Annex
THE ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE'S EVIDENCE TO THE
BARKER REVIEW OF HOUSING SUPPLY
INTRODUCTION
This evidence to the Barker Review of Housing
Supply prepared by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) is
underpinned by a clear recognition of the importance of housing
in this country and of the crisis that we face if adequate, decent
housing is not provided. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)
is a learned and learning society representing over 18,000 chartered
town planners. It has recently adopted a New Vision for Planning
and, as part of this, merged with ROOM, the National Council for
Housing and Planning in order to create a more inclusive, outward
looking, informed and interventionist body. As part of this radical
evolution the Institute and ROOM@RTPI are taking a more direct
interest in housing issues and, in particular, the relationships
between policies and practice in housing with those in planning
and regeneration.
The work of the RTPI and of ROOM@RTPI displays both
a clear understanding of the role that planning plays in aiding
the supply of housing and a commitment to play our role in improving
the ways in which we provide decent housing for all those need
it. Our recent joint reportPlanning for Housing: The role
of planning in delivering Sustainable Communities1 sums this up
by stating that:
The provision of adequate, decent, high quality
housing that is accessible to all those who need it is a fundamental
part of any national and local economic, social and environmental
strategy. Well planned, good, accessible and affordable housing
contributes directly to the range of key tasks that face this
countryimproving the health of the nation, raising educational
standards, reducing social exclusion, contributing to sustainable
economic development, and reducing the need to travel, as well
as fulfilling a basic need for shelter. It is the role of both
planning and housing policy and practice to ensure that this happens.
It is not the role of either system to block the delivery of such
housing through an over narrow view of environmental protection,
through a lack of understanding as to how housing markets really
work or through an inflated view of the degree to which public
policy can influence them.
The RTPI suggests that this evidence is read in conjunction
with that report and the evidence is drafted to minimise the overlap
with that statement. A copy of the summary report has been provided
to the Review and the full report is available on http://www.rtpi.org.uk/resources/publications/p8.html
This evidence to the Barker Review of Housing Supply
raises five key overall points before addressing some of the specific
questions posed. These key points, which are examined below, all
relate to the relationship between planning and the market and
are:
that planning for housing is a highly
contentious issue and that, in places, the statutory planning
system becomes the forum through which political issues are expressed
and a resolution sought;
that plan making at the local level cannot
succeed without a credible coherent regionaland, indeed,
nationalframework;
that the role and importance of planning
must be seen within the context of all the other national and
local factors that influence the supply of housing land;
that the planning obligations system
will not deliver the affordable housing we need; and
that national housing policy and planning
policy and practice need to encourage a far wider range of tenures
and providers
KEY ARGUMENTS
The political nature of the process
It is clear that planning is a process which involves
political decision making and a need to reconcile differing demands
and values. This process is clearly informed and guided by technical
and professional knowledge and skills, and by community involvement,
but it needs to be borne in mind throughout this Review not only
that planning decision making and policy development in local
government is inextricably linked to the democratic process but
that planning issues are amongst the most contentious and complex
faced by elected members. This is nowhere more true than for planning
for housing. This point is an important one as any recommendations
that are based on a view of planning as being a value free technical
exercise will not succeed.
To take one example, as the regional planning guidance
which is now embodied in RPG9 went through various stages of drafts
and inquiries the housing targets changed significantlywith
the total for the region ranging from 33,300 pa to 51,925 pa (see
table at end2). The changes in allocation cannot be said to all
reflect a changing technical view of housing need but do reflect,
in part, an expressed political resistance to development. It
can be seen that whilst, in some counties this process has raised
the targets for housing, in others the existing RPG targets are
lower than the building rates actually achieved in previous years.
This underachievement is compounded by an apparent inability to
reach these targetsalthough, as stated below, the RTPI
would query the extent of this "undershooting". The
RTPI welcomes the fact that, currently. SEERA is taking a much
more robust approach to defining need and encouraging provision
of housing in its preparatory work for the South East regional
spatial strategy.
Applying this general point to this review, an answer
to the question, for example, of whether supply is "overly
constrained" will depend on the standpoint of different stakeholders
in the housing supply processwhether developers, countryside
lobbyists or those in housing need. This is illustrated, for example,
by a survey reported in the Sustainable Communities document for
the South East3. Respondents were asked to identify the major
weaknesses of the South east. 31% said high house prices, 16%
said a lack of affordable housing but 9% said that there was too
much housing. There must be concern that, in some areas, the politics
of the planning process are such that it is the latter 9% whose
views are heeded.
