Where do we begin?
There are many moving parts just now, and like life in general, it’s hard to know exactly what the future holds.
In this article we attempt to bring together a few threads to highlight the ongoing and new risks to our communities and environment when it comes to large scale housing development. Specifically for Billericay but also the borough as a whole.
The Government has renewed its focus on housing under Boris’s “build, build, build” proclamation with the aim to build 330,000 homes a year . This is heightened by the understandable need for fast economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and there is no hiding the fact that the construction industry is a major employer and tax revenue generator.
We also have the ongoing saga of the Basildon Local Plan that was submitted to the Planning Inspector more than a year ago (March 2019) that has yet to be examined in public to determine its soundness. We do not know why there has been this delay and the threat of 2,700 houses all being build on the Green Belt around Billericay remains unresolved. There are indications that the examination could be next year which would suggest that a new Local Plan could finally be adopted in 2022, some 8 years late!
For many months there have been rumblings from Government and consultants alike that there needs to be a major reform of the planning system to make it easier and quicker to build houses, especially large scale developments. This finally saw the light of day as a parliamentary white paper called Planning For The Future launched by the Government in August 2020 and it is this set of proposals that we focus on here as they are the most concerning and will have a major impact on us if implemented.
The proposals are long and it’s not feasible, if sensible, for us to review every aspect. We have, somewhat understandably, picked up on the parts that have the most negative potential for us locally, but there are some good elements and we have highlighted those too.
We come into this after such a long period of distrust in the planning system, local councils and developers that it’s hard to see a clear way forward that can radically and positively change for the better. These proposals may not be the answer but it’s a start of a consultative process. Hopefully the Government will listen and adapt where necessary.
In this article we attempt to bring together a few threads to highlight the ongoing and new risks to our communities and environment when it comes to large scale housing development. Specifically for Billericay but also the borough as a whole.
The Government has renewed its focus on housing under Boris’s “build, build, build” proclamation with the aim to build 330,000 homes a year . This is heightened by the understandable need for fast economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and there is no hiding the fact that the construction industry is a major employer and tax revenue generator.
We also have the ongoing saga of the Basildon Local Plan that was submitted to the Planning Inspector more than a year ago (March 2019) that has yet to be examined in public to determine its soundness. We do not know why there has been this delay and the threat of 2,700 houses all being build on the Green Belt around Billericay remains unresolved. There are indications that the examination could be next year which would suggest that a new Local Plan could finally be adopted in 2022, some 8 years late!
For many months there have been rumblings from Government and consultants alike that there needs to be a major reform of the planning system to make it easier and quicker to build houses, especially large scale developments. This finally saw the light of day as a parliamentary white paper called Planning For The Future launched by the Government in August 2020 and it is this set of proposals that we focus on here as they are the most concerning and will have a major impact on us if implemented.
The proposals are long and it’s not feasible, if sensible, for us to review every aspect. We have, somewhat understandably, picked up on the parts that have the most negative potential for us locally, but there are some good elements and we have highlighted those too.
We come into this after such a long period of distrust in the planning system, local councils and developers that it’s hard to see a clear way forward that can radically and positively change for the better. These proposals may not be the answer but it’s a start of a consultative process. Hopefully the Government will listen and adapt where necessary.
The White Paper and public consultations
If you were to quickly, and perhaps cynically, summarise the Planning For The Future paper it could been seen as a reverse-engineered piece of work to justify and deliver the 330,000 a year housing target. As many will know, consultancy exercises often start with the answer you want and everything else conveniently backs that up.
You could even go a step further and suggest that it has largely been informed by, perhaps even written by, the industry that has most to gain from the outcome. Several observers have called it a developers charter and we too have used that term when it comes to our emerging Local Plan. The construction industry is a powerful lobby.
You could even go a step further and suggest that it has largely been informed by, perhaps even written by, the industry that has most to gain from the outcome. Several observers have called it a developers charter and we too have used that term when it comes to our emerging Local Plan. The construction industry is a powerful lobby.
|
Should you wish to read the full ‘glossy version’ of the paper, it can be found here;
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907647/MHCLG-Planning-Consultation.pdf A plain text version can be found here; assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907956/Planning_for_the_Future_web_accessible_version.pdf The deadline to respond to this white paper is 29 October, 2020. |
|
In essence, the proposals look to remove what the Government and developers sees as constraints to quick and easy planning approval, with the clear implication that is local residents, and to some degree local councils, that are the biggest blockers as a result of protracted consultations and objection handling. But that’s democracy!
The right for local people to be involved in the planning process has been in place for years and this is under real threat from these new proposals. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) comments “our ability to shape the future of where we live - a right communities have had for 70 years - could be lost at the strike of a pen”.
|
Whist you would expect organisations like the CPRE to be against the proposals, it is interesting to see those within the construction industry speaking out. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) has stated that the planning reforms could lead to “the slums of the future”. We believe there are 30 renowned organisations with serious concerns and a growing number of Conservative MPs who can see irreplaceable damage being done to their constituencies through these proposals.
|
But the paper conveniently ignores the fact that 9 out of 10 planning applications get approved today and that if there is any delay it is largely through due diligence to ensure that the development meets local needs and sensitivities, and upholds policies in adopted Local Plans.
