The Royal Town Planning Institute and the Draft NPPF

The earlier post on the National Planning Policy Framework Consultation suggested that this was of paramount importance.  I would again urge those interested in land use planning to respond to the consultation before 10 May (and copy their Member of Parliament and professional institute) explaining why the modest changes being proposed would not start  to produce a NPPF that would do anything to reverse the damaging changes since 2012 occurring to climate, air, soils, housing, traffic and biodiversity.  I would draw particular attention to point 6 below on community led housing, as the official Government position (see the hyperlink) would continue to be meaningless without the NPPF privileging this form of housing.

I made the following notes following a regional meeting of RTPI members on 19 April 2018

1.              The 2012 NPPF can be seen to have failed in every measure of ‘sustainability’ (and see SDGs); eg.: availability and affordability of housing, the acceleration towards a ‘mass extinction’ of flora and fauna, increase in car dependency and decrease in bus usage, no increase in air quality, no decrease in the probability and severity of flooding.  The first question that needs to be faced is, what is there in the 2018 version that would secure a reversal of these trends? The RTPI should have no hesitation in saying that if the ‘presumption’ is to remain in favour of  ‘sustainable’ development then such development must be seen to be sustainable (ie access, carbon emissions, biodiversity, social inclusion etc).  The ‘presumption’ could continue to be applied to development and lack of sustainability could then be named as one of the criteria for justifying refusal of permission.

2.              There seems to be serious confusion as to the future of local planning (see TCPA response). There are serious flaws and limitations with neighbourhood planning and unless the Government reintroduces strategic and/or regional planning, the plan-led system (including the relative certainty provided by s38(6))  appears to be under threat.

3.              The fact that ‘affordable housing’ is defined as 80% of market rents is another matter of (in)credibility that requires terms to be changed to relate to reality ie normal English usage.  The Labour (does that make it unacceptable to this Government?) proposal for Living Rents and FirstBuy related to income levels is a more honest (and politically attractive?) approach.

4.              The ‘landlords premium’ seems to indicate that land prices will remain as high as the market will bear, limiting the ability of development to be carried out at a high standard and at affordable prices.  If the developer is expected to have a 20% profit for taking the risks involved in delivery, why should the landowners have substantially larger profits for taking no risk (or just the risk of the land price inflating still further).

5.              Sajid Javid is reported as saying that the UK’s housing crisis is, “above all a supply side problem. At the end of the day, we need to build a lot more homes”. (Interview with Liam Halligan for UnHerd.com, April 2018).  This should be seriously questioned, given the level of landowners’ profits and demand side stimuli. (ie £10billion to Help to Buy) and the NPPF should not include any references to increased supply leading to lower prices.

6.              The Government strongly supports community-led housing (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/community-led-housing) that, contrary to the Minister’s wishes, will simply remain a minority interest unless this sector is privileged by plan making and decision taking.  All the significant benefits understood by the (then) housing and planning Minister will be foregone if the planning system relies on the position of ‘encouragement’ or ‘not being against’ this form of housing.  There could and should be a very significant synergy between community led housing and the statutory registers of those hoping to be offered a serviced plot, and likely to be disappointed without being given a substantial impetus in the new NPPF. The Minister acknowledges that community led housing is commonplace abroad and the fact that a  particular co-housing development which he mentions took twenty years to materialize,  and most groups give up long before that,  are stains on the planning system. 

7.              Another sector that requires assistance through the updating of national policy is that of agroecology and/or local food production, processing and distribution. This sector has substantial potential for health/wellbeing, community development, employment, reduction in food miles, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, flood control and soil health.  These are all material planning considerations which justify a ‘local food policy’ in the NPPF to be replicated in local plans.

8.              The NPPF should be seen by Government as one of the main ways in which the 25 Year Environment Plan will be implemented.  This does not currently seem to be the case.  The same applies to the Clean Growth Strategy. 

9.              Another emerging sector that the land use planning system should be encouraging is ‘forest gardening’.  The NPPF should catch up with the view increasingly being taken that tree planting should be seen as part of a rich, multi-layered and biodiverse addition to the landscape. Government needs to understand why it is that despite the apparently sound advice at para 118 of the 2012 NPPF there continue to be significant declines in biodiversity. The 2018 NPPF should be designed to reverse this trend, or Ministers need to be aware that plan making and decision taking are failing in this important regard.

