CLES / Newstart

The debate over the Green Belt, and the newly branded ‘grey belt’, has made the headlines a lot recently and will remain at the forefront of development decisions due to the two major parties’ diametrically opposed views on the topic. 

For the time being, however, the Green Belt (rightly or wrongly) will remain sacrosanct as the current government prioritises ‘gentle density’ in urban areas in preference to greenfield development.

So what impact is this likely to have on cities? Can a renewed approach to densification support regeneration, especially for those areas which may lack the necessary quantum footfall?

Density – more specifically, ‘gentle density’ – a central theme of the revised NPPF, which is currently being consulted upon. The changes to the NPPF were in large part a response to a rebellious group of anti-development backbench Tory MPs who threatened to torpedo the progress of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. And so some big-ticket changes, including removing mandatory housing targets and tightening up on Green Belt development, were made. 

Many in the development sector question whether the rather vague and unquantifiable concepts of ‘beauty’ and ‘gentle density’ were thrown into the NPPF as a means of stalling proposed new developments for political purposes. For stall them they will; they are terms open to such subjective interpretation that they will tie decision-makers in knots even more than they already are. 

To understand whether ‘gentle density’ can help, rather than hinder, the quality and quantity of new developments requires a definition – as it hasn’t had a place in the planning lexicon until now. That’s where the problems start. ‘Density’ is relatively straightforward as it can be measured in quantifiable terms; a relatively simple function of homes and site area. ‘Gentle’ means very little in a planning context but its function, on any plain reading, is clearly to limit density rather than increase it. The deceit in the wording is it purports to enable a higher volume of housebuilding, while also giving leeway to appease the ‘beauty brigade’ as necessary. (‘Beauty’ however, is even more problematic in planning terms: it is subjective, unquantifiable and very much in the eye of each beholder). 

The notes which accompany the NPPF make some attempt to quantify ‘gentle density’: they state that, ‘Small sites play an important role in delivering gentle density in urban areas, creating much needed affordable housing, and supporting small and medium size (SME) builders’. They go on to be more specific about density, ‘Local planning authorities should identify land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare; unless it can be shown, through the preparation of relevant plan policies, that there are strong reasons why this 10% target cannot be achieved.’

The guidance also places renewed importance on upwards extensions: ‘Building upwards in managed ways can help deliver new homes and extend existing ones in forms that are consistent with the existing street design, contributing to gentle increases in density… local planning policies and decisions should consider airspace development above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes. This includes allowing upwards extensions where the development would be consistent with criteria relating to neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, as well as being well-designed and maintaining safe access and egress for occupiers.’ More specifically, it encourages the introduction of mansard roof windows: ‘In some locations, local planning authorities have been reluctant to approve mansard roof development, as it has been considered harmful to the character of neighbourhoods. As a general approach, this is wrong – all local planning authorities should take a positive approach towards well designed upward extension schemes, particularly mansard roofs. It is proposed that a reference to mansard roofs as an appropriate form of upward extension would recognise their value in securing gentle densification where appropriate.’ In my view, this continued idea that building mansard roofs, or indeed the fascination with ‘airspace’ development can make any significant dent in the housing shortage is a wishful/fanciful case of burying heads in the sand and a means of avoiding the tough conversation about proper development on the ground. There is scant evidence that airspace development is actually working.

It seems a step too far for planning policy to identify specific architectural features such as mansard windows as ‘well designed’ and to state that considering them harmful to the character of neighbourhoods is ‘wrong’, as it is commonly accepted that whether any architectural feature is ‘right’ or ‘beautiful’ depends upon the context. 

My view is that good design is closely linked to good land use. In most situations, and especially in urban areas, density has many advantages. We have an indisputable shortage of homes which is best addressed by providing an optimal number of homes on all available land; that’s Chapter 11 of the Framework which seeks to make efficient use of land. Doing so helps create a mixed and balanced community, increases the potential for a range of facilities in close proximity, is economically advantageous (allowing resources to be spent on services and amenities) and can facilitate greater variety of uses, such as live/work and co-living. Denser schemes also have the potential to be more sustainable, not least in terms of sustainable transport, if located close to public transport or withing easy each of local services. Developable land, especially in cities such as London where I am based, is a scarce resource and it is essential that potential development capacity is not wasted.

I would like to think that these changes would have little bearing on my work because, working with my colleagues in Boyer’s design team, we already produce schemes which are well designed and make good use of available land. But I fear that tenuous terms such as ‘beauty’ and ‘gentle density’ despite meaning very little in planning terms, have the potential to result in major schemes being called in and refused permission, exacerbating our current housing crisis.

Image: Pedro Lastra

More on this topic:

Rejected homes find a space on Hertfordshire Green Belt

England’s green belt could clear the way for 73m new homes

With the General Election fast approaching there’s no doubt new levelling up pledges will soon make their way through Parliament. In light of this, Sarah cox, partner at Carter Jonas, examines current progress in Leeds. 

When the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill was published just over two years ago, the draft legislation – originally heralded in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto as the answer to economic imbalances across the UK – was received with scepticism in the context of political hiatus and the Chancellor’s announcement of ‘eye-watering’ and ‘painful’ austerity. So in the days before a General Election, how successful has Levelling Up proved to be?

The levelling up objectives revisited

Following the sooner-than-expected enactment of the legislation in October last year, it is interesting to consider to what extent the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) has met, or has potential to meet, its objectives.

The levelling up agenda began with twelve missions to be achieved by 2030: increased pay, employment and productivity; public investment outside the south-east; London-style public transport connectivity across the country; nationwide broadband; fixing the education gap; skills training; narrowing the life expectancy gap; increasing wellbeing; decreasing inequalities; a rise in first-time homebuyers; crime reduction, and devolution in England.

I am pleased to say, tentatively, that the Act has facilitated the potential to make a real difference here in Leeds.

While the majority of these objectives are yet to be met, the most important building block in now in place – devolution. Public transport connectivity is finally becoming a very real possibility and this (combined with other initiatives and investment) is set to result in economic growth.

Transport-led regeneration

In March this year, the strategic case for West Yorkshire’s Mass Transit Phase 1 was considered by West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA). The proposal maps the first of four phased corridor projects to be delivered by 2040. These are East Leeds, South Leeds to Dewsbury, Bradford to Leeds and Bradford to Dewsbury. Over time, it is intended that the new tram network will extend further, to Pontefract, Wakefield, Halifax and Huddersfield.

The creation of a greener, more inclusive and better connected transport system will undoubtedly support economic development. The benefit to the business community, specifically those business located on the new routes, will be considerable. And so too will be impact on local communities: it is projected that 675,000 people within the top 20% most deprived communities within West Yorkshire will benefit from significantly improved public transport.

There have been some concerns about the proposed route, primarily that it does not link the airport and other some neighbourhoods which were crying out for better connections. But hopefully this is just the start of a longer term investment in the region – which, overall, is pleased to finally have a strategic transport proposal.

An investment in economic growth

Another key component in Leeds’ journey towards levelling up is the announcement in the March Budget of A vision for Leeds: a decade of city centre growth and wider prosperity.

Again the product of WYCA, together with Leeds City Council and the Department for Levelling Up, the document, the proposals include:

• A new Leeds Transformational Regeneration Partnership, bringing together national, regional and local government to deliver the vision and unlock the delivery of up to 20,000 new homes
• Plans for transformational regeneration across six key city centre neighbourhoods: Mabgate, Eastside & Hunslet Riverside, South Bank, Holbeck, West End Riverside and the Innovation Arc
• Investment in transport infrastructure to revolutionise connectivity across West Yorkshire
• Recognition of cultural anchor institutions for regeneration and growth in Leeds, including the British Library North and National Poetry Centre

These proposals are at an early stage. But are good news for our city and wider region because they clearly recognise its substantial untapped potential.

Carter Jonas has been closely involved in several of the projects referred to in the Government document, including the Old Medical School, a Grade II* listed Victorian building which is being redeveloped following the opening of a new pathology lab at St James’ University Hospital and The British Library North, which aims to deliver a new 8,000m2 British Library facility in a Grade I listed building, Temple Works, within the South Bank area of the city. We look forward to seeing the benefit of these, and other schemes as development inevitably picks up pace.

Addressing the housing crisis

In common with most of the country, West Yorkshire has a housing shortage. This has been compounded by frustrations within the planning system which have stalled development and impacted affordability, both in the sale and rental sectors.

But the commitment to deliver up to 20,000 new homes is genuinely deliverable, partly because communities the north are generally in favour of suitable, sustainable growth. Furthermore, the Mass Transit system will open up new inner city brownfield sites and make out-of-town schemes more viable, while also giving landowners greater confidence in releasing land for development.

The importance of devolved decision-making

There is no question that the West Yorkshire Combined Authority will be the main facilitator of economic growth. One of the key components of ‘levelling up’, devolution has strengthened the powers of the WYCA. In May 2021, Tracy Brabin was elected Mayor of West Yorkshire and together, the Mayor and WYCA have already demonstrated that they can provide the comprehensive overview necessary to enable region-wide discussions, joined up thinking and a strong force with which to lobby Government.

