Decent Homes for All

Planning's Evolving Role in Housing Provision

Nick Gallent, Mark Tewdwr-Jones

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• eBook ISBN: 9781134496129
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

Are you concerned about the state of current housing provision? Worried about further decline in the years ahead? Decent Homes for All addresses fundamental questions about the current housing crisis; examining its history and evolution.

The first text on the housing-planning interface, it explores the relationship between planning and housing supply, focusing on housing supply, the quality and form of residential development, affordability and sustainability and the changing nature of planning itself. The questions covered include:

• Why have we moved away from state housing provision?
• How might the current crisis in housing affordability be addressed through planning policy?
• Why has recent debate broadened to encompass the idea of 'sustainable communities'?
• How will we deliver quality, affordable housing in the future?
• What role should the planning system play in delivering decent homes in the years ahead?

This comprehensive narrative provides students, planners and researchers with a valuable account of the evolving relationship between planning and housing to aid contextual understanding and suggest how current issues might evolve in the future.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Decent homes for all

Decent Homes for All looks at the role of the planning system in the provision of the right quantity of homes, of an appropriate quality, in the right locations. It considers – by examining areas of interface in the past and present, and by looking at a range of historical and contemporary issues – whether planning is evolving into the right mechanism for increasing access to ‘decent homes’: namely, whether the procedures, remit and objectives of land-use – and ‘spatial’ – planning are fit for purpose. The book also examines planning's changing role in housing provision and in the light of recent legislation (in the form of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) asks what role planning will play in the years ahead. It is the government's objective to promote ‘decent homes for all’ (DETR, 2000c; ODPM, 2005j): it is our intention to consider planning's role in meeting this objective historically, today, and in the years to come. The aims of this opening chapter are to:

• Introduce the main strands of current housing-planning debate in Britain and set out the key themes to be considered in later chapters; it is our intention to reveal the broad parameters of the current housing dilemmas in this chapter and then to consider some of the historical ‘antecedents’ (in the next two chapters), its current form and aspects (in Chapters 4, 5 and 6) and latest debates (in Chapters 7, 8 and 9).
• Set out the overall structure of the book and the objectives of different sections and chapters.

In a recent examination of the housing-planning question and its political context, Murdoch and Abram (2002) suggest that the planning for housing debate in England (how many homes should be built, of what type and where) is shaped by the tension between developmental (pro-house building and general housing provision) and environmental interests (anti-development in many instances); the former pushing for additional house building and the latter seeking to place strict limits on such building. The same tension has been evident in historic and contemporary housing and planning policy: while the housing agenda has been one of targeted growth (the current call for ‘decent homes for all’ is only the most recent of a long line of government targets for supplying new or better homes), planning's role has been to ensure any and all development is balanced with other policy goals. This includes environmental protection. And if the planning agenda swings too far in favour of protection – as a result of changing policy emphasis nationally, and the way the system is implemented locally – then an inherent contradiction may emerge within policy, characterised by a desire to provide housing, but at the same time, limit provision where it is often most needed: frequently in the countryside (where the environmental costs of development are judged to be greater) or around urban demand hot-spots (where the priority is often to ‘contain’ urban encroachment away from ‘greenfield sites’). A compromise may emerge from an approach that aims towards ‘sustainable development’, which can be viewed – as Murdoch and Abram point out – as an attempt to strike a balance between developmental and environmental agendas. In other words, sustainability is about seeking compromise where there might otherwise be contradiction: how this compromise is achieved is an inevitable focus of this book.

The structure of Decent Homes for All was highlighted briefly in the Preface. We begin by examining some of the ‘antecedents’ of recent and current debate, in the more distant and more immediate past. We then establish the ‘parameters’ of recent debate (focusing on the status quo before the arrival of the 2004 planning Act and the Barker Review of Housing Supply) before detailing this debate and then moving to consider the latest developments in policy (particular planning policy and the emergence of strategic ‘spatial planning’) that may – or may not – move housing delivery onto a different track in the years ahead. The remainder of this introductory chapter is divided into two parts. In the first half, we begin by introducing recent planning-housing debate and some of the problems behind government's call for ‘decent homes for all’. In the second half, we introduce the major themes to be examined in the rest of the book.

A ‘manufactured’ crisis?

The overall aim of the government's housing policy is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence.

(Armstrong, 1999: 122)

In 2001, the Labour government formally set itself the target of ensuring that all social housing tenants have access to a ‘decent home’ by 2010 (DTLR, 2001c); this target was re-iterated more recently within the context of the government's Sustainable Communities Plan (ODPM, 2003a: 13). The decent homes target was one of several stated objectives aimed at tackling deprivation in some of England's poorest neighbourhoods (DTLR, 2001b). The focus of this book is on Britain's wider housing problems, affecting both current and future generations of people occupying all types of housing across all forms of tenure: the idea of delivering decent homes for all includes the need to deliver both adequate quality and quantity of accommodation for the country's population and captures the full spectrum of housing concerns. Government also possesses this wider agenda, and the need for universal access to a decent home is a prime objective of the ODPM's (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, now the Department for Communities and Local Government or DCLG) 2005 instalment of the Communities Plan (CP) (ODPM, 2005j: 2). More generally, housing debate in England since the arrival of the Labour administration in 1997 has become dominated by ‘will they – won't they’ speculation: will they – that is, the government – ensure improved standards in the public and voluntary sectors, moving beyond weaknesses and limitations inherited from the Conservative era? Will they create a planning system that can deliver a sufficient quantity and quality of new homes in the context of their ‘modernising agenda’ and via ongoing reforms of the planning system (instituted through the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act)? And will they move beyond the housing mistakes and problems that have hounded governments for a century?

