The Construction Industry Council (CIC) represents most of the construction industry鈥檚 professional bodies and research organisations 鈥� it鈥檚 vested interest lies in things being built. But the government鈥檚 planning reforms are not the way to get things built, the CIC says.
When the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government published 聽its Planning for the future white paper in August, it proposed a simpler, quicker planning system to encourage more house-building.
However, the CIC, in its response to the consultation paper, says that 鈥渢he planning system should not be blamed for the fact that housing targets were not being met鈥�.
The prime minister, in his introduction to the white paper, wrote: 鈥淭hanks 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 鈥� tear it down and start again.鈥�
The CIC disagrees with the idea that the planning system is broken. Its members agreed that the failure to build enough new homes was more attributable to the market, and specifically, the lack of house-builders in the market 鈥� an oligopoly of big house-builders a lack of SME builders who do not have deep enough pockets to invest in infrastructure of fund Section 106 monies demanded by councils.
CIC chief executive Graham Watts writes in his response to the ministry: 鈥淎lthough CIC members accept the need for some reform, they are not convinced that the radical changes suggested in the white paper will produce the desired outcome, and, moreover, they may damage the chances of the government achieving its home building targets.
鈥淥ur view is that many of the mechanisms and processes already available in the current system would deliver improvement in outcomes, if they were bolstered and reinforced. We also feel it necessary to point out that a key reason why the planning system may be falling short of its ambitions is the lack of investment in local planning authorities. There needs to be significant investment in local authority capacity and skills. Under the proposed reforms, the plan-making stage becomes absolutely critical: as the focus of public engagement, as the process for designating all land uses and appropriate development typologies, and coordinating the infrastructure needed to support growth. Local authorities will need to be properly resourced if they are to deliver the boosted engagement levels envisaged.
鈥淎longside this it is vital that any reforms support parliament鈥檚 legislated targets for net-zero carbon by 2050. Therefore, carbon reduction has to be built into every aspect of a revised planning system.
鈥淐IC members think it important that in areas where homes are least affordable, plans should include significant numbers of affordable homes. Otherwise, simply building more homes is unlikely to improve affordability, which we note is one of the desired outcomes of the reforms.
鈥淏ut again, the planning system cannot be blamed for lack of affordable housing, which is largely down to lack of government subsidy.
鈥淔inally, investment in local infrastructure is critical to deliver improvements in placemaking, and is a factor that too frequently gets overlooked.鈥�
CIC's full submission can be found .
Got a story? Email news@theconstructionindex.co.uk