Similarly, the fact that in the South East, 11% of
the land area is urbanised, 50% of the land area has international
or national designations including 24% of the land area which
is greenbelt, and in total 80% of the non-urban land area has
environmental and landscape designations will be viewed very differently
by, for example, a member of the HBF to a member of the CPRE.
It is the role of planning to seek to reconcile such
competing priorities and to advise a political process on the
real needs of a local and wider economy. The need to create sustainable
communities requires planning policy needs to be unequivocal in
meeting real needswhether for housing, employment or environmental
protectionand addressing well founded concerns. All those
involved in planning need to play their role in engendering a
major change in culture in the attitudes towards housing development.
The need for credible, coherent regional and national
frameworks
There are three aspects of this issue. First that
national policy is not, in itself, coherent; secondly that there
is no way of planning to guide housing demand on an inter-regional
basis and, third, that the new generation of regional plans need
to be integrated and spatial.
At national level, two of the ODPM's SR2002 performance
targets are to:
make sustainable improvements in the economic
performance of all English regions and over the long term reduce
the persistent gap in growth rates between the regions, defining
measures to improve performance and reporting progress against
these measures by 2006. (Joint with HM
Treasury and DTI) and achieve a better balance between housing
availability and the demand for housing in all English regions
while protecting valuable countryside around our towns, cities
and in the greenbeltand the sustainability of existing
towns and citiesthrough specific measures to be set out
in the Service Delivery Agreement.
Both the need to define methods of achieving
the targets and the conflicts inherent in them are clear. In relation
to housing, there is an internal conflict between increasing housing
availability and the protection of open land leading to the lack
of a clear unequivocal national policy message, leaving planning
at the local level to resolve the inherent conflict. This is complicated
by a policy framework which requires the system to gain benefits
from housing development to fund affordable housing and yet seeks
to restrict development on those greenfield sites where such benefits
will be most usually maximized.
At the inter-regional level, there is the need to
put into place mechanisms whereby the opportunities presented
by the existence of underused infrastructure, including housing
and differential growth rates are examined to establish whether
housing markets can be restructured in any way. The RTPI recognises
that it is not possible simply to move demand around the country.
Restrictions on new building do not limit household formation
or lead to migration to areas of lower demand. However, the RTPI
does believe that a co-ordinated approach to infrastructure investment
and the bringing forward of strategic sites can improve inter-regional
balances, including in housing supply4. The RTPI believes that
this can only be done effectively if the whole of the United Kingdom
has a Spatial Development Framework and has consistently campaigned
for such a document to be prepared5. The RTPI urges the Barker
Review to consider the role of such a mechanism in achieving more
balanced housing markets.
At regional level, there are now or are proposed
a wide range of strategies; including the proposed regional spatial
strategy, housing strategy, transport strategy, economic strategy,
cultural strategy and the sustainable development framework. These
are prepared by a number of bodiesthe regional planning
body, housing board and development agency. There is the clear
need for integration between these interrelated strands of policy
making and for integration between strategy development and resource
allocation. There is also the need to have more robust and transparent
methods of monitoring. In the case of housing, we query whether
it is correct that new housing completions are falling behind
RPG targets? ODPM has quoted interim figures because the new Housing
Flow Statistics are not yet generally available. In the South
West, ODPM's estimate of completions6 was 16,300 pa since 1996,
compared with RPG target of 20,200a 19% shortfallwhereas
RPG monitoring suggests 20,265.
The wider contexts in the study of supply
It is very clear from the terms of reference of this
review and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statements on
this matter7 that the role of the planning system is seen as crucial
to the land supply. The RTPI agrees with that but is very concerned
that an over-emphasis on planning runs the risk that equally important
contributors to the current problems of housing supply will go
unaddressed and that the ability of the planning system not only
to aid in the supply of housing but to reduce risk and increase
quality in doing so will be undermined.
This key point is borne first by taking into account
all the other factors that affect demand and supply of housing.