10.          The question of planning contributing to the reduction of carbon emissions was not discussed on the advice that there were two experts ‘on the case’. These experts might be interested in the analysis https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2VqOwDufNpbeVE3alBCRnJ4NjA/view

11.          There seemed to be general agreement that the opportunity to actively plan to secure the potential benefits from electrification and automation was being missed.

The TCPA has submitted a very powerful critique of the draft NPPF. It would be disappointing and potentially damaging to the credibility of both organisations if they are seen by Government to be too far apart on the main issues of housing, climate change and biodiversity

The role of a horticultural adviser

The Institute of Foresters have just met with their Royal Town Planning counterparts at a seminar to discuss what they could do for each other.  I went as an adviser to the National Forest Garden Scheme to see whether forest gardening, permaculture, agroforestry or agro-ecology was part of what arboriculturalists do or talk about. It seems that they are most concerned about structural landscaping; the impact that existing and new larger trees have on ‘amenity’, in townscapes and or landscapes.  Ecology and biodiversity barely got a mention. 

The planners in the audience might have been aware of the not uncommon practice of imposing conditions on planning permissions requiring the submission of travel plans that, in turn, require the appointment of a travel adviser to help the new residents embrace low carbon travel behaviours.  This could be through providing bus/train timetables, car pooling or car clubs, useful web sites, footpath maps, bicycle repair manuals or classes or even  discounts on new bikes. 

Following that model a condition could be imposed securing the appointment of a horticultural (preferably a permaculturalist) adviser seeking to enabling new residents  to enhance the biodiversity and food growing potential of the area.  The adviser could help with recommending how the landscaping of public areas might be maintained and go on to suggest planting schemes and practices in private gardens, taking into account matters of soil types and aspect.  Fruit trees could be chosen to increase fertility. Screening could be minimized.  Bee friendly plants maximized.  The most could be made of what are likely to be quite restricted garden areas.  A tool sharing scheme could be established (greenhouses, mowers, strimmers, trimmers and even spades and forks).  Seed buying could be another saving.  Some householders could specialize in vegetables, others in flowers and others with children’s play and gardening club(s) could be established. 

This idea fell on deaf ears. Whilst such advice might be seen as intrusive and unwelcome to some new residents, this attempt at sharing skills, knowledge and kit could be attractive to others and could have a significant impact on household expenditure and the biodiversity of the estate.

That brings me on to para 118 of the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework which requires developments to conserve and enhance biodiversity.  The imposition of a condition requiring developers to appoint horticultural advisers would be entirely consistent with that paragraph, that will hopefully survive the changes to the NPPF currently being considered.

The review of the National Planning Policy Framework needs you

This is the most important post in the several years of my blogging.  The new NPPF will be the most influential policy document over the next five to ten years (I have no reason to believe that Labour has any more clue as to how to use the planning system to produce sustainable development) and all those with an understanding of what is wrong in terms of the use of land and buildings and how it might be fixed should respond to the consultation (and to the Royal Town Institute)

 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-revised-national-planning-policy-framework

The proposals to change the 2012 NPPF  have failed to grasp the problems that have arisen from the operation of the original.  There are a number of reasons why it is necessary to review the NPPF as the main policy framework relating to the use and development of land and buildings:

- carbon emissions from buildings have increased and are not on a path to meet carbon budgets agreed by the Government nor the Paris Agreement,[1]

- car traffic is increasing and bus services are declining,

- air quality remains below legal standards; killing people and harming children,

- biodiversity in terms both flora and fauna is decreasing as part of a ‘great extinction’,

- wellbeing and mental health are not improving,

- housing is not becoming more affordable,

- homelessness and rough sleeping are increasing,

- incidents of flooding are not any less frequent or severe.

The draft revision of the NPPF must be judged on whether it is likely to make good on all these failures of the 2012 version – in respect of matters that are some of the most serious facing society during the time during which the Government intends the new NPPF to have effect – the breaking of Planetary Boundaries and the failure to meet Sustainable Development Goals.

