Planning: could presumption in favour of retrofit help social landlords?

First, while there is one National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), there is more local discretion than one might assume.

However, with differences of interpretation even at a local level, it is unsurprising that LPAs can appear to apply the precautionary principle rather than face costly appeals. This also points to the lack of clarity in the NPPF.

I had an interesting discussion on this topic with Brian Mullin, partner and head of consultancy Marrons Planning, who has witnessed first-hand the frustrations of inconsistent planning approaches. 

“There’s no doubt, there are complex issues around resourcing and a huge skills gap at officer and councillor level in planning departments,” he explained. “Many LPAs rely on inexperienced or temporary officers who are reluctant to determine more complex applications and will default to low-risk decisions. 

“And even when solicitors are present at planning committee, often they are not specialist planning lawyers, or they do not have sufficient understanding of retrofit to support the case.”

Mr Mullin added: “Section 96A is a non-material amendment which allows fast-track applications in 28 days and in certain situations that would be a useful tool; but clearly, we need a more comprehensive approach. 

“We welcome the discussions around giving more powers to metro mayors and sub-regions as collaborative and evidence-based approaches will facilitate streamlining.”

While no one would suggest we circumvent or dilute the vital role of planning in the process, there are some wider considerations. 

Asset management teams dealing with housing retrofit must comply with onerous timescales for grant compliance, with a whole raft of complex data, surveying, planning, procurement and resident engagement processes to sequence. 

It is vital that they can roll out projects with a degree of certainty.

It may seem logical for them to attain planning consent before grant applications have been approved, but this can cause nervousness from a governance perspective and lead to less ambitious plans in case registered providers (RPs) subsequently need to fund 100 per cent of the planned work themselves. 

We should also consider the reason for housing retrofit when the government estimates that 8.9 million people in the UK were classified as fuel poor in 2023. 

Indeed the UK Health Security Agency reports around two million people living in damp and mouldy conditions in England.

In reality it feels like the priority for ensuring the health, well-being and safety of human life is often surpassed by the desire to protect heritage; yet they clearly should not be mutually exclusive objectives.

Generally, planning consent is only required for certain interventions like external wall insulation (EWI).

However, some deep retrofits will include roofs, doors and windows. 

So while it is clearly important to protect the character of an area, we need pragmatic approaches to set acceptable parameters to remove subjectivity. 

What can be done, then, by the housing sector to encourage a balanced approach?

The latest version of the NPPF was published by the Conservative government last December.

The Liberal Democrats do not specifically address any planning changes apart from a new planning class to control second homes and short-term lets.

However, Labour has stated in its manifesto that it will undertake a comprehensive review of the NPPF within 100 days of office.

It is committing to additional funding to better resource planning departments and ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. But could we add presumption in favour of retrofit to the wish list?

Essentially, presumption in favour of retrofit could create a more standardised and pragmatic approach.

This would mean more retrofits could happen at a faster pace and with reduced cost, if this extends to permitted development in more scenarios or batch applications for area-based or archetype-based strategies. 

This could be achieved by policy guidance such as:

• Prior notification, like the current pre-app process, but with more detailed collaborative discussions between senior planners and client teams, to agree the retrofit planning strategy
• In a post-Grenfell context, ensuring consideration of fire and other safety implications
• Evidencing a risk-based approach to material selection to ensure there will be no unintended consequences such as impermeable EWI without effective ventilation strategies that could lead to deterioration of the fabric
• Aesthetic considerations to include pre-approved materials, finishes, styles and colour palettes that are sympathetic to the character of the area and to offer some resident choice (which is often vital in gaining their buy-in for disruptive works)
• Evidence of energy efficiency gains and quantification of carbon reduction in line with local authority net zero targets
• Other factors such as access implications if EWI narrows side passageways; or overlooking risk if windows are moved or enlarged as part of deep retrofit

While asset management teams should be encouraged to take this approach anyway, it is an intensely time-consuming process. 

One large RP shared that their stock covered more than 200 LPAs.  

Another had to withdraw an application from a council after nine months of non-determination as it was too costly and damaging to their programme delivery to wait.

Clearly these are not desirable processes or outcomes.

Planning is complicated but it is not a ‘wicked problem’. It just requires leadership from the social housing sector and local authorities (whether stockholding or not), to set out what is required for a more collaborative and pragmatic approach to reduce pressure within planning departments. 

This is at the same time as the market ramps up to achieve the capacity required to reduce fuel poverty and climate risk.

Sarah Daly, associate director, sustainability, Turner & Townsend