So is levelling up being delivered in Leeds?

The announcements to date are just a small step in the long process of bringing greater prosperity to the north. But devolution, a transformative public transport system and funding for homes, neighbourhoods, cultural investment and a regeneration partnership are the blocks upon which levelling up can succeed in the medium to long term.

Invariably there will be challenges, not least in relation to inadequacies in the planning system and a severe shortage in local authority funding. But 2024 has already seen some significant commitments to the north’s untapped potential and I look forward to it being realised.

Images: Gary Butterfield

More features:

Should you re-open your Housing Revenue Account?

The property sector should prepare for a Labour government

Despite inflation rates reaching the 2% mark the Bank of England have confirmed interest rates will remain at 5.25%.

Figures published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) yesterday show inflation has fallen to 2% as a result of food prices increasing at their slowest rate since July 2021. In addition, officials added that core inflation, which executes volatile elements such as food and energy prices, fell to 3.5% in May.

Whilst this news seems positive on the surface, Martin Sartorius claimed many households will still experience squeezed budgets. When the inflation figures were released, Sartorius claimed it could encourage the bank of England to ‘cut interest rates’ but added ‘rate-setters will still need to weigh the fall in headline inflation against signs that domestic price pressures, such as elevated pay growth, are proving slower to come down.’

However, today at 12 noon officials from the Bank of England confirmed interest rates will remain at 5.25% – the highest they’ve been since the financial crash in 2008.

The decision from the Bank came as data from ONS found services inflation was 5.7% in May, which was only a reduction of 0.2% from April. Although the news will be welcomed by savers, it will come as a huge blow to people who are already struggling to pay back their mortgage loans and those who need to refinance their loans over the next few months.

In addition, analysts have revealed that prices for food, energy, clothing and rents are all around 20% higher than they were three years ago and for some, mortgage payments have doubled. The latest research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation – a charity working to help people facing poverty – shows five million families on the lowest incomes have had to go hungry or cut back on food so they can afford household bills. The charity also found that seven in 10 low-income households in the bottom 20% were going without essentials in May this year.

On a more positive note, experts from the Bank have hinted at an August cut. A report from the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) read: ‘As part of the August forecast round, members of the committee will consider all the information available and how this affects the assessment that the risks of inflation persistence are receding.’

The news of inflation and interest rates has come just two weeks before the next General Election and, for the first time, British households are poorer in real terms at the end of a Parliament than they were at the start in 2019.

Image: William Warby

More on this topic:

UK inflation has dropped to 3.2% which isn’t good news for interest rates

Inflation: Figures remain steady but families will still have to go without

National property consultancy Carter Jonas has secured planning and listed building consent on behalf of a private landowner for the conversion of a range of redundant farm buildings into seven houses.

One of the main reasons planning consent was granted was due to the schemes positive approach to heritage preservation and design. A manor house, of which the garden adjoins the site – which lies within the Horningsea Conservation Area and is adjacent to the Green Belt and open countryside – is Grade II listed and therefore the farm buildings are ‘curtilage listed’, meaning Class Q permitted development rights (for change of use from agricultural to residential) did not apply.

Screenshot

Furthermore, under Policy Section 11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, residential development, even in the form of redevelopment, in Horningsea is normally restricted to two units.

What’s more, news of this new development has come just as planning red tape has been slashed for farmers. New planning rules have been implemented to make it easier to convert unused farm buildings into new homes, farm shops and gyms.

However, not everyone has been in favour of the new plans. The planning application was recommended for refusal by the council’s planning officers although the planning committee were supportive of the scheme and the Parish council lent it’s support.

The local ward councillor requested that the applications should be determined at planning committee rather than delegated to officers. As a result, and following substantial support from local residents and neighbours, the recommendation for refusal was overturned and the committee voted unanimously in favour of the project.

Colin Brown, head of planning & development at Carter Jonas in Cambridge said: ‘It is rare for committee members to overturn officers’ clear recommendations for refusal. So when it does occur, it is a real triumph.

‘With a local and national housing crisis worsening by the day, good quality conversions such as that proposed here should not be passed by lightly. While this example highlighted contradictions in local planning policies, I very much hope that planning officers will have regard to it in securing the optimal use of redundant agricultural buildings in the future.’

Tim Jones, head of rural at Carter Jonas, added: ‘Our client is delighted that the planning committee of South Cambridgeshire District Council took the trouble to consider the planning application in detail and understand its real benefit.

‘The farm buildings are no longer fit for their original purpose, and we are all delighted that they can now be converted to high quality homes for people to enjoy.’

Construction is due to commence on site by the end of the year and the scheme is anticipated to complete within 12 months.

Image: Carter Jonas 

More on this topic:

Shared homes demand comes from a drive in local industry jobs

£9m awarded to Norfolk councils to restart housing plans

Ahead of the General Election Places for People have conducted new research which shows almost two thirds of the UK population would welcome new housebuilding within five miles of their home.

The UK’s leading social enterprise, Places for People, polled 4,000 people from a balanced mix of housing circumstances, financial income, age and sex to understand what the public want to see from the next government in regard to housing.

Experts, who published the research earlier this week, discovered 63% of the people surveyed are supportive of new affordable and social housing in their area, but 58% are concerned about the strain it would put on local services. As a result, 71% claimed there should be more upfront investment in local infrastructure projects, such as schools, doctors’ surgeries and hospitals so they can accompany new properties.

However, whilst the research highlighted what the public want to see from the government it also outlined regional variance in attitudes. Individuals living in areas with higher house prices – such as people from the South East and South West – were found to be more likely concerned about the strain new housebuilding would put on existing services. In contrast, devolved nations were the least likely to be worried about the impact.

Likewise, people who rent were less likely to be concerned about infrastructure delivery (63%) than those who own their own home (76%).

Commenting on the research, Dinny Shaw, head of planning at Places for People, said: ‘There is a clear appetite for not only new housebuilding, but new communities from the UK public.  We want to create thriving new communities, along with community infrastructure, but this cannot be done without deliverable planning permissions.

‘Before we talk about a housing crisis, we have a planning crisis, and it’s getting worse.  Only 21% of Local Planning Authorities adopted a Local Plan in the last 5 years.  In the last 12 months only 10,406 sites were granted planning permission, the lowest number since 2006, and it’s taking an average of 28 weeks for any proposal to make it through the system.

‘Long term, we need a clear framework in place that unlocks more land for new homes and delivers planning consents needed to support future growth in housing delivery.’

Shaw added that in the short-term, ‘we need to see a new government invest in local planning authorities, set a clear direction and policy framework to speed up decision making, and invest to unlock sites that are caught up in viability issues.’

Image: Pasi Jormalainen

More on this topic:

Places for People pen ‘UK’s biggest’ modular housing deal

Places for People chief executive to retire

Planning, by its very nature, concerns the future. As such, it could be argued that those afforded the greatest influence in planning should be those with the greatest stake in the future – the young. 

When the government announced ambitious long-term plans for London, Cambridge, Leeds and other urban areas last July (and made further funding commitments in the Spring Budget), it was immediately apparent that that plans for growth must include a younger representation.

With the average age of a first time buyer being 34, most buying their first home on these new settlements and urban extensions will be at primary school today. Some are not yet born; others may be old enough to contribute to the vision for their city – but do they feel empowered to do so?

There is undoubtedly a need for younger voices in planning discussions, especially considering that new homes tend to attract a younger demographic, and yet the planning applications for that much-needed housing are frequently defeated by planning committees – committees more often than not comprising an older, home-owning demographic, potentially with a vested interest in resisting house building as a result, maintaining high house prices.

The problem is that the planning system simply isn’t set up to engage with those who are not yet on the housing ladder – which tends to be the younger demographic. For many under 35, the prospect of home ownership seems so distant that they are unlikely to engage with the planning process or shape future proposals for residential development. .

This is partly because young people, especially those who are renting, tend to be more mobile. They will not necessarily buy in the area in which they are currently renting, which further reduces the likelihood that they will take part in discussion on development proposals. Figures from the RTPI state that the majority of those who engage in planning are aged over 55; that response rates to a typical pre-planning consultation are around 3% of those directly made aware of it, and for Local Plan consultations, the number is even lower, at less than 1% of the population.

There are many practical reasons for this lack of engagement among the young. For example, planning committees tend to be held during the day when most are at work or caring for children; information about planning applications and consultations is often confined to notification letters sent to existing neighbouring residents and notices in local newspapers – not the headlines which might possibly appear on social media but instead, the small ads which are located towards the end of the print editions – and readership of all newspapers in the UK dropped by two thirds between 2005 and 2021, according to Statistica.

