Claims made by “Your Waverley’ have been rubbished by experts.

  Waverley councillors and the Local Government Association (LGA) has claimed that…

“There are sites with planning permissions where landowners and developers are deliberately not bringing them forward, and a million homes await construction.”

The Government’s new planning bill could finally penalise Waverley’s tardy developers.

But experts claim, Councils ‘may have to grant permissions for 64% more houses to meet government’s 300,000-home target’ and the  number of homes granted planning consent  by  councils may have to rise by up to 64 per cent “immediately” to hit the government’s target of delivering 300,000 homes per year by the middle of the decade.

A report commissioned from consultants – Lichfields by The Home Builders Federation (HBF ) and others,  reveal that there has been an annual rate of planning consents of between 300,000 to 400,000 homes. However this doesn’t tally with completions, so has led to the view that developers are deliberately hanging onto sites.

Bodgit and Runne Builders

 But the report rubbishes this conclusion saying…

“This fundamentally misinterprets the data. Each year the number of permissions granted  includes homes on sites that would not be built out in one or two years, some sites await funding for infrastructure (which can only be sought once permission is granted) and some permissions will be replacement permissions for approvals granted in previous years to reflect technical changes, re-design, alterations in housing mix or design detail. Successive years of units with permission will therefore incorporate significant double counting.”

The report adds: In reality, the number of homes with planning permission will need to exceed the size of the pipeline, because some permissions will be delayed, re-planned or lapse, and some will deliver homes beyond a five-year horizon, suggesting that…

“a minimum estimated total stock of around 1.7 million homes with permission is needed”.

To meet this, councils would need to sharply increase housing consents. The report sets out three scenarios: an upper scenario of 608,400 housing units consented each year; a midpoint scenario of 518,500 units consented; and a lower scenario of 428,500 units consented. These would represent rises in the amount of units consented annually of 64, 40 and 15 per cent respectively. This compares with 372,000 new homes permitted recorded by MHCLG in 2019.

The report adds that, “if the government’s ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year by the mid 2020s (assumed to be no later than 2027) is to be achieved then, given the assumed gap of two years from granted of permission to recorded completion, this means the increase in permissions is needed immediately, and by 2023”.

The report comes after Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick announced that the government is considering sanctions for developers over permissions that are not built out quickly enough.






8 thoughts on “Claims made by “Your Waverley’ have been rubbished by experts.”

  1. Mmm, but as they say “some permissions will be delayed, re-planned or lapse, and some will deliver homes beyond a five-year horizon”. That’s the point. I’m all in favour of building plenty of inexpensive new homes. But covering Waverley with vacant sites which might or might not get built on sometime over the next 5 years doesn’t seem sensible.

    I don’t especially blame developers – naturally they want to make money, and as a socialist I always say we should change the system rather than pick on individuals responding to perverse incentives. Having planning permission expire after two years, with the possibility of extension where work is clearly well under way, would concentrate minds and encourage developers to focus on sites that they really are ready to develop.

  2. This is just typical of this Government…they are CONSIDERING sanctions for Developers – Really?? they should IMPOSE sanctions for anything that is not built out within a reasonable time frame and those should be Very Costly. There are so many developers that go for Planning only to selling the land on with permitted Development which almost always results in delays. This Government runs on a DEVELOPER LEAD policy for Housing with no concideration given to local infrastructure or needs.

    This “expert’s” report was paid for by HBF (Home Builders Federation) and LDPF (Land Promoters and Developer’s Federation) whose member’s contributions make up 13% of all Conservative Party funding (£891k in the first quarter of this year alone)
    The Secretary of State, Robert “Bob the Builder” Jenrick even held onto his job after he admitted breaking the law over the Richard Desmond affair. (yes the lunatics have been running the asylum for years) Time to break up this sleazy affair.

  4. Due to under delivery in the last administration, Waverley was asked by the Local Plan inspector to include a 5% buffer to make sure they hit targets, so the principle of this article already applies to Waverley!
    In October 2020 Waverley published it had a 5.3 year housing supply. What went wrong?

  5. Which sites around here does Waverley Council saying are being sat upon by developers to make more money, has anybody said?

  6. I would also add –
    With Trinity selling DP
    Other sites no longer coming forward such as Milford Golf Course because of restrictive covenants
    Sites being delayed generally
    Sites re-submitting new applications because the existing grants of approval are not financially viable because of S106 and CIL – EG – Alfold Garden Centre.

    All these sites will need to be removed from the 5 YHLS position statement as they cannot be deemed deliverable.

    WBC are due to release the 1st April 2021 position statement. Based on last years position statement this is unlikely to be published until October 2021 so we have a few months to wait. However, with all these sites needing to be removed I suspect the true 5 YHLS position is going to be well under four years.

    Will all this mean WBC must provide a 20% buffer to their housing allocation figures. I’m not sure of the figures on supply over the last three years but with under delivery recently and COVID affecting delivery the outcome will could be a disappointment.

  7. Interesting post by SP which I think is spot on other than the comment Milford Golf Course is not ‘coming forward’ at the moment.

    The revised reserved matters application was validated in early June but contained a lot of mistakes which to their credit officers picked up. Some of this has been sorted out but not everything, not least Natural England has just objected to the revised design of the SANG……………..

    However it looks to as if as a result of the shenanigans over Red Court and consequent delays to LPP2 (which have nothing to do with Milford or Witley) there is now unseemly haste to push MGC through with all speed and sweep the many design deficiencies under the carpet and blame the ’tilted balance’.

    The restrictive covenant issue still has to be resolved, but I doubt anything will happen until after reserved matters is granted. I suspect Stretton (still the landowner) and CALA (the house builder) think there is a better chance of getting the restrictive covenant removed or varied by the court, in this case the Lands Tribunal, with reserved matters in the bag.

    So I think we could see MGC take a few steps forward but then stall again, for months if not years while everybody goes off to Court.

  8. The much bigger question is how reliable are the housing demand figures the government apply to councils? How many empty dwellings and second/third/fourth/plus “homes”? How many bought-off plan apartments which are kept as investments m but rarely lived in, how many unfit/derelict/ properties? How many empty offices that were built speculatively? How many under-occupied dwellings?

    The figures supplied by the property-industry-funded government (with all the revolving doors and back-scratching, a tiny glimpse of which Cameron’s dealing with Greensill reveal) are loaded with an agenda, which is NOT to provide sustainable, comfortable and affordable living space for the average citizen, but to make oodles of dosh. For them and their mates. Jenrick is just another corrupt member of the club bound together by mutual self-interest based on screwing over the rest of us.

    Why accept the fabricated premise upon which the whole rotten edifice of development is based? If they really wanted to ensure everyone had somewhere to live, don’t you think they might just have managed it by now? What effect would that have on house prices? We are all complicit because we want our house to keep shooting up in value, but a supply matched to the real need would destroy the speculative bubble from which these people make a fortune. So it’s keep on with the pretence, lies, urban spread and blight as generation rent becomes more debt ridden and dependent. Wake up!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.