The PRS sector has done a good job in quickly enshrining the Private Rental Sector model within the planning lexicon. Whilst PRS arrived on the scene just too late to feature in the NPPF, corresponding National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) has been amended to recognise that viability considerations in decision-taking should take account of the economics of PRS, with the explicit acknowledgement that the funding model differs from build for sale. Critically, the NPPG adds that PRS may require a different approach to planning obligations or an adjustment of policy requirements. This amendment to national planning policy has begun to transcend down to the local level in decision taking and in the case of London, it has been embedded into plan making in the new London Plan. It is easy to see why both Central and Local Government have committed to the model:

- it is an attractive investment model for major institutions and should spawn significant new delivery partners, potentially easing dependence on the small number of big house builders;

- the model has been developed with critical mass at the heart of the concept, thus each completed development could contribute to making a significant dent in the housing targets (the Government's PRS Housing Guarantee Scheme has a minimum value of £10m and is only available for new build development);

- major financial institution backed investment should in theory lead to an uplift in the quality of development being delivered as investors strive to deliver a durable, long-lasting product; and

- the institutions' desire for long term, stable, low-risk profits should, in theory, lead to stable, affordable, long-term tenancies for renters.

The key to the model is sourcing large brownfield sites with attractive rental returns and this has put Manchester firmly into the purview of investors, as there remains a large brownfield land bank within Britain's Northern powerhouse. There are a number of schemes that are either in or currently emerging out of the planning system and the recurring trend is that viability assessments are demonstrating that the model is unable to deliver on-site affordable housing or affordable housing contributions. Despite this, authorities are concluding that the wider scheme benefits (a housing product for which there is a compelling need, the urban regeneration of important sites, the high quality of development that would be delivered and the scheme's contribution to housing delivery) are weighing in favour of schemes being granted. In this way, the NPPG advice is enabling PRS to compete with open market developers for sites and enabling schemes to be successfully negotiated through the planning system.

In the case of London, there is no privately owned, readily developable, brownfield land bank available - the low-hanging fruit has long since been developed out. However, last week, the Mayor launched the first phase of his flagship Housing Zone policy to redevelop largely publicly owned land (an initial 9 Housing Zones across the Capital were announced with up to 11 more to follow). The Housing Zone policy was, when first mooted in the summer of 2014, based around the concept of identifying significant areas of public sector land for mass densification of housing and a light touch to planning. The light touch to planning aspect of the policy has been dropped (in print at least) but there is an expectation that the HZ's will develop significant numbers of new homes quickly and failure to do this would surely lead to the Mayor having to undertake a significant Green Belt review as part of the next London Plan review (a Green Belt review may be necessary in any event). The Mayor's strategy is not without risk, as the public sector brownfield land release "cure" has been launched before with little impact on housing delivery through previous initiatives. This time around however, policymakers will be looking to inject confidence via the PRS model, backed with major institution finance, and will hope to deliver high quality housing - quickly. With the public sector supportive of the model, and stakeholders working in partnership to the same objectives, there is every reason for people across the planning and property spectrum to want the PRS model to be a major success.