{"id":40295,"date":"2018-04-11T14:35:24","date_gmt":"2018-04-11T13:35:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/?p=40295"},"modified":"2018-04-11T14:35:24","modified_gmt":"2018-04-11T13:35:24","slug":"industry-leaders-say-automatic-building-will-not-speed-up-housing-delivery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/planning-construction-news\/industry-leaders-say-automatic-building-will-not-speed-up-housing-delivery\/40295\/","title":{"rendered":"Industry leaders say automatic building will not speed up housing delivery"},"content":{"rendered":"

According to planners, surveyors, developers, financiers and built environment experts interviewed for a study commissioned by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)<\/a>, attaching automatic planning permission to housing land allocated in local plans in England would have limited impact on increasing the supply of homes<\/h2>\n

The RTPI\u2019s Planning\u00a0Risk and Development<\/em> study examined how developers would react to a system similar to the \u2018zoning\u2019 approach used in the US, and explored the impacts of \u2018planning risk\u2019 which is often cited as a major development cost and barrier to accessing finance.<\/p>\n

It found that \u2018planning risk\u2019 was used to describe a wide range of impacts, with a large proportion of these not relating to the granting of the permission itself. It also found that these impacts vary according to applicant and site size.<\/p>\n

The research discovered that the recently introduced Permission in Principle (PiP)<\/a>, where development rights are laid out for particular areas in advance, might make it easier for smaller developers to secure finance since lenders know development would be permitted.<\/p>\n

However, interviewees were sceptical whether PiP would speed up the planning process. They raised concerns that political and public opposition could upset the scheme later, and that it could trigger land speculation and drive up prices.<\/p>\n

Interviewees also expressed significant concerns about the capacity for local authorities<\/a> to undertake PiP effectively due to the need for detailed site information to make sure there are no constraints that would prevent development.<\/p>\n

Since 2016 local authorities have been able to give PiP to a site on a new brownfield register. At the time of research, no PiP had been given to any site in England.<\/p>\n

Richard Blyth, RTPI Head of Policy Practice and Research, said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis study offers timely insight into the delicate balance that a planning system needs to achieve between flexibility and certainty, democracy and development efficiency. It appears that while zoning-like mechanisms like PiP may be useful in limited cases, they would not make development significantly easier.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur planning system<\/a> already has various existing ways to increase certainty for developers. Local authorities should be more proactive in deploying these means.\u201d<\/p>\n

The RTPI\u2019s Planning Risk and Development study used a qualitative research approach into the widely held assumption that sluggish housing supply was mainly due to regulatory barriers, and in particular to the operation of the planning system.<\/p>\n

Key findings of the Planning\u00a0Risk and Development study included:<\/h3>\n