THE KEY TO UNLOCKING HOUSEBUILDING?

For several years, the planning process has put major obstacles in the way of development. Most SME developers (93%) view securing and processing planning permission to the point they can start building as a major barrier to growth, according to a recent study by Close Brothers Property Finance, the Home Builders Federation (HBF), and Travis Perkins. While the statutory time period for deciding on a planning application is generally eight or 13 weeks—the latter for significant developments—only 46% of all applications made in Q2 2022-Q1 2023 had a decision made within one of these timeframes. Consequently, the majority saw delays—an issue that often diminishes a developer’s bottom line. Add this to the problems caused by a lack of available land, the nutrient neutrality headache hindering development in many areas, and cash-strapped local authorities not having enough resources, and it’s obvious why we are not delivering enough homes.

In a bid to improve the planning system, the secretary of state for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Michael Gove recently launched a consultation for a revamped National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Should this go ahead, it would constitute the third change since the framework was first introduced in 2012.

Seven industry experts—Robert Brooks, partner at Seddons; Adrian Cormican, director at Hallcroft Finance; Callum Ferguson, head of business development at Clearwell Capital; Carl Graham, regional director at Tuscan Capital; Katy Katani, director at CapitalRise; Alyson Jones, director at Boyer Planning; and Rico Wojtulewicz, head of housing and planning policy at the National Federation of Builders—weigh in on the current pain points in the planning process, and whether the latest proposals will make a much-needed difference.

Andreea Dulgheru: First off, what is causing inefficiencies and delays in the planning process?

Katy Katani: I think a lot of it has to do with the bureaucratic system. There’s also a backlog from Covid and the after-effects of the pandemic, and it’s hard to get through to local authority planning professionals due to lack of staffing and resource.

Carl Graham: I think that’s due to a lack of funding which, in part, [results in] a lack of education. We see that through elected members of committees who, I believe, receive about an hour’s worth of training every year: they ask some uninformed questions, which is testament to the lack of education they get. I think the public purse and political indifference have pushed a lot of public sector planning consultants into the private sector. We’re seeing a very underserved department within local and centralised government, which naturally blocks the whole process.

Callum Ferguson: I think that’s absolutely right. I had a conversation with one of my clients last week who puts a lot of developments through planning on a regular basis, and the overwhelming frustration is that he knows all planning departments are massively under-resourced—they just don’t have what they need to be able to process these applications. So the default response is to kick the can down the road and ask for things to be reworked because they just don’t have the resources or the funding to clear the decks on those planning applications anywhere near the rate that I think all of us know is required.

Alyson Jones: There are a few factors at play. There have been problems for quite a while— it’s not a new thing—but they have been exacerbated recently. You’re all absolutely right, that’s what we’re feeling about in terms of resources in local authorities, and staff moving to the consultancy side, which raises the question of whether there are enough planners in the whole system. This then goes back to education etc. The government has announced the Planning Skills Delivery Fund (PSDF) which will allocate £24m to local authorities to help councils clear planning application backlogs and paper for upcoming changes to the planning system. However, with 333 planning authorities in England, that equates to just £72,000 over two years, which is a figure unlikely to bring about real change. Even when developers are prepared to pay for the service—and we know they are through planning performance agreements—they don’t actually manage to get much further through the system in terms of pre-application advice or planning application. Local authorities are now pulling up the drawbridge, with applicants unable to amend planning applications once they’ve been submitted if they haven’t done a pre-application, for example. This then becomes all very negative and hostile. Obviously, we’re at a particular point in the political cycle—and planning is very political—which comes into play. We’ve just had a lot of change arising from the May 2023 local elections and have a general election on the horizon; I think planning has just become much more politicised than it ever has before, which has a lot of consequences. I believe current issues go back to the backbench revolt just before Christmas last year and when the NPPF changes and Levelling-up Bill amendments came out. These have given local authorities the perfect excuse to say, ‘We don’t need to progress with local plans or planning decisions, because we have to wait for the changes to come through’.

