The housing shortage will only be solved through a joined-up policy, from central government to local authority that fosters better planning to match infrastructure and resources.

Local vs central disparity

The existing approach propagates sporadic developments that put local infrastructure under pressure, and often don’t provide the right housing in the right places. That is because there is a disconnect between what central government has pledged on construction targets, and political influence at a local level.

Ultimately, the government wants to promote growth. In its recent consultation on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework – the legislative tool that can force councils to increase house building – the government sent a strong message that it wants more homes, including starter homes.

This latest move is positive, encouraging small-scale developments, of 10-15 homes, on ‘exception sites’ – land around villages that has been earmarked for council-backed affordable housing. These developments will have a limited negative impact on village services, but can have a positive effect in sustaining local schools and businesses.

Are market towns the key?

More controversially, the consultation also encourages local authorities to look again at the development of the green belt, particularly around commuter market towns. This is a sensible approach. The green belt in some areas holds the key to tackling the housing crisis.

Housing in market towns in the southeast’s green belt is under pressure, and the reality is that it may need developments that help sustain and promote growth in the community. Its protection means this potential contribution is being overlooked.

Effectively, development then leapfrogs the green belt into undesignated rural areas. This disjointed approach puts pressure on outlying villages where the infrastructure and transport links may be inadequate, and does nothing to alleviate the pressure on rail-linked market towns.

Sustainable scaling

Any housing development strategy, therefore, needs to include a detailed assessment of what improvements need to be made to the local infrastructure. For example, is there a critical mass of population to warrant building a new health centre and school that will help forge a stronger community?

It is vital that planning achieves the right scale of growth to match the challenges of infrastructure and amenities. Frequently this does not happen. The reason for this lies at the local political level, and this is where the disconnection from government policy needs to be addressed.

The localism agenda empowered communities to challenge, delay and block development in many cases. Five-year land supply assessments were introduced to speed up planning – by ensuring that sufficient sites for building were identified – but more emphasis has been placed on meeting these targets than on producing local plans. It is these plans that provide the key to better development.

A joined-up approach is needed

Local plans provide powerful, precise tools that allow planners to fine-tune the infrastructure to suit the local development needs. In reality, authorities have not been producing these because they are exposed to public challenge, and hence can be politically damaging.

The challenges also cause delays, which, while conveniently allowing politicians to sidestep difficult decisions, contribute to the crisis by creating a logjam of planning applications. As local authorities are still duty-bound to provide more housing, consents are then given outside the local plan system.

Sadly, until the government forges a joined-up policy and encourages detailed local plans ahead of applications, we will continue to see an uncoordinated, sporadic policy that will never adequately solve the housing crisis.