A countryside under siege (pic Susan Pittman)
Many of us are aware that our natural environment is threatened like never before. We experience it through the constant grind of cement-mixers and bulldozers, but sometimes the bureaucratic process is not so clear. Here planning expert and CPRE supporter Michael Hand casts some light on what is driving the current onslaught.
We are under relentless and unparalleled pressure to accommodate significant growth, in particular to meet the demand for new housing.
However, many developments are concentrating on three- and four-bedroom executive homes and not enough ‘affordable’ housing is being delivered.
Much of the South East is experiencing pressure for this unprecedented growth in housing, driven by the ‘housing crisis’ and associated government policy to increase the delivery of new homes by setting higher targets for local authorities to meet.
As guardians of the countryside, local members of CPRE Kent have a key responsibility in upholding the core values of the organisation and defending the beauty of the county against poor-quality and inappropriate new developments.
There are 13 Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in Kent and in many Local Plans have not been adopted.
This void in the planning framework has resulted in opportunistic and speculative applications (by companies such as Gladman Developments Ltd) seeking to exploit councils’ inability to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land.
The effect, already adverse, has been exacerbated by a recent change by the government to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) through publication of a revised version on February 19.
Key changes include an amendment to specify that 2014-based population projections will provide the demographic baseline for the standard method of calculating local housing need rather than the lower 2016-based household projections, which could be used as a reason to justify lower housing need.
This clarification followed the publication of a major revision of the NPPF on July 24, 2018, which, inter alia, clarified the definition of ‘deliverable’.
To be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.
As a consequence, it may be harder for LPAs to provide a five-year housing-land supply, as for example Local Plan allocations cannot generally be used in the calculation, except where “clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years” exists.
The 2018 revision also introduced the Housing Delivery Test for LPAs, a failure in delivery of which kick-starts the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
The first round of Housing Delivery Test results was published in February this year, with 108 councils falling short and 86 required to add more land for housing to Local Plans as a result.
For a number of authorities, this confirms the need to apply a 20 per cent buffer to their housing requirement, with potential ramifications for their ability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
A result of these changes is that speculative applications will still be common practice in the future – and that is why CPRE Kent needs to keep building a strong presence to monitor and respond to inappropriate development proposals.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
CPRE has slammed the government’s revised planning rule book, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as a “speculative developers’ charter”.
In a damning early critique, the organisation says the government has not fulfilled its promise to “build attractive and better-designed homes in areas where they are needed”.
Indeed, the document, published on Tuesday, July 24, continues to “favour the delivery of any development, rather than development that meets communities’ needs, respects the environment, and adheres to policies in the NPPF other than those which deal with housing delivery”.
CPRE’s main worry is the introduction, in November, of a ‘housing delivery test’, which sees councils further encouraged to set high housebuilding targets – the new policy has clearly been designed to enforce those targets.
The test will mean councils are penalised when housebuilders fail to deliver homes in their areas; the ‘punishment’ is the removal of local control over planning decisions.
This, of course, will leave countryside open to speculative development.
Other CPRE concerns include:
- a failure to provide an effective brownfield-first policy
- the continuing failure to support provision of affordable housing in rural areas
- the discouragement of neighbourhood planning because of uncertainty over the validity of Local Plans older than two years
Matt Thomson, CPRE’s head of planning, said: “Rather than delivering ‘what communities want’, as it claims to promise, the new planning rulebook and its new ‘housing delivery test’ will result in almost all Local Plans becoming out of date within two years.
“It is a speculative developers’ charter and will lead to the death of the plan-led system.
“Without a Local Plan, councils and communities have little control over the location and type of developments that take place. Local communities’ needs are ignored and valued countryside [is] destroyed for no good reason.”
Despite its disappointment with the revised NPPF, CPRE applauds some positive moves within it. They include:
- National Parks and AONBs reinstated as having the “highest status of protection”
- Maintenance of Green Belt protections and an improved definition of “exceptional circumstances” for releasing land from Green Belts
- Exclusion of National Parks, AONBs and Green Belts from the Entry Level Exceptions Sites policy
- “Social housing” reinstated in the definition of affordable housing
Hilary Newport, director of CPRE Kent, said: “Unfortunately, the revised NPPF carries on a situation where too much of the power within our planning system lies with developers.
“The housing delivery test, for example, does nothing to restore the balance that’s needed so local planning authorities can direct the development that’s needed to the places it’s needed.”
- For more on CPRE’s response to the revised NPPF, see here
Friday, August 3, 2018
The beauty of Walland Marsh (pic Richard Watkins, flickr)
National Planning Policy Framework… it’s an ugly brute of a name.
