The Housing White Paper: piecing together the puzzle

Councils

What changes most affect them?

The attempt to clamp down on developers who sit on planning permissions without building homes is seen as a step in the right direction, but councils resent what they see as tougher measures against them in the form of more rigorous Local Plan targets without an equally tough approach towards developers.

The potential extension of Right to Buy to council housing companies is seen as contradictory to the central message to councils to speed up their building. Several councils and representative bodies told Inside Housing that if the Right to Buy is extended to affordable rented properties built through their housing companies, then they will stop building these properties.

Will it work?

Leading council figures are unimpressed. This was a missed opportunity, they say, to give support to those councils that are building homes by enabling them to borrow more.

While the mentions of councils playing a role in housing delivery throughout the document was welcomed, detail was thin on the ground.

It is difficult to judge the significance of the mention of “bespoke deals” with councils who want to deliver more housing without further detail. Overall, councils say the rhetoric is right from government - but when it comes to fixing the problem, the White Paper is a “damp squib”, as one unimpressed council figure put it.

Planners

What changes most affect them?

Greater scope for smaller builders to deliver was important for planners.

“We welcome the broadening out of building opportunities to those other than the major house builders - provided it is supplemented by genuine accessibility to land,” said Stuart Irvine, a senior director at planning consultancy Turley Associates.

David Evans, former president of the Planning Officers Society, also praised “a more balanced approach to affordable housing”, after proposals to impose 20% Starter Homes quotas were sensibly binned.

Will it work?

Not quite. “It should lead to the construction of more homes, and that’s a good thing,” says Mr Evans. “But it could go a lot further.”

“More is needed,” agrees Mr Irvine. “There needed to be greater focus on a wider pipeline of genuinely developable land.”

Indeed, land is the question that pops up over and over. Amid all the tinkering with local planning rules, there was nothing to force those reluctant councils to provide land and get building.

For Mr Irvine, the White Paper’s biggest disappointment was its “lacklustre” approach to councils’ duties to work together. He wanted to see a “major strengthening” of the policy to force councils to participate. Mr Evans wanted to see more on strategic planning. Local areas, he argued, are missing an overall building strategy.

House builders

What changes most affect them?

Changes to Starter Homes were welcomed by the Home Builders Federation (HBF), which said the updated policy was more “pragmatic, flexible and deliverable”.

Builders also welcomed proposals that councils failing to deliver enough units through their Local Plans would be punished, which the HBF said could prove “very significant”. One big builder commented that - of 37 proposed amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework - the presumption in favour of development on brownfield land was the crucial shift.

Plans to strengthen councils’ compulsory purchase order powers at stalled sites were less well-received, as were indications that local authorities will be able to charge planning fees.

Both will need “careful management”, according to the HBF.

Will it work?

A step in the right direction, but the consensus is that execution of headline policies will prove harder.

Tony Pidgley, chair at Berkeley, said changes to Local Plan-making would be beneficial, but warned that Section 106 negotiations needed to be sped up, and should be run in parallel with the planning application process.

Killian Hurley, chief executive of Mount Anvil, said that the emphasis on getting units on site quickly could be to the detriment of quality - a hot topic currently. Barratt Homes agreed: “It is vital that as the quantity increases, the quality of new homes doesn’t suffer.”

There was some frustration that the proposed simplification of the Community Infrastructure Levy was further postponed, having been expected in December’s Autumn Statement.

Housing associations

What changes most affect them?

The commitment to a new rent settlement from 2020, with positive rhetoric around supporting supply, was big for the sector. The other main point was a direct challenge from government to associations. It has backed its lobbying asks, now it wants it to improve efficiency and build more. Many in the sector believe, with some justification, that these two are linked: if you want a good deal on rents, you need to get building.

Will it work?

Yes, a bit. David Montague, chief executive of L&Q, joined many voices making the point that land is a crucial piece in the equation which the White Paper does not answer. Terrie Alafat, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing, made the key point that it does not address affordability.

Indeed, despite being trailed as having affordability at its heart, in reality a fringe announcement about build-to-rent Section 106 deals does not touch the sides of the problem.

What is more, because the call for more supply is not being backed by more grant, it means more debt and more money from market sales. And this means more risk.

If anyone was feeling blasé about this, a stark warning that the paper was “credit negative” from leading ratings agency Moody’s should have brought the point home.