the absence of an up-to-date
plan?
14. Yes, we support a standardised approach. The NPPF should make it clear that deviations from the
standardised approach will only be acceptable in exceptional circumstances, and for sound, evidence based
reasons that have been discussed with and in principle accepted by the Planning Inspectorate early in the
plan making process.
Q4.
Do you agree with the proposals to amend the presumption in favour of sustainable development so
that:
a) Authorities are expected to have a clear strategy for maximising the use of suitable land in their
areas?
b) It makes clear that identified development needs should be accommodated unless there are strong
reasons for not doing so set out in the NPPF?
c) The list of policies which the Government regards as providing reasons to restrict development is
limited to those set out currently in footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (so these are
no longer presented as examples), with the addition of Ancient Woodland and aged or veteran trees?
d) Its considerations and re-ordered and numbered, the opening text is simplified and specific
references to local plans are removed?
15. Yes, we support these proposed changes to the NPPF. The Government should also set out in detail what
local plan policies it considers to be “relevant policies for the supply of housing” within the meaning of
paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Footnote 9 also requires revision; Green Belt is not a ‘designation’ but a policy
(like ‘local green space’) and as such, it should not be placed in the same category as the other categories
cited.
16. There is however the overarching issue that many local planning authorities have adopted plans with
policies that are not consistent with the NPPF, either due in the councils’ view to local circumstances or to
plan adoption having been pre-NPPF. As the NPPF is only a material planning consideration in the
determination of planning applications, many such local planning authorities do not give it appropriate
weight in decision making, relying on the primacy of their development plan.
17. The right of appeal in these circumstances is often an inadequate route for applicants to take, because of
the significant time delays (and increased cost) arising from the appeal process. In tandem with
strengthening the wording of the NPPF, the Government must ensure that the appeals process is an
effective remedy. Additional resources need to be allocated to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in order to
reduce the delays that are currently experienced. An effective and efficient appeals process would ensure
that local planning authorities cannot ignore the NPPF with impunity.
Q5.
Do you agree that regulations should be amended so that all local planning authorities are able to
dispose of land with the benefit of planning consent which they have granted to themselves?
18. Yes, we agree. It is vital that local authorities are able to dispose of surplus land, particularly for housing,
with the benefit of an extant planning permission, as clearly this will further speed up delivery.
Q6.
How could land pooling make a more effective contribution to assembling land, and what additional
powers or capacity would allow local authorities to play a more active role in land assembly (such as
where ‘ransom strips’ delay or prevent development)?
19. In order to be able to fully assess whether land pooling would assist further in speeding housing delivery,
the process as used elsewhere e.g. in Europe should be researched further, particularly in terms of its
potential usefulness in England for the assembly and development of greenfield sites for housing, with the
provision of related infrastructure. The Bonn case study cited in the White Paper is not easy to follow and
therefore difficult to comment on, as it is not at all clear (for example) how the necessary infrastructure was
funded/ provided.
20. And in any event, CPO powers already exist here for the purpose of land assembly. The barrier is not the
absence of the means, but the reluctance on the part of local authorities to exercise such powers. Part of
the reluctance stems from the complexity and cost that is inherent in the CPO process. We recognise that
changes to the compulsory purchase regime are being brought forward via the Housing and Planning Act
2016 and the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 but the Government should look still further at reducing
such complexity and cost.
21. In this regard, we suggest that thought should be given to whether local authorities should be compelled to
consider requests from developers who need local authorities to use CPO powers to facilitate land
assembly. At present, where a developer seeks the local authority’s assistance to use CPO powers, the
decision is at the absolute discretion of the authority. A developer might be able to secure planning
permission for a major scheme at appeal, only to be thwarted because the local authority refuses to assist
with a necessary CPO. By introducing a formal application process, developers would be able to push
reluctant local authorities to assist in the assembly of sites for medium to large scale developments.
22. The suggested review of Best Consideration is something we welcome and have been pressing for,
alongside colleagues in local government. There is significant flexibility in the interpretation of best
consideration rules being applied by some local authorities, which are not being applied by others. Our
experience is that current guidance does not give sufficient clarity and therefore comfort.
23. Many of our members are engaged in development where they will be seeking to hold the end-assets for a
long period of time and therefore the benefits they are offering at not just an initial cash receipt, but long
term place-making and income generation. We would be delighted to illustrate some of these alternative
and innovative uses of public land as part of the proposed review.
