A question of planning

Venus, anxious for her son’s affairs,
New counsels tries, and new designs prepares

Everyone loves a soundbite. Especially those in politics. Remember Greenest Government Ever, Build Back Better, Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done?

Now we have another one courtesy of the Deputy Prime Minister’s planning reform, er, plans. Speeding up Build Out is part of the government’s Plan for Change to build 1.5 million homes, delivering more social and affordable housebuilding.  Decidedly less snappy than some of those that have gone before it, Speeding Up Build Out is, nevertheless, a laudable ambition. Something to be aimed for, if not,  I suspect, actually achieved. Maybe that’s the old cynic in me.

Much of the tinkering revolves around reclassifying different sizes of site, with the aim of ironing out the issues caused by the tendency for the system to treat all sites more or less equally, whether they are for 10 plots, 100 or even 1,000.

Streamlined planning is on the cards for smaller sites, up to about nine homes, and a new category for ‘medium’ developments, with between 10 and 49 homes, which will also benefit from simpler planning and an exemption from the forthcoming £3.4bn building safety levy.

Certainly, speeding up the processes and ironing out paperwork hold-ups for these sorts of plots will be good news for most merchants whose non-RMI business tends to be these sorts of smaller, more independent developments.

Yet getting those sites planned and approved is only part of the issue. There have been a few articles in the past few weeks about housing developments – admittedly the bigger ones – that, once begun turn out to differ from the original plans. I’m not talking about roofline design changes, or red brick walls being replaced with buff, but actual amenities. Huge developments that, when the paperwork went through to the Planning Committee promised children’s playgrounds, GP surgeries, schools, corner shops are nearing completion with those amenities conspicuous by their absence.

I’ve seen it happen in my neighbourhood. A massive development on the edge of the town was given permission and included a three-form primary school, a new GP surgery and play areas as part of the deal. There’s a school, but it’s only one form, and, guess what, is now over-subscribed like most of the other school in the area. And the play areas? That turned into a donation to redevelop the existing recreation ground. Great if you have moved your family into one of the roads that abut the recreation ground, not so useful if you bought your off-plan home at the very far side of the estate.

Even more annoying is when brownfield sites that have been earmarked for new housing development by the council, much needed new housing at that, turns out not to be local homes for local people at all.

The question I have is, what happens between planning and execution to turn a site that was supposed to be for affordable homes into a top-end destination complex for the wealthy retired? Whatever it is that happens, it happens a lot.

I have no idea if Angela Rayner’s plans for planning will solve this, or just make it easier for developers to start building and then do whatever they want anyway.