Policy Guide’s Influence Felt Further North
Despite spreading to northern regions official advice
on homes provision remains unclear, says James Hall
When PPG3 on housing was last revised in March 2000, the sequential approach that made its name in retail planning became the order of the day.
The emphasis on meeting housing need was transferred to brownfield sites in
existing settlements.
Plan, monitor, manage also came to the fore. That was
some six years ago now, although some key associated guidance did not emerge
until later. Developers in the south of England were soon made aware of the
implications of the updated approach, feeling the full force of the policies
and principles behind them that same year.
Flagship greenfield urban extensions and new settlements in places like Stevenage were suddenly stalled to allow for plan reviews and urban capacity studies to be carried out. Most such schemes were either abandoned or have only just started to make real progress. A development of 3,600 homes in Stevenage was approved last autumn (Planning, 28 October 2005, p1) but not the larger scheme of 5,000 homes proposed by the consortium behind it.
Developers also faced long gestation periods in bringing forward schemes such as the settlement planned for the Cambridge area, now to be based at Oakington. In response, a new breed of brownfield housebuilders and developers emerged to meet the government’s ambitious targets. Three-storey town houses and apartment block arranged around courtyards were suddenly in fashion beyond the capital. An “urban renaissance” was indeed born.
Most large metropolitan authorities, via the National Land Use Database and then urban capacity studies, identified their wealth of brownfield land fairly rapidly. The need for peripheral releases was negated for several years. Other boroughs looked at their main towns but found much less previously developed land available. Business sites, social clubs, petrol stations, builders’ yards and ageing manufacturing premises started closing down in market towns as owners sought to capitalise on growing residential values.
Only now that the brownfield resource is nearly exhausted, or has shown to be unviable for housing, are greenfield releases becoming palatable in such areas. The resultant slowdown in housing provision prompted Kate Barker’s review of land supply and in turn the drive to build more housing primarily in Greater London and the South East.
This scenario may sound familiar planners working or living in the south. However, it did not bite for some years in parts of the north of England and has not yet crossed the border into Scotland where greenfield releases have always remained commonplace. The North West was the first region to feel the full effect when the infamous moratorium on new housing outside of the main renewal areas kicked in.
Only in the past year or two have some authorities in the North East followed suit, largely due to a huge backlog of housing commitments. Newcastle City Council has attempted to put the blocks on residential development beyond its Pathfinder area, despite a major large greenfield commitment at Newcastle’s Great Park.
Authorities such as Tynedale District Council in Northumberland and, more recently, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council have sought to prevent most private market housing proposals through interim planning guidance, although this is open to challenge. Where brownfield regeneration proposals, such as the Blyth Harbour development identified in the emerging regional blueprint, can be shown to be some way off full implementation, greenfield releases have prevailed in the face of identified need.
In the south of the region on the other hand, Tees Valley Regeneration is progressing apace with a number of brownfield mixed-use developments. Few if any further greenfield releases are now envisaged in the former Cleveland area once sizeable existing commitments at places such as Middle Warren in Hartlepool and Ingleby Barwick in Stockton on Tees are built out.
The overall shift brought about by PPG3 and its eventual arrival in the North East has proved significant. Regional stakeholders have always maintained that new housing is a key regeneration tool. Most consider that the success of the economy and that of One North East’s regional economic strategy, is inextricably linked to the build rate.
The recently completed public examination of the draft regional spatial strategy for the North East heard a great deal of debate about the correct level and distribution of housing provision. It suggested a relatively optimistic picture for the future, although there seemed to be a general acceptance of the North East Assembly’s view that the focus should be on the urban core of the Tyne & Wear and Teesside city-regions.
Certainly there are housing hot spots across the region where affordable housing is now being provided. Equally, there are substantial areas in need of urgent regeneration. These are primarily, though not exclusively, in the urban cores. This is further complicated by a need for high quality executive family homes with gardens in some parts of the region.
This all begs the question what effect the market-based approach advocated in the draft PPS3 will have for regions such as the North East. Does it offer a dual solution for the north and south? PPG3 had only just begun to bite in region. Several builders have offloaded many of their greenfield sites in the face of a very strict and increasingly difficult planning regime.
While much of the advice in PPG3 is likely to be carried forward, is the omission of the sequential approach to site selection from the draft PPS3 significant? Does it open the door to greenfield sites again, perhaps in areas where market demand exists for executive homes?
The intention is clearly to press ahead with building on a mix of brownfield and greenfield sites in the designated growth areas of the South East, albeit in a more sustainable and integrated fashion than previously. But can PPS3 also retain relevance in the north? Perhaps, as with its predecessor, only time will tell.
James Hall is director responsible for managing and developing Entec UK Ltd’s property sector business.
Telephone 0191 272 6132, or
email hallj01@entecuk.co.uk
Click here to load the Entec home page