Do you want to tell the government what you think of the National Planning Policy Framework?

Well, you can – until 10 May 2018:

“… Alongside the National Planning Policy Framework consultation documents, we have published for reference the draft planning practice guidance on viability and the housing delivery test measurement rulebook. We will publish additional draft planning practice guidance for reference later this week. …”

Housing minister who attacked NIMBYs is a NIMBY – or maybe a BANANA!

Sajid Javid has attacked councils and NIMBYs for standing in the way of more housing.

Now, it seems Javid is even worse – a BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone!

“…1) Just months before his re-election in 2015, Javid slammed plans from his local Tory Council, Redditch Borough, to build 2,800 new homes. He said:

“…..I wish to re-emphasise my concern that land within Redditch Borough is fully utilised before any consideration is given to expanding the area’s housing need into Bromsgrove Green Belt as a neighbouring district.”
Ah, the green belt, of course. Javid is a man of principle, let us not forget.

2) In June 2016, Javid slammed his local council’s plans to build 1,300 houses in Perryfields:

“While I understand this land was designated for housing, there is significant concern about the implications such a large-scale development would have on local infrastructure, facilities and environment.”
Aaaah, it all makes sense now: Javid cares about providing sustainable housing. Makes perfect sense:

3) In 2012, Javid backed another campaign against plans to build 175 homes in the Worcestershire village of Hagley. At the time, he said:

“People aren’t against it just for the sake of being against the development, it’s can the local infrastructure cope?”
Hmm, a theme seems to be emerging. Surely Javid was again rallying to defend the green belt, no? Well, no. The council head of planning Ruth Bamford responded to Javid’s NIMBYism by pointing out: “If it didn’t go here it would most likely go on greenbelt because there isn’t much land around Bromsgrove district that can take new housing.”

Slippery Javid just keeps on passing the buck #NIMBYpamby.”

The myth of affordable homes

“Some of the UK’s biggest cities are allowing developers to plan huge new residential developments containing little or no affordable housing, a Guardian Cities investigation has found.

In Manchester, none of the 14,667 homes in big developments granted planning permission in the last two years are set to be “affordable”, planning documents show – in direct contravention of its own rules, and leading to worries that London’s affordable housing crisis is spreading.

In Sheffield – where house prices grew faster last year than in any other UK city, according to property portal Zoopla – just 97 homes out of 6,943 (1.4%) approved by planners in 2016 and 2017 met the government’s affordable definition. That says homes must either be offered for social rent (often known as council housing), or rented at no more than 80% of the local market rate.

In Nottingham, where the council aims for 20% of new housing to be affordable, just 3.8% of units given the green light by council planners meet the definition, Guardian research found. …

One major way developers get past planners is by filing confidential “viability” appraisals. These assessments, which often take place once significant work on the development has already been done, frequently conclude that, if the developer were forced to include any affordable flats, their schemes would be insufficiently profitable.

Research by the housing charity Shelter in November found that where viability assessments were used, new housing sites achieved just 7% affordable housing.

Liberal Democrat councillor John Leech, the one-man opposition to the Labour-run council in Manchester, has demanded the council publish these appraisals so that they can be scrutinised.

Last year, Bristol council decided to force housing developers to do so. Guardian figures show that in the last two years just 6.77% of new developments in the city will be affordable. …

Other cities are far more strict with developers. In Cardiff, 24% of the homes granted planning approval in 2016 and 2017 met the affordable definition.

Leeds council routinely forces developers to include at least 5% affordable units in any large development. Some 2,011 affordable homes have been built in Leeds since 2012 – 510 of which were in the private sector, agreed as part of agreements with big developers. …”

“May wrong to blame housing crisis on councils, says LGA”

“… The truth is that councils are currently approving nine in 10 planning applications, which shows that the planning system is working well and is not a barrier to building,” Porter said.

“Nearly three-quarters (73%) of planning refusals are upheld on appeal, vindicating councils’ original decisions. It is completely wrong, therefore, to suggest the country’s failure to build the housing it desperately needs is down to councils.”

He said the government proposal to put independent inspectors in place where councils were seen to be blocking housing development was “unhelpful and misguided”.”

New Knowle owners will benefit from £750,000 taxpayer-funded flood prevention scheme

“The first phase of the project will include drainage improvements, followed by the installation of a massive water storage tank at Knowle.

Funding to the tune of £750,000 has now been secured after a 2013 report found that Sidmouth has a history of flooding, both from rivers and surface water. …

Mr Hughes added: “It is hoped that the surface water drainage improvements can 
be delivered during 2018/19 and storage at the Knowle – which will be subject to landowner agreement and planning approval – to be created in the latter stages of 2019/20. …”

How do you solve the housing crisis? With great difficulty given vested interests

Matt Ridley:

“Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, is right — and brave — to go on the warpath about Britain’s housing crisis in his new national planning framework, to be launched today. Britain’s housing costs are absurdly high by international standards: eight times average earnings in England, fifteen in London. A mortgage deposit that might have taken a few years to earn in the early 1990s can now take somebody decades to earn. Average rents in Britain are almost 50 per cent higher than average rents in Germany, France and crowded Holland.

