Apologies for a longer than usual post. This is a response to the HOUSE OF LORDS
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT that I am now able to share. The Committee is raising some questions about the system that provides me with an opportunity to rehearse some of the issues covered by previous Blogs.
Introduction
Government will
be aware that the planning system is extremely hierarchical; with powers
delegated to LPAs but under supervision by the Communities
Secretary/Inspectorate through the examination of development plans and conducting appeals against refusals
of permission. Although those working
with the planning system are generally hoping for a period during which there
will be no significant (or even minor changes) for them to learn, understand,
communicate and implement, the
Communities Secretary does have extraordinary power to bring about positive
change through what he says and how Inspectors are briefed. Many if not most
changes are based on a misunderstanding of how the system could or should work
and are often responsible for making things worse rather than better.
Government then blames the ‘system’ for these failings and introduces further
misjudged changes. Ministers seem incapable of taking or acting on a holistic
or systemic view of the environment.
The recent
successful challenge of West Berks and Reading BC to a written ministerial
statement which was found to be incompatible with the existing statutory scheme
should be taken as a lesson for Government (and its ministers) to be sparing
with its interventions and ensure that changes are carried out through due
process and are compatible with the system as formally established.
Questions
1.
Are the decisions that shape England’s built
environment taken at the right administrative level? What role should national
policymakers play in shaping our built environment, and how does this relate to
the work and role of local authorities and their partners?
The most important
consideration to be taken into account in our planning of town and country is
the 2008 Climate Change Act and Carbon Budgets that are formulated by the
National Climate Change Committee. It is essential that central government is
seen to be adopting these budgets and providing advice to lower tiers of
government that they must be adhered to and how. It is unacceptable that the Government
appears to be retreating from the implementation of the well-established carbon
reduction measures when even these were likely to prove inadequate without
further innovation and development.
There does not appear to be
any rationale behind the Government's insistence that the appointment/election
of mayors is a prerequisite of regional devolution. It is true that the
structure of local government is a mess, primarily due to the motivation of
saving money. If, however, a more logical system could be (re-) introduced,
including regional planning authorities, as were dismantled in 2012, then
devolution should not be much of a problem.
Given the obvious problems
that are being caused by further development in what is already a very
congested South East region, there is also a strong case for a National Spatial
Plan. This should be drawn up primarily
from the regions ‘up’ and not from central government ‘down’.
2.
How well is policy coordinated across those
Government departments that have a role to play in matters such as housing,
design, transport, infrastructure, sustainability and heritage? How could
integration and coordination be improved?
Since 2010 the coordination
of ‘sustainable development’ has been an
unmitigated disaster. Different offices of the Communities Department and
different inspectors have been operating like a random number generator in
terms of the Code for Sustainable Homes. This, and the Zero Carbon Homes 2016
target have been removed by written ministerial statements of dubious legal
authority (post the West Berks/Reading
Borough judgement). Local Planning Authorities must be working on
development plans and making planning decisions so as to “contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development". It is unacceptable that they
should be doing so without some coherent and consistent advice from the (new)
Communities Secretary so that his offices, inspectors, LPAs, developers,
neighbourhood planners, and the public know where they stand and can pull in
the same direction.
The National Policy
Statements are vague and obscure. The NPS on the national road infrastructure
was/is incompatible with the 4th Carbon Budget, mainly in respect of the continued
reliance on the growth of use of the private car. The interference by the
Treasury in transport decisions (most obviously seen in the planning of new
high-speed train services, and recently in regional improvements) results in a
very incoherent strategy. Transport
should be the primary job of the Communities Secretary as part of spatial
planning.
In respect of housing, the
most urgent need is to address the unsustainable levels of under occupancy
which could be done through a written ministerial statement, entirely
compatible with the existing statutory scheme. There is no place for central
government in respect of design, except to encourage adaptability in terms of
new dwellings and Lifetime Neighbourhoods, both intended to improve the social
sustainability and resilience of residential areas.
Heritage is a matter that
has been satisfactorily divided between local and central ‘government’ (eg English
Heritage).
The latest unwarranted interference
was that by the Treasury/Chancellor the Business Secretary (‘Fixing the
Foundations’), with the Communities Secretary’s name not on the document.
