Housing and Planning Delivery Grant

• Posted by Karyn Middleton on 15th Oct ’07 at 10:57 BST
• 0 comments

The new Housing and Planning Delivery Grant (HPDG) was released for formal consultation in July 2006 in wake of Kate Barker‘s Review of Housing Land Supply (2005).

One of Barker‘s key recommendations was to improve the speed, responsiveness and efficiency of the UK Planning System with a strong emphasis on quicker housing delivery. Subsequently on 14th September 2007 Central Government unveiled £500m HPDG across 3 years from 2008/09.

The announcement of such significant funding arrangements for local planning departments based predominately on housing numbers, as opposed to the current assessment criterion of whether applications are being determined within target dates and ‘quality of service’, has raised serious speculation over whether Central Government has fully acknowledged the importance of design quality for future residential development.

The current Planning Delivery Grant comes to an end in 2008. On the current system David Jones comments, "Statistically I am sure that it appears planning applications are now being determined quicker, however our experience on the ground is that many applicants are forced to withdraw and re-submit applications because planning officers do not have sufficient time to negotiate consents within the statutory period. In practice the determination period is frequently doubled causing frustration for both applicants and their advisors".

The proposed HPDG‘s focus on delivery of housing numbers suggests that local authoritys in allocated growth areas (e.g. the South East) who have larger housing projections will ultimately receive more funding. Conversely already under resourced local authoritys may feel under pressure to make quick, and potentially poor quality decisions in order to hit quantative targets.

The Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE) National Housing Audit (2005) revealed that 8 out of 10 homes built in the last five years failed design quality tests. CABE consequently called on Central Government to adopt Building for Life (BFL) standards based on 20 criteria for good design including character, roads, parking etc.

David Jones, Head of Planning at Evans Jones LLP commented; "the ‘carrot led’ approach to funding for local planning authorities based on delivering housing numbers may encourage officers into making a quick decision at the cost of quality".

The HPDG coupled with the profusion of prescriptive design guides is further cause for concern. Current guidance at national and local levels includes: Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Design Codes, Lifetime Homes Guidance, Development Briefs, Code for Sustainable homes and Scheme Development Standards all of which are designed to reinforce the objectives set out in PPS3 in relation to numbers, sustainability and delivery speed. The greater emphasis upon quality of design is welcomed, however the abundance of design ‘dos and don‘ts’ for residential development risks stifling creativity and innovation.

The cumulative effect of funding local planning departments based on delivering housing numbers, the abundance of prescriptive design guidance and the shortfall in planning officers with necessary skills to analyse development proposals leaves much doubt over whether the proposed HPDG funding regime will truly deliver the necessary levels of housing that will meet necessary sustainability and design quality standards. It risks creating a ‘free for all’ for housing developers to return to the days of simply building unremarkable estates simply to meet local authority housing targets.