Transcript Bramley_HSA_Apr2012 - Housing Studies Association

HSA Conference – York
Localised planning, sub-regional housing
markets and affordability outcomes:
modelling a new regime
Prof Glen Bramley
(Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Contact: [email protected]; +44 (0)131 451 4605)
19 April 2012
School of the Built Environment
Overview of Paper
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Major regime change in 2010 to ‘localised’ planning for new housing
(Previous planning system, policy 2004-09 and post-2010)
National Planning Policy Framework
Unpacking NIMBYism - public attitudes to local housing development
Predicting local opinion and planning stances
Initial responses by local authorities
Forecasting market and social impacts – sub-regional model
Conclusions
School of the Built Environment
Previous System
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive LU planning system (widely supported)
Plans (LDFs) vs development consents (discretionary)
Neglect of supply in policy till 2004 (Barker)
Regional spatial strategies & numerical targets,
Requirement to consider effects on affordability
New Quango NHPAU
More investment in social housing and infrastructure
But system still failed to deliver much increase in output
‘At the centre of these recommendations is the principal objective that planning
should take more account of, and use market information….Central to achieving
change is the recommendation to allocate more land for development…..A stronger
role for regional planning bodies is recommended, ….charged with setting out
advice on market affordability targets, housing numbers, strategic growth areas, and coordinating links between the key players’ (Barker, 2004, p.6).
School of the Built Environment
Housebuilding Output
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
Private Enterprise
Registered Social Landlords
Local Authorities
All Dwellings
School of the Built Environment
2006
2002
1998
1994
1990
1986
1982
1978
1974
1970
1966
1962
1958
1954
1950
1946
0
Regional Affordability Trends
FTB Mortgage-Cost-to-Income Ratios by Region & Country 1994-2010
30
United Kingdom
Percent of Hhd Income
25
North East
North West
20
Yorkshire & Humb
East Midlands
15
West Midlands
East
London
10
South East
South West
5
Wales
0
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Year
Source: Pawson & Wilcox, UK Housing Review 2011/12, Table 2.3.2.
Based on averages of FTB prices and all household incomes of working households
School of the Built Environment
Localist Planning Reform
• Critique of previous system as ‘broken’, ‘bureaucratic’ (and
unpopular)
• Scrap regional planning bodies and regional strategies
• Scrap top-down numerical housing targets (& NHPAU)
• Remove some planning guidance (re density, ‘garden grabbing’)
• Local authorities to take decisions (except where devolved to local
communities)
• Incentives – extra grant related to number of new homes (NHB)
• Broad continuance of planning gain agreements but formalised
‘Community Infrastructure Levy’
• Presumption in favour of sustainable development
School of the Built Environment
National Planning Policy Framework
• Draft published 2011 heralded radical simplification, streamlining,
promotion of economic growth & development (via ‘presumption’)
• This caused great furore
• Final version published March 2012, notwithstanding rhetoric, rows
back quite a bit from that
• Defines ‘sustainable development’ – balance of economic, social,
environmental
• Still gives primacy to Development Plan (LDF) – but must be up to
date (1 year to update post-2004 plans!)
- may draw on regional policies and evidence ‘where appropriate’
• Green Belt protection unchanged; encourage brownfield;
• Meet full need+demand evidenced for HMA (via SHMA)
• 5/10 year land supply, deliverable, with 5/20% buffer, implem strat.
• Plan for mix of size/type/tenure, incl afford hsg
• Encourage larger urban extensions & new settlements
School of the Built Environment
Sustainable Development?
School of the Built Environment
Primacy of the Plan
School of the Built Environment
So what does ‘presumption’ mean?
