Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743 email: [email protected]

Stuart Jarvis, ext 6126 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister be thanked for the opportunity to comment on the consultation paper `Housing and Planning in the Regions' and be informed that the County Council:

(i) supports the proposal for closer integration of housing and planning polices. However, until the arrangements for the formal relationships between the assembly and those providing and managing social housing are known, the County Council is sceptical that the proposed new arrangement will be able to balance regional, sub-regional and local priorities adequately;

(ii) is concerned that the timetable set by Government to implement the new arrangements is too ambitious given the committed programme for developing and submitting the South East Plan; and

(iii) rejects the notion that a new, national independent advice unit on housing would bring greater transparency to the decision making process, or would help to expose and challenge attitudes towards the provision of new housing.

2. Reason

2.1 On 8 September 2004 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued a consultation on proposals to strengthen the link between housing and planning strategies at regional level. Members of the Policy and Resources Scrutiny and Select Committee have been informed of the proposals.

2.2 This decision supports Aim 4 of the Corporate Strategy (Building Strong and Safe Communities) by seeking to ensure that the County Council continues to represent the views of the local community at regional and national levels, to shape planning policies and influence the provision of housing to meet the needs of Hampshire residents.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 The option of not responding to the consultation was rejected because to do so would mean a missed opportunity for the County Council to influence emerging Government policy on the provision of affordable housing.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member Consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: ..................................... Date: ...................................

Councillor T K Thornber

Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743 email: [email protected]

Stuart Jarvis, ext 6126 [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 On 8 September 2004, as part of a phased response to the recommendations made by Kate Barker in her review of housing supply, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) issued a consultation on proposals to strengthen the link between housing and planning strategies at the regional level. The consultation sets out plans to merge the Regional Housing Boards with the Regional Planning Bodies and seeks views on proposals for a new independent unit which would provide all English regions with advice to inform local decisions on housing needs. This report considers those two proposals and recommends a response.

2. Background

2.1 Against a background of declining house-building rates and increasing house prices the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned Kate Barker to conduct a review of housing supply in the United Kingdom. Her final Report ("The Barker Report") was published concurrently with the budget statement in March 2004.

2.2 In its initial response set out in the 2004 Budget the Government committed to a detailed consideration of the various recommendations in the Barker Report over an 18 month period. `Housing and Planning in the Regions' represents the first stage of the Government's detailed response. It relates to two matters: the recommended changes in institutional arrangements, namely the merging of the Regional Housing Boards and the Regional Planning Bodies; and the formation of Regional Planning Executives to provide independent advice on housing numbers.

3. Merging Regional Housing Boards and Regional Planning Bodies

3.1 Government believes that the most effective way of combining regional housing and planning responsibilities would be by disbanding the regional housing boards and giving regional assemblies responsibilities for producing the regional housing strategy. Giving the regional assemblies

this lead role will, it is suggested, not only ensure coherence between the regional housing and regional spatial strategies and the processes that develop and deliver them; but also provide transparency for decisions about regional, sub-regional and neighbourhood housing priorities.

3.2 Regional assemblies will be expected to involve the existing members of the Regional Housing Boards (Government Offices, Regional Development Agencies, the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships) in the evolution and implementation of regional housing strategies. It is left to the judgement of the regional assembly about how best to ensure that local authorities and other stakeholders are involved in the process and what weight should be attached to their advice and guidance.

3.3 The existing regional housing boards are required to submit updated regional housing strategies and recommendations for housing investment allocations 2006/07 and 2007/08 to ministers by May 2005. Once these have been submitted the arrangements for integration will be put in hand. The Government expects the new arrangements to be in place no later than September 2005.

4. Proposals for Independent Advice

4.1 Government agrees with Barker's conclusion that regional housing and regional spatial strategies would benefit from strengthening the methods used to assess housing needs and markets and ensuring consistency of key assumptions. However, ministerial preference is for a single, national advice unit responsible for providing technical advice to all regions. They consider that a single unit would be more cost-effective and allow regions more flexibility in seeking advice from a number of sources.

4.2 The work of the unit would be scrutinised by an independent Panel comprising experts from the public and private sectors and academic institutions with an independent chair. This expert Panel would help build intellectual consensus and ensure that the advice that is published is credible.