Britain really is an outlier in this respect. Knightsbridge has overtaken Monaco in rental levels. Wealthy, crowded Switzerland has falling house prices and lower rents than Britain. Over recent decades, most things people buy have become more affordable — food, clothing, communication — and the cost of building a house has come down too. Yet the price you pay for it in Britain, either as a buyer or a tenant, has gone up and up.

Speculation exacerbates the problem. British people, and foreign investors here, borrow money to invest in housing on the generally valid assumption it will rise in value. This distorts our economy, diverting funds from more productive investments and exacerbating labour shortages in expensive places such as London and Cambridge.

The fastest take-off in house prices relative to earnings has been in the past two decades, when cheap money has further fuelled the house-price spiral, rewarding the haves at the expense of the have-nots. The high cost of housing is by far the biggest contributor to inequality. The reason people have to turn to food banks is not because of high food prices, but because of high housing costs. It is a rich irony that the Attlee government’s Town and Country Planning Act 1947 is probably as responsible as anything for the continuing prosperity of most dukes.

Yet seeking out profiteers misses the point. At the root of the problem is supply and demand. Britain restricts the supply of housing through its planning system far more tightly than other countries. That keeps prices going up, enabling developers, landlords and speculative buyers to make gains. We are building not much more than half as many houses each year as France, despite a faster population growth rate, and a quarter as many as Japan.

So why is British planning so restrictive? Until 1947 Britain regulated housebuilding in most cities the same way other countries did: by telling people what they could build, rather than whether they could build. As Nicholas Boys Smith, director of Create Streets, told a recent conference at the Legatum Institute, in the centuries following the Great Fire of 1666 “there was a series of pieces of legislation that set down very tight parameters: ratio of street width to street height, the fire treatment of windows etc. That is how most of Europe still manages planning. They have not taken away your right to build a building.”

Britain switched to deregulating what you could build, but nationalised whether you could build, by adopting a system of government planning in which permission to build was determined by officials responding to their own estimate of “need”. This brought great uncertainty to the system, because planning permission now depended on the whims of planners, the actions of rivals and the representations of objectors. Today local plans are often years out of date, if they exist at all, and are vast, unwieldy documents, opaque to ordinary citizens and subject to endless legal challenge and revision.

This makes Britain both far more subject to centralised command and control, and far more dominated by big corporations than other countries. It is a good example of how socialism and crony capitalism go hand in hand. Barriers to entry erected by planning play into the hands of large companies and make it hard for small, innovative competitors to take them on. In turn, this leads developers to produce unimaginative, repetitive designs to get the best return on their huge investment in land and permission.

Getting planning permission to build houses in Britain requires you to spend big sums on consultants, lawyers, lobbyists and PR experts, as you wear down the councils’ planning teams and their ever-growing lists of questions over several years. Not that the two sides in such debates are really antagonists: it is more like a symbiosis, a dance in which both sides benefit, because the fees to be earned by everybody from ecologists to economists are rich. And that is because at the end of the process the reward can be huge: a hundredfold uplift or more in the value of a field that gets turned into housing.

As a property owner, I have experience of this system and, I freely admit, a vested interest in it. I should be arguing for it, rather than against. However frustrating planning authorities can be, the rewards they bring to property owners can be large, either through upward pressure on prices and rents by their restrictions on permissions, or through uplifts in the value of land zoned for development.

Our mostly centralised taxes make things worse. In Switzerland, cantons compete for the local taxes that residential property owners pay, encouraging them to agree promptly to building bids, whereas here development brings headaches for local councils in providing infrastructure and services, only partly redressed with “section 106” agreements that make developers pay for schools and roads.

The system also creates opportunities for nimbyism on a greater scale than elsewhere. Opposing new development because it blocks your view, increases congestion on the roads and crowds the doctor’s surgery and local school, is rational everywhere. But it is much easier to organise a protest when the decisions are taken by council officials and the permissions are for big projects, rather than where many small decisions to build are taken by many dispersed owners and builders.

If Sajid Javid is to succeed in revolutionising Britain’s housing market, he must tackle the underlying causes. Rent control, Help to Buy, affordable housing and bearing down on developers’ land banks mostly address the symptoms. Forcing councils to set higher targets for housebuilding is a start, but if he were to succeed in unleashing a building boom across the country sufficient to bring down house prices, he would create a debt crisis among those with negative equity. So it will not be easy to cure Britain’s addiction to property, but he must try.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)