The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government today announced its response to a consultation into proposed changes to the NPPF as part of its goal of getting 1.5 million new homes built this parliament.

In response, Cllr Richard Wright, DCN’s planning spokesperson, said: 

“We passionately back the building of 1.5 million much-needed new houses. However, it’s essential that homes are built to meet the needs of local communities, rather than what offers developers the greatest profit.

“New developments should be high quality, built to stand the test of time and come with the infrastructure required by growing communities. They should also be genuinely affordable to local people and meet the size and accessibility requirements of local housing need.

“Local planning departments are part of the solution to deliver for our nation and the Government’s milestones, not the problem. District planning authorities already approve almost nine in 10 of the planning applications they receive.

“A focus on planning consents alone through a standardised method won’t ensure each community’s needs are met. Indeed, it could result in poorly-planned developments in locations with poor transport links and inadequate infrastructure that are beset in future by social isolation, and do little to ease the housing shortages experienced by local people.

“Currently over a million homes with planning consent have yet to be built out. In my own council over half of the homes we’ve approved over the past eight years have yet to be built. Urgent Government action is required to address the issues of stalled sites and land banking by developers. 

“Councils need to be empowered to ensure we’re actually delivering 1.5 million new homes rather than merely 1.5 million planning consents which do little to ease the housing crisis. We want to work with the Government to ensure our shared ambition to get Britain building becomes reality.” 

DCN has also responded to some of the specific aspects of the reforms.

Five-year land supply

The Government has proposed that each council should continue to designate a five-year supply of land for future development.

We believe this proposal, although well intentioned, could undermine existing Local Plans – the documents which councils produce to set out where future development should occur.  Councils are legally required to undertake lengthy consultations of their communities when drawing up their Local Plans. Since the Government is dramatically increasing most areas’ housing targets, many councils will be unable to set out a land supply for the next five years. We want a co-ordinated approach covering housing, economic growth and infrastructure delivery.

In response, Cllr Wright said:

“While we recognise the importance of forecasting housing supply, the practical effect of continuing the requirement to demonstrate a five-year land supply will be to undermine existing Local Plans.

“This will result in precisely the type of speculative development that the Government says it wishes to avoid. It will also damage local community confidence in the planning process, and make local people believe their views are not being heard.”

Planning fees

On the proposals to allow councils to determine their own level of planning fee to achieve full cost recovery, Cllr Wright added:

“We strongly support the proposals to allow councils to set their own fees to reflect the actual costs of the planning system, therefore reducing our financial pressures and protecting our essential local services. We have long called for this reform to ensure that we’re are no longer subsidising developers.” 

Grey belt

On the proposals to designate Green Belt land as ‘grey belt’, suitable for development, Cllr Wright said:

“We support a brownfield-first approach to development and welcome the assurance that strict rules will apply to release of any Green Belt land. Any decisions on where to release land must remain locally-led. Local people and local authorities are in the best position to judge which land is most suitable for development. 

“While we welcome the tighter definition of ‘grey belt’ we remain concerned about the potential for unrestricted new development in the Green Belt and urge the Government to look again at clearer safeguards for agricultural and horticultural land, which is important for food security.”

Section 106

The Government announced moves to unblock the delivery of section 106 affordable housing. Section 106 obligations require developers to make a contribution or concession that will make a development acceptable to the local community – for instance by providing affordable housing as part of a wider scheme.

DCN welcomes the creation of the service which could help councils and registered providers of social housing to purchase section 106 affordable homes which have gone unsold as a potential means of alleviating the housing crisis. We look forward to seeing more details of how this will work.

On build-out

Cllr Wright said:

“We are pleased that the Government has revived proposals to require developers to commit to a build-out trajectory upfront and to report against it.

“The devil is in the detail on this. Councils need to be given real teeth to hold developers account and to refuse to determine applications from developers with a track record of not delivering.”

In response, Cllr Barry Wood, DCN’s growth and regeneration spokesperson, said:

“We welcome this new funding and the recognition that district councils are central to levelling up and enriching the lives of countless communities.

