Planning reform has been a hot topic at the forefront of our new UK Government’s policies since the Labour Party was elected, but it’s been a key talking point of our political leaders for many years now, with increased housebuilding a central point of focus in every election manifesto within recent memory.

Notably, the previous government did not manage to meet the 300,000 new homes per year target that was set – in 2021-22 and 2022-23, there were approximately 235,000 built - in fact, no government has met this target since 1977**. Labour has radical plans to reform the National Planning Policy Framework through giving more authority at a local level to make decisions about housing – but it is my view that until uncertainties around the cost burden of infrastructure are clarified, and Local Plans are more strategically co-ordinated, it will be extremely difficult for the Government to reach their goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

Finding a solution to these challenges is of vital importance. Planning overhaul is undoubtedly a good thing, but it’s not a silver bullet answer to the problems of the housing industry – taking a more holistic approach and looking at how to overcome obstacles in the industry is the best way to transform our approach to housing.*

Misalignment with Local Plans

Planning, especially in housebuilding, has a notorious reputation for being too slow. But with the significant amount of financial investment, environmental impact and disruption to local communities that takes place when new developments are created, shouldn’t it be the case that planning applications are thoroughly and robustly considered?

Planning applications need to answer a whole host of questions, including how the proposed development might impact the surrounding community, its biodiversity and infrastructure, to name a few. Planning officers also need to ensure that the proposed development is the right kind of housing for the area, and that it’s in the right place. If this is not done carefully, a poorly placed development that isn’t ‘right’ for the area can have a severely detrimental impact for decades to come. In this respect I would argue that Local Plan making needs to be much more about identification of housing strategies and locations for towns housing needs as part of their social and economic model rather than as a template of challenges for housing developers to overcome.

Planning policy frameworks from local authorities are often not specific enough in the real infrastructure needs of any particular location, and often lack strategic ambition of regional government and infrastructure supply organisations. Crucially local leadership and ownership of the challenges is needed and any attempts at planning reform should look to address this issue as a high priority.

Infrastructure is everyone’s responsibility

Developers have in recent history been expected to bear the brunt of the cost of upgrading resources such as power, drainage, sewage, and creating social necessities such as GP surgeries, community spaces and schools, when it comes to getting a housing development planning application consent over the line. These are significant financial commitments, which are understandably impacting the viability of developments across the UK. Solely funding these upgrades can negatively impact developers’ abilities to provide enough affordable housing while still making a profit from the development. Ultimately continuing down this path will exacerbate our country-wide issues around access to affordable housing.

The Government should be clear on this matter – everyone who benefits from infrastructure upgrades should be prepared to commit financially to them. This predominantly impacts local councils and utility providers – no one wants to foot the bill for these kinds of schemes, but it’s the fairest way to move forward, especially when most infrastructure is built to last for 50 years or more and multiple parties financially benefit from its existence. The built environment has a lot to offer in this area, and expertise should be sought beyond the housing sector to share and benefit from best practice to mitigate some of the costs of infrastructure creation and maintenance.

Get Britain Building – but on what land?

Viability for development is not just restricted by paying for local infrastructure, but also through the premium that land with a potential for development attracts. The Government is reviewing the potential of bringing more ‘grey belt’ land into use to free up land to be built on. This could be part of the solution, but only if the Government commits to suppressing land values, as these spaces are mostly in London and the South East and are unlikely to be cheap. With the Government proposing that grey belt developments offer 50% affordable housing***, achieving that could be a challenge.

Utilisation of existing public sector land assets can mitigate this challenge, and the Government should be encouraging greater private-public sector collaboration by local and regional authorities, to maximise space available for housebuilding.

To summarise, the UK’s ambitious housing targets will only be met with a carefully crafted strategy which takes the cost of infrastructure, realistic land values and forward-looking planning into account. The Government needs to be promoting intervening in this process as it moves forward. Our leaders should address the sector’s broad-ranging challenges with a strong strategy and effective local leadership, supported by sector experts across the whole built environment.

*New homes: What's the new government's housebuilding target? - BBC News
**UK planning reform: how to get developers to build more houses (ft.com)
***What is the 'grey belt' and how many homes could Labour build? - BBC News