A Fairy Tale

One thing all probation practitioners know without hesitation is that lack of settled accommodation is the single most serious problem faced by those under our supervision and therefore a major impediment to the prevention of further offending. 

Despite all the warm words and supposed initiatives, homelessness has been a growing problem for decades and with emergency Covid 19 measures in the process of ending the situation will visibly and disgracefully re-emerge on our streets. But we hear the shortage of housing generally is going to be urgently addressed with Boris Johnson's cunning plan to 'build, build, build' out of the pandemic. Just like magic, total reform of the planning system is going to deliver 'more homes, quicker, cheaper and more beautiful'. Who writes this shite and more importantly, who seriously believes it?

The Daily Telegraph is of course the favoured mouth piece of the Tory Party and it's worth quoting in full Robert Jenrick's fairy tale from last Saturday:-

Radical and necessary reforms to our planning system will get Britain building

We are introducing a simpler, faster, people-focused system to deliver the homes and places we need

During lockdown many readers will have spent more time at home than ever before; a home can be a haven, that provides financial security, roots in a community and a place that a family can call their own. But our country’s outdated and cumbersome planning system has contributed to a generational divide between those who own property and those who don’t. Half as many 16-34 year olds own their own homes, compared to those aged 35-64.

While house prices have soared since the Millennium, with England seeing an increase at one of the fastest rates in Europe, our complex and slow planning system has been a barrier to building homes which are affordable, where families want to raise children and build their lives.

It’s resulted in delays to vital infrastructure projects that come with new housing. Communities are missing out on new hospitals, new schools and improved roads and restrictions have left derelict buildings as eyesores and empty shops on our high streets, instead of helping them to adapt and evolve.

Local building plans were supposed to help councils and their residents deliver more homes in their area, yet they take on average seven years to agree in the form of lengthy and absurdly complex documents and accompanying policies understandable only to the lawyers who feast upon every word.

Under the current system, it takes an average of five years for a standard housing development to go through the planning system - before a spade is even in the ground. Seven years to make a plan, five years to get permission to build the houses and slow delivery of vital infrastructure.

This is why the Prime Minister has been clear that we need an ambitious response that matches the scale of the challenge in front of us. A once in a generation reform that lays the foundations for a better future. So this week I am bringing forward radical and necessary reforms to our planning system to get Britain building and drive our economic recovery.

We are introducing a simpler, faster, people-focused system to deliver the homes and places we need. Under the new process, through democratic local agreement, land will be designated in one of three categories: for growth, for renewal or for protection. Land designated for growth will empower development - new homes, hospitals, schools, shops and offices will be allowed automatically. People can get going.

Renewal areas will enable much quicker development with a 'permission in principle' approach to balance speed while ensuring appropriate checks are carried out. And protected land will be just that - our Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and rich heritage – will be protected as the places, views and landscapes we cherish most and passed on to the next generation as set out in our manifesto.

Our reforms seek a more diverse and competitive housing industry, in which smaller builders can thrive alongside the big players and where planning permissions are turned into homes faster than they are today.

Creating a new planning system isn’t a task we undertake lightly, but it is both an overdue and a timely reform. Millions of jobs depend on the construction sector and in every economic recovery, it has played a crucial role. These reforms will create thousands of new jobs, from bricklayers to architects. We are cutting red tape, but not standards. We will be driven by outcomes, not process.

It is easy to see why so many people are wary of development, when streets of identikit, “anywheresville” housing has become the norm. This Government doesn’t want to just build houses. We want a society that has re-established powerful links between identity and place, between our unmatchable architectural heritage and the future, between community and purpose. Our reformed system places a higher regard on quality and design than ever before, and draws inspiration from the idea of design codes and pattern books that built Bath, Belgravia and Bournville.

John Ruskin said that we must build and when we do let us think that we build forever. That will be guiding principle as we set out the future of the planning system. New developments will be beautiful places, not just collections of buildings. Good design is the best antidote to local objections to building. We will build environmentally friendly homes that will not need to be expensively retrofitted in the future, homes with green spaces and new parks at close hand, where tree lined streets are provided for in law, where neighbours are not strangers.

We are moving away from notices on lampposts to an interactive, and accessible map-based online system – placing planning at the fingertips of people. The planning process will be brought into the 21st century. Communities will be reconnected to a planning process that is supposed to serve them, with residents more engaged over what happens in their areas.

While the current system excludes residents who don’t have the time to contribute to the lengthy and archaic planning process, local democracy and accountability will now be enhanced by technology and transparency.

Above all, these reforms will help us build the homes our country desperately needs by unlocking land and new opportunities. In so doing we will provide secure housing for the vulnerable, bridge the generational divide and recreate an ownership society, one in which millions more people can open their front door and say with pride, “welcome to my home”.

Robert Jenrick is the Housing Secretary

--oo00oo--

As with so much Tory propaganda it's just smoke and mirrors designed to grab a headline, based on grossly distorted facts and completely undeliverable aspirations - come to think of it just like the Transforming Rehabilitation fiasco of Chris Grayling or more recently the 'world-beating track and trace system' of Matt Hancock. Words are so cheap and bare-faced lies no longer seem to carry much in the way of risk. Somehow deregulating is going to increase citizen involvement in the planning process?   

