On 28 November 2012 in an interview on Newsnight the Planning Minister, Nick Boles called for a major increase in the amount of land allocated for new housing in England and a significant increase in the quality of what is built.
The research being undertaken as part of this project, focused on the Tensions and Prospects for Sustainable Housing Growth, is directly relevant to these issues.
Policies to reverse the problem of building sufficient new housing have come and gone over the last 20 years with little impact on the shortfall, which is estimated to be a third of what is needed annually, even though there is large amount of land in the control of developers and public authorities, and many sites have planning permission but these are not being implemented.
Will the Coalition's approach to stimulating new building, based upon allocating much more land for housing, and relaxing planning controls, be any different?
The ESRC research has found that even in the boom conditions of 2001-2008, where a significant amount of land for housing was identified through the planning system, new homes delivery in the study area well fell short of projected targets, with design quality and sustainability very patchy, particularly when assessed against European new homes standards.
It is questionable whether making more land available to house builders will in itself produce more housing – or housing that is of high quality, or affordable.
First, many commentators and industry figures acknowledge that landowners are often unwilling to release land unless they can get the return they desire, with the result that less profit oriented housing schemes are frozen out. In these circumstances, 'land banking' is likely to continue on otherwise developable land unless there is another incentive (such as taxation), or compulsory purchase is used to bring this land forward.
Second, improvements in housing quality seem extremely unlikely to happen if planning controls over design and development are to be relaxed, as repeatedly advocated by Government. In fact, local communities in the study area are calling for more careful and locally responsive planning, not less.
One of the main objections to new development is the perceived lack of infrastructure.
Third, one of the main objections to new development is the perceived lack of infrastructure, i.e., funding for schools, roads, health centres, community facilities and open space that make new developments valued in the round. There was no mention of this by the Planning Minister. Yet our study shows that lack of funding for strategic infrastructure such as roads and utilities is a frequent obstacle to getting sites developed for 500 homes or more. Even during the boom times, contributions by developers for infrastructure costs fell short of the funding required.
NIMBYs not to blame
The assumption often made by policy makers that local communities are NIMBYs opposing new housing development is far more nuanced. We found that there was great variation in community responses to plans for new development, depending upon the size of the scheme and the context. Many local authorities in the many "growth towns" in our study area are actively seeking growth and investment while smaller towns and villages want to limit it. For example, there were community campaigns against new development on the edges of Northampton when plans for growth were published in 2007. These tensions coincided with controversy about the claim that the Labour Government had plans to "concrete over the countryside". But there was evidence elsewhere that where local communities were fully consulted or where plans were modified in response to local concerns, or where communities believed there would be clear benefits in terms of improved services, they were more accepting of development. This finding supports the view of a Local Government Association survey in 2012 that investment in necessary infrastructure and design will overcome a good deal of opposition.
The question of affordability is central to the current housing crisis.
The question of affordability is central to the current housing crisis. It is not just the total number of new homes that matters but also their affordability to a range of income groups: planning for income mix is essential. But this critical factor was not mentioned in the Minister's statement. Equally, building new housing for rent by either the private sector or housing associations in order to avoid inflated property purchase prices will not help unless there is some control over rent levels and tenure conditions.
Adversarial relations get in the way of housing delivery
In conclusion, the interim findings of our research indicate that the problem at the centre of housing delivery the adversarial relationship between house builders and landowners, and planning authorities – is still not being squarely addressed. The house building sector seem to believe that all the problems can be solved by further deregulation of planning, while critics of the sector condemn its short term business model. This conflict was reinforced again by the Minister's critical comments on the planning system. Over generalisations about the restrictive role of planning or the intentions of the house building industry create a stalemate, and get in the way of creative solutions.
New models of housing planning and delivery are available and are operating successfully in other countries and in innovative schemes in the UK. Models, for example, that capture long term increases in land and development value perhaps over 30 years or more, enabling this value to be ploughed back into infrastructure, quality and affordability, whether through housing trusts, new towns, or long term institutional investment models do exist, and must be urgently investigated. This issue will be one on which our ESRC funded study will concentrate over the next year.