Out-Law News 3 min. read
13 Apr 2016, 12:10 pm
The Communities and Local Government Committee also questioned elements of the government's starter homes policy and asked the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to explain how it will intervene where councils fail to make progress towards delivering a local plan.
In its report (39-page / 557 KB PDF) the committee said there has not been "sufficient robust, objective and evidence-based monitoring, evaluation or review of the NPPF" since it was introduced in 2012. It said a review of the framework's operation was required to ensure impacts including those resulting from a current government consultation were properly considered.
The committee reiterated concerns from an earlier report that the proposed duty on councils to promote the supply of starter homes for sale at a 20% discount might "lead to fewer truly affordable homes to rent being built". It asked the government to monitor "the impact of the inclusion of starter homes in the definition of affordable housing" and to reconsider current proposals to allow starter homes to be sold on at full market value after five years. It also recommended that councils be allowed to use unused or unviable commercial or industrial land for housing other than starter homes "if that housing would better meet identified local housing needs".
The report welcomed proposals to introduce a test comparing the number of homes brought forward by councils against the identified local housing need. It recommended that the DCLG reviews both "the appropriate consequences of housing under-delivery" and options for helping councils to "require or encourage developers to build out sites in their areas". The committee also said the government should consider placing a statutory duty on councils to produce and maintain local plans.
The committee asked for a clear indication from the government of how it intends to intervene where local plans are not produced by early 2017 and how many councils it expects will require intervention. A recent report from planning and design consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (28-page / 5.1 MB PDF) identified 21 local planning authorities as being most at risk of intervention over the progress of their local plans. Of these, 19 were in south east England, including five councils in Essex, four in Surrey, two in each of Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire and Kent, one in Oxfordshire and one in Berkshire.
The committee also welcomed the government's plans to bring forward more brownfield land for redevelopment. However, the report said there should be "flexibility for local authorities to fully consider particular sites' suitability before they are included on the brownfield register". It called for further information from the DCLG on "how the brownfield site register and permission in principle system will operate in practice".
Other recommendations in the report included new guidance for councils on reviewing their green belt boundaries; measures to mitigate against the harmful effects of permission in principle being granted for development of many small sites in the same area; and new arrangements to prevent councils from being "able to over-rely on land in the five-year land supply which in reality will take longer than five years to build out".
Planning expert Emma Cottam of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: "Four years on from its inception, the NPPF has provided guidance on the government’s planning policies and their application, and whilst it is imperative that the NPPF remains a relevant and organic tool, there will undoubtedly be concerns in the industry as to the how these changes and recommendations sit alongside the provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and the growing uncertainty as developers and local planning authorities try and plan for a future which is constantly evolving."
"This also comes in light of recent developments as the Bill progresses through the House of Lords, as peers voted in favour to remove the prescriptive 20% starter home requirement on the grounds that such a requirement may not be suitable for each local authority," said Cottam. "Whilst this is a shot in the arm for the localism agenda and those against a 'one size fits all' approach, those larger developers operating on a national basis may face new difficulties as they attempt to achieve consistency across their developments. It will therefore certainly be interesting to see how the recommendations of the Communities and Local Government Committee may eventually take effect in light of the measures outlined in the Bill."