There is so much progress to be made. Councils’ requirements of consultation should go beyond newspaper advertisements, posters on lampposts and communication with parish councils, for example. Technology offers an alternative and an opportunity for a broader reach, but even so, the average Facebook user is now in their 30s. TikTok and other social media platforms may be the means by which many young people engage online, but has such social media ever been used successfully to publicise a planning consultation?

A further issue is that the planning system is skewed towards existing homeowners who are more likely to object to an emerging development proposal or local plan, as they are often directly affected due to their proximity. Neighbour notification letters sent to existing properties close to a

development proposal, a small notice in a local newspaper, or consultation with a parish council are unlikely to reach beyond existing local residents and garner any support. Those most in need of new housing are unlikely to be the recipient of a neighbour notification letter, so how can they be expected to be aware and offer support for a development?

It is a factor of all feedback mechanisms – from restaurant reviews to planning consultations – that those more likely to make an effort to respond are those with a strong objection, rather than those accepting of or indifferent to proposals. Furthermore, a planning system disinclined to elicit responses naturally exacerbates this situation and skews perceptions. Letters of support to local planning authorities, either in relation to development proposals or emerging Local Plans, are few and far between and are typically significantly outweighed by the volume of objections.

The ability of the planning system to reach younger people has traditionally lagged behind that of other sectors despite the fact that young are those most affected by the changes. Perhaps these is an opportunity for the planning and development sector to learn from other sectors, and the large scale city visions present the ideal opportunity to put this into practice.

Image: Elevate

More on this topic:

Places for London urging young people to work in the built environment

‘Pioneering’ town project launched to target alarming unemployment rates in young people

Cheltenham Borough Council have given the greenlight for Taller Developments to construct a ‘Bond-villain lair’ style home on a derelict reservoir.

Proposals for the site include developing the redundant former Severn Trent Water subterranean reservoir into a contemporary six-bed home. The property will sit below the surface of the existing buried structure and will be accessed via the existing access point to the site, from Leckhampton Road.

On the surface, plans for the new property replicate that of a Cluedo home – it is set to include five bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room, gym, games room, study and a wine store and that is just the inside. Outside, the plans continue with a swimming pool, outdoor seating area, external courtyards along with a garden, pond and three space garage.

Cheltenham Architects Panel meeting agreed the design was interesting but have claimed some amendments were needed before they would be willing to except the full scheme.

Martin Horwood, ward councillor, has also expressed concerns about the new plans. He has expressed concern over the risk a new access point would cause to highways safety, though he also acknowledged it is an impressive design.

‘I’ve heard it compared to a Bond-villain lair, which may be a bit unfair, but honestly I would rather have that than a boring box,’ Wood said. ‘I also appreciate the efforts made to adapt to both the unusual setting and the landscape particularly through the use of green roofs.’

Wood added: ‘My main concern is about road safety. Sports bikes and cars descend the hill very fast and there have been multiple accidents here.

‘There’s a real risk of someone being killed or injured.’

According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), the scheme has been in the making for the past two years and has involved proactive engagement with the planning and highways authorities.

Gary Dickens, of LDRS, has also assured people the development will not have any greater impact on the Green Belt or Cotswold area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) as it will sit within an existing structure.

Image: Taller Developments 

More on this topic:

Tickets please! Plans submitted for a new entertainment space in Wolverhampton

Plans submitted to create a London neighbourhood on a former gas site

1,900 new homes, green spaces and shops are all set to be included in the new development of the Teviot Estate in Poplar, London.

The Hill Group, an award-winning housebuilder, and Poplar HARCA, a housing association in East London, are working together to deliver the regeneration scheme which is set t cost around £800m. The development will include around 1,900 new homes with 35% affordable, new open green and play spaces, shops, community and faith facilities, alongside improved infrastructure.

Due to be delivered over four stages, the partnership has submitted an outline planning application covering what is to be expected from each stage. Phase one is set to deliver 475 homes, 45% of which will be affordable. Subject to approvals, the project is scheduled to start on site at the end of 2025, with the first homes expected to be completed by 2028. The entire project is forecast to be completed by 2042.

The masterplan for the project, designed by leading architects BPTW, covers eight hectares and offers a wide range of homes from studios and apartments to family houses. The regeneration will feature new shops and commercial spaces, as well as a new multi-use community centre. New infrastructure and public realm design focuses on creating safer streets with better pedestrian routes to Langdon Park station and a new foot-tunnel under the A12, with enhanced lighting and CCTV to help reduce anti-social behaviour.

So far, the regeneration has already invested over £400,000 to local projects through the Teviot Community Chest Fund. Over its 15-year duration, the initiative is set to generate over £278 million in social value, which covers a wide range of community projects. such as a new pontoon on the Limehouse Cut Canal, planned to open later this year that will increase community access to water sports.

Andy Hill OBE, group chief executive at The Hill Group, said: ‘The regeneration of Teviot is going to change the lives of thousands of residents, bringing high-quality homes and improved wellbeing. The community has been at the heart of the plans since conception and we are committed to delivering on our promises to residents, collaborating to create an improved neighbourhood for all. We know that people not only want better quality, energy-efficient homes, but also improved access to jobs, more support for young people and less fear of crime, so we are pleased to reach this important milestone in rewriting the future for this community.’

Paul Dooley, director of regeneration and development at Poplar HARCA, added: ‘I am really pleased to reach this significant milestone for this important regeneration scheme. It is one step closer to delivering more affordable homes and community facilities for Tower Hamlets residents.

‘In partnership with The Hill Group, the project has already made a real impact in terms of social value. Local residents have been instrumental in shaping these plans and we are committed to making sure this exciting programme of regeneration reflects the things that matter most to them.’

Image: The Hill Group

More on regeneration:

Buckinghamshire film studios plans axed despite Hollywood backing

Liverpool to undergo a major ‘Swiftie’ regeneration

Councils have relied on housing revenue accounts to help boost their decent homes standard. However, Campbell Tickell, discusses that since the standards of homes have increased, should these accounts still be considered useful?

“Should we re-open our Housing Revenue Account?” (HRA) This question is one which many local authorities that have previously sold their housing stock via stock transfer (and hence closed their Housing Revenue Account) have been grappling with over the past few years. From the work we have undertaken over recent years with a number of councils considering re-opening an HRA, the answer would have to be: “it depends”.

Why consider it?

Many – probably the majority – of stock transfers occurred more than 20 years ago. They took place for a variety of reasons, but most often were driven by the desire to achieve the decent homes standard by unlocking investment from housing associations that councils simply couldn’t afford.

Fast-forward to the present day and things look a little different. A combination of fire safety requirements, net zero-carbon targets and underperforming repairs services mean stock investment needs are higher than ever. These and other current dynamics mean there is a trend for acquisitions and mergers among housing associations to try to achieve ever-improving economies of scale. As a result, it is becoming increasingly likely that connections between local authorities and the organisations to which they transferred their housing stock have fractured, with a sense of a loss of control over how social housing can best be used to meet local conditions and needs.

Add to this the pressures being felt by councils in respect of the use of high-cost temporary accommodation to meet homelessness needs, as well as pressures on children’s services and adult social care budgets – both of which typically come with a degree of need for some form of housing solution – and it is clear that a joined-up, housing-led solution could be seen as being an attractive proposition. When you take into account the lifting of the cap on HRA borrowing in 2018, and the (still) relatively cheap borrowing available from the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB), it is easy to see why many local authorities consider re-opening an HRA to help address these challenges. So what are the next steps and considerations for those that are keen?

Regulatory issues

It should be noted that a local authority could develop/acquire and hold up to 199 new council homes within the powers set out in Part II of the Housing Act 1985 (the 1985 Act) or Section 74(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) without actually opening an HRA. This is provided a “direction” is obtained from the Secretary of State to waive the requirement to maintain an HRA (usually a formality). The requirement to establish an HRA would come into force once the number of properties owned reaches 200 or more.

Opening a new HRA is a pretty straightforward process, requiring little in the way of formal regulatory approval. It does, however, come with the burden of a regulatory framework which has been increased by the expansion of the Regulator of Social Housing’s remit to cover stock-holding local authorities, initially in respect of the application of the Rent Standard to council rents, but now also covering the application of Consumer Standards.

Financial issues

Financially, the HRA is a ring-fenced account within the General Fund (GF), which broadly means that rental income cannot be used to help fund non-HRA activity. Also, GF resources cannot be used to support HRA activity – the HRA should be to all intents and purposes self-financing. This includes being able to meet any financing costs of new borrowing undertaken to fund HRA acquisitions/developments. From previous experience, this gives rise to one of the key potential barriers to opening an HRA to own and operate new council housing: that of financial viability.

Cashflow is key to any new organisation, particularly during the early years of operation, and for a new HRA it will be critical to help ensure regulatory compliance. Under Section 76 of the 1989 Act, the council has a duty to “prevent a debit balance on the HRA”, i.e. avoid the account going into deficit. An organisation with a very small amount of stock – such as a local authority with an embryonic HRA – will need to be able to recover its overhead costs (i.e. its democratic and central support costs), in addition to its operational costs and any debt financing costs from the income arising from a small stock base.

