Automated and electric vehicles bill

You wait for one post and along come two.  Not only can you comment to the NIC on Congestion, Capacity and Carbon, but comments on the Automated and electric vehicles bill can be submitted to scrutiny@parliament.uk by 16 November 2017.  Review the Bill at

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/automatedandelectricvehicles.html

This Bill gives the impression that autonomous vehicles are very close to be introduced onto our road system and seeks to remove the obstacle of what party would be liable for accidents and damage.  It then conflates these difficult problems with the 'range anxiety' faced by users  and prospective purchasers of electric vehicles. This is to be dealt with by requiring petrol stations to install charging points.

For those who believe that EVs should be encouraged and that the land use planning system should be used to speed up this process Parliament could be advised that there are more effective ways of bringing this about ie ensuring that new residential and commercial developments only or mostly have space for EVs (and associated charging points), that EVs are privileged in their use of parking at workplaces, recreation and retail and on lanes on motorways and trunk roads.  There would be no need for an expensive scrappage scheme if people traded there dirty internal combustion engine powered cars  (with pollution from tyres, brakes and road as well as from burning fuel) for freedoms allocated and limited to lighter and cleaner vehicles.  The Mayor of London might think that it is okay to be paid a fee to allow drivers to reduce the lives of those in central London and to allow the poisoning of the lungs and brains of children to continue.   Figures are being quoted that equate to the Battle of the Somme and the damage to young brains might not be reversible.

So Parliament could be told not to conflate autonomy with electrification and to concentrate on expediting the latter through intelligent use of the planning system (in which case further legislation might not be necessary).

Congestion, capacity and carbon

This is an alert for those interested in the provision of infrastructure in the UK.   At https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Congestion-Capacity-Carbon_-Priorities-for-national-infrastructure.pdf   you will find the proposals from the National Infrastructure Commission with an invitation to comment by 12 January 2018.

With 200 pages to digest and respond to it is only practical to provide a few prompts for those who might be motivated to respond. 

One of the interesting statements is the claim that. "It is not possible for the UK to build its way out of congestion. … The most effective strategy to manage congestion is pricing.”  The case against road building is very welcome but there is no evidence that pricing is a more effective demand management tool than lower speed limits (which would be systemic, immediately available, fair and at virtually no public cost).  A brief comparison has been carried out by GreenSpeed at http://bit.ly/2pZb0T2  in the absence of the SEA that should have carried out.  As described, road pricing would be regressive (ie roads for the rich to drive larger vehicles further and faster), technology dependent and intrusive.  I  fact the GreenSpeed report  could have been titled 'congestion, capacity and carbon' as lower speed limits are targeted to effectively address those three issues.  The NIC refer to the 'knowledge corridor' between Oxford and Cambridge but encouragingly only mentions East West rail and not the Expressway (ie a road link that it says would just fill up with vehicles).

On other matters the NIC report seems to have overlooked gas from fracking and concentrates on how the whole energy supply system could be electrified.  It seems that  the supposed need for a bridging fuel is no longer necessary given the advances in efficiency and cost of solar, wind and batteries (or other storage).  Unfortunately Hinkley C is not described as the expensive white elephant it is now destined to be but taken as a given without criticism.

There seems to be an awakening to the advantages of express coaches but not yet to the extent that they might provide the capacity for commuting into London in a more flexible way than HS2, which will require the area around Euston to cope with about an extra 30,000 people per hour.  Saving a few minutes in the journey from Birmingham/the North will not seem so worthwhile when the station is closed due to dangerous overcrowding.

Planning for the right homes in the right places

Responses to the government's consultation 'Planning for the right homes in the right places' have to be in by 9 November. This consultation arises from the White (and green) Paper of Feb 2017

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644955/Planning_for_Homes_consultation_document.pdf

There is an assumption that changes to the National Planning Policy Framework are necessary instead of ensuring that the existing (2012) version is applied accurately and consistently.

