159

garage/covered parking
parking
2
NEWS
3
Property without politics?
Toby Lambert, Head of Residential Development (East) at Carter Jonas looks ahead to this
year’s General Election and why the development industry will be a key battleground.
The position of the two main political parties could not be more diametrically
opposed: Labour as YIMBYs, Conservatives as NIMBYs; Labour in support of Green
Belt release, Conservatives opposed; Labour committed to housebuilding targets for
both market and social/affordable housing, Conservatives blocking development
through indecision and delay.
This contrast is exemplified in the fact that housebuilding was a major focus of
Labour’s autumn conference, whereas it was notably absent from the Conservatives’
conference agenda.
The need for change
Most of us in the development industry recognise the need for change. As the
Home Builders Federation (HBF) says, introducing its recent report Firmer
Foundations, “The UK is in the midst of a housing crisis, where politics has too
often got in the way of practical solutions”.
Its ten-point plan for government action states that England is the hardest place in
the developed world to find a home, with the lowest rates of vacant homes across
all OECD nations.
Despite there being a demand for change, however, I am beginning to question
whether politics is the force to bring it about. Should something as important as a
home become a political football, with approaches to development radically shifting
with political whim or a change of government, and should the output of the
development industry be so intrinsically linked to politicians’ and pundits’ desire to
talk up or down the housing crisis?
It was over a year ago, following a rebellion by backbench
Conservative MPs, that Michael Gove promised to make
government-set housing targets more flexible. The statement
resulted in many local authorities stalling their local plans in
anticipation of further clarification - clarification which is still
awaited. And whilst the new NPPF shows that we delivered
232,820 net additional dwellings in 2021/2022, this still falls short
of the Government’s stated target of 300,000 homes to be built year
on year from 2025.
The shortage of consented land is compounded by delays in the
planning system – the latter the result of the failure to resolve the
nutrient neutrality problem, the under-resourcing of local planning
authorities and the inertia in local plan production, especially in
authorities dependent on Green Belt release for growth.
The impact on the development industry is intense competition
for available land, with higher bids than anticipated and less of
a variance between conditional and unconditional offers. This
immediately factors into viability assessments.
In some cases, it dilutes the quality of new communities or substantially reduces
the benefits that can be provided – from open spaces and community infrastructure
to social/affordable housing, and it invariably perpetuates house price rises.
With the PLC housebuilders competing for smaller sites than before, SME
housebuilders are often priced out of the market. Unsurprisingly, the HBF despairs
of a housing crisis, ‘decades in the making’.
In part, a consequence of slower development; in part a consequence of increased
house prices and increased mortgage rates, sales rates are currently as low as 0.5
sales per week per operational outlet compared to an average of 1.5. This then
impacts the financing of development schemes, which is already stretched by the
considerable hike in interest rates.
With each of these factors the result of recent political decisions, I believe the
argument in favour of separating land from politics has never been more valid.
There are many levels on which this could occur, and in doing so substantially
benefit the functioning of the sector and the supply of new homes.
A long-term approach to land assembly
Land assembly is a long-term process which invariably extends beyond a single
political term. But the release of land must be a continual process – not one to be
delayed because greater restrictions on the Green Belt (under the Conservatives)
might raise values or rushed through because the potential for CPO by Local
Authorities (under Labour) might reduce values.
Strategic planning should operate outside the remit of local authorities, the elected
members of which are too easily swayed by constituents’ sentiment, especially in
the run-up to an election.
Consistency in planning gain
Greater clarification and consistency are required over the provision of community
benefits, social/affordable housing, biodiversity net gain and the many other
demands made on developers throughout the planning process – demands which
have the potential to threaten the viability of an entire scheme when announced at
a late stage in its conception.
The proposed Infrastructure Levy is probably not the ideal – not least because
being determined by development profits – it cannot be budgeted for and therefore
considerably increases uncertainty.
Greater consistency in housebuilding input can only be achieved through greater
consistency in the requirements made of developers.
Objectivity in decision-making
The developer’s utopia would include the abolition of planning committees. This
would deliver the much-needed separation of development from local politics
and an increased consistency and transparency in planning decisions, based on
universal, objective principles.
The policies need not be put in place by the Secretary of State as is currently the
case with the NPPF (although that said, at the time of writing, the revisions first
proposed a year ago are yet to be implemented) - but might be better drawn up by
nationally based arms-length organisation.
While the Regional Spatial Strategies of the early 2000s were far from utopia, the
majority of the development industry would, I believe, agree that they are the
closest we have been to achieving utopia when it comes to allocating land for
development, and that coupled with the ‘zoning’ process that is proven to work in
other countries, may provide the best solution to date.
Longevity and political separation in planning principles
This process would have the further benefit of allowing policies to extend beyond
a five-year parliamentary term, as is necessary for example in implementing a
wholescale review of the Green Belt, establishing investment zones or New Towns,
or of any development reliant on new transport infrastructure.
The positive elements of politics
With the development industry representing such a large portion of the UK
economy, the variance in economics, market forces and social demands would
mean that politics could not be disassociated from the sector entirely.
The involvement of politics would be largely fiscal – for example, in providing
initiatives for first-time buyers to get onto the property ladder or incentivise
downsizing through Stamp Duty reductions. Both are crucial to re-starting the market
after a slow-down but may require a shorter-term, closely monitored application
which does not create a disruptive bump in the market (as was said of Help to Buy).
A single initiative to encourage baby boomers to downsize could release trillions of
pounds of equity from homes, ultimately cascading down to ensure we stimulate
the market from the bottom up.
Conclusion – is politics-free development a reality?
Within its first 100 days, the 1997 Labour Government took interest rates out of
politics. This move was previously unimaginable – although it has largely been seen
as successful. Could a 2024 Labour Government take planning out of politics?
Perhaps not – not because it would be impossible to do so, but because the Labour
Party is intent on resolving the housing crisis, and to succeed in doing so would not
only be an unparalleled achievement but would almost certainly guarantee a second
term.
However, elements of the planning system, as we saw with Labour’s Regional
Spatial Strategies and Regional Assemblies, can be successfully disentangled from
politics to the advantage of all involved, politicians included.
www.thepropertydrop.co.uk
01600 717255
info@thepropertydrop.co.uk
Whilst every care is taken with materials submitted to The Property Drop the publisher cannot accept responsibility for loss
or damage to such materials. Opinions expressed in articles are strictly those of the authors. This publication is copyright
bedroom
and may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publishers. Prices and details are subject to
change and the publisher can take no responsibility for omissions or errors. The inclusion of an advertiser in this paper is not
necessarily a recommendation. ©The Property Drop 2024.
bathroom
The icons under the properties throughout
Property Drop indicate the following:
bedroom
bathroom
living room etc
bathroom
bedroom
bedroom
Number of
bedrooms
bedroom
living room etc
Number bathroom of
bathroom
living room central etc heating
bathroom garage/covered parking
central heating
garage/covered parking
living room etc
bedroom
living room etc
living room etc
reception
rooms
central heating
garage/covered parking
Number of
bathrooms
garage/covered parking
central heating
central heating
central heating
parking
parking
ELECTRIC
Method of
central
heating
Covered
garage
parking
parking
Parking
space
garage/covered parking
parking