By David Milner
Until the British public have much greater confidence that development will improve, rather than degrade lives, then the politics of planning will remain brutal, says David Milner
Believe it or not but just two per cent of British people trust developers to make existing places better. And seven per cent trust planners. Do not adjust your set. Neither of those figures are typos.
Are you infuriated by your fellow citizens‘ boundless ability to discover views, tell you the roads are clogged or find procedural enormities which somehow render new homes right here right now, the most profound imaginable affront to democracy, common law and personal liberty?
Are you exasperated by politicians’ infinite capacity to agree that we desperately need more homes in principle but, for one reason or another, somehow never need them right here right now?
Until the British public have much greater confidence in our collective ability as a society to make better places which improve rather than degrade the lives of those around the corner, then the politics of development will remain brutal. If you don’t believe me, then study any of the attempts to “fix planning” over the last 30 years. Each is an exercise of initial ambition, vanquished by subsequent timidity.
British planning certainly needs reform. It is highly peculiar in both historic and comparative terms.
The right to develop in the UK has been nationalised. But the implementation of that nationalised planning right is profoundly unpredictable. A new building needs planning permission; a case-by-case judgement by a planning officer. This judgement is based on the local plan which has been a policy document not a regulatory one. It gives principles and guidance. It doesn’t set rules. “Winning” permission (a telling phrase) takes time, judgement, experience – and money.
This is fundamentally different to most other countries where the right to develop is not nationalised but regulated. In countries as diverse as (parts of) America, France and Germany, as long as landowners follow the local regulations, the difficulty, complexity and cost of achieving development is very modest compared to the UK.
As a way of regulating an entire section of the economy, our approach is inadequate. All standard frameworks of good regulation suggest that regulation should be predictable, certain, not subject to producer capture or to “who you know”. When this is not the case then markets become “hard to enter” and are unduly influenced by an oligopoly of large firms and producer, not consumer, interests.
This is what has happened in England. Greater uncertainty and a slow process with major expense up-front before the right to build is certain has increased planning risk, enormously pushed up land prices with permission to build and acted as a major barrier to entry for small developers, minor landowners, self and custom builders and innovators generally.
This lack of choice leads to too many poor homes and not enough of them. Developers sell at the speed “the current market” will bear. Unlike the rest of the world, there is no meaningful competition from small builders or self-commissioned homes to meet demand and constrain prices.
England should introduce more predictable planning for mass market new homes and for simpler situations. But this is why political consent is so crucial.
This is why Create Streets has been arguing for a planning system where reforms link a really clear and locally popular ask for new development with derisked development rights for landowners and developers. That has to be the deal: greater clarity in return for greater quality that local people can live with. We are making progress.
But there is much more to do. Look up our manifesto, published next week, to learn about our suggested next steps on the path to an ample and generous supply of desperately needed new homes.
David Milner is managing director of Create Streets
