Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Borwick Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interests as a property developer and builder, as recorded in the register. In particular, I have shareholdings and unpaid directorships in developments, mainly residential, in Bicester, Sussex and Scotland, and I am often looking for future developments.

The two primary aims of the Bill are worthy. Identifying and freeing up more land on which to build homes, and speeding up the delivery of new homes, are both crucial in tackling what is, at best, a chronic shortage of housing in the UK. The trouble is that I am not so sure that the clauses in the Bill will actually achieve those aims. However, improving the neighbourhood planning system is a good idea and so is improving compulsory purchase.

In 2015, nearly 143,000 new homes were built, but the Government have set a necessarily ambitious target of building 1 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. That means 200,000 new homes a year are needed—although your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee said that 300,000 homes a year should be built to deal with demand. Either way, we are currently not building enough homes, so I welcome the Bill’s intention to free up land and speed up delivery. But how can this shortage of homes, agreed on by almost everyone in all parties, have arisen? It must be the failure of the planning system. The trick is that we all agree that new homes must be built, but we all think that they should be built somewhere else. We have had a land planning system for about 60 years, yet this system does not deliver the houses we need.

A long time ago, when I was first learning about the planning system from my wise and patient planning adviser, Mr Lee Newlyn, he taught me about “objectively assessed need”. I said that was easy; I would sell forward some houses for delivery when they were built. He wisely said, “Jamie, you’ve just proved housing demand, not housing need”. Indeed, the people say, “We want houses”, but local government says, “Yes, but you don’t need houses”. Ever since a dictator’s wife declared, “Let them eat cake”, the people have quite rightly complained that the authorities should not tell them what they need. We do not have an objectively assessed need for cars and bread; we let the market decide, because central planning always fails. When the planning system for houses fails, what do we do? We snap into action, add a second planning system on top of it and call it a neighbourhood planning system. I welcome this attempt to get the second layer right, but I would rather improve the first.

The fundamental problem is that, if we are to have a planning system then that system should be as close to the people as possible, but the people who want the houses are not yet living there and so cannot be consulted or contribute. We all know and respect the people who put hours of underpaid time into planning committees—I do not have the patience to be one of them—but almost all of them are established figures in the community, not people who want to move into that community yet cannot do so. The difference between market price of land with planning permission for houses and land with planning permission as agricultural proves that the system is failing.

It is not just those who cannot buy a new home because of a lack of supply who are affected. Current home owners who are against the idea of more housebuilding in their own area are affected, too, as they do not receive compensation when permission to build is granted. If you are lucky or wise enough to have bought a house with a great view of a green field opposite your front door, that house will reduce in value when some clown builds houses all over your view. The fact that you do not own that view does not make you feel any happier about that change. At present, the system is binary: yes, we build or, no, we do not—in favour or not in favour. The reality is that people might be in favour if only they got something out of it.

The truth is that when a developer wants to build houses on some land, both sides impose costs on the other. One side wants to build houses and the other to keep the land as it is. A proper system of compensation could ensure a mechanism is in place that speeds up the process and satisfies all parties. I do not mean compensation paid to the local council but paid to the individuals. A good idea as to how to do this was first published by Professor Mark Pennington of the Institute of Economic Affairs some years ago. I am not sure whether that change would wholly meet the objections that I outlined earlier, but at least it would be a start.

The housing industry is unusual, partly because of its cautious nature. Housebuilders do not make their houses with state-of-the-art electronics because they feel that the purchaser of a new house is taking sufficient financial risk. Houses are certainly built to modern standards of insulation and heating systems, but the controls and robotics that are available now are not included. New smartphone-related apps for efficiently controlling heating and lighting are sold as after-market additions, rather than original equipment in a brand-new house. Similarly, people have been trying for some time to propose new ways of building houses quicker or cheaper, or for them to be better insulated but keep within the standards. These ideas include factory-manufactured houses, which are widespread in Germany but not widespread here. In my opinion, this is because our building industry is not friendly to bright ideas, partly because it is exhausted by dealing with planning requirements. Perhaps the best ideas which will go ahead are those proposed as parts of the garden cities being discussed for the future. These seem to be genuinely interesting and pioneering. I am proud to declare my interest in one in Sussex.

The current system means that smaller housebuilding projects are unlikely to go ahead. A real problem is that smaller housebuilders are unable to compete. Why should that be? A good example is the requirement by councils for bonds on Section 106 agreements. Say, for instance, that a council and housebuilder agree that he will build a new road as part of a development. The council often then asks the housebuilder for a bond for that road, to hold the business to its end of the bargain. Smaller firms often cannot afford bonds and so are cut out of the process; big housebuilders welcome this, of course. But while one might say that councils are simply protecting themselves by requiring a bond, the truth is that it is a solution to a theoretical problem. The market would surely solve it. If a developer did not deliver the road or the other obligations in accordance with the Section 106 agreement, the entire development would lose value. They may not even sell the houses at all without a road, so the risk is on the developer and the house buyer. What we end up with is a costly solution to a problem that does not really exist, with the consequence being the choking off of competition and stopping new entrants to the market.

What we should be discussing are ways to introduce proper market mechanisms to provide adequate compensation. We should consider those who wish to buy houses, as well as those who wish to build them in an area and those who already own there. We must ensure that we do not pass laws which may have the unintended consequence of choking off competition in the sector.