The risk is to inadvertently stifle it, says Nick Diment.
The new government’s pro-development agenda is widely welcomed across the property sector and we wholeheartedly support means of increasing economic growth.
But problems occur when political commitment favours one sector of the built environment at the expense of another; while it benefits the favoured sector, the second is effectively demoted.
Understandably homebuilding is a high priority and is likely to remain so. The attention given to renewables has increased significantly since the new government came to power and, after a period of being largely ignored by the last government, it is quite right that this sector is prioritised.
However, there are other, more specific uses which now feature in the NPPF such as datacentres and gigafactories. These are not a specific planning use class, but form part of the B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or distribution) use classes, respectively. As someone who has worked in I&L for decades, I see some risks in the government’s main planning policy guidance document identifying these specific sub-sectors as priorities. While these uses are undoubtedly part of our future, they are no more important than a factory which supplies lorry parts, a warehouse meeting our online shopping needs or industrial open storage: they are simply another industrial use.
Although the NPPF has recently been consulted upon and the government’s response is not expected for several weeks, local authorities – in the knowledge that consultation responses are unlikely to knock manifesto pledges off-track – already regard the ‘tracked changes’ version of the document released in July as policy.
The NPPF states that, “Planning policies…should [make] provision for: a) clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high technology industries; and for new, expanded or upgraded facilities and infrastructure that are needed to support the growth of these industries (including datacentres and grid connections)”.
Whilst these uses are currently not afforded additional weight in the decision-making process, there remains the risk that councils will prioritise one use over another in their local plans. Take datacentres, these cannot come at the cost of the many other industrial activities – which, after all, are vital to the running of those datacentres (and many other businesses’) premises and vehicles. Furthermore, not all local authorities are suited to accommodating a datacentre. There is a parallel to the trend in favour of life sciences which fairly quickly demonstrated that local authorities not located in Oxford, Cambridge or London found that life sciences weren’t in fact the best option for their towns. Datacentres are important to our future as a country but will not always be a priority on a local level.
The answer is simple: the revised NPPF must be objective and non-discriminatory. It must focus on property in terms of planning use classes and avoid citing specific industries, because this could result in market distortion. Leave the specifics to Invest 2035, the government’s green paper on industrial strategy.
Planning is continually cited as a barrier to growth. The potential to prioritise one industrial use over another will only reduce the availability of sites and exacerbate the supply constraints already experienced in London and other regional powerhouses.
The best communities are mixed communities. Whatever your views on the 15-minute city, the fact is that people benefit from living in close proximity to shops, schools, community infrastructure and places of employment. Location, demographics and proximity to other services (be that universities for the life sciences sector, the National Grid for the energy sector or the road network for I&L) will determine the most suitable employment use for a new community, and it won’t be a datacentre in every case.
Since Covid (albeit as part of a trend which was emerging beforehand) flexibility is an increasing factor of the built environment: the blurring of uses on our high streets, the creation of expansive work hubs and of course Class E have allowed greater flexibility across different property types.
This is as it should be, with provision responding to need and local market forces. Overly prescriptive government policy which appears to favour specific industries within a single use class may intend to encourage economic growth but may unintentionally stifle it.
I’m wholly in agreement with the BPF which in its consultation response to the NPPF said that industrial and logistics should be added to the glossary – at the very least. I&L in its broadest context is an extremely important element of the property market and vital to the supply chain. Unless planning policy stands in its way, it will continue as such, both responding to change by facilitating new uses and continuing to provide more traditional uses too.
Nick Diment is a Director at Boyer, part of Leaders Romans Group.