To ensure long-term viability, it will be vital to achieve a critical mass of properties as soon as possible: i.e. a stock base of sufficient size to enable economies of scale in respect of overheads to improve viability. The size of this critical mass will vary depending on the circumstances of the local authority, but in order to achieve this we have found that a ready supply of developable land is important.

Alternative solutions

Given the potential financial challenges, a key question is: why use an HRA over other options? Alternative solutions include:

• Entering into an arrangement with an existing housing provider for them to develop new housing, perhaps on land provided by the council. While this could achieve a similar outcome, it would be at the cost of the degree of control able to be exercised by the local authority
• Establishing a new housing provider for the purpose of owning and operating new social housing. This could be a relatively lengthy process compared to establishing a new HRA, as well as potentially being a more expensive process, and also more expensive to operate as a separate stand-alone company
• Setting up wholly-owned companies to own and operate sub-market housing. Again, this could potentially be a more expensive option to operate as a stand-alone company

Councils considering any of these options would need to consider the relative risks and rewards in determining its strategy going forward.

No single answer

If there is sufficient land and resources available to enable a critical mass of social homes to be achieved, then a new HRA could potentially be made to work – but cashflow is key. It may not be the right solution for every council, and one or more of the alternatives could provide a more effective solution.

Ultimately there is no single answer to the initial question of whether or not to re-open an HRA. One size does not fit all, and, as we said at the outset, the decision will very much depend on the individual set of circumstances for each local authority.

As well as being published on NewStart this article was featured in the latest CT Brief – Issue 71.

Images: rivage and nattanan23

More from Campbell Tickell:

Campbell Tickell interview with the Housing Ombudsman

Feature: Campbell Tickell chats to the outgoing CEO of Clanmil

The leading national bank have joined forces with Hometree who have raised £250m of debt financing to help homeowners install solar panels, battery storage systems and heat humps into their properties.

Through patterning with Barclays, Hometree – the leading residential energy services company – has created the ‘pay as you save’ programme, which is designed to help homeowners sustainably upgrade their home. Through the scheme, people can take out loans to fund the installation of solar panels, battery storage systems and heat pumps.

The idea of a loan in the current climate is frightening to say the least, with interest rates being the highest since 2008. However, Hometree’s scheme offers zero-deposit payment options that are designed for the domestic renewable energy market.

In addition, various homeowners will be able to ‘pay as they save’, with the forecasted savings they make through reduced energy bills exceeding their monthly payments from day one.

Arguably the introduction of this scheme couldn’t have come at a better time. Although energy bills have fallen since their peak in April and October 2022, research shows they are still 59% higher than winter 2021/2022. As a result, consumer interest in renewable energy systems is at an all-time high with over 220,000 heat pumps and solar installations taking place in UK homes in 2023, a record-breaking increase, according to data from MCS.

Despite increased demand, green energy solutions are still out of reach for many households. The average cost to install solar and battery systems is £13,600, and £12,700 to £31,500 for air source and ground source heat pumps. According to new figures from LCP Delta, 28% of solar panel customers used high-interest personal loans or credit cards to fund the installation, which risks adding further strain on household budgets.

Commenting on the news of the new programme, Simon Phelan, CEO and founder of Hometree, said: ‘Many homeowners naturally want to invest in renewable technologies but are put off by the extraordinarily high upfront costs. That’s why we’re focused on removing barriers to help more households take control of their energy bills and carbon emissions. We’re delighted to be working with Barclays to help us develop and scale flexible finance solutions with all-inclusive cover built-in, to enable homeowners to make the switch to clean, green energy with confidence.’

Matt Boyes, Co-MD of Hometree Finance, added: ‘The UK has some of the world’s most expensive homes to heat and power and it is costing homeowners dearly. Yet until now, there hasn’t been an easy, affordable way to finance the green energy upgrades that will benefit homeowners’ wallets and the planet. This new partnership with Barclays means it will be just as easy to install solar panels or a heat pump as it is to lease or buy a new car on finance.’

Image: Martin Adams

More on this topic: 

The UK are still falling behind on heat pump installations, here’s why

New heat pump launched with smart home energy solution

Time is running out to decide who you want to see as our next prime minister. Our latest long read features Ritchie Clapson, a veteran property developer, who explores how the sector would be impacted if Labour is victorious next month. 

We are just a short time from the General Election, and, whether you’re studying the polls, the punditry, or the odds in your location betting shop/app, it’s not looking good for the Conservatives. There are of course many variables—the Reform effect, stay-at-home-Tory-voters, right-leaning press front pages, misinformation and deep-fakes on social media—that will play a part in influencing the workload of at least one high end removal company on July 5th. But it does seem likely there will be a return to Downing Street for the Labour party very soon.

With this in mind, I ask, what would this mean for the property sector?

Landlords shouldn’t get too excited

I don’t expect a sea change in how property investors are treated. The current government has belatedly worked out that pushing landlords to sell up through increased taxation or regulation doesn’t actually help anybody. This means there are now more properties for sale, but unfortunately, tenants can’t afford to buy them. Consequently, there are now fewer rental units on the market, which means that rents have gone up, thus making it more difficult for tenants to afford to rent anywhere. And then we have the now shelved Renters (Reform) Bill, the mere threat of which was enough to scare thousands of landlords out of the sector. I’m afraid I can only see any new iteration of the Bill being more draconian for landlords under a Labour regime. Labour has also started mentioning rent caps, yet another policy guaranteed to scare the horses.

A big rental myth

The rental market is not short of stereotypes, with one of the biggest misconceptions being that all landlords are wealthy.

Granted, the man generally accepted as the UK’s richest landlord. 33-year-old Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster, is worth in the region of £10bn, but according to the government’s 2021 English Private Landlord Survey (updated in March 2024), 45% of individual landlords own just one buy-to-let property, with a further 40% owning between two and four properties. The report states that the average earnings for all landlords’ – excluding rental income – is just £24,000 per year and that their median age is 58.

What happens if we add in their rental profit? The median gross rental income was £17,200, from which they would need to deduct mortgage repayments, agency fees and running costs to arrive at a pre-tax profit. Obviously, each landlord’s costs will be different, but we’re clearly not looking at a king’s ransom. And many such landlords are accidental – perhaps they kept a flat when they married or inherited a house when their parents died. Super-rich? No, just ordinary people. How much more regulation and taxation are these types of landlord likely to accept before chucking in the towel?

If Labour forms the next government, they need to think through plans that impact the ‘regular’ landlord; if new policies further take the shine off renting out properties, many houses and flats could be sold, depleting rental stock even more.

Better prospects for property development?

As more landlords have felt the pipes squeaking on their buy-to-let portfolios, many have moved into small-scale property development to offset the pain. For many, the type of projects they undertake are just one step up from those they’ve done previously, such as creating an HMO or doing a refurbishment. Simply putting flats above a shop or converting a small commercial building can be expected to generate a six-figure profit, so no wonder there’s a healthy appetite. It certainly puts the average landlord’s buy-to-let profits in the shade. So, this begs the question, will Labour’s approach to property development differ from that of the Tories, who have actively encouraged it by creating many new permitted development rights in England?

In my opinion, there’s unlikely to be too much change. The reason for this is that the housing crisis is an incontrovertible fact, it’s getting worse rather than better, and it’s impossible to fix unless the government of the day is prepared to ignore the squeals of objectors across the land and start building lots of new houses.

Late last year, Keir Starmer declared himself a YIMBY and insisted he would take a dim view of any Labour MPs opposing new housing in their constituencies. It would be refreshing to hear yes, in my back yard, but, as governments of all hues have discovered, when there’s the suggestion of construction work at the bottom of our own gardens, few of us can contain our inner NIMBYs, and they are force to be reckoned with.

We need to build around four million new homes (the equivalent of around 15 Oxfordshires) which means we’re not going to be able to avoid the Green Belt or stick them all somewhere out of the way where no one will notice.

Green, brown and grey

Labour reckons it could build some new towns—around 1.5million homes—using what it calls the ‘grey belt’. This is green belt land that already has something built on it, such as car parks or petrol stations. They’ve stipulated that 50% of grey belt development must be affordable housing, but it’s not clear how the economics of this will stack up for developers who clearly are going to want to make a profit. This focus on the grey belt hasn’t gone down that well with the countryside charity CPRE, who argue that we should instead turn this grey belt back into Green Belt, which you might think is ignoring the housing crisis until you realise that we could build 1.2 million new homes using existing unused Brownfield Land. These are existing commercial properties and land not in the Green Belt, which could be converted to residential use. CPRE, not unreasonably, believes we should be starting with unused brownfield land first instead of targeting the grey belt.

