The NDMPs should be a ceiling, not a floor.
Housing is set to be one of the big dividing lines in the next election, with both major parties trying to set out bold proposals that will deliver for affordability and growth. But long-time readers of the Centre for Cities blog will know that one of the single biggest fixes to the housing crisis is already present within the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
The National Development Management Policies – the NDMPs – were first highlighted by Centre for Cities over a year ago. Our research since has emphasised that the NDMPs are the most important reform currently on the table for Government to leave a permanent and positive legacy in housing. But what exactly are the NDMPs? And how should they work?
To recap, the NDMPs solve one of the worst bottlenecks in England’s planning system – agreeing policies in local plans.
Currently, there are two tiers of planning policy in England. National government writes the National Planning Policy Framework, or NPPF, which sets out rules for both planmaking, and for the planning policies that planning applications are judged upon.
But NPPF policies are trumped by all of the different individual policies that sit within the hundreds of local plans across England. The result is a confusing and sprawling mess of policies as these documents run to hundreds of pages in length.
Crucially, lots of these policies duplicate each other as so many of the issues local plans cover are national in nature and do not vary by geography. Issues such as climate change, accommodation for older people, small sites, supported accommodation etc. are in most local plans pursuing identical objectives with slightly distinct phrasing. As national government does not currently hold the pen on these matters, the current situation is the perfect combination to bog down the planning system for councils, developers, and residents.
Once passed into law, the NDMPs would mean that, for the first time, local policy that duplicates national policy will be removed from local plans; and that any conflict between local and national policy would be resolved in favour of national policy. National government would become a stronger ‘referee’ of the planning system, giving clear rules to the ‘players’ in local government.
The NDMPs will simplify the system and make it more rules-based, making it easier for councils to agree shorter and more locally-focused local plans, for developers to navigate the planning system, and for residents to have greater certainty about what it and isn’t allowed.
Yet there are still questions about how exactly the NDMPs would be drafted by the Secretary of State.
First, there are calls from some organisations for the NDMPs to be a ‘floor’ rather than a ‘ceiling’, by allowing councils to set ‘tougher’ policies if they wish. And second, Government hasn’t yet set out a detailed list of what the NDMPs will include or what will guide their thinking.
The first question is rather straightforward – the NDMPs must be a ‘ceiling’, not a ‘floor’. If councils are allowed to ignore them and simply write their own policies, then the entire point of the NDMPs is defeated before they even come into existence.
The uniformity that this then requires of the NDMPs helps protects local councils – national government will have to show restraint in the topics the NDMPs cover and their scope. Allowing councils to deviate from the NDMPs would instead encourage central government to produce many detailed NDMPs to try to exercise greater control. Without a ceiling on central government’s power, councils would get the worst of both worlds – more central meddling without any relief of the current burdens.
The second is more subjective, but there are some clear principles that should guide the drafting of the NDMPs.
There should be broad agreement that the NDMPs are appropriate for topics which will not vary between different parts of the country. For example, self-build and build-to-rent housing are both encouraged by government policy, without any distinctions between places. These and similar policies currently cluttering local plans can easily be incorporated into detailed NDMPs so that there is a single rulebook everywhere in the country.
The tricky question for the NDMPs is variation. Different places are different – London and Cumbria need distinct approaches when it comes to planning. But there is variation within places too – London Zone 1 is very different to Zone 6.
There is a rationale for the NDMPs to set simple policies when there is variation but a degree of uniformity as well. For instance, land around railway stations differs from land not near stations, but in a manner where it always has better public transport accessibility. NDMPs could therefore plausibly say that in the absence of a local plan or site allocation that applications for development in a walkable distance around railway stations should be given planning permission.
Where there is much less justification for NDMPs is when this uniformity is missing – when the variation varies, so to speak. For example, although the discourse frequently debates ‘the decline of the high street’, not every retail destination is doing poorly. Shopping parades, town centres, and retail parks do not just differ from neighbouring areas, but also from each other. Trying to manage this kind of complexity from Whitehall is a recipe for terrible outcomes – local areas will have a better idea of the specific issues facing their specific areas than any central meddling.
In the long-run, the NDMPs give a glimpse of how a future ‘flexible zoning’ system would work. Rather than councils drafting their own zoning codes, national government would draft a single, simple national zoning code that would allow developers to use urban land flexibly while protecting urban amenity and without micromanaging councils. Instead of drafting 800 page documents of legalese, planning would be about councils thinking about which of these zones and their bundled policies are appropriate to the distinct neighbourhoods under their care.
Getting the NDMPs right is therefore an important test for the planning reform agenda. NDMPs must demonstrably improve the certainty of the system and thereby housebuilding; but they cannot do so by trying to run every local authority planning department from the centre. The NDMPs will work if they make councils’ jobs easier – but if they try to replace councils entirely then they will fail.
The Levelling Up Bill is the last and best chance for this Government to leave a positive and permanent legacy in housing.
Senior Analyst Anthony Breach sets out all you need to know about planning reform, looking at why reform is needed, what it should look like, and what actions local and national government should take.
Compared to other European countries, Britain has a backlog of millions of homes that are missing from the housing market. Building these homes is key to solving the nation's housing crisis.
Samuel Watling and Anthony Breach join Andrew Carter to unpack the findings of their latest report focusing on the history of UK housing.
Leave a comment
Be the first to add a comment.