Save £1000s on professional advice
Early Bird Offer! Free tickets to meet independent experts at this summer's Build It Live
Save £24 - Book Now!Early Bird Offer! Free tickets to meet independent experts at this summer's Build It Live
Save £24 - Book Now!Estimate your project costs instantly with Build It's interactive self-build cost calculator
Calculate NowGet an accurate, detailed cost breakdown of your project
Submit plans
Our current government was elected on a pledge to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament. They intend to do this by making quick changes to simplify planning rules – but seven months after coming into power, have they managed to make a difference?
In this article, I’ll share how people – including both architects and clients – are impacted by the current planning environment, what affect proposed changes are likely to have, and whether there’s anything additional that can be done to support more quality development.
Has the time finally come when the government is as exasperated by planning as the self build industry and clients? Delays caused by the installation of a large bat tunnel for the HS2 project suggest so. There’s a whiff of a fresh planning zeitgeist, which is powered by both the people impacted by the system and the policy makers themselves.
We are being promised more effective processes, rooted in sustainable core values. I expect we’ll see more press coverage of the many extraordinary planning issues that cause delay and expense. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill (due in spring 2025) will probably have more to say about this. But a recent review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) didn’t herald dramatic changes. So, I’m not expecting significant impacts.
Most architects want to create better and more sustainable buildings that cater for clients’ current needs and those of future generations. As a practice, we’ve realised hundreds of bespoke homes that reflect these principles. From our work over 20 years, I know that the majority our of clients – self builders or small developers – desire the same result.
Alongside our customers, we create homes that are of a significantly better quality than those found on large estate developments. Surely, local authorities and the planning system should look to facilitate more of this and encourage people to build their own homes to decent standards? Yet when we submit applications, even for one-off houses, I get the sense that our core values are not shared. We often get an adverse overreaction from officers, who effectively prevent our modest levels of development.
It feels like we’re grouped with mass housing developers, whose projects are rarely architect-designed. This triggers fear from local authorities and NIMBY (not in my backyard) objections, leading to delays. Planning officers, aiming to avoid controversy, often approve only the types of development already accepted elsewhere. With case officers seemingly personally accountable for their decisions, refusing anything different becomes the safest option – ultimately stifling innovation and sustainable design.
Plans have been adopted to control development. In my view, it’s correct to do so – but the rules they currently impose often put a stop to smaller scale development with onerous conditions.
For instance, many Neighbourhood Plans set out ambitious environmental requirements. These are treated seriously by self builders and small developers, while the developers of much mass housing seem to manage to avoid the need to comply. Our planning system has to change to support the kind of well-designed, small-scale development that’s currently resisted by locals and planners. It’s expensive to counter such resistance, rendering smaller schemes financially unviable.
Incremental, edge-of-settlement growth offers a gentle route to increasing UK-wide housing supply – but could a new grey belt designation and related policies favour big developers over self builders? Photo: iStock.com/Nickbeer
As a result, we’re not increasing housing numbers as we used to – through gradual, incremental development. Instead, the big housebuilders can use their considerable resources to gain approval for large-scale schemes that go against local policy. They may even be resisted by locals and planners, but because councils are failing to meet their new quotas, developments are put through on appeal. This may result in large areas of housing that appear forced onto settlements, with no real thought given to the design.
It surprises me that, as a nation, we have absorbed any-town architecture, where many people live in bland and inefficient houses whose style is a pastiche of previous historic periods. We don’t see this in fashion or technology, for example, so why do we put up with it in the design of buildings in which we’re likely to spend most of our lives?
The process needs to change so that better, smaller-scale development and self building is promoted. This will allow settlements to grow more organically, encouraging better communities. Maybe Local Plans should focus on earmarking new pockets of housing, rather than on wider issues, which should be the domain of the NPPF.
CLOSER LOOK Will the grey belt help?Redesignating certain areas of land from green belt to grey belt was a key – if divisive – pillar of Labour’s election campaign. The aim of the green belt is to prevent urban sprawl, but the government thinks poorer examples can be repurposed for housebuilding. For land to be considered as grey belt, it must have one of these attributes:
All of this points to land at the edges of settlements as suitable for reclassification to grey belt. This will provide opportunities for more housing. However, the government appears to be prioritising policies that mean those plots will be snaffled by big developers ahead of self builders. Will grey belt be enough to deliver on those ambitious housing targets? I don’t think so. Suppose you could develop any piece of land; would this really deliver the amount of housing the UK requires? I’d argue not, as the process of gaining planning permission has become complicated, expensive and time-consuming. |
When I started out in my career as an architect, planning applications comprised drawings to show the site, layout of existing buildings, and the plans and elevations for the new proposal. These would be accompanied by a planning application form, including a brief statement about the nature of the scheme – such as ‘a replacement dwelling.’
An application would be submitted and a consultation for comments (generally from immediate neighbours) carried out. I could then converse with the planning officer to negotiate towards a positive decision or to make changes to the scheme. Time went by, and Design & Access Statements were required to demonstrate that we had considered the scheme in relation to its context and minimised impact on neighbouring land/buildings.
During the planning application process, we could still speak to the planning officer. Today, with many local authorities it’s not possible to speak with the case officer during consideration of the planning application. Most councils want you to submit a pre-application if you wish to have a preliminary discussion about your proposal. However, pre-planning responses are caveated with “this is the opinion of the officer and does not bind the council to any advice given.” So, it may not be worth the paper it’s written on.
Within a relatively short timeframe, the number of specialist reports and surveys that are required in order to make a planning application has increased exponentially. This is an expensive and time-consuming process, with no guarantee of getting a positive outcome for your investment.
