How might Andy Burnham change the Planning system?
Some might argue that in restoring Angela Rayner to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), keeping Matthew Pennycook as Housing Minister and bringing Jim McGovern back as ‘Devo man’, our new PM has signalled ‘steady as you go’.
But we can look at how the ‘Burnham’ approach in Manchester and the priorities of Angela Rayner may create a different impetus from the outgoing administration.
The ‘Places for Everyone’ Joint Development Plan in Manchester (March 2024) is an economic growth strategy, not just a housing strategy. Planning should reinforce strategic economic locations. Employment growth should relate to housing delivery.
The Plan promotes strategic links between employment, transport corridors, housing locations and environmental assets. Infrastructure (transport, health services, schools, water management etc) should all be planned and delivered alongside employment and/or housing delivery. All this reflects the same principles that should drive Combined Authorities in preparing Growth Plans and Spatial Development Strategies (SDS).
The difference is that, as a joint development plan, the Manchester Plan is able to allocate sites and determine Green Belt boundaries. So there may be a degree of frustration if the SDS and Local Plan-making come into conflict. The Joint development strategies legislated for in LURA but now repealed would have corresponded more to the Manchester approach.
Local Plans may be expected to move from being "in general conformity with" Spatial Development Strategies towards being "in accordance with" them, signalling a much stronger requirement to align with regional priorities.
As the SoS who promoted the New Towns Task Force, we can expect to see the MHCLG push forward with this project. And both Burnham and Rayner will take strong positions in favour of more social rent housing, including the 60% social rent target in the Homes England Social and Affordable Housing Programme (SAHP). This target will demand higher grant per dwelling than some other affordable tenures, making the 300,000 homes planned under the programme less achievable.
The Burnham approach to council house building implies that Councils will revive their own development capability, but in Manchester 86% of the affordable homes delivered since 2022 have been in partnership with Registered Providers (RP). Manchester and Salford have their own development capability (including Salford’s own RP), so the Burnham government may push for more councils to follow their lead (and others in London). The Manchester City plan has looked to build 36,000 homes over ten years, 10,000 of which will be social and affordable. One key area is Victoria North, which is in the priority New Towns Programme (with Mayor Burnham’s support). This will be an early illustration that ‘New Towns’ are not necessarily new settlements in greenfield locations, but include major urban regeneration and development. We can expect to see this and Leeds South Bank go to the front of the New Towns Programme. However, although the Government has seen Development Corporations as the default delivery vehicle for New Towns, Mayor Burnham (who has used MDCs, such as in Stockport) has not talked of this for Victoria North, which has an established delivery framework and where the MDC may not add value. The pragmatic choice of delivery governance may be a significant difference.
A key question now is about housing targets and the Manifesto pledge for 1.5 million new homes built during this Parliament. We are not on track for this to be achieved. The political opportunity of a change of Administration is to finesse the target. For example, the time-lags between planning permissions and completions mean that permissions granted after the December 2024 NPPF revision are only now being built out. So the rate of permissions or housing starts may be a better measure of the impact of the planning reforms. But the latest data suggests that neither measure has picked up to numbers consistent with 300,000 net additional dwellings. Some more recent measures, notably default building near railway stations and the new plan-making process, may accelerate permissions soon, but other planning approaches, like shifting from National Development Management Policies (NDMP) to National Decision-Making Policies (not NDMP!) have pulled the punches on the efficacy of the planning reforms. In any case, will the new Administration want to control the planning process, for example by using the new call-in powers in relation to anticipated refusal.
And is a mandatory national housing target, delivered through a calculation for each Local Plan, consistent with a renewed focus on devolved decision-making in any case? For Burnham and Rayner, this is a dilemma. For Pennycook, if the target goes, he will doubtless take the blame. It will not be long before new Mayors, or Local Planning Authorities under political control opposed to Labour, will seek to drive a wedge between those policies.
For now, sticking to the Manifesto and the policies intended to deliver them must be the Burnham approach. His push for more council house-building will not shift the numbers enough or quickly. He may well soon have to consider a new, devolved, structure of targets.
