Here we Gove again

I had dearly hoped that Michael Gove would make his grand planning announcement on Valentine’s day, falling back in love with planning. The gift we were all dreaming of. Instead, irony of ironies, he chose instead the first day of the High Court challenge into the M&S decision. You couldn’t make it up. Except, I think he does. Can anyone work out how you get from M&S to the South Bank decision; Mornington Crescent anyone?

?So, to today’s announcements. Where to start? ?Heavily trailed, made during recess and with a generous helping of PD rights, it feels like we may have been here before. To quote the old cliché, if we had a new home for each announcement professing to solve the housing crisis, there wouldn’t be one. It really does feel like we are trapped in an endless cycle of reform, hyperbole and reinvention. I am old enough to remember when brownfield first was abandoned (2012), the outcry at the time and its stealthy reintroduction.

The two proposed changes to the NPPF announced today would firstly introduce a presumption in favour of sustainable development where authorities in the urban uplift areas score less than 95% on the Housing Delivery Test. Setting aside the random nature of the uplift areas, as ever, the proof will be in the pudding as to whether in practise the presumption outweighs other factors.

The report by the London Plan expert panel identifies that the ‘combined effect of the multiplicity of policies frustrates rather than facilitates’ delivery. It recommends that a policy mechanism is required to aid applicants and decision makers in navigating a path to align with intended goal to boost housing supply. Didn’t this used to be good old fashioned prioritisation and pragmatism? ?The panel proposed an over-arching presumption which is only partially translated into the proposed NPPF changes. It is the inter-relationship of the myriad of requirements that is at the heart of the current challenges. Is a presumption sufficient to cut through and win out on complex urban sites?

The other change is to paragraph 129 to increase the emphasis on previously developed land and give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible. It also adds flexibility in the application of internal layouts. ?As the planners’ favourite mantra goes (altogether now), you need to read the document as a whole, so I am not sure how this is reconciled with paragraph 128 (importance of securing well-designed, beautiful and attractive and healthy places) and 135 f (which seeks places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users). And of course the overall drive for beauty, which may of course be on the back burner after the South Bank decision. Maybe piecemeal review of important policy isn’t such a great idea.

?I cannot bring myself to comment on the further iterations of PD changes and am not brave enough to wade into the London/London Plan debate – except to say that the referral threshold was reduced to aid delivery, so, political point scoring aside, it is a sad inditement that its increase is being considered because of the indisputably poor record of delivery in London.

The expert panel report provides a wealth of data and analysis. One thing that strikes me is that, given where we are and have been on delivery, with a housing target acknowledged to be less than need, does anyone really think that the number generated by the standard method, 98,882, has any credibility?

Like any good book or film, I am sure that the longer one considers all this the more angles will become apparent. But for now, enjoy Gove day and happy Valentine’s to all planning lovers out there.