These include such factors as mortgage rates and the range of
mortgage products, stamp duty, salary levels, patterns of public
investment8, demographic and migration factors; interest rates;
the attractiveness of housing for institutional investments; public
investment in housing; the availability of personnel and skills
in the construction and related industries. Secondly, it should
be noted that new housing forms a very low proportion of total
housing turnover. In 2001, there were 1,458,000 transactions in
the housing market and, yet, only 123,451 new homes were completed.
In the former "Avon" area around Bristol, for example,
annual gross additions to the housing stock average at about 0.8%
and total sales of new properties account, on average, for some
14% of all property transactions.
It is, however, also worth noting in this context
that the price of new housing is more expensive than prices within
the existing stock. In 2002 the median price of new housing in
the UK was £133,500 and that of other housing was £100,000.
Only 6.0% of new housing was priced at less than £60,000
whilst 23.6% of other housing came into this band.
Thirdly, there is the need to look at the relationship
between the release of land through planning policy and control
and price elasticity. The note on the scope of the Review refers
to inelasticity explaining that "when demand for houses increases,
output of houses tends not to increase quickly enough to satisfy
this demand." Past research has shown that inelasticity would
also apply should the planning system be somehow `freed up' and
large amounts of land released.
Such research that has been undertaken indicates
that it would require an extremely large expansion of the house
building programme to reduce house prices to any significant extent.
For example, a study published in 19969 found that "releasing
a lot of extra land has only a moderate impact on prices. For
example, a 32% general increase in plan provision might only reduce
prices by 8% in the medium term." Earlier studies10 had found
that "increasing plan targets by 75% would raise output by
16% on average over six years and lower prices by 7.5%, so enabling
an extra 3-4% of new households to buy a new home." This
research does require updating but the underlying messages about
the relationship between land release and elasticity must remain
the same11.
As far as actual prices are concerned, the Government's
response to the Select Committee report on Sustainable Communities
in the South East has stated, in relation to the announcement
of 200,000 more homes in the south east that "we never claimed
that our proposals would cause the absolute level of house prices
to fall"merely that they "should help to moderate
the growth trend in house prices in the longer-term."
Finally, there is the need for a clearer understanding
of the components of housing supply and the relationship between
these and the planning system. The areas of significant decline
in supply lies in the housing provided previously by local authorities
and now by housing associations. 12 A crude analysis of this would
indicate that public investment would have a larger part to play
in this than a land supply restricted by the planning system.
We cannot rely on the planning system, for a variety of reasons,
to deliver enough social housing. We have to go back to housing
legislation and finance.
An important corollary to these arguments is the
fact that, if the Government is inclined to react to imbalanced
housing markets by removing elements of planning control, then
it runs the risk of removing those benefits of planning control
that do contribute to a more effective supply of new housing.
These factors are, notably, certainty, with the developer knowing
that there will be a planned approach to the quality and scale
of development of adjoining areas, integration of the delivery
of infrastructure, and an emphasis on the quality of housing built.
The RTPI strongly believes that a significant diminution of the
management of development that the planning process represents
would have the opposite effect in terms of housing markets to
that intended.
Planning obligations and housing
Planning has a real role in delivering housing for
all and in creating mixed and sustainable communities13. This
is a proper role for planning. The RTPI does not believe that
this role should extend to planning acting as the means by which
a proportion of the funding for this public good is collected
from the private sector. This duality of roles both forces the
planning system and those who operate it to take on a role for
which they are unsuited and causes delays to the system over and
above the current delays arising out of under-resourcing. The
planning system has become a tax gathering mechanism. There is
the need for this Review of housing supply to examine the other
means by which affordable housing can be financedwhether
it is through corporation, property, development land or capital
gains taxes or through other innovative means such as community
development trusts or other land assembly and distribution mechanisms.
The RTPI recognises that successive attempts to capture the increase
in land and property values created by the operation of the planning
system have not succeeded (these include betterment, the operation
of the land commission and development land tax). However, there
is the need to understand why this has happened and then to apply
the lessons to new means of capturing the uplift in values that
the development system creates.
Added weight is given to this argument by the fact
that the current system of planning obligationsnecessary
as it is in the absence of other mechanismsis not achieving
additional affordable housing. A research report14 published by
the JRF last year, which was part funded by the RTPI found that:
the main result to date is to change the geography
of new social housing provision, not to increase the total amount
of affordable housing provided. On current evidence, were the
Sec. 106 policy to reach its potential, it would use up all and
more of the additional SHG made available for new housing. Relatively
few homes secured would be additional to those already included
in the SHG programme.
