[insert planning related pun here]

As the Guardian pointed out today, there is just too much news at the moment. Too many tragedies, unfolding economic disasters, and environmental catastrophes, as much of the deluge of news is bad. Something that hasn't had much coverage, however, is the draft National Planning Policy Framework issued yesterday. I can see why it hasn't been afforded a lot of notice, but this document is very important indeed. It will have a vast influence on how the UK's built environment changes, or does not, over the next few years.

One of the government's stated aims for CLG has always been to simplify the planning system. Ministers decry the huge volume of planning guidance, which runs to thousands of pages and represents to them so much red tape. This is to be replaced by a single National Planning Policy Framework, which will set out simply how the government wants planning to work. Everything else will be delegated to local and/or neighbourhood level, regions having been abolished. Rationalising reams of guidance on a large number of specific issues (for example, transport, flood risk, and telecommunications) into a single, simple document was never going to be an easy task. This explains why the national framework has been repeatedly delayed.

Now we finally have it, and it runs to a mere fifty-three pages plus glossary. This is certainly much more convenient than all that it replaces, and students of planning law will be delighted to find their reading lists reduced in such a radical manner. The framework provides a neat summary of the issues that 21st century planning has to grapple with. (With the exception of gypsies and travellers, who aren't mentioned at all. Presumably acknowledging them was considered too contentious, and their needs were assumed to be tacitly included in planning for housing requirements.) For the most part, existing guidance is rationalised, for example the flood risk and retail policies. However, there are also some very significant changes. In short, NIMBYs beware, you're in for a scare.

The primary role of the planning system is now explicitly to deliver sustainable development, defined as meeting economic, social, and environmental needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The long-promised 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' is set out, and rather heavy-handedly the following is added, 'significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system'. It could be argued that this turns the role of the planning system from plan-making to getting out of the way.

The government harps on about increasing people's control of planning, but this presumption will do the opposite. Councillors would find it very difficult to refuse planning applications, and even harder to win appeals against refusals. When your local plan is outdated, refusing an application would only be possible if 'the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole'. More significantly, even if an up-to-date plan is in place, the presumption in favour of sustainable development still applies and must be taken into account. Neighbourhood plans will not be able to block development, only to propose more of it. The whole system is being reweighted in favour of planning applicants.

Local plans will also need to be based on objectively assessed needs, requiring 'proportionate' and integrated evidence on housing, economic development, infrastructure, and the environment. It is significant that the last goverment's housing targets were below the assessed housing need. Also, the housing section of the framework flatly states that, 'The Government's key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes.' This is reinforced by the further statement that, 'Local Plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.' Ergo, more housing development, especially in places with poor affordability.

I don't want to give the idea that the new planning world will be a complete free-for-all. Local plans will still be able to specify restrictions on how land is used or whether it is developed, as long as there is evidence to support this. How much of a free-for-all actually ensues will depend on how these two adjacent clauses are balanced in practise:

'The planning system is plan-led. Therefore Local Plans, incorporating neighbourhood plans where relevant, are the starting point for the determination of any planning application.

'In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.'

That is where planning lawyers will be spending many billable hours in years to come.

Meanwhile, allocations of land in Local Plans will need to be viable and deliverable, whereas currently they merely have to be deliverable. I think this terminology change means that local planning authorities will have a harder time getting financial contributions from developers - when those contributions are subject to viability. To get technical for a moment, the Community Infrastructure Levy (when implemented) is like a tax on development and developers cannot negotiate it down if their development seems less profitable. However, the proportion of affordable housing in a housing development is subject to viability, and where the line is drawn depends on case law.

So planners will now have to determine from the outset whether sites 'provide acceptable returns to a willing land owner and willing developer', taking into account contributions to infrastructure and affordable housing. This is incredibly difficult and would I suspect make it easier for developers to argue down levels of affordable housing. Or perhaps not, as plans must also be based on evidenced need, and there is plenty of evidence that affordable housing is needed around the country. (As an aside, case law suggests that 'acceptable returns' for a developer are currently around 20% profit on costs. Supposedly they can only get bank loans if such high returns can be demonstrated.)