Rico Wojtulewicz: I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the planning system is. A lot of people just think planning is about achieving permissions but, unfortunately, that’s not correct. The planning system comprises a whole host of elements before and after the application is made—it’s tiered from the outset. You have allocations within the planning system and, if you haven’t got an allocated site, you’ve got a windfall site, which are, by their very definition, speculative developments. SMEs are typically the ones that deliver those smaller windfall sites and that’s because, quite often, local authorities won’t allocate a site that has fewer than 20 homes. So, right from the very outset, that’s a problem. Within the allocation process itself, you’ll get some sites that have outline permission and others that don’t have any permission at all. Of course, not all local authorities have a local plan and a community infrastructure levy, so they have to use section 106, which is another thing to negotiate. You also then have statutory consultees, services companies and utilities, which have their own timelines. These create considerable delays for developers when they’re trying to deliver a project, as well as for local authorities when they think they can get something over the line. If you’ve got an electricity company saying, “We can’t do anything for you for two years”, or, “We need the secretary of state to say yes or no to an application for us to do some work”, that all automatically hinders the development process itself. Lichfields did some good research that reported an average of 1.4 years to get planning approval for a site of fewer than 100 homes—whereas the statutory regulations say it must be done within 13 weeks for major developments (defined as schemes comprising more than 10 homes). We’ve gone from 57% of planning applications being decided within the 13-week statutory period in Q1 2013 to only 19% in Q1 2023; there’s been a downward trajectory since 2013, and the planning system as a whole is causing so many issues. If you’ve got to plan a development and you need the workforce to be on time, then you need to plan when they’re going to come in but, if that’s uncertain because you have planning delays, that again can have a knock-on effect on delivery.

Robert Brooks: We’ve seen applications rejected on the ground that building materials aren’t in accordance with the plans. I’ve seen one rejected for insufficient cycle arrangements for the residents of a house conversion into flats. We, as the solicitor, don’t usually get the causes for the initial rejection. We tend to get instructed once the application has at least been looked at and is about to be approved. Occasionally, we review the appeal, and we can see the reasons for the initial rejection—though, quite often, when an appeal has been granted, those reasons are quite minor. Going back to the political point from earlier, the government, for better or worse, tried to reform the planning system with Robert Jenrick’s plans. In many ways, they were quite sensible in that they would establish zones where it would be assumed that planning was going to be granted if it was land within one kind of zone, and there were going to be conditions attached to each. It’s going to be very difficult to see how planning, as a whole structural beast, can be reformed in the near future to be honest.

RW: These new policies don’t allocate land, and this is the main issue. The government has removed the incentive to deliver more homes because they’ve reduced the amount of land that’s going to come forward and, once you do that, you effectively retain the current system, and that means we’re going to get delays. People also forget that local authorities are the ones that make these choices—a third of local authorities are delivering lower than their minimum demand but, if you go up in the North and the North West where they’re a bit more ambitious, most of them are delivering 400% of their minimum housing requirements.

CG: This also links to national infrastructure programmes. There isn’t enough comment on how many developments are emerging up here in Salford and Manchester, for example, as well as the sheer lack of infrastructure, be that from local or centralised government. The two run mutually, and I genuinely believe there will be much bigger social issues than we’re feeling right now, as there seems to be a primary focus on trying to get planning applications passed and properties developed, rather than looking at larger masterplans that involve that infrastructure.

AD: From your conversations with developers and housebuilders, what’s the average time to get planning permission?

CF: From start to finish, delays of 9–12 months are not uncommon; even when it looks like you have planning consent, I’ve seen delays of 6-9 months after that point. Issues like nutrient neutrality, which requires you to put nitrate and phosphate [mitigation] plans in place, can cause months of delays in rural areas. It all circles back to some of the points that have been raised, including a lack of resource and a dearth of joined-up thinking from national to regional and local level of what needs to be delivered and how long this can take. This has massive challenges for developers, because we’re in a very different world now in terms of the supply chain and how tight the labour market is. Getting your ducks in a row as a developer is becoming borderline impossible with all the bureaucratic delays.

