Last month saw the second in a series of roundtable events hosted by the team at Russell Bolton Consulting (RBC), discussing the big issues impacting real estate. The topic at hand was navigating the challenges of the planning system to meet the 1.5 million-home housing target.
Ultimately, it’s no secret that current build rates do not correlate with where the UK needs to be on delivery. It was interesting to debate how other countries are tackling their own housing challenges, including Japan, which is currently delivering 800,000 homes each year, albeit predominantly at density. Ilyas Patel, Development Director at RBC, discussed the differences between the two countries and the reality that high rise comprises just 10% of UK homes.
Managing development constraints
Along with the lack of resource and various policies hampering planning, we also touched on some of the lesser-discussed development constraints, including the requirement to invest, and looking after the current housing stock. Catherine Edwards of Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) explained that the organisation is focused on delivering flexible funding for developers to bring a range of projects forward, whether that’s sub-market debt or patient equity to sit alongside developer equity to get things moving and assist in overcoming viability issues that are impacting developers across the board.
Various issues continue to assail development, including land assembly and acquisition at the right price, plus the steady increase of costs over the years which are rising more than values. When it comes to development outside of major cities like Manchester, and parts of Salford, the opportunity clearly exists but developers are struggling to make schemes stack up.
When planning becomes political
For those projects that make it to planning, politics often then comes into the mix. Emma Curle of Stockport Council spoke about the need for a flexible, pragmatic approach to building new homes but acknowledged that delivering development is difficult, particularly affordable units, and those challenges are often compounded by public opposition. The room broadly welcomed the changes the government is exploring to ensure that politicians making planning decisions have the right skill set, while also reducing the size of planning panels, though there was some scepticism as to whether the changes will make a material difference to delivery.
Emma spoke about the various positive, proactive measures being undertaken by Stockport Council and the benefits delivered to date for developers. The authority is working hard to encourage residents to get involved in plan-making and are progressing design codes. It’s crucial to make community engagement relevant and timely to prevent slowing the process.
Social purpose and effective consultation
Emma explained that the continued transformation of Stockport, particularly in the town centre, has created a positive sense of pride, which has fuelled a desire to get involved, demonstrating the value in engaging with local groups and encouraging participation. Social value and impact will continue to be a priority for developers, with urban developers putting significant investment into doing this well, whereas PLC housebuilders typically are not as proactive. Consultation is frequently done badly and is unproductive, which needs to change if we are to bring people on board and secure buy-in to deliver the homes we need, where we need them.
There were some questions around the value of consultation in its current form, with Hunter Lydon from This City questioning whether consultation should take a step back from its hyper-local format and instead focus on the greater good; should planning be decided at a more objective level? Emma pointed out that this is the direction of travel, with the devolution agenda and more regional planning though local input will always be an important element.
Overcoming resourcing issues
When it comes to planning teams within local authorities, the room agreed that resourcing is a major issue in delivering development and has been for some time. A standardised process for applications is key. Hunter explained that, while deciding whether a scheme is viable is an important part of the process, if planning is taking 12 months to complete it’s a reason not to progress.
From a planning officers’ perspective, they are simply overburdened. They often carry large caseloads, which causes stress and burnout. How can local authorities get people into these roles and then deliver a career path to retain them? It’s not uncommon to have 50 documents for a development of 100 houses, which is too much for a Planning Officer to deal with.
Simplification of the planning process
Hunter believes local authorities want all of the answers too early in the process and that simplification will be easier for everyone, questioning why ecology reports must be hundreds of pages long. The government could do more to empower local authorities on who they choose to consult, limiting the number of external bodies required to review an application; many who often times have competing interests. Nailing down the priorities for a scheme is key, whether that is transport, ecology, acoustics or design quality; they are not all equally weighted.
Checks and controls are vital
When it comes to national policy, while the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is pro-growth, it’s important that growth doesn’t come at any cost, with the appropriate checks and controls in place. And while the government’s action on planning is welcomed, various issues remain, such as the absence of a strategy to provide infrastructure support for the 1.5 million new homes. Whilst the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act is key to unlocking major projects and New Towns, land assembly processes must feed into this.
The consensus on grey-belt is that the policy is a game-changer and is expected to have a significant impact on scheme delivery; not just across residential but commercial development, too, which has a knock-on effect for housing growth.
Investment in technology and tackling the skills gap
RBC’s Riyaaz Patel raised an interesting question around Artificial Intelligence (AI) and whether it could be harnessed to help streamline the planning process. The jury is out on this point, but it’s clear that there is a huge potential in utilising technology more effectively.
In closing, Harry Dhaliwal of Step Places also highlighted the skills gap which is a serious problem in the delivery of new homes, suggesting that planning consent could specify the requirement for three to four apprentices on site to bring fresh faces and new skills into the industry, as an example.
Planning is a complex issue but a great deal of ground was covered in an hour, with insights shared on everything from funding and resources through to balancing affordable provision with scheme viability. We look forward to our next roundtable, where funding challenges in residential development will be the focus of conversation – we’ve no doubt it will prove equally insightful.