The Government proposes fines to force developers to ‘get on and build’
Those deliberately sitting on vital land, without building the homes promised, could see their sites acquired by councils where there is a case in the public interest.
They could also be stripped of future planning permissions, demonstrating that the government’s Plan for Change means business in a bid to deliver 1.5 million new homes.
Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, Angela Rayner, said:
“This government has taken radical steps to overhaul the planning system to get Britain building again after years of inaction. In the name of delivering security for working people, we are backing the builders, not the blockers. Now it’s time for developers to roll up their sleeves and play their part.
“We’re going even further to get the homes we need. No more sites with planning permission gathering dust for decades while a generation struggles to get on the housing ladder. Through our Plan for Change, we will deliver 1.5 million homes, fix the housing crisis and make the dream of home ownership a reality for working people.”
Councils will gain the power to fine developers for homes that remain unbuilt, under new rules planned by the government. They already have the power to purchase land compulsorily.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) propose that developers will have to commit to delivery timeframes before they can get planning permission for new homes, and submit annual returns to councils showing their progress.
because Councils have long argued that developers’ ‘land-banking’ is a problem.
Developers who consistently fail to build on sites with planning permission, or who secure permissions “simply to trade land speculatively,” could soon face paying a “Delayed Homes Penalty” to the planning authority, worth thousands for every unbuilt home.
In the case of Trinity, it has sat on the consent Waverley granted for 1,800 homes yonks ago, on the borough’s largest brownfield site with a further 500, or more, earmarked in its local plan.
The MHCLG stated that the proposals aim to ensure developers fulfil their commitments and do not leave sites half-finished for years.
The ministry stated that in cases of public interest, developers who “deliberately sit on vital land” without building homes could also have their sites acquired by councils and have their future planning permissions revoked.
The government is also testing a requirement for large sites to be mixed-tenure by default, stating that build-out is twice as fast where more than 40% of homes are affordable.
They are included in a working paper on planning reform, “Speeding Up Build Out,” and a technical consultation on transparency and accountability measures for build-out rates on housing sites, which have been published.
These decisive changes will support housebuilders in adapting to build more and faster by incentivising a model that works for both developers and communities.
When major reforms to streamline the planning system were introduced last summer, the industry pledged to work with the government to build out as quickly as possible.
They now need to fulfil that promise. The government continues to support the industry with the tools and resources it needs—but in return, the Deputy Prime Minister’s message to housebuilders is that they need to get on and build.
These reforms play a crucial part in the government’s Plan for Change, which aims to build 1.5 million homes this Parliament and deliver the most significant boost in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.
Work is already underway through the new pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework, which includes mandatory housing targets for councils. This will drive UK housebuilding to its highest level in over 40 years and add £6.8 billion to the UK economy by 2029/30.
This is in addition to seismic planning reforms introduced through the landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which aims to make it quicker and easier to build 1.5 million homes and boost the economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next decade.
LGA spokesperson Adam Hug (Lab) said the organisation had been calling for it “to be easier for councils to penalise developers and acquire stalled housing sites or sites which have not been built out to timescales contractually agreed”.
“Too often, [councils] are frustrated when developers do not build the homes they have approved. While intervention of this sort is a last resort, this move is crucial to help ensure meaningful build out of sites,” added Cllr Hug.
Arguing that developers cannot build the necessary number of homes needed on their own, he also pointed out that the LGA has set out measures “needed to empower councils also to be able to build more affordable, good quality homes quickly and at scale”.
Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister and housing secretary, said:
“This government has taken radical steps to overhaul the planning system to get Britain building again after years of inaction. In the name of delivering security for working people, we are backing the builders, not the blockers. Now it’s time for developers to roll up their sleeves and play their part.
“We’re going even further to get the homes we need. No more sites with planning permission gathering dust for decades while a generation struggles to get on the housing ladder. Through our Plan for Change, we will deliver 1.5 million homes, fix the housing crisis and make the dream of home ownership a reality for working people.”
Now.
Let me see.
Which authority?
SCC gone.
Surrey East or Surrey South unitary authority
Note the word Councils. Not unitary authorities. Different powers.
All in the words.
The boroughs are no more.
And Trinity can simply retain it as an airfield. Especially as it will soon have a multi million pounds hangar which is to house a historic plane collection. Seems appropriate to keep an airfield and business park and besides there’s still a couple of metres of land left in Alfold. Then there’s Hascombe.
Trinity can and will exert soft pressure. It’s landholdings and political clout can stop any Government in its tracks or delay it.
I sniff a trade off.
Auntie Angie is no pushover. But equally Trinity has clout.
MM
An authority still has to pay a landowner when exercising CPO powers. Even if there are contamination issues this site still has value because it has got outline planning permission. So the authority in question (probably the new unitary) would have to raise well over £100M, and probably a lot more, so it would need loans.
Given the current debate about the debts of Woking, Runnymede and now the Surrey Heath authorities and the fact these have arisen from speculative development can I really see a new unitary taking on this level of debt given the risks? No I can’t.
So this is a personal view, but I think the idea that any local authority, unitary or otherwise, exercises CPO powers to take Dunsfold off Trinity is pretty fanciful.
What Angela wants – Angela gets! And, isn’t it about time that Trinity extracted a digit and took sone of the pressure off ‘Poor Old Alfold.” In that village developers have been riding on the back of the consent and proposed infrastructure demanded for a Garden Village at Dunsfold for years.And they will continue blindsiding gullible Inspectors time and time again.