Need for a wider range of tenures and providers
The RTPI believes that more emphasis needs to be
placed in policy on an intermediate market in housing catering
for those who are currently unable to compete for market housing
but who do not qualify for benefits or support. This type of housing,
which includes shared ownership and equity and sub-market private
renting15, is growing but too much policy, including that of planning,
is seen in terms of a split between housing for sale and rented
housing provided by a registered social landlord. In order to
aid the development of this type of housing, the planning policy
needs to be able to specify types of housing more clearly. The
joint RTPI/CIH report referred to previously proposes that:
The three categories of housing suggested below
would provide sufficient differentiation:
(1) social housinghousing for rent managed,
either directly or through contract, by an organisation that is
subject to regulation and/or inspection by a government body;
(2) intermediate-priced housing that would
embrace housing for private renting at below market rents, shared
ownership and low cost market for sale; and
(3) standard market housingto include
all other forms of private housing for sale or rent.
SPECIFIC POINTS
In this evidence, the RTPI wishes to focus on those
issues on which the review seeks comments on which it has most
expertise and over which its members and all those associated
with planning have most control. For this reason, we do not address
the specific questions posed under the headings of "Industry
Constraints" and "Social Housing and the rental sector"
but make specific points on each of these.
LAND CONSTRAINTS
Is there a shortage of suitable land for development?
Are there any factors which reduce land owners' willingness to
sell?
The first of these two questions has been the source
of dispute for a number of years. An RTPI survey in 1998 commissioned
by the Urban Task Force found that, in 1998, there was planning
permission outstanding for 262,000 dwellings just on greenfield
sites with land allocations but no permissions for a further 240,000
dwellings and a suggested further 156,000 to be allocated in new
plans16. This figure has been used by some lobby groups to suggest
that there is a significant supply of housing land being held
back by the housing development industry. This argument disregards
the dynamic nature of housing land supply with, for example, some
225,150 dwellings started on greenfield sites between 1998 and
200317 while the stock of permissions will have grown in that
time. The RTPI suggests that there is the need to examine the
scale and nature of land banking by the industry and it is understood
that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has now commissioned work
on this.
It needs to be remembered that the planning system
is charged with bringing forward sufficient land for its projection
of housing need. Planners undertake both local needs assessments
and housing capacity studies with guidance from the ODPM on how
to undertake these. The proposed revisions to PPG3 suggest that
plans should allocate sufficient housing land for a 10 year supply.
The willingness of owners of land to sell is a critical
factor that may not be solely a matter of price. Allocations in
Local Plans are sometimes not taken up for reasons that are beyond
planning control or because they are not good housing sites. The
demand for additional benefits, affordable housing, school places,
open space, public transport contribution etc all affect one thing,
the bottom line price of the land and owners may prefer to await
potentially less demanding situations even if those are perceived
to be years away. Add-ons are a deterrent to developers and landowners.
Easy brownfield sites are rapidly being developed leaving the
more difficult ones that the industry will shun and the numbers
of houses completed will decline further.
Are there problems associated with land assembly
particularly brownfield land?
Overall, the RTPI advocates the need to have a much
more proactive planning system that brings sites forward for development
through allocation, assembly, CPO, planning briefs and masterplans
and partnership working. We have urged that the process of development
control becomes one of development management.
One of the main problems in land assembly is the
difficulties surrounding the Compulsory Purchase process in terms
of the stages that a local authority has to undergo to achieve
an order, the lack of available resources to pay the costs involved,
the loss of skills to undertake the process and a degree of overlapping
and confusion between CPO powers in different pieces of legislationthe
differences between the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
and the draft Housing Bill is a current example. Whilst the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Bill should improve matters by broadening
the reasons for allowing a CPO, there is scope for further improvements.
A second problemthat of a traditional requirement
that public bodies dispose of land at the best priceis
now currently being addressed. The RTPI welcomes the introduction
of the General Disposal Consent 2003 which allows local authorities
to sell off land, in certain circumstances, for less than its
market value.18 This provision needs to be extended, unequivocally,
to all publicly held land.
Finally, a significant number of sites are affected
by a ransom (see Stokes v Cambridge) and/or a restrictive covenant.
