As poor statistics continue to roll in Reed and Pennycook must hold their nerve, stick to their plan and be patient, argues Paul Smith
The new secretary of state, Steve Reed, wasted no time in reaffirming his commitment to the government target to build 1.5 million new homes in this parliament. Almost immediately following his appointment he pledged to “Build, Baby, Build” - a slogan seemingly appropriated from the Conservative YIMBY group in a sign of the growing political consensus around home building.
“We are doubling down on our plans to unleash one of the biggest eras of building in our country’s history and we are backing the builders all the way,” Reed said following his appointment.
Unfortunately, just two weeks after his appointment, a dire set of planning statistics were published. The number of planning applications has slumped to its lowest level in twenty years. The 221,000 homes granted permission last year is the lowest in a decade. Almost one in five approvals now come through the appeal process.
None of that means the government is doing the wrong things. Planning and development are slow; changing their direction is like turning an oil tanker. Almost two thirds of outline planning applications for new homes take more than a year to approve, and we’re only nine months on from Labour’s first wave of planning reforms - including an updated National Planning Policy Framework, the introduction of the “grey belt” category of land and significantly increased housing targets. These are all positive steps but won’t show up in the planning approval statistics straightaway.
Planning and development are slow; changing their direction is like turning an oil tanker
The new housing targets even included an in-built delay. For all the fanfare around their introduction, generous transitional arrangements mean they won’t come into force in many authorities for some time. For example, 47 local plans are currently being examined under the old targets, locking in targets 34% below the new ones for the medium term. By comparison just 52 plans were submitted for examination in the previous three years. In others, there will be no impact until next summer - and even then they will only be required to slightly increase the buffer in their housing supply calculations.
And not every local authority wants to plan for these new targets anyway. Cheshire East and Cotswold District Councils have both written to the Secretary of State claiming the new targets were unfair - although they were robustly told to get on with it in reply. Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook has recently told Stockport Council to accelerate their plan-making process - their current plan is almost 15 years old and they’ve made little progress on a new one.
That reticence is why 17.5% of residential planning approvals are currently coming via the appeal system - double the usual rate - adding further delays in the application process.
>>See also: How we can find out what people really think about new homes
It isn’t just the planning process either. The land market takes time to react to policy changes. While the new rules have increased the number of sites where it may be possible to secure planning permission, applications can’t be submitted straightaway. Developers and land promoters need to identify potential sites, contact the landowners, explain the development potential, negotiate terms and put a legal agreement in place. It can take many months to move from identifying a potential development site to starting to prepare a planning application in earnest.
Preparing those applications is taking longer too. Submission requirements become more onerous and resource-starved planning departments are slow to deal with requests for pre-application advice, often issuing partial replies (usually because of missing responses from statutory consultees). Meanwhile, ecologists with capacity to carry out surveys are an increasingly rare commodity. It takes six months and more to put together a quality application.
So we wouldn’t expect to see a marked increase in the number of planning approvals just yet - that’s likely to be around a year away. So now isn’t the time to panic.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t more that the government can do - the focus should now be on reducing the time it takes for applications to be determined, removing the grit from the system and making it hum like a well-oiled machine.
Some of those changes are already in the pipeline, including National Development Management Policies to standardise how decisions are made on individual applications, a national scheme of delegations ensuring fewer applications are exposed to the political roulette wheel of planning committees, a new “medium sites” category with reduced application requirements and “brownfield passports” to make it quicker and easier to secure permission in existing built-up areas.
The focus should now be on reducing the time it takes for applications to be determined, removing the grit from the system and making it hum like a well-oiled machine.
All these changes have the potential to be beneficial - the government must press ahead quickly and avoid the temptation to opt for the most vanilla options to placate opponents of development.
As the recent change to planning guidance around puddles (or surface water flood risk) demonstrates, small changes can make a difference. Overnight, a barrier to the delivery of perhaps 100,000 homes was removed. Finding similar small wins should be a central area of focus. The pre-application process, statutory consultees and Section 106 agreements all offer significant potential for improvement. It should also be made clear that the planning system must assume other regulatory regimes - for sewer connections, nutrient pollution, water supply and more - and must work correctly. Powers of intervention should be used far more frequently to encourage authorities reluctant to do their bit.
Reed and Pennycook must hold their nerve. The temptation to panic as poor statistics continue to roll in must be strong, but panic won’t deliver homes. Patience, persistence and practical reform will. If they stick with the plan and focus on fine-tuning the planning machine, the results will come.
Paul Smith, managing director, the Strategic Land Group
No comments yet