Gove should stop playing to the public gallery and start fixing the planning system

‘More policy please, less politicking.’ That was essentially the message from the real estate industry this week after the secretary of state for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) announced this Monday that the government intends to relax planning rules in a bid to create more homes in “the hearts of our cities”.

Michael Gove’s speech came less than a week after his populist decision to block M&S’s proposed redevelopment of its Oxford Street store. Unlike the M&S announcement, which was cautiously welcomed, his latest pronouncement has not gone down well.

Pocket Living chief executive Marc Vlessing says the government’s plans “fall short of providing immediate solutions to the growing challenges facing an industry under siege”, adding: ”We need housing today, not tomorrow and that is why for the last year we, along with almost 50 organisations… have been campaigning for a small site planning policy.”

No such policy was forthcoming. Victoria Du Croz, head of planning at law firm Forsters is equally unimpressed, accusing the government of a “knee-jerk reaction”. “Neither brownfield sites or conversions of office to resi have delivered the number of new homes that are needed across the country,” she argues. “Re-focusing on these planning mechanisms by expanding permitted development rights (PDR) to shop and commercial conversions is unlikely to boost housing numbers to the levels that are needed.”

Unlikely is an understatement. Knight Frank’s head of planning Stuart Baillie notes that rather than the thousands of homes required to get the government anywhere near close to its now advisory rather than mandatory target of 300,000 homes a year, the new policy is more likely to deliver just hundreds. “This policy will only paper over the cracks, instead of getting to the heart of the issue facing the UK’s overburdened and under-resourced planning system,” he warns.

He’s right, and the reality is that those cracks are only getting larger. The problem is that it doesn’t serve the government’s purpose in the run up to the 2024 general election to acknowledge them. Playing devil’s advocate, you could argue the planning system is too broken to be fixed, and that the only option is to paper over the cracks.

But there are serious potential ramifications if the government does not address the real issues and at least attempt to implement meaningful planning reform. For one, there were major question marks over the quality of development delivered via office-to-residential PDR. Why would the conversion of stores, takeaways and betting shops be any different?

It’s one thing to live above purpose-built residential accommodation above a shop. It is quite another to live in a ground-floor retail-to-resi conversion. Plus, we all know there is still too much retail on our high streets, but, as arguably happened with office-to-residential, you can go too far, and surely, towns need more community amenities, leisure and hospitality rather than awkwardly located housing.

The M&S decision could have serious unintended consequences, too. In the heart versus head debate over refurbishment versus rebuild, there was only ever going to be one outcome. But what happens to the buildings, particularly outside London, that it is not possible to refurbish? If retrofit is now the default option, there will also need to be a huge increase in capacity and skills. Do we really see that happening.

While the refurb versus rebuild war may have been won, it is seen by some as a pyrrhic victory. That’s something, though. The government’s new housing plans are unlikely to lead to victory of any sort.