In order to remove these restrictions to development it can cost
in approximately 1/3 of the site's value as development landif
the ransom/covenant holder is willing to deal.
Does the practice of optioning land restrict the
overall supply of land? Is optioning necessary? If so why?
Without optioning land would be sold to developers
in two main wayswith or without planning permission. Only
companies with significant financial reserves would be able to
acquire land without the benefit of planning permission and take
the risk of not securing consent upon it. Such "developers"
could then sell land into the marketplace to the highest bidder.
It could be argued that this would produce a land
market distorted by land holders who would seek to withhold land
from the marketplace until a local supply shortage develops since
they take profit from the increase in land value rather than on
unit completions. They can therefore maximise returns by selling
into an undersupplied market. Conversely, it is often actual developers
(eg house builders) that take out option agreements. This enables
them to forward plan on a more secure basis and continue to deliver
unit completions (and unless there is a situation of market collapse
they will because they take profits from unit completions) on
a regular basis rather than when they can secure land.
Is the land allocated for housing in local development
plans sufficient to meet housing need?
This evidence has already commented that, in some
areas, housing targets may be more influenced by a political process
which reflects local resistance to development or by a real assessment
of a lack of capacity given other constraints, than by a purely
technical matching of need with allocations. At the national level,
the level of completions implied by Regional Planning Guidance
targets for England (some 155,000 per annum or 170,000 per annum
with "Communities Plan" figures) implies matching with
national projections of household growth (152,000 pa). However,
firstly, it is not clear whether this match signifies a national
strategy and, secondly, household growth projections do not take
into account any backlog of unmet need and other factors.
A recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation19
concluded that, "to achieve the level of output suggested
by an analysis of the need for additional homes would require
some 225,000 new homes each year in England alone . . . . To deal
with stock renewal would further increase the new build requirement."
On this basis, the land allocated for housing is not sufficient.
Is the RPG housing shortfall explained by a shortfall
in the number of appropriate planning applications?
One way of measuring this would be to look at the
total number of housing units contained in applications and to
analyse these by refusals and appeals. This information is not
available but it is relevant to look at the overall development
control statistics. It can be seen from the table20 at the end
of this report that major housing schemes do have the highest
rate of refusal. This rate has increased from 20% in 2000-01 to
the 23% shown for 2001-02. In itself, this figure is meaningless
as it may be caused by a wide variety of reasonsfor example,
poor quality applications, by speculative applications in protected
areas or by political resistance. However, it would be worth pursuing
the reasons for this further.
INDUSTRY CONSTRAINTS
The RTPI does not wish to contribute answers to the
specific questions under this heading. However, we wish to re-inforce
the role of planning in creating a more stable market. One of
the questions posed in this section is whether attitudes to risk
deter investment in land for housing? As mentioned earlier in
this evidence, one of the key outcomes of planning is certainty
and this framework of knowledge about local policies and the minimisation
of the risk of non-conforming development in the locality must
contribute to a greater propensity to invest.
Secondly, it is clear that there are other constraints
on the industry than any lack of land. The lack of skills is a
major problem. There is scope for other industrialised forms of
house development eg timber framed and modern methods of construction
but even these need a level of on-site skill that historically
the UK has been unable to demonstrate.
POLICY ENVIRONMENT
Are there problems with the interpretation of
planning guidance by local authorities, if so what are they and
why?
The Review team is advised to refer to two recent
studies of the operation of the planning system in relation to
housing21. Planning guidance can be ambiguous and sets multiple
targets (total numbers, brownfield ratio, affordable housing,
densities, car parking, etc.) which undoubtedly make it more difficult
for local authorities to apply efficiently.
Are there any particular aspects of planning policy
which do not properly reflect the wider social and economic costs
and benefits of housing?
In some areas, the focus of policy needs to reflect
a "whole stock" approach to housing provision looking
across all forms of tenure and range of provision. The social
and economic costs and benefits of housingincluding their
sensitivity to alternative targetsmay not be considered
adequately because the methods used to distribute housing targets,
derived from household projections, are mechanistic and divorced
from a detailed, dynamic analysis of the forces for change and
the mechanisms of adjustment.
Does the planning system provide incentives to
develop brownfield land?
