In a bid to address the pressing issue of residential property shortages, Housing Secretary Michael Gove has revealed a comprehensive set of proposals aimed at improving the planning process and bolstering the supply of new homes, particularly in urban areas.
These measures encompass innovative investment zones, a “super-squad” of planning experts, and a renewed focus on brownfield land.
However, is there much new in Gove’s recent speech?
Many across the industry are saying it is political posturing before elections in 2024 and that much of it has been heard before. On the one hand, it appears a multifaceted plan with many potential benefits while, at the same time, it raises some concerns about its efficacy and impact on the housing crisis.
Among the standout elements of Gove’s presentation is the proposal to establish investment zones targeting key urban centres. The crown jewel of this initiative is the expansion of Cambridge, which is envisioned to evolve into Europe’s new scientific hub.
Equally striking are plans for the regeneration of central Leeds and the ambitious Docklands 2.0 project in east London, promising to add a whopping 65,000 new homes to the capital’s skyline. These projects not only hold the potential to invigorate the economy of these regions but also underline the government’s commitment to urban growth. There was much focus on London and the south-east, which sadly doesn’t really speak to the North East.
Central to Gove’s vision is the emphasis on “quality planning”. A substantial investment of over £24 million is earmarked for this purpose, with a particular focus on fostering expertise in planning. Frustrated housebuilders and developers will welcome this everywhere.
The introduction of a “planning super-squad,” backed by £13.5 million funding, underscores the government’s resolve to overcome bureaucratic obstacles to large-scale housing and infrastructure ventures. This approach, once implemented, is anticipated to transform the way housing and industry projects are executed and, in the long term, generate positive economic outcomes.
However, the plan’s implications are not all rosy. One of the cornerstones of the proposal, a “more permissive approach” to small brownfield sites, raises eyebrows due to its vague nature. While intended to benefit small and medium-sized builders, the absence of concrete strategies to implement this approach leaves room for scepticism.
We, along with many of our colleagues in the industry, welcome and support greater use of brownfield land. But it is highly debateable whether housing needs can be met by using brownfield sites alone and increasing density within urban areas. Greenfield and green belt land needs to be considered.
Making it easier for developers to convert empty retail premises and betting shops into housing is also a welcome development. Our high streets are changing forever. But there is a slight problem with this approach. When it comes to getting mortgages many lenders don’t like to lend on properties that are above or close to business premises. Lenders consider borrowers on this type of property higher risk, resulting in fewer options when it comes to deals and products available.
Elsewhere, something omitted within the speech by Gove was housing targets. Sadly, any national housing target looks to have been abandoned. You may recall it used to be 300,000 new homes a year, a target never achieved in recent decades.
An innovative initiative unveiled within the framework of Gove’s announcement is the Capacity and Capability Programme. Designed to address skill shortages and enhance planning capacities, this programme aims to train and upskill planners at various levels, including graduates.
The intention is to refine the expertise of existing planners and bring fresh talent into the profession. Although the programme’s scope is laudable, its ultimate success hinges on efficient implementation, particularly in a context where planning departments have faced resource constraints. How long before it delivers and can make an impact?
By allocating funding to clear the application backlog and address skill gaps, the government acknowledges that monetary allocation alone is insufficient to streamline the planning process. However, critics argue that this amount might fall short in addressing the systemic issues that have plagued planning departments for years.
The underlying political motives and timing of Gove’s plan are palpable. With local elections in May 2024, the Conservative government’s focus on long-term vision aligns with a strategy that aims to differentiate itself from the opposition. By prioritising density and urban growth, the Conservatives seek to position themselves as champions of pragmatic housing solutions while casting a spotlight on Labour’s perceived weaknesses in planning reform.
Critics point to the potential gaps in the Conservative plan. While the emphasis on urban development and brownfield sites is laudable, the pressing need for greenfield land to accommodate housing demands cannot be ignored. Labour’s evolving stance on planning reform and housebuilding is indicative of the shifting dynamics within this political arena, with both parties seeking to present themselves as the ones to tackle the housing crisis head-on.
In conclusion, Michael Gove’s ambitious plan for housing holds promise for rejuvenating urban centres and unblocking housing development. The emphasis on quality planning, investment zones, and skills enhancement reflects the government’s intention to address housing challenges from multiple angles.
Yet, the plan’s vague aspects and potential political motivations raise questions about its feasibility and long-term impact. As the nation grapples with a chronic housing shortage, it is incumbent on policymakers to implement strategies that combine pragmatism with comprehensive solutions, ensuring that all segments of society benefit from an effective housing policy.
For more views from property experts visit www.bradleyhall.co.uk
