In December, the Government announced significant changes to their house building planning policy, giving new powers and freedoms to local planning authorities, such as Basingstoke and Deane, through changes to the national planning policy framework. These changes allow local authorities to vary their planned house building numbers away from the standard method, among other things. In making these changes, the Secretary of State rightfully attached to these new powers and freedoms a single, clear and unambiguous condition:
“With these changes secure, there is now an added responsibility on local government to deliver.”[1]
For too many years, some planning authorities have relied on Government for their house building figures, choosing the path of least resistance and doing what the standard formula told them, in the absence of having asked council officials to collect evidence, or perhaps for fear of being challenged if they actually questioned the standard method and had to allocate more people to their planning departments. Government Ministers have been clear that those days are over.
In response to my adjournment debate on the subject, Lee Rowley, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety said
‘’we have been consistently clear that the standard method is a starting point for local authorities in assessing what to plan for and that it does not set a mandatory target. The framework now sets that out in national policy. Local authorities should be in no doubt that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point for establishing housing requirements through plan-making. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, that means that local authorities can put forward their own approach to assessing needs where certain exceptional circumstances exist.’’[2]
Minister Rowley went on to explain that on account of these changes, the government not only expects more cases for exceptional circumstances, but also more cases for exceptional circumstances to be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate.
‘’I am absolutely certain that there will be more cases for exceptional circumstances put forward in the future, and I encourage councils to consider them if they believe that they apply. Logically, I would then expect more cases for exceptional circumstances to be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, although that will also be for the inspectorate to determine on a case-by-case basis. It is the Government’s intention to indicate that cases for exceptional circumstances can be made, that local authorities should weigh up making them and that, if they feel that they have a strong case through the Planning Inspectorate process, they do so for the good of the communities they seek to serve.’’[3]
Basingstoke and Deane published these draft local plan papers for public consultation on exactly the same day as the Government’s new policy changes. It is clear this plan doesn’t take account of the Government’s new policies, nor does it consider the concerns that thousands of Basingstoke residents have about the high levels of house building.
This lack of regard is puzzling, especially considering that the Secretary of State’s has been clear that the extensive changes made to the NPPF must be taken into account by the Planning Inspectors. Of course, all the changes apply to all of the country, but certain changes are more important to certain local authorities. For Basingstoke, which has built homes for more than 150,000 people since 1960, the most relevant change is that the standard assessment model—the formula used to determine house building rates - is now an advisory starting point, not a mandatory end point.
Meaning that in places such as Basingstoke, where we have a unique set of factors, the local authority is now able to consider varying more widely from that standard assessment, if certain “exceptional circumstances” are present. As the Secretary of State set out when he announced the changes to the national planning policy framework, it is for local authorities such as Basingstoke and Deane to take responsibility for using the new powers within the NPPF. Whilst the updated NPPF deliberately does not provide an exhaustive list of the applicable exceptional circumstances, it does now show that exceptional circumstances are not to be drawn narrowly, which was too often asserted in the past by local authorities who readily chose to interpret them from case law alone. It is now obvious that local authorities, including Basingstoke, are able to set out their case for exceptional circumstances for a large number of reasons.
When I raised the fact that Basingstoke and Deane had not considered these changes before publishing this draft local plan, the Housing Minister shared my surprise. He said ‘’we absolutely expect local authorities to take into account the NPPF. It has been clear that the NPPF is extant from the moment that it was put in place. … I would be surprised if local authorities were not doing that, because the whole purpose of how they approach plans is to recognise transitional arrangements and the fact that different local authorities will be in different places and will have to work out precisely how to consider them. It is vital that local authorities take note of the national planning policy framework and the update that has been made.’’[4]
The primary and most compelling factor that makes Basingstoke and Deane an outlier as compared to almost anywhere else in the country is our extraordinary levels of historic house building. At the start of the second world war, our population was just 13,000. By 1961, it had grown to 25,000. Today, our population is 186,000, so we have grown from 13,000 to 186,000 in less than a lifetime. Put another way, our population is now almost 1,500 times greater than it was in the second world war. Those are exceptional circumstances that have a clear bearing on the capacity of my community to absorb future high levels of house building.
Residents are clear about this. Thousands want to cut house building levels and have signed up to my petition calling on the Council to call a stop to excessive housebuilding targets. For too long, we have been living in a constant building site with more than 1,000 new homes being built every year, green space disappearing every day, and road works trying to squeeze the last ounce of capacity out of every road and junction. Enough is enough. This local plan clings to the now outdated policy of standard method as its end point, as if it continued to be set in stone and in so doing fails to slow down house building, ratchets up building rates over time to dizzying levels and completely fails to reflect our exceptional circumstances. It is for these reasons that I urge Councillors to take responsibility for their new powers and reconsider. We must dramatically reduce housebuilding until the NHS has caught up and, I would argue, until the County Council find a way to further increase the capacity of our roads, which is technically very difficult. It is a shame that this plan doesn’t reflect those realities and ignores the updated planning framework.
[1] Written statements - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament
[2] Revised National Planning Framework - Hansard - UK Parliament
[3] Revised National Planning Framework - Hansard - UK Parliament
[4] Revised National Planning Framework - Hansard - UK Parliament