Governments regularly commit themselves to ambitious (albeit sometimes ambiguous) targets. In 1919, Lloyd George wooed the electorate with the promise of ‘homes fit for heroes’ (though he never used these exact words). In 1964, Richard Crossman – Labour's Housing Minister – pledged to build half a million extra council homes by 1970 (a rather more tangible target). Such promises usually mark a recognition of the depth of contemporary housing problems. In 1919, it was the absolute shortage of quality housing and the proliferation of slum conditions. In 1964, it was the acute slow-down in council provision – relative to a growth in need – presided over by the previous Conservative administration. Today, it is:

• The recent decline in new house building and the problem of housing affordability and hence access.
• The dwindling supply of affordable (and particularly council) housing, which is a product of two decades of the ‘Right to Buy’ policy and of recent abuses of that right (Regan, 2002). Government acknowledges in the CP that ‘For every social home added to the stock in the last few years, at least two have been sold under the Right to Buy’ (ODPM, 2003a: 28).
• The insufficient supply of new housing association (‘Registered Social Landlords’ or RSLs since the 1996 Housing Act) homes as a result of falling grant rates and the inadequacies of the planning system in generating land or developer subsidy for affordable homes.
• Projections of massive household growth during the next 20 years and the expectation that we are facing the deepest crisis in housing supply for a hundred years – given that demand is projected to outstrip supply by a ratio of almost two to one (that is, households forming against houses built – see Table 1.1).
• Views that the planning system has slowed the supply of new homes in all sectors by constraining land release and prioritising environmental over developmental interests.
• A belief that the market should dictate, to a greater extent than is currently the case, the quantity and location of new housing.
• A recognised need to connect housing provision with the need for sustainable development within durable communities.

In its recent response to the Barker Review of Housing Supply (Barker, 2004) – which examined the role of the planning system in supplying new homes to meet demand – the ODPM noted that:

• The country (i.e. England) faces ‘growing housing demand with an increasing number of people living alone relative to previous decades and others marrying later in life. Single person households, according to ODPM's latest household projections, will account for 67 per cent of household growth between 2001 and 2021.’
• ‘By 2026 only three out of ten of today's ten year olds will be able to afford to buy a home when they have families of their own if we stick with current building rates.’
• ‘Average deposits for first time buyers have gone up from £5,000 in 1996 to £34,000 in the first half of 2005. In 1980 only 4 per cent of first time buyers relied on gifts or loans from friends or relatives to help with finding a deposit. That figure has now shot up to 23 per cent.’
• ‘Social housing waiting lists are also affected by lack of new housing across the board. The long-term impact on low income households with pressures on social housing waiting lists, overcrowding and homelessness could be considerable if we don't act.’
• ‘There are currently 150,000 fewer workers than jobs in the south-east and this number could treble if we continue building at current rates – a sign that the mismatch between supply and demand could seriously damage local economies if left unchecked’ (ODPM, 2005c: 2).

The planning system is viewed as a key player in this current crisis; and while past pledges have focused on direct supply responses, the current response (in relation to the general housing question) has been to reform the processes of delivering new homes: in other words, to look at the planning system and the part it plays in helping or hindering new housing supply. The planning system has been seen as the single most significant barrier to new house building (HBF, 2002) with its lack of speed, efficiency and transparency blamed for the under-supply of new homes (Carmona et al., 2003; see also Carmona et al. 2001). The Planning Green Paper (DTLR, 2001c) sought to address this problem through a comprehensive streamlining of planning processes, advocating a move from complex unitary development plans to simpler local development frameworks, abolishing structure plans, establishing delivery contracts and targets on large strategic sites, and a host of other measures designed to more effectively ‘grasp development opportunities’ and beat the housing backlog. A key criticism has been that the planning system has retrenched into statutory duty, emphasising the need to regulate growth (through development control), but neglecting the need to set a positive growth agenda. It has been hijacked by environmental interests – or because of its local political nature, pays excessive attention to Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) elements – and the pendulum has swung too far away from developmental interests. Such is the view of the House Builders Federation (HBF, 2002), which argues that the bureaucracy of planning is a hindrance to both business and house buyers, and is central to the problems listed in its 2002 report Building a Crisis (ibid., see Box 1.1). For many, planning's failure to listen to the market, is central to the current housing crisis (see Chapter 7).