The Foreword states that the "root cause” of the dysfunctional housing market is “very simple… ",  and justifies changing policies to increase supply. In fact, the root causes will not be fixed unless until Government understands that the true causes are not as stated in the consultation but a combination of;

a) the unequal distribution of the housing resource,

b) the mismatch between the type of houses and the needs of smaller households, and

c) government funded financial incentives and stimuli on the ‘demand’ side (eg Help to Buy, Housing Benefit, equity sharing) and the bank of mum and dad.

The Independent and the Daily Mail came out against the PMs conference pledge to provide £10 billion  more to Help to Buy pointing out that this maintains or inflates house prices disadvantaging all those not on the housing ladder.

The Government is convinced that "…much-needed new homes should be built. In doing so it will help to tackle the lack of affordability of housing in this country.".   refusing to grasp that this will have minimal impact on affordability see Oxford Economics and Redfern Review (http://www.redfernreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/20161114-Redfern-Review-modelling-paper.pdf).  This is actually a convenient truth given the extreme difficulty in increasing supply sufficiently to impact on price.  Further evidence for a disconnect between supply and price can be found in All That Is Solid: How the Great Housing Disaster Defines Our Times, and What We Can Do About It (Penguin 2014) by Danny Dorling. A report prepared without a better understanding of the housing markets will not be a robust starting point for making important policy decisions. Recognition in later sections of the consultation that housing supply is not just about numbers does not appear to have resulted in the analysis accepting that increasing supply should not be the main objective or the finding the ‘root causes’ of the housing problem.

The belief that Help to Buy is a 'good thing' is shared by the Home Builders Federation  http://www.richboroughestates.co.uk/live/news/177a.pdf a report that pleads for an extension beyond 2021.  In fact the subsidy for home buyers goes into the pockets of landowners as developers continue to pay inflated price for development land in the expectation of being able to sell at inflated prices.  The HBF should be arguing to discontinue Help to Buy as lower prices would actually widen the market.

The consultation is an opportunity to explain why a Government concerned about affordability should privilege the role of Community Land Trusts. It  is irrational for anybody concerned about property prices not to utilise the resource of CLTs which are designed specifically to keep housing at affordable levels.

It has become clear that SHMAs have not been the 'objective assessments of need' required by the NPPF. The Oxfordshire SHMA conflated 'need' with' requirements', and 'demands'.  It made no assessment of the scale of under-occupation.  It projected overall need as what number of dwellings would enable a level of affordable housing to be provided (at 35% of the total) or to accommodate a level of job growth described by the Local Enterprise Partnership.  It had no methodology to deal with the substantial growth of elderly households. Despite these failings it was taken to be the OAN by local plan inspectors and, 5 years later, is only now being accepted by Government as having exaggerated the quantitative need by about a third!  The new methodology described in this consultation will repeat these profound mistakes if it is based on the same or similar wrong assumptions.

There is little prospect of the new methodology representing an improvement if based on the assumption at para13(c) "…The affordability of new homes is the best evidence that supply is not keeping up with demand.".  The best evidence (see Oxford Economics) is that increasing supply has very limited impact on price. (eg the problem with market signals acknowledged in the consultation at para 19).  The fact that supply has little influence over price is not overcome by using 'median affordability ratios'. These might be used to justify an increase in supply, but prices (including or especially  rents) will still not fall.  The consultation repeats the fallacy (eg para 24 "There is considerable economic evidence that demonstrates that growth in house prices (and therefore worsening affordability) is inversely related to the level of house building." – from the Barker Review ) when  a genuine concern about affordability would suggest support for CLTs.

The 'limited grounds' for a, "47…. plan-making body" to adopt a different figure of need based on an, " …evidence base [which] is robust and based on realistic assumptions, and that they have clearly set out how they have demonstrated joint working.", is very likely to include measures of under-occupation which would be likely to justify the building of a very much lower number of dwellings, but of the size to meet the real needs of both new and aging households, taking into account the impact of down/right sizing (and custom splitting).

