Less chat, more homes

Until recently, British governments appeared to have little understanding of the causes of our housing crisis, and even less idea of how it might be solved. They took to blaming developers and housebuilders instead – hardly surprising when the industry’s usual response was sniping from the sidelines. How different it has become today. The Barker reports, PPS3 and the chancellor’s pre-Budget statement have all pushed housing supply and affordability up to one of our biggest domestic issues and few in government any longer dispute that our industry is the solution to the crisis, not part of the problem.

The planning system’s problems are now accepted and there are some chinks of light in recent government pronouncements. But the fact remains that we build fewer homes than 80 years ago, with our planning system bogged down in consultation and bureaucracy. Whereas 20 years ago it took a non-contentious application 8 to 12 weeks to go through the system, it now takes at least 8 to 12 months. As a result, we are building half the homes we need annually, the backlog builds up and affordability problems worsen. Perversely, such a strong artificial constraint on supply could underpin the market for years to come and, indeed, it could offer a degree of insulation from a future downturn. That, sadly, will not help today’s first-time buyers, a whole generation of whom have been sacrificed, and it’s certainly not in our industry’s long-term interests.

I’m convinced that a large number of small improvements to the system could have a real impact. Although there’s now a growing acceptance that some greenfield sites need to be made available, that shouldn’t stop the government from raising the brownfield target from 60% to 65% and strengthening the protection of core green belt areas. Also, why can’t brownfield applications, particularly those including affordable homes, be given fast-track priority through the system? I also recently suggested a short-term planning “amnesty” for minor and domestic planning applications, which account for half of all the applications and appeals clogging the system. A bit revolutionary, I admit, but it could help break the current logjam.

The democratic principle must remain enshrined within the planning system, but I dream of a system where consultation is curtailed, and where the wide public debate is carried out in the crucial early stages when development principles are being decided. But once that debate has been concluded and a Local Plan agreed, then the local planners would be left to carry out that agreed policy without further consultation or political involvement. Of course, contentious applications would need to be treated differently but we’d still be building a lot more homes.

The collapse of social housing production is another reason supply is so low. We’re now building 80% less subsidised housing than in the 1970s. The government has ambitious plans to revive the subsidised sector but, ironically, these plans could well be frustrated by the vagaries of the planning system. The new spirit of co-operation, bold ideas and vision are all well and good, but building more and better homes will ultimately depend on the planning system’s ability to adapt quickly.