Planning For People
From delivering affordable housing to safeguarding the countryside we love, the planning system affects all of us. The Government is currently reviewing its planning rulebook, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and it will have a significant bearing on our countryside and communities for many years to come.
The campaign
We believe that people should be at the heart of decisions made about development in their local area, but time and again, decisions are made that don’t see their needs met, while developer profits rise.
The proposed reforms to the planning system are supposed to help tackle the housing crisis, but we are concerned that, as they stand, they won’t help us build the affordable homes we need or safeguard our countryside and green spaces.
It is possible to build the homes that people need without needlessly harming our beautiful countryside. This is genuine sustainable development and we can only achieve it with a strong planning system that:
- Supports local democracy by adhering to neighbourhood and local plans.
- Ensures realistic and high quality development based on genuine need notmarket demand.
- Delivers more affordable homes by closing legal loopholes that putdeveloper profits first.
- Adopts a true ‘brownfield first’ approach to development.
- Protects our countryside for current and future generations.
What now?
We have a real opportunity to influence the shape of the system that will guide development decisions for many years to come – and we’ll need your help and support to do it.
The Government’s consultation closes on 10 May and we’re campaigning hard to make sure that they’re thinking about #PlanningForPeople – ensuring that the policies set in stone will deliver for communities and the environment.
You can find out more about what we think of the proposed changes in our briefing, and in the blogs below.
Over the coming weeks, we will be detailing how planning effects our lives through a series of blogs and mobilising our supporters to take action. So watch this space and sign up to our campaigns update emails to make sure you’re kept in the loop.
Blogs
Find out more about what we are calling for:
Planning For People
Five reasons why we should use brownfield first
Get our updates:
Add your email
Sign up
!
Why people need the Green Belt Saving beauty for the people
Planning for People
By Lucy Hawthorne, head of campaigns
It might come as a surprise to most people to find out that the government is currently engaged in a major consultation on planning – and many would also think they don’t care. This month’s announcement of proposed reforms to its rulebook for planning, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), hasn’t the sort of heading that says ‘hold the front page’. Planning’s usually seen as a council form to complete during home renovations or for checking new buildings at the end of their street – the territory of council technocrats or government officials, rather than communities and individuals.
Yet, as most of CPRE’s members know, the planning system is the key mechanism by which the fabric and feel of our built and natural environments are created – and so has a huge bearing on our day-to-day lives and wellbeing.
And while people may not be familiar with the mechanisms of the planning system, they very much care about its outcomes. From the number and affordability of houses that are built at the end of the road, to the schools or bus services for new developments, to the protection of green spaces – whether you live in a village, a town or a city.
But the way planning works at the moment is failing to deliver. Local communities – those people who are affected most by, and live with the outcomes of planning decisions – are all too often unable to actually influence the decision making process. There is a power imbalance in place that favours large developers whose primary goal (as private businesses) is to maximise profit, and not to meet genuine community need.
This imbalance of power exists because the government has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the housing crisis, and in turn weakened planning rules to favour those big developers.
The true crisis in the housing market is one of affordability, and therefore solving it is not just about increasing the overall supply of housing, as in line with current government thinking. More important is the types of homes we build, where we build them and who they are built for.
Young people, for example, are finding it harder than ever to get on to the housing ladder, with only 37% of 25-34 year olds owning a home, compared to 59% just over a decade ago. And, people living in rural areas often face higher average house prices than urban areas, while earning lower incomes. So, developments must be planned according to genuine needs like these that vary up and down the country.
But, private developers generally are not interested in taking these kinds of projects on because they are less profitable. So, loosening planning rules will go no way towards solving the affordable housing crisis. We need stronger planning rules to empower local communities to guide the process, in negotiating with councils and developers, in line with their specific needs.
And it’s clear that people want more from the planning system – perhaps without realising. Polling CPRE conducted last year showed that only 5% of people think that the national government is doing a good job of identifying housing needs in their local area. People are frustrated that the housing crisis continues unabated
Get our updates:
Planning for People
By Lucy Hawthorne, head of campaigns
It might come as a surprise to most people to find out that the government is currently engaged in a major consultation on planning – and many would also think they don’t care. This month’s announcement of proposed reforms to its rulebook for planning, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), hasn’t the sort of heading that says ‘hold the front page’. Planning’s usually seen as a council form to complete during home renovations or for checking new buildings at the end of their street – the territory of council technocrats or government officials, rather than communities and individuals.