But it’s not just local residents that are seen as constraints. It has long been argued by planning reformists that the Green Belt is an archaic construct that should be scrapped. Whist the white paper states, and reiterates the Conservative manifesto, that the Green Belt (and other sensitive areas) will be protected, it stops short of saying that no further land will be removed from the Green Belt. There is a subtlety in this that we will explain later as it has bearing on the Basildon Local Plan and will affect all of us in Billericay.
But it’s not just local residents that are seen as constraints. It has long been argued by planning reformists that the Green Belt is an archaic construct that should be scrapped. Whist the white paper states, and reiterates the Conservative manifesto, that the Green Belt (and other sensitive areas) will be protected, it stops short of saying that no further land will be removed from the Green Belt. There is a subtlety in this that we will explain later as it has bearing on the Basildon Local Plan and will affect all of us in Billericay.
|
In addition to the Planning for the Future white paper, the Government released a separate consultation on four key elements that are instrumental to the wider reforms and housing delivery;
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907215/200805_Changes_to_the_current_planning_system_FINAL_version.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0Gy3HHq07MuwWJZ_1QUPFCKlg2r738zSZgC7PnxE1geedAKkcosd3msMc The deadline to respond to this consultation is 1 October, 2020. |
We will take a look at these four proposals first.
1. Housing Numbers
We plan a separate article on housing numbers but in summary for now, the planning reforms propose a new algorithm to determine the number of houses and where they should be built. It will then set a target on the local authority that they have to deliver. The Government argues that it will be more consistent than previous algorithms and removes some vagaries from the past.
|
It’s a complex algorithm that effective starts with 330,000 as is annual target and works backwards to justify that somewhat arbitrary, but no doubt political, number.
|
|
It’s hard to find any clear evidence that backs up the 330k number in terms of clear housing ‘need’.
Buried with in this algorithm is a calculation that is designed to try to address housing affordability by looking at something called ‘workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio’, or in English, the gap between average earnings and average house prices in an area. The wider the gap the less affordable a house is.
The algorithm proposes that where this gap is the greatest is where the most houses should be built. The justification is hazy but we assume the Government is hoping that the laws of supply and demand will come into play to reduce prices. If only that was true!
Some independent organisations have cranked the handle and what they are seeing is that housing targets will go up, sometimes exponentially, in the semi-rural locations, especially in the wealthier areas in the south, with city centre locations and the associated suburbs seeing their targets being reduced. In effect, this biases even more development to the south of England and the further concreting over the Shires. The Government's heartlands.
Buried with in this algorithm is a calculation that is designed to try to address housing affordability by looking at something called ‘workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio’, or in English, the gap between average earnings and average house prices in an area. The wider the gap the less affordable a house is.
The algorithm proposes that where this gap is the greatest is where the most houses should be built. The justification is hazy but we assume the Government is hoping that the laws of supply and demand will come into play to reduce prices. If only that was true!
Some independent organisations have cranked the handle and what they are seeing is that housing targets will go up, sometimes exponentially, in the semi-rural locations, especially in the wealthier areas in the south, with city centre locations and the associated suburbs seeing their targets being reduced. In effect, this biases even more development to the south of England and the further concreting over the Shires. The Government's heartlands.
|
This does absolutely nothing to level up the country as the Government has promised. An MP is reported to have said that the proposals “concrete out, and do nothing to level up”. |
It could be argued that it simply plays to developers wanting quick access to virgin green fields in the south where they can continue to charge top prices, away from the more difficult brownfield sites in the north where they make less ‘per unit’ profit.
It will be interesting to see how this applies to Basildon as we have a very diverse situation with very high house prices in some parts of the borough, lower elsewhere, but not necessarily very high average wages to compensate. Our housing target could go up or down, but it will always be a big number that does not clearly match local need.
The one thing that seems clear though, is that this won’t reduce house prices or necessarily build the right type of houses where they are most needed.
One last point. The algorithm is supposed to take into consideration development land constraints such as the Green Belt with the implication being that targets is such areas will take that into consideration. This is important for us as Basildon Council continually states that it can’t meet housing targets without some Green Belt release and the new Local Plan depends on some Green Belt being lost, especially around Billericay. How this plays out under these new proposals is going to be key.
It will be interesting to see how this applies to Basildon as we have a very diverse situation with very high house prices in some parts of the borough, lower elsewhere, but not necessarily very high average wages to compensate. Our housing target could go up or down, but it will always be a big number that does not clearly match local need.
The one thing that seems clear though, is that this won’t reduce house prices or necessarily build the right type of houses where they are most needed.
