This is very important. I had despaired of the Government doing anything as obvious and sensible as to introducing a formula under which land allocated or permitted for development would be transferred at a (say) 20% enhancement of existing use value. It seemed to me that an alternative, that did not require any change to law or policy would be for planning authorities to make more realistic assessments of what new developments should pay to meet the costs of necessary infrastructure, including housing. And then comes news of the letter from the Communities Secretary to Islington LBC.
Housing as been accepted as 'infrastructure in the Housing and Planning Bill and, interestingly, Lord Bob Kerslake (at the 2015 Nathaniel Litchfield Annual Lecture) has also used the same framing;
“What is required is for housing to be seen as a vital part of the national infrastructure and planned accordingly.” He should have added "local infrastructure" where the needs are experienced.
He added that housing needs to be planned long term and across the political and economic cycles. Housing supply needs to be “doubled” and it needs to be held at that level for “some time". See more at: http://www.theplanner.co.uk/
Having seen one argument accepted I am still waiting for a significant speech or statement that identifies the level of under-occupation in the owner-occupied sector as the most unsustainable aspect of our housing system, and a description of the progress that would be made by building almost all two bedroomed (terraced) houses; cheaper for first-timers and last-timers, quicker to build with less materials and labour, less wasted space, more energy efficiency and more friendly (or is that the problem?).