Build more, quicker, better and with beauty! A busy year ahead.
So there we have it, as signalled in the Budget on Wednesday, the Government has published its ‘Planning for Future’ paper, scoping out a four-pronged programme of reform for the year ahead, being drawn together into a Housing Strategy.
In terms of planning, the Government has reconfirmed its’ commitment to delivering 300,000 new homes a year, and will review the mechanism (again) for calculating housing requirement, with the emphasis upon relationship to public transport and existing urban areas. Unsurprisingly, the guidance relating to flood risk will also be reviewed.
Do not expect a return to top down planning, albeit the proposals for the Oxford Cambridge Arc hint at a welcome level of strategic intervention, with infrastructure being linked to housing. It is a truism is that putting NIMBYISM to one side, a legitimate criticism of significant new home building is that infrastructure is not provided to meet needs. Physical infrastructure in terms of transport and access for example is one thing, health care and elements that lie outside of the developer’s and the LPA’s control remain challenging.
The trouble with much reform is that it often makes sense and works where you have a well-funded authority with the political desire to bring forward a plan. It falls down when for a variety of reasons, the local plan is not brought forward in good time, undermining the whole principle of the plan led system.
Reform here is promised too, with fees linked to performance (pay more for better?) and a rebate on fees in the event of a successful appeal but no costs ‘after the event’? A new deadline for adoption is promised and a ramping up of the Housing Delivery Test and New Homes Bonus. The HDT will finally begin to show its teeth in November 2020. However, at present, due to the transitional arrangement, the first time that the three-year measurement will reflect local housing need is November 2021.
Any ramping up should bring that date forward.
Zoning Planning is identified as a mechanism for speeding up and simplifying the planning system and Planning Development Rights (PDR) will be expanded. I am sure that the Government is disappointed that Local Development Orders have not been taken up more widely. How these reforms square with the emphasis on quality (i.e. PDR for building upwards) and the ‘agent of change’ principles in terms of conversion and redevelopment of commercial buildings remains to be seen.
Further reform of affordable housing is expected, with a new shared ownership scheme and the introduction of First Homes.
So what’s missing?
This is a Government in a hurry and one that likes change and reform? It is a paradox that a party that has long championed ‘cutting red tape’, has presided over constant review and the delights of the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations. Simplification of that would be welcomed, but is absent.
From a Government perspective, the Standard Methodology has obviously not generated the right answer. The apportionment of unmet need between authorities remains challenging as does how the requirement is calculated, in the face of policy constraints such as Green Belt. How does housing requirement support economic growth? Is it a case that the Standard Method didn’t get to the right answer so let’s change the method? There is also an indication that the distinction between ‘policy on’ and ‘policy off’ maybe eroded. Surely, housing requirement should be a function of what you want to achieve and where and not just what you have to?
It’s all about ambition and seeing development as positive rather than a negative.
In the end we all know that housing requirement is not evenly spread across the country, and there is as ever a sharp focus around our cities and London and the Home Counties in particular. The success of the initiatives proposed here will be determined in large part by whether the Government can unlock the stasis that is typified by these challenges!
Hold onto your hats. We are in for a busy year.