To build or not to build - that is the question

As featured in ‘A home for all within planetary boundaries: Pathways for meeting England's housing needs without transgressing national climate and biodiversity goals (opens new window)’, any discussion about a ‘housing crisis’ and how best to meet housing needs should be informed by the climate emergency and the claim that the upfront carbon emissions from building 1.5m new dwellings in the next 5 years could exceed the carbon budget for the whole economy.

Upfront carbon is being given greater attention in local plans and planning decisions (see UK Net Zero Carbon building Standard (opens new window)) but the implications need far more investigation and discussion.  On the one hand, the scale of upfront emissions from new housebuilding has not affected the Government’s ambition to see 1.5m houses built over the next 5 years, while on the other hand, it has been suggested that a ‘presumption against new housebuilding’ is required to meet carbon budgets. This would not operate as a moratorium on house building, but a way of empowering planning authorities to ensure that the limited new building that could be built without overshooting carbon budgets and targets would be directed at meeting genuine housing needs.   

The planning system has never been short of criticism but with few if any game changing proposals showing sufficient understanding of the system to have any chance of being implemented or having the effects desired by the critics. Something as apparently far-fetched as a presumption against new housebuilding might appear to be misguided and counter-productive. However, the reason it deserves consideration is that the Government’s housebuilding targets and policies in the recently revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) likely to be tested in May 2025 as part of a new carbon reduction plan required by the High Court in it finding two previous plans to be non-compliant with the Climate Change Act. The Government’s job is not helped by it having rejected the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) to place restrictions on airport expansion.  So if, in having a third attempt rejected as illegal, the Government looks for answers, the new presumption against new housebuilding could feature in the discussions.

The main effect would be that a national limit would be placed on the permissible carbon emissions from new urban development in accordance with the budgets set by the CCC, which would include buildings and associated services and infrastructure.  The undeniable need for houses at social rent would be given priority and could no longer be provided, as they are currently, as a percentage (usually between 30% and 50%) of general purpose market housing that would together, exceed set carbon budgets. Similarly older persons’ housing could be prioritised without having to compete for sites with general purpose housing.  And, building new settlements and in remote and car dependent sites (including green belts) would also be unlikely to be permitted.   The new focus would have to be on low carbon conversions and the sub-division of existing under-occupied houses. Ironically, this approach would be strictly in accordance with the original ‘presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’, that remains in the NPPF 2024, thereby ending its abuse since inception in 2012.

And lastly, in July last year, the King announced in his speech (opens new window) that the Government would be introducing a Planning and Infrastructure Bill to accelerate the delivery of high quality infrastructure and housing. This is expected to be published this month and unlikely to attract much opposition from other parties.  There are few if any voices in Westminster proposing alternative visions to building our way out of the housing crisis or constructing 150 new infrastructure projects to benefit the public and the economy.

In my view, unfortunately a lack of understanding by the Government of the different roles played by planning policy and statute will serve to add to the confusion and delays in operating the system that this and previous Governments have complained about and used as an excuse to justify further change.    

So, in conclusion, the Government is very likely to cling on to policies that have public support such as those which could fuel economic growth and address the housing crisis.  It is very unfortunate that there appears to be nobody advising the Government that there are different ways of achieving both objectives within carbon budgets, before being told to do so by the Courts. Is there the climate to consider the alternatives?

---

Daniel Scharf MRTPI has worked as a chartered planner for over 50 years in public, private and voluntary sectors. He teaches planning and writes articles and blogs (see http://dantheplan.blogspot.com/ (opens new window)) and supports voluntary groups addressing the climate and ecological emergency.

The Housing LIN also curates a dedicated webpages on a variety of planning matters for an ageing population.