LONDON (Reuters) - Britain set out plans late on Sunday to scale back lengthy public reviews that can delay housing developments, as part of its goal to get 1.5 million homes built in the next five
UK seeks to scale back reviews that delay new housing projects
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain set out plans late on Sunday to scale back lengthy public reviews that can delay housing developments, as part of its goal to get 1.5 million homes built in the next five years.
The housing ministry said it would hold a consultation over reducing the number of public agencies and civic groups whose views must be sought over new housing, including groups which represent sporting organisations, theatres and historic gardens.
Planning delays are widely blamed by housebuilders and government for the inability of new construction to keep up with population growth and for contributing to broader economic weakness.
In 2023, 193,000 homes were built across the United Kingdom and the construction industry has not exceeded the 300,000-a-year pace needed to meet the new government's target since 1977.
"We need to reform the system to ensure it is sensible and balanced, and does not create unintended delays," Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said.
Further legislation on planning reforms is due later in the week.
Britain's housing and local government ministry, which Rayner heads, said more than 25 agencies now had a legal right to be consulted on housing developments, some of which often objected by default or insisted on expensive modifications.
The ministry cited the example of how the conversion of an office block into 140 apartments was delayed after a sports body judged insufficient expert advice had been sought over whether a 3-metre-high (10 ft) fence was enough to protect residents from cricket balls struck from an adjacent sports ground.
Around 100 such disputes a year had to be resolved by ministers, the government said.
Under the new proposals, local planning authorities would also be instructed to narrow the basis on which other bodies could object and stick more closely to standard rules and deadlines.
(Reporting by David Milliken; Editing by David Holmes)
