city SHOWHOUSE with Ed Hammond
The government has again torn up the planning rules. But this time the legislation is not a hangover from the previous policy-makers; instead, the coalition is
kicking its own wisdom into touch. Eric Pickles, the pugnacious minister who gave
us Localism, suffered a humiliating defeat last month after MPs rounded on his plan to allow homeowners to build extensions. The idea is now to be scrapped in favour of what Pickles has called a more light-touch scheme.
In itself, the rolling over of a plan that would have led to a spike in inter-neighbour warfare is not a bad thing: it was a gimmick to begin with and one that would have had little meaningful impact on the stagnation in the construction industry. However, Mr Pickles’ defeat speaks volumes about a worrying trend in government. In yet again tinkering with the rules in response to public pressure, the government is destroying the good it did in simplifying planning. I did not agree with many elements of Localism, but I believe the bottom up, disambiguating agenda that underpinned it was commendable. The risks of creating uncertainty in the system – something which plagued the Labour government approach – are considerable and should not be ignored by policy-makers.
The housing market in the UK is suffering a multitude of ills. Some of these the government can do little about – personal wealth, confidence and a trend towards renting – but others are within its gift to solve. Planning is the foremost among these. A pro-development government – and the recent push to help would-be homeowners with a raft of mortgage
26| May 2013 showhouse
IN THE CITY
assisting schemes suggests this one is – cannot credibly support a planning system that stymies new building. And, yet, that is exactly what it risks doing.
Recent conversations with housebuilders have revealed to me the extent of concern about the coalition’s meddling. The fear is that politicians have become impatient with the slow yield of results from Localism and are hell-bent on extracting quick political gain from the planning system. The upshot is that no one quite understands what is coming and going from the
rule book and, therefore, hold back from committing to new development. Stuart Robinson, head of planning at CBRE, explains it better than I ever could: “When they started out with their changes to planning, it was all about a bottom up approach that encouraged local authorities to take more responsibility for their actions. That was welcomed by the industry. The problem is that it is always going to be slow to work and the government have become impatient and introduced knee jerk, short-term measures to try and boost economic growth. The effect has been to drive the much needed sense of cohesion out of the planning system.”
The problem seems to be compounded by the fact that government has been terrible at interfacing with the housebuilding industry and about what is prudent and, perhaps more importantly, realistic. So what can be done?
I think the government needs to take a much tougher line on Nimbyism. It is a deplorable standpoint and one that is so addled with self- interest that it should not be legitimised as considered opinion. Policy hewn from this standpoint is inevitably flawed as it serves the interests of those with most to lose, or gain, rather than society. Just as the state has to rise above public sentiment on things like beer tax, it must dismiss the Nimby rabble and see improving the country’s housing situation as a long term necessity, not a quick route to votes. To put that another way: housebuilders – indeed, developers of any large-scale project – have to take a long term view of a project; it is reasonable, therefore, to expect a planning
The government needs to take a much tougher line on Nimbyism. It is a deplorable standpoint and one that is so addled with self-interest that it should not be legitimised as considered opinion
framework that matches that. A planning system that is chopped and changed half a dozen ways in the time it takes to build out a small development is only going to achieve one thing: uncertainty. As for the bits round the edges – bigger sheds, office to residential conversions, etc – they are just fluff. All of them sound credible, but as solutions to the housing shortage they will do very little. The abolition of the top down planning system was a good thing. Its benefits should be left to flower. The risk of constantly playing round the edges is that the good of the original plan gets suffocated. The time spent on tweaking could also be better spent on, say, endeavouring to fix the mortgage shortage – something politicians have already showed great aptitude for. Ed Hammond is property correspondent of the Financial Times
sh
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