The need to build new homes in London and the South-east is now clearly recognised by the government as critical to the economy. The Barker review, set up by the chancellor and deputy prime minister, is examining the underlying causes of the lack of supply in the UK, looking at factors affecting the housebuilding industry, how it interacts with the planning system and sustainable development objectives.
One of the key areas examined in the primary consultation, which has just ended, was policy constraints, including the interaction of the housebuilding industry with the planning system and tax regime.

The supply of new homes is inextricably linked to the planning system so it is important that the planning reforms proposed by the government will increase the output of new homes.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is shortly to return to the Commons. Unfortunately, government amendments will be made before the interim Barker report, and the bill is expected to complete its passage before the final report is published in the spring of next year.

But, given that the government has already deferred the bill once, surely it is worth waiting for the Barker review to report before making these amendments? If there is an underlying issue highlighted in either this review or in Sir John Egan's parallel review into skill shortages, there may be a need to amend primary legislation. A deferral would ensure further debate and amendments to the bill so that more new homes will be created, not less – and there will be an interim report from the Barker review in the autumn, so it need not be a long wait.

More than 100 responses have been submitted to the Barker review's principal consultation and there has been an overwhelming view from the private sector that outline consents must be retained. Although the government has now amended clause 40 to permit outline applications to be made where statement of development principles have been issued, it wishes to maintain clause 92, which enables the repeal of outline consents.

Given that the government has already deferred the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill once, surely it is worth waiting for the Barker review before making the final amendments?

Without the facility of outline consent, it will be virtually impossible to bring forward complex brownfield sites to deliver the government's objective of creating sustainable communities. It is not possible to work up major developments to satisfy a detailed application. Look at recent major applications for 10,000 homes and mixed-use at Greenwich; the Wembley proposals; Stratford Rail lands or the major schemes proposed for Barnet – it is schemes such as these that would make the "step change" the government is seeking.

There has also been much debate over developers maintaining the ability to apply for parallel applications – twin tracking – and repeat applications. These facilities allow developers to get into effective dialogue with councils and communities. Again, the Planning Bill proposes to remove them. Rather than increasing housing that is agreed at local level, developers will have no incentive to do so and a greater use of the appeal system will probably be the result.

The recent consultation over proposed changes to planning policy guidance note PPG3 and the potential withdrawal of circular guidance 6/98 exacerbate these problems. Local authorities have welcomed these proposed changes as they interpret them to enable sites to be designated for 100% social housing and set the mix not only of affordable housing but also that of the private sector homes.

Source

Housing Today

Postscript

Charmaine Young is regeneration director at housebuilder St George. She writes here in a personal capacity