Property industry joins Barratt in calling for housing to be included in NSIP regime

The Growth and Infrastructure Act extended the NSIP regime to allow developers of certain types of projects to apply to the Planning Inspectorate for development consent orders instead of applying to the local planning authority for planning permission.

In June 2013, following a consultation on the types of projects to be included in the regime, the government ruled out allowing this fast-track process for housing developments, stating that "the government maintains the view that responsibility for planning for housing should remain with local authorities and that the current policy and legal position should be maintained."

Speaking this week at the British Property Federation's (BPF) 'Size and Delivery Matters' event, chaired by Robbie Owen of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, Barratt land and planning director Philip Barnes repeated a call he previously made in June for large-scale housing schemes to be added to the NSIP process.

Barnes said it was frustrating to housebuilders that the NSIP regime was not available for the delivery of housing schemes of several thousand units. He said that, while there was "a massive appetite to deliver housing" in the UK, there was a lack of "a major and certain supply of housing projects to invest into".

Barnes said that policy uncertainty, the lack of a strategic approach to the delivery of housing and the need for an alignment between the delivery of housing and infrastructure were all reasons to bring large-scale residential developments within the regime.

Barnes questioned the fairness of allowing local councillors to decide whether very large housing projects received approval, noting that "the average turnout at a local election is 30%" and "the average ward size in this country is 5,600 people". Turning to a suggested threshold above which schemes might be considered for fast-track consent, Barnes said "3,000 [homes] seems about right".

Also speaking at Pinsent Masons' offices yesterday was John Rhodes of planning consultancy Quod. "It is mad that government wants to exclude residential from the [NSIP] regime," said Rhodes. "There is no proper reason for doing that ... If the greatest national need is for more housing ... sooner or later a braver government is going to have to take the decision that this regime should be extended to incorporate these land uses wherever schemes are of a sufficient scale and importance to support this process."

In a statement following the event, BPF assistant director for planning and regeneration Ghislaine Halpenny said the BPF supported calls for housing development to be considered NSIPs.

“It seems as though the NSIP process is working very well and is an efficient way of getting significant infrastructure and commercial development projects off the ground," said Halpenny. "However, if we are to see it really make an impact we would like to see government include a provision for housing. Schemes are ineligible for the process if they contain even a few homes, and we urge government to reconsider this if it wants to encourage large-scale regeneration across our towns and cities.”