On Wednesday, an honourable endeavour within the House of Lords to reinstate housing targets was defeated. Consequently, the revival of housing targets under this Conservative Government seems highly unlikely. However, what’s surprising is the role played by the Lib Dems in obstructing this effort. A party ostensibly guided by principles of social democracy and a commitment to liberalism should inherently recognise the adverse impact of our acute housing shortage on the most vulnerable individuals and families in our country.
What, then, is their argument against the necessity of targets? Baroness Pinnock articulated this perspective most explicitly, contending that “targets do not construct homes.” Her rationale stems from the belief that “communities and councillors do not like being told exactly how many homes they have to build”. She wasn’t alone in her stance, as the Government opposed the reform, despite it being championed by backbench Tory peers. For example, Baroness Scott asserted that the proposed housing targets ” “would do significant harm to some of our most important protected areas”.
Two criticisms emerge from this debate: 1) Communities are reluctant to be dictated to by Westminster; 2) Targets may lead to unsuitable construction within protected areas.
Addressing the first critique presents a complex challenge. Baroness Pinnock’s assertion that communities resist directives to construct housing is undeniably valid. However, the intricacies of our planning system necessitate such mandates. Unlike countries like Switzerland, where local authorities experience substantial revenue increases upon permitting new home construction, the incentives in Britain are relatively limited. Conversely, the development of new homes places additional burdens on local infrastructure, which are typically offset by s106 obligations and Community Infrastructure Levies. Nonetheless, these mechanisms alone fail to adequately motivate planning authorities to endorse new housing initiatives. Consequently, this creates an environment in which vocal NIMBY activists can easily criticise and thwart proposals aimed at meeting the critical housing needs of our population. In the short term, within this system, housing targets stand as the sole mechanism to address the underlying political-economic challenges inherent in our discretionary planning system.
The second critique necessitates a closer examination of the role of housing targets. Essentially, the local plan serves as the cornerstone for the planning decisions undertaken by the local planning authority. If a decision diverges from a legally sanctioned local plan, it becomes susceptible to being overruled by the Planning Inspectorate or the Courts. Nevertheless, numerous stringent prerequisites must be fulfilled for a Local Plan to be deemed current and, therefore, legally sound. One such requirement, introduced during Theresa May’s tenure as Prime Minister in 2018, looks at the fulfillment of the local housing need.
This works as follows:
- Project household growth
- Adjust so that less affordable areas get more homes
- Consider whether this would be appropriate, and if not cap it lower
- If you’re in a big city, then increase the number a bit.
In essence, these measures are aimed at preventing the exacerbation of the housing crisis. However, this is just the beginning of the narrative. The formula serves as a foundational guideline, yet it represents only the initial step. Local Planning Authorities maintain the flexibility to present a fully legal plan that deviates from these guidelines. This flexibility exists due to the influence of policies such as Green Belts, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and National Parks, which enable authorities to consistently plan for housing provisions that fall short of their actual need.
For instance, London’s Green Belt has been invoked to justify annual house-building targets set at 55,000, even though the actual need far surpasses 66,000. This alarming discrepancy implies that the housing shortage worsens each year, even if the projected targets are met – which historically they have not been. Consequently, the Tory Minister’s contention that these targets inflict substantial harm upon protected areas is unequivocally unfounded. In reality, any protected area can be employed as a strategic means to curtail the number of planned developments.
This raises a fundamental question: if targets prove ineffective when they can be easily capped or influenced by factors like Green Belt designations, then what purpose do they serve? Indeed, there is a valid point to be made here, especially in light of the historical failure to even come close to meeting the previous 300,000 target.
However, their significance lies in the fact that when housing planning veers toward unreasonably low levels, it raises the likelihood that the plan will neither be lawful nor current. In such cases, the National Planning Policy Framework introduces a crucial mechanism known as the “tilted balance test.” This mechanism effectively penalises local authorities that lack updated plans by introducing an additional presumption in favour of sustainable development. This shift empowers developers with a greater likelihood of success in their planning applications, ultimately leading to the construction of more homes.
Naturally, it’s essential to acknowledge that this requirement possesses certain limitations, as it often still doesn’t permit construction on Green Belt lands or within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), in the majority of instances. In fact, the City of York has managed to leverage its Green Belt designation as a justification for not adopting a lawful plan since the 1950s. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that this somewhat modest incentive has proven effective in prompting many regions to develop local plans that align with government requirements, consequently facilitating increased home construction. In the absence of these incentives, our available tools to stimulate housing supply would be severely limited, inevitably leading to a decline in housing availability.
In summary, the opposition from the Lords against the reinstatement of housing targets was misguided, whether in terms of their opinions or the facts they presented. Housing targets have never posed a threat to protected areas like the Green Belt, and while communities may harbour reservations about them, they remain the sole viable mechanism within our system to address the pressing need for increased housing. Regrettably, this implies that our housing situation is poised to deteriorate further for the time being. We can only hope for a future government that is resolute in its commitment to resolving the housing crisis. Until then…