The framework would seem to make it much more difficult for local planning authorities to refuse planning permission on the basis of factors like poor design, impact on traffic, or inappropriateness of siting. However, lest the shires start to panic, 'The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.' The draft framework assumes that new buildings in the green belt are 'inappropriate' and should not be allowed except under 'very special circumstances'. Interestingly, such circumstances include development approved by micro-referendum under a Community Right to Build Order, which would be permitted as long as it preserved the qualities of the green belt.

Personally, I am very interested in the effect that the new planning context will have on the delivery of renewable energy. Broadly I think the framework could improve the situation, although this is by no means certain as there are several policies that would interact. Firstly:

'When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.'

Depending on how 'very special' case law deems the global threat of climate change to be, this could be used to prevent renewables on the green belt. Which, lest we forget, covers 13% of England. However, elsewhere in the framework it is stated that:

'local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low-carbon sources,' and

'When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development and:

• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low-carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and

• approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once opportunity areas for renewable and low-carbon energy have been mapped in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying opportunity areas.'

Notably, the government has dampened the pro-renewables language in the earlier independent practitioners draft of the framework (that they comissioned), which stated that:

'When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should [...] not presume against energy development outside mapped areas nor require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low-carbon energy or question the energy justification for why a proposal for renewable and low-carbon energy must be sited in a particular location.'

I think the effective difference is that local planning authorities are being given the chance to plan pro-actively for renewables, but also potentially constrain where they are developed. There is thus the possibility that very limited space could be designated by lots of local planning authorities, adding up to a woefully insufficient national renewable energy supply. That said, until local planning authorities actually set out such pro-active policies, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. Moreover, it would seem to still be a strong consideration once plans are in place, likely resulting in a high rate of success at appeal.

I do feel sorry for planners. They must be under enormous pressure to get their local plans in place and up to date as soon as possible, to forestall all kinds of unexpected planning applications, whilst also being required to involve as much of the community as possible, even if the community are reluctant and the provisions of the Localism Bill still in flux. As plans must be needs-based, a lot of evidence about housing, economic development, and all kinds of infrastructure is urgently needed. Moreover, there's the Community Infrastructure Levy to implement if the local planning authority has any hope of collecting meaningful contributions to infrastructure from development over the next few years. Also forthcoming zero carbon homes requirements, which will force local planning authorities to decide what to do about allowable solutions (a form of carbon offset). Meanwhile, planning budgets are being slashed and posts lost, planners are branded obstructive bureacrats, and local councillors tend to take the government's localism rhetoric at face value. Tough times for the planning profession.

But how can you as a citizen make the National Planning Framework work for you? If I had money to invest, this is what I would do. First, dig through DECC's renewable energy data to find rural local planning authorities with a lot of wind energy potential. Then I'd check which have out-of-date local plans, likely ending up with quite a substantial list. Within those areas, I'd look for agricultural land suitable for wind farms (taking into account buffer zones and other factors set out in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure), rent or buy it, then put in planning applications for wind farms. Even if the local planning authority found some pretext on which to refuse the applications, they should be easily won on appeal, thanks to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

This strategy should yield good financial returns, whilst increasing the UK's renewable energy supply, greatly annoying climate change deniers, and highlighting the vast chasm of understanding between national and local Conservative politicians. The attempts of local councillors to describe wind turbines as economically, socially, and environmentally unsustainable would be entertaining to witness, I suspect. (If you'd like a sneak preview, read this recent appeal decision. Hard as it is for me to say, in this rare instance I agree with Eric Pickles.)

Overall, my opinion of the draft Planning Policy Framework is inconclusive. It could allow rampant poor-quality development and general mayhem, but won't necessarily. A lot depends on the interpretation of the word 'sustainable'. Planning guidance did badly need simplification, and although I don't agree with every facet, this framework is a better start than I was expecting. As ever, the devil will be in the detail. A word of advice, though. If you are genuinely averse to new development and would like avoid exposure to it, move deep into the greenbelt because this new vision of the planning system looks not unlike the Thatcher model of the 1980s. Except, hopefully, with more wind farms.