Problems of achieving cooperation between councils will arise from some LPAs adopting the simplistic approach based on 'median affordability ratios' and neighbouring councils that understand the qualitative aspects driving the different housing markets.  The Government could review the justification for removing the regional planning level and have this reinstated to overcome all the complicated arrangements being described in this consultation.

The advice at para 89 to meet different housing needs is welcome but no change to the NPPF would be desirable or necessary in light of the existing and adequate advice at para 50 of the 2012 NPPF.  LPAs (and inspectors considering development plans and deciding appeals) should simply be reminded by the SoS that assessments of different needs must be carried out and be relied on as the number of houses would be significantly affected (ie reduced) by balancing the size of households and the size of houses. It is possible (but untried) to influence the price of a relatively discrete sector (eg small houses) were supply to be concentrated and significantly increased (see para 88).  However, the Government must be prepared to meet resistance from housebuilders to any measure that would cause a reduction in price.   Their business models rely on house price inflation that directly conflict with the need for affordable housing.

There is a mass of evidence from the APPG on the Housing and Care of the Elderly, HAPPI, and Housing LIN on the housing needs of the elderly that have been downplayed or ignored.  The needs of this sector probably exceed the capacity of the whole housebuilding industry to provide housing.  But, if addressed (including custom splitting) would meet all other housing needs.  No (re)definition for 'old people' is required in light of the understanding that most if not all new housing should simply be focused on small households – regardless of age.

It is important that housing allocations or policies provided within NDPs are within a range consistent with local plans – but also of the type required. The SoS needs to clarify the point about 'positive planning' that has been taken to mean that NDPs cannot be proscriptive.  What should be made clear is that so long as the NDP is consistent with the strategic policies of the local plan and likely to be ‘net positive’ it can seek to prevent development. 

Most of the made NDPs and those being prepared are in rural areas.  80% of people living in villages express a wish to move within the village compared to about 20% in towns/cities.   In these circumstances the SoS should make it clearer (than it already is) that phasing policies are appropriate.  Currently, allocations in villages are being developed in the early years of the NDPs so that more development would be required to meet local needs arising in the later years of the plan.

The problems arising from the issue of 'viability' could be sorted by relying on 'existing use value' as the starting point.  There should be very little disagreement about that, unlike the uncertainty caused by what was actually paid – which should be immaterial. Reasonable levels of profits for landowners and developers could be specified.  There should be limited scope for disagreement about what is 'necessary' infrastructure’  (including genuinely affordable housing at levels specified in development plans) to be provided in order for new development to fully mitigate its potential environmental and social impacts.   There is an urgent need to improve the energy efficiency of all new buildings which could have limited cost implications.  These are assumptions that can be relied upon in the public interest without the need to increase transparency and expose the particular circumstances (and financial models) of the parties.  The pressure placed on infrastructure is not linear, in the sense that it increases with each individual additional house or job.  There will be thresholds that new development will have to negotiate by making higher contributions to avoid an area becoming less sustainable for both new and existing residents and businesses. There was and remains no justification to remove the liability for infrastructure payments from smaller developments. Housing markets vary across the country but the objective should be for all necessary costs to be covered (or planning permission refused) which might not result in financial windfalls from s106.  Windfalls from inflated land values would only arise from inflated house prices.

Bearing in mind that a substantial proportion of the planning application fees are actually being paid to benefit the council tax payer and other agencies to participate in commenting and often objecting to the proposals, rather than the developer, who has invested in the preparation of plans most likely to meet the examination under s38(6), the SoS should exercise caution before allowing any increase. Developers already pay separately for pre-application consultations that assist in shaping proposals in the way preferred by the LPA.

The root of the problem of delayed  'build out' has been that housebuilders over pay for land/sites and rely on house price inflation to enhance profits. The Government has expressed a desire to see the rates of self and custom building to rise from about 7% of 150,000 to 20% of over 200,000.  This system of delivery through self building conflates supply and demand so that all permissions are closely followed by implementation (even if some projects take some time to reach the final completion).  Self and custom building can also provide affordable housing (ie less than 80% of the market price for an equivalent property). As long as this sector is free of CIL and other payments (ie 106) it should fall within the definition of affordable housing that is also exempt so that the LPA does not suffer a double loss.  Custom splitting would be an even quicker to increase the supply of houses of the right type and in the right place. LPAs should be expected to have Local Development Orders setting out the terms on which custom splitting would be permitted development (eg energy efficiency refit).

