I know the formula that “fixes our broken housing market”: it is… wc(C3IR2)

C3 IS THREE LOTS OF COURAGE.

Courage is needed by Local Planning Authority (LPA) officers, members and constituents to bring forward local plans that meet objectively assessed need for development, particularly housing.

After carefully assessing what can be brought forward on brownfield sites, greenfield sites will be needed, they might include land in the Green Belt.

The White Paper is clear that “public attitudes” have driven the decision-takers’ response and they must no longer “duck difficult decisions” in plan-making and decision-taking. Bringing forward a local plan, taking a risk with a proportionate evidence base that does not cover every angle, will take courage – take a “chance” and get it wrong you may be told to “go back to the Old Kent Road.”

Courage is also needed by the Secretary of State. While the White Paper sets out current thinking, he is not going to be able to “duck difficult decisions.” In appeal decisions, examination reports and considering the new annual five-year supply statements, inspectors and the Secretary of State need the courage to do the right thing.

The plan-led system is not well served by a plan that ‘fails’ just 12 months later because it doesn’t have enough sites.

Courage is needed by investors; the White Paper demands a lot. Institutional investors are asked to invest in Build to Rent; landowners must risk costs and profits now, not postpone decisions hoping for more favourable ‘landbank’ returns. Banks must lend to housing associations, local authorities, builders and individuals.

‘I’ IS FOR INTEGRITY

The judgment of planning professionals will come under intense scrutiny. Have the LPA’s advisors “told them straight”? Is the development industry being honest when it says ‘site A’ is deliverable and will contribute ‘x’ units to the supply? Even if the Secretary of State succeeds in taking the conflict out of establishing Objectively Assessed Need with a new methodology, there is more that the profession needs to be objective about.

A DOUBLE DOSE OF ‘R’

The first, Realism, needs to infuse the thoughts and actions of developers, landowners, LPA and the community. The plan-led system is not well served by a plan that ‘fails’ 12 months after it is adopted because it does not contain enough allocated sites. Neither it is well served by objections that simply extend the independent examination of plans. The proposed change to the soundness test – that a submitted plan must be “an” appropriate strategy not “the most” appropriate, will take some getting used to. If a site is not in the submitted plan, it is going to be much more difficult to persuade an inspector to add it post-submission. Landowners will have to accept that if their land is put forward for development, it cannot be withdrawn if the ‘price’ turns out ‘not quite right.’

Time to be realistic about the Green Belt. It has become a shibboleth to some. We are now in the realm of ‘exceptional circumstances’ to meet housing need. Hugh Richards

It is also time for realism about the Green Belt. To some locals it has become a shibboleth. It should not come as a shock that a ‘ring fence’ set up decades ago has served its purpose, we are now firmly in the realm of “exceptional circumstances” to meet housing need.

THE SECOND ‘R’ – RESOURCES

The Secretary of State must not fall into the trap of making extravagant promises that cannot be delivered. Council planning departments need to be properly resourced. The taxpayer and the private sector are asked to make substantial investments of time and money. Housebuilders are required to take on apprentices, be more transparent, share large plots with SME builders and accept affordable housing and infrastructure costs.

Finally, wise counsel (wc) – the pun is intended – will be the force-multiplier. With apologies to Rowan Atkinson, “We must ask ourselves crucial questions. Where are we? How did we get here? Why did we come? Where do we want to go? How do we want to get to where we want to go? How far do we have to go before we get to where we want to be? How would we know where we were when we got there? HAVE WE GOT A MAP? Why did we leave places to get to where we are? Where were we before that we had to leave to get to where we before we knew we’re going to go to where we want to be? Where would we end up if we had the choice? Where would we end up if we didn’t have the choice? What would we choose given the choice? Do we have that choice to choose? Or indeed can we be choosy about the choosings?”

There is only one choosing – it’s wc(C3IR2).