Join our community of smart investors
OPINION

The planning conundrum

The planning conundrum
October 27, 2015
The planning conundrum

In a joint survey conducted by property consultant GL Hearn and the British Property Federation, half of the LPAs taking part believe that the planning environment is worse now than it was in 2010, with 11 per cent opting for "much worse". However, one in three applicants (for planning permission) and one in four LPAs have reported an improvement in the past five years, while the National Planning Policy Framework - introduced in 2012 to make the planning system less complex - has been met with overwhelming approval. Other initiatives to ensure that local people have a greater influence on developments in their area have been less welcome, though. Some LPAs have admitted that the introduction of Neighbourhood Plans has simply added another layer of bureaucracy, further complicating the planning system and slowing down the level of development activity.

And with the number of major planning applications falling, logic would suggest that the time taken to process applications would also have fallen; but this is not the case. In Greater London, for example, the average time taken from submission to determination (this is where the local authority or approved inspector may say that your plans do not comply with the Building Regulations but you believe they do; the Building Act 1984 provides a specific procedure to resolve this for you) of a major planning application has risen this year to 34 weeks. Set against this, in Sutton in London the process averaged just 13 weeks.

So why the inconsistency? Many of the differences are a broad reflection on funding. In July, Whitehall departments were asked to draw up plans for further budget reductions of up to 40 per cent by 2020, and with planning falling outside protected services, increased pressure on resources seems inevitable. It is a reflection of how desperate the situation has become that almost two-thirds of planning applicants have indicated that they would now be happy to pay an increased fee in return for a guarantee that the service improves. This provides a potential solution to the chronic shortage in funding, but the means to facilitate such an idea are simply not in place.

More than half of all LPAs feel that they are under-resourced and none indicated that they have any spare capacity. In addition, only 7 per cent of applicants are happy with the time its takes to grind through the planning process. So, while a raft of government initiatives have been introduced to kick-start construction, any commensurate increase in funding from the Treasury has been conspicuous by its absence.

The sector to suffer most is almost certainly new housing construction. The latest housing and planning bill sets out a target to build 1m homes by the end of the current Parliament in 2020. The consensus view is that this is little more than wishful thinking. Local authorities have until 2017 to draw up local plans, leaving just three years to implement a massive acceleration in housebuilding. With just 140,000 homes built in 2014, this leaves a gap that is unlikely to be filled.

Accelerating the delivery of new housing stock presents an array of challenges, but the planning system remains the key constraint, according to more than two-thirds of planning applicants. This is up from just over 50 per cent a year earlier. At the other end of the scale, the ability of potential buyers to secure sufficient funding as a major barrier against increasing output has halved to just 9 per cent.

Major steps have been taken to ease up the building process. However, the government appears to be pulling many of the right levers, but not the one that controls the purse strings. Without extra funding, whether that is taxpayers' money or fees imposed on planning applicants, the proposed acceleration in housing output is unlikely to reach much beyond second gear, and certainly not within the timetable proposed.