Q7.
Do you agree that national policy should be amended to encourage local planning authorities to
consider the social and economic benefits of estate regeneration when preparing their plans and in
decisions on applications, and use their planning powers to help deliver estate regeneration to a high
standard?
24. Yes.
Q8.
Do you agree with the proposals to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to:
a) Highlight the opportunities that neighbourhood plans present for identifying and allocating small
sites that are suitable for housing?
b) Encourage local planning authorities to identify opportunities for villages to thrive, especially where
this would support services and help meet the authority’s housing needs?
c) Give stronger support for ‘rural exception’ sites – to make clear that these should be considered
positively where they can contribute to meeting identified local housing needs, even if this relies on an
element of general market housing to ensure that homes are genuinely affordable for local people?
d) Make clear that on top of the allowance made for windfall sites, at least 10% of sites allocated for
residential development in local plans should be sites of half a hectare or less?
e) Expect local planning authorities to work with developers to encourage the sub-division of large
sites?
f) Encourage greater use of Local Development Orders and area-wide design codes so that small sites
may be brought forward for development more quickly?
25. We endorse the proposed changes that support SME builders and housing across the board. But for e),
‘breaking up’ large sites could fragment them/ cause problems with infrastructure provision – and would
entirely undermine a developer’s often years-long work at assembling a developable site in the first place.
The sub-division of sites would almost inevitably need public sector involvement and developers to
undertake joint ventures – unnecessarily over-complicating the development process and slowing housing
delivery as a consequence.
26. It is also important to note that large sites are often phased with infrastructure and so the cash flow
demands are more evenly spread, therefore dividing sites could seriously damage the viability of projects.
27. There may also be detrimental consequences for the long term management of a large scale development,
and also therefore for place-making.
28. On f), we have reached the conclusion that the Government should accept once and for all that Local
Development Orders are not a well-used or popular tool and should ‘let them go’. They are well-intentioned
but not used, nor useful.
Q9.
How could streamlined planning procedures support innovation and high-quality development in new
garden towns and villages?
29. It is crucial that innovative and high-quality developments should come forward in the form of new garden
towns and villages. We fully support the work that the Government has pursued within the Housing and
Planning Act 2016 and the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 however, it is imperative that local authorities
are prepared to have a realistic approach to the needs of their communities and to think ‘big’ and most
importantly be open for business.
Q10.
Do you agree with the proposals to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to make clear that:
a) Authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have
examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements?
b) Where land is removed from the Green Belt, local policies should require compensatory
improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land?
c) Appropriate facilities or existing cemeteries should not be regarded as ‘inappropriate development’
in the Green Belt?
d) Development brought forward under a Neighbourhood Development Order should not be regarded
as inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided it preserves openness and does not conflict with the
purposes of the Green Belt?
e) Where a local or strategic plan has demonstrated the need for Green Belt boundaries to be
amended, the detailed boundary may be determined through a neighbourhood plan (or plans) for the
area in question?
f) When carrying out a Green Belt review, local planning authorities should look first at using any
Green Belt land which has been previously developed and/or which surrounds transport hubs?
30. We do not agree with proposals a-e. We believe that there should be no sequential test for Green Belt land
release in national policy. The sensible thing to do is for Government to begin thinking about the role Green
Belt plays today rather than how the policy was intended when it was first founded.
31. However, if tests were to be introduced the same tests should also be applied where local planning
authorities propose to extend the Green Belt. We would further argue that there should be no “like for like”
replacement of Green Belt, rather it should relate to “like for like” in terms of value or benefit.
32. We believe that Government should be assisting local planning authorities to release Green Belt land where
they need to, this would allow for a wider strategy and a better approach to solving complex Green Belt
proposals.
33. As the Housing White Paper stresses the UK is facing a huge battle in terms of the need for more housing, as
such we believe that housing land supply should carry more weight than Green Belt boundaries. We would
suggest that the best approach would be to focus on Green Belt release as not always being the worst
option rather than the option of last resort.
34. We would also argue that the current Green Belt policy can lead to a sub-optimal outcome for the
communities affected. The NPPF defines Green Belt policy in terms of urban sprawl, which means that
where a local authority has no alternative it is the bordering bits of the Green Belt to local communities that
get used first. These are often the most accessible and provide local communities with the most amenities.
35. We do, however, believe that (f) is a sensible approach to take.
Q11.
