Planning
“ Asking developers to shoulder more of that burden could prove counterproductive when they are the very businesses being relied upon to deliver the new homes the government wants to see.” authority planning departments are also under pressure, with staff shortages and budget cuts impacting the ability of councils to determine applications and plan for the future. Devolution will only work effectively if local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities are properly resourced and empowered to work together.”
Dr David Crosthwaite, chief economist at BCIS, said:
“ Giving mayors greater powers to unlock development could help speed up decision making, particularly for larger schemes that have become stalled in the planning system.
“ However, changing who makes the decisions does not change the underlying economics of development.
“ Developers are still contending with elevated construction costs, taxes, levies and regulatory requirements, while affordability pressures and softer demand continue to weigh on the housing market.
“ The new proposals could add to those pressures, with mayors outside London potentially able to charge a levy on development to help fund major infrastructure.
“ This approach has had some success in practice, but it needs to be monitored carefully.
“ Adding another levy to developers’ costs risks putting another brake on activity.
“ The government clearly has to find the funding for infrastructure somewhere, but there is a balance to strike.
“ Asking developers to shoulder more of that burden could prove counterproductive when they are the very businesses being relied upon to deliver the new homes the government wants to see.”
Sadiq Khan already possesses the power to review planning decisions on certain developments, a power that has done little to avoid London’ s housebuilding rates becoming one of the biggest concerns within the national picture. The situation in London has led to Khan and the GLA taking additional measures such as reducing the required affordable housing in developments to be fast-tracked, a move that critics argued would lead to less of the homes that are needed to make a real impact in the housing sector.
Karen Charles, Executive Director at Boyer( part of LRG) said:“ There are many positives in mayors being given greater powers to intervene in strategically important planning applications. Anything that helps unlock major housing and commercial development, specifically where local decision-making has become an obstacle, should be regarded positively.
“ However, a new route through the planning system is not necessarily a faster one. If a mayor calls in an application, they become responsible for determining it which requires either a public hearing or written representations. That brings additional process, time and cost. For a genuinely strategic scale scheme this may be justified, but the threshold of just 150 homes raises the question of whether mayoral intervention could sometimes be disproportionate.
“ There are lessons to learn from London. Mayoral oversight can provide a valuable strategic perspective, but it can also introduce another layer of planning policy and another political decision-maker. Call-in powers only have value if mayors are prepared to use them decisively, consistently and on planning grounds rather than according to political convenience.
“ There is also a geographical limitation as outside London, most mayors are in the north of England. Many of the areas gaining these powers are therefore places where political leadership is already broadly supportive of growth and development. I am currently more concerned about the challenges of securing planning permission for homes in non-Labour controlled areas where development pressure is acute but where there is no mayor with equivalent powers to intervene.
“ So while this is a positive reform, particularly for genuinely strategic sites, we should be realistic about what it can achieve. Mayoral call-in powers may rescue individual schemes and help align development with wider growth ambitions, but they are less likely, on their own, to transform the number of homes securing permission without the delay and expense of an appeal.”
housingexecutive. co. uk 89