You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Bringing planning and infrastructure together
The 100,000-home Oxfordshire deal announced in the Autumn Budget shows the potential of strategic county-wide planning, says Philip Atkins
In recent months, Theresa May, Philip Hammond and Sajid Javid have taken the limelight on major housing announcements, illustrating that it is the domestic policy this government wants to be judged on.
While London is the go-to example to illustrate eye-watering house prices, it is worth noting that the average property price in a shire county is now nine times average yearly earnings; rising to twelve times in the South East.
Last month’s Autumn Budget was heavy on housing and planning, and the £215m ‘housing deal’ for Oxfordshire, which will help deliver 100,000 homes, was hugely significant not only because of the numbers involved.
First, it was the first deal agreed outside of a big urban or city area, a refreshing break from the city-centric focus of much recent government policy and funding announcements.
Secondly, this is a real vote of confidence in strategic county planning. This agreement has shown the importance of looking at development across a larger geography; in this case an entire county rather than a district or borough.
READ MORE
It brings together both the planning and infrastructure authorities, and sets out a deliverable proposal that will unlock housebuilding while ensuring the necessary infrastructure is in place to grow local economies.
It is this type of holistic planning approach that the County Councils Network (CCN) has argued for in its recent publication, A New Deal for Counties. It calls on government to embrace counties’ large geographies, and for an increased role for the county council in planning.
“The Oxfordshire deal sets out a deliverable proposal that will unlock housebuilding while ensuring the necessary infrastructure is in place.”
Yes, there has been a lot of discussion on giving councils the ability to substantially build properties, and for an increase in planning fees to make the system work better, but these are only part of the story.
Simply put, the current planning system is not working as well as intentioned.
The reasons England has not built enough homes are numerous, but in areas that feature both district and county councils the fragmentation of the planning system is not doing the agenda any favours.
District or borough areas are hemmed in over the lack of ability to plan over wide geographies; this has led to some areas facing government intervention over their inability to get their Local Plans rubber-stamped.
The proposed statement of common ground, designed to get buy-in from all local councils and public sector partners as a precursor to local or spatial plans, could be the tool to make the system work better. Indeed, a fully signed-off statement of common ground is earmarked as the first significant planning step in Oxfordshire.
But the statement, in its current draft incarnation, is as toothless as its precursor, the duty to co-operate.
CCN argues for a formal and inclusive role for the county council in the statement of common ground, as well as advocating that the statement should be made on a county-wide basis.
The Oxfordshire prototype shows the benefits of this approach: more inclusive and strategic infrastructure planning, and the ability to combat ‘nimbyism’ and politically unpalatable proposals by allowing for a wider area (a whole county) to propose new development, ensuring homes are proposed in the right places and that projected housing numbers have an urban and rural balance.
“We would like upper-tier authorities to be given the same ‘strategic infrastructure levy’ as metro mayors to give those areas the powers to bridge significant funding gaps in infrastructure.”
Consideration should be also given to reforming the infrastructure element of planning. To date, neither Section 106 nor the Community Infrastructure Levy have delivered the anticipated levels of infrastructure funding through developer contributions.
Part of the issue is that district councils are the collecting authorities, while the county actually delivers the infrastructure.
In particular, CCN would like upper-tier authorities to be given the same ‘strategic infrastructure levy’ as metro mayors to give those areas the powers to bridge significant funding gaps in infrastructure.
County councils have the necessary quantum and size to do business with the government nationally, and with local enterprise partnerships and business locally – they are the ones that can get a variety of people around a table to obtain infrastructure and investment.
They enable environments for homes to be built, for communities to be created, and to ensure that those who are already living in an area are not adversely affected by new populations moving in.
Going forward, CCN will advocate how a strengthened role for counties in the planning system could unlock much-needed development.
The argument for this is simple: planning and infrastructure are two pieces of the same jigsaw. Oxfordshire shows what is possible when you connect both together.
Philip Atkins, spokesperson for housing, planning and infrastructure, County Councils Network; leader, Staffordshire County Council
