黑洞社区

Land promoter Richborough is working with landowners to get permissions or allocations on around 60 green belt sites 鈥� that鈥檚 about a third of its pipeline of work. So, with the new Labour government setting out plans in August to make it far easier to release land from the green belt for development, you might expect chief executive Paul Campbell to be little short of jubilant.

Instead, he is worried. 鈥淚 think the government is serious about tackling the housing crisis and that鈥檚 great,鈥� he says, 鈥渂ut there will be consequences if they go through with what has been proposed鈥�.

He is referring not to the overall thrust of the reforms which he, like most in the development sector, warmly welcomes. But, rather, to the specific policy detail regarding what planning contributions green belt sites will have to provide, and how they will be valued.

鈥淭his could all cause massive dislocation in the land market,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a bit of a problem for housing supply.鈥�

Campbell is raising the fears voiced repeatedly by developer and applicant groups in responses to the government鈥檚 consultation on its proposed change to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which closed late last month. The issue is that the requirement 鈥� on green belt sites only 鈥� for 50% affordable housing across the country, coupled with a stricter viability testing procedure, will effectively hinder schemes from coming forward.

The UK鈥檚 biggest pure-play housebuilder, Barratt, has already said that it has pulled work on three 鈥渋n-flight鈥� land promotion deals because of the altered viability, at the same time as predicting a wider 鈥渓and strike鈥� if Labour鈥檚 plans are delivered as proposed.

While some in local authority circles remain sceptical of what they regard as developer special pleading to be allowed super profits, there are growing fears from the other side of the fence that it could hamper Labour鈥檚 efforts to use land from the green belt to meet its highly ambitious 1.5 million homes target over the parliament. There are also concerns that it could make it easier for anti-development councils to block schemes, and will encourage sites in the wrong places to come forward.

So why are the proposals so controversial, and what will their impact be?

Rayner鈥檚 rules

Labour鈥檚 summer consultation on reforms to the NPPF did far more than just reverse Michael Gove鈥檚 damaging 2023 compromise with backbench Tory rebels 鈥� it proposed a series of significant changes, particularly around the green belt, which are designed to drive up housing numbers.

As well as introducing the new 鈥済rey belt鈥� designation for green belt sites with low value, the consultation published by deputy leader Angela Rayner also proposed requiring councils to review green belt boundaries during local plans, alongside a new permission route for speculative applications. 

Land data company LandTech estimates that up to 150,000 hectares of land could be classed as grey belt under the definition proposed by Labour, with enough space for between 2.5 million and 4 million homes.

鈥淚t鈥檚 always the case that people fall back on what they don鈥檛 like,鈥� says Andrew Taylor, group planning director at partnerships housebuilder Vistry, 鈥淏ut we鈥檝e got to be positive about all these changes and the clear desire here with the politicians, and in the manifesto, is to deliver on housing.鈥� 

Labour had announced prior to the election its intention to link a relaxation of green belt regulations to the requirement to obey a new set of 鈥済olden rules鈥�, and politically the policy makes sense as a quid pro quo: developers get more sites; communities get more affordable homes.

The consultation itself confirmed what had been outlined in the manifesto 鈥� that green belt sites would be expected to deliver 50% affordable housing, among a range of other benefits. On sites where the scale of that obligation puts a scheme financially underwater, a viability testing route is proposed 鈥� albeit one done on the basis of a government-approved land value for the site (see below, What has the government proposed?).

No one鈥檚 going to shed a tear for the landowners, just because they鈥檙e only getting a National Lottery win rather than a Euro Millions jackpot

Mike Kiely, chair of the Planning Officers Society

 

For Mike Kiely, chair of the Planning Officers Society, all of this makes perfect sense, given that, in his view, owners of green belt land 鈥� which under existing planning policy should only be developed under 鈥渆xceptional鈥� or 鈥渧ery special鈥� circumstances 鈥� should never have had any expectation of being able to sell their sites for development. 鈥淭here shouldn鈥檛 be any existing hope value in that land. It鈥檚 perfectly legitimate for the planning system to try to capture that value to deliver affordable housing,鈥� he says.