CG: And that links to the number of enquiries we’ve received here for part-developed properties or larger developments. There are many schemes that are coming through the wash now that are technically non-compliant. In most cases, we’re talking about pre-commencement conditions—critical points that are very difficult to indemnify against.

RB: Yes, that’s something we encounter quite frequently in a development. I had one in the past week where it’s all ready—it’s a development of about 100 flats. Two-thirds of them were already occupied or the developer had at least exchanged contracts to be occupied. I had a look at the planning and noticed there were one pre-commencement and two pre-occupation conditions not even applied to be discharged. I don’t know how many lawyers had looked at that and thought it was absolutely fine. I made the point to our client who, in turn, raised this to the borrower. Most of my clients are relatively relaxed on it—as long as they can see the application has gone on to discharge this condition and they can have their QS look at it and check the work has indeed happened, they’ll probably be fine with it. But, ultimately, the idea of waiting for the actual discharge to come back from the local authority is a pipe dream, because it’s going to be at least six months.

KK: To give an example from my experience, last year this family closed on a development loan for two houses in Hampstead, for which the local authority is Camden. It’s been a year now and we’re still waiting for some of the pre-commencement conditions to be relieved, so it’s had a knock-on effect with the borrower. He’s been charged interest all this time without having started on site. These are things we’re seeing quite often now, but it’s obviously dependent on the local authority.

Adrian Cormican: This is a real problem. There are so many sites stuck on our pipeline at the moment that should have been delivered in spring, but they don’t even have a spade in the ground. There’s one that’s been [delayed] for two and a half years with planning permission granted off the back of a similar point to yours, Callum—nutrient neutrality. I have never experienced before what we’re experiencing now. Planning is not getting through and, when clients do get approval, some are easily stuck for two years. Planning conditions shouldn’t be onerous, but they’ve become that; that’s the one thing now that we look for closer than we ever did before. Rob, you must see that in the documentation?

RB: Yes, quite regularly. Certainly, it depends on what stage—if it’s a development exit, then theoretically, all of the conditions should be discharged and, to be honest, I’d say it’s a minority where that’s the case. If they’re coming in advance, then our clients are absolutely on it to try to get those pre-commencements done as soon as possible, because they know they’re going to delay the transaction.

CG: Also, if certain points aren’t discharged that are critical to the tangible value of the asset, in most cases, unfortunately, it doesn’t hit those GDVs sufficient enough to clear off original development finance when the newly appointed development exit lender comes in, because the property isn’t compliant or isn’t in a saleable condition.

AD: That brings me to my next question: how are current planning delays eating into developers’ finances and profit margins?

RW: As an example, one of our members builds 30 affordable houses a year in Nottingham. He employed 76 people in 2015. By 2019—so this is pre-COVID—he was down to six, and now he’s down to four, so he’s ceasing development altogether. The reason is because he can’t afford to pay people to do nothing, so that’s how much of an impact planning delay is having. And, obviously, you still have to service your loans. Plus, planning conditions are now individually chargeable for discharge, so the cost elements keep adding up.

CF: Very few lenders in the SME space fund speculative planning land—it’s always on what it is currently worth. But, as you know with the delays in getting permission, that interest is rolling up, no matter if you took a lowly geared position in the first instance. It means that when you look to refinance them on to a development facility, it sometimes doesn’t add up anymore. So, the developer then decides to sell the site, and there’s further delay in those units ever coming to the market. And Rico mentioned a really good point there—the labour market now for contractors and skilled builders is so tight; if you can’t keep your guys busy, they will go elsewhere and work on other projects. Being able to keep your pipeline of builds going in a smooth manner is a really important part of being a successful SME developer, and it’s becoming very difficult [as] you’ve got no idea how long it will take to get planning permission in the first place or discharge the conditions that you need to in order to get on with it.