3.
Does the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
provide sufficient policy guidance for those involved in planning, developing
and protecting the built and natural environment? Are some factors within the
NPPF more important than others? If
so, what should be prioritised and why?
The most important part of
the NPPF is the “presumption in favour of sustainable development". The
previous administration demonstrated such a low-level of understanding of or
interest in the principles of sustainable development that the presumption
became meaningless and/or discredited. The Communities Select Committee has already investigated this
matter and recommended that the definition be refined and made fit for purpose.
Whilst there or many
advantages of the discretion available to decision-makers in the operation of
the planning system founded under the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act, on
matters as important as the presumption in the NPPF there should be some clear
and effective guidance from the Communities Secretary. It should not be possible for one inspector
to make the following findings:
60. If one considers locational sustainability i.e. being adjacent to an
existing
built up area and able to take advantage of any existing services and
infrastructure, then developing this site would score heavily. On the
other
hand, if we seek a Bruntland scenario, whereby today's development would
not impose environmental costs on future generations, we are a
considerable
way from achieving that. There was certainly no expectation that the
development would 'consume its own smoke'. The application does not deal
in many specifics and targets, other than the aim to reach Code for
Sustainable Homes Level 4.
61. As for movement, there is little beyond broad principles and these
are
largely internally focused. A Travel Plan was submitted with the
application,
but this only covers a residential offer. There was nothing about the
employment or leisure uses. Similarly, there were no proposals for
energy
generation on the site or firm sustainable drainage projects. When
additional draft conditions were suggested they were accepted, and the
saving grace is that this is an outline scheme and one that could be
up-rated
as part of the submission of details, so long as appropriate conditions
are
attached at this stage. Such matters as design, layout and even the
orientation of buildings are crucial in this context. www.planningportal.gov.uk/plannInginspectorate
12
Appeal Decision
APP/N2345/A/12/2169598
And, for this
to remain an honorable exception to the ducking and diving of other decision-makers,
fearful that their considered and
professional view of what constitute sustainable development would not be
supported by the Secretary of State.
Nothing could be more
important than the reduction in carbon emissions. There is no model or precedent (outside wartime
or deep recession) for the scale of carbon emissions required to meet the
official carbon budgets (6% per year) or the Tyndall Institute estimate of
10%. Planning guidance and development
plans are fundamentally dishonest in the lack of attention being paid to this
existential challenge. The Environmental Audit Select Committee ‘Reducing
Carbon Emissions from Transport 2005/6 based its recommendations on an honest
appraisal of the problem – advising the Government that a lower speed limit
(evidence had been given of the need for a 55mph limit) was necessary, not just
to reduce carbon but to send the right message to the general public. 10 years
later, denial of the scale of the challenge posed by the required level of
carbon reduction far exceeds the insignificant level of denial that climate
change is being influenced by carbon emissions. This H of L Committee should
take the same rigorous position based on the available scientific evidence but,
with ten years of missed opportunities, the challenge has become very much
greater. Carbon reductions have largely been achieved by exporting emissions
from manufacturing/mining and by picking some low hanging fruit. The reductions that are now required will
have to come disproportionately from buildings, as transport (while the speed
limit reduction continues to be rejected), agriculture, industry, and power
generation (with the Government
retreating on renewables) sectors will all have more difficulty. New buildings
can be carbon negative (solar positive) using existing and affordable
technologies (with the added benefit of reducing the incidence of fuel poverty). We have to talk about ‘one planet living’
starting from now, a time that we are living as if we have three.
4.
Is national planning policy in England lacking a
spatial perspective? What would be the effects of introducing a spatial element
to national policy?
Possibly. One element of a national spatial plan would
be to put a stop to HS2. Improving the
regional rail network should be a priority.
