Don’t blame hipsters or migrants for the housing crisis..
…our-antidemocratic planning system needs reviewing
Photo: Nick
Infographic Design: James Vickery
Bristol council has given planning permission for 7,161 new housing units in the five years up to 2020. Yet, exclusive Cable analysis shows, just 707 – less than 10% – of these will be ‘affordable’. It’s worth stressing that, these days, what’s called affordable housing isn’t necessarily affordable for most. The term once referred to social housing, often rented at around half the market rate, but new totals are likely to be made up of homes rented at up to 80% of market rates (in Bristol this is capped at local housing benefit levels) and for shared ownership.
Turning back to the numbers, in 15 Bristol wards there’s not one affordable home among developments already approved. These include Easton, scene of some of Bristol’s scariest rental and house price rises, and Filwood, Bristol’s second most deprived ward after Lawrence Hill. In Lawrence Hill 1,163 new houses have the go ahead with just 230, or 20%, deemed affordable – 20% below the council’s stated targets for the neighbourhood. As with London and some other UK cities, low to medium income households are being priced out of central Bristol. Just 5% of Cabot ward’s 2,599 planned homes are designated affordable,while Ashley and Southville will see 9% and 4% affordable new homes if things proceed as planned.
Objectionable objections
While they should certainly shoulder some responsibility, it’s important to look beyond developers, George Ferguson and the city’s councillors when considering Bristol’s housing crisis. An often overlooked factor is the complicated, bureaucratic planning system that stacks the odds against affordable housing, genuine democratic oversight and community influence.
For example, in making a planning objection, something thousands of citizens do every year,statements are only considered if they address so called ‘material planning considerations’.These include concerns regarding sunlight, traffic, disabled accessibility and building materials.But they exclude issues such as the overall effect developments might have on a neighbourhood, including fears about gentrification and rent increases.
In the saga of Stokes Croft’s Carriage works development, for instance, residents made more than 1,360 objections; just 21 statements supported developer Fifth Capital’s application. The planning officer’s report highlighted objections regarding the development’s affordability and its social impact on the area – but these were excluded from the decision making process.
Remarking on whether concerns over introducing “expensive flats” to a low income area could form grounds for the application’s refusal, the council’s planning officer said that was “for the market, not planning, to decide”. In considering the Carriageworks’ affordable housing levels,the officer referred to a report conducted on the council’s behalf by French multinational bank BNP Paribas (which maintains at least £161.5 million in property interests in Bristol, according to Cable research). It advised the council to accept just 7% affordable housing, stating that higher proportions would hinder Fifth Capital’s profits and make the scheme “unviable”. The planning officer concluded that “the proposed amount of affordable housing [was] justified”,despite a council target of 40% for the locality.
“Despite 98.5% of 1382 public statements objecting to the scheme, planning permission was granted”
The result: despite 98.5% of 1382 public objections to the Carriageworks scheme, planning permission was granted by councillors, based on the recommendations of unelected planning officers, a multinational bank and ‘the market’.
Why does this matter?
The exclusion of democratic and community input from the planning process works to developers’ advantage. In cases such as the Carriageworks, cosmetic tweaks to architecture can help developers claim they have considered community concerns – and ease schemes through planning. Councillors receive recommendations from officers (who work closely with private developers and advisers such as BNP Paribas, and are also likely to have seen their teams weakened by cuts) and are left unable to fully represent residents’ concerns, such as being priced out of neighbourhoods. And if developers suspect ‘non-material’ planning considerations have been taken into account they can appeal, with the council footing the legal bill.With this in mind, it’s perhaps unsurprising that all of the 41 applications for Bristol developments larger than 25 houses were recommended for permission by officers between April 2011 and April 2014. Just one was eventually rejected by councillors, despite the overarching lack of future affordable houses detailed above.
What’s next?
In November Bristol council published a ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ for planning applications, laying down “ground rules” for public participation for both developers and the Council. But the position of developers has been strengthening.All councils received a letter last November from the housing minister Brandon Lewis (it followed a slowdown in construction work due in part to housing associations being hit by rent changes, which have left them less confident about taking on affordable homes in new developments). The letter stated that the government “attaches great importance to the effective and flexible [re]negotiation” of affordable housing obligations. In other words: roll over to developer demands. Meanwhile the housing and planning bill that’s set to become law in 2016 further weakens local government’s hand in negotiating a good deal for the public.
Against this backdrop, it will take serious political courage, and support from Bristolians, to carve out a democratic housing policy. As we approach yet another election, will anyone say enough’s enough and stake a case for fostering and protecting Bristol’s independence and diversity?
Maps of this data:
See here for the data used:
- Projections: As used: Housing projections (changed 3.12.15).xlsx As received: WardRDSComp11to15Census(As received-Errors not adjusted)
- Planning comments: As used: FOI – No of comments received(changed).xls As received: FOI – No of comments received(as received)