CG: Interestingly, I’m seeing a lot more JVs making their names again and options being agreed between landowners and developers on the premise that completions are delayed, subject to planning and any pre-commencement conditions being satisfied, at which point they take the finance on. I think there’s a huge opportunity that seems to be missed where landowners and developers could join up and not have to leverage on risky developments without planning permission, and save the finance until that is in place.

“If there was a set of criteria that were applicable to small sites, it would make it infinitely easier for a lot of developers. They could also anticipate what their margins would be like at the start of the process with a lot more clarity”

AD: When looking at the proposals for the new NPPF that were unveiled recently, one suggestion is to simplify and amend the test of soundness used to examine local plans. They will no longer be required to be justified and, instead, the examination would assess whether the proposed target meets needs as far as possible. In your opinion, what will be the ramifications of this?

AJ: I guess this goes to the heart of local plans and the allocation of sites, which is what gives developers and SMEs the confidence to pursue a planning application on a site. Without a local plan proposal being justified, it’s hard to see how decision-making is going to be transparent, and where the emphasis or urgency to deliver will be. There’s just a lot of ambiguity around the whole process from our perspective—no duty to co-operate, no five-year housing land supply incentive, and neighbourhood plans having greater control but yet not delivering. However, they are proposed changes, they might not come through. We’ve also got the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill going alongside the NPPF changes, so I think they’ve got a long way to go yet, and I suspect some of these things will fall by the wayside.

CG: Just to put everything into context, the NPPF came into force in 2012, and I don’t think it’s done anything radically different to either streamline the process or make it more efficient. We’ve already highlighted what the key issues are within planning in the UK, but there doesn’t seem to be a workable framework that connects the dots. I just think it’s more text.

KK: It’s just a change of wording.

CG: Exactly.

AJ: It’s the political implication—that’s why it’s been done—it takes away the stick for local authorities to have to plan properly for their needs. There will still be a requirement to do something, so not everything will fall away. It just means there will probably be less.

RW: If you look, the government is also removing what’s called the housing delivery test, which measures whether or not local authorities are meeting that five-year land supply—it’s a minimum number they need to get, and it’s based on a methodology of how many homes are meant to be delivered. The government’s also removing the penalties for it, which actually helped not only to ensure that more homes got built, but that there was a more robust allocation process. The NPPF itself, when we looked at it, is actually quite a good document. The problem is that the year before it came into force, the 2011 Localism Act came in, and that actually set the tone. What it meant was the NPPF was then interpreted locally. All of this really is a land use issue—and this is my major concern with the brownfield-first approach because yes, you can convert a lot of buildings from commercial to residential, but these are sites allocated for non-housing use. So now you’ve increased the populations locally, and you don’t have enough space to put the non-housing elements. So, what do you do? You either don’t build them—which is what we’ve been doing for 20 years—or you use land outside of your communities and increase car dependence, which is obviously against all their climate emergency calls, so they won’t do that. So what we’ll end up doing is not building it. That’s why I quite liked Jenrick’s generous approach, because it introduced certainty in the system, certainty that local politicians could say, ‘This is what we are designing, and we will accept this because you inform us how to deliver that’. Thank God they saved design codes, because at least they offer certainty and potentially reduce the pressures on local authorities, because if you meet X, you should get planning permission. So, the NPPF is good, but the Localism Act makes it pointless.

AJ: One of the proposals under the NPPF changes is where authorities have got an adopted local plan, changes to the operation of five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test will limit the potential for developers to bring forward sites under the presumption in favour of sustainable development (‘the tilted balance’). But we’ve got local plans that were adopted in 2020-2021 that already cannot meet on their five-year housing land supply.

CF: ‘Soundness’ sounds very fluffy to me—something that can be interpreted and implemented in a lot of different ways. We all know that on a national level, there are nowhere near enough houses being built. If there’s not a marked change in how the planning system is motivated to process things quickly—whether that’s granting or rejecting permission so people can get through the process—I’m sceptical whether it will make a difference to increase the number, and may lead to fewer homes being built which, given the targets we have, is obviously not what we need.

