Close
The first in a series of blogs relating to The Bartlett School of Planning's research cluster "Planning systems, planning reforms"
By Professor Ben Clifford and Dr Janice Morphet
15 August 2024
Introducing Planning systems, planning reforms
Planning reform is high on the agenda in the UK and internationally. There are congested priorities, numerous stakeholders and increasingly polarised debate around how we manage our built and natural environments. We have launched Planning systems, planning reforms, a new research cluster in the UCL Bartlett School of Planning to bring together academics interested in better understanding planning reform, its drivers and consequences.
A key part of our activity as a cluster over the coming year will be bringing together a range of academics and practitioners to discuss key issues related to the current round of planning reform in England through a series of roundtable discussions hosted at UCL. A summary of discussions will be written-up as blog posts available on our webpage.
Local authority housebuilding: challenges, opportunities, funding and delivery
The new Labour UK government has moved quickly to push a programme of planning reform, with explicit links being made to a national mission of economic growth as well as a pressing need for greater housing supply. Much of this discussion has focussed on the need for measures such as housing targets in local plans, release of green belt sites and other measures to support what seems to be all and any housing delivery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put a priority on the delivery on an announced target of 1.5 million new homes together with a plan for new towns. From public announcements so far, it seems much of this provision is expected to be provided by private developers but new funding for social housing has also been promised in the forthcoming Spending Review.
We will return to some of the proposed planning reforms in future blogs. What seems to have been missing from much of discussion so far, however, has been a focus on delivery of housing by local authorities. The housing crisis is more complex than just a national undersupply of market homes, but a reductionist debate seems to have focussed heavily on this recently. There is evidence that large volume housebuilders manage their build out rates to maintain prices, and in many places the most acute need is specifically around affordable and particularly social rent housing rather than just overall numbers. This will not be addressed by private sector speculative development activity alone.
Housing supply has dominated planning reform debate in England since the Barker Review in 2004, when the then Chancellor was using housing price and availability as one of his market tests for the UK joining the Eurozone and no less in the buildup to the 2024 General Election. In the lacuna around local authority housebuilding, a few weeks ago 19 people attended a roundtable discussion hosted by UCL, including academics, colleagues from think tanks, local authority housing teams, housing associations, private developers and housing related third sector organisations. The discussion was located in the research on Local Authority Direct provision of housing 2023 undertaken by Professor Janice Morphet and Professor Ben Clifford published in January 2024. This research showed the continuing ambition of many local authorities to deliver housing directly as in their previous research 2017, 2029 and 2021 but a sense of pessimism given a range of challenges in increasing affordable housing supply in their areas including the rise in homelessness, costs of construction, meeting green targets and making homes safe and healthy.
The roundtable discussion focused on funding and delivery and participants strongly felt that housing should be seen as part of the social infrastructure of the country, linked to economic growth and productivity. There was a common view that people understood the financial pressures on a new government, and housing may be seen as in competition with crisis in a range of public services, but that housing investment can help in relation to other service failures such as health and wellbeing, welfare and children in poverty. There are numerous recent studies indicating the long term national costs of not dealing with our current housing crisis, with common advocacy for an evidence-based focus on expanding funding for affordable and social housing. Given the spiralling costs of temporary accommodation, this is an urgent priority for local government.
Just as there are congesting priorities for the planning system, so within public housing there are competing claims on available funding for retrofitting existing stock (dealing, for example, with fire safety, dam and mould), decarbonisation and new build. This is impacting housing associations as well as local authorities, albeit local government may have a greater headroom for prudential borrowing. There was a strong view on the need for greater stability in the funding available to support social housing, to allow proper programming of development activity (which can take years from inception to delivery). This theme of greater certainty over longer timeframes was repeated in the roundtable discussion in relation to various issues, for example providing certainty on rental income for PRS investors, extending Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) repayment periods, providing a ten year rent settlement for local authorities and housing associations. This is also important given the subsequent changes in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by the new government that will allow more weight to be given to social housing need, which will be difficult to sustain in local plan examinations if there is no identified funding.
Some technical measures were also mentioned in discussion, including specific funding from the PWLB for local authority housing development on their own sites as an invest and save model, and introducing more flexibility in grant funding regimes and over use of Right to Buy receipts.
A range of issues beyond just funding and finance clearly matter to boosting local authority housing delivery as well. This includes the need for culture change in HM Treasury to more broadly recognise the multiple benefits of investing in local government housing development, but equally for councils to reduce internal silos through introducing and extending housing delivery teams. Planning could do more to recognise the range of housing markets operating (beyond just market sale) whilst planning gain provisions need to recognise the value of social housing in particular albeit low value areas may need other approaches. A move away from bidding rounds for various funds by central government, including Homes England, would reduce the time and attention authorities need to spend on these exercises: core funding is usually better.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, a range of planning issues were raised during the discussion. This included the need for longer-term, integrated, strategic planning (with a real opportunity for Mayoral Combined Authorities here), more meaningful support for skills and capacity building, and appreciating that delays can be caused not just by Local Planning Authorities but also by under-funded other consultees including Highways Authorities and various government agency statutory consultees vital for expertise on nature, flooding, heritage and so on. Allowing authorities to build-up capacity and fund permanent staff instead of relying on contractors was also strongly raised.
Over the past few weeks, a new government has changed the mood music around housing and planning. Alleviating the housing crisis needs real action on genuinely affordable housing delivery. With their local knowledge, focus and accountability, local government must be at the heart of this, but to realise their ambitions, it is clear central government needs to listen to the wealth of evidence and opinion coming forward in discussions like our recent roundtable.
Find out more
Learn more about the Planning systems and planning reform research cluster.