4.3 Government is committed to the new arrangements being in place during 2005.

5. Comments

5.1 The ambitious targets for setting these new institutional arrangements in place are a demonstration of the Government's commitment to achieving a step change in housing supply.

5.2 In theory tightening the link between housing and planning and requiring a formally constituted planning body (the regional assembly) rather than a non-statutory advisory body (the regional housing board) to maintain and strengthen that link must be beneficial, both in terms of developing integrated plans and strategies and also establishing accountability for the advice to ministers. The proposed change will, however, require new partnerships to be developed between the regional assemblies and housing professionals, particularly those on the front line managing the existing housing stock and fulfilling local authorities' strategic and enabling functions.

5.3 Until the protocols governing these arrangements are known it is too soon to judge if the Regional Assembly is the most appropriate body to manage the new arrangements. In the south-east, for example, there will be much work to be done to establish the detailed arrangements for taking the work forwards and ensuring that the full range of partners is effectively involved in the process, particularly as many of those partners will not be formal members of the regional assembly. Given all the other activities next year surrounding the publication and submission of the South East Plan, it must be doubtful that this work could be completed and properly scrutinised by Assembly members in time for the new arrangements to be in place by September 2005.

5.4 In terms of the proposals for independent advice, the consultation papers seek views not only on the question of whether the national unit is a good idea but also on if it should consider more than just housing; and what relationship it should have in one direction with Government and in the other direction with the regional assemblies.

5.5 A common thread running through the history of planning at the local, county and regional level is the conflict between independent experts and academics over how economic and demographic data should be interpreted and what the resulting provisions for housing land should be. For the most part the basic evidence used has come from common sources. The debate has occurred around the meaning of that evidence and how it can be used to extrapolate a future.

5.6 Barker considered that independent advice would bring greater transparency into the decision making process and would help to expose and challenge attitudes towards the provision of new housing. On the face of it adding yet another contributor to the process is unlikely to be beneficial on either count unless its advice is seen by Government as having precedence over any other. Giving the unit this responsibility would not only compromise its proposed role, but would also have serious practical implications for local authorities.

5.7 Extending the unit's responsibilities beyond simply housing and planning could be seen as tantamount to establishing a national planning forum. Such a role would not only challenge the role of regional assemblies but should also more properly reside with Government than an independent unit. Moreover, there are already existing arrangements, both formal (for example the Local and Regional Government Research Unit) and informal (for example the regional assemblies' various advisory groups) for commissioning research and exploring linkages between activities.

6. Conclusions

6.1 Proposals for the closer integration of housing and planning during the preparation of regional housing strategies is to be welcomed. Critical to success will be the mechanisms for ensuring that the front-line housing providers are properly engaged when the strategies are prepared, monitored and reviewed and that those charged with the responsibility of preparing and reviewing regional housing strategies fully understand their role and are able to balance regional, sub-regional and local responsibilities.

6.2 The timetable for introducing the new arrangements is ambitious, particularly given the committed programme in the first half of next year for consultation on and submitting the South East Plan.

6.3 There is little merit to the proposals to establish a national advice unit and even less in considering extending its activities beyond housing. There are already various well-established fora for providing advice on housing, economic and other matters. The new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act outlines detailed procedures and processes for ensuring that there is greater transparency in the decision making process and provides the community with opportunities to expose and challenge attitudes towards the provision of new housing. These new arrangements should be allowed to settle in. The proposed national advice unit would be an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction whilst these new arrangements are being put into effect.

Recommendation

That the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister be thanked for the opportunity to comment on the consultation paper `Housing and Planning in the Regions' and be informed that the County Council:

(i) supports the proposal for closer integration of housing and planning polices. However, until the arrangements for the formal relationships between the assembly and those providing and managing social housing are known, the County Council is sceptical that the proposed new arrangement will be able to balance regional, sub-regional and local priorities adequately;

(ii) is concerned that the timetable set by Government to implement the new arrangements is too ambitious given the committed programme for developing and submitting the South East Plan; and

(iii) rejects the notion that a new, national independent advice unit on housing would bring greater transparency to the decision making process, or would help to expose and challenge attitudes towards the provision of new housing.

9040/RL