AD: The new NPPF also proposes introducing an additional permissionsbased test, which will switch off the ‘tilted balance’ as a consequence of under-delivery if a local planning authority can show there are sufficient deliverable permissions to meet the housing requirement, or have additional contingency for planning permissions likely not to progress. How do you think this will play out?

AJ: At the moment, the presumption or the tilted balance applies when, for example, a local planning authority doesn’t have its fiveyear housing land supply in place, and then there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development over and above some of the local plan policies—such as, for example, countryside policies, which is quite often where developments might be located where there are no sites left and it’s generally greenfield sites coming forward. The presumption generally kicks in at appeal—it can apply at local level but, obviously, that depends on local members acknowledging they don’t have a five-year housing land supply. So, I think if you’re taking away or amending the tilted balance or reducing the number of circumstances in which you can apply it, then clearly there will be even fewer houses built than there are now. That’s going to have a knock-on effect, in particular on the delivery of affordable housing because, clearly, if you’re not delivering on your market housing, you’re not going to be delivering on your affordable housing.

AD: There are also talks about local planning authorities no longer being required to review and alter green belt boundaries. What impact will this have on housing delivery?

AJ: Currently, it’s really difficult to deliver housing in the green belt. There have been only a few permissions that have been granted on appeal where the sites haven’t been allocated, but it’s a trend that’s occurred over the past couple of years where the housing land supply has been so low that inspectors have allowed green belt development. By not allowing any review of the green belt, as it is proposed, we will maintain the status quo and there won’t be any housing development in it. And yet, we’re obviously hearing from the Labour Party quite strongly that there are parts of the green belt that are brownfield sites and degraded landscapes that haven’t got any particular landscape designations. That, I think, is probably reflective of how we as planners see the green belt. It was put there to stop urban sprawl back in the postwar period. It served a purpose then, but things have changed and they need to be reviewed. There are pockets of land that are just isolated, surrounded by infrastructure or residential development, which are in the green belt that just make no sense to not develop. Then you’ve got degraded landscapes and old commercial sites, because green belts can wash over entire areas, including villages and employment sites, and it just makes anything really difficult to do in the green belt, yet they offer a lot of potential because they’re in sustainable locations—a lot of them are close to train stations and what have you.

RB: One of the things I find curious is that 7.1% of London’s green belt are golf courses. Some green belt sites are not this idyllic, wonderful green space where we can all go out and sit and get some clean, fresh air. Some of them are either for private use or, as Alyson was saying, it’s not even that particularly pleasant or idyllic. So it does seem that the green belt initiative was a very sensible one when it was first proposed, but it is certainly in need of being reassessed.

AC: Well, it’s a dirty word we misuse. As soon as anyone mentions the green belt, straight away [the response is], ‘You can’t do that to it’. I had a flyer for the local elections just come through saying, if Labour get in, they’ll concrete over the entire green belt.

RB: The word green used in that context keeps the status quo, because people associate greenery with positive. We can’t get away from the politics of it, unfortunately.

RW: We also need to remember that the green belt isn’t what many people believe it is. The green belt is a very specific area and local authorities can effectively allocate something as green belt, but it’s not actually green belt; it’s just green land they don’t want to build on. So, it’s not part of that original 1950s green belt strategy, it’s something slightly different. That is a major issue, especially for more rural communities where the larger builders don’t particularly build, but the smaller ones do. They’re the ones that build out those communities and deliver high-quality buildings and good places. Density is another challenge because, if you can only build to a certain level, if the local authority has a concern about overdevelopment, as they call it, then you can’t make a project work, especially with the high costs of decontamination for brownfield sites. We’ve got this whole gentle density approach, and that’s fine for towns. But in cities, building up to nine or 10 storeys just doesn’t cut it, and good luck trying to get a 30- or 40-storey site on any sort of brownfield; it’s just impossible.

AD: With regard to the density aspect, this is briefly mentioned in the new NPPF proposals. It wants to discourage high-density developments that ‘would be significantly out of character for an area’. What do you think of this?

