Planning reform - where do we go from here?

Having spent much of the last six weeks immersed in the proposals for planning reform, here is a quick-fire guide from CIH’s policy and practice officer, Hannah Keilloh, to the changes proposed and her final thoughts on them now that the consultation responses have been submitted.

A new planning system on the horizon?

The government’s overhaul of planning is set out in the White Paper: Planning for the Future, with the interim proposals explained in changes to the current planning system.

‘Changes to the current planning system’ are intended to make planning more efficient for now, before the new system is introduced. Included in the proposals are changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need, securing First Homes through developer contributions, and temporarily lifting the small sites threshold below which developers do not need to contribute to affordable housing. You can see our briefing paper for members here.

The White Paper presents three pillars for wholesale reform: planning for development (including categorising all land into growth, renewal or protected), planning for beautiful and sustainable places, and planning for infrastructure and connected places (including the introduction of a new combined Infrastructure Levy). You can see our member briefing here.

CIH’s responses

Our responses to the two sets of proposals were shaped by member opinion panel surveys and discussions with a wide range of stakeholders with interest and expertise in this area.

CIH believes everyone deserves a safe secure and comfortable place to call home, and we need a planning system and government investment to make this happen. With this in mind, our responses, whilst welcoming a number of the aspirations in the proposals, set out a number of areas of grave concern. You can read our consultation response on the short-term changes here and the White Paper here.

Taking stock

So, what stands out for me on the two packages of proposals now the dust is settling? For both I think my main comment would be lack of detail and evidence. Whilst there are admirable ambitions and commitments in both documents there is also a concerning absence of modelling or evidence to suggest these commitments will be truly reflected or even deliverable though the specific proposals.

Proposals in ‘changes to the current system’ talk of levelling up, boosting supply, and supporting small and medium sized (SME) builders. Who can disagree with any of these aspirations? But as shown in modelling from Lichfields and others the new method will not ‘level-up’. Nor will it generate a stable, fair and deliverable housing need figure for every local authority which ensures that the supply of new homes is highest in the areas where they are needed most and not only where prices are highest. First Homes risk displacing other types of genuinely affordable homes and being prioritised over shared ownership. At a time of huge pressure for genuinely affordable housing this prioritisation of a discount market product is really worrying. The impact on affordable housing of lifting the small sites threshold could be disastrous and whether it would actually help SMEs is questionable.

For the White Paper, similarly there are many admirable ambitions and commitments. Deeper and more meaningful engagement, a modernised planning system which will be easy to understand and access, a focus on design and beauty, a speeded up more transparent and secure process – all good things! However, the changes to the planning system outlined will not lead to the intended increase in housing delivery because the barriers to this are not simply the result of a weaknesses in the current planning system. There is nothing in the White Paper to explain how build out will be ensured.

The removal of the duty to cooperate without a viable alternative to replace it rings alarm bells. A centralised method establishing housing requirements and factoring in constraints at a national level not only diminishes local control but raises more questions than it answers about how this would actually be done.

The proposals will place huge burdens on already under resourced planning teams. Without the necessary commitment to funding to address the gaps in skills, resources, and personnel, the new system will fall at the first hurdle.

The White Paper is not ambitious enough on tackling the climate emergency, and its focus on ‘beauty’ overlooks the many of the elements which are so important to how we experience the place we call home - space standards, adaptability and accessibility.

The proposals are worryingly light on detail on how the new levy would actually work in practice. Fundamentally, whilst the white paper says it will deliver as much “if not more” affordable homes, there is no modelling or evidence to support this claim at a time when we are facing huge demand for genuinely affordable homes.

So once the two packages of reform have been read, digested and analysed, and despite the government’s own stated commitment to delivering “the homes we need in the places we want to live at prices we can afford”, it is hard to feel reassured. There is no doubt that there are many frustrations with the current planning system and that its enhancement and improvement is a positive thing. However, the wholesale overhaul of the system and the lack of detail contained in the proposals could cause more uncertainty, at least in the short-term, and could even delay the step change the government is seeking in terms of increasing housing numbers.

It will be interesting to see how the government responds to the consultation responses received. From the abundance of webinars and social media discussion over the last few months it seems that many (including some of the government’s own party) are as concerned as us by the proposals. How far the drive will be taken to speed up and simplify the system remains to be seen, but what does seem clear is that the pursuit of simplicity could actually just add to the confusion.