Development Under The Labour Government

Development Under The Labour Government

The honeymoon period is over, and Labour are now well established in its role in governing our country. Love them or hate them, when it comes to planning, they are changing things. Whether that is for the better is a huge area of debate, but what they have done so far is more than I have ever seen in my 35+ year career. 

They started with a manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes in their first term. Part of this is optimistic, while the other part assumes there might be a second. You have to admire their optimism on both counts. I said they wouldn’t achieve this, and I stand by that. However, they are still approving a huge amount of development. What doesn’t surprise me is that it isn’t on the ‘grey belt’ as they promised. The term ‘grey belt’ was typical of the misdirection of politicians. The building industry has been aware of the ‘grey belt’ for decades; we just called it ‘previously developed land’ - and there were already policies that enabled it to be developed. What Labour has done, however, is shift everyone's focus elsewhere while quietly approving development on green belts across the country. If they want to get anywhere near their target, they’ll have no choice but to continue this approach.

Recently, Planning Magazine published that the approval rate for appeals on green belt land rose to almost 50% in the past three months, up from 31% last year. To me, this is astonishing. Having been involved in development for thirty-five years, I've seen the appeal system consistently approve about one in three appeals. To see that rise to nearly 50% is a dramatic shift and proves that Labour is deadly serious about increasing housebuilding. They said they would, and they are doing it. I haven’t yet seen the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, along with their friends at the Daily Telegraph, come out fighting yet, but it’s only a matter of time. I think Donald is monopolising the headlines at the moment!

The next problem that they have identified is getting approvals at a local level. The Labour Party has a problem with needing more houses approved, and a very large amount of these will be needed in the South East. Unfortunately, the South East still has a large voting contingent that remains loyal to the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. So how will they get those committees to approve housebuilding in their green boroughs? Well, once again, Labour has listened. They are proposing to remove the need to go to committees that have historically refused them. I’ve always struggled with the obvious flaw in the system: policies that support development, only to have a committee stand in the way and block it. Labour has clearly listened and plans to remove this roadblock. I admire them for once proving they’re paying attention and actually creating solutions.

But what does this mean for Surrey? Well, more greenfield development. Let's simplify the current National Planning Policy Framework that trumps (excuse the use of the word) local policies. It states that if a council doesn’t have a five-year supply of housing, then the benefit of housing outweighs the harm and should be approved. This is the tilted balance and means the developers will predate on those councils that don’t have this essential five-year supply. Congratulations to Surrey because it has some of the worst-performing councils in the country. Tandridge, Epsom and Ewell all sit in the top ten, and there are more! 

So, if you have clients buying property, they are more exposed to development risks than ever. A risk identified today could have a significant impact when it comes time to sell, making future-proofing their purchase more important than ever.

In conclusion, Labour’s approach to planning and development is clearly making waves, and whether it’s for better or worse, the changes are undeniable. While their efforts to hit ambitious housing targets may stir debate, one thing is certain: they are pushing the envelope in ways we haven’t seen in my 35+ years in the industry.

By Paul Addison

DevAssist