RW: Well, I would say one thing: what’s more out of character for an area than lots of people who can’t afford to live there? Surely, that’s what is more out of character, people having to sleep in temporary homes or sleep rough. Would you prefer that, rather than a bit of green space used? There’s one other thing people don’t mention enough, and it drives me mad. In the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the government is proposing to protect landscapes as a material consideration. What on earth are they doing? Not just for the housing but, if you’re a farmer who wants to stick up an industrial building, now you can’t because it’s harder. You are simply adding more weight to not building houses because of the green belt element. And, with that density element, you can’t build more dense because, as you just identified there, it’s out of character.

AD: Speaking of character, the framework also mentions specific design codes that set out minimum standards for development—height, form, density etc. What are the pros and cons of this proposed change, and how could this influence the types of developments created in different regions?

AJ: So the government is talking about a national design code, but then there’ll be a requirement for local authorities to prepare design codes, which would then look more locally. I think this is probably helpful for developers in that they will at least know what the parameters are and what they need to achieve.

CG: Yes, it sets clear guidelines for developers as to what they can or cannot work to. I’m sure I read somewhere—correct me if I’m wrong—but airspace/mansard developments are now a key feature, as long as they are in keeping with existing developments in the area. Adrian can comment better than anybody here as to how difficult it is to fund airspace.

AC: We’ve done a couple since Covid, because that’s obviously become a lot trendier since then. But it’s by no means straightforward.

KK: We funded quite a few but, yes, it’s actually very complicated.

RW: I think the design codes are important because they just give a bit of confidence to local people so they know what’s going to come forward . . . and to developers by removing some of the insecurity within the system. If you know what you can deliver, you can therefore plan more easily; I think that is a positive sign. And also, the local authority uses fewer resources.

AC: Yes, the more clarity the better in all these scenarios.

AJ: It might mean an initial slowdown as these things are introduced and everybody gets to grips with them. It’s also about making sure the local authority is appropriately resourced to deliver on their versions of the design code and that it is sufficiently flexible to reflect the different types of character that each local authority will have within their boundaries, whether that’s urban or rural.

AD: One motion that’s somewhat vague in the NPPF proposals is about encouraging the greater use of small sites, especially for delivering affordable housing—the consultation is looking for people’s opinions on how this can be achieved. How do you think the policy could be strengthened to encourage the greater use of small sites and promote more affordable housing?

CF: I think it’s by streamlining any sort of administration; the bureaucratic processes are even more relevant to SME developers. These guys haven’t got a back office full of people who can do endless rounds of paperwork admin for them so, if you can make sure the key things that planners and local authorities need ticked are hit to allow an application for a small site to go through, but at a lighter, less bureaucratic level, I think that would really help and wouldn’t put off so many SME developers. I know guys who will not get involved in the planning process and will buy only oven-ready sites whereas, if the process was a bit more streamlined and black and white, they would certainly look at that as an avenue.

AJ: Absolutely. Also, when allocating small sites, lots of local authorities just leave those to windfalls but, actually, there are some that should just be allocated. It just makes it much easier and cleaner, and authorities can say what they are expecting on it. It’s also about being really clear about affordable housing and making sure those thresholds are decided in a way that makes it viable for small operators.

RB: In a sense, this goes back to the zoning point earlier of just having a much more simplified process for specific areas and certain kinds of development. If there was a set of criteria that were applicable to small sites—one would obviously define what’s small, medium etc—it would make it infinitely easier for a lot of developers. They could also anticipate what their margins would be like at the start of the process with a lot more clarity.

AJ: I think that’s right in terms of the principle, and then perhaps the details—the neighbour interaction and everything else— still needs a level of policy influence. But, in terms of the principle of bringing forward a site, you’re absolutely right.