Usually the other way around ie it is assumed that
by restricting planning on greenfield sites that development will
automatically go to brownfield. The planning system can provide
only limited incentives to develop brown field landeg through
lower obligations for other "abnormal" costs of developmentbut
cannot necessarily compensate for an adverse relationship between
costs and values, which must depend to a great extent on demand
and the resulting property values.
Is planning guidance applied appropriately?
Again, the Review team is advised to refer to two
recent ODPM studies of the operation of the planning system in
relation to housing. There is considerable variation between LPAs
and even the Inspectorate.
Is the current reform programme sufficient to
address inefficiencies in the planning system?
In answering this question, the RTPI does not accept
that the planning system can be characterised as being inefficient
but takes this question as addressing current acknowledged shortcomings
in that system. It is necessary in this context to see the "current
reform programme" as encompassing not only the provisions
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill but, also, the moves
being taken by the ODPM and others to change the culture of planning;
actions on the resourcing of the planning servicenotably
through Planning Development Grant and planning fees; the development
of new approaches to planning education including lifelong learning,
through the RTPI's Education Commission; the review of policy
guidance, specifically, in this case, the current consultation
on aspects of PPG3 and current thinking both about the purpose
of planning and about the nature of practice and the skills required
to put into practice the new concept of "spatial" planning.
Any one of these elements of change, taken in isolation, would
not be sufficient to address recognized shortcomings. Certainly
the current Bill in itself only provides a framework within which
new forms of planning can operate but its efficacy will rely on
improved skills and knowledge and resources.
Taken together, however, all these initiatives have
the potential to make real and lasting improvements to planning.
Are section 106 agreements an effective means
for addressing and mitigating the impact of developments?
This evidence has already referred to the RTPI's
view that the planning system should not be used as a means of
financing the development of affordable housing. The same concern
applies to the range of impacts that have to be financed through
an effective levy on development. These can range from transport
infrastructure to the provision of schools and from environmental
improvements to community facilities. The RTPI accepts that where
a development has a particular impact on local services and infrastructure,
then it is right that this should be subject of an agreement to
mitigate the effects of that development through supporting investment
in infrastructural and other improvements. However, we are concerned
that, as funding for some public services is reduced or transferred
to the private sector, the planning system is called upon more
and more frequently to bridge funding gaps.
This is not simply a philosophical point. As has
been stated, the negotiations that surround Section 106 agreements
can extend the period for negotiations on a planning application
significantly.
The RTPI recognises that its members will have to
continue to operate within the existing system in the short term
and regrets the fact that the ODPM is yet to bring forward suggestions
for improvements to the system of planning obligations following
consultation on this over eighteen months ago.
Do Section 106 agreements create any perverse
incentives?
The RTPI has already referred to the perversity of
national policy in requiring the release land for private housing
to get affordable housing and the pressures on greenfield sites
that this could engender. More generally, it is open to question
as to whether planning gain for social housing has reduced the
overall supply (by making developers unwilling to develop at all).
Whilst there has been significant public discussion over this,
focussed on the London Plan's requirement for 50% affordable housing,
there is no clear evidence that this policy has had this effect.
It remains true, however, that affordable housing is stigmatized
and its presence in private development can affect value and sales.
Do regulations governing "change of use"
affect the use of existing buildings for housing? and Are there
market failures you can identify affecting the development of
environmentally sustainable housing, regeneration of urban areas
and protection of the countryside?
The RTPI is not clear as to the thrust of these questions
but would be pleased to discuss them if clarification is provided.
How does the tax regime influence the use of land?
For example the tax treatment of new build homes differs from
that for conversions of existing housing stockdoes this
preclude certain types of development? Does taxation prevent the
most efficient and effective use of land?
The RTPI is pleased that the Review is focussing
on the links between taxation regimes, fiscal policy and land
supply. The RTPI believes that such factors as a lack of capital
gains on realized housing value increases leads to a greater distortion
in the market than does the operation of the planning system.
One of the main differences to housing in other countries, particularly
in comparison with many European countries, is that housing in
these countries is seen essentially as a matter of providing a
place to live. In Britain much of the housing demand is driven
less by need and more by housing being a form of investment (reflecting
housing being essentially for owner occupation) either by trading
up or contributing to the private rented sector.