“The creative projects being funded, including a National Cyber Innovation Centre in Cheltenham, and those transforming town centres in Watford, Chorley and South Derbyshire, highlight the central role of districts in leading regeneration, promoting economic growth and ensuring the continued vitality of our neighbourhoods.

“District councils have a unique ability to bring together local businesses and communities to devise a programme of regeneration that best meets the unique needs of our places.

“While this latest round of funding is extremely welcome, we know there are many other local areas that are also greatly in need of long-term support.”

DCN areas to receive funding

We expressed concerns that proposals would not move licensing services onto a fair financial footing, and called for more powers for councils to assess areas where there may be a cumulative impact from multiple premises located in one area.

“The planning and licensing systems are the ideal place to make an assessment about where it is appropriate to introduce new premises.”

“Our view is that this is an important step towards ensuring that licensing authorities are properly funded for the costs incurred in regulating these premises and tackling any social harm. Any increase must be implemented no later than November 2023.”

You can read the full response here.

Under plans announced by the Prime Minister at the weekend, each town will receive £20m over a 10-year period to be spent on local priorities.

In response, Cllr Barry Wood, DCN’s growth and regeneration spokesperson, said:

“For decades, while the biggest cities have been the focus of national policy-making, towns have been largely forgotten by the centre, despite them being so central to the lives of countless communities.

“The Government’s change of focus in recent years, previously demonstrated in the Towns Fund, is welcome, and the fact that this money is to be channelled through district councils in our areas is a vote of confidence in our ability to bring about long-term benefits from such funding.

“District councils, as the most localised principal authorities, have a unique ability to bring together local businesses and communities to devise a programme of regeneration that best meets the unique needs of our places.

“While this new funding has potential to bring major long-term benefits for recipient areas, numerous other towns are in need of long-term support that would enable their council to implement a locally-led path to prosperity.”

District area towns to receive funding

We highlighted our concern that homes through Permitted Development Rights have been more likely to be poorer quality and that any change of use to new residential development should be properly assessed through the planning application process.

“Permitted development rights (PDR) avoid the detailed consideration that is required from housing secured through full planning permission. The result has been that PDR homes have been more likely to be poorer quality as a result of factors that really matter – internal living space, natural light and access to private amenity space.”

“Full planning permission should be required if we are to achieve quality, long-lasting, sustainable and healthy communities”, we said.

You can read our full response by clicking here.

“Councils need a developer contribution system that is more transparent, efficient, effective and where there is less scope for disagreement, negotiation and revision after the fact. It must enable infrastructure to be delivered when it is needed for the development, rather than at a later point in time, to avoid overburdening infrastructure elsewhere.

We need a system that delivers sufficient contributions to cover the infrastructure requirements from all developments.”

You can read our full response by clicking here: DCN Consultation response – Developer contribution system

The Government has announced today that it will legislate in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to make Natural England’s rules on nutrient pollution advisory rather than mandatory. It is also releasing substantial new funding and taking further steps to boost Natural England’s Nutrient Mitigation Scheme and to help tackle the underlying problem of pollution in England’s waterways: 100,000 more homes to be built via reform of defective EU laws – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Nobody wants to see pollution in our rivers and estuaries. But the moratorium on housebuilding caused by Natural England’s guidance has created severe local difficulties without any meaningful environmental benefit. Not building new homes has done nothing to clean up our rivers and does very little to slow the increase in water pollution.

The impact of nutrient neutrality has stopped the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes for more than forty DCN member councils. In the areas affected, it has reduced the number of affordable homes that councils can approve and added as much as £10,000 to the cost of new homes for first time buyers and other purchases. It has also hit local builders and jobs in the supply chain. Bricklayers, roofers, tilers, groundworkers and related traders are all affected.

Councils and local taxpayers have been hit with the burden, cost and consequences of clearing up a problem that should be the responsibly of others to fix.

DCN has worked closely with No.10 and central government to find a solution that unblocks housebuilding and helps local councils but also tackles the underlying problem of water pollution – which absolutely needs fixing. DCN is pleased that today’s announcement includes additional funding and support to do that.

Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen, Chairman of the District Councils’ Network said:

“Today’s action to tackle the unintended impact of nutrient neutrality rules on local housebuilding is excellent news for district councils. It will unblock tens of thousands of much needed new and affordable homes for more than forty of our member councils. It is good for local residents and good for local jobs. The District Councils’ Network has been calling for the Government to act to take the burden of cleaning up our rivers away from councils. We are pleased that it has listened and found a solution that includes substantial new funding to address the underlying pollution problem. We call on parliament to pass the legislation that will make this a reality.”

Notes 

• Natural England’s nutrient neutrality rules affect 43 DCN member councils and another 30 local authorities.
• The Home Builders Federation has calculated that at least 120,000 new homes have been delayed as a result.
• Evidence of the impact of nutrient neutrality from DCN councils includes:
  • In Ashford (Kent), the delivery of 10,000 new homes has been halted with a particular impact on affordable housing. The council has been forced to agree two-thirds fewer affordable houses as viability has been undermined.
  • In Canterbury, over 8,000 new homes and associated jobs and infrastructure have been stalled. SME developers are unable to get new planning consents. The council is having to develop a multi-million-pound mitigation scheme which will reduce the ability of developers to provide funding towards affordable housing and community facilities and will do nothing to improve water quality in the district.
  • In Eastleigh, over £20m has been spent by the council addressing nutrient mitigation.
  • In Somerset, around 18,000 allocated homes are affected and, despite good work to bring forward commercial phosphate credits, fewer than 2,500 stalled properties can proceed. Even where credits are available, costs are high. This is reducing the numbers of affordable homes in perpetuity.
  • Across the county of Norfolk, 41,000 homes across all seven Local Planning Authorities have been put on hold and local builders’ merchants have laid off staff. Smaller family builders are at risk of bankruptcy as land with outline permission is stalled.
  • In Havant, the effect of the rules is that low-density greenfield development has become even more preferable to housebuilders compared to accessible, brownfield regeneration sites where costs have increased due to mitigation.
  • In Dorset, five separate catchments stymie the delivery of new homes, each necessitating a different approach to mitigation. Some 8,000 homes are blocked and a local plan has stalled at examination as a result of the nutrient neutrality requirement.

A guidance document, published by the Department for Business & Trade and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, states that in areas without devolution deals, LEP powers will be integrated into county councils.

“Where not already delivered by a combined authority, or in areas where a devolution deal is not yet agreed, the Government expects these functions to be exercised by upper tier local authorities, working in collaboration with other upper tier local authorities over functional economic areas as appropriate,” levelling up minister Dehenna Davison and enterprise minister Kevin Hollinrake wrote in a letter to council chiefs and leaders.

No reference is made in the letter or guidance for the need for county or unitary councils to cooperate with district councils – the most localised principal authorities. District councils hold powers over economic development, planning, housing, regeneration and the environment.

In response, Cllr Barry Wood, DCN’s regeneration and growth spokesman, said:

“It beggars belief if the Government’s intention is to cut out district councils from the vital drive to support business and create jobs.

“As the most localised principal authorities, districts know their places in more detail than any other tier of government – our officers and members have a uniquely localised understanding of the needs of local businesses and the needs of our communities. We have a unique expertise and knowledge of our local economies which needs to be harnessed if the jobs demanded by our residents are to be created.

“District councils are responsible for the local planning system, regeneration, economic regeneration and the local environment – all of which are essential tools for building sustainable and prosperous local economies. The danger is that by side-lining us, the drive to create new opportunities will be far weaker than it could be.

“District councils stand by to work with other tiers of government – county councils and national government in particular – to grow our local economies. We urge the government to rethink these plans and to ensure our expertise is fully utilised, alongside that of our other local partners, to bring about the jobs and investment our places need.”

The District Councils’ Network is responding to today’s Government announcement on measures to “unblock the planning system and build more homes in the right places”.

While we support the Government’s aims and some of the actions announced – including the extension of the Decent Homes Standard to the private rental sector – will have a positive impact, we are concerned several proposals could lessen local communities’ abilities to ensure development is appropriate, well-designed and meets local needs.