鈥淣o one鈥檚 going to shed a tear for the landowners, just because they鈥檙e only getting a National Lottery win rather than a Euro Millions jackpot.鈥�

Unviable

Those in the development industry beg to differ. The first problem, they say, is simply that the requirement for 50% affordable housing will make most development sites unviable.

While 50% is the notional requirement in London 鈥� albeit not often hit 鈥� outside the capital, among local authorities that are required to viability test their local plans to ensure they are deliverable, there are actually very few with requirements that high. Even St Albans only manages 40%.

Richborough鈥檚 Campbell says it would be a mistake to think that more can necessarily be got out of green belt in these areas than other greenfield sites. 鈥淚t is no more valuable by default,鈥� he says. 

An analysis by Lichfields claims that prima facie land values in 59% of the green belt are just too low to support 50% affordable housing 鈥� effectively meaning the policy will not work (with a couple of exceptions) on any sites north of Solihull. And that, even in that remaining 41% of the green belt, the consultant says on individual sites 鈥渢here may still be other infrastructure obligations which render 50% affordable housing unviable鈥�.

Given this, developers say this 50% target therefore has two immediate impacts. Firstly, that promotional work on 鈥榠n-flight鈥� sites which are under contract between land owners and developers/promoters has to be reviewed and potentially halted as the contractual basis of the deal no longer exists. Secondly, that further sites may not come forward because land values are simply too low to tempt the landowners.

Redrow founder Steve Morgan, now also director of land firm Carden group, says: 鈥淭he greatest risk to the viability of existing promotion agreements or options will arise if the government insists on 50% affordable housing on green or grey belt sites.

鈥淭here are many parts of the country where this would mean schemes are unviable, or minimum land values set out in existing promotion agreements or options will not be achieved.鈥�

Barratt鈥檚 group land and planning director Philip Barnes has already publicly written that the firm has had to pull three 鈥渋n-flight鈥� applications 鈥渂ecause the spectre of 50% renders the scheme unviable due to the unacceptably reduced (or removed) land value for the landowner鈥�.

Sam Stafford, planning director at the Home Builders Federation, says: 鈥淭he introduction of a new affordable target would fundamentally undermine the land contracts underpinning all planning applications either being processed or being prepared, with the likely result that those deals would have to go back to square one.鈥� 

Setting the benchmark

There is a work-around in the government鈥檚 proposals 鈥� viability appraisals 鈥� but it is far from giving the development industry cause for comfort. In fact, it is probably the issue they are most exercised about.

Developers and promoters, of course, are used to viability appraisals. What is concerning the sector is that the wording of the consultation suggests that viability appraisals on green belt sites will be calculated on the assumption of the developer paying a very low price for the land 鈥� a level which they say could stop sites coming forward.

Viability appraisals need the price paid for the land to be fed in to the calculation in order to work out whether a profit can be made and obligations afforded. Since a 2017 court case, developers have had to get used to the idea that, rather than the real purchase price, a notional value of what the land 鈥渟hould鈥� be worth, factoring in local planning policies, is used as the basis of the calculation.

This benchmark land value (BLV) is used to stop a developer using the mere fact that it has vastly overpaid for a site from allowing it to argue that it cannot now afford to pay for affordable housing.

If the government insists on 50% affordable housing on green or grey belt sites, there are many parts of the country where this would mean schemes are unviable

Redrow founder Steve Morgan

Here the department is proposing a national BLV for green belt sites, set at the lower end of a range of three to 40 times the existing use value (EUV) of agricultural land. From the wording of the consultation, much of the industry, according to Paul Smith, managing director of promoter Strategic Land Group, is assuming the government is looking to end up at a benchmark value of EUV times 10.

It could, however, be lower. The Planning Officers Society鈥檚 Kiely, a supporter of the government鈥檚 approach, says: 鈥淚t鈥檚 got to be lower than 10. It would be very difficult to land it there. I think five times is OK. What we鈥檙e talking about is [BLV setting] a bottom line in terms of value.鈥�

Certainly, at face value, you can see Kiely鈥檚 logic. Those of us not in possession of 200 acres of well-positioned arable fields in the Chilterns, might be tempted to ask what could possibly be wrong with the government getting more affordable homes by limiting landowners鈥� windfalls to 10 times their current value. Surely 900% value uplift is a lottery win by any normal metric?

