CIH response to the Planning Reform Working Paper: Speeding Up Build Out

We welcome the opportunity to respond to MHCLG’s Planning Reform Working Paper: Speeding Up Build Out, focusing on our remit as the professional body for housing. 

At CIH, we support the government’s commitment to building 1.5 million homes. We have a desperate need for more affordable housing in this country, yet housebuilding has failed to keep pace with demand for years. At the same time, home ownership and social renting have fallen, while private renting (generally less secure and more expensive) has increased. Homelessness is at record levels and one in five children are living in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable homes. It is therefore welcome that the government is reviewing all aspects of the planning and development process, to remove  barriers to delivering the homes we need.

Whilst we have been broadly supportive of the government’s proposed planning reforms, it is positive that this paper acknowledges the need to go beyond planning to build new homes and resolve the housing crisis, as “ultimately, no-one can live in a planning permission”. This has also been outlined in the government’s recent announcements of the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme focusing on social rent homes, commitment to rent convergence, access to building safety funding, reforms to Right to Buy, and the wider housing package to support the sector to invest in existing and new homes. The movement from theory to practical delivery is welcomed, and CIH is prepared to support professionals in the sector in delivering the homes at scale within the new consistent and long-term housing framework from the government. We await the government’s forthcoming long-term housing strategy, which will align these elements for a comprehensive, sustainable and successful housing system that meets the needs of communities.

In line with the issues raised in the working paper, our members have similarly highlighted concerns around the impact of build out rates on development in their areas. Any opportunities to address these concerns and speed up development are positive, and our members broadly welcome many of the measures, with crucial safeguards to support the development of affordable homes in ways that are clear, proportionate and implementable. It is vital that these are reviewed collectively and fairly, to ensure that the right incentives are applied and to avoid loss of investment, appetite or overall private development in the market. 

For these reasons, the proposed measures must balance incentivising faster market delivery without risk to or loss of delivering genuinely affordable homes. We advocate for clear safeguards to prioritise affordability, outlined in the paper’s evidence that sites with high levels of affordable housing build out more quickly. The government has been clear that the housebuilding industry must work in partnership to deliver 1.5 million homes, therefore it is imperative to ensure that the whole housing system is working together to achieve the goals of building the right homes in the right places. Further details are outlined in our answers below.

CIH has long called for a return to strategic planning and welcomes the government’s commitment to this in their wider planning reforms. This is essential to ensure that areas are connected and aligned to meeting local housing needs, with a clear and holistic vision for the area and its communities.

This working paper outlines the clear benefits that schemes with higher levels of affordable housing often have higher rates of build out, alongside sites with mixed tenure. As such, we would call for a clear prioritisation of affordable housing development, which prioritise affordability and incentivise faster market delivery without the loss or risk to delivering genuinely affordable homes.

Partnership models in the sector are positive and demonstrate an effective model for delivering on more homes in a complex operating environment. The use of more partnership models (FPRP) is being explored in the sector; however, there are concerns that these seem to show preference to shared ownership, rather than social rent. It is therefore vital that the model of capital grant for development with reduced borrowing is supported to create capacity for housing associations to build.

We also support measures to unlock small sites, and support SME builders (as outlined further in the Planning Reform Working Paper: Reforming Site Thresholds). It is vital that the government works to reduce barriers to entry for SME builders, and the working paper outlines the positive impacts of having diverse market power in areas to increase build out rates. One member shared reflections from their work in practice, to unlock underused, small parcels of land. They outlined that these sites are often the quickest to complete, particularly when delivered in partnership with local authorities and other organisations, even though these are also often under-supported. The government’s recent Small Sites Aggregator initiative has been a positive step in supporting the development on sites like these, and has already shown that, with the right structure, small sites can unlock significant social value and contribute meaningfully to tackling acute local pressures on homelessness and temporary accommodation.

