Michael Gove is being taken to court by Berkeley Homes, one of the UK’s biggest housebuilders, after blocking its proposed 165-home development in Kent.
Overruling a decision by planning inspectors, Gove said the proposed development in Crane Valley, a designated area of outstanding natural beauty in Kent, was of a ‘generic suburban nature’ and failed to ‘reflect the expectations’ of the local design code.
Outraged at the blocking of its proposed development, Berkeley said it intends to challenge the ‘irrational decision’ by Gove.
The matter raises stark questions about the direction of the UK’s new-build housing market and the debate of quality versus quantity and cost, in an era of an ever-growing population and shortage of properties.
Berkeley, which is forecasting an annual profit of around £600million for the year to April 2023, said it wants Gove to ‘agree to the immediate quashing of [his] decision.’
Court saga: Michael Gove is being taken to court by Berkeley Homes after he blocked one of its proposed developments
The move by Gove represented the first time the housing secretary had used his powers to block a proposed development on aesthetic grounds.
In a statement, Berkeley said: ‘Berkeley Group confirms it will apply to the High Court for a statutory review of Secretary of State Michael Gove’s decision of April 6 to reject the company’s proposed development at Cranbrook in Kent.
‘Berkeley is challenging the decision on six grounds including the individual design of the homes.
‘The proposal for 165 high quality, individually designed new homes (including 66 affordable homes) was developed in close consultation with local partners and had strong support at local level.
‘Approved by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, and also by The Planning Inspectorate, an executive agency, sponsored by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, it was vetoed by Mr Gove after a three-year planning process.’
A spokesperson for Berkeley told This is Money it was too early to say how much money the company believed the new properties would be sold for if the development went ahead.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities said it would be inappropriate to comment further on the matter, but flagged the background to the case and the reasoning behind Gove’s decision.
What do local residents think?
Father-of-two Guy Dagger, 49, lives in Cranbrook with his wife and is the chief executive of flooring company Harlequin Group.
He is also a member of Save Turnden, a local residents’ group in Kent.
Views: Kent resident Guy Dagger said locals had concerns about the proposed location of the development
Dagger told This is Money that talk about the homes being blocked because they were too ugly was merely a ‘distraction’.
He said local residents were concerned about the fact the development was due to be built within a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.
He added: ‘The large housing development on a greenfield site, neighbouring a nature reserve, in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was opposed by, amongst others ourselves, the Parish Council, was rejected in all neighbourhood consultation and also opposed by Natural England and CPRE owing to the size, scale and harm it would cause to the High Weald.’
On Gove’s intervention, Dagger said: ‘We were most impressed with Michael Gove’s statement. Seeing a politician acting according to his stated principles and government policy to respect local inhabitants and the environment reaffirmed our trust in British democracy.’
Gove’s battle against ‘ugly’ new-builds
Last year, Gove vowed to block ‘ugly’ new housing developments from being built in the UK.
In November, the levelling-up secretary told a think-tank event in London that new property developments which were not ‘aesthetically of high quality’ would be thwarted.
He said: ‘People do not want ugliness imposed on them.’
Proposal: A site plan of the proposed development by Berkeley Homes in Crane Valley
Gove said he wanted new homes to be ‘beautiful’ and provide a sense of ‘neighbourhood’. He emphasised the importance of respecting the environment and adequacy of nearby infrastructure and amenities.
By designing new homes with more kerb appeal and of a higher quality, Gove thinks local opposition to developments would also ease.
The minister mentioned Poundbury, the Dorset town designed for King Charles III, as an example of a beautiful town with well-designed and high-quality homes.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities said it remained committed to getting 300,000 new homes built every year across the UK, adding that it was investing £11.5billion to help ‘build the affordable, quality homes this country needs.’
Labour recently announced it would reinstate the legally-binding target for 300,000 new houses if it entered government and give greater planning powers to local authorities.
What sort of new-builds does the UK have?
A number of companies dominate the UK new-build market, including Barratt Developments, Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon, Bellway and Berkeley Homes.