Not so, say those who work in the land promotion business. This, so they say, is because the profit from this land does not all go to the landowner. Instead it is used to defray a variety of costs.

Chief among these is the expense of promoting the site 鈥� via which a promoter has to not just make a profit but also make enough money to pay back the costs of all the failed sites which don鈥檛 receive planning 鈥� and which, according to Charlie Dugdale, partner and head of development partnerships at agent Knight Frank, can take out well over 10 times the existing use value in itself.

On top of that, landowners will also have to pay capital gains tax, and factor in the impact of losing the immunity farmers have from paying inheritance tax on passing farmland down to their children (See below, What鈥檚 included in land value costs?).

No investment

Farmers can often be reluctant sellers, given long family ownerships going back through generations. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e not looking 10 years forward,鈥� says Shannon Fuller, planning adviser at Country Land and Business Association. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e looking 100 years behind and 100 years ahead at any given time.鈥� 

So, while building homes is the government鈥檚 priority, landowners have no particular reason to support housing, against any of the other uses their land could be put to, such as energy generation, or biodiversity or carbon offsetting. 鈥淎nybody who has sat at a farmer鈥檚 kitchen table and tried to persuade them to enter into an option or promotion agreement will know that the vast majority are not motivated sellers,鈥� says the HBF鈥檚 Stafford, formerly a strategic land director at Barratt.

The question is, 鈥榳ill the policy decrease land coming forward enough to make a difference to supply?鈥�

Paul Smith, managing director of promoter Strategic Land Group

Given the costs and lack of motivation, Knight Frank鈥檚 Dugdale estimates that a 20 times EUV is the practical minimum that will generally persuade a landowner to part with a site. Dugdale says: 鈥淏elow this level we would expect that promotion activity would slow significantly as it has over recent years. 

鈥淚n simple terms, if the returns do not justify the cost and risk, then actors will not make the investment.鈥�

Dugdale is not an outlier. The CLA鈥檚 Fuller says: 鈥淟andowners want to be able to develop their sites, where they鈥檙e in the right location, but we鈥檙e concerned that if benchmark land values are brought in and not set appropriately then promoters just won鈥檛 invest and we鈥檒l see a downturn in land coming through.鈥�

Richborough鈥檚 Paul Campbell agrees. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 expect that people will sell when the values they鈥檒l actually realise are that close to agricultural value,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he sheer cost of promoting sites is enormous, and to go through all that emotional upheaval 鈥� it鈥檚 just unrealistic.鈥�

As well as green belt sites simply not coming forward at the rate expected, some worry there may be specific perverse consequences of the policy outlined. One is that local authorities keen to stop development on green belt sites for political reasons use affordable housing requirements to block schemes, quoting the government鈥檚 own words back at it.

Another consequence could be that both smaller sites and sustainable green belt sites adjacent to existing cities become particularly hard to bring forward. Instead, bigger sites, benefiting from economies of scale in the land promotion and from lower historic 鈥渉ope value鈥�, are brought forward even though they are in less sustainable locations.

A senior executive at a major listed housebuilder, says: 鈥淥ur concern is recalcitrant planning authorities think it鈥檚 a clever wheeze to stop sites being built out. And, also, that it will push the industry toward more isolated, mega developments.鈥�

>> See also: The ins and outs of Labour鈥檚 new National Planning Policy Framework

While the government鈥檚 鈥済olden rules鈥� policies may work on the level of politics, it is not at all clear they pass the practicality test. Much of the industry, accepting the principle of a quid pro quo for opening up green belt sites, has coalesced around the idea that instead newly released land offers a 10 percentage point affordable housing premium 鈥� rather than a flat 50% rate.

This case was made in the consultation responses of a number of major trade bodies 鈥� and the senior housebuilder executive says it has also been raised by industry leaders with the housing minister, Matthew Pennycook, personally.

Without a change of tack, there is a concern that much of the opportunity presented by the NPPF consultation will be lost. SLG鈥檚 Paul Smith says: 鈥淭he question is not, 鈥榳ill it decrease land coming forward?鈥� The question is only, 鈥榳ill it decrease it enough to make a difference to supply鈥�?鈥