14 Comment
reform also needs to be driven at a local level. It is, therefore important that the Government critically assesses the implications of these reforms on local authority responses to housing delivery. Given the dynamics of local politics, it is inevitable that some local authorities
may simply project an image of co-operation with the Government’s objectives; and a closer examination may reveal potential resistance at the planning committee level. Particularly concerning is the likelihood that some planning committees may oppose developments that contradict their long-held positions on green belt release, or the status quo around the number of homes councillors believe is politically acceptable in their towns and cities. Or, that some authorities leverage neighbourhood planning as a political tool to undermine housing delivery, limiting housing supply further.
HOW WILL LOCALS RESPOND TO CENTRALISED DECISION-MAKING? In such scenarios, it is plausible that the Government will need to intervene and ‘call in’ applications, favouring high-profi le schemes to underscore the principle that housing needs must prevail over local opposition. T is shiſt away from appeasing NIMBYs, which was prevalent in the previous administration, could prompt planning committees to reconsider their stances on development. Changing the mindset of some local authorities is fundamental to the creation of a positive planning environment that provides developers with greater certainty in the planning system, encouraging increased investment and growth for our towns and cities.
DEVOLUTION – OR NOT? Both the English Devolution Bill and future Planning and Infrastructure Bill promise further devolution. We understand that responsibility for strategic planning is to be removed from a local level and bestowed at a higher (regional) level. But is this transfer of power upwards actually devolution? Likewise, the introduction of a suite of National Development Management Policies which local authorities will be required to adhere to, limiting the opportunity to address these issues on a local level – or, is it a sacrifi ce worth making, essential to speed up decision-making and deliver homes more quickly? Additionally, the geographical coverage of devolution appears unclear, and
potentially chaotic. T e last Labour Government put in place Regional Spatial Strategies to oversee strategic planning, ensuring that coverage was universal and plan-making was undertaken at a regional level. T e current proposal for devolution is a sub-regional approach, which seems an over-concession to local politics. Relying on local authorities to decide amongst themselves
The HBF recently reported new build completions saw a “signifi cant” decline to just 198,610 in 2024 Lawrence Turner
whether and how they form combined mayoral authorities does not represent an objective start to plan-making. T is will inevitably lead to situations where local politics trump proper strategic planning, leading to situations where some local authorities fall between two regional bodies, while retaining their strategic planning powers at a local authority level. Clarifi cation is urgently required on this if we are to restore a degree of certainty to local planning authorities, investors and developers. Devolution (defi ned by the Government as ‘decision making moved closer to
the citizen’) would, ironically, have a greater presence in those local authorities who had retained the status quo, as opposed to those whose planning powers were transferred to a higher level. T is patchwork approach to devolution may lead to a peculiar disparity in
planning powers. Currently, the London Combined Authority possesses these powers, while Manchester, for example, is in the process of acquiring them. Meanwhile, other devolved assemblies will, initially at least, have less autonomy over planning matters. T e question remains: will these powers reside at the national, or local level?
CHALLENGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE REMAIN However, even with further planning reforms, the construction industry faces formidable challenges; current workforce shortages in the construction industry pose signifi cant barriers to the Government’s plan to turbocharge house building. T e Government has promised funding for 300 additional planners. Irrespective of the fact that this would allow for less than 0.5 planners per local authority – and considerably less so if devolved bodies also require strategic planning expertise – it is not only planners that are required to enable development to take place. At a local authority level alone, planning positively requires input from
conservation offi cers, ecology offi cers, highways to name a few. Beyond planning, development requires a huge range of skills, from construction workers to sales and marketing. In many circumstances, government support will be needed to ensure that the necessary skills are available. To eff ectively address the housing crisis, it is therefore imperative that the
details of the forthcoming planning reforms include measures to increase capacity and skills within supply chains and supporting industries.
UNCERTAINTY REMAINS Despite many positives, the change in government has created considerable uncertainty in planning and development. Local authorities are still grappling with the transitional arrangements of the NPPF and how best to progress their local plans. Developers, although hopeful about increased planning success, face uncertainty in implementing their planning permissions, grappling with challenges such as fi nancial viability and a limited supply chain. If the Government can bring local authorities and local people with them, we
are optimistic that these reforms will not only address the urgent housing crisis but also elevate the standard of living for local communities. However, there are some signifi cant hurdles in the path to achieving this success.
Lawrence Turner is director of Boyer Housing Management & Maintenance February/March 2025
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
