And it will have to come very soon. Our new Prime Minister wants to retain credibility that Labour can still reach its target of 1.5 million new homes before the next general election in 2029. So time matters. His big decision is this. As part of a major transfer of powers to local councils, ie. devolution of powers, local councils will receive a mandate that places upon them an obligation to authorise, ie. grant planning consent for all planning applications they receive, or are now outstanding regardless of local plan policy guidelines or the merits of the scheme, until their council area is fully compliant with their housing numbers requirement. After forty plus years of free-lancing by local nimbies , this mandate will seem draconian. Local critics will scream loudly about central government riding roughshod over local democracy. Quite correct and quite necessary. Professional advisers will be torn in different directions depending upon the status of their clients land potential. Whilst local council leaders will, until they start to think about their responsibilities as trustees of the future, not as lobbyists for vested interests, be aghast that their carefully calibrated, hidden plans to stop or slow down building locally by gentle strangulation are without effect. Their phoney bluff, as guardians of the future is called.
Fortunately for areas with legitimate concerns about being full-up, there will be an escape clause in the announcement. That local councils have until such and such named date, ( maximum 12 months IMO) the right to apply for a delay in sidelining their local plan in their area because by the due date they will have in place either an emergency export overspill land delivery plan in place or alternatively an emergency local land or local regeneration zone in place that will provide space, ie land on which to build, or regeneration zones on which to re-build to tomorrow’s standards, and replace Victorians second-rate , sufficient to reach their pro-rata expanded homes targets for one generation ahead, say to 2056, with capacity to expand the capacity with land or zones on a sustainable basis to 2084,
Here is the theory. But how will this work in practice? Take Forest City as an example. It is unofficial, and lacks the endorsement of any professional bodies, but the rare idea ( not necessarily the precise location) is sound. The brains behind need to be congratulated. It is to build a community of one million people to support the growth of Cambridge. . The idea of a major new 1m+ city can be equally well applied west of London to support the overspill growth needs of the Thames Valley local authorities. Here local councils think their areas are full up because most of their undeveloped land is protected, ie green belt etc. They have a valid point. South of Reading is the obvious overspill host location for the exported community. It is the nearest very large area of unprotected land west of London. ( It is also close to the Elizabeth Line, M3 and M4 motorways, with cross-country road and rail links, big enough to avoid the Mod no go protection zones). .One or two other new city locations will also be needed IMO east or south of London to enable long term, one and two generations growth.
But this open countryside based ‘take back control’ led spatial policy to absorb the needs of rural councils which are full-up ignores the massive, widely overlooked problem of finding new regeneration sites inside the London boroughs on land already developed. In reality this spatial policy will be a ramped up version of the so-called gentle densification policies of some local plans. Residents in these already built residential areas, like those in the green countryside areas above must be financially protected. For example, blight must be banished. But, and this is the big decision for Burnham, it is to be clear their local and legitimate residents fears of change must not be allowed to stop needed changes of use in land or place, ie.regeneration change that national economic growth needs show is needed.
Why? Because the current local fear based spatial system not only stops new homes supply, as we all know, it also stops the UK’s growth and hobbles future prosperity. It was the victory over Boris Johnson’s zoning plans in 2021 by the 50+ Conservative backbenchers led by Dame Theresa Villiers, a London MP until the 2024 ejection who delivered a frightful nightmare, masquerading as a miracle. Of putting local priorities ahead of national priorities! This was a suicide note. How ill-conceived can you get! Fortunately the penny is now dropping. As the consequences of placing local dreads ahead of national needs are at last being seen and understood by observers who should know.
In Housing Today (7 August 2026) there is a revealing piece headed ‘G15 leaders warn of threat to national growth if affordable housing is not boosted in London”. (G15 are a group of the largest not for profit housing associations in London). On a webinar recommendations from the recent State of the Capital report to boost affordable housing there were some significant moments from G15 leaders. According to the piece, Paul Hackett, chief executive of Southern Housing said the crisis in London is a crisis of affordability and it is critical that people can afford to live there who are employed on average salaries. He went on to say “We’re seeing less activity from the private sector. If the affordable sector does’ t step in, then we could see a complete collapse oh housing supply in London. That would be devastating for the London economy, it would be devastating ultimately for the national economy”. Equally penetrating are the remarks in the same webinar by Ian McDermott, chief executive of Peabody and chair of G15 saying. “We have to be confident that it is devolution, not delegation – that when devolving authority for spending the social and affordable housing programme, for example that the London administration can make those decisions about what an appropriate grant level is themselves without the restriction from the Treasury or from any other part of government. That’s fundamentally important”.
I too am a strong believer in local decision taking. But with it comes local responsibility, to act as trustees for the community as a whole and with responsibility to future generations as much as today’s. These are big responsibilities for local leaders and leave no room for school playground political point scoring.We are where we are. History is history. It is tomorrow which matters. The nation’s future first. The local areas concerns must be fitted into these absolutely paramount nationally set constraints.
Will Burnham deliver? I do not know. Without directly confronting local residents, local council leaders, the media’s love of conflict my fear is this. Unlike China, which over a generation has dragged millions out of rural poverty into citizens of the second most powerful country in the world, here in England we will fail to see the dangers if the opposite happening not to us, but to our children and our grandchildren, slowly, sadly and blindly long before 2084 arrives.
Ian Campbell
8 August 2026 ,