These Brownfield sites are a rare political win-win. They positively impact the house-building numbers, plus voters are generally happy for these sites to be converted. It also gets more people living in our town centres, which benefits local economies. On that basis, I can’t see Labour deciding that Brownfield conversions are a bad idea. It should also be good news for landlords and investors because larger housebuilders won’t touch small commercial conversion projects since most lack the skills or appetite to do them. This leaves more opportunities for first-time property developers.

Final thoughts

Whoever forms the next government, it would be good to see the office used by the Minister of State for Housing, Planning and Building Safety lose its revolving door; since 2010, there have been sixteen Ministers of State for Housing. Over the last 14 years the housing portfolio has been to politicians what a role on The Bill used to be for the acting profession – everyone gets a go eventually. The property sector deserves better.

Images: Ritchie Clapson, Clay Banks and Avel Chuklanov

More features:

Should the government bring back Help to Buy?

Addressing water stresses in Cambridge could unlock housing growth

David Churchill, partner at Carter Jonas, explains communities are made up of so much more than just homes and claims experts should be focusing on delivering worthwhile developments rather than constructing properties to meet government targets. 

We all know what defines a successful community: not just a range of homes to address a range of requirements, but also attractive and safe areas in which to spend time and enjoy a healthy lifestyle, the provision and maintenance of appropriate community facilities and services, and a sustainable approach to both the construction and operation of a community. Perhaps most importantly, the most successful communities are those which benefit from long term investment (both financial and otherwise) following delivery.

But what I have described here, sadly, is more idealist than typical due to the very many restraints that lie in the path of creating a fully functioning and sustainable community.

The funding issues behind the provision of community facilities and infrastructure were recognised in a recent working paper by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), Private Management of Public Amenities on Housing Estates. The report considered that, whereas historically it was standard practice for amenities on new housing estates intended for communal use – such as roads, sewers and drainage and public open spaces – to be adopted by the local authority, this has changed in the past five years, partly due to local authority concerns about the ongoing costs of maintaining amenities. On behalf of the housebuilding industry, the HBF responded to the CMA’s report recognising the importance of public open spaces, amenities and infrastructure but raising questions about the ownership and increasingly complex maintenance of community assets.

Due to these funding and management issues – and, it should be recognised, despite the aspirations of both developers and local authorities – there are too many examples of new communities failing to provide adequate facilities early enough in their development to meet the needs of the new residents.

Again, the constraints are largely financial. The ever-increasing demands on the developer are one contributing factor: planning contributions (Section 106 and CIL), direct delivery of infrastructure, community facilities and services, sustainable urban drainage systems, nutrient neutrality, water neutrality, biodiversity net gain (BNG) – all before we get to the affordable housing. I would not dispute the importance of these items for the benefit of existing and future communities, but there is no doubt that the longer the list of developer contributions becomes, the more risks there are in the process and the more expensive it becomes. Which is reflected in property prices and can result in important benefits being delivered late in the development process.

The most successful communities are undoubtedly those with a strong sense of neighbourliness in which individuals, working together, can support both the built environment and the community as a whole. But the challenge for developers in creating successful a truly sustainable community is the effective long-term management of resources.

Funding issues aside, the best means by which master planners and developers can achieve this is through a planned and well managed approach to ‘legacy’. The increased propensity of legacy-inspired developments over the past decade is partly due to the role of master developers and an increase in ‘legacy’ landowners. Master developers understand the benefits of this approach in terms of the immediate value that a ‘placemaking premium’ brings to a new community (not just the house prices that can be achieved, but also its attractiveness to the market) and also because of their long term role as the owner and operator of spaces within them.

The legacy approach uses covenants for the long-term means of overseeing management. Covenants provide simplicity by putting parameters in place and providing a structure through which the community is served on an ongoing basis. They may initially be administered by an immature management company but as the new community takes shape, they are passed on to a mature management company which can oversee ongoing maintenance efficiently and effectively.

The Oxford English Dictionary provides two definitions of legacy: (1) ‘money or property that is given to you by somebody when they die’ and (2), ‘a situation that exists now because of events, actions, etc that took place in the past’.

While is it undoubtedly the second definition that corresponds the most enlightened developers’ understanding of legacy, the monetary aspect is also worthy of consideration. Legacy cannot be disassociated from financial considerations but when managed well through a covenant-based approach, comes in the form of value, not cost.

Image: John Cameron

More on communities:

Short-term lets rules announced to protect communities

How SMEs can help redefine social responsibility in local communities

The chief executive of Manningham Housing Association (MHA) has congratulated his team after 11 residents have successfully been handed their keys to their new property.

A £4.3m million affordable homes scheme at Odette’s Point, Shann Lane in Keighley is near completion as 11 residents have started moving into their new home.

The project, which will be comprised of 20 new homes, includes 14 three-bed and six four-bed detached and semi-detached properties that will all be available for social rent, has been delivered in partnership with Avant Homes with support from Homes England and Bradford Council.  

Although 11 of the 20 properties have been finished, the remaining nine are expected to be done and occupied by the end of this year.

Following a visit to the site, Lee Bloomfield, chief executive of MHA, said the new homes had been tailored to meet the needs of tenants from all background, with a particular emphasis on South Asian families.

‘There is a particular requirement for larger family properties in Keighley and Bradford, which many housing associations are unable to address,’ Bloomfield said. ‘Rising to this challenge is central to our ongoing development plans, together with an absolute commitment to sustainability through environmentally friendly design which reduces our carbon footprint.’

Bloomfield added: ‘A number of the new properties benefit from integral solar panels, highlighting our environmental responsibility and foresight to create homes that are adaptable to future needs.’

In addition, Bloomfield also claimed the development underscores MHA’s deep resolve to support local communities in Keighley.

‘MHA currently owns and manages 223 homes in the area.  The new scheme is in an established local community with a robust identity and reliable communal services, ensuring a high quality of life for its residents,’ Bloomed explained. ‘The proximity to our existing housing stock and the high demand for housing in the area contribute to the long-term viability of the project for current and future generations.’

Bloomfield said: ‘We are proud of what we are doing in Keighley and look forward to providing many more high-quality affordable homes in the town and surrounding areas in the years to come.’

Image: MHA

More on this topic:

Over 100 affordable homes proposed for Bradford

Major change announced for estate regeneration with affordable homes funding

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Green Party have now all delivered their election manifestos. Looking at all four, experts have claimed the greens could have the most promising plans for the housing sector. 

Yesterday afternoon the Green Party launched their manifesto titled ‘Real Hope, Real Change’ which outlined their plans for the next government should they be successful in July’s election. The launch event, which took place in Brighton and Hove as that is where the majority of voters are situated, was opened by the party’s Brighton Pavilion candidate Siân Berry, who noted that the current housing crisis would be one of the first things on the Greens agenda to tackle should they be elected.

Ms Berry claimed that she has always been a renter, ‘at the mercy of a system that can turn on me at any moment’.

In a bid to try and tackle the housing crisis, the Greens have pledged that they will create more social rent homes by taking some from the private sector. Likewise, the party plan on upgrading existing social properties by providing better insulation so they stay warmer for longer, introducing rent controls, and letting councils requisition empty properties or those without proper insulation.

As well as ensuring people have a safe place to call home, these properties will also benefit the environment. The party have claimed any new homes will have access to sufficient local infrastructure and will be sustainably constructed.

With these pledges in mind, below are some reactions from industry experts who have also touched upon other priorities the Greens outlined at their manifesto launch.

Jane Crichton, Associate Director, Lanpro Services:

‘We don’t traditionally see the Greens as the party with the largest housebuilding targets.  And yet this is all-but implied in the manifesto: assuming that most new social homes come from the private sector and that a typical housing development provides 30% affordable / social housing, to provide 150,000 new homes as the Greens pledge would require at least 450,000 new homes to be built each year – considerably exceeding the housing delivery targets set by any other political party.

‘Other notable omissions are measures to support greater delivery rates of other forms of housing – including much needed private housing – and targets for doing so.

‘The manifesto contains a proposal that all new homes are built to Passivhaus standard, which of course we welcome in its objective to reduce carbon emissions. But due to the costs and skilled workforce required, this is probably unrealistic as it would impose an enormous burden on the development industry, and significantly slow delivery, without some well-planned measures to support the transition.

‘There are very ambitious and welcome targets for the construction of grid-scale renewable energy schemes. 100GW of solar over 10 years represents around 10-20 NSIPs per year, which is a significant step up from current rates. Explicit support for onshore wind and grid infrastructure bodes well for discussions with local councils where the Green party is in administration.’

Lawrence Turner, Director, Boyer:

‘The Green Party’s manifesto for housing affordability and sustainability presents a bold vision for a more environmentally friendly and affordable housing market in the UK. Their slogan ‘Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price’ outlines their commitment to addressing the pressing issues of housing affordability and sustainability.