LPAs should be told to reserve land from both allocations and permitted sites for custom building by individuals and associations of individuals and community led housing.  LPAs that do not reserve land from larger sites or vigorously promote custom splitting (eg through policies and LDOs) have little or no chance of meeting their legal obligation to provide serviced plots to those on the registers (a rural district has offered 6 plots to the 256 households on its badly advertised register and a London borough has not been able to offer any plots to the 400 on its register).  The SoS should take this opportunity to avoid the likely failure of LPAs to meet the registered demand that would result in appeals or even mandatory injunctions.   It is foreseeable that without encouragement (ie for custom splitting and reserved sites) the Government might have to repeal the legislation and accept the abysmally low rates of self and custom building.

Custom splitting provides the ‘right homes in the right places’ that is the purpose of this consultation.  The resultant homes and gardens would fit the space requirements  of the two (or more) households involved. The homes would be where there are existing services and facilities.  If the permission to subdivide (express or deemed through LDO) is subject to an energy efficiency upgrade then the chances of fuel poverty is reduced.  The works can also upgrade accessibility for the disabled and elderly.  The financial arrangements can include sale, rent or rent to buy (as a form of equity release).

Climate Breakdown Plan

The Government had 'promised' an emissions reduction plan (ERP) pursuant to the agreement by the Cameron Government to comply with the agreements in Paris to limit  global warming to 2 degrees (whilst seeking to achieve a 1.5degreee limit).   The post on 4/12/17 or 4 April 2017 provided a link to Planning to Reduce Carbon Emissions (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2VqOwDufNpbeVE3alBCRnJ4NjA/view?usp=sharing) that explains how the land use planning system could be used to reduce emissions by about 50%.  Before the 2017 election the Government announced that the ERP would be issued in the autumn and would take the form of a Clean Growth Plan (CGP).  Would it be too cynical to believe that this suggests a watering down of the commitments that  were seen  as necessary to this country's contribution to the achievement of the Paris COP?
Hopefully there are NGOs ready to challenge the CGP if it can be seen to be an inadequate just as Client Earth managed to force the Government to improve the air quality improvement strategy (which will still prove to be inadequate and result in legal challenges).  For those who remember that the 'bedroom tax' was a tag given to the 'spare room subsidy', it would seem to be sensible to label the Clean Growth Plan as a Climate Breakdown Plan that would be closer to its real effects.  The actual wording should be attributed to George Monbiot (column in The Guardian 30 August) who was asking for the use of some honest language in the debate about 'climate change' and regarded both that term and 'global warming' as inadequate and misleading.
Putting a shot across the bows can be a sign of weakness, signalling impatience or a concern that the Government might actually come up to the mark.  However, in a case where the Government is wedded to GDP as a measure of its performance, and no convincing plan for 'clean growth' has been produced that would achieve the carbon reductions required by the Paris COP, it seems to be reasonable to get the retaliation in first and prepare to unpack and challenge the Climate Breakdown Plan when it eventually emerges.

Migrating to a problematic future

In the Go-Between (1953) LP Hartley suggested that, 'The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there'.  It is equally true that the future will be a foreign country where things will be done differently.  In that sense we are all migrants from an uncertain present to a  future that we hope will include answers to our various problems and crises.  I hope that both cynics and sceptics will show some patience and give cusping a chance and this is why...

 

As the idea of custom splitting is discussed, the benefits and challenges both become clearer.  This is the latest description - with apologies to those readers who would like to hear something completely different.