Whether you have the results of a pre-application or not, you often have to provide the following information:
The list goes on and new requirements appear every year. You may have heard the story of the frog in the kettle who does not notice as the water around it approaches boiling point. Well, we have managed to create a planning system that nobody would have intentionally designed in one sitting; one which stifles creativity and development and results in less housing being built.
Requirements originate from local planning authorities or individual local plans and so are not applied equally across the country. This is unfair and perhaps explains how the system has grown unchecked. Most of this information should not be needed at a planning application stage and should be made a condition of a successful application, if relevant. Alternatively, the rules should be rewritten so that a base standard is expected of all development, rather than applying different requirements in different areas.
Most self builders are faced with a planning system that expects them to spend £10,000s of their own taxed money to try and find out if their local authority will let them develop their land – with no guarantees of approval before the result is known. If rejected, then a significant part of that investment in consultants’ fees etc is lost.
Homes designed and developed collaboratively, for the long-term benefit of occupants and communities, should be supported by government policy. Photo: iStock.com/MTStock Studio
It’s reached a point where many prospective clients are just not prepared to gamble such significant amounts of money, so projects simply do not happen. You might think that someone else would make an application in their place and build successfully, but I’m starting to see that this is not the case. I suspect that this is part of the reason why the government ends up missing its housing targets.
I would love to devote more of my time to doing what I do best, namely designing buildings. But architects are now expected to have expertise across all of these subject areas and manage all the relevant consultants. In turn, planning officers are expected to have the same level of expertise. They often do not, so councils employ or hire more specialists to review reports.
Meanwhile, your scheme could be refused because of something as simple as your bat survey being out of date. I would gladly include an appropriate number of bat boxes in each and every project I design, without any requirement to complete a survey beforehand. I know, from experience, that most projects impact bat habitats one way or another. This is an example of a streamlined process that the system desperately needs.
What type of housing would you like to see more of in the UK?Individually-commissioned homes (left) built to better standards of design, sustainability and placemaking, such as those at Graven Hill, or identikit estates (right).
|
There are many reasons why housebuilding levels have reduced in recent years. One of these is the unchecked growth in regulation applied to the planning system. There have also been 16 housing ministers since 2010, so nobody has stayed at the helm long enough to effectively review the course and steer the planning ship.
Successive governments have adopted piecemeal, knee-jerk policy development in response to the general public’s adverse reaction to large housing schemes and climate change. The sudden arrival of hundreds of poorly designed properties has a major impact upon small settlements, not least as the infrastructure that should also be provided is generally missing.
As a direct result, roads become even more congested, the waiting time to see your doctor goes up, there is not enough space at your local school, drainage systems get blocked or local roads have to be dug up to lay new utility pipes and so on. Small wonder locals get upset and drive councils to increase the rules upon development.
Unfortunately every developer, no matter what their size, is required to comply. Whether you are building one house or 1,000, you will need to provide all the information and reports to justify your scheme. In effect, you are assessed as a major house builder. But there’s an argument that says your outlay should be relative to the volume of development you intend to carry out.
The time has come to carry out a complete redesign of the planning system. Policy needs to be rewritten so the majority of it is generated at national level. The NPPF should set out the rules that everyone follows, including sustainability targets. They should also be written in Plain English, so they’re clear for everyone to understand (not interpret).
Local plans should only deal with the location of new housing and the associated requirements for relevant/necessary infrastructure, which largely gets omitted from most large-scale housing developments. I don’t think Neighbourhood Plans have had the impact that those involved thought they would. Instead, they have made the process more complex for everyone.
Increasing scale & densityAs an island, the UK’s land mass is limited. If people want to maintain the general openness of the countryside, then areas for development are even more restricted. Usually when you have a scarce resource you try and make best use of it. So why, with our demands on the need for housing, are we still restrained by height limitations on new development?
Above: The Build It Education House, which was designed by Lapd Architects, features a full-height basement containing a plant/utility room, home cinema and space for further accommodation Building taller will mean that we can provide larger houses on smaller plots. We should not have to be limited to two-storey or bungalow developments. Make more use of loft-style roof trusses to allow for a room-in-the-roof at a later stage in the life cycle of a building, for instance. We should also look at more basement structures where cars, cycles and bin stores could be sited, freeing up space at ground level. Regulations and liability currently limit the number of basements built in the UK. |
The amount of information to be submitted at the outset of a planning application should be greatly reduced. Perhaps a two-tier approach could be used, with approval in principle as step one to give reassurance to smaller developers, so they can continue with the next phase of their application. This may encourage more small-scale development. In addition, a number of the reports presently required should be removed. Instead, those which are relevant to the site should become conditions of development, so that their associated expenditure is not such a gamble for the house builder.
The planning process strives to protect both landscapes and people, and I would encourage the legislators to structure it so that those with the right qualifications, skills and knowledge are the ones who submit applications. This may be a contentious viewpoint, but as members of a regulated profession trained in most of these areas, architects are equipped with appropriate skills to remove a lot of the risks that the current elaborate planning system endeavours to reduce. Experts are still needed for certain specialised areas, but an examination of the desired impacts and a streamlining of the processes needed to achieve these is long overdue.
Local authorities should be focusing on facilitating development rather than finding reasons to block good projects. The planning process should be restructured so that qualified planners collaborate with clients and designers to promote better, more sustainable buildings. Emphasis should be placed on beautiful, energy-efficient dwellings that prioritise aspects such as high thermal performance, airtightness and the use of renewable technologies for heating, ventilation and power generation. Planning approval should only be granted to schemes that comprehensively address all relevant design, infrastructure and environmental considerations.
Login/register to save Article for later
