From 25 January 2019 (although see here for our commentary on the ambiguity surrounding the actual date), local planning authorities must use the new standard methodology for assessing housing need set out in the National Planning Policy Framework published in July 2018 (“NPPF”). As part of our ‘back to basics’ blog series, this blog post explores:
This Thursday is 24 January 2019, a hotly anticipated date in the planning world because this is the date referred to in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) as the date after which the policies in the revised NPPF will apply for the purposes of examining local plans. Paragraph 214 of the NPPF states that the policies in the old 2012 NPPF will continue to apply to the examination of plans submitted “on or before 24 January 2019“.
However, a technical consultation (‘Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance’) published by the government in October 2018 states at paragraph 20 that:
… The use of the standard method applies to plan-making for plans submitted on or after the 24 January 2019 [our emphasis]. Any period specified for using the 2014-based projections would use this as the start date.
Paragraph 21 of the technical consultation goes on to say that:
… there are approximately 50 plans that will be submitted for examination in 2019. Any of these plans that are submitted on or after the 25 January 2019 [our emphasis] will be required to use the standard method to inform strategic housing policy.
Our view is that the adopted NPPF must take precedence over a consultation document, even one published after the NPPF, and therefore it is clear that the policies in the old 2012 NPPF will continue to apply to the examination of plans submitted on 24 January 2019, notwithstanding the inconsistency in the dates referred to in the technical consultation. However, local authorities who want to be absolutely sure should submit their plans for examination before Thursday if possible, ie tomorrow. Continue reading
Viability is at the heart of the extent to which private developers can be expected to bridge the gap between demand for and supply of affordable housing. In April this year, in a postscript to his judgment in the case of Parkhurst Road Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another  EWHC 991 (Admin), Mr Justice Holgate said that “uncertainty on how viability assessment should properly be carried out” is leading to “a proliferation of litigation” and called on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) to revisit its 2012 Financial Viability in Planning Guidance. Since then, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published together with revised Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on viability, but a review of the RICS guidance is still ongoing. On 5 October, the Deputy Mayor of London and the Executive Member for Housing & Development at Islington Council wrote a joint open letter to the President of the RICS regarding affordable housing and the 2012 RICS Financial Viability in Planning Guidance. Their letter asks RICS to revisit its guidance, as called for by Holgate J. Continue reading
This blog post explores how the meaning of affordable housing has evolved following the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) on 24 July 2018 and the Draft New London Plan showing Minor Suggested Changes on 13 August 2018. This is part of our ‘back to basics’ affordable housing series and is intended to supersede entry 1 in the series. Continue reading
This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Planning on 9 August 2018.
Will the government’s new planning rulebook deliver on its promises? Robert Walton, barrister at Landmark Chambers, says the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a step in the right direction and should result in more houses. Matthew White, partner and head of the planning team in Herbert Smith Freehills LLP’s London office, predicts that, by itself, the revised NPPF will not streamline the planning process, nor close the gap between planning permissions and housing delivery. Continue reading
The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 24 July 2018. This post considers what difference it will make – in terms of the impact on developers, whether the government’s aims will be achieved and how soon its effects might be seen.
Impact on developers
On the whole, policies in the revised NPPF are more restrictive. Tighter controls over design standards, green belt boundaries, developer contributions and viability appraisals, stronger protection for the environment and the introduction of the “agent of change” principle to new development all provide little incentive to bring forward development.
A welcome change, however, is that LPAs should now take a more flexible approach to daylight and sunlight issues.
The new standardised methodology for calculating housing need, which takes effect immediately, represents a significant change for residential development. It will provide more certainty on housing requirements in each LPA’s area, generally with an increase in housing targets. Local authorities’ success in delivering against these targets will be assessed by the new Housing Delivery Test. From November 2018 local plans will be deemed out of date if the LPA fails to deliver 25% of its housing target as assessed by the new standardised methodology; this threshold will increase in subsequent years to 45% of the target from November 2019 and 75% of the target from November 2020. If local plans are deemed out of date the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be brought into play, increasing the likelihood that planning permission will be granted. Continue reading
This post has been superseded by a new post assessing affordable housing under the revised National Planning Policy Framework published in July 2018 and the draft New London Plan showing Minor Suggested Changes published in August 2018. See here for the new post.
“Affordable housing” – two words that those working in the property and planning world can hardly move without seeing flashed about everywhere. There is a wealth of information available on the subject. However, much of it is technical, highly detailed and assumes an existing level of knowledge that can make it hard for those who are new to the industry or who haven’t previously come across affordable housing to really get to grips with the subject. This blog is the first in a series of blogs that we will be publishing over the coming weeks that will go back to basics to explain what is affordable housing in England, what are the different types, who is eligible for it, how is it implemented and what it means for private developers.
1. Where is affordable housing defined?
2. What are the different types of affordable housing?
3. The London Plan
Author: Charlotte Dyer, Senior Associate, Planning, London
On 10 May 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its eagerly anticipated judgment in respect of two housing appeals against decisions made by Suffolk Coastal District Council and Cheshire East Borough Council. The case centered on the appropriate interpretation of paragraphs 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Both appeals had been brought on the ground that the decision-maker in each case had misunderstood the key NPPF phrase "relevant policies for the supply of housing".
This is not the first time that this had been the subject of judicial consideration. On seven separate occasions between October 2013 and April 2015, the Administrative Court ruled on this, with little consistency between the judgments. One expects that the Supreme Court judges were rather pleased that they would finally get to have their say on this when these appeals finally landed on their desks. Indeed Lord Carnwath explained at the very beginning of his judgment that this was an issue of "controversy" in respect of which the court had been urged "to bring much needed clarity to the meaning of the policy". Below I will explain the judgment and consider its wide ranging implications.
1. What does the NPPF say?
2. How had this been interpreted previously?
3. How did the Supreme Court interpret this?
4. What else did the Supreme Court say?