All parties with an interest in how the planning system works (from the Chancellor of the Exchequer down to the rough sleeper in the shop doorway) should be looking for ways of sharing out the existing stock of housing before simply adding to the supply.  Until ways to re-distribute this scarce resource have been fully explored the need for new housing cannot be objectively assessed or known.   

The case for custom splitting

Over the years houses have been subdivided in a number of ways to form self-contained accommodation[1].  A divorced couple introduced a horizontal division to a four storey terrace.  A bungalow was extended upwards and divided into a pair of semis for a couple to live in close proximity.  Rear extensions have been added to a detached house providing extended accommodation to enable its division for a daughter to live next to her father.  Converting and renting out a semi basement has allowed a couple to stay in the family home. Etc etc.

The idea of 'custom splitting' (cusping) has been out there for long enough to know that it can meet individual circumstances and add to the overall housing stock with minimal building works involved.   However, there are a growing number of reasons to believe that local planning authorities should be encouraging cusping in order to move it into the mainstream in the provision of ‘new’ housing. 

The fact that one local planning authority has been able to offer just 6 serviced plots to the 253 people on its Register in just the first year of it seeking to discharge its duty under the Housing and Planning Act 2016[2]  is probably quite typical, and suggests that a  radical change will be required if the legislation is to retain its credibility.  The problem is likely to be most acute in larger urban areas.  Will LPAs increase the difficulty in joining the registers to avoid being faced with applications and appeals on land being proposed by prospective self/custom builders arguing that the LPA has failed in its duty – a corollary of the argument successfully used by developers on appeal that a 5 years housing land supply is not being maintained? LPAs are expected only to cover their reasonable costs, and eligibility criteria can lead to two tier registers but not seen to completely exclude interested households.

 

Planners should be addressing the challenge of finding ways to house people in existing urban areas and closer to existing facilities and services than on peripheral estates.[3] Matthew Carmona (Thinking small to think big TCPA August 2017) was arguing for an increase in urban densities by building on small sites and adding storeys in order to meet the need for new housing in London, describing a process of ‘proactive densification’ as a ‘generational challenge’, and one with the co-benefit of helping smaller builders.  These are important matters but barely touch on the full range of benefits that could be derived from a concerted attempt to systematize custom splitting.  

The Government and opposition parties appear to be equally concerned about the failure to increase the rate of delivery of new housing.   In support of the legislation adding the duty to provide serviced plots to the requirement to keep registers  of individuals and associations of individuals[4] the Government is making substantial grants available.  However, getting from the current 7.7% of the new  built homes being completed each year (<15,000) to closer to 20% of 300,000 which are said to be required( ie 60,000), is unlikely to happen without a significant level of cusping. The Bacon Review addressed in a 2021 blog is unlikely to move the dial, and does not refer to sub-divisions.

The level of under-occupation of both bedrooms and living areas in the existing housing stock (even in Inner and Outer London) is far greater ie over 50% than the levels of overcrowding ie less than 10%.   The potential of cusping was looked at in 2016 by the Intergenerational Foundation[5] estimating that there could be 4.4million dwellings readily available for sub-division. In 2016 the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Care and Housing of the Elderly received evidence that there could be as many as 8 million households looking to downsize were attractive smaller dwellings made available. This emphasizes the need to increase the supply of housing suitable for the elderly that is unlikely to be met even if all the 200,000 new dwellings that the industry might be capable of providing each year were dedicated to that sector.[6]

 

The Intergenerational Foundation has revisited the issue of under-occupation in Stockpiling Space https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fintergenerationalfoundation.cmail20.com%2Ft%2Fr-l-triikjlk-ukiddlliuh-w%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHOE45mV4G7w5KkSl1-Eox2Lsp1wQ

By normalising sub-divisions through custom-splitting an important step would be taken to sub-dividing properties into more 'units' in expanding the choice of co-living in other forms. This could be seen as a form of multi-occupation, but would imply all residents having a share or stake in the property and its equity.