Are there particular options for accommodating development that national policy should expect
authorities to have explored fully before Green Belt boundaries are amended, in addition to the ones
set out in question 10?
36. One possibility would be to explore the development of brownfield land within Green Belt boundaries and
making this easier to develop if in sustainable locations, with priority being given to housing.
Q12.
Do you agree with the proposals to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to:
a) Indicate that local planning authorities should provide neighbourhood planning groups with a
housing requirement figure, where this is sought?
b) Make clear that local and neighbourhood plans (at the most appropriate level) and more detailed
development plan documents (such as action area plans) are expected to set out clear design
expectations; and that visual tools such as design codes can help provide a clear basis for making
decisions on development proposals?
c) Emphasise the importance of early pre-application discussions between applicants, authorities and
the local community about design and the types of homes to be provided?
d) Makes clear that design should not be used as a valid reason to object to development where it
accords with clear design expectations set out in statutory plans?
e) Recognise the value of using a widely accepted design standard, such as Building for Life, in shaping
and assessing basic design principles – and make clear that this should be reflected in plans and given
weight in the planning process?
37. Yes, we agree with the proposals and feel that, particularly for proposal (a) this should be done anyway as a
matter of course and be tested by an examiner to ensure it is being adhered to. With regards to proposal
(d) whilst we agree with this, there should be an expectation of good quality design at the very minimum.
One problem has been that Neighbourhood Plans have come forward in advance of Local Plans and are
being used , in some circumstances, as a restrain mechanism as opposed to positive planning for the
community.
38. Our chief concerns relate to the proposals at 1.42,1.44,1.46 and 1.47, which are covered within this
question and then again in Question 17. We would propose that:
39. Neighbourhood plans should be in alignment with relevant national, strategic and local plans and not be
assumed to perform such a role in the absence of an adequate and up-to-date local plan or where such a
local plan is silent or unspecific about the location in question.
40. Design guidelines/codes, similarly, should follow those established at a local authority or strategic (e.g. GLA)
level.
41. Such guidelines/codes should be established with the input and cooperation of developers and/or those
who will be paying for the design codes physical realisation.
42. Such design guidelines/codes should be location-specific (i.e. no “one-size-fits-all” approach for the whole
country) and in particular should take account of potentially high density urban centres.
43. In this regard, a blanket application of generic design standards such as Building for Life we would argue is
not suitable as rather, location-specific guides are recommended taking full account of local context such as
current and future infrastructure.
Q13.
Do you agree with the proposals to amend national policy to make clear that plans and individual
development proposals should:
a) Make efficient use of land and avoid building homes at low densities where there is a shortage of
land for meeting identified housing needs?
b) Address the particular scope for higher-density housing in urban locations that are well served by
public transport, that provide opportunities to replace low density uses in areas of high housing
demand, or which offer scope to extend buildings upwards in urban areas?
c) Ensure that in doing so the density and form of development reflect the character, accessibility and
infrastructure capacity of an area, and the nature of local housing needs?
d) Take a flexible approach in adopting and applying policy and guidance that could inhibit these
objectives in particular circumstances, such as open space provision in areas with good access to
facilities nearby?
44. Yes, we agree but these proposals must reflect the actual housing need and requirements for the area. The
policy ought to be about optimising the use of land and ensuring that development is sympathetic and
appropriate to the area.
Q14.
In what types of location would indicative minimum density standards be helpful, and what should
those standards be?
45. Minimum density standards could be helpful in areas of strategic importance such as transport nodes and in
town centres. Where transport links are particularly good it would be helpful to encourage builders to
develop buildings at a higher density. We would encourage the Government to provide indicative standards
for particular types of location, and agree that these ‘could be helpful in driving the right level of ambition in
areas of high demand, and where it is reasonable to expect densities to be relatively high’ (paragraph A.70
of the White Paper).
Q15.
What are your views on the potential for delivering additional homes through more intensive use of
existing public sector sites, or in urban locations more generally, and how this can be supported
through planning (using tools such as policy, local development orders, and permitted development
rights)?
46. The release of public sector land has a key role to play in delivering new housing. The Government’s
proposals to allow local authorities in two-tier systems to sell land with the benefit of planning permission
granted to themselves will assist in housing delivery.
47. We also believe that if local development orders are still to be encouraged, the approval process needs
reconsideration.
Q16.
