Lack of clarity and inconsistency found in planning policies for affordable homes
Local authorities identify a lack of clarity in government policy as the greatest single constraint on their capacity to use planning powers to secure affordable housing, according to the first results from a major new study. But there are also big differences between local authorities in the way that ‘affordable housing’ is defined and in the number of low-cost homes they have been able to achieve through ‘Section 106’ agreements with developers.
The research, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, with the Housing Corporation, the Countryside Agency, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Town Planning Institute, reveals that London and the South East account for almost half the number of homes secured by planning agreements. But even here, where the demand for affordable housing is greatest, there are wide variations in effectiveness between authorities.
The study also shows that the government figures, which suggest that 10 per cent of homes (15,000) built each year are affordable properties secured through the planning system, are inconsistent and inaccurate. The actual number of additional units may be considerably less.
The interim report by teams at the University of Sheffield and the University of Cambridge is based on a survey of planning authorities in England, plus 40 local case studies. It also finds that:
- Affordable housing is only approved on a minority of development sites. On those sites where it is included, the proportion of low-cost homes varies between 11 per cent in the North East and 27 per cent in the South East.
- Nine out of ten planning authorities have affordable housing policies in place. Those in the South focus on increasing the number of homes for rent provided by Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). In the North, where there is a greater existing supply of rented accommodation, policies allow for more shared ownership schemes, homes for sale at discounted prices and even low-cost market housing.
- Differences in housing need only partly explain why the number of affordable homes secured through planning varies between regions. Limited availability of suitable land is often a restricting factor in high-demand areas. Affordable housing is generally less common on recycled ‘brownfield’ than ‘greenfield’ sites, except in parts of London and the South East where clearance and reclamation costs are more easily absorbed.
- Authorities vary in their views of the part that Social Housing Grant, paid through the Housing Corporation to Registered Social Landlords, should play in Section 106 agreements. Some assume no grant is obtained and see planning agreements as a way of securing affordable homes in addition to those built by RSLs. But most regard the subsidy as a key contribution to making affordable housing developments viable.
- Rural exceptions policies, enabling much-needed, affordable housing to be built in countryside areas where new development is restricted, are applied consistently by local authorities. However, the process is perceived as time-consuming and the number of sites given planning approval is very small.
Prof. Christine Whitehead, a co-author of the report at the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, said: "Some local authorities are clearly more effective at securing more and better affordable housing through the planning system than others. Since this method of providing new affordable housing is of growing importance, achieving more consistency and clarity should be an important part of the Government’s forthcoming consultation paper on planning."