 

Demand for  renewable electricity from road transport and manufacturing (including MMC for housing)  will increase over the next decade.  This will require the space and fabric of existing housing that is being insulated and heated/cooled to also be occupied to meet genuine housing need and, incidentally, reduce the need for new building with the high levels of embodied carbon and loss of biodiversity and soils. In 2022 the Environment Audit Committee complained that the embodied carbon in new housebuilding is being ignored and  meeting Government new build targets (recently being softened if not reduced) would consume the whole carbon budget for all sectors.

The benefits

The benefits of cusping, some of which have already been touched on, would  include:

-  Reducing unsustainable levels of under-occupation in urban, suburban and rural areas.

- By making energy upgrades a condition of granting planning permissions or Local Development Orders[7], the existing housing stock (excluding registered providers with generally higher standards) of which 80% is currently at the equivalent of EPC D or below could be upgraded to EPC B and above.[8] This would reduce the possibility of either household falling into fuel poverty. Works involved in subdividing properties would be little or no more disruptive than the necessary deep energy refits.

- Cusping would enable older households to downsize-in-place in what could evolve into a Lifetime (or 15min) Neighbourhoods. This could also involve adaptations of all or part of the property to Lifetime Home standards avoiding the perverse incentive to continue to live in an unnecessarily large home.

-  In the choosing of partners and the designing the accommodation, the process of cusping could include the respective households seeking to meet their current and foreseeable needs in terms of caring for children, the sick, disabled or elderly (obviously on the understanding that personal circumstances are subject to change).

- The choice or partners would involve matching financial needs, but also the other resources and skills that could be shared and acquired and contribute to the efficient and cost effective implementation of the sub-division. As with custom-building the principle is in the customised design and...

- However proficient the parties, many projects are likely to create some work for smaller tradesmen and builders (some laid off from the reduced need for new building).

- The parties could negotiate and choose how the garden could be subdivided in the short and longer term (without building on it) allowing ageing households to maintain a larger garden that is normally available with smaller properties and those designed for the elderly. This form of ‘downsizing-in-place’, overcomes the under-estimated problem/excuse of clearing the loft of stuff that can be concentrated at one end.

- Both parties would be able to negotiate and choose between renting and buying all or part of the respective parts, some being intentionally shared (eg accesses, garden areas, garages or sheds). Rent-to-buy could be popular model.

- The original owners could release equity without re-mortgaging or taking out high interest loans – renting out the separated dwelling could provide an income, possibly through rent-to-buy.  This might make custom building (through splitting) accessible to the younger generations which are currently being excluded due to the high upfront costs.

- The density of people (potential custom for local services and facilities) would be increased without building on open land (some brownfield land has become very bio-diverse), including gardens.

- The issues surrounding the non-implementation of planning permissions being experienced in the new-build sector would be avoided as custom building of all types effectively conflates supply and demand.

- The works involved in sub-dividing properties represent a very efficient use of materials and labour that are both increasingly scarce and expensive, especially following Brexit.  It would be more expensive to buy part of an existing plot but should be much cheaper to complete a conversion to self-contained dwellings than to start on a bare site,

- By matching those with spare space that they are willing (and keen) to share with those on the Registers, LPAs would have a reasonable chance of meeting their legal duty to provide serviced plots,

- Cusping at scale would provide a 'realistic alternative' to supply housing that should be fully explored before permitting new building in Green Belts.

- Residential sub-divisions would also reduce the pressure to develop peripheral estates in the open countryside.

- Sub-divisions providing self-contained accommodation would be consistent with the proposal to change the General Permitted Development Order to allow upward extensions without express permission so long as a separate/additional dwelling would be created.

-  The works of sub-dividing a property into two or more self-contained dwellings is subject to a reduced rate of 5% VAT even if not the zero rate applicable to new build.(the Chancellors 2022 Spring Statement reduced the VAT rate on most insulation products).

Some of these 17 potential benefits of cusping at scale; addressing the shortage and/or distribution of housing, increasing energy efficiency of buildings and addressing fuel poverty, potentially providing social care (even if just through good neighbourliness), are non-trivial and represent a form of 'sustainable development', and more so than probably all forms of residential new build.  In the current jargon, custom-splitting should be seen as the ultimate in "co-production" that implies extra challenges but, hopefully, even more benefits and rewards.