Members have raised the possibility of lower thresholds to be included to recognise the lower levels of development in rural areas. As noted in our response to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the definition of designated rural areas could be changed to include all parishes of 3,000 people or fewer, and give local planning authorities the ability to secure affordable housing contributions from sites of nine dwellings or fewer, to create more flexibility and encourage development to meet rural needs. CIH continues to echo points raised by rural housing providers and representatives on the acute and additional challenges of rural housing delivery and housing needs.

Additionally, there must be guidance provided on how different models of development, such as mixed tenure, may impact build out rates and potential for setting minimum build out rates and thresholds.

CIH has previously supported the use of CPO measures, with further details outlined in our response to MHCLG’s consultation. CPO measures are a constructive addition to allow local authorities the flexibility and power to act on opportunities to bring forward land for affordable homes. Yet, whilst there may be an appetite for increased use of CPO, there are concerns about the capacity, lack of specialist skills and resources of local planning authorities to use these powers effectively. For example, the use of conditional confirmation of CPOs outlined in the working paper appears to be a positive method in theory; however, would require significant time resource and skillset to do this effectively and without legal repercussions. To ensure that these measures are successful in delivering more affordable homes, the government could look at where additional training and support could be provided to local authorities to develop these skills, and provide incentives for these specialists to stay in the public sector, rather than the private sector. This is linked to wider concerns on local authority capacity and resource, which is further outlined in the response to question i.

It is positive that the use of development progress reports will provide a comprehensive picture on build out rates nationally for the first time. This will help to inform wider sector discussions on development capability and identify any barriers to development that can be addressed, as well as potential solutions and lessons learnt to drive the sector forward. MHCLG can support in the development of this evidence base, and support local authorities in how they negotiate and hold developers accountable in this process.

We support measures outlined in the paper for increased transparency and accountability. The use of clear timelines and deadlines with early engagement will help to reduce misunderstandings and hold those attempting to slow build out rates to account. It is important within this framework to include necessary exemptions to avoid disincentivising investment into development, as we have recently seen a volatile operating environment from the Covid-19 pandemic, supply chain shortages, lack of skills, and interest rate changes. It is important that the exemptions decided upon for external factors are clear, consistent, and transparent to ensure that there are not legal loopholes or unnecessarily arduous processes of negotiation created. Whilst those working in local planning authorities and development organisations will be best placed to determine the precise nature of the exemptions, member raised that delays that are external to the developer, such as planning conditions delays or statutory authority-caused delays will need to be taken into account.

Concerns have been raised of a potential ‘blame-game’ culture, where local planning authorities and developers may spend unnecessary time attempting to negotiate exemptions, justifications, or accountability points. This will be particularly evident with any lack of clarity, and therefore we urge the government to provide clear definitions on ‘external factors’ and ‘start on site’, to avoid legal loopholes or delays through court cases. For instance, ‘external shocks’ could vary at different levels, such as local (house prices changes), national (interest rate changes), or global (pandemic or material supply chain crises). Additionally, more clarity is also needed on how local authorities will monitor and enforce compliance with the measures, particularly in contexts where delays are caused by third parties (such as utilities, funders, contractors). This is further expanded in the answer to question i, on local authority resource and capacity.

As previously stated in question a, we recognise the need to tackle concerns from members about build out rates impacting on the delivery of affordable homes. 

In our engagement for this response, members and sector partners have raised the need to balance incentives and disincentives for development. There have been mixed views about whether a penalty is the correct way to proceed with this, as there are concerns that penalties could worsen viability and make relationships between local planning authorities and developers difficult, by introducing unnecessary tension and competition.  It is important to not punish those trying to build out, instead of only targeting those who are causing barriers to development, as outlined in the paper. We would welcome further review by the government, in consultation with the sector, about where incentives can be used primarily (such as home ownership incentives for buyers to stimulate the market), before needing to use disincentives such as penalties as a last resort. This would follow the government’s current method of providing a wide package of support to encourage housebuilding, and we welcome the introduction of relevant measures, such as the New Homes Accelerator to tackle stuck sites and blockages to development, and encourage a review of modern methods of construction to accelerate delivery.