School of the Built Environment
Unpacking NIMBYism – public attitudes
• Past evidence/literature suggests NIMBYism quite prevalent in
England
• 2005 survey suggests strong resistance to additional housing within
existing urban neighbourhoods (‘CityForm’)
• Impacts on traffic, pollution, parking were strongest -ve factors
• 2010 BSAS suggests majority opposition, esp among
- those with a strong view - middle classes - owner occupiers
- Tory/LibDem/Green - South
- suburbs
School of the Built Environment
Attitudes by Tenure & Overall
Table 4: Support for or Opposition to More Homes being Built in Local Area by
Tenure, UK 2010
All
Support strongly
Support
Neither supp/opp
Oppose
Oppose strongly
It depends
Don't know
Total
Base
Net Support
4.9
24.8
22.5
30.3
15.1
2.0
0.4
100.0
3297
-15.7
Own
2.7
21.5
22.8
32.9
18.0
1.9
0.1
100.0
Social
Rent
13.3
34.4
17.7
22.2
10.3
1.1
1.9
100.0
-26.8
15.2
Source: British Social Attitudes Survey 2010: see Bramley ‘The Housing Challenge’ in
Curtice et al (forthcoming)
School of the Built Environment
Attitude by Type of Area
Table 5: Support for or Opposition to More Homes being Built in Local Area by
Urban-Rural Type and Broad Region
Support strongly
Support
Neither supp/opp
Oppose
Oppose strongly
It depends
Don't know
Total
City,
Village, North,
South,
Inner
town Suburbs country Mids
O Lond London
8.0
3.8
3.1
4.3
4.0
11.6
28.5
24.7
23.5
24.6
22.1
36.4
23.6
19.8
20.6
24.9
20.2
19.1
25.2
34.5
26.2
31.3
31.4
22.5
12.1
15.8
20.9
11.9
20.0
8.7
1.9
1.3
5.5
2.2
2.1
1.7
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-0.8
-21.7
-20.6
-14.3
-25.3
16.8
Source: British Social Attitudes Survey 2010: see Bramley ‘The Housing Challenge’ in
Curtice et al (forthcoming)
School of the Built Environment
What would persuade them?
• Side benefits of new housing, particularly
- employment opportunities
- greenspace, parks
- improved transport links
- schools, leisure, shops, medical etc.
• Financial incentives to residents not rated per se
• Smaller starter homes, affordable homes to buy & rent
Table 7: Type and Tenure of New Housing Needed Locally
No New Homes Needed
20
Flats/maisonettes
1-2 bedroom houses
5+ bedroom houses
14
35
3
Homes to Buy
Private Rent
LA or HA
27
8
39
School of the Built Environment
Predictive Model for Support/Opposition
• Developed predictive model for support or opposition, simple or
conditional on various side-benefits
• Step 1 – logistic regression model within BSAS micro data with
attached area attributes
• Socio-demographic factors – age (-) children (+) renter (+) flat (+)
soc class III (-) low income (+)
• Political affiliation – Lab (+) Lib Dem (+?) BNP-UKIP (-) Green (-)
• Area factors - bit city (+) village (-) low density (?+) South & Outer
London (-) area satisfaction (+) deprivation (+) existing supply level
(+) open/green land (+) Green Belt (-)
• Step 2 – predictive functions on equivalent aggregate data at LA level
• Predict majorities for development under various conditionality
assumptions (e.g. provision of greenspace & leisure; provision of
wider package of service & transport benefits) + switching possibility
School of the Built Environment
Table 5: Predicted Support, Opposition and Majorities for Development Under
Different Conditional Assumptions by Region and Type of Locality
Area Type
Support
1
G O Region
NORTH
YORKS & HUMB
NORTH WEST
EAST MIDLANDS
WEST MIDLANDS
SOUTH WEST
EAST
SOUTH EAST
LONDON
Total
0.311
0.283
0.278
0.311
0.276
0.287
0.267
0.257
0.285
0.280
Oppose 1
0.386
0.407
0.421
0.368
0.416
0.459
0.491
0.501
0.472
0.445
Prodevel
Majority
1
-0.075
-0.124
-0.144
-0.056
-0.141
-0.172
-0.224
-0.244
-0.188
-0.165
Prodevel
Pro-devel
Prodevel
Major 2
Major 3
Major 4
0.030