The DHCLG should be referred to the research with which you are familiar that shows that the position in say 2030 (when The Centre of Alternative Technology has shown it to be perfectly feasible to be 'zero carbon'), the operation of the consultation draft would have wasted another ten years in the development of a low/zero carbon economy with all the co-benefits that this implies in terms of physical and mental wellbeing, agroecological farming, locally produced and nutritious food, accessibility (achieved through reduced mobility), improved democracy and collaborations etc

  The fact that on all important measures the impacts have got worse during the operation of the 2012 Framework suggests that new proposals which only ‘tinker at the edges’ will not be fit for purpose. The Framework should be substantially re-written with planetary boundaries and Sustainable Development Goals as the main points of reference, rather than the short term demands of established interest groups such as landowners, car owners, developers and homeowners.

---

[1] Planning to reduce carbon emissions explains how the land use planning system could reduce emissions by 50%   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2VqOwDufNpbeVE3alBCRnJ4NjA/view

 

Land value capture may be illusury

Responses to the consultation on DHCLG Select Committee

"The effectiveness of current land value capture methods" must be sent to the select committee by 2 March 2018 at

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/land-value-capture-inquiry-17-19/commons-written-submission-form/

Not that I am in a position to tell anybody what to say,  but I think that the following points might be of relevance and helpful to the committee members.

As with any changes to the planning system it would be helpful to simplify matters. The basic principle should be that any introduction of capturing land value supersedes either the existing use of CIL or s106.  

Any belief that there are huge windfalls to be captured from the uplift in land values attributed to the grant of development permissions should be tempered by the fact that this is a classic zero sum game.  Inflated land values are simply a function of inflated house prices. Maintain the former and the latter will follow suit. Reduce house prices and there will be little land value left to be captured
 

The Government has been largely responsible for house price inflation. If the demand side stimuli of funding for landing, Help to Buy and intermediate housing  (allowing the purchase of only part of the equity) were removed the price of new houses prices would fall.  Government should be severely embarrassed by the profits being declared by the major builders that are largely created by Government subsidies (a Persimmon Director taking over £100m in share options). Similarly unacceptable profits are being made my land owners and traders. A number of Tories (including Nick Boles but not Lynn Truss) realise that very few votes would be lost were the value of development land to be decided by the DV (subject to appeal).  The beneficiaries would be all the purchasers of realistically priced homes.  S.106 should be used to secure the provision of necessary infrastructure.  This should be interpreted more loosely (Written Ministerial Statement required) to allow for new development to make a contribution towards existing infrastructure (ie wear and tear and a direct benefit to the developers new customers).  Permitted development rights to convert rural buildings and offices into dwellings without permissions of CIL/s.106 payments should be repealed.

Recommendations

Remove all government demand side stimuli which currently fuel house price inflation and go straight into the profits of developers and landowners. Remove all the CIL regulations.  Allow LPAs to secure the funding of all ‘necessary infrastructure’ by dismissing appeals where developers are seeking permissions to develop ‘on the cheap’ and placing the infrastructure burden on the new and existing residents and businesses.  Remove all permitted development rights which allow dwellings to be created without paying for necessary infrastructure.  Where land with permission is not being developed, CPO powers should be used to secure this for self-custom building, or social housing.  There should be reinstated requirements for self/custom builders and social housing providers to pay for necessary infrastructure (costs that would be reflected in the land price.

 Summary

The need is to reduce housing subsidies rather than introduce any more mechanisms  to capture increases in land value.  In most if not all parts of the country house prices will be high enough to create sufficient value to pay for necessary infrastructure.  It is unlikely that 300,000 would be built (and sold) at the proper values when demand side subsidies have been removed.  The Government should be prepared to bear the electoral costs of any decreases in house prices ie increases in affordability, that should arise from removing the subsidies.

Community Led Housing

A brief post in order to give a little more publicity to the report at

https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/OtherOrganisation/Community_Led_housing_Report_2017.pdf

The report is too long and rich in examples to summarise here.  There is a clear message that CLH is popular with users, councils and housing providers but that the efforts being made to produce a few thousand units are disproportional to the gains.  The main stimuli seem to be financial assistance to enable CLH to be provided on difficult sites not attractive to the volume builders.  The potential seems to be greatest where the market cuts these innovative forms of housing some slack but there are some councils in high property price areas (notably Bristol and Brighton) which seem to be managing to promote CLH. Although CLH does come in a range of sorts and sizes it does not yet acknowledge the potential for custom splitting that would benefit from Local Development Orders in areas where the LPA feels subdivisions would help provide opportunities to downsize-in-place by encouraging new households to share in the splitting of existing properties.
However, the main message from the report is that Councils should make it easier for CLH to be realised. It seems perverse that the best forms of housing from economic and social points of view are the hardest to achieve and 150,000 houses of a more individualistic nature slip effortlessly (there are of course some flawed housing schemes that are rejected locally and on appeal) through the system.  A rational planning system would privilege CLH by ensuring all permissions reserve land for that purpose and can only be built out by conventional developers if there is no demand for CLH. 

