Planning Issues 1 - Planning and the Regulation of Local Capital
IMPORTABT NOTE: This is an intial contribution to the Core Planning Policy Debate and is the start of a number of articles that explores some of the fundamental issues that need to be considered. The ideas set out are purely to encourage discussion and do not constitute any sort of policy approach either from me or any organisations I am associated with.
PLANNING AND THE REGULATION OF LOCAL CAPITAL
When Councillors discuss planning issues they understandably look at how planning policies affect the local area.
Most of this is about design or density.
However in economic terms we know that planning policies also act as a regulatory function in the creation of new capital.
By understandably restricting densities our planning policies inevitably restrict the acquisition of capital by our own local residents.
A good example of this was the Lavender Avenue planning application, where residents who hoped for £60,000 extra on the value of their property were opposed by the Council, who responded to the concerns for residents living nearby the proposal.
For example if a policy was adopted that allowed substantial areas of the borough to increase to at least 4 to 6 stories in height (with even higher heights for town centres) we know that the value of the land with planning permission would increase.
For existing residents their property would be worth more. For potential residents, in theory the price of property might drop, though this might only happen if the same policy occurred in a much wider area, rather than on a borough basis. We can broadly assume these likely outcomes as we know there is a clear demand for property in the borough and a lack of supply. You do not need to be Kate Barker to know that waiting lists and house prices amply demonstrate this.
However we also know that such an approach won't be agreed locally by any of the political parties as such a radical change would almost certainly have a substantially destabilising effect on the local community as well as having substantial environmental impacts.
There are of course social cohesiuon issues too. Any extra capital would be gained by those who already had it, but it would not benefit the 30% of households in the borough who do noy have capital invested in housing. Thus whilst a large majority of households would benefit, it would lead to a widening capital gap between them and a significant minority.
Clearly there will be some basic consensus for incremental change, even if there are differences as to how incremental it should be and the pace of change! In the Core Planning consultation, Council officers set out three options and these are a sensible range to engender a series debate on capital acquisition issues.
Generally the Council develops planning policies that are ostensibly about design and density and do not cover issues to do with the acquisition of capital and its impact on the local economy. Yet however low density we intend to keep the borough, some of our own aspirational residents will seek to push and change that figure and secure more capital for them and their households.
Council Officers in this area also understandably see themselves as professional planners rather than local economists.
Councillors also talk in design and density terms but we also know at least some of them have experience in developer issues as well. Instead of political point scoring in this area, perhaps we should all be a little more open to at least debate these sort of economic issues, prior to coming to an overall policy decision based on the options presented in the Core Planning Policy consultation.
This posting therefore poses the question: in view of the challenges this borough faces over housing demand, population change and suburban sustainability, will the Core Planning Policy debate lead to some work on the issue of planning and distribution of personal capital acquisition through housing, so we are fully aware of the likely impacts in the coming years?
PLANNING AND THE REGULATION OF LOCAL CAPITAL
When Councillors discuss planning issues they understandably look at how planning policies affect the local area.
Most of this is about design or density.
However in economic terms we know that planning policies also act as a regulatory function in the creation of new capital.
By understandably restricting densities our planning policies inevitably restrict the acquisition of capital by our own local residents.
A good example of this was the Lavender Avenue planning application, where residents who hoped for £60,000 extra on the value of their property were opposed by the Council, who responded to the concerns for residents living nearby the proposal.
For example if a policy was adopted that allowed substantial areas of the borough to increase to at least 4 to 6 stories in height (with even higher heights for town centres) we know that the value of the land with planning permission would increase.
For existing residents their property would be worth more. For potential residents, in theory the price of property might drop, though this might only happen if the same policy occurred in a much wider area, rather than on a borough basis. We can broadly assume these likely outcomes as we know there is a clear demand for property in the borough and a lack of supply. You do not need to be Kate Barker to know that waiting lists and house prices amply demonstrate this.
However we also know that such an approach won't be agreed locally by any of the political parties as such a radical change would almost certainly have a substantially destabilising effect on the local community as well as having substantial environmental impacts.
There are of course social cohesiuon issues too. Any extra capital would be gained by those who already had it, but it would not benefit the 30% of households in the borough who do noy have capital invested in housing. Thus whilst a large majority of households would benefit, it would lead to a widening capital gap between them and a significant minority.
Clearly there will be some basic consensus for incremental change, even if there are differences as to how incremental it should be and the pace of change! In the Core Planning consultation, Council officers set out three options and these are a sensible range to engender a series debate on capital acquisition issues.
Generally the Council develops planning policies that are ostensibly about design and density and do not cover issues to do with the acquisition of capital and its impact on the local economy. Yet however low density we intend to keep the borough, some of our own aspirational residents will seek to push and change that figure and secure more capital for them and their households.
Council Officers in this area also understandably see themselves as professional planners rather than local economists.
Councillors also talk in design and density terms but we also know at least some of them have experience in developer issues as well. Instead of political point scoring in this area, perhaps we should all be a little more open to at least debate these sort of economic issues, prior to coming to an overall policy decision based on the options presented in the Core Planning Policy consultation.
This posting therefore poses the question: in view of the challenges this borough faces over housing demand, population change and suburban sustainability, will the Core Planning Policy debate lead to some work on the issue of planning and distribution of personal capital acquisition through housing, so we are fully aware of the likely impacts in the coming years?
posted by Charlie Mansell at 10:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home