0.002
-0.026
0.053
-0.027
-0.080
-0.131
-0.151
-0.085
-0.060
0.045
0.003
-0.021
0.070
-0.021
-0.054
-0.111
-0.132
-0.072
-0.046
School of the Built Environment
0.350
0.345
0.320
0.365
0.310
0.292
0.239
0.235
0.316
0.301
Urban-Rural
Urban
Some Rural
Quite Rural
Most Rural
LA Supergroup
Cities and Services
Coastal and Country
London Centre
London Cosmop
London Suburbs
Mining and Manufact
Prospering UK
Total
0.274
0.273
0.305
0.350
0.454
0.455
0.409
0.330
-0.179
-0.183
-0.104
0.020
-0.064
-0.081
-0.021
0.095
-0.057
-0.067
0.008
0.131
0.311
0.278
0.303
0.380
0.285
0.304
0.357
0.318
0.241
0.285
0.266
0.280
0.401
0.420
0.338
0.491
0.556
0.426
0.472
0.445
-0.117
-0.116
0.019
-0.173
-0.315
-0.141
-0.206
-0.165
0.021
-0.035
0.136
-0.089
-0.222
-0.034
-0.113
-0.060
0.022
-0.005
0.145
-0.061
-0.207
-0.024
-0.095
-0.046
0.381
0.294
0.487
0.342
0.204
0.302
0.250
0.301
School of the Built Environment
Summing up Predicted Patterns
• Using moderate assumptions about conditional support and delivery
of some side-benefits (levels 2 & 3*)….
• ..more support in NE, Y&H, E Mids; still net oppos in other regions,
esp SE and East
• …more support in central cities, and in ‘most rural’, and depressed
areas; still more opposition in suburbs (esp London) & prosperous
areas
* Levels: 1. unconditional support 2. support if open space & leisure improved;
3. support if wider range of improvements incl educn, healthcare, transport
4. as 3. but include switching from opposition to support
Comment: level 2 probably most realistic, given public spending and development
viability constraints.
School of the Built Environment
Planning Stances
• Can we actually characterize, define, and measure the planning
stance of a LA?
• Not easy given discretionary UK system, ragged completion of LDFs,
non-standard SHLAA & AMR documents, strangely uneven collection
of stats by DCLG etc.
• Considered 11 indicators and selected 5 for composite based on
power to predict flow of new permissions
• Five selected were: log outstanding permissions/100 hhld; % small sites; social
•
completions /100 hhld; % applications granted l t ave; land available % hhld
(Other indicators discarded were: brownfield share; % area Green Belt; recent % granted; ave
decision time; 5 year land supply %).
• Existing planning stances more positive in North and East of country;
more positive in central cities and most rural areas; most negative in
suburban, peri urban and affluent areas
School of the Built Environment
Table 7: Planni.ng Stance and Former RSS Housing Target by Region and Type
of Locality
G O Region
North East
Yorks & Humber
North West
East Midlands
West Midlands
South West
East England
South East
London
England
Planning RSS
Stance
Target
0.029
0.668
0.156
0.987
0.037
0.749
0.108
1.019
-0.120
0.641
0.091
1.219
0.053
1.107
-0.052
0.911
-0.050
1.028
0.019
0.936
Rural Category
Urban
Some Rural
Quite Rural
Most Rural
ONS LA Supergroup
Cities and Services
Coastal and Countryside
London Centre
London Cosmopolitan
London Suburbs
Mining and Manufact
Prospering UK
Total England
0.029
0.003
0.888
0.985
0.009
0.101
0.992
0.969
0.076
-0.011
0.199
0.267
-0.121
0.008
-0.022
0.873
0.955
1.148
1.305
0.952
0.743
0.993
0.019
0.936
School of the Built Environment
Predicting Change in Stance
• Combined predicted conditional support for development with existing
planning stance index at LA level, to generate 4-way discrete
typology
• A lot of LAs (60%) predicted not to change
• 95 predicted to shift down their supply, 44 to shift up (slightly more
optimistic 87:53)
• Shifting up more common in north and midlands
• Shifting down predominant in London, south (and YH); in south
outside London, 62 downshifts vs 3 upshifts (!)