Yet, as most of CPRE’s members know, the planning system is the key mechanism by which the fabric and feel of our built and natural environments are created – and so has a huge bearing on our day-to-day lives and wellbeing.
And while people may not be familiar with the mechanisms of the planning system, they very much care about its outcomes. From the number and affordability of houses that are built at the end of the road, to the schools or bus services for new developments, to the protection of green spaces – whether you live in a village, a town or a city.
But the way planning works at the moment is failing to deliver. Local communities – those people who are affected most by, and live with the outcomes of planning decisions – are all too often unable to actually influence the decision making process. There is a power imbalance in place that favours large developers whose primary goal (as private businesses) is to maximise profit, and not to meet genuine community need.
This imbalance of power exists because the government has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the housing crisis, and in turn weakened planning rules to favour those big developers.
The true crisis in the housing market is one of affordability, and therefore solving it is not just about increasing the overall supply of housing, as in line with current government thinking. More important is the types of homes we build, where we build them and who they are built for.
Young people, for example, are finding it harder than ever to get on to the housing ladder, with only 37% of 25-34 year olds owning a home, compared to 59% just over a decade ago. And, people living in rural areas often face higher average house prices than urban areas, while earning lower incomes. So, developments must be planned according to genuine needs like these that vary up and down the country.
But, private developers generally are not interested in taking these kinds of projects on because they are less profitable. So, loosening planning rules will go no way towards solving the affordable housing crisis. We need stronger planning rules to empower local communities to guide the process, in negotiating with councils and developers, in line with their specific needs.
And it’s clear that people want more from the planning system – perhaps without realising. Polling CPRE conducted last year showed that only 5% of people think that the national government is doing a good job of identifying housing needs in their local area. People are frustrated that the housing crisis continues unabated
Get our updates:
Add your email
Sign up
!
and they expect more from our government.
But it is entirely possible to have a planning system that is rebalanced towards community and environmental interest – this is true sustainable development, something the current planning framework purports to support. It is a matter of choice for government on where it puts its emphasis – on meeting people’s genuine needs and safeguarding our countryside for future generations, or fuelling market demand and lining the pockets of private interests through the inflated housing market.
Opportunity for change
We are taking the government’s proposed changes to planning policy seriously. It is our absolute priority for the coming months.
You can read out initial reaction to the government’s proposals here.
We are happy to see how our influence has shaped certain parts of the proposals, including continued protection of the Green Belt, stronger promotion of using brownfield land, and emphasis on developer accountability, including steps toward closing the viability loophole that has resulted in the loss of many affordable homes.
However, the fundamental problem with the NPPF has not been addressed. It continues to insist that development ‘needs’ should be met, but conflates actual people’s ‘need’ for development with abstract indicators of ‘demand’ based on ‘market signals’.
This leads to the setting of unrealistic national housing targets (currently 300,000 houses per year) that developers have neither the will nor the desire to meet. When targets are not met, it is the local authorities that feel the brunt of it. Their influence over where developments go, what they are, and who they are for, is taken away, and developers are given even more power to cherry pick the cheapest sites to build on (usually swathes of green land), and the types of houses to build (ones that make the most profit and are not in line with local need).
Until this underlying issue is resolved, the NPPF will not deliver truly sustainable development.
What we want
From the NPPF’s inception in 2012, CPRE has been at the forefront of campaigning to improve it, to ensure it delivers a planning system that works for people and the environment.
We want to see an NPPF with policies that are good for people and the environment, taking account of:
Where developments go? Will your village see new homes sensitively placed, using existing brownfield rather than green fields?
What developments happen? Will homes built be affordable for people in their area, or the size or tenure they need?
Who makes the decisions on this, and in whose interests? Will communities’ wishes be respected or developers simply build what makes most profit?
The consultation closes in early May and we will be campaigning hard over this period. We’ll be analysing the proposals in detail, working with fellow experts and our own network of experienced branch volunteers to make recommendations on what the government can improve further, and making use of our links with Westminster and Whitehall to push for them to be enacted.
And between now and then we will be unpacking the NPPF, telling a different part of the story each week and letting know how you can be involved. So keep an eye out for weekly blogs and updates on our social media channels. You can also sign up to our mailing list for more information.
The impact of CPRE’s campaigning should not be underestimated. The hallmarks of our influence are written through the proposals, but there is still a great deal of work to do.
Protecting the distinctiveness of this very special coast 