DCN is pleased the Government has announced a new £24m Planning Skills Delivery Fund to ease the pressure on planning departments which has hindered councils’ abilities in recent years to work with developers to ensure appropriate development proceeds. However, the size of this fund needs to be set against the scale of reduction to planning team resources over the past decade.

DCN will fully input into the Government’s consultation on updating the system to produce local plans. We support the goal of reducing cost and bureaucracy but it is essential that local residents and their democratic representatives having a leading role.

District Councils’ Network planning spokesperson Cllr Barry Wood said: “District councils passionately back action to ease the housing crisis but we need to be fully empowered to ensure high standards in new-builds and conversions so developments meet the needs of householders both now and in the future.

“There is a danger that an extension of permitted development rights leads to lower quality, badly situated and potentially unsafe housing to be built. While we support the concept of existing buildings being reused to provide much needed new homes, they need to be safe, pleasant and spacious, or else they risk becoming the slums of tomorrow.

“The £24m investment in planning skills is very welcome. However, member councils repeatedly report that their planning teams are among the most overstretched in local government and have lost countless staff to better-paid private sector roles. The new fund is a positive step but it will be insufficient to end the problems in planning which impact on councils’ ability to approve development.”

The Government also proposes to set up a new central team of planners and other experts to “unblock” developments in specific places, starting with Cambridge.

In response, Cllr Wood said: “While extra resources are urgently required, there is a danger that this proposal will centralise the system, cutting out local people and their democratic representatives from the planning system. We have seen time and time again that it is local communities and local experts who best know local needs.

“It is vital that this does not override the local plans adopted by democratically elected councils, and that the Government also helps to accelerate delivery of much-needed housing on sites within the local plan.”

In our response to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities consultation on the levy which is supposed to increase the number of affordable houses built and amount of infrastructure supplied for new developments, we warn it is likely to have the opposite effect.

We also fear that the plans, which would see councils permitted to borrow against the anticipated future proceeds from the Infrastructure Levy, would heap financial risk on local government.

·        You can read the text of the letter here.

·        The full text of the 30 organisations’ joint press release can be seen below.

·        DCN’s response to the Government consultation is available on request.

Cllr Barry Wood, Regeneration and Growth Spokesperson for the District Councils’ Network, said:

“District councils are committed to building more affordable homes and improving the infrastructure that underpins good housing and thriving communities. But we fear the current Infrastructure Levy proposal is likely to have the opposite effect.

“Like many other organisations working in planning and development, we believe the flaws in the proposals are so great that a fundamental rethink is required. We stand by to work constructively with the Government on achieving our shared goals.

“It is essential that any new system ensures a much greater portion of the increased land value that goes with planning permission is shared with local planning authorities and, in turn, local communities to help us build attractive places in which to live, with all the infrastructure and services new developments require to thrive.

“While we support the principle of local planning authorities being allowed to borrow against the proceeds from the Infrastructure Levy, what has been proposed would significant financial risk on councils – local service users will be the losers if a development takes longer than expected to be completed or a developer goes bust.

“It is also essential that the new system provides money for genuine essential infrastructure – the parks and green spaces, play areas, schools, cultural facilities, transport facilities and health centres required by new developments – and should not be used as a cash cow by other services. It is right that it should be the Local Planning Authority which oversees the correct use of these funds.”

Organisations’ joint press release:

Coalition of councils, housebuilders, housing associations, charities and planners call on government to scrap flagship planning reform

Councils, housebuilders, housing associations, charities and planners have called on the government to scrap a key part of its flagship planning reforms, warning its proposals could see a reduction in affordable homes delivered and less money for vital infrastructure.

A total of 30 organisations, bringing together local authorities, housebuilders, planners and social landlords have written to the Secretary of State for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Michael Gove urging him to not proceed with the government’s proposed Infrastructure Levy, calling on him instead to reform the current developer contributions system.

The letter warns that the levy could make it ‘harder, not easier, for local leaders and communities to secure the benefits of new development’ – resulting in councils and housing providers delivering fewer homes for affordable and social rent, while less critical infrastructure could be built in tandem with development such as roads, health centres, and schools.

