Articles
Chelgate articles
CONSERVATIVE HOUSING AND PLANNING POLICY PROPOSALS
Michael Hardware (published in Housebuilder magazine, October 2009)
Although not a foregone conclusion as a week, let alone a year, can be a long time in politics, but it is possible, even likely, that the next government will be Conservative. Recent elections and the polls suggest a landslide victory, although a workable majority is a more likely outcome.
A new government usually means new policies, but this will be the first Conservative government for 13 years, so real change is anticipated. This realisation has led to understandable interest in the shadow cabinet, something they have not enjoyed for many years, and eagerness to know what their policy intentions are. The housing and planning sector is one area where radical change is mooted. The Tories have given various indications through speeches and green papers but much of the detail has yet to be revealed, and some of the proposals are almost certainly ‘testing’ the industry, to see what the reactions are.
Some of the proposals, however, will be implemented. An early ‘bonfire’ of quangos will almost certainly happen, with the regional assemblies and development agencies at the top of the pyre. All forms of regional planning and centrally-driven housing targets will be abolished, leaving it up to the local authorities themselves to decide housing numbers.
This completely reverses Labour policy, and appears to ignore the whole issue of housing supply. Although the current recession has temporarily taken the bottom out of the housing market, the underlying trend is one of under-supply: there remains a huge pent-up demand for housing – in the region of a million homes.
Leaving it to local councils sounds ludicrous. At the end of the day, councillors are looking for votes and want to get re-elected at the next election. As most developments result in local opposition, councils are unlikely to propose development of any size, and will not make the hard decisions necessary to bring forward any reasonable supply of new homes.
“This is bound to lead to far lower targets being set,” said Neil Osborn, senior professional director at DLP Planning, “with further successive reductions exacerbating the housing shortfall that already exists.”
Local communities are at the centre of the Tories’ proposed planning and housing reforms. They want to redress the balance between the developer, renowned for ‘raping and pillaging’ the land, and the community, usually in a David and Goliath situation when development proposals are brought forward. The ultimate aim of the Tories is that communities will actually welcome developers with open arms, although the balance would need to be radically changed for that to happen.
And radical is what they have planned. The idea is that local communities will have a far bigger say about what is built and where. The planning system will be focused on community involvement, and weighted in favour of developers that go through the process.
Grant Shapps MP, shadow housing minister, explained: “The current political climate is one shrouded in mistrust and disengagement. By giving real power back to communities through their local representatives we will strengthen democracy at the grass roots level where people can see that their votes really do mean something for them and their families.”
Developers will need to go to the local community far earlier, and engage with that community far deeper. The practice of ‘going through the motions’ will need to cease, with real consultation taking place with a ‘blank page’, before any schemes are designed. Of course, there will be certain parameters and various thresholds where a site is viable or not, with the subsequent project being a compromise between the developer and the community.
On the face of it, this system will not work, as almost all of the time the local community will respond in a negative way and say they do not want any development on the site. Neil Osborn continued: “Talking to the local community can be unproductive, and is certainly an expensive exercise. Usually, only those vehemently opposed to a development are motivated enough to get involved.
“Even when the usually silent majority do participate, they have very blinkered views of the whole process. They typically think the consultation is a waste of time and the form of the project a foregone conclusion.”
Hugh Roberts, planning director at Colin Buchanan, thinks there is not actually a huge gap between the perception of development and the benefits it can deliver. He said: “There can be useful dialogue with local communities, and they can be shown that a degree of development is good for their area. For example, to a declining village in need of through-traffic calming measures, or which has lost its post office or school, the idea of definable growth can gain acceptance. With a proportional level of development, the population of the village can be raised to a level where the post office and school become viable again and quality of life is improved because of traffic calming or even funding for a by-pass.”
To encourage development, incentives will be introduced. Grant Shapps MP continued: “The current system creates NIMBYs – we will introduce financial incentives to enable local councillors to be pro-development because their community will see the benefits when new homes are built.
“On top of allowing more control over design and the visual effects of development on their areas we will match the council tax receipts from the new homes for a period of up to six years. In the current financial situation in particular this will be a powerful incentive to encourage growth.”
In addition, S106 and the new CIL will be made more transparent and relevant to the local community. Specific targets will be set and monitored with spending being at ward level so that the loss of amenity is properly compensated where that loss occurs. Other suggestions have included allowing the issue of bonds, giving locals a benefit in approving a project.
There has been a requirement for developers to engage with local communities since the planning reforms introduced in the 2004 Act – the HBF included that recommendation when responding during the consultation. However, implementation of the requirement has been very haphazard, with only a small number of local authorities issuing guidance to developers on the level and type of community engagement required.
The new approach would mean community engagement is implicit, and a developer is very unlikely to gain consent without it, even by going to appeal. There is even the suggestion of extending local democracy for the most contentious planning applications, introducing local referendums to help guide decisions. The proposal is that if just five per cent of the local population sign a petition, that would be enough to trigger a referendum.
A huge barrier to local community engagement has been the Local Government Act 2000. It placed probity requirements on local councillors which, frankly, scared them to death. The new Conservative government would relax the rules, and in particular the pre-determination bar, so that the democratically elected members of the community can do what they were elected to do: represent their community.
No doubt, some developers who have read this far are shaking their heads in disbelief: such a system could never work, nothing will ever get built. Although they would agree that a new approach is needed, this may be just a little too radical. Others, however, would say it has merit as there are numerous examples where early and qualitative community engagement has been successfully used. There are areas of the country that need large-scale regeneration or would benefit from growth, such as in Thames Gateway and West Northamptonshire. These are so massive and complex, involving key decisions such as infrastructure and compulsory purchase, that they could and would not be taken by individual councils.
“Urban Development Corporations were created specifically for this role,” said John Markham, chairman of the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation. “Working with local authorities in an area, UDCs are there to facilitate development, making the required decisions and providing the joined-up strategy, enabling the growth and regeneration to take place in a sustainable way.”
The Tories certainly see a need for this level of development, and will encourage local authorities to join forces to facilitate it. What instrument they use will be up to them – whether that be under the auspices of the county council, through a UDC or using a development company.
John Markham continued: “Introducing more local democracy into the planning process, while ensuring a joined-up overall strategy accommodating proposals as much as possible to fit with what communities want, will be a very complex role and not possible by an individual council. A UDC, however, would be well-placed to undertake the role as it would be a simple extension of what they already do.”
Hugh Roberts continued: “The recent promotion of Regional Infrastructure Funds (by EEDA, SWRDA, SEEDA and others) should be protected through any proposed de-regionalisation Tory changes. An acid test for localisation policy will come when councils have to see beyond their own boundaries to the benefit of the region as a whole, when considering large inter-county transport or flood control projects for example.”
The plan to shift the emphasis of planning to local communities is a laudable one, but one that will only work if the public can see demonstrable benefits to allowing development. They need to feel they have a real say in what is built where, that their wishes are seen to be taken into consideration, that the benefit to them in allowing development is visible and quantifiable, and delivered. If all this happens, then almost certainly, communities previously embittered to change will start to open their arms to an altered breed of developers.
