Planning for the future

The UK’s planning system is widely criticised as dysfunctional.

This sentiment is echoed by a broad range of stakeholders, including property professionals, housebuilders, commercial developers, and investors.

For example, in a recent survey from the House Builders Federation (HBF), 93% of all SME housebuilders say delays to planning are a major barrier to growth.

Planning officers who help implement the system at local level are faced with mounting workloads at a time when local authorities are having to cut their budgets – 91% of SME housebuilders in the HBF survey agreed that planning departments in local authorities were under-resourced.

And even those who make decisions on planning matters are far from pleased with the situation – a survey of more than 400 councillors who sit on planning committees found that almost three quarters believe the housing crisis has become worse as a result of the planning system.

Councillors cited an increased workload and resourcing issues as key barriers to determining planning applications in a timely fashion.

While such a response may provoke a rather wry smile in some areas of the property world, it does underline the parlous state of the current system when even those responsible for implementing the planning system acknowledge its shortcomings.

There are a variety of different reasons why we are facing these challenges, many of them traceable to the competing priorities, beliefs and agendas of everyone involved in the system, from residents and campaigners to builders and occupiers.

It is a complex environment in which to operate, which is why simple solutions are very difficult to find.

The latest attempt to improve the situation was one of the first things announced when the new Labour Government came to power earlier this year.

In fact, it was noticeable that it was Chancellor Rachel Reeves rather than Housing Secretary Angela Rayner who initially revealed the party’s plans for reforming the planning system, underlining the importance with which Labour views the issue, particularly in light of its central stated aim of improving UK economic growth.

The main plank of the policy is the idea that there should be a presumption in favour of development when local authorities and other bodies are scrutinising planning applications as the Government sets a target of 1.5 million new homes by 2029.

In theory, this means that building should be prioritised over local objections. In practice, this may be more challenging to achieve, but the direction of travel is very clear.

To support this, local authorities will be required to produce local plans that meet mandatory housing targets and, where necessary, they will be expected to review their green belt.

Labour’s messaging around this latter point has been particularly interesting to see.

Initially conceived some 70 years ago as a way of limiting the growth of large built-up areas and preventing large towns from merging into one another, over the years the ‘green belt’ has attained almost totemic status, particularly from campaigners keen to stop the spread of development in their local areas.

However, the reality is that substantial parts of green belt land are rather less than green and do not consist of meadows, heathland or woodland as the name might suggest.

Labour has sought to highlight this aspect by creating a sub-category of green belt land: ‘grey belt land’.

This term is used to describe land which currently has green belt protected status but is, in the party’s words, “poor quality and ugly”.

The government’s definition of the grey belt includes land on the edge of existing settlements or roads, as well as old petrol stations and car parks – Labour has previously pointed to the example of a disused garage in Tottenham, north London, as an example of a green belt site that cannot be developed into housing because of its designation.

Under the government’s plans, if a council’s housing targets cannot be met, some existing green belt land will be re-designated as grey belt. This will free up land for the construction of new homes, although it will be up to individual councils to decide what will be designated as grey belt.

New rules will also require half the dwellings built in the grey belt to be affordable homes.

While the priority will remain for developers to build on brownfield sites first, the introduction of this new category of land opens up a lot of potential for construction in areas where a certain amount of development has already taken place.

In addition to this new designation and the accompanying regulations and guidance, if the government feels that a planning authority has blocked a development that would benefit the regional and national economy, Housing Secretary Angela Rayner “will not hesitate” to use her prerogative to review the application.

This latter power holds open the possibility that large-scale or significant commercial developments could be built, even if the local planning authority turns an application down.

On the face of it, these changes could have a major effect on the amount of residential and commercial development which takes place right across the country, increasing certainty for developers and investors in one of the UK’s most important sectors.

Initial reaction to the proposals from those in the industry has been warm.

Home Builders Federation chief executive Neil Jefferson said: “Planning has been the biggest constraint on housebuilding in recent years and the measures proposed will address the main areas of concern by bringing more land forward for development more quickly.”

Victoria Hills, chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute, said: “We believe that these measures will not only restore trust in the planning system but also demonstrate that with sufficient resources, the planning system can effectively create spaces where communities can thrive.”

Rico Wojtulewicz, head of policy and market insight at the National Federation of Builders, hailed the announcements as “the first step to restoring new housing supply, supporting SME builders and stopping hundreds of millions of pounds being wasted on bureaucracy”.

A promising start, but nevertheless, the proof of the pudding for this policy is how it works in practice and what happens if and when public opposition to certain developments starts to inflict political damage, whether at a local or national level.

There are certainly some interesting times ahead as one of the UK’s most important sectors faces a wide-ranging shake-up.