Thanks to our planning system, we have nowhere near enough homes in the right places. People cannot afford to move to where their talents can be matched with opportunity. Businesses cannot afford to grow and create jobs. The whole thing is beginning to crumble and the time has come to do what too many have for too long lacked the courage to do – tear it down and start again.
So said the Prime Minister in the Foreword to 2020’s ‘Planning for the future’ White Paper.
Instead of new homes being built where demand to live is greatest, they will now be built where a group of Conservative backbenchers in the south east think people should live.
So said Paul Brocklehurst, Chair of the Land Promoters & Developers Federation, in response to the Government’s decision not to proceed with the changes to the standard method for calculating local housing need that were consulted upon in parallel to the White Paper.
Whilst the second iteration of the standard method represents business as usual for the majority of LPAs, for the 33 London authorities and 19 other largest cities the new standard method represents, at face value at least, something of a headache. That is, of course, unless the new standard method is exposed in short order as the sticking plaster that many take it for. If not the ‘mutant algorithm’ though, and not this second iteration, then how should a standard method be calculated? And if a Government with a healthy majority cannot tackle what could have been a relatively straightforward change to the standard method how likely now are the genuinely reformist elements of the White Paper?
Sam Stafford puts these questions to:
- Christopher Young, QC of No. 5 Chambers
- Shelly Rouse, Principal Consultant, the Planning Advisory Service
- Colin Robinson, Director, Lichfields
BECG proudly supports the 50 Shades of Planning Podcast from Samuel Stafford, Regional Strategic Land Director at Barratt Developments.