Back to Basics: Housing Need and Delivery

 

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:

Continue reading

Revised National Planning Policy Framework—will it fix the housing market?

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

Impact of revised National Planning Policy Framework

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 From November 2018 local plans will be deemed out of date if the LPA fails to deliver 25% of its housing target as assessed by the new standardised methodology; this threshold will increase in subsequent years to 45%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

Supreme Court rules on the correct interpretation of the phrase “relevant policies for the supply of housing”

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?

5. Conclusions

Continue reading