One last point. The algorithm is supposed to take into consideration development land constraints such as the Green Belt with the implication being that targets is such areas will take that into consideration. This is important for us as Basildon Council continually states that it can’t meet housing targets without some Green Belt release and the new Local Plan depends on some Green Belt being lost, especially around Billericay. How this plays out under these new proposals is going to be key.
2. First Homes
|
On the face of it, First Homes is a fantastic scheme to help first time buyers.
The proposal is that a proportion of new homes will be offered at a minimum 30% discount with that discount locked into the property so that it’s not possible to profit from the discount when the property is sold on. It stays with the property, not the individual, forever. |
|
The expectation is that developers will provide such houses and the funding for the scheme initially through a new national Infrastructure Levy. We’ll cover this later as it’s an important change to infrastructure funding.
We assume, for example, if a new property has a normal market price of £300k, it would be possible to buy it for £210k, thus reducing the amount of deposit and mortgage needed. This makes the property more financially accessible by bridging the ever increasing gap between wages and house prices. This is something else that we’ll cover later when we look at affordability.
The expectation, when the house is sold say for £310k, is that the seller realises the original £210k, plus the £10k increase over £300k. They therefore have £220k to go towards their next property. But this might not make buying the next home easier unless it too is bought under First Homes, or income has improved significantly to allow greater borrowing. Is is therefore possible that people will be able to get on the housing ladder but will they be able to move up?
What’s not yet clear is where these houses will be, how many will be available in a certain area and who will qualify. Details that will hopefully be provided soon.
But this is doing nothing to address house prices and house price affordability. Whilst welcomed, it is no more than a financial ‘fix’ that effectively accepts that house prices will not come down naturally by anything like enough to close the earning to prices gap that stops many being able to buy a home. It also throws into serious doubt the Government’s assumptions elsewhere in these planning reforms that supply and demand laws will reduce prices. That has never been the case. The market is too controlled by developers.
We assume, for example, if a new property has a normal market price of £300k, it would be possible to buy it for £210k, thus reducing the amount of deposit and mortgage needed. This makes the property more financially accessible by bridging the ever increasing gap between wages and house prices. This is something else that we’ll cover later when we look at affordability.
The expectation, when the house is sold say for £310k, is that the seller realises the original £210k, plus the £10k increase over £300k. They therefore have £220k to go towards their next property. But this might not make buying the next home easier unless it too is bought under First Homes, or income has improved significantly to allow greater borrowing. Is is therefore possible that people will be able to get on the housing ladder but will they be able to move up?
What’s not yet clear is where these houses will be, how many will be available in a certain area and who will qualify. Details that will hopefully be provided soon.
But this is doing nothing to address house prices and house price affordability. Whilst welcomed, it is no more than a financial ‘fix’ that effectively accepts that house prices will not come down naturally by anything like enough to close the earning to prices gap that stops many being able to buy a home. It also throws into serious doubt the Government’s assumptions elsewhere in these planning reforms that supply and demand laws will reduce prices. That has never been the case. The market is too controlled by developers.
3. Affordable Housing Thresholds
Today, any development over 10 or so units has to provide either ‘affordable’ units on site or negotiate a S106 payment with the local council that will be used for affordable house provision within the borough, but not necessarily in the same area as where the S106 payment was generated.
This has always penalised the smaller sites and the smaller developers, and the S106 negotiations can be protracted. The redevelopment of the Rising Sun in Billericay was delayed for a year so as a result of this.
The Government proposes raising this threshold to 40-50 houses on a site.
Whilst this could no doubt benefit small and medium sized developers, it could mean that a lot of houses are be build on relatively small sites without there being any affordable housing provision.
Hopefully, should this proposal go ahead, the Government will put in place controls to stop the larger developers moving to breaking up a large sites into smaller 40-50 parcels and treating each under separate planning applications to get around ALL affordable housing provision. Local Plans will need to cover this in some way as they tend to show very large development areas that could easily br built piecemeal.
Interestingly , the large developers tend to build large sites in phases 50 or so houses so they are used to this approach.
Affordable house provision is coming under threat despite what the Government says.
This has always penalised the smaller sites and the smaller developers, and the S106 negotiations can be protracted. The redevelopment of the Rising Sun in Billericay was delayed for a year so as a result of this.
The Government proposes raising this threshold to 40-50 houses on a site.
Whilst this could no doubt benefit small and medium sized developers, it could mean that a lot of houses are be build on relatively small sites without there being any affordable housing provision.
Hopefully, should this proposal go ahead, the Government will put in place controls to stop the larger developers moving to breaking up a large sites into smaller 40-50 parcels and treating each under separate planning applications to get around ALL affordable housing provision. Local Plans will need to cover this in some way as they tend to show very large development areas that could easily br built piecemeal.
Interestingly , the large developers tend to build large sites in phases 50 or so houses so they are used to this approach.
Affordable house provision is coming under threat despite what the Government says.
4. Permission in Principle
Today it is possible for small scale extensions to go ahead without full planning permission under something called permitted development. There is a list of what is allowed ranging from rear extensions to dormer roof extensions.