‘One of the key policies outlined in the Green’s manifesto is the requirement for local authorities to plan for small-scale developments within local communities. This approach aims to integrate new housing into existing communities rather than planning for the creation of new towns, urban extensions, or any strategic development. Additionally, the Party wants all new homes to meet Passivhaus or equivalent standards, promoting energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions. By providing 150,000 new affordable homes each year and implementing measures like a community right to buy for local authorities, the Green Party believe this will make a significant difference in improving affordability in the housing sector.

‘However, a notable omission in the manifesto is the absence of details on how exactly 150,000 social / affordable homes would be delivered each year. The strategy of piecemeal development across local areas would pose challenges in planning and delivering the necessary infrastructure to support housing growth. Additionally, a sporadic approach to housing development, will make the delivery of the targeted number of affordable homes impossible to achieve, especially when considering the need for developments on greenfield sites as well as urban land.

‘The overarching theme is the Green Party’s commitment to transitioning to a zero-carbon society. By investing in renewable energy sources like onshore and offshore wind and promoting community ownership of energy sources, the Greens aim to decentralise power generation and reduce the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels. Empowering communities to control their energy supply would be an important step forward to achieving sustainability and reducing carbon emissions.

‘In conclusion, while the Green Party’s manifesto for housing affordability and sustainability presents ambitious goals, it remains undeliverable – and lacks any details on how these goals will be effectively achieved. Addressing the challenges of planning and delivering the necessary infrastructure for housing growth, as well as providing more clarity on the strategies for achieving affordable housing targets, will be crucial for the Green Party to gain support and credibility in their mission for a more sustainable and affordable housing market in the UK.’

In addition to the Greens announcing their pledges yesterday, Sir Keir Starmer took to the stand in Greater Manchester today to announce Labour’s goals for Parliament should they be successful next month. Within the manifesto, Starmer has laid strong emphasis on how he plans to increase economic growth through tax increases, but the Labour leader has warned this will not come from personal tax rises. Likewise, the manifesto also covered intentions to addresses issues within education, the NHS, the energy sector and housing. 

William Nichols, regional director of Lanpro, has claimed that like the Greens plans, lbaour’s pledges for the housing sector also seem promising. 

‘Labour’s manifesto has set out some bold steps for how it aims to ‘kickstart economic growth’, promising to ‘transfer power out of Westminster’ by deepening devolution settlements for existing combined authorities while reviewing the governance arrangements for combined authorities to unblock decision making. It aims to ‘get Britain building again, by delivering jobs and 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament. It aims to ‘deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation,’ Nichols said. ‘An important change that will be welcomed by the development industry is to immediately update the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) including the restoration or mandatory housing targets, and it has also said it will take tough action to ensure planning authorities have up-to-date Local Plans as well as strengthening the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’; how this works in practice remains to be seen. Labour is committed to funding additional planning officers and resourcing planning departments with the staff they need.’

Nichols added: ‘While Labour will continue to take a ‘brownfield first approach’, another welcome intervention is Labour’s commitment to take a more strategic approach to green belt designation while prioritising release lower quality ‘grey belt’ land alongside the creation of a set of ‘golden rules’ to ensure development benefits communities and nature.’

Images: Nik and Shutterstock

More on this topic:

Reaction to the summer General Election plans

Local elections 2024: Conservatives in ‘a very tough situation’

The Department for Levelling Up closed a consultation on the contractual controls on land. Ian Barnett, national land director of Leaders Romans Group explains what the next steps are for developers and landowners. 

The outcome of the consultation, which was launched at the beginning of this year, will be of particular interest to landowners and developers because it changes the way in which information about land ownership can be accessed and could significantly change the early stages of the local plan process – the point at which landowners can put forward land for future development. The concern is that the change could fuel anti-development sentiment among local communities to the detriment of landowners.

As such, it also raises questions about how public engagement on potential development could be managed more effectively.

The aim of the government’s consultation is to provide a reliable and accessible source of information for communities, developers, and other stakeholders, at an earlier stage in the land sales and development process. It would even apply to land which remains as farmland, as it would include a range of forms of potential land sales, such as options agreements.

Under new regulations (to form Part 11 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act), a national dataset would be created, comprising the ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘who’ and ‘when’ of contractual control agreements. The government’s stated objective is to promote transparency by providing a reliable and accessible source of information for communities, developers and other stakeholders.

Currently, public engagement on land which may be sold for development usually begins when the land is put forward for allocation the local planning authority’s local plan. At this stage the landowner’s intention to develop and ultimately sell their land is made known and the local community is encouraged to comment through the local plan process. Prior to this stage, however, changed intentions are not required to be made public.

Many of us in the land industry are concerned that members of local communities may lobby landowners and campaign with the intention of stalling land sales and stopping housing from being built.

At this very early stage in the development process – when the land sale is first discussed but the site does not have an allocation in the local plan – proposals and other consultation documents are not yet available and the local community is unable to comment on meaningfully.

The change would encourage those fundamentally opposed to development to get involved in the process – but any objection at this stage would fall far short of meaningful engagement. Instead, it could potentially stir unnecessary conflict between the landowner and the local community – where, if more detailed development proposals been available, the community may have been supportive.

Furthermore, concerns have been raised about local newspapers scanning the new database for recent options agreements, or protest groups using mapping tools to identify land which has changed hands, and to whom. Clearly there is little benefit in creating alarm for no reason.

I would like to think that I am wrong in assuming that the potential for development would necessarily result in alarm and adversity – but sadly, the vast majority of development proposals and planning applications result in objections rather than support. 

Perhaps the government’s aim of achieving greater transparency, while commendable and an important facet of our democratic planning system, is directed at the wrong stage in the process.

My belief is that meaningful engagement – that which is less adversarial and more collaborative – would come from strengthening community involvement in the local plan process.

It is regrettable that under the same government we have seen one prime minister (Boris Johnson) rallying his Party Conference by promising to spare party members the ‘constant anxiety’ of their ‘immemorial view of chalk downland’ being ‘desecrated by ugly new homes’; another (Liz Truss) referring to housing targets as ‘Stalinist’.

The urgent need to address the housing crisis can only met if landowners, land promoters, developers and local communities can collaborate. Landowners are pivotal in the success of this relationship: some of the most successful and most popular developments are those with ‘landowner legacy’ at their heart.

Democracy has had an active role in planning since the first Town and Country Planning Act in 1947 and this should remain the case – but note that the Act concerns planning, not ownership (and certainly not potential future ownership).

Images: Bermix Studio and Heidi Fin

More on this topic:

Planning red tape rules have been cut for farmers

New compulsory purchase orders powers only beneficial ‘at first glance’

The research shows homelessness is now a concern for one in five people in the UK, causing members of the public to call on the next government to build more social homes.

A new study, which was published yesterday by Places for People, has revealed that 21% of people living in the UK fear they or someone they know will become homeless within the next 12 months. When looking at this devastating statistic more closely, it was found that the worry is greater in renters rather than those who own their own home.

Researchers found that 30% of individuals who privately rent are concerned about homelessness compared to 29% of people who live in social housing and 15% of homeowners.

Against this backdrop, recent government statistics show people in the UK have more than a right to be concerned about the growing homelessness crisis. The data found 3,898 people were counted as sleeping rough across England on a single night in Autumn 2023, and 121 in Wales. In Scotland, 2,438 households reported rough sleeping during the previous three months before applying for support in 2022/2023.  

However, the bleak pictures doesn’t just stop here. In addition to showcasing the number of people sleeping rough in the UK, the government figures also show households living in temporary accommodation is at its highest ever level, with 112,660 in England, 15,625 in Scotland and 5,700 in Wales. What’s more, there are 1.29 million households waiting for a social home in England, 110,900 in Scotland and 90,000 in Wales.  

‘These figures should alarm us all. What we found has bluntly exposed the worry that exists throughout the country. Sadly, however, they do not come as a surprise – for too long we have been highlighting the seriousness of the ever-growing homelessness crisis facing the UK,’ John Greaves, chief impact officer at Places for People, said. ‘With renters in both social and private properties most concerned, everything people are telling us points towards a desperate need to build more social homes, although delivering the right mix of all tenures remains vital to ease overall pressure. At Places for People, we’re doing all we can to build more quality homes, including for social rent, and we support those who have fallen on hard times and are being let down by the welfare system, but we can only do so much.’

Greaves added: ‘We know that building 90,000 social homes a year will be a challenge, but we’re ready to help. We see an opportunity to deepen our collaboration with partners and work closely together as part of public-interest-led development groups. This would bring developers, local authorities, members of the public and others together on larger schemes to plan and deliver the quality homes needed in a more joined-up and community-focussed way. This could be supported by giving Homes England greater flexibility over funding to deliver on more challenging sites. We want to put ourselves forward to work closely with Homes England and a local authority on a specific site to trial this model, building on the development corporation approach.   

‘As a sector, the concerns we have raised time and time again around the need for more social homes have not been listened to by Government in recent years. So, we are now urging whoever forms the next Government to listen to the people of the UK and put delivering more social homes at the top of your priority list. Talking’s over, it’s time to build.’