Any capacity problems in the routes into London occur within a 50 mile
radius that can be addressed by express coaches using the over-taking lanes on
the radial m-ways and trunk routes. These coach services can access many more
centres of employment than can rail terminuses. Cars would be limited to 50mph
to meet the carbon reduction targets (see above reference to Environmental
Audit Committee) and car drivers will soon become coach passengers. Commuting
coaches will not add to the congestion in the area around Euston that will not
be able to cope with the 30,000 additional in and out movements were HS2 to be built. The
few minutes saved on the high speed train journey will be lost on the already
congested road and underground system within the Euston area. The regeneration
of the area around Old Oak Common is a perfectly good idea but this is not a
remedy for the congestion likely to be caused by HS2 and could happen with a
normal rail connection. Railways are
essential to the country’s low carbon future but High Speed Trains need a far
more objective assessment that the Government seems capable of delivering. The
same seems to be the case of additional runway capacity.
5.
Is there an optimum timescale for planning our future
built environment needs and requirements? How far ahead should those involved
in the development of planning and built environment policy be looking?
There should be no problem
with development plans being drafted for about twenty years with frequent if
not continuous reviews. A serious
problem has arisen from a misunderstanding of the ‘five year housing land
supply’ requirement set
out in the NPPF. If development in a
particular area is booming then it could be argued that the lack of 5 years
land supply would harm the forward planning of the house-building industry and
employers in that area. If development
is sluggish, then a shortage of allocated and permitted land is not harmful and
should not form the basis for allowing even more land that is not required (and
would deflate the value of permitted sites making their development less
profitable and slower to deliver). This leads to arguments about viability; s106
contributions and the proportion of affordable housing. By definition,‘necessary’ infrastructure
- including housing affordable to key workers - cannot be sacrificed to
artificially inflated assessments of
land values. Hence, a 5 year housing land supply can only
be a suggestion for what would be a sensible target averaging good years for
building with bad, and not a justification for allowing more land that is
actually needed. This should be
reflected in planning decisions where, in law, weight should be given to the real harm being
caused by a breach of policy and not simply to the breach itself.
The necessary trajectory of carbon emissions reductions does not allow
the Government to delay showing that it is treating this matter with the
required degree of seriousness and ensuring that their plans, and those of all
LPAs, reflect the necessary annual reductions of between 6% and 10%.
6.
What role should the Government play in seeking to
address current issues of housing supply? Are further interventions, properly
coordinated at central Government level, required? What will be the likely
effect upon housing supply of recent reforms proposed for the planning system?
Almost every intervention
by the Government has been to the “demand-side" (Funding for Lending, Help to Buy, discounts
for 1st-time buyers) all of which have the effect of maintaining or raising
prices and reducing affordability to all those not on that particular scheme.
There has never been more housing space per capita and the Government which
introduced the pernicious bedroom tax in the social rented sector (this could
have been managed satisfactorily were there an adequate supply of smaller
dwellings available) must be aware of the even more prevalent under-occupancy
by owner occupiers. Under-occupation is, without exception, the most
unsustainable aspect to our housing system. A very simple and easily
implemented policy would be for the Communities Secretary to require LPAs (and
inspectors) to ensure that all new housing is of 2 bedrooms, unless a special
case has been made out for larger dwellings. Even in that case, such dwellings
should be designed to be easily subdivided. Further, planning conditions should
be imposed on new developments to prevent extensions in order to retain the balance of the size of households (average
size approaching 2) and housing (there is already a surplus of larger
dwellings), and the energy efficiency. The Government should also revisit the
very sensible and important concept of ‘consequential improvements’. This is
one of the few ways in which the existing housing stock (80% of existing houses
are EPC ‘D’ and below) whereby dwellings cannot be enlarged without upgrading
the energy performance of the whole. Why must properties be upgraded prior to
rent and not prior to sale? This has become urgent in the context of the demise
of the Green Deal.
The government should not
continue to change the scope of ‘permitted development’. The ‘permitted’ change
from offices to residential without any contributions to affordable housing, infrastructure
or sustainability should be revoked. The' permitted' change from agricultural
buildings to residential in remote rural areas also comprises unsustainable
development.
7.
How do we develop built environments which are
sustainable and resilient, and what role should the Government play in any such
undertaking? Will existing buildings and places be able to adapt to changing
needs and circumstances in the years to come? How can the best use of existing
housing stock and built environment assets be made?
