星空传媒

The recent ODPM consultation paper, Housing and Planning in the Regions, can only be welcomed in principle. For a decade or more I鈥檝e been advocating the integration of the planning and housing functions of government at the national, regional and local levels. Joined-up housing and planning strategies, common information and databases, interdisciplinary working and implementation across professional, departmental and institutional boundaries all make sound common sense. But how will it all work and what about the detail?

Many of the essential building blocks are not yet in place. These include:

• The Proposed Changes to PPG3 issued in July 2003 (expected imminently);
• The accompanying Good Practice Guide, replacing Circular 6/98 and offering practical advice on what works well and where in the delivery of affordable housing (long overdue);
• Changes to the planning obligation system including Kate Barker鈥檚 recommendation of a Planning Gain Supplement (still in the melting pot).

Although the ODPM has issued the Housing Market Assessment Manual and there is a good practice guide on Local Housing Needs Assessment (December 2000) these are incompatible with one another. A new integrated guide is under preparation and expected early next year. This will presumably underpin the advice to regions by the proposed independent unit at the national level.

Uncertainty also surrounds the role of the Housing Corporation. The planning and housing policies in the new regional spatial strategies will only emerge after extensive consultation, including a public examination, during which interest groups will promote widely differing views. With the merging of regional housing boards with regional planning boards, the Housing Corporation will be the key regional body championing the interests of affordable housing.

Despite being a statutory consultee since 1992 on 鈥渕atters relating to the measurement, need for, or supply of affordable social low-cost housing鈥�, the corporation has been markedly reluctant to take a long-term strategic view and to engage in the planning process. This must change.

Vague advice

Furthermore, the corporation will have a key role in ensuring the right levels of social housing grant (SHG) are available in the right place at the right time. The vague advice in the national investment policy, equally if not more vaguely expressed in various regional translations, referring to 鈥渕inimal or no SHG鈥� being available for section 106 schemes, is simply not good enough. In most parts of England, section 106 schemes are now the predominant form of development opportunity for registered social landlords. This trend will continue. Many of these schemes will need SHG input if the amount and type of affordable housing needed is to be delivered.

Recent comments by the Housing Corporation chairman, Peter Dixon, demonstrate the naivety embedded in the organisation about both how the present section 106 system is legally predicated and how it actually operates on the ground.

The Housing Corporation is naive about how the present section 106 system actually works on the ground

A blanket quota approach has no chance of success. This underlines that it is at the local level that joined-up information, strategies and working will be most important.

The local development framework will eventually be approved via due process, including independent corroboration via inquiry/examination. Local policies founded on robust housing needs/demand assessment, and including targets tailored to local supply, will remain the primary factor in negotiations between local authorities and landowners/developers and in determining planning applications for housing.

This point is recognised in the publication Intelligent Approaches to Housing, prepared by the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Local Government Association. I strongly support their recommendation that a single document should meet the requirement of a local housing strategy under the Local Government Act and also serve as an area plan under planning legislation.

Strong on talk and gestures

I am less enthusiastic about the assertion that 鈥渋mpressive progress鈥� has been made in some localities in achieving greater integration. The truth is that most of these initiatives are strong on talk and gestures but weak on action and implementation.

The government is right to insist on the integration of the boards for planning and housing within regional assemblies. The present system is causing wasteful overlap and confusion. Merging these functions should ensure proper choices are made between potentially conflicting priorities, such as between delivering sufficient housing and protecting the environment. Such issues are more likely to be openly addressed and balanced within a merged framework.

The onus is on housing interest groups to ensure that their voice is properly heard.