The evidence shows that it's not delays in the planning system that prevent more homes being built at all. The truth of the matter is that the main reason is all the big house builders have vast swathes of land 'banked', planning approvals granted and in a capitalist world they only drip-feed new houses onto the market in such a way as to ensure steadily-rising prices. Despite all the usual bluff and bluster from Boris, he knows this perfectly well and of course the house builders are big donors to the Tory Party.

Talking of political donors, it will be recalled that Mr Jenrick has recently been in a spot of bother with his disgraceful and now unlawful London Docklands Westferry Printworks intervention that robbed Tower Hamlets citizens of £40million for public services, but handsomely lined the pocket of Tory donor Richard Desmond. For me this whole sordid episode goes to the real heart of the planning problem and that has its roots in the post-war settlement and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.  

Essentially the post-war Labour government were determined to nationalise any 'betterment' that might accrue as a consequence of land increasing in value due to a change of use. A very simple and fair way of financing public services some would say, rather than allowing land owners to pocket large windfalls due to successful planning applications. But therein lies the dividing line between left and right; socialism and capitalism; Labour and Conservative. Sadly this aspect of the Act was revoked by a later Tory government and it's worth noting that the funding of public services has been problematic ever since. 

Rather alarmingly the Jenrick proposals are going to exacerbate the situation by removing the Local Authority's ability to extract some developer contribution via so-called Section 106 payments that until now have been a main source of funding for social housing. This from Inside Housing:-

Concerns for social rent as government unveils plans to scrap Section 106

Ministers intend to abolish Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy planning agreements and replace them with a new overarching Infrastructure Levy as part of the move to a zonal planning system.

Housing commentators raised concerns about what the changes will mean for delivering social rented homes, with details limited as Inside Housing went to press on Wednesday night.

Melanie Rees, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: “The big question in my mind is what this means for social rented homes. Robert Jenrick has talked about people not being able to buy a home, but the planning system is about more than that. We’d like real reassurance that there won’t be a negative impact on homes for genuinely affordable rent as a result of this, and that’s a bit of a concern at the moment.”

Kate Henderson, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said: “Any alternative to Section 106 must ensure we can deliver more high-quality affordable homes to meet the huge demand across the country. Any new system must also enable the ’levelling up’ of communities that have already been left behind, such as rural communities or places with a struggling local economy.”

Section 106 planning agreements see developers deliver affordable homes in exchange for permission to build and are the biggest contribution to affordable housing supply. In 2018/19, the mechanism accounted for 49% of all affordable homes completed in England.

Housing secretary Robert Jenrick claimed that the “once-in-a-generation” reforms will make planning decisions “simple and transparent, with local democracy at the heart of the process”.

The Infrastructure Levy will be a fixed portion of the value of the development, above a set threshold, with revenues going towards local projects such as new roads, playgrounds and discounted homes for local first-time buyers. It will represent “a new simpler levy to replace the current system of developer contributions which often causes delay,” the government said in a press release.

But Hugh Ellis, policy director at the Town and Country Planning Association, agreed, adding: “For a national land tax to work it’s going to have to be very complicated and it’s going to be have to be graduated if it’s going to succeed.”

Richard Blyth, head of policy and practice at the Royal Town Planning Institute, said that a flat rate charge may be difficult to create because of differing land values across the country.

--oo00oo--

As with many of Boris Johnson's current Cabinet, the Housing Secretary may be of limited experience and ability but that doesn't mean his views haven't been coloured by his own planning woes. This from June in his local paper:- 

Robert Jenrick the secretary of state for housing who is currently embroiled in a row over a planning decision has some previous experience with planning matters, reports The Times newspaper. Conservative councillors on Westminster council gave planning permission for an enlargement of Jenrick’s townhouse despite officers recommending the application be refused because it would harm the appearance of the building and the conservation area.

The Times reports that Jenrick’s wife submitted a planning application to build a roof extension on their home in Vincent Square, SW1 in August 2014 two months after he had been elected as a Conservative MP. Two previous applications submitted by Jenrick himself had been refused. Planning officers were recommending refusal of this third application but Steve Summers a Tory councillor and a neighbour of Jenrick made an official request that a planning committee take the decision and not officers.

In November 2014 the three Conservative members of the planning committee — Richard Beddoe, Robert Rigby and Paul Church — voted to overturn the officers recommendation and approve the scheme. Ruth Bush, the single Labour member of the committee voted against the application. The Times states that Beddoe, who chaired the planning sub-committee, did not respond to a request for comment, while Rigby and Summers both referred the newspaper to the council’s press department.

A spokesperson for Westminster council told The Times that “planning committees are entitled to reach their own conclusions” weighing up various criteria and on this occasion disagreed with officers. A spokesperson for Jenrick said that a normal planning process was followed.