Helping it happen

The central government grants available for custom-building should be made available for cusping.  LPAs persuaded of the benefits of cusping should be prepared to make grants available to cover the upfront costs associated with the feasibility, design and/or conversion that could be recovered either on completion of the works or as a charge on the property that would be repaid on its later sale.  Policies in local plans should set out the circumstances when cusping would be supported (or opposed?). This could be greatly simplified through the making of Local Development Orders (eg specifying energy standards and minimum room sizes).  Registers should be kept of property owners wanting to be introduced to those on the custom building registers who should also be asked to include their willingness to engage in the sub-division of an existing property rather than wait for up to three years if they are lucky enough to even receive an offer of a serviced plot at an acceptable location and price.

 

Those engaged in selling/renting houses should introduce a 'new' service by selling/renting parts of properties. 

 

Councils and housing associations could designate/reserve houses to act as safe havens while a property was being sub-divided and given a deep retrofit and mobility upgrade. 

Challenges

Once the planning system has paved the way, the main challenges might be for designers to find efficient ways to meet the access and space requirements of both the original and prospective households, to specify the energy efficiency and noise insulation measures, and to separate the services (ie plumbing, drainage and electrics).  Divisions might be horizontal (ie into flats) or vertical (ie into semis).  Small extensions might be required for additional hallways, stairs/lifts or bathrooms and kitchens.  All these  changes will be in the context of necessary deep energy refitting. There might also be challenges for lawyers and lenders to tailor the legal documents and financial arrangements to the needs of the parties. 

Objections

There might be objections from those afraid of increased demand for on- street parking.  This concern should not be allowed to get in the way of a process that would meet so many interests of acknowledged importance, but it would be possible through the use of conditions (or the terms of an LDO) to address this potential impact and even use cusping to encourage the transition to a lower level of car ownership targeted at Zero  Emission Vehicles.

---

[1] This article is not about HMOs which are probably the most common type of sharing but with less privacy and independence than provided by cusping.

[2] Now Self and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended)

[3] It will not help in practice to call a peripheral estate a “sustainable urban extension”

[4] A nod towards the co-housing movement which is also needing help from the planning system

[5] Unlocking England’s Hidden Homes (http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Unlocking-Englands-Hidden-Homes_Final.pdf)

[6] (https://www.housinglin.org.uk/Topics/type/Housing-our-Ageing-Population-Positive-Ideas-HAPPI-3-Making-retirement-living-a-positive-choice/).

[7] Local Planning Authorities can adopt Local Development Orders in order to make residential sub-divisions ‘permitted development’ subject to conditions or prior notification including energy standards and minimum space standards

[8] The ‘consequential improvements’ proposed and then withdrawn (when branded a conservatory tax) by the 2010 Coalition Government was the last attempt at maintaining if not upgrading the housing stock

Who is planning the environment?

I have never been convinced that town and country planning has been an 'environmental profession' in the sense that the net outcome of the activities of the 24,000 members of the Royal Town Planning Institute is being positive for bio-diversity or the quality of soils, air or water.  It is not even clear to me that the outcomes for people in terms of physical or mental health are any better than they would be in a non-plan world.  I am more convinced that land use planning has benefited the economy as it is conventionally measured by GDP and the health of the larger companies and corporations.

Jumping to the inspiration for this post, the Fabian Society has recently published the result of research into the connection between environmental awareness/concern and participation in activities aimed at conserving or improving the environment.  From the study that surveyed the opinions of over 7000 people in three cities found that over 30%  claimed to be part of a green blob concerned about the state of the environment but (very) many fewer, were actively engaged.  Readers should go to  http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/powerful-people-2/  to go through the findings and explanations given for this participation gap but, for the purposes of this Blog,  the fact that land use planning is almost invisible in this debate is very dispiriting.  The report signs off with a mention of neighbourhood planning but, if the engagement with the preparation of development plans or even dealing with planning applications at district and city levels (and combined authorities) gets a mention then I missed it.

