So, we are no further forwards in respect to Starter Homes guidance and whether it will be carried forward under Theresa May’s Government, nor do we know whether local planning authorities (LPAs) will be able to set their own planning application fees and what, if any, higher level caps might be imposed.

The Autumn Statement has, however, generated its own planning talking points: on the back of latest figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), which show that 32,110 affordable homes (new build and acquired stock) were delivered in England during 2015-16 – a 52% dip on the previous year – a new package of funding was announced to boost house building and the provision of affordable housing. It is claimed this will deliver more than 140,000 new homes and target areas where housing need is greatest.

Affordable Homes

The Chancellor says that the 140,000 new homes will be funded by £3.7bn by 2020-21: this equates to £2.3bn via a new Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF), allocated on a competitive basis to local authorities to provide the infrastructure needed to unlock new private house building, resulting in 100,00 new homes; an extra £1.4bn will also deliver an additional 40,000 affordable home (AH) starts.

The providers of AHs will be pleased to note that the Government also intends to relax restrictions on grant funding ‘to allow providers to deliver a mix of homes for affordable rent and low-cost ownership to meet the housing needs of people in different circumstances and at different stages of their lives’.

Road and Rail Funding

A particularly exciting element is the pledge of £127m towards funding for road and rail developments in the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor. This is interesting for two reasons: Ministers have reportedly strongly implied that they will look favourably on bids for monies from the HIF that prioritise new transport links, plus this announcement follows hot on the heels of the National Infrastructure Commission’s ‘Interim Report’ which states that the lack of sufficient housing ‘presents a fundamental risk to the success of the [Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor] area’ and recommends that the Government should commit to plans for a new rail link between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford, ensuring it is delivered before 2024.

UK’s Silicon Valley?

The media has also jumped on this development opportunity and what it could mean for not just the region but also the country, where the UK could have its own technology arc to rival California’s Silicon Valley. The related commercial, transport and housing development would undoubtedly result in significant inwards investment to the Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire areas, as well as further afield. Presuming that this key objective is carried forward, it will mean LPA development plans will need to be revised to plan for the associated growth, resulting in opportunities for landowners and developers to promote their land. It also means that it will be important for local people to engage with the planning system to help decide the direction of future development.

Growth Deals

The Autumn Statement also said that £1.8bn will be awarded to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) across England through a third round of Growth Deals. Some £556m of this will go to the North of England, £392m to LEPs in the Midlands, £151m to the East of England, £492m to London and the South East, and £191m to the South West. It will be interesting to see how the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership (SEMLEP) decides to allocate its funding, given the opportunities presented by the aforementioned £127m to be allocated to the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor.

All this funding is coming from a new National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF), worth £23bn over five years.

The large sums being talked about have come as a result of a change in tack as far as the fiscal plan is concerned. It would seem that Phillip Hammond is less concerned with reducing the deficit and is more willing to borrow than his predecessor George Osborne, and seems intent on direct stimulation for the construction industry and the delivery of new housing.

However, this spending spree may need to be tempered by news from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which said that a 13,000 fall in homes built by housing associations would only be partly offset by other policies. As such, while some of the projects to be supported by the Autumn Statement would increase housebuilding, the OBR says that others would reduce it further still, with an overall 0.2% fall in residential investment growth. Bad news for the Government’s objective of one million new homes by 2020.

Green Belt Swaps

Finally, the Sunday Telegraph reports that ‘Green Belt swaps’ are to be more actively encouraged, which will allow LPAs to remove protections on one part of the Green Belt in return for creating a new area of protected land elsewhere. The mechanism already exists, of course, but it is hoped it will be more embraced and this will allow LPAs greater scope to meet housing targets, while maintaining the original Green Belt protections.

If you would like to discuss your own project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please browse the website or drop us a line at info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Delay of Housing White Paper appeared first on Apex Planning.

Bone of Contention

We can’t be certain, but we do know that Housing and Planning Minister Gavin Barwell MP has said that the White Paper will include measures to enable an increase in planning fees – the language used suggests that local planning authorities (LPAs) may have an opportunity to set their own fee rates, rather than be restricted by fee levels that are set by central Government. This has been a bone of contention among applicants and developers in terms of vastly different fee rates for pre-application advice, so, it will be interesting to see the reaction if this is the case for planning applications.

In addition, we’re keen to see whether the White Paper sets out controls to ensure that the monies generated by the increased planning fees will be ring fenced to ensure improvements to planning services. It is also unclear whether the potential for independently set planning application fees will be capped and if this will encourage developers to speed up the submission of their applications to take advantage of the existing fee rates.

Starter Homes

However, it would seem that the White Paper will be silent on the matter of Starter Homes; this was a measure heralded by David Cameron and, indeed, it was a policy that he personally endorsed. In contrast, the new Government has shown a complete lack of interest in the measure and appears to be happy for it to disappear into obscurity, leaving some LPAs in a degree of limbo as they have already begun preparing for its adoption. Of course, this state of limbo also affects developers, some of whom might be unsure whether to factor in the cost of Starter Homes provision when making offers for land.

The White Paper is due to be published at a time of increasing debate and flux. The Royal Town planning Institute (RTPI), for instance, has just published its policy Statement – ‘Where should we build new homes’ – and stated that the White Paper must look again to where new housing is directed. The policy statement considers issues surrounding the release of some Green Belt land and the mantra of ‘brownfield first’. While it advocates the latter remaining the priority, it highlights why it can’t be expected that such sites will simply come forward on their own. It also points out that there are well-documented problems trying to deliver housing on sites where they incur remediation costs and which may not be accessible to transport. The RTPI does not advocate unjustified losses to the Green Belt, but instead states that ‘we need to look at the countryside and green belts beyond their recreational and aesthetic appeal, and assess how they can help to shape urban change in the most equitable way.’

This is something that we would also endorse because there are parts of the Green Belt that do not necessarily meet the original objectives of the land designation, which was to help maintain the ‘openness’ around settlements and to avoid coalescence. Although the RTPI’s policy statement is not seeking amendments to Green Belt boundaries, we feel that across individual LPA areas it is something that is required, particularly where sites are substantially surrounded by development and would not introduce development further into the open countryside, meaning there would be no adverse impact on the environment or the character and appearance of the edge of an urban location.

What the RTPI suggests is that there should be a review of a wider area, crossing administrative boundaries – and this is certainly something we would endorse. In fact, we see the need for a local and a strategic review of Green Belt designations. These reviews should also be set against the pressure for identifying appropriate land for development that did not necessarily exist when all Green Belt land was first designated.

Policy and Planning

On a separate issue, there has been recent debate concerning the application of policy and the problems of political interference in the planning system – this was a topic presented by John Rhodes, a member of the four-person team who wrote the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The interference referred to was not simply restricted to LPA Planning Committees, but politicians in Central Government, too.

Rhodes echoed the recommendations of the Local Plans Expert Group inquiry with a variety of ways in which to make plan-making more efficient and effective, and to restore the integrity of the plan-led system. The list included making it a statutory duty to create a post-NPPF local plan and streamlining the process of assessing objectively assessed need (OAN) for housing. (See more details here). Looking at the list of recommendations highlighted by Rhodes, it is difficult to argue that they would do anything but improve the current planning system.

If you would like to discuss your own project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please browse the website or drop us a line at info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post White Paper Whitewash? appeared first on Apex Planning.