Stormy Weather

I have a confession to make: I can't bring myself to read the Open Public Services White Paper. Whenever I try and steel myself to pick it up, all I can think of is David Cameron tearing the social contract into tiny pieces whilst laughing maniacally. That is not a pleasant mental image.

Instead, I've read Vince Cable's 2009 book about the credit crunch, titled 'The Storm'. He wrote it in haste to try and explain the causes of the financial downturn, back when the idea of Liberal Democrats in the cabinet would have provoked disbelieving laughter. Reading it with the benefit of hindsight is very interesting.

When I borrowed this book from the library, I thought it would display the vast extent of Cable's hypocrisy once he become a government minister. I was surprised to find that some of his 2009 viewpoints accord quite closely with the coalition's stated programme. The book articulates Liberal Democrat ideology much more clearly than any of their election campaigning ever did. Cable's view is liberal in the old-fashioned sense of the word; pro-markets and anti-state in principle, but agreeing that there is need for a strong legal, regulatory, and fiscal policy basis for markets to operate within. Superficially, this agenda seems to differ from the Conservative Party (who dispute the need for a strong legal, regulatory, and fiscal policy basis, painting it all as red tape) and the Labour Party (who are more pro-state, insofar as they actually invested in public services). That's a vast oversimplification, which credits UK political parties with an ideological coherence that they don't have, but it does point to a certain sympathy between Conservative and Liberal policies. Labour at least pretended to put people before markets.

Cable clearly articulates the need for reduced UK public spending to get rid of the so-called structural deficit (a disputed term, I should add). This is now the coalition's favourite soundbite. He also emphasises the need for stronger regulation of banking. The current government have talked about this at some length; their actions have conspicuously failed to live up to their words. Remember Project Merlin and how banks continue to ignore it? Remember when banks were allowed to pay unlimited bonuses? I don't think that this was what Cable had in mind in 2009. That said, his concern was the need for multilateral reform, given the international nature of the crisis. He has been making the right noises, just without supporting action.

There is a seemingly minor but critical distinction to be made between Conservative and Liberal Democrat economic policy: in his book Cable proposes public sector cuts once stimulus has got the private sector growing; Osbourne's approach is predicated on cuts to the public sector acting as the stimulus. The former nuance has clearly been subsumed under the great coalition carnival of cuts. As I've said many times before, I doubt such sudden and deep cuts will turn out well for anyone, least of all the most vulnerable in society, the economy, and the Liberal Democrats as a political party.

'The Storm' makes it clear that unbalanced housing policy contributed significantly to the economic crisis. Cable notes that the hysterical pursuit of home ownership (influenced by political, financial, and media hype) brought about a destructive house price bubble. To avoid it happening again, a more-balanced housing market with greater proportions of social and private rented property is needed. That is definitely not what the present Housing Minister and his ministry are working towards. Interestingly, Cable suggests that a period of deflation could help to prevent a second property bubble. In 2009, this was a real possibility and deflation did actually occur (if you go by RPI). These days, inflation is above 4% and being driven by food and fuel prices rises over which the government has very little control. Both markets are dominated by cartel behaviour and global in nature, as other chapters helpfully explain.

This book is definitely at its best when looking at the global picture; the rise of China and India as economic powers, the perversity of richer countries borrowing heavily from poorer, and trends in energy and food markets are all summarised neatly. I strongly take issue with the relegation of climate change to an afterthought, though. Nonetheless, 'The Storm' is well worth reading and covers a lot of ground within 157 pages. Ultimately, though, it is fatalistic. The UK is waning as economic power, many contributory factors to the downturn remain beyond UK policy control, and even if we get our domestic policy in order recovery will remain difficult.

Cable sensibly doesn't try and predict the future; he didn't foresee the alarming prospect of Greece, Ireland, Italy, and the US threatening to default on their debts, for instance. Rather, he presents a frankly depressing vision of where things were in 2009 and the main problems that needed to be addressed. It's now 2011 and those problems remain unfixed; rebalancing the housing market, investing in education and research to strengthen the economy, economic rebalancing away from financial services, and promoting fairness by using the tax system to reduce inequality. I haven't seen evidence of the coalition government making progress with any of that, despite frequent name-checking of the latter two aims.