Whilst this allows home-owners to quickly expand their homes without the need for planning permission, there are already signs that it’s leading to ugly and intrusive building that the immediate neighbours can do nothing about. Blight is inevitable.
The Government is now proposing to extend this concept to large scale housing sites. Land that has been designated as Growth in a Local Plan, can be developed without necessarily going through a long drawn out local planning application process, where historically the development would be scrutinised, considered and approved within the local context and local council policies. The developer only has to supply the briefest information to secure Permission in Principle ; a description of the proposed development, the proposed minimum and maximum number of dwellings, the amount of any non-residential development, the size of the site in hectares, and a brief description of any supporting information that is accompanying the application.
Whilst this allows home-owners to quickly expand their homes without the need for planning permission, there are already signs that it’s leading to ugly and intrusive building that the immediate neighbours can do nothing about. Blight is inevitable.
The Government is now proposing to extend this concept to large scale housing sites. Land that has been designated as Growth in a Local Plan, can be developed without necessarily going through a long drawn out local planning application process, where historically the development would be scrutinised, considered and approved within the local context and local council policies. The developer only has to supply the briefest information to secure Permission in Principle ; a description of the proposed development, the proposed minimum and maximum number of dwellings, the amount of any non-residential development, the size of the site in hectares, and a brief description of any supporting information that is accompanying the application.
|
The Government talks about ‘building better’ but we have seen nothing yet that gives the reassurance that Permission in Principle will benefit anyone other than the developers. This is potentially a disaster waiting to happen and could simply lead to ugly, dense, estates with little consideration to the local community and environment in the drive to simply meet housing targets.
|
|
We now look as some other parts of the proposals in the core Planning for the Future white paper but we are focussing on those that we believe are the most critical and of primary interest to us locally. There is far too much content in the paper for us to to be able to critique it all.
Land zoning through Local Plans
One of the key new constructs in these new proposals is the zoning or defining of land into one of three categories through Local Plans.
GROWTH defined land is earmarked for significant development (100 units or more) and is effectively guaranteed for development under the expansion of Permission in Principle as explained previously. It no longer has to go through the historical planning approvals stages. This can include large brownfield sites.
RENEW is typically existing developed or brownfield land that can be redeveloped for housing on a smaller in-fill scale. It would often be nearer town centres. The implication is that such land would also have Permission in Principle for development but might need greater consideration relative to the landscape in which it sits.
PROTECT is land such at the Green Belt, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty etc. that cannot be developed.
Worryingly, the proposals appear to allow for planning applications to be submitted for Protect land which seems to make a mockery of the definition. It seems that whilst the proposals want residents to accept the inevitability of development of Growth and Renew defined land, we can’t have the counter reassurance that Protect land can’t ever be built on. This is always the most emotive land, such as Green Belt, and yet again it’s future is unclear. Land is either protected or not and residents should have that as a firm, long lasting, commitment.
GROWTH defined land is earmarked for significant development (100 units or more) and is effectively guaranteed for development under the expansion of Permission in Principle as explained previously. It no longer has to go through the historical planning approvals stages. This can include large brownfield sites.
RENEW is typically existing developed or brownfield land that can be redeveloped for housing on a smaller in-fill scale. It would often be nearer town centres. The implication is that such land would also have Permission in Principle for development but might need greater consideration relative to the landscape in which it sits.
PROTECT is land such at the Green Belt, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty etc. that cannot be developed.
Worryingly, the proposals appear to allow for planning applications to be submitted for Protect land which seems to make a mockery of the definition. It seems that whilst the proposals want residents to accept the inevitability of development of Growth and Renew defined land, we can’t have the counter reassurance that Protect land can’t ever be built on. This is always the most emotive land, such as Green Belt, and yet again it’s future is unclear. Land is either protected or not and residents should have that as a firm, long lasting, commitment.
Local democracy threatened?
The proposals make mention of greater community involvement in planning matters but it’s hard to see that beyond the words.
The suggestion is that local residents will be consulted earlier in the Local Plan process and have a say in how land is defined under the three categories mentioned above.
This is supposed to be the case now but despite long and complex consultations we are ignored when it comes to agreeing sites and the council fundamentally decides where houses will be built. We are not aware of any situation where local people and their consultative actions have materially changed the content of our Local Plan.
We have long argued that residents should be involved much earlier in the process so we are pleased to see that aim in these proposals, especially in that important land zoning discussion. However, the real worry here is the proposal that new Local Plans should be created within just 30 months in the future. Will that really give enough time for meaningful public scrutiny, involvement and agreement? Considering how long it’s taken to create the proposed new Basildon Local Plan under existing processes (nearly 7 years!) can it really be fast tracked to 30 months and retain our involvement? We fear that our participation will be sidelined to meet the time-scale.
But once the Local Plan has been agreed, that appears to be the end of any further local involvement. Today we are able to comment on the site planning applications but under the proposed Permission in Principle being extended to large sites that ability largely goes away.