Do you agree that:
a) Where local planning authorities wish to agree their housing land supply for a one-year period,
national policy should require those authorities to maintain a 10% buffer on their 5 year housing land
supply?
48. Yes.
b) The Planning Inspectorate should consider and agree an authority’s assessment of its housing supply
for the purpose of this policy?
49. Yes, scrutiny by the inspectorate would be essential for this policy to have any impact.
c) If so, should the Inspectorate’s consideration focus on whether the approach pursued by the
authority in establishing the land supply position is robust, or should the Inspectorate make an
assessment of the supply figure?
50. It would be preferable for the approach to the supply figure –as well as the figure itself - to be assessed by
the inspectorate, but it is essential that the Inspectorate is properly resourced in order to undertake this
role. If there are delays, then the one year fixed assessment period will be of little practical benefit.
Q17.
In taking forward the protection for neighbourhood plans as set out in the Written Ministerial
Statement of 12 December 2016 into the revised NPPF, do you agree that it should include the
following amendments:
a) A requirement for the neighbourhood plan to meet its share of local housing need?
51. Yes, we agree that it is essential that neighbourhood plans should have to meet their share of local housing
need and allocate land for residential development accordingly/ include positively-worded criteria-based
policies for the determination of planning applications.
b) That it is subject to the local planning authority being able to demonstrate through the housing
delivery test that, from 2020, delivery has been over 65% (25% in 2018; 45% in 2019) for the wider
authority area?
52. No, whilst a delivery test relating to the wider area should incentivise local authorities to promote housing
delivery across their areas, the neighbourhood plan itself should have to demonstrate that it is contributing
to delivery of housing. If the White Paper’s proposals to boost the delivery of housing are to be successful, it
is vital that neighbourhood plan policies that do not allocate sites and purely restrict development, are not
able to thwart new and otherwise acceptable housing proposals.
53. (See also answer to Q12. Localism divorced from strategic and local priorities/plans is a big risk for
development, as are unilateral and a contextual design codes).
c) Should it remain a requirement to have site allocations in the plan or should the protection apply as
long as housing supply policies will meet their share of local housing need?
54. The inclusion of a requirement to have site allocations in the plan should be retained.
Q18.
What are your views on the merits of introducing a fee for making a planning appeal? We would
welcome views on:
a) How the fee could be designed in such a way that it did not discourage developers, particularly
smaller and medium sized firms, from bringing forward legitimate appeals;
b) The level of the fee and whether it could be refunded in certain circumstances, such as when an
appeal is successful
c) Whether there could be lower fees for less complex cases.
55. The proposal assumes that the delays in the appeal process arise due to vexatious appeals from
disappointed applicants. However, given that the cost of making appeals is already substantial, we do not
believe this is the case and we think it unlikely that adding an appeal fee would deter applicants. However,
appeal fees would be welcomed if they resulted in direct additional resourcing for the Planning Inspectorate
and significantly reduced ‘end-to-end’ timescales for the determination of appeals.
56. We would suggest that if an appeal is successful then the fee should have to be refunded by the local
planning authority; this would reduce the risk of authorities refusing planning permission for insubstantial
reasons.
57. However, rather than introducing fees, thought could be given to whether a “loser pays” rule should at least
apply to major appeals, so that the losing party to an appeal pays the other side’s costs as a matter of
course. That would encourage good decision making, encourage LPAs to come to the table and meaningfully
negotiate and also discourage vexatious appeals.
Q19.
Do you agree with the proposal to amend national policy so that local planning authorities are
expected to have planning policies setting out how high quality digital infrastructure will be delivered
in their area, and accessible from a range of providers?
58. Lack of connectivity is a major problem within the UK; therefore we fully agree with the comments in the
Housing White Paper on amending national policy so that local planning authorities are expected to have
planning policies setting out how high quality digital infrastructure will be delivered in their area.
Q20.
Do you agree with the proposals to amend national policy so that:
a) The status of endorsed recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission is made clear?
59. Yes, we agree with the proposals to amend national policy so that the status of endorsed recommendations
of the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) is made clear.
b) Authorities are expected to identify the additional development opportunities which strategic
infrastructure improvements offer for making additional land available for housing?
60. As well as sharing fundamental physical and economical characteristic (e.g. a long life, the potential for
steady income returns), real estate and infrastructure are highly complementary. Not only is infrastructure a
necessary precursor to real estate development – after all, developers will not build something if there is no
road to get there – often it is only the prospect of future real estate development that makes a piece of
infrastructure investment viable.
