The planning system and intertwined housing crisis finds itself in a strange place right now. Both are facing many pressures, not least of which is dealing with the immediacy of the Covid-19 pandemic (see Covid-19: Implications for Planning). In short, we are in limbo – stuck between the appointment of a new Government promising a new dawn and the Planning White Paper. The release is set for ‘spring’ at the current time of writing, albeit based on the timing of Parliament we may already be a number months, if not more, behind schedule.

The Budget and subsequent announcements from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Robert Jenrick, were clear in reasserting 300,000 new homes to be built per annum. Their answer to delivering this where all others have failed? ‘Level up’ brownfield land. This makes perfect sense to any pure spatial planner. Often these sites are in the most sustainable locations and they enable opportunities for regeneration and investment in the social capital which is so desperately needed.

A brownfield first policy is nothing new. It’s been the policy since the days of New Labour and yet there are still no groundbreaking improvements towards meeting the crisis. As a general rule and in my experience, this is because unlocking the brownfield puzzle is one of complex viability – principally in terms of the relationship between Gross Development Value (is it in the right area?), Existing Use Value (it needs to be worth the landowner’s energy) and build costs (where the increases are felt keenly on high rise). That’s without mentioning the existing leaseholders and heightened abnormal costs that come with building in urban areas. At the end of this equation is affordable housing which is almost inevitably squeezed.

The point being that investing in brownfield alone to deliver the numbers required will be expensive. Expensive at a time when there are other urgent priorities already putting pressure on the Chancellor’s commitments.

Some of the measures we are aware of show how exposed this policy is. For example, the £400 million funding pot to work with mayors and leaders in opening up stalled brownfield sites. Even in keeping the funding at this level, the £400 million could soon be swallowed up by a few dozen projects without making a significant dent in the ever elusive housing target.

Another measure – using the airspace above stations for high rise – is a good idea. Focusing development on sustainable transport nodes also makes sense. But again, it is an issue of market and cost. The cost of groundworks and foundations for high-rise buildings above stations would need to be matched by high capital values for the area, high enough to overcome challenging cashflows. This makes the policy completely ineffective for more marginal locations.

We are also aware of the potential increase in Permitted Development Rights on vacant sites and extensions. Class O (office to residential) has had a measured impact on many city centres.

What is interesting is that the Government’s approach involves either spending or relying on the markets to deliver on brownfield, without major policy intervention in tackling the root cause of the issue. Measures which would actually contribute to improve the viability of schemes, such as lowering build costs through VAT breaks on certain types of construction were rumored, but didn’t materialise.

The final point to make is on what the Budget doesn’t say. It speaks volumes that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is completely silent on green belt reform. Centre for Cities recently looked at what happens if you release all green belt or agricultural land within 800m of good rail stations. The headline was land for circa 2.1 million new homes on which, as a broad assumption, it is more cost effective for the market to build, avoiding grant funding.

A nuanced conversation around a national policy, not changed since 1947, would have been welcomed and could have kept the Chancellor’s wallet closed, but perhaps proved too politically charged.

Brownfield land is undeniably important, but should be regarded as part of an ensemble piece in tackling the issue of housing. For me, the headlines of the reforms should have gone further. There is a wealth of measures which the Government could have explored and opened up, creating the right conditions for modular developers, SME developers, volume builders, community and self-builders alike. All while working on green belt, greenfield and in garden villages, alongside brownfield land to make the scale of gains required.

It is unclear how Covid-19 will play out and what is left over from the Budget at the end for the housing sector, but with a policy reliant on spending its way out of the housing crisis, it is certainly one of the riskier approaches they could have chosen to adopt.

Further information

Contact Savills Planning