Neighbourhood Planning is here to stay

You may have read some rather dismissive comments on planningblogs about neighbourhood plans recently. Some commentators ask what is the point of neighbourhood planning now that the new government is engaged with fixing issues with the local plan system. 

It won't be a surprise to our regular readers that at ONH we couldn't disagree with this more. Here's why:

1. The proposal by the government to maintain the NPPF paragraph 14 has prompted much of this most recent debate. The paragraph does not ‘protect’ neighbourhood plan policies, as some have tried to portray it. It simply re-levels the playing field to retain the primacy of the development plan for five years where communities have made a plan with policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement. Doing so is not easy or straightforward, and made much more difficult when LPAs are unwilling or unable to provide communities with a meaningful or timely dwelling requirement number. True believers in plan-led systems have no problem with the five year rule – it is reasonable and fair approach and strongly incentivises neighbourhood planners to engage with allocating housing at the level the LPA requires.

   
   

2. Retaining the paragraph will show that MCHLG understands and has faith that neighbourhood planners can and do allocate appropriate levels of housing development for their area. A research project by Leani Haim at ONH showed that the target number of homes to be allocated in the selected areas between 2012 and 2020 was 37,371. In fact, through neighbourhood planning 45,829 homes were allocated, an approximately 23% rise on the Local Planning Authorities intentions. Gavin Parker (Impacts of Neighbourhood Planning in England, Final Report to MHCLG, May 2020) found that, on average, each Neighbourhood Plan allocating more sites than the housing requirement figure, allocated 39 additional dwellings. 

   
   

3. In many parts of the country, neighbourhood plans have been the only part of the plan making system allocating housing land over the last five years or so. They do so despite the obstacles presented where there is no up-to-date local plan, creating a strategic policy vacuum, speculative housing proposals trying to undermine them, and the limited technical resources communities have in comparison to LPAs and developers. We also know that neighbourhood plan allocations are far more likely to lead to the speedier submission of planning applications, which are approved at a far higher rate than their Local Plan equivalents. Neighbourhood plan allocations are almost all for small to medium sites that are so desperately needed around towns and villages in areas of high demand. This commitment by neighbourhood planners should be applauded.  

   
   

4. Neighbourhood plans are not NIMBY documents – no plan that tried to be so would have been able to meet the way the ‘basic conditions’ have been tested by examiners in the final stages of plan development for the last decade. The gap between that test and the ‘tests of soundness’ for local plans has become smaller as risk-averse LPAs and examiners seek to avoid the threats of judicial review over planning decisions in the future. The view of some that the basic conditions are too lenient in allowing for neighbourhood plans to both avoid allocating housing land and then resist housing development is simply not supported by the facts.

   
   

5. In ONH’s experience, most communities given the opportunity to shape the growth of their areas will take that responsibility seriously. So, if neighbourhood plans are about blocking development, why are ‘turkeys voting for Christmas?’ ask the naysayers. Most often, these communities will be looking tosecure an upgrade in the quality or capacity of some form of local infrastructure (road links, schools, nurseries, green spaces for example) as well as delivering positive affordable and other housing outcomes. This is particularly important in areas that have seen a lot of speculative development, deficient in community benefits, through poor delivery of housing at a local plan level. Although ONH and Locality have tried to draw attention to these case studies, the absence of any in-depth independent research for government has meant these stories have never been able to change the dominant narrative.

   
   

6. But, neighbourhood plans have always done more than allocate housing sites. Take design codes: with an area by area approach, as neighbourhood plans do, each code is a unique local document, drawing on the history and existing settlement in a way that is specific and useful for any person considering a planning application in that area - from home extensions to larger scale developments. They also often include policies on: 

   • the listing of local heritage assets - protecting the historic setting of important features; 

   • the allocation of local green spaces - protecting well-loved and used green spaces; 

   • green and blue infrastructure development and habitat restoration; 

   • transport, cycling and walking routes; 

   • housing mix, type and delivery phasing; 

   • environmental and biodiversity net gain requirements; 

   • town centre and high street development;

   • affordable housing approaches and more.

     
     

7. Another dimension to neighbourhood plans that has rarely been acknowledged by the profession is how they have delivered an unprecedented step change in effective community engagement in the plan making system. They have encouraged well-informed debates within communities on alternative visions for their town centres, suburbs, towns and villages. They have shown communities how hard it is to make the necessary trade-offs that planners have to make to reconcile competing growth, infrastructure and environmental objectives. ONH has seen first-hand how this exposure to the realities of plan making has made community leaders more empathetic of the demands place on LPAs.

   
   

8. What's the practical difference in local engagement between local and neighbourhood plans? Many local plan consultations struggle to achieve even 4-5% of residents taking part, putting an average neighbourhood referendum turnout of one third into perspective. That's important - the community buy-in created through engagement in the process means that after the plan is made it's less likely that suitable planning applications will have difficulty progressing through the planning process. Drawn out planning permission negotiations don't benefit anyone, and local plan development allocations that don't have community consent are more likely to face planning appeals.

   
   

So what next for neighbourhood plans? The survival of NPPF paragraph 14 and the roll out of the Local Plan reforms next year will drive a demand for neighbourhood plans playing their part in planning for growth. MHCLG is also currently tendering for a new neighbourhood plan support programme to continue to provide the quality of professional and technical support that have been so vital its success over the last decade.

The future therefore seems brighter than for some time. But the challenge remains of embedding the value of neighbourhood planning with the profession, both public and private. The disappointment of some planners that neighbourhood plans weren’t eliminated in the reforms, rather than keeping their focus on tackling the real problems facing the planning system remains a source of frustration.