• Minority of upshifters are City Centres and deeper rural – some of
these have other constraints e.g. National Parks
• Downshifters include many areas formerly known as significant
growth locations
School of the Built Environment
Table 8: Predicted Change in Planning Stance towards New Housing by Region
and Type of Locality (number of LA districts in England)
Area Category
NORTH
YORKS & HUMBER
NORTH WEST
EAST MIDLANDS
WEST MIDLANDS
SOUTH WEST
EAST
SOUTH EAST
LONDON
Total
Unclass ified
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
7
No
change
Low
3
3
15
6
15
19
19
36
14
130
Change to Change to
Low
High
3
6
6
1
10
11
2
8
3
10
13
1
20
2
29
0
9
5
95
44
No
Change
High
Total
11
23
8
21
7
43
23
40
6
34
11
45
7
48
1
67
4
33
78
354
School of the Built Environment
Reviewing Soundness of Targets
• Revised NPPF makes judgement of soundness of evidence base on
housing need & demand key to what will happen
• These judgements will be made by planning inspectors
• They are likely to look at household projections, but what else?
(affordability levels or changes? Environmental & infrastructure
capacity?)
• How will prolonged recession in construction impact?
(in short run, a lot of unimplemented permissions/allocations)
• System is supposed to be based on localism but a lot of intervention
from PINS could generate a lot of friction
School of the Built Environment
Smarter Incentives
• Not discussing financial incentives ‘New Homes Bonus’ in detail in this
paper, but would suggest….
• Larger marginal incentive targetted at smaller number of authorities
• Above threshold level of output
• Only for areas with significant shortfall
• Only where clear sub-regional collaboration
• Extra bonus where job growth above threshold
School of the Built Environment
Initial Responses of Local Authorities
• Some local authorities were back-pedalling on RSS targets in
anticipation of election, including legal challenges
• Some local authorities reacted very quickly following Election
• Others biding their time, uncertain of legal position and how other
aspects of system would change (e.g. LDF core strategy, attitude of
PI’s, PFSD)
• Two unofficial surveys in Sept 2010 & May 2011 provide a consistent
picture
• About half of LAs sticking to current numbers, most of rest reducing
to some extent (ave about 20% reduction for these)
School of the Built Environment
Table 8: Early Indications of Reductions in Planned Housing Numbers in
Southern Regions
Region
Official
Unofficial
South West
52,910
10,400
63,310
RSS targ
pa 20 yr
29623
East of England
20,490
10,700
31,190
25400
122.8%
6.1%
South East
15,588
13,671
29,259
32008
91.4%
4.6%
Yorks & Humber
10200
10,200
20871
48.9%
2.4%
139,589
129,389
107,902
87,031
129.4%
148.7%
6.5%
7.4%
238,193
87,031
273.7%
13.7%
Delays/refusals of PPs
Total
Total South
With expected futher
Reductions
Total
% of
1 yr
213.7%
% of
20 yr
10.7%
5630
99,188
88,988
34,771
34,771
Source: Tetlow-King Consultancy study for National Housing Federation, updated
September 2010.