I still think that Vince Cable has acted hypocritically and consider his callous attitude to Southern Cross unforgivable. However all politicians (indeed all humans) are hypocrites sometimes and working in a coalition inevitably requires compromise. The astute analysis in 'The Storm' demonstrates that Cable must realise how ineffective and downright dangerous most of the policies he has to support are likely to be. As the economy stalls, the euro totters, and America seems doomed to be downgraded, I wonder if he thinks such compromise was worth it?

I did find one prediction in the concluding chapter of Cable's book: 'There is a long period of austerity ahead'. It's hard to argue with that.

On The Street

The government has a glorious vision that they will end rough sleeping, a praiseworthy aim that no-one can in good conscience take issue with. The Prime Minister, no less, states in the introduction to their new vision document that,

It is an affront to this country that last winter, one of the coldest on record, there were people still sleeping rough on our streets. While the temperature dropped below freezing, many were making do with doorways and cardboard boxes for beds. In a civilised society, this is totally unacceptable.

How right you are, Mr. Cameron! Moreover, he goes on to say that,

...tackling rough sleeping is not just about providing homes. It is about dealing with the wider causes of homelessness, from family breakdown and mental illness to drug addiction and alcoholism. This is a complex, multi-faceted problem.

Again, very true and reassuring to hear that at the highest level the government understand the complicated nature of the problem. If only this understanding was matched with some idea of the solutions. Set out in the vision document are six cross-departmental commitments to end homelessness. Before I get to them, here are seven actions the government is taking or has taken that are directly relevant to the number of people without homes. None of these are mentioned in the vision document:

1. Radically altering the nature of social housing tenure. Currently mean weekly rent in the social rented sector is £75, less than half the private sector level of £156. The government is introducing a new tenure called 'affordable rent', which by default will be set at 80% of private rent (although theoretically there will be flexibility to set it lower). New and moving tenants will be presented with this exciting new tenure, plus existing tenants may be encouraged to switch. 'Affordable rent' tenancies will also be fixed term by default; currently social renting offers a tenancy for life or until the tenant no longer wants it. All this amounts to making social renting much more expensive and less secure.
   
   
2. Cutting housing benefit in a number of ways (including capping, indexing to a measure of inflation that doesn't including housing costs, and calculating local housing allowance with reference to the cheapest 30% of properties rather than 50%), such that it won't be enough to cover either 'affordable rent' or private rent in many places. This is expected to reduce the government's spending on housing benefit by £1.8 billion. The Chartered Institute of Housing calculated that the changes could price private tenants on housing benefit out of, well, Britain.
   
   
3. Weakening the duty on Local Authorities to help the homeless. Currently if you are homeless and ask your Local Authority for help, they can offer you private rented accommodation but you do not have to accept it. Under the Localism Bill proposals, if you did not accept the private rented option, the Local Authority wouldn't have to help you any further. The devil is in the detail here; how suitable does the offer need to be? What if it is too far from your job, or your child's school? Private rental is also insecure, with assured shorthold tenancies rarely lasting beyond 6 months, prone to volatile rent, and of poorer quality than other tenures.
   
   
4. Cutting Local Authority funding, which impacts both on housing departments and on charities that rely on public sector grants, which form between them the front line of help for the homeless.
   
   
5. Reforming the planning system through the Localism Bill, to remove regional housing targets and introduce confusing new ways of involving neighbourhoods (whatever they turn out to me). The Chief Executive of Taylor Wimpey, one of the UK's biggest house builders, said this of the proposals:
   
   ...can I tell you my great fear? In three years’ time, it all stops. We are operating currently on existing consent and on land banks. We need a flow of consent coming through the process to maintain and grow business. I fear that we will reach a point, in about three years’ time, when what we have currently on the stocks runs out, where in fact we have not got that supply coming through. That is the big challenge. That is the sort of transition [...] which so badly needs to be addressed.
   
   House builders obviously have a bit of a vested interest here, but he also has a good point. There is a shortage of housing in the UK and uncertainty about the planning system will only delay the building of anything.
   