Housing for the new farmers

When a permission is granted for an agricultural worker's dwelling in the countryside it can seem so simple https://www.theplanner.co.uk/decision/appeal-unpredictable-alpaca-breeding-justifies-rural-accommodation
The farmer can explain that a modest income (if local plan policies require this test) would be sufficient and that livestock do essentially need close attention.  It seems that this is not the first time that the birthing habits of alpacas have been relied on but I think that 10acres of well chosen land (ie not AONB or National Park) and signs of real dedication/investment, were more persuasive than the couple of alpacas.
If the Government and planning authorities want to rely on the test of essential need in the NPPF (the Framework) then more of these new dwellings are likely to be allowed.  However, in my humble opinion, it would be better to see new farms being established on the edge of towns and villages where farmers and their families can rely on the normal facilities while being housed on the holding. Local food systems can be regenerated. However,  this would require the planning system to recognise the food supply  as a legitimate concern, and become proactive in securing affordable land and affordable housing from most if not all new peripheral developments  through s106 planning obligations.  The planning system should be persuaded of the need for positive action and not having to learn from their failed attempts to prevent determined new farmers chancing upon sympathetic inspectors.  That is not an intelligent way to move systematically to an agroecological renaissance. 'Planning' by definition is to address issues in a proper way and, where there is a public interest (ie see the ORFC agenda), become main facilitators, not failed gatekeepers.

Planners should understand that 'real' farming is different

This is a short account of the 2018 Oxford Real Farming Conference.  My offer to run a session on how the land use planning system could help in providing access to land (and housing) and in the regeneration of local food systems was not accepted so I can only report on other impressions, not all apparently relevant to land use planners.

Firstly it is important to know that there were 800 delegates and 300 unable to be offered a place! If Donald Trump’s very first concern as POTUS45 was how many people were at the inauguration, fellow politician Michael Gove MP and Sec of State for Defra should have been impressed by the youthful crowd of well connected activists packed into the Town Hall, many of whom seemed to be similarly impressed by the minister’s intentions (or rhetoric?). He had lunch with representatives from the Landworkers’ Alliance who are arranging meetings at Whitehall that will hopefully take place whoever is SoS.  It was interesting to hear the man who disparaged the views of experts, with whom he happened to disagree in the lead up the EU referendum, now rely on experts when looking at pesticides etc.  It seems that he is taking the science on climate change seriously in looking towards a zero carbon economy by 2050 or even earlier.

There was a session on  ‘Why access to land is vital for sustainable, healthy and fair food systems’ the publication of which can be found through a Web search and includes a number of ideas that can be found in my food related posts.  This coincided with The People’s Food Policy (also on the Web) that does not.  However, in future, food related posts (some as responses to Government consultations) will be copied to them.

In response to my claim that land use planners were not engaged in agroecology, access to land, forest gardens etc I was pointed to the AESOP conference at Coventry Uni in Nov 2017 on sustainable food and planning.  Hopefully that event attracted members of the planning establishment who can put ideas into practice?  

Finally, it was interesting to learn about the readily available kit(s) that could measure the nutritional density of food products and the carbon content of soils.  Readers will know that this Blog concentrates on the planning law as is and expressing opinions on how policy can be influenced and applied.  However, a case has been made for addressing the question of whether different forms of agriculture have materially different impacts ‘in the public interest’.  Claims were made that there were no statutory controls over the production of food.  There are of course regulations applying to animal welfare and seeds but nothing, it was being claimed, to distinguish between industrial scale agriculture and agroecology and ‘organics’.  Land use planning is a creature of statute and there are controls (eg conditions under s.70 and obligations s106) that could ensure that developments are carried out in the public interest which could include securing access to affordable land and buildings.  However, the law does not allow for ‘good’ agricultural practices to be distinguished from unsustainable and damaging regimes.  The ability for these distinctions to be measured (including scales of biodiversity?) is a necessary precursor to arguing for a change in the law that would allow planners to privilege the good and disadvantage the bad.