星空传媒

PLANNING restricting the nimbys

• Regional housing boards to be merged with regional planning bodies; new, independent planning executives set up
  
• Moves to counter nimbyism: more outline planning permission and greater use of urban coding to ensure the size and character of new developments
  
• Councils to have greater incentives to back new developments

In planning terms, the strategy adopted by the Barker Report is both to convince councils of the need for more homes and to offer them incentives that allow them to consent to development quickly and efficiently. Barker鈥檚 proposals to merge regional housing boards with regional planning boards and create regional planning executives are seen as an attempt to reduce the influence of local politicians over the planning process. At present, regional planning boards have to be made up of a majority of elected politicians, and Barker has identified the nimby tendency that this tends to encourage as one of the main obstacles to much needed developments. Robin Tetlow, director of Tetlow King Planning, says the Barker Report鈥檚 housebuilding aspirations require there to be less local influence over planning decisions. 鈥淎t a regional level it is easier to get things through 鈥� the nimby influence isn鈥檛 so strong, that鈥檚 why the government is already moving toward a regional agenda.鈥� The new planning executives would be charged with collecting a stronger body of evidence for housing decisions, as well as offering advice on the scale and allocation of housing within regions. For Barker, the change will shift the debate that often surrounds planning decisions away from 鈥渘umbers鈥� 鈥� issues such as the amount of land needed, the number of homes to be built 鈥� to greater consideration of people鈥檚 needs. 鈥淚f we鈥檝e got a strong regional body that is able to set forward a clear vision for a region, perhaps that will help people see that you are going somewhere,鈥� says Barker. 鈥淭oo often, the talk about developments is that they don鈥檛 bring any benefits with them 鈥� when actually they can bring a different social mix to an area and change things in positive ways.鈥� Barker鈥檚 plans also find room for more detailed outline planning permission, which would guarantee that local politicians could not interfere with the general size of a development after permission is initially granted. Urban coding 鈥� which applies approved design criteria to an entire development 鈥� would reduce the possibility of local politicians challenging even the smallest details of a scheme. Councils should, according to Barker, identify 鈥渂uffer zones鈥� of land with development potential that can be held in reserve to cope with sudden changes in demand. 鈥淭his is not an easy review for people,鈥� says Barker. 鈥淚t makes it very clear that people can鈥檛 say 鈥業 want to have more affordable homes but don鈥檛 want to see any homes built鈥�. People have to face up to these choices.鈥� To counterbalance some of the loss of influence on planning, Barker proposes a number of funding changes aimed at increasing the benefits of new developments. At present, councils get very little extra funding when new homes are built, despite the increased burden they impose on public services. Barker suggests that councils be allowed to retain extra council tax raised from new homes for three years. The change could bring in an estimated 拢125m a year, based on Barker鈥檚 building proposals. Barker is also in favour of making government grants reflect the level of future growth rather than the existing number of homes. She believes the government鈥檚 calculations for determining the amount of central funding that is distributed to councils do not sufficiently compensate for the short-term burdens that new developments and population growth can create. 鈥淭he government should include in its calculations a variable to reflect expected housing growth in an area,鈥� says Barker. Councils will doubtless feel less equivocal about Barker鈥檚 proposals for alternatives to the right to buy to be introduced in the hope of stemming the loss of houses and money suffered by many authorities. As an alternative to the right to buy, she favours introducing a scheme based on the Homebuy low-cost homeownership scheme. It would allow tenants to buy a share in their homes while the council retained the remaining equity balance. Tenants would have the option to increase their share of the property over time 鈥� a system called 鈥渟taircasing鈥濃�� and when the property is sold, the council would share part of the overall increase in its market value.