61. This has proven true in places such as Woolwich Arsenal in London, with the Docklands Light Railway and
Crossrail now creating links to an area that did prove difficult to access. The development of this area into a
strategic transport node has led to significant new investment being directed into additional housing at
scale.
62. There are several other examples of this across the UK where transport infrastructure investment has led to
significant levels of housing coming forward thanks to investment into transport in the area, which will see
previously underused parts of cities being regenerated into vibrant places where residents can work, live
and play.
63. We therefore fully agree that national policy should be amended to expect authorities to identify the
additional development opportunities which strategic infrastructure improvements offer for making
additional land available for housing. It is also important to recognise that these improvements should
equally lead to commercial opportunities, therefore helping to create jobs and drive the local economy.
Q21.
Do you agree that:
a) The planning application form should be amended to include a request for the estimated start date
and build out rate for proposals for housing?
64. No, although we fully understand the Government’s aim of speeding up the amount of housing coming
forward, we believe proposals to include a request for the start date and build out rate will have no positive
impact or benefit, and could cause tension between developers, local authorities and local people. Such
estimates could lead to local authorities and objectors requesting to see evidence to support suggested
dates and rates, which might well add to the administrative burden, and require the publication of
otherwise confidential business plans. Furthermore, planning consent should continue to run with the land
and not with the applicant. Any change to this is fundamental principal risks undermining the case for
speculative development.
b) That developers should be required to provide local authorities with basic information (in terms of
actual and projected build out) on progress in delivering the permitted number of homes, after
planning permission has been granted?
65. No, we would argue that by adding more bureaucracy to an already time-intensive process in regards to the
administration side of applications, this would cause further tension between developers and local
authorities. For complex schemes, the data would have to keep being resubmitted as circumstances precommencement will constantly change; some schemes are delivered ahead of time too. Overall, it would be
a move in the wrong direction - using planning as a management tool when it should be concerned with
land use. Instead, the Government needs to understand better why permissions are not being delivered - it
is a much more complex matter that will not be resolved by this suggested requirement.
66. In any event, Section 106 obligations often have clauses requiring developers to monitor and update local
authorities on unit completions. This matter therefore can continue to be dealt with at a local level, as
necessary, via S106.
67. It is important to stress that the more developer-friendly an area, the more developers will invest and build
in those areas. We are currently seeing this in cities such as Manchester and Leeds. As the planning process
has become more complex and at the same time, viability has become more of an issue and concern in
recent years, developers are at least still coming forward with projects in areas where it is easier for them to
make a return but also where planning is easier to navigate. Their activities in such locations could be
stifled, if the application process is made more onerous in relation to having to ‘commit’ on e.g. build out
rates.
68. We would argue that for the UK Government to encourage LPAs to bring forward more housing they should
push local authorities to be more developer-friendly, which in turn will help more developers to come
forward with more money creating the homes that people need in the area.
c) The basic information (above) should be published as part of Authority Monitoring Reports?
69. Again, we would argue for simplicity. This proposal would cause further complexity rather than simplifying
the process and allowing more development to come forward. We therefore argue that this requirement
should not be added to the planning application form if it is decided to do so, the information should be
added to annual monitoring reports.
d) That large housebuilders should be required to provide aggregate information on build out rates?
70. No. Following on from our previous answers we would argue again that this is not needed, nor appropriate,
if the Government wants to encourage more development they should make the planning process easier for
developers rather than adding unnecessary red tape.
Q22.
Do you agree that the realistic prospect that housing will be built on a site should be taken into
account in the determination of planning applications for housing on sites where there is evidence of
non-implementation of earlier permissions for housing development?
71. No, although we understand the intention behind the above proposal, we do not support its
implementation. The planning system is currently far too politicised and we believe that this could be a
slippery slope that deters developers in certain areas. In short, this measure would be applying market
testing to planning applications – the new applicant could be ‘the one’ to succeed in coming forward with
an acceptable scheme and implementing its proposed housing.
72. The proposal is fraught with further problems. The Government should be encouraging developers to gain
planning permission, and then incentivising delivery, rather than penalising non-delivery. If the prospect of
delivery were to be taken into account in determining an application, it could require developers to front
load the development process (for example, by completing the land assembly process, or securing joint
venture partners), well ahead of schedule. This could therefore make developers reluctant to apply for
permission on sites that have challenging, but not insurmountable, obstacles to delivery.
