As the Chief Executive of Turley – one one of the biggest developers in the UK – Dave Trimingham gives his views on the recent proposed changes to Government planning policy.
Building more homes is a proven driver of economic growth, improved health and wellbeing, and can contribute to lower public spending. It is also a fundamental Conservative value.
It is strange then, that when the Conservative Party continues to commit to build 300,000 new homes per year by the mid-2020s; and when recent delivery has at best averaged 230,000 homes per year the Government is proposing changes to national policy that are widely expected to significantly cut new home building.
A new report titled “Planning for Economic Failure” by The Home Builders Federation claims that net additions to the housing stock could fall to less than 120,000.
The proposed policy changes have been forced on Government by backbenchers concerned about house building in their constituencies.
They have threatened to withhold support for the Government’s wider planning reforms unless they are assured of lower housebuilding targets in their areas. But it’s a high political price to pay when pursuing the proposed changes risks turning the Conservative Party’s back on the 89% of people who aspire to own their home and its reputation as “the party of homeownership”.
“It’s a high political price to pay when pursuing the proposed changes risks turning the Conservative Party’s back on the 89% of people who aspire to own their home and its reputation as “the party of homeownership.”
I believe there is a way that Government could assuage backbench fears while maintaining and potentially increasing the delivery of more homes.
Turley and others have suggested taking the existing housing stock of an area as the starting point for assessing housing needs. Occupied housing stock is a reliable proxy for the population and housing needs of an area. Applying a rate by which authorities should plan to increase their stock would distribute the need more equitably across the country while crucially considering an area’s existing economy, infrastructure, size, and character. It would avoid a perception that some areas are expected to do more than their “fair share”.
Establishing a target to grow the current housing stock by say 1% per annum would be an achievable and fairer starting point towards achieving the 300,000 new homes a year. It would “soften” some of the higher housing targets that have proven so politically difficult.
By distributing new housing proportionately across the country, it would also ensure a wider and more balanced supply of homes of all tenures increasing the opportunity to achieve the ultimate aspiration of most – a home of their own.
By distributing new housing proportionately across the country, it would also ensure a wider and more balanced supply of homes of all tenures increasing the opportunity to achieve the ultimate aspiration of most – a home of their own.
This approach would complement the Government’s levelling up agenda by spreading investment, growth and opportunity across all parts of the country. It would also support regeneration by directing housing to those areas where the supply of brownfield land is greater and where there is the capacity to deliver more.
Although difficult decisions are always needed to allow our towns and cities to grow sustainably through a combination of brownfield and greenfield, I believe this approach could provide a basis for greater levels of political and community support.
By taking a different starting point, based on the existing housing stock, and applying a rate by which authorities should plan to increase it, Government could achieve a fairer, and critically, more deliverable, distribution of housing need across the country and deliver levelling up.
By Chief Executive of Turley, Dave Trimingham.
