It was striking to read Angela Rayner asserting this week that the Government remains confident in the 1.5m new home target because the OBR’s recent 1.3m forecast did not take into account measures included in the Planning & Infrastructure Bill.
The Deputy Prime Minister added: “Our other plans, including the homes acceleration plan and the money that we’re investing since then, and the Planning Infrastructure Bill changes will mean that that number will increase and we will meet our 1.5 million homes target.
There is much to commend about the Bill and it is very likely to contribute towards a more coherent planning system in the future, but, as I have written here, there is little in it that will make a material difference to planning applications being prepared and submitted right now (and certainly little in and of itself to justify the ‘biggest building boom in a generation’ sobriquet).
In your correspondent's humble opinion the difference between the 1.3m OBR forecast and the 1.5m Government target will only be closed by encouraging more planning applications to be submitted in very, very short order and then transacting those planning applications much, much faster than planning applications are being transacted at present.
In the way of more applications being submitted in the Green / Grey Belt context is the absence of a promised update to viability guidance in the PPG, which any applicant that cannot meet the 15% affordable housing ‘golden rule’ needs to take account of in order to rely on a site-specific viability assessment to justify not so doing (the Government seems keen on revisiting the benchmark land value proposals of the July 2024 NPPF consultation despite warnings from the industry on the implications of so doing).
In the way of more applications being submitted in the urban context is that the Building Safety Regulator has effectively, if one is to believe reports, shut down any appetite on the part of the development industry to take on tall buildings.
In the way of transacting applications faster than they are present are the myriad practical, day-to-day development management issues that planning officers and planning managers grapple with day after day, frequently month after month, and sometimes year after year.
Issues like stat cons (a welcome consultation is reportedly imminent), BNG (a welcome consultation is also reportedly imminent), the flood risk sequential test (PPG guidance also awaited), RPs not bidding for S106 stock; water companies objecting because of a lack of foul drainage capacity that they have a legal duty to provide, nutrient neutrality (still) and so on and so...
Yes, of course, there is a need for lofty, laudable legislative ambitions for a more effective and efficient planning system, but let us not lose sight of the very many practical issues that can be addressed today without it.
Comments
Post a Comment