With several months of Labour government in the books, how well is it performing in terms of revitalising regeneration and major development? Jonathan Parker, development director at Pagabo, believes that a trick is still being missed in simplifying processes
Following Labour’s first Budget in the Autumn and subsequent policy announcements, it’s clear that the government is trying to speed things up and accelerate development – something that everyone should be in favour of.
However, it does feel a lot like things are being given with one hand and taken away with the other.
Is the NPPF enough?
There has been the consultation and subsequent launch of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the new ‘Plan For Change’ that roadmaps out the route to 1.5m new homes. However, what seems to be missing is a considered approach to how these significant changes will be financially supported.
What currently exists is a chicken-and-egg situation when it comes to funding for the big, transformational schemes that will make all the difference in hitting those targets. With local authorities having to bid on pots of money to deliver a certain number of homes in a certain timescale, the focus is on the kind of projects that a former prime minister described as “oven ready”.
Ultimately, the government needs to readdress how it allocates money and imposes timescales, as greater leniency will mean more viable and deliverable schemes aren’t having their wings clipped before they get the chance to fly.
While no confirmed successor to the Levelling Up Fund has been announced, it seems inevitable that a collection of similar funding options will come online in the near future. Especially when it comes to affordable housing – the area where the biggest viability gap exists – it seems impossible for the number of homes needed to be delivered without some type of support and grant funding.
While it will still form part of those larger schemes, without funding to support the commercial realities of delivering those developments, affordable housing is going to be a lot lower in the mix than it could be.
However, in saying this, the government has played a heavy hand in proving its viability to back up its ambitious plans with the recent updates made to its Affordable Homes Programme. The £300m injection to support the delivery of an additional 2,800 homes through the programme is more specific in the areas it will affect compared to Levelling Up funding – and looks to give those deliverable housing schemes the opportunity to fly.
All of this feeds into the need for a greater focus on placemaking as part of delivering on the housing targets, which also ties into the newly established procurement reform. The move towards more joined-up urban planning and conversations around the grey belt are encouraging steps in that direction, but so much of the challenge falls beyond the remit of central government and more into the realms of local authorities – with all of the associated pinch points that brings with it.
It’s worth mentioning that the upturn in activity to create necessary funding infrastructure is positive at its surface level, but at a time when capacity is a struggling factor for local authorities, utilising funding adequately may be a pipe dream initially for regions across the UK. This is further affected by the individual regional complexities for achieving regeneration, in which the rural versus urban split may be prevalent.
Skills shortage and materials cost are still affecting regeneration and major development
The issue of adequate delivery infrastructure is an overarching issue, with the strain of it a factor within more than just funding. For the industry to be able to really hit the ground running in the delivery of government goals, we have to ensure our ranks are as strong as they can be.
By this, we don’t mean overpopulating the supply chain but rather having enough to progress with. Hurdles such as materials availability, supply chain delays, and the ongoing skills shortage seen in the industry all have an imposing impact on delivery.
Meanwhile, more external factors like a shortage of lorry drivers to deliver materials to sites adds further pressure. Decreasing the opportunity for these possible bottlenecks has to be seen as important as any direct decisional policy-making towards government goals, and will support simplification overall.
A remarkable amount of policy and decision making still lies essentially with planners’ personal preferences rather than any sort of topline strategic thinking, and a creaking system isn’t helping with that, making these bottlenecks even more apparent.
Streamlining planning approval processes
We heard anecdotally at one of our West Midlands Regional Investment Collaboration events that a developer looking to deliver a multi-million-pound scheme had seen the planning decision delayed by three months because someone on the council planning team had taken a week’s holiday.
This just doesn’t add up – there needs to be a more practical and pragmatic approach to planning with clear lanes of what can and can’t be done so it isn’t left to personal whim or preference.
Adding more planning officers is admirable and may make small gains here and there, but it’s the processes and behaviours that need to be reviewed if any serious progress is to be made. Even if you add 3,000 new planners – ten times the government’s initial target – how are they going to be distributed? If it’s not done in a strategic way, then it’s just a very large pack of sticking plasters.
The issue of planners is a core example of where a holistic approach would prove beneficial, where all necessary elements can be considered to ensure a simple and smooth process for delivery. The creation of a simpler process would support bridging the gap between what we want to do and what we can do as an industry. This is where placemaking is also incredibly important, with transport, education and healthcare services all having a role to play.
It’s important to acknowledge there is never a perfect solution – if there was, it would have been done a long time ago. Ultimately, it’s about making things simpler, and anything that can help achieve that is going to make a difference.
As an industry, we’ve been historically characteristic in our steadfast approach to how things should be done, with fluidity not a known strong suit. It’s pleasing to see that this rhetoric is changing despite how much the recent turbulent nature of the industry has had a hand in this. It’s likely that we will see the ‘perfect’ solution change as time goes on, but while there is simple and adequate process for achieving, we’re already on our way there.
Stringing all this together is collaboration. The developers we help facilitate are those who have collaboration built into the heart of their schemes and see it as a critical process. While a delay from 16 weeks to 24 weeks on planning is a frustration, it’s less of an issue on a four-year scheme that looks to deliver the best possible project in terms of social value for an area than it is for a developer looking at land and a quick return on investment.
Taking the idea of placemaking and placing it at the heart of a scheme is what delivers a much more long-lasting return on that investment, and this is why it needs to be central to the government’s plans going forward.
The post Missing a trick – How is the government performing on regeneration and major development? appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