Is this the end of local democracy and no more than a ploy to shut up noisy, delaying, residents through exclusion?
The suggestion is that local residents will be consulted earlier in the Local Plan process and have a say in how land is defined under the three categories mentioned above.
This is supposed to be the case now but despite long and complex consultations we are ignored when it comes to agreeing sites and the council fundamentally decides where houses will be built. We are not aware of any situation where local people and their consultative actions have materially changed the content of our Local Plan.
We have long argued that residents should be involved much earlier in the process so we are pleased to see that aim in these proposals, especially in that important land zoning discussion. However, the real worry here is the proposal that new Local Plans should be created within just 30 months in the future. Will that really give enough time for meaningful public scrutiny, involvement and agreement? Considering how long it’s taken to create the proposed new Basildon Local Plan under existing processes (nearly 7 years!) can it really be fast tracked to 30 months and retain our involvement? We fear that our participation will be sidelined to meet the time-scale.
But once the Local Plan has been agreed, that appears to be the end of any further local involvement. Today we are able to comment on the site planning applications but under the proposed Permission in Principle being extended to large sites that ability largely goes away.
Is this the end of local democracy and no more than a ploy to shut up noisy, delaying, residents through exclusion?
Affordability
Housing affordability is a significant matter and these proposals make great mention of the need to address this. We fully support this but it’s important to fully understand what the word affordable really means in this context.
What it’s not is a general reduction in the market prices of houses as many assume, although the Government naively continues to expect that prices will come down under the basic laws of supply and demand by building a huge number of houses. That has never happened in the past and it won’t happen as a result of these proposed reforms. The market is too controlled by developers to keep their profits, and therefore prices, high.
‘Affordable’ actually describes houses made available either for social (below market) rent or for shared ownership, typically through a housing association to those that qualify. These can be a proportion of houses on-site or developers can make payments to the local council for the affordable houses to be provided elsewhere. From what we can see this does not fundamentally change with these proposals over what happens today other than changes to the funding mechanism (replacing S106 payments and the Community Infrastructure Levy with a new nationally set Infrastructure Levy - more on this later).
But overall there seem to be mixed messages in the proposals and it’s hard to say for sure whether the number of affordable homes provided will improve. As we mentioned before, it is suggested that there will no longer be a need for affordable house provision for developments under 40-50 houses. That will lead to a reduction. Elsewhere there does not seem to be a much needed edict that the larger sites must deliver a fixed proportion as affordable houses. The muted new Infrastructure Levy seems to have a lot of wriggle room to duck affordable house provision.
If anything, these proposals seem to water down affordable house provision in favour of Homes First. But these are far from the same. Affordable homes benefit those that cannot get a mortgage to buy a home whereas First Homes need mortgage provision. These are two seperate sets of people that need different help with accessing a home of their own.
The Government needs to get a grip on this as there is a real possibility that affordable housing numbers could go in the wrong direction.
Whist affordable houses are not the panacea to the problem of high house prices, they fulfil an important need and we believe more needs to be done to guarantee their supply.
What it’s not is a general reduction in the market prices of houses as many assume, although the Government naively continues to expect that prices will come down under the basic laws of supply and demand by building a huge number of houses. That has never happened in the past and it won’t happen as a result of these proposed reforms. The market is too controlled by developers to keep their profits, and therefore prices, high.
‘Affordable’ actually describes houses made available either for social (below market) rent or for shared ownership, typically through a housing association to those that qualify. These can be a proportion of houses on-site or developers can make payments to the local council for the affordable houses to be provided elsewhere. From what we can see this does not fundamentally change with these proposals over what happens today other than changes to the funding mechanism (replacing S106 payments and the Community Infrastructure Levy with a new nationally set Infrastructure Levy - more on this later).
But overall there seem to be mixed messages in the proposals and it’s hard to say for sure whether the number of affordable homes provided will improve. As we mentioned before, it is suggested that there will no longer be a need for affordable house provision for developments under 40-50 houses. That will lead to a reduction. Elsewhere there does not seem to be a much needed edict that the larger sites must deliver a fixed proportion as affordable houses. The muted new Infrastructure Levy seems to have a lot of wriggle room to duck affordable house provision.
If anything, these proposals seem to water down affordable house provision in favour of Homes First. But these are far from the same. Affordable homes benefit those that cannot get a mortgage to buy a home whereas First Homes need mortgage provision. These are two seperate sets of people that need different help with accessing a home of their own.
The Government needs to get a grip on this as there is a real possibility that affordable housing numbers could go in the wrong direction.
Whist affordable houses are not the panacea to the problem of high house prices, they fulfil an important need and we believe more needs to be done to guarantee their supply.
The true housing crisis?
So what is the real issue with housing?
Many believe it’s as simple as that we’re not building enough houses and fundamentally these proposals work to that premise. The implication being that there is huge unmet demand with people queuing up to buy houses as soon as they are built.