   
6. Cutting the National Affordable Homes Programme from £8.4 billion (2008-11) to £4.5 billion (2010-13, notice the overlap) and stating that it will only be spent on the new 'affordable rent' tenure. This housing will not meet the needs of the most vulnerable and impoverished people, by definition those who are most at risk of homelessness.
   
   
7. Rejecting the conclusions of the Rugg Review, which called for regulation of the private rented section to deal with abusive landlords and substandard accommodation. The review proposed a light-touch system of regulation designed to stabilise the sector and encourage investment. The sector was supportive, but the government labelled it red tape and that was that.

As a result of this combination of policies, affordable housing will become scarcer, private renting remain insecure, social and private rents will rise, and housing benefit will reduce, whilst the Local Authority safety net weakens. The implications are worrying, and the Department of Communities and Local Government is well aware of it. The six-month-old letter recently leaked baldly states that just the changes to benefits will generate more than £270 million of additional costs to Local Authorities and cause 40,000 households to become homeless.

Wait a moment, didn't the Prime Minister say he really wanted to end rough sleeping? Let's look at the government's six commitments to do so.

1. 'Helping people off the streets' by providing £20 million for a Homelessness Transition Fund. If that much money could end homelessness, surely there would be no-one sleeping rough at the moment. It will go to Homeless Link,a body representing organisations that work with the homeless and be spent on grants to pilot new ways of working.
   
   
2. 'Helping people access healthcare' by, well, I can't really tell. The verbs used are 'highlight', 'support', and 'work with'. I've used such phraseology before and know what they equate to - very little. The government is trying to devolve healthcare commissioning to the local level, so how can they ensure the health needs of the homeless are fully met in every locality?
   
   
3. 'Helping people into work' by using the Work Programme. However effective the new private-sector led approach might be, it will be impeded by the fact that there are currently 2.6 million more unskilled workers than jobs. If there aren't enough private sector jobs, what then?
   
   
4. 'Reducing bureaucratic burdens' by reducing guidance and local authority reporting requirements. I genuinely don't understand how this will this tackle homelessness. Ironically, it might make it harder to calculate the level of homelessness nationally. Notably, there's also no mention in the report of how CLG will even monitor whether their pledge is being met.
   
   
5. 'Increasing local control over investment in services' by analysing the costs of homelessness. That one just sounds like a non sequetur. Community-based budgets are also referenced, but it seems quite a heroic assumption that giving the community greater control over Local Authority money will automatically result in better services for the homeless. The government has also removed the ringfence on homelessness grant, leaving Local Authorities free to spend it on whatever their councillors might choose. Call me unduly cynical, but the homeless are not a big local election voting demographic. It's worthy of note that taking away the ringfence on the Supporting People budget (which also assists the vulnerable) has resulted in it being dramatically cut by many Local Authorities.
   
   
6. 'Devolving responsibility for tackling homelessness' by giving the Mayor of London unspecified new responsibilities and £34 million to try and cushion the seismic impact benefit changes will have in London.
   

That final so-called commitment is the real key to this. The government has made a grand statement about ending rough sleeping, something that no government has managed even in times of economic growth and increasing public spending, then dumped the responsibility for actually doing it onto Local Authorities. Whilst making unprecedented cuts to their budgets. Nice work, Mr. Shapps. Is it really credible to presume the measures that form this vision will more-than-counterbalance the huge negative effects of other policies?

The above might give you the idea that I am doubtful that rough sleeping will cease to exist over the next four years. Meanwhile, the Mayor of London has pledged to end rough sleeping in the capital by 2012. According to figures from the charity Crisis, 3975 people slept rough at some point in London during 2010/11, an increase of 8 per cent on the previous year's total of 3673 and of more than a thousand since 2005/06. The cuts to housing benefit have yet to be implemented. Five and a half months to go, Boris. Good luck.

Actually ending rough sleeping would be a strikingly impressive thing to do. However the government's policies are already increasing homelessness, and by their own admission will continue to do so. Far from articulating ways to solve the problem, they are making it dramatically worse. Their whole vision for ending rough sleeping is thus just an empty promise and a waste of words. I can only hope that the members of parliament who signed their names to this incredibly hypocritical document are eventually held to account for it.