黑洞社区

Former Labour leader Michael Foot鈥檚 1983 election manifesto was memorably described by Gerald Kaufman MP as the longest suicide note in history 鈥� despite being a relatively lightweight 39 pages. The current government鈥檚 , published in the dying days of 2022, is nearly three times as long. But one could argue the thrust of its 97 pages are no less harmful to the Conservative Party鈥檚 long term electoral interests than Foot鈥檚 policy programme was to Labour鈥檚.

How so? Because this consultation, on a re-write of the so-called , appears to represent this administration鈥檚 decision to finally give up on the idea of building enough homes so that those currently not on the housing ladder can hope they ever will be. It鈥檚 the latest piece of evidence that we have a government which - despite its continued propounding of a 300,000 homes-a-year housebuilding target it now knows it won鈥檛 meet - is actually making residential development harder, not easier.

Backbench deal

There is a lot within the , including some limited good news for developers, mainly around National Development Management Policies, and some proposed new policy wording which will make it easier for councils to plan for more homes than specified in the central 鈥渟tandard method鈥� if they want to. Other parts contain reforms designed to support measures in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.

But there can be no escaping the fact the consultation is dominated by measures to appease rural 鈥淏lue Wall鈥� constituencies (see box), designed to allow councils in these areas to plan for fewer homes.

These changes have come in following Michael Gove鈥檚 deal last month with backbench Tory rebels led by Theresa Villiers, who had threatened to scupper the Levelling-Up Bill unless he abolished local housing targets. The essence of the compromise is this: the housing targets remain (in the form of the 鈥渟tandard method鈥� calculation of housing need), but the new policy removes much of the ability of the planning inspectorate (or developers) to hold anyone to them.

The key measures that will be most worrying to developers and applicants are that, when making plans, councils will not have to undertake green belt reviews to meet housing need. They are also allowed to not meet the identified housing need in their area if this would mean 鈥渂uilding at densities significantly out of character with the existing area鈥� (can you imagine the fun the lawyers are going to have with that phrase?).

>> See also: Warning of 鈥榗omplete collapse鈥� in local plan-making after Gove reform announcement

In addition, the five-year land supply test is to be abolished for plans that are in date 鈥� which will have an immediate impact on planning appeal decisions as soon as the draft is adopted. Meanwhile, the functioning of the housing delivery test 鈥� which sanctions authorities that fail to deliver enough homes 鈥� is to be seriously watered down.

If 300,000 homes-a-year was ever a realistic ambition, it is off the table now.

Spokespeople representing the HBF, planning consultants and even the Planning Officers Society are united in the view that combined, these measures 鈥� if adopted 鈥� will pretty inevitably lead to a big drop in planning for new homes. If 300,000 homes-a-year was ever a realistic ambition, it is off the table now.

In addition, the fear is that the transitional offer to local authorities contained in the consultation will mean that many will immediately pause or put existing draft plans under review in order to take advantage of the new rules 鈥� prompting a , with evidence from Horsham, Teignbridge, Stockport and Mole Valley of this happening already.

And if you think it is not political, you only have to look at the policies directed at cities 鈥� which are overwhelmingly run by Labour and Lib Dem administrations 鈥� and compare that with the wider new policies which will of course apply in the (largely Conservative) shires. Where most authorities are being given the ability to take advantage of various opt-outs allowing them not to meet the identified housing need, Gove has made clear that cities will still have to meet the arbitrary 35% uplift imposed upon them in 2021 鈥� and furthermore these will be effectively barred from exporting any of those housing numbers to neighbouring authorities.

Gove told MPs his decision will 鈥渟top them [cities] offloading their responsibilities to provide new housing onto neighbouring green fields by ending the so-called 鈥榙uty to co-operate鈥� which has made it easier for urban authorities to impose their housing on suburban and rural communities鈥�. A cynic would say this equates to Labour-run cities having to build ever more homes 鈥� while Conservative-run districts get let-off.

Problem child

These changes come amid widespread industry concern over the current direction of the Department for  Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), as led by Gove, which seems to see the development industry as a problem child, rather than a potential partner in solving one of the country鈥檚 thorniest social challenges. This approach has been evidenced in recent months by Gove鈥檚 continuing refusal to meet with the sector, his punitive approach to the cladding challenge 鈥� with a now promised on top of a 拢2bn cladding pledge and the 拢2.5bn residential property developer tax 鈥� and his reference to .

