One of the central planks of the Labour Party manifesto was reform of the planning laws in order to speed up house building and stimulate economic growth. It has been promoted as one way of making real positive change with little cost. But is that true? It is likely to be one of the first big battles for the new Ministers Angela Rayner and Matthew Pennycook. Some fear that it means riding roughshod over local communities. And in the end, it may not come cheap.
The problem
We have never, in living memory, built houses fast enough to meet the demands of a growing and changing population. Recent estimates suggest that we should be building 340,000 houses a year, 40% of them ‘affordable’. But we are actually building only half that. In 2023, there were six households declared homeless for every new house built. Large numbers of people are housed in unsuitable accommodation. Social housing stock has been shrinking. House prices have been rising faster than incomes. And similar problems affect new industrial and infrastructure developments.
Our planning system is one of the causes of the problem. The new government has declared that reforming the system is a first priority. So what do we know of their plans?
Political resistance
Planning is notoriously difficult. Most people agree we need more houses, more employment and better infrastructure, but few welcome building in their immediate area, or pylon lines across their views. Local councillors and MPs are always very aware of the political risks of supporting new building. Across East Anglia, around 12% of all land is protected, as Green Belt, or under some other form of environmental designation.
But green belts were created to prevent ‘urban sprawl’ around existing cities, in precisely the areas where more people want to live. This is a particular issue for our region. There are nine constituencies where more than two thirds of the land is protected in that way, all in the commuter belt of Hertfordshire and South Essex. Resistance will be fierce.
Planning regulations are designed to ensure that development happens in appropriate places and is of good quality, but also to allow affected people to challenge plans for new development. Local authorities, who make most decisions, have faced major budget cuts. These reduce the number of planning officers to process proposals, and inspectors to maintain building standards. Meanwhile, developers whose plans are rejected know that local authorities will be reluctant to resist planning appeals, because of the high legal costs. As a result, poor plans get approved, and disputes can drag on for months or years, making developers wary of investing.
First steps
In response to local pressure, the Conservatives removed the previous requirement for local authorities to meet national house building targets. Councillors then bowed to local pressure, and building slowed or stopped.
A first step for the new government will be to reintroduce house building targets for local authorities, but in a framework of principles designed to make the building more acceptable. We have yet to see the details of their plans, but in public statements earlier in the year they outlined five broad principles.
1. Brownfield first
Planning authorities should prioritise ‘brownfield’ land: land which has previously been built on. CPRE, the countryside charity, has welcomed this principle and calculated that there is sufficient brownfield land already ‘shovel ready’ to build 1.2 million homes. However, it is less attractive to developers, because of the costs of clearing sites before they can build.
2. Grey belt second
Labour also plans to create a new category, ‘grey belt’, which is land currently designated as green belt, but which is not, in the usual sense, ‘green’. It includes car parks, wastelands and former industrial sites. This could make more land available for building, but opponents argue that the focus should be on restoring such land to its ‘green’ status, restoring or creating wetlands, woodlands and flood mitigation areas, not more housing or industry.
3. Affordable homes
“Any green belt land built on must target 50% affordable housing”. The principle is welcome, but the definition of ‘affordable’ is contentious. In many areas, a house price set at 80% of the local market rate is entirely beyond the reach of local people. But the bigger the discount, the less profitable it will be for the developer.
The biggest shortage is not ‘affordable’ housing, but rented social housing (including what used to be known as ‘council housing’). Here the stock has been run down through right-to-buy policies. But whether such housing is built by the public sector or private developers, it requires substantial up-front investment. There is a long-term return in rent, but it’s too long for most investors.
4. Boost public services and infrastructure
One major objection to housing development is that large estates are built without the accompanying infrastructure of schools, surgeries, and transport. This principle is therefore welcome, and it would overcome some of the common objections, but it is unclear how these would be paid for. The charges which developers currently pay for such services are sometimes avoided, and in any event much too small to cover the costs. Local authorities currently lack this kind of funding.
5. Protect genuine green space
“Homes built on the green belt must be accompanied by a plan to improve existing green spaces, and create new ones accessible to local people. This will mean new parks, playing fields and protected space for local species”. Again, the principle is admirable, but implementation comes with a cost.
An ambition: but can they deliver?
Overall, a major reform of the planning system, with rules to implement these principles, is welcome. And some of the traditional objections might be mitigated if these were built into law. This is also an opportunity to toughen up regulation on environmental standards. We have some of the least energy-efficient housing in Europe. Our current standards are low, and poorly enforced by overworked (and perhaps underqualified) building inspectors.
But the principles come with a cost. Developers will certainly welcome clearer guidance, and a faster and more predictable process, but they are not accustomed to meeting associated costs on the scale these proposals seem to imply. Local authorities may welcome a simpler framework, but they do not have resources either to provide the infrastructure, without which none of this will happen. The promised 300 more planning officers are promised, but that is only a 3% increase.
And meanwhile there are many people of all political persuasions, and including some who contributed to the Green Party surge last week, who will be sharpening their swords for new battles on familiar ground.