Following the outcome of its survey, Places for People, which owns or manages more than 245,000 homes across the UK including 74,000 social homes, is calling on the next government to prioritise social housing targets.

Image: Arian Malek khosravi

More on this topic:

Nottingham homes renovation scheme complete to combat homelessness

Mayor of London pledges to end homelessness under one condition

The Norman Foster Foundation have partnered with Holcim to create new emergency housing which will be showcased at this year’s Royal Academy Summer Exhibition in London.

The research project, which is otherwise known as Essentia Homes, was initiated to provide safety, comfort and wellbeing for low-income or displaced communities. The first prototype was shown last year at the Venice Biennale. The prototype has been developed for rollout in Latin America in 2025, following an in-depth study of local housing conditions and the environment.

Prior to the rollout, sketches of the homes, which are set to be built with low-carbon, local materials including ECOPact low-carbon concrete and ECOPlanet low carbon cement, will be showed at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition – the world’s oldest open submission exhibition, held every year since 1769. This year, the event will take place in London from 18th June until 18th August 2024.

Nollaig Forrest, chief sustainability officer, Holcim, a global leader in innovative and sustainable building solutions: ‘We are excited to be continuing our collaboration with the Norman Foster Foundation on this important project to make sustainable building possible for all. The Essential Homes prototype we are jointly unveiling at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition is designed to be rolled out at scale in Latin America during 2025.’

Norman Foster, president, Norman Foster Foundation, added: ‘This project grew out of a workshop organised by the Norman Foster Foundation for young graduates devoted to the issues of refugee housing. Realising that a family can spend up to nearly two decades living in a tent, the scholars posed a challenge – could a more durable, permanent and dignified home be built in a few days, that would be economically viable and sustainable? The Foundations project team, with the support of Holcim, met this challenge with a prototype home unveiled at the 2023 Venice Biennale. This has now evolved into a row house version, offering higher standards for ultra low-cost housing – shown for the first time at this Royal Academy Summer Show.’

Images: The Norman Foster Foundation

More on this topic:

Deep waters: One in 13 new homes built in flood zone

£125m plans have been submitted to build hundreds of new homes in Glasgow

Cambridge holds the potential to become a hub of new housing opportunities, however Matt Clarke, of Boyer, explains if the current water supply issue isn’t addressed, the government’s Cambridge 2040 vision will be trashed. 

Image: Matt Clarke.

Last summer Housing Minister Michael Gove announced plans to invest in Cambridge as ‘Europe’s Silicon Valley’, including the intention to deliver up to 250,000 additional homes under the government’s Cambridge 2040 vision. Further announcements have followed, including those issued in the context of the Spring Budget and in recent days, which have both tempered the scale of their aspirations (it is now 150,000 new homes, by 2050) and added some more detail on how key challenges to delivery will be tackled.

There is no doubt that investment in Cambridge is an astute economic move: already, the University alone makes a total net economic impact on the UK economy of nearly £30 billion annually – almost four times that of football’s lucrative Premier League. Investing in the University and wider Greater Cambridge ecosystem will have a significant beneficial impact on the overall economic health of the UK.

Cambridgeshire is a popular location for a wide variety of reasons and already has one of the fastest growing populations, most notably within the 25-to-34-year-old age group (+20.6% in the period between the 2011 and 2021 censuses), suggesting a strong pull factor from job opportunities generated by the University and the many tech and life sciences employers, and evidence of the continued success of the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’.

The Greater Cambridge area has, in recent times, therefore grappled with the challenges of delivering sufficient new homes to fuel this economic growth potential in a sustainable manner. Strategies have included both Green Belt releases and a series of new settlements. Notably, of the five new towns initiated in England in the last decade, two were in Cambridgeshire, at Northstowe and Waterbeach, themselves following on from that at Cambourne.

Housing shortfall

With Cambridge’s housing market characterised by acute affordability issues, the need to address demand through considerably increased supply in order to boost the availability of homes, including those for key workers, is long over-due. According to the government’s recently published report. The Case for Cambridge, the city is the most unequal city in the UK – and this risks jeopardising future, sustained economic growth.

Affordability is an ongoing challenge for Greater Cambridge, with average house prices over 12 times the average salary in 2022 for the city and the affordability ratio for South Cambridgeshire not too far behind, each having worsened over the past decade. According to The Case for Cambridge, in the last 10 years house prices in Cambridge have increased by 78% and pay by only 23%. Furthermore, 31% of all households are now renting, significantly above the English average of 19%. Finding solutions to this affordability problem, most notably through increased housing delivery, will be critical to realising Cambridge’s long-term economic potential.

When the Cambridge 2040 vision was first outlined and then subsequently reinforced at the end of 2023 the local political response was somewhat tentative, with key delivery challenges invariably raised with regards to infrastructure, sustainability and specifically in relation to water supply.

Introducing the water supply issue

In order to deliver committed strategic housing allocations in Cambridgeshire, let alone to accommodate a further 250,000 new homes, the complex issue of water capacity must clearly be addressed.

Climate change has resulted in many regions (especially in the East) experiencing long dry periods. Although storms and extreme weather events deliver rain, the intensity is often so great that the water cannot be captured and stored effectively.

The Cambridge Water supply area relies primarily on ground water. The Environment Agency has stated that any new housing development should do so without increasing abstraction levels and risking deterioration to the existing water bodies in the area. The Agency hasobjected to a number of strategic planning applications on the grounds of water stress and its concerns over the resulting environmental impacts of water abstraction on water courses in the supply area. Recent announcements suggested that as many as 9,000 new homes on committed strategic sites are currently being blocked as a consequence.

Progress on the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan has also been impacted, whilst clarity is gained on resolution of this issue – with the net result being that (both current and future) development is delayed and the housing shortage exacerbated.

Two recent planning appeals have challenged this issue through public inquiries, namely the Brookgate scheme at Cambridge North (for 450 homes and employment development) and that at Darwin Green in West Cambridge (phases 2 and 3, for 1,000 dwellings). Both appeals have been recovered for determination by the Secretary of State with the decisions currently awaited. Clearly these will provide a valuable indication of the Government’s stance on water stress in the sub-region in due course, putting recent announcements on related measures to the test.

Government commitment

In The Case for Cambridge, the government commits to resolving the problem, stating: ‘Our first priority is water scarcity, which is holding back development and risks causing environmental harm. It is vital that the city has the water supply it needs to support long-term growth, including a new reservoir in the Fens and a new pipeline to transfer water from nearby Grafham Water. We are also making a one-off intervention to support growth in the shorter-term by delivering water savings through improved water efficiency of appliances in existing buildings that can offset new homes and commercial space.’

The government also promises to deliver a unique offsetting intervention (as set out in Addressing water scarcity in Greater Cambridge: update on government measures) having already established a Water Scarcity Group, in order to unlock the current blockage.

The Water Resources Management Plan

In February this year, Cambridge Water issued its third draft Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP), the earlier iterations having been objected to by the Environment Agency. The 25-year strategy, as required, demonstrates how Cambridge Water will ensure the continued supply of safe clean water while protecting and improving the environment.

The plan’s targets include a 50% reduction in leakage from 2017/18 levels by 2040 (10 years ahead of the government target); a reduction in household consumption (to 110 litres per head per day) by 2050; building on the already low household consumption (as compared to other regions); a 9% reduction in non-household consumption by 2038, and universal metering by 2030.

The supply options include a short-term water transfer from Grafham Water (25 miles west of Cambridge); a proposed new Fens Reservoir, to be located close to Chatteris (25 miles north of Cambridge) and associated transfer infrastructure, and reuse of effluent water which feeds into Cherry Hinton Reservoir in Cambridge.

Due to the significant infrastructure associated with a number of these supply options (which are projected to cost over £700m), the benefits will be staged: the Grafham Transfer in 2032, Fens Reservoir in 2036 and effluent re-use in 2041.

It remains to be seen whether the Environment Agency will support the latest WRMP (albeit the decision to approve this rests with DEFRA and OFWAT), and in turn the extent to which they will support projected levels of future development before the planned supply options are fully in place. A phased approach, balancing longer-term growth with delivery of the proposed supply infrastructure could realistically be anticipated.

Innovative Measures: Water credits system and nature-based solutions

In its update on measures for addressing water scarcity in Greater Cambridge (noted above) published alongside the Spring Budget, the government announced a ‘one-off commitment’ to introduce a water credits system in Cambridgeshire which it believes will help unlock the 9,000 homes and 300,000 square metres of commercial space that are currently held up in the planning system due to water scarcity concerns.

The water credits system, which is due to launch later this year, would give developers the opportunity to offset the water demands of development through the purchase and sale of water credits to ensure they have a neutral impact on water demand. The system would be overseen by a market operator and the credits would initially be provided through the retrofitting of properties (both commercial and residential) with government investment.

Alongside this the government is also undertaking a pilot to understand the scope for nature-based solutions to enhance the long-term flow of water bodies and improve resilience to floods, as well as seeking innovation in agricultural water resource management.