RW: The government views SMEs as small [if they are delivering] up to 100 homes, medium for up to 2,000 homes, and large for above 2,000. That doesn’t really marry to what most people think of as an SME, so they need to change that so it will allow us to automatically collect data in the right way. One of the ways they could do that more easily is to amend the planning definitions. So, a minor site would have up to 10 homes/ units, a medium-sized site—which should be added—between 10 and 50, and then a large or major site could be above 50. Technically, in the NPPF, there is already some sort of mention of a medium-sized site, so that should be quite an easy thing to do. With regard to streamlined planning, we already have local development orders (LDOs) in place, but they’re not really used for housing. But, if you wanted to build a bunch of Passivhaus homes, you could use an LDO for Passivhaus homes in an area so, if you’re delivering there, you get a streamlined planning process. So really, we’re not very strategic in the way we consider this, and that really does impact SMEs. And, obviously, you’ve got the allocations. Alyson correctly mentioned we need to allocate some of those smaller sites—we can do that by having a smaller sites register that you can dip into easily and give yourself a bit more certainty, because those sites do deliver more quickly and, actually, they proportionately deliver more affordable housing. The final point is the subdivision of large site policy. If you strengthen the compulsory purchase order process local authorities have and reduce some of the costs of the legal elements, then you could deliver those sites for SMEs—either with services in place, or many SMEs joining together as we used to do before the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

AJ: I think the new framework almost needs to go backwards for the time being, so at least we can progress with some clarity and take back from this knee-jerk reaction to the backbench rebellion and really make local plans progress. The government just needs to say what they are going to do and when, as we still don’t know what the changes will be and when they’ll come through, although some of the NPPF changes are now expected September 2023. So, I think it will be better to say they’re not going to bring any of these fundamental changes in now, and leave it to the next administration.

CF: Yes. The new NPPF doesn’t seem to do anything to resolve the issue of the difference between national need and the local government, with regard to what they want to approve and put through. So, until that is sorted, I don’t think it will make a huge amount of difference. Constantly moving the goalposts on what you need to get permission is probably not particularly helpful, either. Where we are in the cycle, [they need to] optimise what we can do over the next 18 months in terms of clearing as much of the slate as possible and, when the political situation is a bit clearer, maybe someone can solve it longer term.

AD: If you could pick one specific initiative that could potentially solve all these planning delays and issues, what would that be?

AJ: Regional planning—but it would have to be done in some disguise, politically. So looking at a region and how that operates. We’ve got various local authorities working together in South West Hertfordshire, Dorset, Buckinghamshire and other parts of the country, and I think that’s probably what needs to happen.

RB: The only thing I’d add, going back to the politics of it, is that even if there was a huge overhaul and the system was restructured and made to be far more efficient, it’s only realistic with a huge majority government. Because the actual fruits of those efforts and all the political capital that one would spend doing it, you likely won’t see until you’re out of office. There’s not much political incentive to do it; there’s a lack of political mileage in doing it because you’re not going to be the party that reaps the rewards of it.

RW: Bring back Robert Jenrick’s planning reforms—I’m not even joking. They weren’t brilliant, but they were a good idea. The worst thing about that whole conversation was that it invited people to engage in betterment of the reforms and nobody did—not one political party tried to make them better; they tried to get rid of them. And that should tell you everything about the public system as it currently is; it mostly prefers tinkering because reform loses political capital, that is the big problem here. Rob said we lack political capital. Imagine if we had a government that had an 86-seat political majority: wouldn’t that be nice?

AC: The one word that keeps on getting repeated is clarity —if we had a bit of that, it would be appreciated.

CF: They need more money and resources to make decisions more quickly. It’s clear to me that planners are chronically under-resourced and therefore the decisions they’re making are not quick nor informed enough.

RB: That’s exactly what I was going to say. In the absence of proper structural reform, then the least they can do is fund the planning departments appropriately, so they have enough people to deal with the applications that are coming in. A wide-scale reform is not really going to happen any time soon; but that’s something they could feasibly do at the moment.

KK: In my opinion, I think less bureaucracy and red tape, and faster decision-making is what we all need. We need more action and fewer words.