The Review will need to consider the extent to which
fiscal policy prevents land coming forward for development. For
example, does an instability in housing markets lead to developers/speculators
taking profits on trading in land banks rather than deriving an
income stream from housing development or rental? Some companies
are probably more interested in satisfying their share holders/price
than meeting any Government or social obligation in respect of
housing requirements. It could be argued that there is the need
for fiscal controls on land bankingalthough the extensive
use of options rather than ownership may circumvent this.
New development and conversion/modification of existing
properties should be treated under the same tax regime. It is
often easier to abandon older housing and seek new rather than
engage with the refurbishment and upkeep of existing premises.
To make better use of existing stock there should be no VAT on
essential maintenance and/or enhancement. Finally, there is the
need for a taxation system that encourages the use of empty properties.
SOCIAL HOUSING
AND THE
RENTAL SECTOR
The RTPI does not wish to address the specific questions
posed under this heading in this evidence but draws the Review
team's attention to the need for the definitions of affordable
housing in planning terms to be changed (see above).
1 Merron Simpson and Kelvin MacDonald (2003)
Planning for Housing: The role of planning in delivering Sustainable
Communities, Chartered Institute of Housing and the Royal Town
Planning Institute.
2 Annual Average Housing Targets for the
South East.
|
| SERPLAN
| "CROW" |
1st Draft RPG | RPG9
| Actual Ave |
| 1996-2016
| 1996-2016 | per year
| per year | 1991-98
|
|
Bedfordshire | 2,154
| 3,200 | 2,780
| 2,430 | 2,118
|
Berkshire | 2,663
| 4,150 | 3,440
| 2m620 | 2,754
|
Buckinghamshire | 3,217
| 4,600 | 4,150
| 3,210 | 3,152
|
East Sussex | 1,813
| 3,225 | 2,420
| 2,290 | 2,278
|
Essex | 4,195
| 7,500 | 5,420
| 5,240 | 5,770
|
Hampshire | 5,096
| 8,450 | 6,580
| 6,030 | 5,845
|
Hertfordshire | 2,546
| 4,400 | 3,290
| 3,280 | 3,727
|
Isle of Wight | 477
| 650 | 620
| 520 | 451
|
Kent | 4,985
| 7,500 | 6,440
| 5,700 | 4,983
|
Oxfordshire | 2,078
| 3,750 | 2,680
| 2,430 | 2,695
|
Surrey | 1,747
| 2,350 | 2,250
| 2,360 | 2,664
|
West Sussex | 2,270
| 2,150 | 2,930
| 2,890 | 3,212
|
Total | 33,300
| 51,925 | 43,000
| 39,000 | 39,209
|
|
3 ODPM (2003) Sustainable Communities in the South East:
Building for the Future, ODPM4.
4 The chart below shows annual average household projections
and annual housing completion rates as one means of demonstrating
regional imbalance.

5 see, for example, Cecilia Wong, Joe Ravetz and Jeff Turner
(2000) The United Kingdom Spatial Planning Framework: A Discussion
Paper, RTPI and the memorandum the RTPI produced for the Select
Committee inquiry into Planning for Sustainable Housing and CommunitiesHC
77-11 of Session 2002-03 pp 95-99.
6 Based on returns from building inspectors, which appear
to undercount conversions and have other omissions.
7 As part of the statement to the Commons on the UK's entry
to the Euro on 9 June 2003, the Chancellor stated that, "
. . . because Britain has experienced difficulty in balancing
housing supply and demand, we propose to build upon and extend
the reforms already announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in
respect of planning and supplyincluding simpler planning
guidance, speeding up decisions, reserve powers to call in applications,
and the case for binding local plans".
8 The chart, below, shows the trend in total government spending
on housing in real terms since 1979. These figures do not take
into account the increase in expenditure announced through the
2002 spending review. However, even given this significant increase,
it can be seen that current levels of spending are significantly
lower than at points in the past. This is reinforced by the latest
TME outturn figures that show that whilst housing expenditure
has increased from 0.3% of GDP in 2000-01 to an estimated 0.5%
last year, it remains at less than half the proportion of GDP
that it was in 1985-86.

9 Glen Bramley and Craig Watkins (1996) Steering the
Housing Market, Policy Press.
10 Glen Bramley (1993) "Planning, the Market and Private
Housebuilding", The Planner (January).
11 See also Gerald Eve and Department of Land Economy, University
of Cambridge (1992) Relationship Between House Prices and Land
Supply HMSO and Roger Tym & Partners and Three Dragons (1999)
Housing in the South East: The Inter-relationship between Supply,
Demand and Land Use Policy, DETR.
