Skip to main content

Aim and you might hit. Why targets are crucial to solving the housing crisis.

My old friend Paul Unger asked me recently to pen something for a Place North West series on solving the housing the crisis, which I was obviously happy to do. Paul gave me 500-600 words to play with and so I sent him this. It is bang on 600 words. And bang on. Obviously.


How to solve the housing crisis in 600 words? Here goes. Targets. Actors. Land.

Targets.

Secretary of State Angela Rayner acknowledged recently that there was only a “slim chance” of the Government overseeing the completion of 1.5 million homes within the current parliamentary term.

“It’s a slim chance, but I’m definitely not giving it up”, she said. “I think it’s really important that we keep a target that it was always a stretch target.”

This is quite right. We will only build 300,000 homes a year when we plan to build more than 300,000 homes a year.

At the point the Regional Spatial Strategies were abolished the total of their combined housing targets was 209,967. In 2022 Lichfields totted up the targets in every adopted local plan and used emerging figures where there were gaps. That combined figure was 233,010. How many homes have we been building? About that many.

The current Standard Method (which adds up to around 370,000) may not be to everybody’s taste, trading as it does sophistication for certainty, but it has a logic to it. Regardless though of how such a method is constructed (and to revisit the current one would add yet more uncertainty and delay), anybody who thinks that 300,000 homes a year can be achieved without the requirements in every Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) adding up to 400,000 or thereabouts, and every local plan under every SDS doing it’s share, is fundamentally unserious about building 300,000 homes a year.

Actors.

Angela Rayner also said that Andy Burnham’s main focus was now on building council houses, suggesting that was taking priority over efforts to increase the overall target. That is less encouraging because we will only get closer to 300,000 when every player on the pitch plays a full role.

We obviously need more diversity of housebuilder. We need small builders who can then become medium-sized builders who can then become big builders, but the SME sector is in crisis and data soon to be published by the LPDF will hopefully provoke some actual action from the Government in this regard.

Builders will only buy land and build homes though when they can sell them, which makes the pegging of affordable homes delivered by way of Section 106 Agreement to open market delivery quite bizarre when you think about it. Even when Section 106 stock is available there may not be a Registered Provider (RP) wanting it at that point in time, perhaps because managing their existing stock is more of an immediate priority.

How can the delivery of social housing be made a clear and consistent priority for both RPs and local authorities?

Land.

Upon what do small, medium-sized and large builders, RPs and local authorities build their open market and social housing? To embolden one without more land available would cannibalise the activities of the other.

We need a lot more land available to build on. We need Mayors and local leaders to piece together and bring forward major projects that private enterprise would not do. We need small and medium-sized promoters bringing land forward for small and medium-sized builders and we need every local authority to have an up-to-date local plan and a brownfield register showing exactly which small and medium-sized sites it wants to see built on.

Planning.

How could I not mention planning. I was though only given 600 words to play with. Let us just continue down the clear, rules-based path.

So. Forget 1.5 million homes. Let us aim to build 300,000 homes in one year as soon as possible and then let us do consistently thereafter.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Life on the Front Line

I like it when people get in touch with me to suggest topics for 50 Shades of Planning Podcast episodes because, firstly, it means that people are listening to it and also, and most importantly, it means I do not have to come up with ideas myself. I found this message from a team leader at a local authority striking and sobering though. In a subsequent conversation the person that sent this confided in me that their team is virtually in crisis mode. It is probably fair to say that the planning system is in crisis, but then it is also probably fair to say that the planning system is always in crisis… There is, of course, the issue of resources. Whilst according to a Planning magazine survey slightly more LPAs are predicting growth in planning department budgets (25%) rather than a contraction (22%), this has to be seen in the context of a 38% real-terms fall in net current expenditure on planning functions between 2010–11 and 2017–18. Beyond resources though the current crisis feels m...

50 Shades of Planning T-Shirts!

If you have listened to Episode 45 of the 50 Shades of Planning Podcast you will have heard Clive Betts say that... 'In the Netherlands planning is seen as part of the solution. In the UK, too often, planning is seen as part of the problem'. I said in reply that that would look good on a t-shirt so I have made a few and it does! They are available in black or white (in S, M and L sizes) and are £15 if there is a chance that I'll be able to deliver one to you or £20 if you will need it posting. Please email samstafford@hotmail.com if you would like one. Planning might not be black and white, but the 50 Shades t-shirts are...

YIMBYs and NIMBYs. Is planning becoming a new front in the culture war?

Prepare the barricades, fellow planners; dig out a shelter at the bottom of your garden (if you are lucky enough to have a garden…); and stock up on tins of non-perishable food. There might be a culture war coming and a good planner always spots trouble before it arrives... Given broader cultural, media and political trends it was perhaps only a matter of time before the built environment was subject to the same us versus them, progressive versus regressive factionalism that mars other aspects of public policy and debate. Twitter, of course, is not representative of public opinion, but it can be representative of the cultural, media and political influencers that are shaping it and I spotted this image on there recently. As far as I could tell it was a Brit that posted it and so it is not one of those unseemly intellectual skirmishes breezily dismissed as something our crazy, madcap cousins on the other side of the Atlantic occupy themselves with. Stereotypes are sometimes funny and so...