Q23.
We would welcome views on whether the applicant’s track record of delivering previous, similar
housing schemes should be taken into account by local authorities when determining planning
applications for housing development.
73. We do not believe it is appropriate for local authorities to take into account similar housing schemes when
granting planning permission. This proposal would seriously erode the long established principle that local
authorities should be “applicant-blind”. It would serve no useful purpose, because very few permissions are
personal to the applicant, bespoke development vehicles are often created for sites, and in any event, an
onward sale to a third party could not be prevented. It could also hinder new entrants to the market, who
may not have an established track record.
Q24.
If this proposal were taken forward, do you agree that the track record of an applicant should only be
taken into account when considering proposals for large scale sites, so as not to deter new entrants to
the market?
74. As above, we do not support this proposal as a matter of principle and we do not believe it would add any
benefit to the system.
Q25.
What are your views on whether local authorities should be encouraged to shorten the timescales for
developers to implement a permission for housing development from three years to two years, except
where a shorter timescale could hinder the viability or deliverability of a scheme? We would
particularly welcome views on what such a change would mean for SME developers?
75. While we understand the Government’s position on wanting to introduce measures to bring forward more
housing at scale and at speed, in some circumstances two years is too short. We do not consider that
bringing about this change would have a positive impact on delivery and it could result in more red tape
where developers have to reapply for ‘repeat’ planning permissions. The standard three year period is
already fairly tight, particularly when allowing for challenge, contractual arrangement to be completed,
preparatory works to be undertaken, other consents obtained – and where any significant number of precommencement conditions must be discharged.
Q26.
Do you agree with the proposals to amend legislation to simplify and speed up the process of serving a
completion notice by removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to confirm a completion
notice before it can take effect?
76. No. The service of a completion notice is a rarely used tool, and of little practical utility, in that is does not
compel a developer to complete a development, rather it effectively revokes planning permission for any
uncompleted part. .
77. Developers could also face severe difficulties with lenders where a notice is confirmed. We consider that it
is right and proper that such a draconian measure is subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. The
Government should focus on incentivising delivery, rather than pushing non-delivery.
Q27.
What are your views on whether we should allow local authorities to serve a completion notice on a
site before the commencement deadline has elapsed, but only where works have begun? What impact
do you think this will have on lenders’ willingness to lend to developers?
78. We do not consider the above proposal is appropriate. Developers require certainty that they can continue
with a development and it may be for justified reasons that a development has commenced but is not being
continued at any one time.
79. We are of the view that this change to the completion notice procedure would not be an attractive prospect
for lenders. Development finance is often structured so that draw down occurs by reference to stages of
construction. The possibility of works being halted e.g. at a crucial stage in the development would be a
significant risk to them, and could therefore deter investment, and/ or increase the cost and complexity of
funding arrangements.
Q28.
Do you agree that for the purposes of introducing a housing delivery test, national guidance should
make clear that:
a) The baseline for assessing housing delivery should be a local planning authority’s annual housing
requirement where this is set out in an up-to-date plan?
80. Yes. Existing Government guidance currently advises on the approach which decision makers should take in
seeking to establish whether or not a housing (policy) requirement in an adopted local plan is “up-to-date”.
In some cases, this requires a detailed assessment of the circumstances which apply to authorities. We
therefore consider the Government should reinforce existing guidance.
b) The baseline where no local plan is in place should be the published household projections until
2018/19, with the new standard methodology for assessing housing requirements providing the
baseline thereafter?
81. No. We do not believe that this approach is appropriate. Where there is no (up-to-date) adopted local plan,
the local authority should have prepared a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). This could
potentially provide a more accurate reflection of OAN in that area than the household projections (that
would have been the “starting point” for the assessment).
82. It should be acknowledged that the absence of an adopted local plan is a significant failure, as recognised
within the Housing White Paper. In our view, there should be a more stringent approach imposed on such
failing authorities, to incentivise Local Plan preparation and housing delivery.
83. In the event that published household projections are used where there is no (up-to-date) adopted local
plan, the thresholds used in assessing under-delivery should be increased, as set out below.
c) Net annual housing additions should be used to measure housing delivery?
84. Yes. We support this approach. It will be vital that authorities report accurately and on time.
d) Delivery will be assessed over a rolling three year period, starting with 2014/15 – 2016/17?
