Stop the Government Power Grab on Planning

I was pleased to be invited to speak at the LibDem virtual conference on the proposed changes in the planning process. The focus was on the challenge of how to oppose government meddling in our planning system while delivering the homes we need. IT issues disrupted my opportunity but here’s my contribution.

Planning is a topic that generates a whole load of emotions from those who have had dealings with it– perhaps more negative than positive. Words like delay, confusion, inconsistency, obstruction, frustration come to mind.
And it seems it is those emotions and perceptions that has led to the recent proposals by government to “overhaul” it. In the White Paper forward by the PM, he referred to the planning system as outdated, ineffective, a relic from the middle 20^th century. Ouch!!

I am not saying planning process is not without its challenges, and improvements could be made. However I doubt that what is proposed is the solution to the problem. The government says we are not building enough houses and blames the planning system. However, what they have failed to grasp, in my view, is that in the UK currently, we have over one million planning permissions that developers have not built out. So giving more permissions quickly is not going to improve delivery.

How do we build more to deliver housing we need?

Sir Oliver Letwin identified the problem in his 2018 report, and having read the new White Paper through, I saw only one reference to that report on page 43 proposal 10 titled “A stronger build out through planning” – what the heck does that actually mean?

Let me give you an example. In South Cambs, we have allocations and permissions for large sites like Northstowe for 10,000, Watebeach for 6,500 and Cambourne West for 2,300. Historically, delivery on existing large sites is about 250 dwellings a year, which means these sites will be built out over decades. So tell me, how will giving more permissions solve the delivery problem?

Exploring further options to support faster build out should have been the task of the Planning Task Force!! Diversify the product to suit the market, not cookie cutter samey stuff we get these days.

South Cambs is a high growth are, and needs more houses that are affordable for people to live in. Prices are being kept high because of the drip feeding of housing onto the market by developers to maximise their profits. In addition, we find that provision of infrastructure is a major challenge and the lack of it is what leads to most objections to planning. The way we’ve been able to address that is through S106 negotiations.

Infrastructure Levy

The WP proposes to ditch S106/CIL and introduce a single flat rate, set nationally but collected and spent locally. To me that is unacceptable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, that somebody in central government who knows nothing about an area will decide the single flat rate a developer will pay? How can that be fair, given the well known government track record on algorithms giving false results! My fear is areas like mine will get less funding than what we need.

Secondly, that the levy will be paid at the point of occupation but with no thought for how this will work for large sites like we have that are built out in phases over several years and decades.

And thirdly, that Local Authorities will be able to borrow against the levy to fund infrastructure provision. In effect, transferring responsibility to Councils to build out infrastructure like roads, utilities, community and education buildings etc. In the famous words of Victor Meldrew – “I don’t belieeeeeeve it”. We don’t have the resource or expertise and this proposal raises a huge risk and more issues than I can cover in the time I have today.

Keep Rate Setting Local

Suffice it is to say Government should let local authorities set their own rates. We have found S106 works well for us (which is why we did not adopt CIL), and I would encourage govt to talk to local authorities that have made it work before imposing their ideas on us.

Which leads me to the issue of affordability, a huge challenge in my district. The high prices have fuelled a growing intergenerational divide that we must address.

Planning Affordable Housing v First Homes

The proposal to temporarily raise the threshold when affordable housing is required to 40 or 50 is literally bonkers. In rural areas like ours, many schemes in our villages do not even reach this level. There is no evidence locally that schemes under this threshold are not viable or that developers are being put off by it. I have a scheme in my village of 7 houses of which 3 are classed as affordable.

This proposal will seriously hinder our ability to deliver affordable housing in an area of identified high level of need. More government contradictions not thought through well.

If it has not already occurred to anyone, we will be making the point that there is a risk that schemes that already have permission may be resubmitted in the period in order to avoid the affordable housing requirements. Government should instead be focusing on reigning in the free-for-all they have unleashed with the PDR extension where no one in the local area has a say in the process!

Insisting on a certain percentage of the site being put toward First Homes will also lead potentially to reduction in numbers and/or quality of the Affordable housing that developers will build as part of the “in-kind” rolling of this into the Infrastructure levy

Which leads me finally to the point about local engagement, which is dear top my heart!

Local Engagement in Planning Process

It seems to me Government is playing lip service to local participation in its proposed reforms. Granting outline permission at the point of adopting a local plan which will have at most two stages of consultation, imposing national design codes, giving non-negotiable housing numbers to build, all take away the ability of local people to have a say at each stage of developments in their area. The sense of frustration, of being done to, is only likely to increase and with it, lack of further confidence in the planning process.

Even the role of Neighbourhood Plans is thrown in doubt and Village Design Guides which we have created for some of our villages, did not even appear in the proposals. Where exactly then is increased local participation?.

We in South Cambs take local participation in planning seriously as exemplified by the way in which we carried out our Issues and Options consultations in January/February this year using technology and social media. We had over 5,000 visitors to our dedicated website, 6000 people engaged at scheduled and pop-up events throughout the district and 30,000 views of our videos online shows we have taken digital to heart. The government task force can learn a lot by coming to talk to us on local engagement.

In conclusion

Government will do well to talk to councils that are already innovating to find out how things work in real life-not in some imagined planning utopia. We will be responding robustly to the consultation to say stop grabbing our planning powers!

Thank you.