You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Concern over plan to drop social rent from official definition of affordable housing
Trade bodies for housing associations and councils have voiced concerns over a proposal to change the definition of ‘affordable housing’ in a new draft version of government planning policy.
The proposed revision National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) drops reference to ‘social rent’ from its glossary definition of affordable housing – but adds the mention of Starter Homes and build-to-rent.
In its response to a consultation on the draft document, the National Housing Federation (NHF) said: “The removal of the term ‘social rent’ is worrying.
“While the revised definition can be interpreted to include social rent, we believe the term should be explicitly retained.”
It added that Starter Homes should not be included in the definition and branded mention of build-to-rent as “confusing”.
READ MORE
In its consultation response, the Local Government Association (LGA) said: “We are concerned by the significant change in the definition of affordable housing in the glossary and in particular the removal of social rented housing from the definition. In our view this is unacceptable and it should be reinstated in the final NPPF.
“We are concerned about the emphasis on affordable homeownership rather than social rent and remain unconvinced that some of the tenures covered in the definition will provide housing for those in genuine need for affordable housing in many parts of the country.”
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) also attacked the definition and argued that ‘affordable rent’ should be linked to incomes as opposed to markets.
However, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) said it “supports the amendments to the definitions of affordable housing including starter homes and other affordable routes to homeownership”.
A number of bodies – including the LGA, the NHF, RTPI, HBF and the British Property Federation (BPF) – issued warnings on proposed changes to rules around viability assessments.
The LGA said that, though “well-intentioned”, the tweaks “are unlikely to deliver their intentions” because uncertainty in the system would be costly to councils and allow developers to exploit elements of the new policy.
And the BPF argued that making viability assessments public would have the “unintended consequence” of driving up development costs.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is due to publish its revised NPPF by the end of July.
