Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3)

• Posted by Karyn Middleton on 26th Feb ’07 at 16:29 GMT
• 1 comment

The Government's long awaited revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) has created a stir throughout the industry. In launching Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) the Government has placed much greater emphasis on Brownfield development, more flexibility for local authorities, affordable family housing, good design and tougher environmental standards. The key policy directions are as follows:

• Local authorities must bring forward more appropriate land for housing, planning fifteen years ahead to prevent delays.
• Housing and neighbourhoods must be well designed. Local planning authorities should turn down poor quality planning applications.
• Planners must consider the environment, sustainability and the need to cut carbon dioxide omissions, together with wider environmental and sustainability considerations.
• Local authorities must prioritise Brownfield development, but have the power to set their own standards.
• Councils have more flexibility to decide where houses are built.
• Affordable housing, especially in rural areas, is a priority.
• National minimum threshold for affordable housing provision on all sites of fifteen or more dwellings. But authorities can set lower standards where justified on need.

Gone is the average density range of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare, with local authorities able to set their own range in local development frameworks, provided that 30 dwellings per hectare remains the minimum density. Authorities are required to consider the needs of children for the first time providing green spaces as well as more family homes. See companion guide. Local authorities must maintain a rolling five-year supply of immediately deliverable land for housing. It is interesting in reviewing the PPS, the number of times 'good design' is mentioned - virtually on every page. This coupled with design advice in PPS1 and the requirement for design and access statements for all but minor applications will hopefully empower local authorities to refuse consent for obviously inadequate designs. In practice one must ask whether many authorities have the necessary skills to determine what 'good design' is. And conversely whether the industry has the motivation to pursue imaginative schemes. David Jones, Head of Evans Jones Planning commented;

Evans Jones submits applications throughout the country and already experiences huge variations from one local authority to another. Most local authority architectural departments were disbanded many years ago, thus planners must rely upon design advice provided by architectural panels (often not the most objective consultee). Some rely upon conservation officers, many of whom have a conservation / preservation agenda and do not possess the necessary skills to comment on good or bad design. The commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) first national audit of new housing development makes grim reading. According to the commission fewer than one in five developments are good or very good but 40% were found to be poor.

Time will tell how local authorities respond to the new challenges imposed by PPS3, however the very real concern is that the majority of local authorities simply do not have the resources to collect the necessary data to meaningfully respond to the requirement for housing to be responsive to local need, and designed to a constantly high standard responding to local distinctiveness.