Reference has already been
made to the unsustainable level of under occupation of the existing housing
stock. This should be the first matter for the Communities Sec to address by signalling
his support for predominantly smaller dwellings. Adaptability should also be a requirement of
all larger dwellings to enable relatively cheap and simple subdivision
(preferably exempted from further planning applications)
8. To what
extent do we make optimum use of the historic environment in terms of future
planning, regeneration and place-making? How can more be made of these national
assets?
There is a danger that the
Government preoccupation with' Brownfield' sites could endanger some sites of
very high heritage value. For example the best examples of Cold War airbases have
been substantially harmed by new development. Such sites are in unsustainable
locations and their status as 'previously developed land' should not be a
justification for inappropriate development.
9.
Do the professions involved in this area (e.g.
planners, surveyors, architects, engineers etc.) have the skills adequately to
consider the built environment in a holistic manner? How could we begin to
address any skills issues? Do local authorities have access to the skills and
resources required to plan, shape and manage the built environment in their
areas?
The most topical and
damaging shortage of skills has been the inability of LPAs to deal effectively
with viability assessments. It is extremely encouraging that the Royal
Institute of Chartered Surveyors has been instrumental in setting up an
All-Party Parliamentary Group to address planning and housing. Viability
assessments have been used to justify material reductions in the provision of
infrastructure and affordable housing. The
Communities Sec should ensure that such assessments are made available
to both decision-makers and public and the RICS should use powers and influence
under its Code of professional conduct to ensure that assessments genuinely
reflect the profitability of developments and their ability to pay for
necessary infrastructure.
11.
Do those involved in delivering and managing our
built environment, including decision-makers and developers, take sufficient
account of the way in which the built environment affects those who live and
work within it? How could we improve consideration of the impacts of the built
environment upon the mental and physical health of users, and upon behaviours
within communities?
The Government has been
supportive of self-building. This has probably being seen as a way of
diversifying the supply of new housing. In fact,
self/group/custom-building/finishing could be made into a large and viable and vibrant
'industry' were it to be treated with the required level of seriousness. There
needs to be proper definitions of different types of delivery, training,
supervision and funding. One of the benefits of these forms of building would
be community development and place-making.
12.
How effectively are communities able to engage with
the process of decision making that shapes the built environment in which they
live and work? Are there any barriers to effective public engagement and, if
so, how might they be addressed?
There is increasing
evidence that neighbourhood plans are not being produced to include policies
with the necessary level of precision, prescription or proscription. Most
policies are of a 'permissive’ type that set out what might be allowed but say
nothing about what should not be permitted. The fault lies with the supervision
provided by LPAs that must now treat 'made' NDPs as the ‘development plan’ for
decision-making purposes. This process should receive far more attention and is
likely to result in a set of properly worded policies from which parish
councils and neighbourhood forums can ‘pick and mix’.
One of the ways in which
local people could be enthused about future development within their area would
be neighbourhood competitions. Individuals and groups could receive small
incentives to submit their development proposals for the use of empty,
underused or derelict sites/buildings. The most promising proposals could then
receive further funding to demonstrate viability and sustainability.
13. Are there
fiscal or financial measures potentially available which would help to address
current issues of housing and land supply? Are there financial or other
mechanisms that would encourage better design and place-making by private
sector developers?
Since 1947 successive Government have failed to capture
the additional value of land attributable to the permissions allowing for its
development (see 2015 Housing Review by
Sir Michael Lyons). Most if not all of
this value relates to the social and physical infrastructure which has been created as part of the public
domain and the only uplift that should be permitted in the interest of fairness
to the landowner would be that sufficient for them to agree to sell. A system
that condones land values of < 10,000x agricultural value cannot be in the
public interest and is a serious impediment to the provision of housing of
sufficient scale, at genuinely affordable prices and of the right quality
(including zero carbon – see above). The
fact that developers should be made to pay for the necessary infrastructure (which includes depreciation/renewal costs
of roads, schools and public transport as well as housing for key workers and
others unable to pay market rates based on inflated land costs), should mean
that in most parts of the UK development would pay its way. In fact there would
be an immediate impact on land costs that should make all the housing more
affordable, so that this would need less cross subsidy from the development.