Despite the government anticipating that the new system will help bring about more affordable housing, the signatories argue that it is unclear how the proposed levy’s rates and thresholds will protect the delivery of affordable homes, warning that ‘we cannot support reforms that are likely to leave communities with fewer new social and affordable homes, mixed and balanced developments and less of the infrastructure they need.’

The government intends to replace the current developer contributions system, which includes S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), with a new Infrastructure Levy. Payments under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 finance affordable housing and on-site infrastructure whereas CIL funds large-scale infrastructure. The current system currently raises around £7bn per year.

With the levy amalgamating and financing both housing and infrastructure, the letter warns the reforms could raise less money for affordable and social rent homes, whilst there would be less of a legal obligation for this tenure of housing to be included by developers. Last year, Section 106 was responsible for delivering 47% of all affordable homes built.

Councils are concerned that the levy could squeeze the amount of money made available for infrastructure to go alongside development to ease the pressure on existing services and communities.

The signatories warn that, as the government’s own supporting evidence suggests, the levy rates and thresholds would only be practicable on certain sites and would pose a serious threat to housing delivery in many areas. Whilst then model may work on greenfield sites it would make many brownfield sites unviable, perpetuating regional inequalities, creating another barrier to delivery and deepening our already acute housing crisis. 

The letter also warns that the time it would take to roll it out and the complexity of the new system would create prolonged uncertainty across the planning system, and instead have called on the government to work with the sector to improve the current system of S106 and CIL payments.

The letter reads:

“Regretfully, many of the difficulties that we’ve experienced using existing Section 106 (S106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) mechanisms look likely to continue after the new system has been adopted.

It remains unclear how Infrastructure Levy rates and thresholds will sufficiently uphold the economic viability of projects, protect the delivery of affordable homes and homes for social rent and return enough money to fund the infrastructure growing communities need.

…This radical overhaul of the developer contribution system therefore presents significant operational and economic challenges that will make it difficult for existing communities to realise the benefits of new development in their area.”

Notes to editor

·        The following organisations have signed the letter:

Melanie Leech CBE, Chief Executive, British Property Federation

James Francis, Chair, BuildEast

Suzannah Nichol MBE, Chief Executive, Build UK

Muniya Barua, Deputy Chief Executive, BusinessLDN

Eddie Tuttle, Director of Policy, External Affairs and Research, Chartered Institute of Building

Gavin Smart, Chief Executive Officer, Chartered Institute of Housing

Graham Watts OBE, Chief Executive, Construction Industry Council

Mark Reynolds, Co-Chair of the Construction Leadership Council

Sarah Hendry CBE, Director General, Country Land and Business Association

Cllr Roger Gough, Housing and Planning Spokesperson for the County Councils Network

Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen, Chairman of the District Councils’ Network

Cllr Matthew Hicks, Chair, East of England Local Government Association (EELGA)

Brian Berry, Chief Executive, Federation of Master Builders

Fiona Fletcher-Smith, Chair, G15

Karen Cooper, Chair, G320

Stewart Baseley, Executive Chairman, Home Builders Federation

Louise Swain, Chair, Homes for South West

Steve Coffey, Chair, Homes for the North

Shelagh Grant, Chief Executive, The Housing Forum

Paul Brocklehurst, Chairman, The Land Promoters and Developers Federation

Cllr Darren Rodwell, Executive Member for Regeneration, Housing and Planning, London Councils

Cllr Linda Taylor, Chair of Environment, Economy, Housing and Transport Board, Local Government Association

Jules Pipe CBE, Deputy Mayor, Planning, Regeneration and Skills on behalf of the Mayor of London

Richard Beresford, Chief Executive, National Federation of Builders

Kate Henderson, Chief Executive, National Housing Federation

Mike Kiely, Chair, Planning Officers Society

Victoria Hills, Chief Executive, Royal Town Planning Institute

Polly Neate CBE, Chief Executive, Shelter

Ursula Bennion, Chief Executive, Trent & Dove Housing Ltd

Fiona Howie, Chief Executive, Town and Country Planning Association