We find ourselves in a situation where housing is up there with fracking and windfarms in provoking the automatic response of no. In the situation we find ourselves in it has become crystal clear that leaving housing numbers to local councils and communities will not produce the number of houses that we need. It may deliver some, but nowhere near the number we need.
Recently published five year land supply figures from consultancy, WYG, for authorities across the east and south east of England make for bleak reading and highlight why we need a clear and universally accepted, and implemented plan-led system.
From a supply outlook, the WYG research made for bleak reading with 50 of the 114 local authorities outwardly declaring a failure to demonstrate a five year supply or failing to provide evidence to contrary. However, in reality, the picture across the region is much worse.
The authority listed as having the highest supply, Braintree District Council (33 years), has published its latest figures showing a best case scenario of a 4.32 year supply. Second on the list, Epsom and Ewell District Council demonstrate a supply at approximately 2.29 years when assessed against its latest Objectively Assessed Need figure. Moving down the list to Tandridge, Three Rivers and Crawley Councils and all have recognised physical and environmental constraints leading to significant shortfalls in delivery compared to their latest Objectively Assessed Needs.
The problem is clear to see and in theory the solution is simple. We have the top-down stick of “show a five year land supply or lose by appeal”, but in reality pushing though unpopular planning policies requires strong political leadership, which in many cases is lacking, with short term political posturing, by councils with small majorities, often winning out.
There is plenty of evidence of local authorities backing out of providing sufficient land; and in many cases councils chose to invest time and resource into arguing down their Objectively Assessed Need, rather than taking the time to have meaningful conversations with their residents to decide where to place new housing.
It is clear to us that in order to deliver the housing numbers required we need a proper framework of development, through which our land owners, developers, investors, councils, and communities can all play a role.
Most important is a National Plan that sets out priorities for the whole of the UK, cascading down from that should be Regional Plans (a role for our emerging mayoral system) then Local Plans; and finally properly developed Neighbourhood Plans.
The current inconstancy in approach fails everyone that has a stake in the future of their area, from investors willing to pump money into an area, to local communities who suffer the frustration of planning by appeal.
Finally, any discussion about housing numbers cannot pass by without a hat tip to the thorny issue of the Green Belt. As some of you will know paragraph 49 and the tilted balance in paragraph 14 of the NPPF were introduced as a safety net against authorities who sat on their hands in the plan making process and failed to be pragmatic towards development within their boundary.
This mechanism has always been grounded in the test of sustainable development and the belief that sufficient trust should be placed in our decision makers to make sure that judgement is robust.
Where this arguably falls down is the disproportionate weighting provided to the Green Belt at all levels of decision making. Some of the worst culprits in delivering anywhere near the level of housing needed also comprise the largest proportional percentage of Green Belt land.
It is these authorities that need to look at their metropolitan and non-Green Belt contemporaries for inspiration. Most benefit from underutilised or planned strategic infrastructure, vibrant centres, and / or strong market values.
Innovative approaches to strategic planning, whether comprehensively planned new communities or high density mixed-use brownfield redevelopments that challenge existing townscapes need to be considered. The routine approach of piecemeal, medium scale urban extensions fail to address strategic objectives and create vibrant communities.
As the saying goes, failing to plan is planning to fail.