In years gone by, Persimmon repeatedly faced criticism over shoddy build quality, leaving some customers with a myriad of faults to fix in their new homes. Since then, the company claims it has doubled-down on improving customer service and satisfaction levels and worked hard on build quality.
The UK has, on average, the smallest homes in Europe, seeing many dwellers putting up with minimal floor space, low ceilings and cramped rooms.
Some might argue many new-builds have small outdoor spaces and compact garages, often ill-equipped to house a family four-wheel drive.
Better? Gove said Poundbury, pictured, was an example of better design and architecture
It is hard not to notice swathes of new developments cropping up all over the UK, many of which appear on land which was previously green.
There are rows and rows of boxy new houses appearing up and down the UK, often with an orange tinge, easily visible from motorways or railway lines.
Some have sprung up despite a myriad of objections from locals, with developers and councils sometimes appearing to ride roughshod over community concerns.
This is occurring despite the fact there are highly-skilled architects and planners waiting in the wings to potentially take new-builds in a different direction.
Conversely, others would argue that housebuilders are meeting the needs of the UK, which has a huge shortage of homes that has to be tackled quickly and in a cost-effective manner for the companies involved.
Is there a compromise?
The Gove versus Berkeley debacle raises questions about what is happening in the property development market and how both the needs of communities, and developers’ bottom lines and shareholders, can be taken into account.
A spokesperson for the Home Builders Federation, said: ‘When capitulating to Nimby backbenchers on national planning policy the government argued the need to move away from a “top-down” system to one that asks councils to plan in accordance with local housing need.
‘On the other hand, the Housing Secretary is personally intervening to block developments that the local authority actually wants to see go ahead.
‘Regardless of the supposed aims the outcome seems to always be the same: fewer new homes built. This may be clever politics but the long-term social and economic consequences will be huge.’
Desirable? Phin Harper, chief executive of Open City, said Michael Gove is right to demand higher standards from property developers
Ben Rogers, a fellow in government innovation and director of the European Cities Programme at LSE Cities, also thinks Gove’s move could prove problematic.
He told This is Money: ‘There is no doubt that the Government wants to raise standards of design and is trying to put locally approved judgements of beauty at the centre of the planning system.
‘The Berkeley judgement should be seen in that context. But this is a policy area fraught with difficulty. What weight do you give an “expert” or professional judgement of design merit, against the judgements of politicians and the local public? Are planning authorities really able to determine “beauty”?
‘All levels of Government will have to provide developers and planning authorities with better thought-through and firmer guidelines, if we are to avoid endless controversy.’
However, many think UK new-builds must be built better and support Gove’s stance.
Royal Institute of British Architects president Simon Allford said: ‘Building new homes is clearly a key part of the solution to our housing crisis, however, quantity must not be at the expense of quality.
‘Character and context are two important measures in any new development as are apartment layout, light, form and public space.
‘It is therefore vital that the Government supports the creation of sustainable, energy-efficient homes that will stand the test of time, built in well serviced places where people want to live.’
Speaking to This is Money, buying agent Henry Pryor said: ‘Michael Gove has proved to be one of the boldest housing secretaries and has shaken the sector up locking horns with developers and landlords in a way that many have found either refreshing or challenging depending on your point of view.
‘On this occasion Gove has stepped in to try and remind house builders that the Government has rightly decided that, if it is to persuade the electorate that we can accommodate more new homes, that they need to be pleasant to live in and to live alongside.
‘Like many in the country he has grown tired of the same bland boxes being squeezed like battery hens to generate the biggest return for the developers with little apparent thought for the locals.’
Phin Harper, chief executive of Open City, told This is Money he thinks there needs to be a radical rethink when it comes to the quality and design of new-builds being developed.
Harper told This is Money: ‘Britain has some of the best historic housing estates in the world but today too many of our new residential developments are generic, small, car-dominated and poorly designed.
‘Michael Gove is right to demand higher standards from property developers.
‘New housing should enrich our country, providing great places for communities to live and thrive designed by thoughtful architects for public good rather than private profit.’