School of the Built Environment
Sub-Regional Economic Model
• Model developed from NHPAU feasibility study for group of LAs
• Econometric functions linked in spreadsheet simulation for different
policy or economic/demographic scenarios
• Shows impact of varying planned numbers through supply, household
numbers, prices and affordability
• Consistent with earlier models
• Impacts moderate and take time
• Spatial interactions important – for example, London affordability
affected a lot by provision in surrounding South East regions
School of the Built Environment
DEMOGGRAPHY
LABOUR
MARKET
Job Struct
& Growth
HE
Students
Employment,
Unemployment
HOUSING
SUPPLY
Population
Structure
x Age
Amenities
Climate
Greenspace
Migration
In+ /Outx Age
Topograph
y
Urban/
Rural
House
Price
Skills
Credit
Int Rates
HOUSING
MARKET
Earnings,
Income
Population
Growth
x Age
New
Build
GDP
Market
Potential
Household
Formation
x type
Household
Numbers/
Growth
Affordability
Land
Release;
Planning
Regulation
Household
- Stock
Balance
Vacancies,
Sharing/
Concealed
Dwelling
Stock
School of the Built Environment
Key Component Models
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Housing supply (private completions)
Migration (gross, x age group)
House prices
Household formation (micro based)
1st 3 estimated on short panels 10 years x 102 HMA areas
Some spatial interaction terms
Some cross-sectional variables of interest
IV treatment of supply & prices
School of the Built Environment
HMA Areas Showing Price Growth
School of the Built Environment
Predicting Impacts of Localist Shifts
• Combine predicted shifts in planning stance based on BSAS analysis
and existing stance analysis with subregional market model
• Basically vary flow of permissions for up/down- shifters by +/-50% &
trace impacts
• Overall average impact for England quite small
• Regional impacts larger but in opposite directions
- more new housing in N (but not Y&H), Mids
- less new housing in S, esp SE (and YH)
• Affordability impacts match this, at smaller scale
- overall deterioration of c.1%
- but 8% worse in SE, 5% in London, 3-4% in EE
• Exact magnitude subject to several uncertainties
- but logic and direction of effects very compelling given the
evidence
School of the Built Environment
Predicted Im pacts of Localist Planning on Housing Supply and Affordability
by Region in 2026
ENG
GL
SE
Region
EE
Affordy
SW
WM
Compltns
EM
NW
YH
NE
-17.0%
-12.0%
-7.0%
-2.0%
3.0%
8.0%
% diff from baseline
School of the Built Environment
Housing and the Economy
• Concerned that likely pattern of shifts in planning stance under
localism will be broadly perverse from point of view of existing
affordability and housing need problems
• Further concern that this could well be perverse from economic
growth point of view, given that south of England has strongest
recent growth record and growth potential (e.g. from innovative
firms, private sector)
• Quite strong negative correlation between affordability and GVA
growth, already (r=-0.56)
• Predicted changes are predominantly downwards in the higher
growth areas and vice versa (r=-0.38 at district level)
• Systematic downshift in the key growth regions (SE, EE)
• More positive shifts/stances in deeper rural areas could be unhelpful
or lead to excessive sprawl and high commuting costs, emissions etc.
School of the Built Environment
Affordability and Predicted Plan Shifts by GVA
Growth
Affordability in 2007 by Real GVA Grow th 1997-2007
70.0
50.0
40.0
affordy
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
Real GVA Grow th % pa
Predicted Change in Planning for New Housing by Real GVA Grow th
1997-2007
1.60
1.40
Change Plan
% able to buy
60.0
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00%
chgplg
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
Real GVA Grow th % pa
School of the Built Environment
5.00%
HMA Areas showing GVA Growth
School of the Built Environment
Conclusions
•
•
The 2010 regime change in England is pretty radical for UK;
hence impacts very uncertain; although revised NPPF more ‘reassuring’
Public attitudes generally negative, especially in key southern suburban &
small town areas
- but may be susceptible to shifting with good packages of infrastructure and appropriate housing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Incentives unlikely to be enough (altho CIL may help)
Actual decisions so far show cuts in plan numbers esp in south
Index of planning stance and predicted changes in stance generally negative
in pressured south
Modelled impacts show affordability benefits take time and spill across
boundaries – creating ‘planners dilemma’
Subregional collaboration desirable but wobbly
Much depends on how PI’s interpret ‘soundness’ of local plans in light of
‘evidence’ in SHMAs & SHLAAs
Overall balance of evidence suggests significant danger that new regime will
lead to less housebuilding and worse affordability
..and it is likely to further limit national economic growth
School of the Built Environment