85. Yes. We support this approach, subject to the thresholds being sufficiently demanding, as recommended
below. This period covers a period of buoyant market conditions and begins two years after the
introduction of the NPPF in March 2012.
Q29.
Do you agree that the consequences for under-delivery should be:
a) From November 2017, an expectation that local planning authorities prepare an action plan where
delivery falls below 95% of the authority’s annual housing requirement?
86. We agree with the principle of requiring authorities to prepare an action plan and suggest that all
authorities should be required to do this, if not already doing so. This should include an assessment of past
delivery and actions to support future supply including the release of any ‘reserve’ sites identified in a Local
Plan. This approach could be an effective mechanism for linking the proposed housing delivery test and the
existing requirement for authorities to identify and maintain a supply of sites for housing for at least five
years.
b) From November 2017, a 20% buffer on top of the requirement to maintain a five year housing land
supply where delivery falls below 85%?
87. The NPPF requires authorities to prepare, and keep up-to-date, a Local Plan, and to maintain a five year
housing land supply. This reflects long-standing requirements established through both primary legislation
and national planning policy. The housing delivery test simply introduces a punitive measure, incentivising
authorities to deliver. Against this background, whilst we do not object to a phased introduction of the new
housing delivery test, we consider that the thresholds proposed are too lenient. We propose that this
threshold from November 2017 be set at delivery below 100%.
c) From November 2018, application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development where
delivery falls below 25%?
88. 25% of the required level of housing provision is a very low threshold, even when used as a transitional step.
Such a critical shortfall in the delivery of housing would represent a critical failure. It is not appropriate to
allow such a critical shortfall to arise before triggering the presumption, taking into account the time
required to remedy this level of under-delivery (bringing forward additional land through the planning
process; grant of planning permission(s); and delivery).
89. We consider that such significant shortfalls are more likely to arise in areas where there are planning
obstacles constraining new housing. For example, Green Belt authorities where there is no up-to-date Local
Plan are unlikely to have allocated a sufficient supply of housing sites to meet identified need and
requirements. However, the presumption in favour of sustainable development will have little or no effect
where such national policy restrictions apply. As such, there needs to be further measures imposed to
address under-delivery in these locations.
90. It is now commonplace for Local Plan housing requirements to be set as minimums. This currently has little
impact in terms of encouraging higher levels of housing delivery (above the minimum requirement). In
particular, the housing delivery test should require authorities with a minimum housing requirement to
deliver “at least” that level.
d) From November 2019, application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development where
91. No. The presumption in favour should remain as currently set out in the NPPF.
92. Authorities should be encouraged to be proactive, not reactive, in supporting the delivery of housing. We
are concerned that setting very low thresholds in the delivery test will have little effect in increasing the
supply of housing to meet (at least) the identified needs.
93. Importantly, there should be an overriding presumption in favour of sustainable development where
authorities fail both the housing delivery test and are unable to demonstrate a sufficient five year housing
land supply.
e) From November 2020, application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development where
94. See our response to d) above.
Q30.
What support would be most helpful to local planning authorities in increasing housing delivery in
their areas?
95. We wholeheartedly support the endorsement of the Build to Rent sector in the White Paper. Although the
consultation that was released on the same day as the Housing White Paper lays out clear information as to
how the NPPF will be amended to include Affordable Private Rent as the affordable product for Build to
Rent, there still needs to be some substantial work on educating local authorities on what BTR actually is.
The BPF is willing to work with DCLG on either updating previous literature or creating something new that
fully explains the product for local planning authorities and other stakeholders.
96. Developers often face significant delays in the processing of planning applications. Significant delays arise
due to lack of resources on the part of the local planning authority. The effect of this is twofold: (1) there
are too few planning officers, and they are therefore over-stretched; and (2) the quality of staff that local
authorities can afford to recruit and retain is often low. Although we acknowledge the proposal to increase
application fees that is set out in the White Paper and also the proposed consultation on adding further
funding for Local Planning Authorities via further 20% increase in fees, more work needs to be done as to
how this funding will remain within the planning system rather than funding being taken away in other
forms.
Q31.
Do you agree with our proposals to:
a) Amend national policy to revise the definition of affordable housing as set out in Box 4?