--oo00oo--

Make no mistake, despite all the warm words and rhetoric, these proposals are all about further deregulation allowing the big house builders even more of a strangle-hold over housing provision and hence greater profits. Just look at what has already been happening with Permitted Development Rights allowing unsuitable conversion of office accommodation to residential use, by-passing the normal LA planning process. We are indeed creating the new slums of the future, not the deluded vision of tree-lined boulevards of 'beautiful' houses. The experts clearly agree in a joint letter from four esteemed institutes of architects and town planners:-

Use of PDRs 

It is in this light that we share our concerns around the use of PDRs, which should not be considered unless subject to clear space, building and design standards. You will no doubt be aware of the comments of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, who concluded that PDRs had inadvertently created “future slums”. 

Automatic permissions for the conversion of office spaces to housing, without requirements relating to quality, size, sustainability and design, has led to spaces detrimental to the wellbeing of residents. We are concerned that further PDRs, including the ability to demolish and rebuild on existing sites — if implemented without significant safeguards—will lock in more unacceptable standard development, the consequences of which we will live with for generations or must rectify later at greater expense. We welcome the recent move, via a statutory instrument, to require natural light in homes created from office conversions.

However, this situation should never have arisen, and homes without windows, as well as other egregious example of such poor quality living conditions, must never be allowed to happen again. 

Our offer of help 

We have seen further announcements related to PDRs, including: 

• Extra storeys on residential building without the need for planning permission 
• Demolition of empty buildings if replaced with residential, without the need for planning permission 
• Further reforms to use class orders, to expand the commercial presences that can be repurposed to residential without planning permission 

We are concerned around how these PDRs will be implemented, and the potential impact on the quality of life of future residents and local communities. All PDRs must require minimum space, building and design standards, and should be implemented in such a way as to ensure they contribute towards affordable housing and community infrastructure. Having these safeguards does not mean delays in construction, it means that the homes built in the early 2020s will not become the social disasters of the 2030s. 

While we stand ready to advise on how to create the best possible outcomes under a PDR regime, we strongly urge proactive rather than reactive planning of this sort for the built environment. A longer term, more sustainable solution would look at interventions earlier in the building process, rather than retrofitting buildings that are fundamentally not suitable as housing. 

The creation of buildings which are properly suited to undergo various different uses during their lifetime would be preferable to the change of use of buildings which are not suited and which need proper conversion.

--oo00oo--

As with the probation 'reforms', these planning 'reforms' will not deliver the absurd claims; are a bad idea universally condemned by the experts; are driven by political ideology and will only reward big business and the usual friends of the Tory Party. But as this piece from the BBC highlights, it might yet all fall foul of the Tory faithful, typically residing as they do in the leafy suburbs and Shire Counties, all well-practised NIMBY's by nature who just might see some very unsavoury and unwelcome development in prospect in their back yard:-  

Robert Jenrick defends overhaul of England's 'outdated' planning system

Sweeping changes to the "outdated" planning system in England will make it easier to build much-needed new homes, the housing secretary has said. Robert Jenrick said local people would not be able to block developments in designated "growth" zones. The changes were needed to speed up the planning process, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. But critics say they could lead to "bad-quality housing" and loss of local control over development.

The government says it wants reduce the number of planning cases that get overturned at appeal by creating a "clearer, rules-based system". Mr Jenrick told Today local people would get a "meaningful say" at the start of the planning process, when local plans are drawn up, but will not be able to block new schemes after that. He claimed local people "did not have a great deal of influence" over the current planning system and that few people engaged with it.

He told BBC Breakfast: "We have a major housing challenge but also a major economic challenge and a lot of people's jobs depend on this industry. We think our new system will still be democratic, it will still have local engagement, but it will be much faster and help us to meet the needs of the next generation."

Mr Jenrick also wants to change the way developers contribute to the cost of building affordable housing and new infrastructure in every new project. The government will introduce a national charge for developers - replacing the existing Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy - to fund projects such as schools, roads and GP surgeries, and a fixed proportion of affordable homes in a development.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "This is a developers' charter, frankly, taking councils and communities out of it. And on affordable housing, which is the critical issue, it says nothing. In fact it removes the initiatives that were there for affordable housing."

Alan Jones, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects said: "While there's no doubt the planning system needs reform, these shameful proposals do almost nothing to guarantee the delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes." He said that taken together with moves to allow more commercial premises to be converted into homes without planning permission, "there's every chance they could also lead to the creation of the next generation of slum housing".

Mr Jenrick said such criticism was "complete nonsense", insisting that "design and quality" were central to the government's plans.

BBC Political Correspondent Jessica Parker said there was disquiet on the Conservative benches about the government's proposals, with one MP predicting "quite a battle" on the issue. Conservative MP Geoffrey Clifton Brown, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "Whilst I'm all in favour of building more houses, they need to be good quality houses, we've got to be really sure we're not building slums of tomorrow by building today at low quality."

But the Cotswolds MP added that people in areas like his now realised more homes needed to be built so "their children and their grandchildren" can get on the housing ladder.