Substantive questions from Build to Rent consultatio

Blog Admin, LSE London Housing Blog

LSE Research Online

10/07/2017 Substantive questions from Build to Rent consultation, LSE London’s responses | Accelerating housing production in Londonhttp://lselondonhousing.org/2017/05/substantive-questions-from-build-to-rent-consultation-lse-londons-responses/ 1/5  Leave a Comment  Posted on May 11, 2017 by lselondonSubstantive questions fromBuild to Rent consultation,LSE London’s responsesSubstantive questions from Build to Rent consultationLSE London responsesKath Scanlon & Christine Whitehead, 28 April 2017 5. Do you consider there are market and regulatory failures impeding the rapiddevelopment of the Build to Rent market that merit national policyintervention? Please add comments. Build to Rent schemes provide positiveexternalities in the form of faster development and placemaking which arenot re ected in market prices. There is also regulatory failure in that theplanning system has not yet caught up with the speci c characteristics ofBTR development; policies written to deal with standard for-sale speculativedevelopment can act as a barrier to BTR.6. Do you agree with the proposal to refer explicitly to Build to Rent in theNational Planning Policy Framework? Yes.7. Do you think that Government should set a policy expectation on AffordablePrivate Rent in the National Planning Policy Framework, or not? (Please stateyour reasons.) Making clear that APR is the default form of affordable housingin BTR should speed negotiations with local planning authorities. 8. Will a policy expectation in the National Planning Policy Framework send asuf ciently strong signal to support Affordable Private Rent as the main vehiclefor affordable housing in Build to Rent? (Please state your reasons) It may notbe enough but it is a good step forward. HOME INTERACTIVE MAP THEMES ABOUT EVENTS MEDIA PUBLICATIONS10/07/2017 Substantive questions from Build to Rent consultation, LSE London’s responses | Accelerating housing production in Londonhttp://lselondonhousing.org/2017/05/substantive-questions-from-build-to-rent-consultation-lse-londons-responses/ 2/59. Do you consider that Affordable Private Rent could play a useful role in thedelivery of affordable housing in the area(s) where you live or operate? Yes 10. Do you consider that the ef ciencies arising through on-site provision ofAffordable Private Rent can materially improve the viability of Build to Rent,compared to other affordable housing tenures? Yes11. Do you consider that there could be unintended consequences of AffordablePrivate Rent if it is accepted as a form of affordable housing? Possibly12. If your answer to Q11 is yes, would these consequences be mitigated bylimiting Affordable Private Rent only to Build to Rent schemes? The argumentsin favour of APR are speci c to BTR operators and their business model; it ishard to see a justi cation for allowing APR on other types of scheme. 13. Do you think it is reasonable for Planning Authorities to specify minimumtenancy lengths in Build to Rent schemes? Please add your reasons, and giveexamples of such agreements where appropriate. One of the reasons forencouraging the development of a BTR sector is that the high quality of theproduct will raise standards across the wider PRS.  Longer tenancies, in caseswhere the tenants want them, are one element of this.  They also go with thegrain of the BTR business model, which is to retain tenants and minimisevoids.  However operators should be expected to offer shorter leases withoutadditional cost. 14. Do you agree that Build to Rent tenancies should be for at least three years(with a one month break option for the tenant after the  rst six months), for allcustomers in the development who want one? That seems reasonable. Itshould be clear that this would apply during the entire period after the  rstsix months (ie not just at the six-month anniversary). 15. Does the de nition of Build to Rent set out on page 20 capture all of theappropriate elements? (If not, please state why, and what criteria should apply).Yes 16. Do you agree that the National Planning Policy Framework should putbeyond doubt that Affordable Private Rent quali es as affordable housing inBuild to Rent schemes? (If not, please state why.) Making clear that APR is thedefault form of affordable housing in BTR should speed negotiations withlocal planning authorities. 