In 2007, ILC-UK published “Sustainable Planning for Housing in an Ageing Population” (1). It pointed out that older households will represent half of all household growth to 2026, that one third of households were headed by somebody aged over 60, and that the 80 plus population would grow by one million from 2008 to 2025. It made a strong case for planning future housing supply based on demographic change.
Yet planning has become a very real barrier to creating the sort of housing our society needs. We cannot blame planning alone for the lack of affordable or appropriate new housing. But it has played its part.
There is already a major shortage of well-designed housing across all tenures and housing types to meet the demographic challenge ahead. The growth in the older population will accentuate the problem and the shortages will get worse. That is, unless the planning system, current or future, systematically addresses the significant growth in older households.
Yet fears that the English countryside will be tarmacked over has led to recent campaigns by the National Trust and some national newspapers against the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The Government’s recognition that planning was becoming a barrier to economic development led them to propose a new NPPF which reduces the 1300 pages of current planning regulation to just 52. But despite being a relatively short paper, officials have managed to incorporate some very positive policies in terms of demographic change. The NPPF talks for example, of planning to promote healthy communities and the need to create a good quality built environment which will support health and wellbeing. Most importantly in the context of demographic change, it talks of the importance of meeting the needs of present and future generations. And it flags the role for inclusive design.
The most controversial part of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Yet this is a proposal which makes sense. For too long, planners have been tasked with finding reasons to oppose developments rather than actually planning for a changing world. Planning is an extremely important profession. Yet it is one which has become too focused on tick boxes and finding reasons to oppose.
Of course, green space is important, not least to wellbeing. But the framework does maintain the need to comply with local plans. Localism will ensure communities still have significant planning power. The Presumption only comes into effect when a Local Plan is not in place. Where a Local Plan has been prepared, development must accord with its policies or be refused. This is empowering for local democracy.
The NPPF is a positive development. It is also the only game in town. The current system is a complicated and convoluted one to work with. It contributes to housing supply not meeting demand. If we fail to produce adequate aspirational retirement housing for older people, we will not free up stock of existing housing for future generations.
Of course the NPPF could be developed further and it could actually be stronger on demographic change and the links between health and housing. But Government must resist any changes which could damage the ability of our communities to meet the demographic challenge ahead.
1) http://www.ilcuk.org.uk/record.jsp?ID=25&type=publication
In September ILC-UK published “Establishing the Extra in Extra-Care” which set out the role for extra care housing in the context of demographic change. It highlighted how good quality specialist retirement housing is important for the health and wellbeing of the older population. http://www.ilcuk.org.uk/record.jsp?type=publication&ID=100
No comments:
Post a Comment