If this was the case developers would be building as fast as they can on the land that they are sitting on today with permissions to build a million homes or more. But they aren’t. Furthermore, they would not need to be offering deals to attract buyers to the homes they are building, as we have seen on large developments locally. Developers are matching supply to demand which means site build outs are slow and prices stay high. If more buyers turn up they will increase supply accordingly but they are not going to build when there are no buyers. And we don’t need the countryside littered with part built or empty houses.
But it’s much more complex than just house numbers. The real issue is a shortage of the right sort of houses in the right places and challenges with the access to funding to buy a house. These are very different problems and need two different solutions but neither are adequately covered in these proposals, if at all.
Firstly, we need to get back to building social (council) houses to get people off of council waiting lists and out of temporary accommodation, often of very poor quality. This is where the bulk of the housing demand and crisis sits.
These should be built and owned by local authorities or the Government, not left in the hands of private developers to provision. The sad fact is that many people will not be able to own a home of their own at current prices and will need state help in some way.
Many believe it’s as simple as that we’re not building enough houses and fundamentally these proposals work to that premise. The implication being that there is huge unmet demand with people queuing up to buy houses as soon as they are built.
If this was the case developers would be building as fast as they can on the land that they are sitting on today with permissions to build a million homes or more. But they aren’t. Furthermore, they would not need to be offering deals to attract buyers to the homes they are building, as we have seen on large developments locally. Developers are matching supply to demand which means site build outs are slow and prices stay high. If more buyers turn up they will increase supply accordingly but they are not going to build when there are no buyers. And we don’t need the countryside littered with part built or empty houses.
But it’s much more complex than just house numbers. The real issue is a shortage of the right sort of houses in the right places and challenges with the access to funding to buy a house. These are very different problems and need two different solutions but neither are adequately covered in these proposals, if at all.
Firstly, we need to get back to building social (council) houses to get people off of council waiting lists and out of temporary accommodation, often of very poor quality. This is where the bulk of the housing demand and crisis sits.
These should be built and owned by local authorities or the Government, not left in the hands of private developers to provision. The sad fact is that many people will not be able to own a home of their own at current prices and will need state help in some way.
|
Secondly, we now have a situation where average house prices outstrip average earnings by at around 8x and as high as 16x in parts of the south. It is therefore virtually impossible for people in employment, especially first time buyers, to get access to sufficient funding when lenders increasingly want a 20% deposit and only lend at 4x earnings. And such mortgage providers are getting increasingly adverse to risk and are in effect limiting the number of mortgages they offer, raising deposit levels and interest rates.
|
Average house price in Basildon borough £300k Average earnings £32k 20% deposit = £60k Mortgage needed £240k = 7.5 x average earnings! |
The earnings to house price gap is unlikely to close significantly. The previously mentioned First Homes scheme will help some people. But if we are to get more people onto the housing ladder it needs a funding fix which will need private companies (the lenders) to address. But there is a horrible vicious circle in here that is hard to see being broken.
Developers will do all they can to keep prices high. Lenders are making it hard to borrow enough. Who’s going to blink first?
Developers will do all they can to keep prices high. Lenders are making it hard to borrow enough. Who’s going to blink first?
New infrastructure levy
As mentioned previously, the Government is proposing to introduce a nationally set and consistent Infrastructure Levy on each house as it’s occupied to replace existing funding schemes of S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that are often abused and are responsible for housing delivery delays due to long negotiation. It is obviously in the developers interest to negotiate these payments down. It’s a bit of a well rehearsed but wasteful game and typically big enterprise wins.
But we have several reservations over the new proposal as it seems that there will still be wiggle room for the levy to be reduced or bypassed. Hopefully the Government will plug those loopholes to make it mandatory at a defined level.
Another possible issue with this levy is that the Government wants the money to go a very long way, covering not just the obvious infrastructure improvements driven by the development (roads, schools, public transport, healthcare etc.), but also the provisioning of affordable housing. The levy will need to be set very high to generate enough funds for adequate infrastructure provision and that could backfire and become a disincentive to build. You can’t get a quart out of a pint pot!
That said, we agree that the Government needs to unlock some of the value of land to deliver infrastructure. Today that value is effectively private profit.
However, there is a very nasty sting in the tail with these proposals. The new levy is paid upon house occupancy. If the infrastructure is to be provided first then the local council will need to find that not insignificant funding up-front to deliver the infrastructure, in lieu of repayment from the developer, potentially some time later. With slow build out rates this levy could dribble in over many years and if demand for housing drops the council could end up carrying the cost of infrastructure for a very long time. This needs to be addressed such that councils get infrastructure funding first.
But we have several reservations over the new proposal as it seems that there will still be wiggle room for the levy to be reduced or bypassed. Hopefully the Government will plug those loopholes to make it mandatory at a defined level.
