comment
Flagship policies stuck at half-mast
Yet more initiatives, this time in the form of guarantees, to stimulate the market, but the government has a record of
failing to deliver, says ROGER HUMBER. W
ith housebuilders hoping, post- Budget, that the almost reckless guarantees being given to mortgage lenders to try to tempt
buyers will actually work, it might be worth asking which of the government’s other initiatives have actually delivered what was promised on the tin.
This thought is prompted by the damning report published by the National Audit Office on the New Homes Bonus. The Bonus was, of course, Grant Shapps’ very own baby, first in opposition and then in government which, he enthused, would so incentivise the beastly NIMBY (Tory) authorities that they would welcome many more new homes. Naturally, that was always nonsense, even in principle. But the NAO has highlighted the “very limited evidence” lying behind estimates of the number of new homes it would deliver. It concludes that, while intended to incentivise, the scheme seemed to have had no discernable effect on the number of new homes.
Apart from the fantasy inherent in the idea of incentivising the likes of St Albans to allow houses to be built, the scheme rewards the deserving and the undeserving equally, because there was no threshold target to hit to be rewarded by the Bonus. So an authority allowing, say, a third of the new homes needed receives pro rata the same as a local authority that sought to meet its requirements in full.
Another recent report, published by planning consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield, holed the government’s other big idea, localism, well below the waterline. This proposed that being left to decide their own housing numbers would force local authorities to act responsibly. Reviewing some 55 local plans either examined or submitted it confirmed that the majority aspired to reduce the supply of new homes. In fairness, Nathaniel Lichfield also found that they weren’t entirely getting away with it and that, following examination by the planning inspectorate, some were made to increase numbers. However, many are circumventing the system by withdrawing plans for further consultation and revision. In other words, playing for time and thwarting the plan-led system. It is therefore
20| May 2013 showhouse
ironic that what Nathaniel Lichfield calls ‘the ghost in the machine’ – the residual effects of Regional Strategy numbers – is driving upward pressure, not localism. But what happens next, when Regional Strategy numbers are no longer judged to be sufficiently up-to-date and are replaced by locally generated numbers, based on assumptions such as no inward migration, as Nathaniel Litchfield says many already are? The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – another flagship policy designed to remove opposition to new homes by paying for infrastructure – is also being pushed forward by local authorities with scant regard for its effects on housing delivery, despite the warm words in the National Planning Policy Framework about testing policies for viability. Emerging CILs make no little sense, as the contrasts between
would be required (a 6% allowance for CSH Level 4 being added to the viability assessment to allow for this). Like Wokingham, it also tested viability against a requirement for 40% affordable housing. Finally, all this is based on sales rates of 4 units per month in current market conditions and sales rates of up to 8 units per month in better markets. Alice in Wonderland? As more and more of these CIL schedules emerge a real head of concern is growing amongst the larger consultancies and lawyers, who seem to have a better overview of their impact than the industry. A number of them are now seriously pressing the government for a CIL holiday to stop any mortgage market stimulus being sidelined by obstructions to the delivery of new homes. And, finally, zero carbon homes. A policy in
As more and more CIL schedules emerge a real head of concern is growing amongst the larger consultancies and lawyers
Wokingham and Kingston upon Thames show. Wokingham is proposing a single flat rate of £365 per square metre for residential development which, it claims, is lower than previously set for S.106 in its Strategic Development Locations. It is the highest CIL rate proposed outside London, higher than Teignbridge’s proposed £300 per square metre charge. The viability study assumed 40% affordable housing and added a further uplift of £5,000 per dwelling to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, a 15% uplift for externals and site specific infrastructure and an allowance of £1,000 per dwelling for s.278 contributions and any residual S.106. Meanwhile, Kingston upon Thames proposes variable rates from £50 per square metre to £210 in different charging zones for residential development. Its viability study anticipated that major (new residential) developments should meet Code Level 5 from 2013. Where Code Level 5 or BREEAM Outstanding was proved to be unviable, Code Level 4 or BREEAM Excellent
tatters that was inherited by this government and which it should have blocked, subject to a full review of its impact on delivery. But since it was still in husky-hugging mode in 2010, Grant Shapps boldly declared he would simplify, clarify and resolve it “in weeks” of taking office. Well, nearly three years later the policy is still an unworkable shambles, because key decisions have not been made on carbon compliance, allowable solutions and the future of SAPs; all essential if zero carbon is still to be required in 2016. I would not argue that this and many other failures and idiocies mean that this is a worse government than other recent administrations and John Prescott’s sterling contributions should never be forgotten. But at a time of national economic crisis, with housebuilding a key priority in economic recovery, it is certainly a depressing record of incompetence, inconsequence and irrelevance.
sh
Roger Humber is Strategic Policy Adviser to the House Builders Association, a division of the National Federation of Builders
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124