The only way the government has any chance of hitting its housebuilding targets is by privatising the planning system, according to land agent Aston Mead.
The firm’s land & planning director, Adam Hesse, says reforming to the planning process should now be the focus, rather than making cuts to stamp duty – which might actually be detrimental to the property market.
He said: “For decades, housebuilding in this country has been trying to cope with a planning system that is no longer fit for purpose. It’s antiquated, understaffed and creaking at the seams – not helped by a raft of austerity cuts, which have left the system seriously overstretched and achingly slow.
“But instead of recognising this and doing something about it – as we’ve seen in the Chancellor’s recent mini-budget – the government makes tinkering changes to stamp duty, which is likely to artificially stoke house price inflation, making an eventual fall in prices inevitable.
“The trouble is, tax incentives alone don’t change the market fundamentals – which is demand outpacing supply, itself made worse by a planning system that’s simply not up to the job.”
Hesse says that privatising planning would make the single biggest difference to increasing housing supply, thereby helping to keep prices down.
He explained: “Let’s face it, if a business was run like a local planning department, it wouldn’t be around very long.
“So, we need to seize what aspects business does well – conducting a slimline operation with rapid decision making, whilst keeping an eye on the bottom line – and introduce these factors into the planning system, in order to get things done.
“What’s more, we need to take the politics out of planning. When local councillors are asked to make planning judgements, they will inevitably be influenced not by what is right or good, but instead how their decision might affect the chances of them being re-elected – which is clearly madness!
“Worse still, even if planning officers advise acceptance of a proposal, they can be overruled by councillors. If the developer’s subsequent appeal is granted (often the case because the planning officer has said it ticks the necessary boxes), the council has to pay costs – which is an appalling waste of taxpayers’ money.
“Of course, in order to prevent corruption, there would need to be some checks and balances introduced into the system. But just as architects are governed by the RIBA and surveyors are governed by the RICS, there could be a similar governing body for privatised planning agencies.
“And this is not such a radical suggestion; after all, building control has already been privatised. And it’s not unknown for councils to have members of staff paid directly by developers, to help speed up the whole process.
“But if the planning system is left as it is, departments will remain understaffed and overworked, and long delays will continue. Not only will this involve all the knock-on problems for the related professions – such as architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, kitchen fitters, painters, decorators, electricians, plumbers and developers – it means thousands of potential homeowners will be denied the opportunity to purchase the property they’ve been dreaming of.”
Lets make packing private, because obviously all private enterprises are well run!!
Seems a good idea to put the profit motive into a independent decision making process…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Some very good suggestions.
Correct the committee are corrupt and only do it to keep their councillor job, also many get together and decide which they will pass, you scratch my back approach. They call the plans in to get them turned down, also it looks very much like brown envelopes are at play. Nimbys dont want anything, for the small builder who has no clout they are made to jump through hoops and are discriminated against.
But the planners are totally inconsistent and depending on who the applicant is depends on whether the plans get passed.
Now instead of 8week decisions its 16 weeks unless you are a favoured one then its bang on eight.
If you dont agree to 16 weeks, then you go to appeal and wait a year.
Pre apps which you now have to pay for you don’t get to see a planner if you’re lucky you might get one phone call. The two-way conversation is lost, and they can just write what they like.
In truth the whole planning area is full of corruption and should be taken away from the local council areas completely.
Since Covid the performance of the local councils is a joke, most are still home and now its 45mins to answer the phone.
I have knowledge of my council but speaking with architects and Planning consultants it appears to be all.
Small infill sites of one or two houses should be PD .
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
OH
MY
GOD!
Taking public institutions private ALWAYS works. Think:
* Railways – a disaster
* Energy – an even bigger disaster
* Water – a complete sh*t-show (pun intended)
* Telecoms – the best of the bunch but still a disaster
Under no circumstances should anything as important as planning control be taken private.
How about this as a new (ish) model for the country to work to? The French have done it with EDF which is why their energy bills are only 5% higher and the UK’s have increased by over 20 times as much with the taxpayer picking up the tab over the next decade or so.
Rather than just “private companies” or “public companies”, have each important country infrastructure type public entity converted to a private company that is wholly owned by the state, run on aggressive capitalistic lines but with a core social charter. It would give each organisation the right to raise money to invest. However, any profits would NOT be paid as dividends to shareholders but are instead either reinvested or paid to the treasury to allow for investment in other areas of our country.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Privatisation has been such a success? Railways, utility companies etc. Any of them benefited the customer?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Also building standards! This was ‘de regulated’ on the altar of less red tape and freeing up business.
It would appear that Grenfell has some of its origins in this particular ‘freeing up’ of private companies.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register