好色先生TV

Developers have warned of a 鈥渃omplete collapse鈥� in local plan-making after Michael Gove proposed a series of far-reaching planning amendments designed to limit the amount of homes that local authorities have to plan for.

Developer groups said the proposals were a 鈥渃omplete capitulation鈥� to backbench demands to reduce housing supply and showed the government had 鈥済iven up鈥� on pro-housing reform of planning.

The comments came after the housing secretary yesterday wrote to MPs telling them he had decided councils will be able to determine their own housing numbers, and that in future the Planning Inspectorate will not be able to force them to build even where there are green belt, flooding or 鈥渓ocal character鈥� constraints on development.

Michael Gove made clear his department will consult on a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework before Christmas designed to implement the policy reforms, which will make clear that the local housing need figure generated through the Whitehall 鈥渟tandard method鈥� formula will only be 鈥渁n advisory starting point鈥�.

Gove told the House of Common in a that: 鈥淚t will be up to local authorities, working with their communities, to determine how many homes can actually be built鈥�.

Currently, use of the figure determined by the formula is not mandatory for local authorities, but councils have to show that 鈥渆xceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach鈥� if they want to plan for another number.

Significantly, Gove鈥檚 made clear that the new version of the NPPF 鈥渨ill be clear that local planning authorities are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing鈥�, and that 鈥渓ocal planning authorities will be able to plan for fewer houses if building is constrained by important factors such as national parks, heritage restrictions, and areas of high flood risk鈥�.

In addition, Gove鈥檚 letter said that councils will be allowed to cite the character of an area as a constraint to development, and 鈥渨ill not be expected to build developments at densities that would be wholly out of character with existing areas or which would lead to a significant change of character, for example, new blocks of high-rise flats which are entirely inappropriate in a low-rise neighbourhood.鈥�

Gove also set out plans to remove the five year land-supply requirement for councils with plans in place, reduce the requirement for councils reviewing their plans in light of these proposals, and water down the power of the Planning Inspectorate overall, instructing it to 鈥渘o longer override sensible local decision making鈥�. He said 鈥渢his amounts to a rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate, and will give local communities a greater say in what is built in their neighbourhood.鈥�

This will include the government reviewing the soundness test for local plans so they no longer have to be 鈥渏ustified鈥�, and therefore will need to meet a lower bar to be adopted.

>>See also: Fight with housebuilders on the cards as Gove goes back to the future

>>See also: Gove to water down local housing targets following backbench pressure

 

The government also plans to remove the duty to co-operate through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, meaning there will be no reason that any housing need not met in one council due to constraints will be provided for anywhere else.

Gove said he had made the changes because communities felt 鈥渦nder siege鈥� from development. He said: 鈥淚 share the views of many colleagues about the current system.

鈥淭hat it does not provide the right homes in the right places, and at its worst risks imposing ever more stretching housing targets that are out of touch with reality 鈥� leading to developers taking advantage through planning by appeal and speculative development.鈥�

Gove鈥檚 measures follow a significant backbench rebellion of more than 50 Tory MPs, led by Theresa Villiers, who had called for the abolition of 鈥渕andatory鈥� housing targets among a raft of amendments to the Levelling Up bill.

He also outlined proposals for more sanctions against developers for not building out existing sites quickly enough, however, development industry figures hit back at what they characterised as a capitulation to backbench lobbying by Nimby Tories.

The Home Builders Federation has already said that an effective removal of housebuilding targets is likely to reduce housebuilding rates by anything up to 100,000 homes per year as councils rein in the number of homes they plan for. The moves come after more than 20 councils have already this year delayed or withdrawn draft local plans due to the expectation that the government was likely water down housebuilding requirements.

Sam Stafford, planning director at the HBF, told Housing Today: 鈥淐apitulation is a fair description. I think from here we can expect the slowdown in plan-making to turn into a complete collapse because these measures will effectively shut things down鈥�.

He added: 鈥淭he diminution of PINS鈥� role could be to the detriment of the integrity of the planning system well beyond the life of this government.

鈥淭he letter explicitly states housing need is not an exceptional circumstance to justify Green Belt release, which is effectively a moratorium and will be shown to be madness.鈥�

Paul Brocklehurst, chair of the Land Promoters and Developers Federation, said in a post on LinkedIn that 鈥渕any鈥� councils will now 鈥渘ot proceed with Local Plans in the next two years safe in the knowledge there will be no sanction.鈥�

He said: 鈥淚t appears only with a general election will we now be able to get to what we all want which is a plan led system which genuinely seeks to deliver 300,000 new homes, of all types and tenures, built by a range of builders of all sizes.鈥�

Planning barrister Zack Simons, of Landmark Chambers, said the measures showed the government had 鈥済iven up鈥� on planning reform, a described the decision to rule out the ability for local councils to undertake green belt reviews to incorporate housing need 鈥渁bsurd鈥� and 鈥渂ananas.鈥�

Planning lawyer Simon Ricketts, founder of Town Legal, said in a blog that the introduction of a 鈥渃haracter鈥� justification for lowering housing numbers 鈥渨ill be open season for authorities and/or local campaigners to press the case for lower numbers to be adopted and/or for the required proportion of affordable housing to be set at such a financially onerous level that in practice chokes off the prospect of development.鈥�

He added: 鈥淗ow will the government be able to hold to its 300,000 homes a year target if significant numbers of authorities adjust their numbers downwards?鈥�

One of the lead rebel MPs who supported Villiers鈥� amendments, Isle of Wight MP Bob Seely, thanked his supporters and said Gove鈥檚 changes were 鈥渁 decent present in the battle for better planning.鈥� Addressing his constituents on Twitter he added: 鈥淎fter all, you鈥檙e not Nimbys, you鈥檙e local patriots.鈥