There are no details available about how the credits system would work with the planning process, but the announcement states that the government will work with the local planning authority, developers, the EA, and other key stakeholders on its implementation.

Co-ordination and timing

One of the Environment Agency’s key concerns is the way in which local authorities engage with water companies to plan development in line with available water resources.

Coordinating water supply and new housing development is compromised by the different timescales for local plans and WRMPs and the very long-term delivery of water infrastructure such as new reservoirs. In the Greater Cambridge context this has arguably led to the undesirable position that has ensued with regard to the delayed grant of planning permission, and in turn delivery, of sites whose allocation had been confirmed through Local Plans adopted in line with the current WRMP.

Funding for infrastructure projects is controlled by OFWAT and is reviewed only on a five-year basis, which makes it difficult for the water authorities and local authorities (whose boundaries invariably do not align) to change their infrastructure planning to address significant changes in local circumstances. The scale of infrastructure involved and the typically cross-boundary nature of the required longer-term solutions mean that a good case could be made for a truly strategic planning approach at national, or at least regional level.

Conclusion

Clearly the water scarcity situation must be resolved quickly both to unlock much-needed housing on sites already allocated in local plans and to allow future growth to be appropriately planned, whether in the form of a locally derived housing target or that suggested by the government’s ambitious Cambridge 2040 vision.

Further guidance from government this week would seem to underline that they are serious about doing so. Entitled ‘Cambridge Delivery Group: Establishing a Growth Company’, this sets out next steps for the already established Cambridge Delivery Group, including the task of establishing a dedicated Growth Company for Cambridge on a trajectory towards creation of a Development Corporation.

The guidance note outlines that the remit of such body would include the acceleration of growth, with explicit reference to unlocking development on sites allocated in the current local plan; developing a long-term growth strategy and importantly supporting cross-government engagement to identify solutions to complex constraints. Such an approach would undoubtedly assist or could be argued as essential if government’s growth aspirations for Cambridge are to be realised. However, some degree of local political opposition can certainly be expected, given that initial suggestions in this regard were not particularly warmly welcomed by the local authorities.

More features:

Should the government bring back Help to Buy?

Why councils should get statutory powers over economic development

The Liberal Democrats have become the first of the major parties to launch their full election manifesto at an event in London. However, experts have raised concerns, especially with their housing policies.

Yesterday, 10th June 2024, Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, took to a make-shift stage on the third floor of a loft space in a converted factory near Shoreditch, London, to unveil his parties policies in a bid to win people’s votes in the next General Election. Although, like the location, Sir Davey’s plans could be described as full of potential but needing a lot of work to become somewhat successful.

This is particularly true for the parties housing policies. In the speech Sir Davey explained the Liberal Democrats will deliver 380,000 homes a year, 150,000 social homes and the construction of ten new garden cities across the UK. In keeping with the green theme, the party have also claimed all new homes would be required to be built at a zero-carbon standard with solar panels, and requirements for landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their homes to EPC C or above by 2028 would be reintroduced.

However, since Sir Davey unveiled his housing plans, various industry experts have expressed their concerns. Professionals have claimed that the yearly housing target is too high – our current government have continuously failed to meet the requirement of delivering 300,000 new homes a year and councils will run into problems with landowners should they attempt to construct new properties.

Below are some reactions to the Liberal Democrats new manifesto, which is otherwise known as ‘For a Fair Deal’, and can be accessed in full here.

Colin Brown, head of planning and development, Carter Jonas:

‘There is nothing especially ‘new’ about the Lib Dems’ policies on planning and development and many of their ambitions reflect those of some of the other parties. 

‘What differs most from the current situation is the commitment to 380,000 new homes per annum, which is over 25% higher than the current Government target.  The manifesto says that this will be done by delivering ten new garden villages, but they do not say where these will be or how they will ensure they are delivered in a timely fashion.

“Much of the evidence about garden villages and new settlements generally is that they are difficult and slow to deliver, and politically difficult to land. It is not clear from the manifesto as to how they will implement delivery and require local councils to meet their housing targets. At present, this appears to rely on local authority and local community buy-in, with benefits offered to local authorities when they accept new housing.  This has not been overwhelmingly successful under the current government with CIL and the new homes bonus.

‘One new proposal is to allow councils to buy land at existing land value, presumably with compulsory purchase powers, through a reform of the Land Compensation Act 1961. This will be controversial with landowners, and it remains to see how it would work.  Other parties, specifically Labour, have spoken of capturing more land value, but not necessarily to the level of existing use value which may be agricultural.  I would argue that a landowner should still be able to see a sufficient return to make disposal of the land desirable, as opposed to continuing an existing use.’

Lawrence Turner, director, Boyer:

‘So while the Liberal Democrats’ emphasis on funding local planning departments and promoting brownfield development is a step in the right direction, the manifesto lacks detailed strategies to overcome the structural challenges facing the housing sector. The manifesto pledges to build capacity within local authorities, encourage rural housing expansion, and trialling community land auctions are positive steps, but may not be sufficient to achieve the ambitious target of 380,000 homes per year.

‘While the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto highlights the urgency of addressing the housing crisis, the Party’s proposed policies lack sufficient detail at this time and face several obstacles that need to be overcome. Psychological resistance to new developments, local governance challenges, and constraints within the construction industry present significant barriers to achieving the target of 380,000 homes per year. While the Party’s proposals offer some solutions, a more comprehensive approach is needed to address the complex challenges of housing delivery in the UK.’

Aidan Van de Weyer, senior planner, Lanpro Services:

‘From a planning perspective, the top lines in the Lib Dem manifesto are really positive. The delivery target of 380,000 homes year is welcome – but ambitious. As we know from recent experience, meeting housing targets is always controversial. The greater the housing target, the greater the controversy.

‘The Lib Dem manifesto says that this can be achieved through community-led initiatives and the creation of ten new garden cities – as Labour has done. So it will be interesting to see in what respect the Lib Dems plan to achieve this differently to Labour.

‘The Lib Dems have come up with a concrete proposal for solving the resourcing problems of local authorities: allow councils to set their own fees for planning applications. The impact of this will vary depending on how much freedom is given to councils. But with substantial freedoms allowed, this risks creating a two-tier planning service: wealthy, attractive areas get well-resourced planning teams, while quality in less affluent areas drops as councils compete to bring in development – perpetuating the rich/poor divide which already impacts far too much in our planning system.

‘The Lib Dems, again like Labour, have stated their support for allowing councils to be given compulsory purchase powers at existing use values for housing, along the lines of the as-yet unimplemented measures in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA).  Although each of the three main parties seems intent on pursuing this policy, without very clear rules and processes, this will introduce risks of challenge and delay that could make the powers difficult to use in practice.’

Images: Maximillian Conacher, Colin Brown, Lawrence Turner and Aidan Van de Weyer.

More on this topic:

Labour unveils grand plan to help first-time buyers

‘Time for a change’: Business leaders back Labour’s economic plans

New research from Deloitte highlights developers are pressing pause on new office schemes in the capital city after the volume of commercial space under construction skyrockets.

Deloitte, one of the largest accounting firms, has published findings from its recent survey which highlights that the number of project starts in London has dropped by almost a fifth in the last six months, with completions also in retreat.

According to experts, some 16.4 millions sq ft of office space across 127 schemes is now under construction in the capital city following a record number of project starts in 2023. In addition, an estimated 4.2 million sq ft of office space has broken ground across 42 schemes since last December – almost 18% lower than Deloitte’s last survey towards the end of 2023.

It is thought that the backlog has been caused by previous project delays that happened as a result of climbing interest rates, inflation and supply chain disruption in 2022.

Against this backdrop, office completions are expected to be down this year compared to 2023, which saw the second highest volume of completions in the history of the survey at 7.5 million sq ft.

Margaret Doyle, Deloitte partner and chief insights officer for financial services and real estate, said: ‘In response to these macro factors, we are seeing developers trying to de-risk schemes, for example, breaking up projects into discrete chunks, and delaying instructing contractors until a substantial portion of the scheme has been let.

‘These defensive actions by developers appear to be behind the declines in both new start and completion volumes seen in this survey and may presage a medium to long-term supply squeeze.’

Overall, the only area of London that recorded an increase in activity in the survey – with an uptick of 12% – was Midtown, the part of central London situated between the city and the West End, which includes Farringdon and Holborn.

In the report researchers found more than 2.5 million sq ft of the new starts over the last six months were office refurbishments, which have outperformed office newbuilds for the last eight consecutive surveys – a trend that has particularly been popular in the West End. Here, upgrades of listed buildings has seen the district edge above the City of London as the most active submarket for new construction activity due to three large new starts totalling 945,000 sq ft, although the Square Mile still had the largest long-term outlook for construction volumes.

Image: Danny Lau

More on this topic:

House building slows in London as cost of construction rises

Construction progress ramped up at a London school