Housing shortage special: Interview with Kevin Gibbs, Partner at Bond Dickinson Part 2

A recent report ‘Housing – Nationally Significant Infrastructure’ by law from Bond Dickinson and planning consultants, Quod, urged the government to consult on the feasibility of bringing housing within the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime in a effort to help tackle the housing shortage.

In the second and final part of the interview, UK Construction Media spoke to Kevin Gibbs, partner at Bond Dickinson, about the potential benefits of including housing within NSIP and what that might mean for the greenbelt.

Tell us about the benefits that NSIP would bring to housebuilding?

The NSIP approach is about planning and the report suggests some criteria that where the local plans aren’t being delivered in time, there might be means by which an applicant can go to the Secretary of State to get consent.

Section 35 of the Planning Act does give the Secretary of State pretty wide discretionary powers about allowing a project through.

Where an application has been accepted and is going through the system, it doesn’t only address the planning issues. So where you’ve got resistant authorities, the duty to cooperate – which is a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework – isn’t happening.

Many local plans are failing because authorities are not cooperating. It not only addresses the planning issues but also the land acquisition because you’ve got a compulsory purchase element of it and also, it’s properly controlled.

It doesn’t give anyone an advantage in the market place but what it does do is, where you’ve got difficulties with land owners that are maybe holding out, you have a system in place of negotiation and also a proper land strategy in place.

Some projects approved via NSIP have been successful due to them having a limited lifespan. This won’t necessarily be the case with housing will it?

No that’s absolutely right but there will be some schemes that will have a life span. You could say that Hinkley nuclear power station has a 150-year life span! The railways and road schemes are all permanent for instance.

You’re right though– waste schemes, like some wind power ones aren’t necessarily going to be there for a hundred years but may be there for 40 or 50 years. There are elements within the infrastructure world where the lifespan will be 25 or 30 years and then revert, like landfill sites. There are few of those and more of the major schemes that are going to permanent.

If NSIP were applied to housing would the greenbelt be under threat?

The government has been quite robust in terms of not wanting greenbelt to be built over.

If you look back at the Wolfson Economic Prize last year, the winning team did actually look at greenbelt land as being areas where you can have very sustainable developments but with safeguards of ensuring that as much greenbelt is supplied as taken.

It’s not about absolute reduction of greenbelt land; it’s about changing the shape potentially of the greenbelt area. If you look back in history, both Letchworth and Welling Garden Cities were developed by the private sector albeit in obviously a completely different planning world.

I think what the report is suggesting is that over the years, if you look at new town legislation, you’ve had development corporations that assist places like Ebbsfleet and there are three or four larger developments coming through with development corporation assistance.

The legislation and the means by which these projects are delivered is very much government funded – civil service or local authority instigated. What the NSIP approach could do is harness the long term investment funding, which in the age of austerity can only help.

The report is saying this is a debate that needs to be considered. It asks the question: “Is there scope for using the 2008 act or elements of it to bring the private sector, with its funding and the knowhow, to energise the means which we get new housing?”

With appropriate safeguards in place, with proper criteria, with ministerial statement about the actual criteria, you would be able to enter in the process and there maybe some advantages.

Is it fair to say that assuming the NSIP can deliver more housing development approvals, there is still the skills shortage to overcome?

There is clearly a skills shortage but the NSIP is another factor in the construction industry. The construction industry is doing its best to address the skill shortage, whether that’s through immigration or training.

There is a need for major investment to overcome the skill shortages but there are various elements to how and why we are in this predicament of the housing shortage.

Is there a danger that applying NSIP to housing developments could see too much rigidity put in place?

If you cover the policy in too much criteria, then any benefits may not arise so it’s no longer attractive to the market.

In commercial and business, you can have Development Consent Orders (DCO) for that now but there is only one scheme that’s come through which is the London Paramount scheme. They were looking at maybe ten or so a year but that’s just not happened. That’s not because of criteria, I just think potentially one of the issues is it’s not mixed with housing because you can’t have housing as part of the scheme. That doesn’t attract the commercial and industrial developers necessarily.

They are looking at an element of housing within DCOs but that’s very much an associated development as part of a main project.

We haven’t seen the details yet but at Hinkley they had an issue with as to whether workers’ houses would be included and that was considered not to be, so had to go through the planning process for instance.

There is scope at the moment because the government is looking at an element of housing within DCO projects. I think what the report is arguing should be consulting on a wider element of housing so that becomes the project. Clearly with infrastructure, you can’t have one or the other; there will be infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, etc. within a housing led NSIP.

You’re right though, if you put too many restrictions that could be something the market wouldn’t find attractive.

It’s really just contributing to the debate that’s what report is there for. If the government sees merit in this and a sees this is a way forward and as an alternative to the local planning system we’ve got, I would have thought there was some advantage to it from the government’s perspective.

 

Read part one of the interview here.

 

 

The post Housing shortage special: Interview with Kevin Gibbs, Partner at Bond Dickinson Part 2 appeared first on UK Construction Online.