Following the publication of the British Property Forum’s 6 key planning measures for the next government, Martin’s Properties CEO, Richard Bourne and Obsidian Strategics’ MD, Oliver Myerson share their response.
It is safe to say that the last decade has seen seismic change whereby unprecedented events have become the new norm. This has created deep uncertainty which has manifested itself in hesitation and delays, and in some extremes entirely halting the planning, investment, and development process.
5 years is not a long time in planning and development but a new government with (hopefully not too big) a majority will create stability and relative certainty. This certainty needs manifest itself in planning with clear policies, section 106 agreements, and well-defined levies. Whilst a complete overhaul of the planning system would only lead to further delays and huge expense, a tightening of the existing system would be welcomed. Our towns and cities across the country are notably different and when it comes to masterplans one size does not fit all. This is most keenly demonstrated in areas with multiple ownership which makes a cookie cutter master plan almost impossible. Significant investment into resourcing planning authorities across the country, alongside a clear list of acceptable uses would be much easier for planners, developers, and landlords to adhere to instead of explicit allocations for sites or areas.
The same can be said for affordable housing provision. The required levels are often unviable and lead to sites not coming forward – instead the sites are repurposed for other more viable uses. There needs to be a balanced approach, working with developers to unlock difficult sites and make schemes viable, which will in turn bring more affordable housing forward.
The continual changes and additional requirements for developers to provide water neutrality, carbon zero and high percentages of affordable housing simply mean alternative options have to be explored. Developers cannot build out sites that make financial losses.
Brownfield sites should be fast tracked through the planning process to secure redevelopment. The Green belt needs to remain green, and as our population grows, alongside the country’s workforce, development needs to be in accessible locations which are well served by various modes of transport, pre-existing amenities, and the infrastructure capacity to cope with a growing population. The notion that we can intensify urban density like Paris or Madrid is somewhat a myth. Whilst this may work for regeneration projects, in city centres there are conflicts with environmental policies that seek to minimise carbon waste and therefore promote the refurbishment of existing buildings, resulting in fewer ‘rebuild’ opportunities.
Urban development companies have had mixed success but there are numerous examples of well-governed, private sector led initiatives that have worked and been successful in delivering regeneration. We would welcome many more of these.
Incoming governments are often keen to set targets. However, these are often rushed and encourage poor quality or inappropriate development. Furthermore, when targets are realised to be unachievable, retrospective changes can be similarly unhelpful creating uncertainty and a lack of confidence. We therefore recommend a thought-through approach to planning.
The measures that the BPF has suggested are comprehensive, sensible and we, too, welcome evolution over revolution.
A full list of the planning measures can be found at BPF.org.uk