It is also visible again here in this consultation, in the section on increasing build-out rates. Here there are three proposals, only one of which 鈥� that requiring developers to explain how they plan to increase the diversity of tenures on their site to increase the local market absorption rate 鈥� seems to have learnt anything at all from the study the government itself commissioned on this very subject from Oliver Letwin in 2017.

The other two 鈥� publicly shaming developers when they 鈥渇ail to build out according to their commitments鈥�, and amending the NPPF so that commitments on build-out rates can be a 鈥渕aterial consideration in planning applications鈥� 鈥� are of a piece with the idea that developers are inherently bad actors, doing what they can to take advantage of communities.

Betrayal

The fear is that all these planning measures, compounded by the resourcing crisis in local authority planning departments, the severe economic downturn, the end of Help to Buy 

and the costs imposed by the unhelpful government response mentioned above will contribute to a severe drop off in housing supply. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that ompletions will drop by 25% from current levels by 2025/26 as house prices fall 9.2% peak-to-trough during the forecast economic downturn. Economists reckon, as a rule of thumb, that every 100,000 homes built is worth about 1% to national GDP 鈥� meaning this could have a big impact.

Increasingly there are Conservative voices noticing this move for what it is: a betrayal of the young, failing to tackle one of the biggest barriers to their achieving economic security 鈥� the housing crisis. Ryan Shorthouse, head of Conservative thinktank BrightBlue, . In addition to these planning changes, the demise of Help to Buy means there is now no major government support scheme for first-time buyers for the first time in over a decade.

Increasingly there are Conservative voices noticing this move for what it is: a betrayal of the young

Former housing secretary Sajid Javid said prior to Gove鈥檚 deal that acquiescing to rebel demands would be a 鈥渃olossal failure of leadership鈥� that would put 鈥渕eaningful housing policy into reverse鈥�, while the co-author of the 2019 Conservative manifesto which adopted the 300,000 homes-a-year target, Centre for Policy Studies director Robert Colvile, described  attempts to scrap housing targets as 鈥渟elfish and wicked鈥�. Neither intervention stopped him.

Javid and Colvile realised the huge risks of this change of approach for a party that had at a national level essentially been pro-housebuilding since the publication of the NPPF in 2012. The pro-developer 2020 planning reforms failed because they risked a significant abandonment of democratic control to developer interests. Now the backlash to this catastrophically miscalculated over-reach is seeing the pendulum swinging violently in the other direction.

Anti development

Simon Clarke MP, the short-lived housing secretary in Liz Truss鈥� turbulent administration, recently set out the political stakes for the government. He said: 鈥満诙瓷缜� the homes people need goes to the heart of whose side the Conservatives are on and what our party stands for. [鈥�] We either build homes or lose elections. It鈥檚 as simple as that.鈥�

A fascinating in the Financial Times suggests Clarke is correct. Data compiled by journalist John Burn-Murdoch suggests that not only are millennials not voting Conservative (no surprise there), but they also aren鈥檛 turning Tory as they age in the same way that other generations 鈥� mostly notably baby boomers 鈥� previously have.

We appear to have a seemingly anti-development administration intent on avoiding parliamentary embarrassment at the hands of backbench MPs, instead of helping the younger voters it will increasingly need

Burn-Murdoch鈥檚 analysis makes clear that any route back to political acceptability among this generation must include a genuine offer that makes decent housing properly affordable.

Instead we appear to have an anti-development administration intent on avoiding parliamentary embarrassment at the hands of backbench MPs, instead of helping the younger voters that it will increasingly need. And all the while continuing to block the one measure that all agree could most help the system 鈥� additional funding for local authority planning departments.

 

None of this is to suggest that this NPPF consultation will be cited by pollsters or voters on doorsteps come the election when the nation next makes up its mind 鈥� the publication of the consultation on December 22 was met with barely a whimper in a national press preoccupied with weather, strikes and health service chaos.

Most voters will never care about the detail of five-year land supplies and housing delivery tests, and no doubt the NPPF consultation will not prove memorable in the way that Foot鈥檚 manifesto was. But growing evidence suggests the apparent decision to give up on tackling the housing needs and aspirations of the young is unlikely to pass unnoticed at the ballot box. 

Joey Gardiner is contributing editor at 黑洞社区