Elephants in the Room: Green Belts vs. the Housing Delivery Test
Change has come to America, friends. And on our rather more modest side of the pond, it’s also been a week of big news. OK, maybe not quite as big as new presidents (although #planoraks have one of those too). But you know. For our housing stats friends, this week’s like Christmas morning. You guessed it, folks… it’s time for the Government’s annually-3-months-late Housing Delivery Test results. The HDT. Settle down, uncork something special, and open up Excel. It’s about to get statistical.
You remember the HDT, right? In 2018, the Government introduced it alongside the new standard housing method (aka everybody’s favourite mutant algorithm) as a way of making the housing numbers game more transparent and argument-free (that seems to be working out well, Ed.). The idea’s simple - the rules are here. In short, we take the last 3 years of requirement and completions for each local planning authority. And we get a % score. The point of the HDT? To help maintain the supply of housing: §75 NPPF.
This is the first year of fully phased-in HDT. So from now on, if your authority scores under 75% (i.e. you’ve delivered under 75% of the housing you’d targeted over the last 3 years), then… [drum-roll] there will be consequences! Oh yes. What are they? Well, the “tilted balance” may apply - more on that here, and see the most recent Court of Appeal case this month here.
So in a nutshell, starting this week, several authorities are to be known as “presumption” authorities. Where the “tilted balance” could kick in. Which means you get your consent unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole”? Or do you? That’s the whole point - isn’t it? Is it now, as Dr Bartlett used to say, “Game On" for the development industry?
Well. Not so fast, friends. Not nearly so fast.
It’s a tale of two plans:
Spot anything interesting? Now you’ve got those plans in your minds, re-read §11(d) NPPF:
“where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date 7 , granting permission unless:
(i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed 6 ; or
(ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”
As any good lawyer will tell you, it’s all in the footnotes. Footnote 7 tells us that a sub-75% HDT score can activate the tilted balance. But footnote 6’s the kicker. Because that’s where we see a list of policies which can de-activate the tilted balance. And the list includes policies relating to “land designated as Green Belt”.
So. In circumstances where there are no “very special circumstances” to support new housing (more on the meaning of that tricky little phrase in a future post), the Green Belt chapter of the NPPF will provide a “clear reason for refusing” the scheme under §11(d)(i). Which means in 9 cases out of 10, you will never get anywhere remotely close to a “tilted balance” in Green Belt authorities as a consequence of their failing of the HDT.
Why does this matter? Here’s why:
The HDT mechanism is designed to make it easier, not harder, to get permission for housing in poorly performing areas to ensure those authorities catch up with delivery; however
The areas desperately failing to meet their (often already constrained) housing targets are very frequently Green Belt authorities (see the plans above) - which isn’t the world’s most surprising observation, but it means that…
Because of NPPF footnote 6 and the very stringent approach decision-makers tend to take to “very special circumstances” the balance will very rarely “tilt” in those areas; which in turn means that…
The consequences of failing the HDT are, for many authorities… nil. Zilcho. Nada. Niente.
So. We have ourselves a broken policy tool, folks. A fundamental clash. Luckily, though, it’s nothing about too important. Just the central Governmental mechanism at the heart of driving housing delivery in the areas of the country which most need it. So no biggie.
The main areas where the HDT will actually bite are urban areas like Tower Hamlets where they’re already desperately struggling to keep up with spiralling housing need figures, and the Government continues to pile the pressure on in a way which is totally unrealistic. But most of the time, in most of the “presumption” authorities, let’s be honest. Because of footnote 6, the HDT doesn’t work. It just doesn’t. It won’t do the job to help us get close to the recently re-affirmed 300,000 home annual target.
And that’s a problem. Because under the Planning White Paper, the proposal is to ditch the requirement to show a 5 year supply of housing land. Instead, the Government tells us, we can all rely on the HDT. But here’s the thing, #planoraks. We can’t rely on it. Unless and until the consequences of failing the HDT actually matter. For all authorities. Until that failure has an impact. Until it changes the policy tests which apply. Until then… well, you know the rest. More under-delivery. More broken promises. More people in need of new homes. I don’t want to sound like a broken record. But that’s tricky when policy-makers keep playing the same tune.
In the end, it’s a classic expression of that most characteristic, age-old conflict in English planning policy. Two mutually inconsistent imperatives. The desire to meet housing need vs. the desire to (quote unquote) “protect” the Green Belt. Whatever that means. Under the current policy framework, like it or not (and some of you may like it a lot) there’s only one winner in that tug of war. And that winner is the whopping great belted green elephant in the room. Which - as you know - I think we need to talk about. Pronto.
I don’t want this blog to get too predictable! So I promise next week’s post will not even mention the words “green” or “belt”. Even once. There are other bits and bobs in the planning system worth talking about. From time to time. In the meantime, stay safe and well #planoraks. Enjoy your HDT scores! And carry on planning.