97. Yes, in principle. We agree with the proposals set out in the Housing White Paper amending national policy
to revise the definition of affordable housing. However, we believe that Box 4 should be structured slightly
differently to make it more user-friendly. In an attempt to make it easier for DCLG, we have set out a
revised Box 4 below:
BOX 4: PROPOSED DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Affordable housing: housing that is provided for sale or rent to those whose needs are not met by the market
(this can include housing that provides a subsidised route to home ownership), and which meets the criteria
for one of the models set out below:

Social rented and affordable rented housing: eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes
and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable
price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable
housing provision.
o
Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as
defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline
target rents are determined through the Government’s rent policy. It may also be owned
by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as
agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.
o
Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of
social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is
subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent
(including service charges, where applicable).

Intermediate housing is discount market sales and affordable private rent housing and other
housing that meets the following criteria: housing that is provided for sale and rent at a cost above
social rent, but below market levels. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local
house prices. It should also include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible
households or for any receipts to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision, or
refunded to Government or the relevant authority specified in the funding agreement. These can
include Shared Ownership, equity loans, other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent
(including Rent to Buy housing).

Starter homes housing is defined in Sections 2 and 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and any
subsequent secondary legislation made under these sections. The definition of a starter home
should reflect the meaning set out in statute at the time of plan-preparation or decision-taking.
Local planning authorities should also include income restrictions which limit a person’s eligibility
to purchase a starter home to those who have maximum household incomes of £80,000 a year or
less (or £90,000 a year or less in Greater London).

Discounted market sales housing is housing that is sold at a discount of at least 20 per cent below
local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. It
should include provisions to remain at a discount for future eligible households.

Affordable private rent housing (previously known as Discount Market Rent) is housing that is
made available for rent at a level which is at least 20 per cent below market rent according to RICS
Valuation – Professional Standards. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local
house prices. Provision should be made to ensure that affordable private rent housing remains
available for rent at a discount for future eligible households or for alternative affordable housing
provision to be made if the discount is withdrawn. Affordable private rented housing is particularly
suited to the provision of affordable housing as part of Build to Rent Schemes.
b) Introduce an income cap for starter homes?
98. NA
c) Incorporate a definition of affordable private rent housing?
99. We have long argued that Discount Market Rent (DMR), now referred to as Affordable Private Rent (APR), is
the most suitable affordable option for BTR. We have also argued that DMR/APR should be referred to in
the NPPF, therefore we fully support the incorporation of APR within the NPPF. However, we need to make
sure there is a level of flexibility for developers and local authorities as to the level of APR within a product
and also a local authority should have the right to refuse an affordable option if they would prefer an open
market product.
100.We will provide further detail on this matter in our response to the consultation on Planning and Affordable
Housing for Build to Rent.
d) Allow for a transitional period that aligns with other proposals in the White Paper (April 2018)?
101.Although we support much of the White Paper, there is a great deal to be done by local planners to put into
action the necessary changes that will be introduced in law, policy and guidance. We therefore agree that
there should be a transitional period for authorities to progress and adopt up to date plans. We would also
urge government to show restraint in making any further policy announcements or legislative changes
during this transitional period, to allow local authorities the time to make sure they are policy-compliant
and give developers the certainty they need.
Q32.
Do you agree that:
a) National planning policy should expect local planning authorities to seek a minimum of 10% of all
homes on individual sites for affordable home ownership products?
b) That this policy should only apply to developments of over 10 units or 0.5ha?
102.No. We believe that setting an arbitrary target will cause unnecessary complications within the planning and
development process and could undermine other measures to boost supply. Rather than imposing a set
percentage we would argue it would be better to encourage local authorities to take a multi-tenure
approach, set out clearly in development plan policy to include built-in flexibility for consideration on a siteby-site basis and in relation to viability and other factors. This will cause less pressure on authorities and
planners by taking away another unnecessary and over-limiting target, while also pushing the positive tone
that the Housing White Paper has managed to encapsulate.
Q33.
Should any particular types of residential development be excluded from this policy?
103.Yes. If it is concluded despite the above comments that a target was to be imposed, we would argue that
BTR developments should be excluded. This is due to the fact that BTR developments operate in a very
different way to other residential sites, as there is a single owner who also manages a BTR development; it
would cause serious problems for the business, if a number of units had to be sold.
Will Bushby
Senior Policy Officer
British Property Federation
St Albans House
57-59 Haymarket
London SW1Y 4QX
020 7802 0126
[email protected]

Fixing our broken housing market

Transcription

Similar documents