Another possible issue with this levy is that the Government wants the money to go a very long way, covering not just the obvious infrastructure improvements driven by the development (roads, schools, public transport, healthcare etc.), but also the provisioning of affordable housing. The levy will need to be set very high to generate enough funds for adequate infrastructure provision and that could backfire and become a disincentive to build. You can’t get a quart out of a pint pot!
That said, we agree that the Government needs to unlock some of the value of land to deliver infrastructure. Today that value is effectively private profit.
However, there is a very nasty sting in the tail with these proposals. The new levy is paid upon house occupancy. If the infrastructure is to be provided first then the local council will need to find that not insignificant funding up-front to deliver the infrastructure, in lieu of repayment from the developer, potentially some time later. With slow build out rates this levy could dribble in over many years and if demand for housing drops the council could end up carrying the cost of infrastructure for a very long time. This needs to be addressed such that councils get infrastructure funding first.
Future of the Green Belt
What is not clear is in these proposals is whether the Green Belt can continue to be released through the Local Plan creation process, as can potentially be done today. There is a subtlety in this argument and it could give wriggle room to the Government to free up some Green Belt while a new Local Plan is being prepared, but continuing to protect any Green Belt land defined as Protect once the new Local Plan has been approved and adopted. It would allow the Government to honour, in part, it’s often stated support for the Green Belt but it’s a fine line and possibly a political time bomb, especially in the Government’s heartlands where the Green Belt is most prevalent.
With so much Green Belt around Billericay cited for development this is a critical matter. As a group we are committed to continue to defend the Green Belt from loss to excessive development and these new planning proposals provide nothing to give us the confidence that this fight has gone away. If anything, it heightens the need to ensure that such land remains and is properly defined as Protect land in new Local Plans. As we mentioned above, local people are supposed to be part of the land zoning process so we are keen to ensure that is the case and we have a true voice.
With so much Green Belt around Billericay cited for development this is a critical matter. As a group we are committed to continue to defend the Green Belt from loss to excessive development and these new planning proposals provide nothing to give us the confidence that this fight has gone away. If anything, it heightens the need to ensure that such land remains and is properly defined as Protect land in new Local Plans. As we mentioned above, local people are supposed to be part of the land zoning process so we are keen to ensure that is the case and we have a true voice.
Effects on the emerging Basildon Local Plan
|
This is really important but where we are on this today is far from clear. A current Local Plan will remain the heart of planning in an area if the reform proposals go ahead so it needs to be right.
It is possible, because Basildon submitted its new Local Plan to the Planning Inspector way before these new planning reforms were communicated, that the plan will continue to examination and possible adoption under the current process and policies. In which case it remains a bad plan that needs to be challenged at the public examination. But with the reforms changing many elements of the creation and content of a Local Plan it could be argued that the Basildon plan needs to be completely reworked as a consequence, and the changes could be significant - the housing numbers, site definitions and the ability for the local community to continue have a say are all at risk. |
We know that Basildon council is concerned about the Government’s proposed planning reforms but like us they do not know what the outcome will be with the Local Plan. The council has agreed to object to the proposals.
Where are our elected representatives on this?
A few facts first.
All of our locally elected councillors, irrespective of political persuasion, or even ‘independent’ stance, have at some point voted for a version of the Basildon Local Plan that will see over 2,700 houses built around Billericay on what is today more than 150 hectares of Green Belt farm land. Land that serves a valuable environmental purpose.
At no time, to the best of our recollection, has a councillor (again of any political persuasion) seriously pushed back against the highly questionable targets and said enough is enough. Not one has tried to defend the Green Belt. Not one has tried to get a better plan that really addresses the local need and protects the environment.
The same is true of our elected MP. He has consistently stayed out of housing matters stating that this is a local matter for local people to resolve. We have tried making our local voices heard over many years through many consultations and have been continually ignored. So much for local democracy.
We raise this somewhat political matter as these new planning reforms move the future of planning to the national stage and it becomes something that MPs will need to vote on. It’s no longer just a local matter. We are where we are thanks to local councillors but the final outcome will be in Parliament.
We plan to find out John Baron’s position in due course.
All of our locally elected councillors, irrespective of political persuasion, or even ‘independent’ stance, have at some point voted for a version of the Basildon Local Plan that will see over 2,700 houses built around Billericay on what is today more than 150 hectares of Green Belt farm land. Land that serves a valuable environmental purpose.
At no time, to the best of our recollection, has a councillor (again of any political persuasion) seriously pushed back against the highly questionable targets and said enough is enough. Not one has tried to defend the Green Belt. Not one has tried to get a better plan that really addresses the local need and protects the environment.
The same is true of our elected MP. He has consistently stayed out of housing matters stating that this is a local matter for local people to resolve. We have tried making our local voices heard over many years through many consultations and have been continually ignored. So much for local democracy.
We raise this somewhat political matter as these new planning reforms move the future of planning to the national stage and it becomes something that MPs will need to vote on. It’s no longer just a local matter. We are where we are thanks to local councillors but the final outcome will be in Parliament.
We plan to find out John Baron’s position in due course.