I would suggest that the planners (officers, councillors and ministers) and the general public should be very concerned that the land use planning system seems to be operating with so much indifference to the health of the  environment and so little public involvement (other than objecting to developments affecting the value and enjoyment of private property).  The pre-occupation with housing supply, which is understandable given the crisis caused in part by the failure to understand the true nature of the scarcity and to then  focus on some some of the promising responses (ie building smaller homes and explore custom splitting), has prevented resources being applied to the real crises in respect of food, soils, air, water, climate change and bio-diversity.

The priorities seem to be to:-
- understand that the housing crisis is more one of distribution and the types of housing than total (lack of) supply,
- include policies in development plans which will ensure that carbon emissions are reduced to zero by 2050, that the air we breathe does not poison the lungs and brains of the young, that soils will be preserved and enhanced, that water becomes a friend and not a threat (through extreme weather and flooding) and that the sixth great extinction is avoided.
If we do not start to use the existing planning system for these purposes then the pretense that it is an 'environmental profession' should be abandoned and other and more effective measures must be put in place.

On the Cusp - as in custom splitting

The idea of 'custom splitting' has been out there for long enough to know whether there are deep flaws or any great attractions.  For a 'magic bullet' it seems to lack penetration but the only adverse comment came in the local paper suggesting that it would be preferable to build on the Green Belt than subject future generations to the 'truly awful conditions' which would arise from dividing up larger houses. This does raise an interesting question as to whether LPAs should calculate the potential of custom splitting (cusping) before any claim that reasonable alternatives to Green Belt development have been exhausted?  That apparently wild claim can be made given the intention evident in legislation, advice and financial incentives that the Government has focused on self/custom building, and the apparent lack of serviced plots to meet the expectations of both the Government and the possible exponents.

To get from the current 7.7% of the approximately 150,000 new homes being built each year (11,550) to closer to 20% of 200,000 plus (40,000) which are said to be required is unlikely to happen without a significant level of cusping.

Before listing the benefits from a previous blog and more recent feedback I want to give a further mention to  Unlocking England’s Hidden Homes (http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Unlocking-Englands-Hidden-Homes_Final.pdf) which estimated that there could be 4.4million dwellings available for sub-division. Another mention should be also made of the need to increase the supply of housing suitable for the elderly that is unlikely to be met even if 200,000 new dwellings were dedicated to that sector each year (https://www.housinglin.org.uk/Topics/type/Housing-our-Ageing-Population-Positive-Ideas-HAPPI-3-Making-retirement-living-a-positive-choice/).

So, done properly, including deep energy upgrades, through conditional planning permissions or Local Development Orders (backed by development plan policy), the benefits of cusping seem to include:

-  reducing unsustainable levels of under-occupation,

- upgrading housing stock from EPC D and below to EPC B and above,

- downsizing in place in a Lifetime Neighbourhood, if not a Lifetime Home,

- choice of garden size without building on it,

- choice of renting or buying,

- equity release without re-mortgaging or high interest loans,

- increasing density of people (potential custom for local services and facilities) with no more buildings, 

- avoid the issues of non-implementation experienced in the new-build sector,

- efficient use of materials and labour that increasingly scarce and expensive even in the EU,

- enable LPAs to meet their legal duty to provide serviced plots to households on the Registers,

- 'realistic alternative' to building in Green Belt and open countryside in way which has Government support and limiting Nimbyism to lack of parking (that should be sorted with shared ULEVs),

-  meeting the needs of ageing households and new households (ability to choose neighbours and fit respective skills, vision and resources).
- consistent with the proposal to change the General Permitted Development Order to allow upward extensions without express permission so long as a separate/additional dwelling would be created.

I make that 13 good  and complementary reasons to promote custom-splitting without also claiming that it would represent a form of 'sustainable development', and more so than probably all forms of residential new build.