LAND TAX get ready for a fight

• New development tax and a scaling back of section 106 planning agreements
  
• Revenue raised by tax to be used to support infrastructure projects and urban development corporations

Barker鈥檚 most important proposal is also likely to be her most controversial: landowners, she recommends, should pay a tax on development land with planning permission. The idea is that the community at large should benefit from the increases in land value 鈥� sometimes as much as 300% 鈥� rather than just the landowners, which is what happens at the moment. According to Barker, the principal advantage of this method is that it would generate money that could be used to support increased development levels nationwide 鈥� through the creation of new urban development corporations and a proposed 拢100m-200m infrastructure fund. 鈥淸Planning gain supplement] would allow central government to have some money. Because if we want to get some of these figures through, along with UDCs and have money for infrastructure, you will have to go through central government to do it.鈥� The government has agreed to consult on the idea and is likely to find that opinions are sharply divided. Gideon Amos, director of the Town and Country Planning Association, is solidly behind the idea 鈥� but he expects a fight. 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to be attacked very heavily for this 鈥� the housebuilders will say it鈥檚 been tried three times in the past and has always failed. The question is: how high will they set the tax?鈥� Labour governments have introduced some form of land development tax on three occasions in the past 60 years: 1947, 1967 and 1976. Each time the tax was abolished within two years of being set up; each time housebuilders claimed that supply was restricted because landowners were encouraged not to sell. Andrew Whittaker, national planning officer at the House Builder鈥檚 Federation, says as long as the tax is relatively modest, developers should be able to cope. 鈥淲e think a tax level at about 20% would not stop sites coming forward at a significant rate 鈥� but there would need to be transitional arrangements.鈥� But Alan Cherry, chairman of Countryside Properties, is staunchly opposed to the proposal. 鈥淚鈥檒l hammer away like hell on this for the rest of my career if they insist on it. We need to concentrate limited resources on building in environmental, community and social sustainability, not on taxes. I still believe in section 106.鈥� So, though, does Barker. She sees her tax proposals sitting alongside ordinary section 106 negotiations 鈥� the system under which developers agree to provide social housing or other community facilities in return for planning permission for profit-making schemes. She says section 106 has a 鈥渧aluable role in providing affordable housing鈥�. However, she does think that planning gain should be 鈥渟caled back鈥�, with planning obligations restricted to the provision of social housing or infrastructure projects directly related to a development.

What the treasury wants

• Backs plans for development tax
  
• Housing associations encouraged to become more efficient to help deliver the government's agenda

鈥淭he government accepts that there is a case for increased investment in social housing. It will begin to address this in the 2004 spending review.鈥� This 鈥� from the Treasury鈥檚 Budget report 鈥� is as clear and as good as it gets for social housing providers. The question that followed the Treasury鈥檚 promise to fund the recommended 23,000 new homes 鈥� at a cost of 拢1.6bn 鈥� was how the chancellor might go about it. It seems likely that much of the funding will come from the controversial land tax proposed by Barker. A Whitehall source, speaking just after Wednesday鈥檚 Budget, spelled it out. 鈥淭he full package of investment for social housing, incentives for councils and money for infrastructure is going to be dependent on the planning supplement. 鈥淭here is, however, a package of measures in Barker鈥檚 report so you can鈥檛 just do one without another. The planning gain supplement would unlock everything.鈥� Treasury mandarins worked long hours to come up with a name that didn鈥檛 include the dreaded three-letter word, but the 鈥減lanning gain supplement鈥� is effectively a tax. The Treasury has refused to outline at what level the tax may be set 鈥� the House Builders鈥� Federation suggests 20% may be possible. But if 鈥� and it鈥檚 a very big if 鈥� developers can be persuaded that this time the levy will work and not stifle development, it is the key to unlocking Barker鈥檚 blueprint for boosting housing supply. But it鈥檚 not just developers that will bear the brunt of Barker鈥檚 building drive. RSLs will be expected to deliver efficiency gains. The Whitehall source continues: 鈥淭here is a very clear remit to all departments that efficiency and effectiveness is a key issue in the spending review 鈥� particularly with regard to the Gershon review [into cost-cutting]. The ODPM will have a definite requirement for bringing the Treasury ideas on how to achieve these savings from its various arms and from social housing providers 鈥� it will not simply be a case of the Treasury imposing ideas from on high.鈥� This is an almighty carrot and stick approach. Yet there is the promise of more to come 鈥� much more. 鈥淎t the end of 2005 we will assess how the planning system is doing,鈥� says the Whitehall source. 鈥淲e will also want to see the sector delivering itself in the wake of the initial rises in social housing in the spending review.鈥� This includes the small matter of consultation on the planning gain supplement as well as progress made by the housebuilding industry in improving customer satisfaction and raising its investment in skills training. However, if all is on the right path, the Treasury has promised to open its coffers to social housing in a manner that hasn鈥檛 been seen since the heady post second world war days of Nye Bevan.