12 The chart below shows actual housing completions at five
year intervals. This shows the shortfall in the provision of affordable
housing provided by the public sector balanced by a degree of
consistency in the output of the private sector.

13 The current PPG3 on Housing (2000) states clearly that
"a community's need for housing is a material planning consideration
which should be taken into account in formulating development
plan policies and deciding planning applications involving housing."
14 JRF (2002) Planning gain and affordable housing, JRF
Findings, October.
15 see Graham Martin (2001) Swamps and alligators: The
future for low-cost, home-ownership YPS in association with JRF.
16 Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance,
E&FN Spon.
17 using a combination of ODPM statistical tables on
"permanent dwellings started and completed by tenure, England"
and "new dwellings and residential land from previously developed
land". See www.odpm.gov.uk
18 See ODPM Circular 06/2003. Under the 2003 Consent
local authorities will be able to dispose of any interest in land
held under the Local Government Act 1972 which they consider will
contribute to the promotion or improvement of the economic, social
or environmental well-being of the area at less than best consideration
providing the undervalue does not exceed £2,000,000.
19 JRF (2002) Land for Housing, JRF.
20 Thousands/per cent
|
| Percentage
| Applications granted
| Percentage of total decisions2
|
|
Type of development2 | All
decisions
| of all
decisions
| thousands | Per cent
| Within
8 weeks
| Within
13 weeks
|
Major Developments |
Dwellings | 6.8
| 1.3 | 5.2
| 77 | 18
| 35 |
Offices/research and development/light industry
| 1.4 | 0.3
| 1.3 | 93
| 32 | 52
|
Heavy industry/storage/warehousing | 1.4
| 0.3 | 1.3
| 94 | 35
| 59 |
Retail, distribution and servicing | 1.0
| 0.2 | 0.9
| 85 | 23
| 42 |
All other major developments | 3.2
| 0.6 | 2.8
| 88 | 26
| 48 |
All major developments | 13.8
| 2.6 | 11.5
| 83 | 23
| 43 |
Minor Developments |
Dwellings | 50.6
| 9.5 | 36.2
| 72 | 43
| 68 |
Offices/research and development/light industry
| 6.8 | 1.3
| 6.2 | 91
| 58 | 78
|
Heavy industry/storage/warehousing | 5.1
| 0.9 | 4.7
| 93 | 59
| 79 |
Retail, distribution and servicing | 12.8
| 2.4 | 11.2
| 88 | 61
| 80 |
All other minor developments | 62.3
| 11.7 | 55.5
| 89 | 59
| 80 |
All minor developments | 137.5
| 25.8 | 113.9
| 83 | 54
| 76 |
Change of use | 37.8
| 7.1 | 31.1
| 82 | 51
| 76 |
Householder developments | 261.5
| 49.0 | 235.2
| 90 | 76
| 92 |
Minerals | 0.2
| | 0.1
| 86 | 31
| 49 |
Section 70 developments4 | 450.8
| 84.4 | 391.8
| 87 | 65
| 84 |
Advertisement | 28.7
| 5.0 | 21.4
| 80 | 72
| 88 |
Listed building consents | 31.5
| 5.9 | 28.4
| 90 | 53
| 74 |
Conservation area consents | 3.0
| 0.6 | 2.6
| 86 | 43
| 64 |
All developments excluding "Other"
| 512.0 | 95.9
| 444.2 | 87
| 65 | 83
|
Other (not included above)5 | 22.1
| 4.1 | -
| - | 67
| 67 |
All other development | 382.7
| 71.7 | 318.9
| 72 | 70
| 88 |
All Development | 534.1
| 100.00 | -
| - | 65
| 83 |
|
1 Includes metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts, unitary
authorities, London boroughs and national park authorities.
2 Full definitions of development type are given in the Notes
and Definitions.
3 The percentage in these two are cumulative not additive.
4 Descriptions under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990.
5 Includes applications which cannot be granted or refused.
21 ENTEC, Three Dragons, Nottingham Trent University
(2002) Delivering Affordable Housing Through Planning Policy HMSO
and Nathaniel Lichfield & Ptnrs (2003) Delivering Planning
Policy for Housing: PPG3 implementation study, ODPM.
June 2004
|