Hence any casual observer could be forgiven for attributing Britain's housing problems – and particularly the widening mismatch between homes being built and households forming (see Table 1.1) – to shortcomings in the planning system alone and the way in which the planning process seems to be so easily thwarted by anti-development pressures. It is certainly the case that building constraint has manufactured part of the current crisis in housing supply. ‘Hometrack.co.uk’, for example, estimated that house prices would rise by 20 per cent during 2002 (that is, between December 2001 and December 2002), which they did according to many lenders and analysts. This level of price inflation is not unprecedented and relatively higher rates were reached at the end of the 1980s, when slump followed boom and the market collapsed. But today, the combination of low interest rates (a response to weaknesses in the manufacturing sector and perhaps a desire to seek greater convergence with our European neighbours) and a stronger service sector placing inflationary pressure on wage levels have combined with low house building rates to push up housing demand at a time when supply constraints (particularly those caused by planning) are acute.

Box 1.1 Housing facts from the House Builders Federation

Population, households and dwellings

• The UK population grew by 0.25 per cent per year (145,700 pa) from 1981 to 1991 and 0.37 per cent per year (215,800 pa) from 1991 to 2000.
• The number of households in Great Britain grew by 1.0 per cent per year from 1981 to 1991 (220,000 pa) and 0.9 per cent (220,400) from 1991 to 2000.
• The proportion of Britain's population living in urban areas (90 per cent) is the second highest in Europe and the sixth highest worldwide (excluding several city and small island states).
• To accommodate expected household growth, it has been estimated that the urban area of England will increase from 10.6 per cent in 1991 to 11.9 per cent by 2016. Consequently, urban expansion takes 0.05 per cent of England's land area each year, or 1 per cent every 50 years. Typically, housing accounts for 70 per cent of land in urban areas.

Land, planning and new homes

• Housing completions in Great Britain in 2001 (162,000) fell to their lowest for 54 years. Excluding the war years and their immediate aftermath (1940–7) completions were at their lowest since 1924.
• The UK housing stock expanded by between 0.7 per cent and 0.8 per cent per year over the last decade. At current demolition rates, new homes built today will have to last 1,400 years before it is their turn for demolition.
• From 1985 to 1998, the UK invested a smaller proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in housing (3.3 per cent) than any other major industrialised nation – a record the UK has held for decades.

Source: HBF, 2002

In 2001, for example, the House Builders Federation (HBF) noted that new house building was now at its lowest rate since 1924 (excluding the war years 1939–1945). More buyers, with greater disposable income were competing for fewer homes in a market where, because of interest rates, borrowing against a new home had never been more affordable. According to the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), the apparent fall in the rate of house building in recent years is central to wider public concern over housing issues:

a number of recent factors have contributed to the renewed interest in Government housing policy, and planning for housing in particular. Among other things, the latest housing completions figures (which show that housing output is at its lowest level since 1924) have been used by a number of interested bodies to predict a crisis in homelessness and [. . .] conflate a number of issues. Among these issues are: affordability of market housing for key workers, in London and the South East especially; levels of affordable housing provision more generally; homelessness and use of temporary accommodation; the effects of revised PPG3 Housing (2000); Green Belt policy; and the brownfield–greenfield debate.

(House of Commons, 2002a: 222)

However, the CPRE contends that the simple link made between completion rates and a range of housing stresses – including homelessness – is unproven and a number of other factors relating to the use of homes – under-occupancy and empty dwellings (Empty Homes Agency, 2002) – are equally significant contributors to the country's persistent housing dilemma. Whatever the truth, the issue of household growth is no longer merely a civil service or academic concern, but has captured the public imagination and made planning itself and the entire housing question suddenly newsworthy. There is an acute awareness of the pressure to build new homes and great interest in exactly where these homes should be built. London is acknowledged to be a hot-spot of demand, where ‘key workers’ – nurses, policemen, teachers and others – are being priced out of the housing market (Hamnett, 2001; ODPM, 2002b; see also ODPM, 2003a). In the countryside too, there is public recognition of an apparent housing crisis, with a dysfunctional market favouring wealthier people from cities and leading to the exclusion of young local first-time buyers (DEFRA, 2006: 65). All these issues are of course linked and it is perhaps ironic (but also predictable) that as awareness of Britain's housing problem grows, objections to new development are also on the increase. In the face of crisis, there is a palpable fear that planners and the house building industry will get it wrong and that swathes of English countryside will be drowned beneath a sea of bricks and mortar (see, for instance, Prescott, 2002). The apparent mismatch between supply and demand was set out in a study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2002 (see Table 1.1). This analysis can be updated using the latest household projections for England for the period 2003 to 2026, issued by the ODPM in March 2006. These are shown in Table 1.2. While Holmans – a key figure in the projections debate in the U...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Decent Homes for All
• Housing, Planning and Design Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface and acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: The co-evolution of housing and planning
• Chapter 3: The (re)birth of private housing provision
• Chapter 4: The shifting policy landscape
• Chapter 5: Planning intervention: Housing design, density and affordability
• Chapter 6: Responding to strategic and local housing pressures
• Chapter 7: The new market agenda in housing supply
• Chapter 8: Delivering housing in sustainable communities
• Chapter 9: Reframing planning: Spatial strategies and community development
• Chapter 10: Conclusions
• References