Any good bits?
We fully accept that we have been very critical of the Government’s proposals but we genuine believe that they will have a negative effect on our community and environment, or do nothing to mitigate the detrimental effect of the Basildon Local Plan.
But we have to acknowledge that there are some good elements as long as the Government stands by its words and puts in place strong measures to ensure that they are fully and consistently delivered.
But we have to acknowledge that there are some good elements as long as the Government stands by its words and puts in place strong measures to ensure that they are fully and consistently delivered.
|
These new proposals sit alongside the Building Better, Building Beautiful initiative and its supporting commission as launched at the beginning of 2020. Hopefully this will ensure that good quality homes are built on estates where people really want to live, with good open space provision, adequate infrastructure and the promise of every street being tree lined. Further information on this can be found here; assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/861832/Living_with_beauty_BBBBC_report.pdf |
Accepting that generally these proposals play to the developers hands, there are some initiatives to make sure they don’t have it all their own way. The Infrastructure Levy, if properly implemented, with no ability for developers to duck or reduce payment, is a positive change over today. It will help to unlock some of the land value that makes up a significant part of the cost of a house, not by reducing house prices but flowing some land profit to the community.
We are also pleased to see that the Government wants to make it harder for developers to dodge obligations to improve infrastructure and they reiterate infrastructure must come first. We’ve heard this all before but let’s hope something tangible comes of it this time.
Likewise, the Government wants to try to stop developers banking land and/or planning applications by setting deadlines for building to start and be completed, with the threat of losing permissions if not adhered to. This will be a shock to some developers but it’s a clear step to stop developers being the real reason for slow housing delivery. We suspect that the industry will argue hard against this proposal.
With regard to Local Plans it’s good to see a move from hundreds of ill defined and often subjective policies set by councils to a more rules based approach.
The reiteration of the use of brownfield first and the protection of the Green Belt is good to see, if genuinely meant.
A few large developers hold too much power so hopefully the plans to make it easier for small and medium sized business to build houses in good numbers will start to break up that dominance. It would be good to see local builders building local houses.
Summary
The planning system does need improving but from what we see these proposals are not the best at achieving that is a way that is equitable to both existing local communities and the developers. They tip the balance a bit too far away from what the Government has been convinced are ‘troublesome local people getting in the way’. Us!
We see nothing here that will improve the Basildon Local Plan and reduce the impact on Billericay.
We see nothing here that will improve the Basildon Local Plan and reduce the impact on Billericay.
There is too much pandering to the construction industry and at times it reads as if they wrote the proposals. Perhaps they did!
Too much control is being taken from local people and put into the hands of faceless centralised quangos and developers working to cookie cutter guidelines that are not sympathetic to the local environment.
Whilst it is proposed that local people will still have a say in determining which land can be developed through new Local Plans, the limited time now given to the creation of such plans gives no confidence that our voices will be properly heard. Once that land zoning has been done, local people and local councils will have little say in what actually gets built.
There are some good elements in these proposals but we feel that some are no more than platitudes and some have ill considered outcomes. But overall the bad outweighs the good.
But a clear takeaway is the still opaque basis for so many houses to be built. We fully acknowledge the need for more true social housing and making house purchase more accessible but the figures are still far higher than local need would suggest, especially for yet more ‘executive’ housing estates being built field by field at full market prices.
But while these huge numbers continue to dominate the discussion unchecked, the Green Belt around Billericay remains under threat. Despite the promising words. That threat exists today and these proposals do nothing to reduce it. If anything, they make it harder for local people to try to protect it.
The White Paper openly states that peoples’ trust in councils and developers is at an all time low. These proposals won’t improve that.
The fight, as it has always been, is to protect Billericay from excessive housing through the loss of the Green Belt. That fight goes on.
Too much control is being taken from local people and put into the hands of faceless centralised quangos and developers working to cookie cutter guidelines that are not sympathetic to the local environment.
Whilst it is proposed that local people will still have a say in determining which land can be developed through new Local Plans, the limited time now given to the creation of such plans gives no confidence that our voices will be properly heard. Once that land zoning has been done, local people and local councils will have little say in what actually gets built.
There are some good elements in these proposals but we feel that some are no more than platitudes and some have ill considered outcomes. But overall the bad outweighs the good.
But a clear takeaway is the still opaque basis for so many houses to be built. We fully acknowledge the need for more true social housing and making house purchase more accessible but the figures are still far higher than local need would suggest, especially for yet more ‘executive’ housing estates being built field by field at full market prices.
But while these huge numbers continue to dominate the discussion unchecked, the Green Belt around Billericay remains under threat. Despite the promising words. That threat exists today and these proposals do nothing to reduce it. If anything, they make it harder for local people to try to protect it.
The White Paper openly states that peoples’ trust in councils and developers is at an all time low. These proposals won’t improve that.
The fight, as it has always been, is to protect Billericay from excessive housing through the loss of the Green Belt. That fight goes on.