In the circumstances of using the Delayed Homes Penalty, we would welcome using it as a last resort, as outlined in the paper. This ensures that positive working relationships and early engagement are used in the first instance by both local planning authorities and developers to tackle any barriers to delivery and provide effective and successful environments for future development. One member stated that the use of the penalty moves housebuilding towards other standard contracts, with justification needed for delays with clear quantification. There is also a potential impact on subcontractors, as developers may want to transfer risks to subcontractors, and this will need to be carefully considered in clear accountability and transparency measures.

As noted in our response to question f, we would welcome further clarity on the external factors to justify delays, to ensure that these are not used as excuses and loopholes by developers, or unnecessarily punitive measures against developers. There must be a shared and clear understanding between all involved parties to ensure that this is an effective tool to speed up build out rates, to avoid unwelcome further delays through legal cases or long viability negotiations.

Not applicable.

Local authority capacity and resource

Our members broadly support the measures in the working paper, with the caveat that local authorities must have the resource and capacity to check and monitor progress of sites, in order to be effective. CIH has repeatedly advocated this point, and welcomes the government’s recent council housebuilding skills and capacity programme to reflect this.

The paper’s aims to “strengthen the local authority toolkit to unblock stalled and stuck sites” is positive, but this toolkit must come with more resource to tackle new duties and responsibilities for local planning authorities. This response has previously outlined specific areas for this need, such as CPO skills. Additionally, the new powers outlined in the working paper under Section 113 and Section 112 in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act would likely provide more flexibility and powers to local authorities to build homes to meet local housing needs. However, the introduction of these changes will be complex and require adequate training and additional resources of planners and legal experts to navigate effectively. The measures should not introduce a burdensome process for those in scope, such as local authorities, charities, and SME developers, and should be developed in collaboration with those carrying out these new duties. 

Wider infrastructure concerns

We have previously outlined concerns raised by members around electrical grid connections which have delayed progressing development schemes. This is alongside other delays in the process highlighted by members, such as the under resourcing of the Building Safety Regulator. It is crucial that the government continues to align housing development and necessary infrastructure to ensure that there are not additional barriers to boosting the creation of new homes. The role of new towns will be key in this, as large-scale developments will require strategic planning to align housing, health and infrastructure and produce sustainable and healthy communities in the long-term.

Homes to meet local needs

The NPPF, finalised in December 2024, outlined the importance of having an up-to-date local plan, and has since led to the updating or creation of local plans across the country. We have called for the alignment of local plans, supported housing plans, Spatial Development Strategies, and plans to tackle homelessness and domestic abuse, to ensure that developments meet local authority broad strategic needs. All new developments must be able to demonstrate how they are meeting these needs under the local plan, to ensure that all actors in the housing system are working together to address the housing crisis.

Section 106 agreements

Indirectly linked to the concept of build out rates are the concerns around Section 106 agreements. We have previously outlined further details on these barriers to boosting development, including long and complex viability negotiations which can cause delays to development in a similar capacity to build out rates. We would call on the government to review solutions and improvements to the system, to ensure that we are making effective use of all processes and systems to boost affordable housing development.

Quality homes

Finally, we would emphasise the importance of delivering good quality homes in the right places, to meet local needs. Whilst speeding up build out rates is necessary, it must not come at the expense of quality or long-term outcomes for a community. This also includes building homes fit for the future, with robust standards for new homes to meet that are energy efficient, well-built and sustainable. Homes fit for the future encompasses building lifetime, accessible homes with could be enacted by without delay (Part M 4(2)) which would establish those standards as normal.

In our response to the NPPF consultation, we called for planning policy and relevant decision-making should be aligned as closely as possible to the Climate Change Act 2008 and its associated carbon budgets. We support wider changes to the NPPF to accelerate the generation of renewable energy, make it simpler to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes, and improve the climate resilience of new developments. 

Not applicable.

For more details on the policy paper visit the government's website.

If you'd like more information on our response please contact Megan Hinch, policy manager, megan.hinch@cih.org.