Even its shortcut, the NPPF, takes some tongue-twisting getting used to. But it is an important beast and plays a bigger part in our lives than many might think.
To put it at its simplest, the NPPF (we’ll stick with that for now) is the government’s planning rulebook.
It helps determine the principles of countryside protection, the delivery of affordable housing, the provision of infrastructure, the places from where we draw our minerals and aggregates – and very much more.
And right now the NPPF is being consulted upon, because it is going to change. And how it changes will affect us all.
A key driver of the proposed change is what is commonly referred to in the media as ‘the housing crisis’.
CPRE is the first to highlight the fact that too many people are excluded from the housing ladder, while homelessness is an undeniable problem in this country.
However, we don’t believe that the proposed changes, or reforms, to the NPPF will do enough to tackle those issues. Indeed, we suspect that while communities’ needs go unmet, the only people who will really benefit are housebuilders.
It’s a problem caused by the government’s misunderstanding of housing issues and its subsequent weakening of planning rules in a bid to encourage developers.
The ‘crisis’ is of course one of affordability and won’t be addressed by simply building more houses, which is the government’s current approach. Rather, it is a case of the type of homes we build, for whom we build them and where.
‘The right homes in the right places’ has long been a CPRE mantra, and we believe it is possible to build the homes England needs without swathes of our countryside being sacrificed.
We advocate ‘sustainable development’ (the last bit of jargon – honest!) that:
- Supports local democracy by adhering to neighbourhood and local plans
- Ensures realistic and high-quality development based on genuine need, not market demand
- Delivers more affordable homes by closing legal loopholes that put developer profits first
- Adopts a true ‘brownfield first’ approach to development
- Protects our countryside for current and future generations
Many organisations, communities and individuals with many agendas are contributing to the NPPF consultation, and it is vital that CPRE and those who agree with our outlook also make their views known.
The future of the countryside you hold dearest could depend on the changes made to the NPPF, so we urge you to join us in fighting for the best possible outcome, for the countryside, for wildlife – and for people.
We’re asking you to write to your MP, asking them to put communities at the heart for the planning system in the revised NPPF.
You can do that here
Alternatively, given that some MPs do not respond to formatted messages, you might choose to write to them individually.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this consultation. For those of us who love the countryside – indeed those of us who love this country, its people and its traditions – the new-look NPPF will have an impact way beyond anything its cumbersome name might suggest.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Urgent call for your support. Please write to your MP now about changes to national planning policy which the Government is expected to publish in June.
Lenham sunset, photo by Simon Oliver
Getting the right homes in the right places
We are calling for changes that will ensure the right housing is built in the right places, and prevent unnecessary loss of countryside:
- Developers should be tasked with building the developments on permissions they already have, before trying to grab more greenfield land.
- Councils should be empowered to prioritise the use of brownfield sites and restrict competing greenfield development, especially when this would further protect the Green Belt.
- The Government should abandon proposals to relax Green Belt policy and instead make clearer that unnecessary or major losses of Green Belt should be avoided.
- Councils should be able to set housebuilding targets that are based on a realistic assessment of what is likely to actually be delivered.
We have prepared a letter which you can send to your local MP. If you have the time to personalise it, it will be even more effective. Go straight to the letter and take action by clicking here.
For a detailed look at Planning reforms 2016: What’s the problem? click here.
Lavender at Castle Farm, Lullingstone, photo by Glen Humble
April 27th 2016.
High Court judge Mr Justice Mitting has rejected CPRE Kent’s grounds for Judicial Review of the decision to grant planning permission for more than 600 homes in the AONB at Farthingloe, Dover. But he said the charity was right to bring the case to test the planning system.
The plans at Farthingloe include 521 new houses, a 90 apartment retirement village, health facility and conversion of a farmhouse into a bed and breakfast, a thatched barn into a pub/restaurant and a stable block into a shop. All this development wopuld be on AONB land which is supposed to be protected under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).An additional 31 homes are planned at Western Heights, as well as Victoria Hall being redeveloped for nine residential units and a 130-bedroom hotel, plus converting the famous Drop Redoubt into a new museum and visitor centre.
CPRE Kent is not opposed to the principle of new housing development in the district but this should be in the right place, not on an AONB. And we are in favour of the proposed improvements of heritage assets, but this cannot justify the destruction of the AONB.
CPRE Kent Director Dr Hilary Newport said:“We are utterly dismayed and disappointed at the judgement. It is vital that we protect Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty for future generations and to allow this intensive building at Farthingloe makes a mockery of the whole planning system which is supposed to provide the highest level of protection for AONBs. The reality, when tested through the courts, is that it has failed to protect the AONB.