Compulsory purchase order changes are not a quick fix to deliver more homes

Recognising the need to reverse the reduction in affordable and social housing that we saw in the final years of the Conservative government, Labour’s general election manifesto promised to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation and further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules, ‘to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery, and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity, and transport benefits in the public interest’.

The new government was quick to produce a summary of the future Planning and Infrastructure Bill which repeated the manifesto commitment regarding affordable housing and compulsory purchase.

With parliament having returned from summer recess, we expect the Bill to be published imminently.

The announcement the policy in June last year met with concern. The British Property Federation raised the issue of protracted legal challenges and the risk of regeneration being delayed or not progressing due to dispute. It stated that any incoming government would be unable to deliver such a policy in its first term. Similarly the National Federation of Builders raised concerns about changes to land use which may not be compatible with broader development plans.

The National Housing Federation, on the other hand, saw potential benefits in diverting ‘landowner profits into desperately needed new social housing and community infrastructure,’ which, it said, could only be achieved through a reduction in land values across the market. This, of course, could come at the detriment of many sectors of the property industry and have unintended consequences.

So can compulsory purchase be made fair? Accepting that the policy will concern landowners and others who benefit from the sale of land (the Church, universities and charities being among the country’s largest landowners), the manifesto had pledged to, ‘Take steps to ensure that for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission’. However, the very fact that the acquisition is made through the CPO process suggests that it goes against its owner’s wishes. It will be important to look at the policy in more detail and reflect on the implications on landowners alongside the need to resolve the housing crisis.

But in addition, policy doesn’t have the potential to deliver the homes as quickly or as cheaply as the headlines suggest. While there is a place for compulsory purchase in planning, this tends to be for large scale infrastructure schemes considered to be in the national interest – such as HS2 or the Olympic Park.

I believe there are better ways to deliver smaller scale affordable housing. This involves root and branch reform of the planning system, and the imminent Planning and Infrastructure Bill is the ideal means by which to do this.

The planning system of the previous administration has proved to be incapable of delivering Labour’s objective of 1.5 million homes in this parliament. Recently introduced legislation, from a slowdown in producing local plans to the Building Safety Act, nutrient neutrality rules and biodiversity net gain, has slowed the pace of approvals and therefore the delivery of new homes.

 To address the current shortage, the government must focus on reform to the planning system which facilitates building at scale. Many of the proposals in the draft NPPF are welcome, specifically anything which encourages a more regional approach to planning. Specifically, the draft NPPF proposes new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning, including short-term measures to strengthen cross-boundary cooperation ahead of introducing formal strategic planning mechanisms through new legislation. It also seeks to identify priority groupings of other authorities where strategic planning - in particular the sharing of housing need requirements - would provide particular benefits.

>>See also: The ins and outs of Labour’s new National Planning Policy Framework

Deliverability requires all local planning authorities to be well-resourced, and there are indications that Labour will address this problem, providing funding for the additional planning officers and resources necessary. This is encouraging and will be of immediate benefit.

Compulsory purchase, on the other hand, is not a quick fix. The CPO process involves protracted negotiations with owners, extensive public consultation and paperwork. There have been instances where CPOs have taken more than 20 years on some sites. The policy doesn’t have the potential to deliver the homes as quickly or as cheaply as the headlines suggest.

 If housing targets are to be met- the government’s considerable majority should be utilised to speed up the planning system to encourage SME developers to get building, provide for new towns legislation (for which CPO is well suited) and use centralised planning resources to ensure the best location, size and community benefits align with public interest and national infrastructure.

 Ian Barnett, national land director, Leaders Romans Group (LRG)