17. Do you agree with the proposed de nition of Affordable Private Rent set outon page 21? (If not, please state why, and what criteria should apply). Thede nition is  ne as far as it goes, but it does not address whether local10/07/2017 Substantive questions from Build to Rent consultation, LSE London’s responses | Accelerating housing production in Londonhttp://lselondonhousing.org/2017/05/substantive-questions-from-build-to-rent-consultation-lse-londons-responses/ 3/5authorities should or should not have nomination rights for these units. Iflocal authorities are to have nomination rights then decisions should betaken by a committee on which BTR operators are represented. 18. The Government intends to set the parameters of Affordable Private Rent as:A minimum of 20 per cent of the homes to be discountedThe discount to be set at a minimum of 20 per cent relative to the localmarketAn offer of longer tenancy of three years or moreThe discount to apply inde nitely (subject to a “claw-back” arrangementif Affordable Private Rent homes are withdrawn).Taken as a whole, are these parameters (i) reasonable; (ii) too onerous; (iii)insuf cient?  Which, if any of them, would you change and why?Reasonable. The benchmarking of the discount relative to the wider localmarket and not the scheme itself is sensible.19. Should the parameters for Affordable Private Rent appear on the face of theNational Planning Policy Framework or within Planning Practice Guidance? Noview20. The Government is minded to leave determination of eligibility andnomination criteria for Affordable Private Rent to negotiation between thedeveloper and the local authority. Do you support this position? Will it affecttake-up of the policy? Please give your reasons. Agree 21. The Government considers there is no need for a  xed minimum covenantperiod, so long as appropriate claw-back arrangements are provided for. Doyou agree? A  xed minimum covenant of say 10 years (although this is shortby international standards) would provide certainty to both local authorityand operator/investor. 22. Do you think Government should (a) prescribe the basis for calculating theamount of claw-back, (b) set a possible basis for calculating the amount ofclaw-back in guidance, or (c) leave the amount of claw-back to be agreedbetween the local authority and the applicant? (b) 23. Should the Government’s Build to Rent and Affordable Private Rent policy beidentical across the whole of England or does it need to be set differentlybetween London and the rest of England? If it should be set differently, pleaseuse the comments box to tell us how and why the policy should vary in London10/07/2017 Substantive questions from Build to Rent consultation, LSE London’s responses | Accelerating housing production in Londonhttp://lselondonhousing.org/2017/05/substantive-questions-from-build-to-rent-consultation-lse-londons-responses/ 4/5← LSE London’s response to the Fixing our broken housing market consultationRe ections from an outsider – Older Women’s Cohousing (OWCH, Barnet, North London) →from the rest of England. Government should let London have its own BTRpolicy—rather than government having a London policy. 24. Would it be helpful for Government to produce model clauses (which wouldnot be mandatory) that could be used in Section 106 agreements to give effectto Affordable Private Rent? Yes.25. Is a transitional period of six months appropriate for the introduction of thepolicies proposed in this consultation? (If not, why not?) NO VIEW26. Does the summary Equalities Statement in Annex A represent a fairassessment of the equalities impacts of the policy proposals in thisconsultation? Please provide any further evidence on this issue, including howany negative impacts might be minimised and positive impacts enhanced. Yes.—The contents of this document may be viewed in PDF form here.   Category: Brie ng Papers, Constructing Construction, Finance, Green Belt, ImprovingPrivate Renting, London Housing Crisis, Publications, Recent News, Themes,UncategorizedLeave a ReplyYour email address will not be published.Required  elds are marked*Comment10/07/2017 Substantive questions from Build to Rent consultation, LSE London’s responses | Accelerating housing production in Londonhttp://lselondonhousing.org/2017/05/substantive-questions-from-build-to-rent-consultation-lse-londons-responses/ 5/5Contact us:Twitter - @LSE_LondonFacebook - LSELondonGeographiesYouTube - LSE LondonEmail - lselondon@lse.ac.ukLogos and map designed by Alessandra Mossa. Website designed by Marshall Bradley.Copyright © 2017 · All Rights Reserved · Accelerating housing production in LondonName*Email*Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.Post Comment

Substantive questions from Build to Rent consultation, LSE London’s responses

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online