Written evidence submitted by Norfolk Homes Ltd [BLD 018]
Why fewer homes are being started and completed than the numbers of planning permissions being granted
Recently published data indicates that there are over 400,000 homes with planning permission yet to be built, with some pointing to the myth that this demonstrates that housebuilders are guilty of land-banking. However, this statistic hides the fact that having planning permission does not equate to being ready – or indeed lawfully able - to build. Many of those permissions will be in outline, requiring a further stage of Reserved Matters to be submitted and approved by the LPAs. Our recent experience is that this second stage can take considerably longer to get through the planning process than the outline stage.
One recent example relates to a Reserved Matters submission on a site which had outline planning permission following allocation in a Local Plan. A vexatious and disingenuous Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) caused the delay of the application’s determination by some 12 months, by continuously asking for more studies to be undertaken, and repeatedly objecting without good cause. It was only upon threat of appeal that the LPA - which was also very frustrated with the LLFA’s approach - decided enough was enough and determined the application nevertheless. The ability for this to happen – in effect by a single Council officer – is completely unacceptable.
Processes under S.38 and S.278 of the Highways Act 1980 in particular introduce unnecessary post-planning delays to housing delivery. Highway authorities uses these processes to re-visit issues already approved under planning, introducing additional costs and often substantial delays to commencement on site and housing delivery.
The introduction of a Permission in Principle (PiP) in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 is welcomed but the proposed ‘technical details stage’ must not be open to the same technical obstacles we have experienced (see above).
The discharge of conditions has – historically – presented issues of delay to the implementation of housing permissions. However, this has been addressed – in the main – by the deemed discharge process under Article 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
However, as indicated above, other statutory authorities continue to place obstacles in the way of development through their own separate procedures, often based upon their own ‘internal’ standards – which have not been subject to scrutiny or public consultation - and for which there appears no adequate process of appeal or arbitration. Whilst outside – directly at least – the planning process, these represent severe delays to the delivery of housing.
The extent to which current planning approaches cause delays in the building of new homes
Lack of experienced and confident planning officers. The LPA planner has become more of an administrator than a professional. Many lack the confidence to consider and weigh the range of different and often conflicting opinions from consultees and public, and come to a balanced opinion or recommendation. Many simply pass on an objection or concern and request the applicant to respond to it, irrespective of its validity. This reduces clarity in decision making/taking, and in turn slows the process.
Successive Governments have espoused the need for increased speed and efficiency in the planning process, with little real, tangible effect. Many Councils’ plans and policies speak of support for “encouragement” and “facilitation” but the ingrained culture remains – in many cases – conservatism, control and frankly suspicion in the developer “simply being interested in making a profit”. As if that were wrong or indeed contrary to the objectives of meeting demand and providing quality.
The issue of quality is significant. Speed and efficiency in delivering much-needed homes need not and must not be at the expense of design quality and the creation of sustainable communities. Small and medium sized housebuilders have been far better in these respects: employing good local architects, innovating in the design of modern homes where appropriate, whilst introducing higher energy efficiency standards to address the wider environmental concerns facing us all in climate change. Norfolk Homes Ltd. has significantly increased the energy efficiency standards of its own homes to address these issues, yet are still faced with the ‘one approach fits all’ demands of LPAs towards 10% or 20% on site renewable energy provision. Increased fabric efficiencies often more than off-set the requirements for renewable energy; on small to medium sized sites the retrofitting – for that is what it amounts to – of solar panels, heat pumps, etc. is actually hugely inefficient and delivers nothing in the way of energy savings, whilst reducing the standard of design and amenity.
Viability of extant schemes – particularly in light of the post-Brexit referendum uncertainties – remains a barrier to the delivery of housing. The revocation of the S.106BA provisions was a retrograde step in this regard. The mechanism – or something similar – should be reintroduced.
In relation to viability, the reinstatement of the 10 dwelling threshold for affordable housing – following the recent Court of Appeal decision – is welcome, especially to small and medium sized housebuilders.