In yesterday’s edition of the Guardian (23 July 2026) there is a persuasive and, if his aspirations succeed, an influential Opinion piece by our new Prime Minister headed, ‘ It’s not just a No 10 in the north, it’s an engine for growth throughout the whole UK’. He is right to call the piece an Opinion. But for those of us seeking a better future for our children and grandchildren, we need to reflect upon and either support his devolution desires or, with evidence, high-light the pitfalls this new pathway set out in the Guardian Opinion will encounter, and if the barriers are credible explain why they will prevent progress to the PMs objective. So here is my response, based as usual on an extended entrepreneurial and professional career in property, with, at the age of 85, the convenient asset of long-lasting perspective in a sector where experience matters, plus an instinctive grasp of entrepreneurial fears and hopes, dictating what human nature: does, or does not do when change is first encountered and finally commences the long term process of adaptation,
So first I applaud the 10 year window. What we actually need, to solve spatial problems with local support, is a generational window, ie. 30 plus years but a new PM talking about 10 years as a big step forward. All the same, can the PM and his government deliver spatial change in 10 years? Its a lot more realistic than 5, but the answer is no, without sufficient cross-party policy alignment. Why is the answer no? The reason is vested interests. In particular land owners, starting with generation led family landed estates, viz Crown Estate, Grosvenor estate, and the Oxbridge colleges; onto short- term trader land owners who are seeking to maximise value for all their assets, including single deal owners (and land controllers/option holders and builders). Rightly their priority, and their responsibility is to maximise the value of their assets. These are the future participants in the local plan call for sites system. So long as they believe they have sovereign control of the future use of their land (or in urban areas clusters of buildings or land interests) they will only respond to policy changes that are supported across the political landscape, If not, they will wait, wait and wait. And fifty years of recent history says they are right to do so. So Prime Minster, if you want deliver long term spatial change you must first win cross-party support. Without it vested interests will not cooperate. The PM will be told legislation will solve this problem. Experience shows this not the answer. Clever lawyers, experienced surveyors, and patient clients with deep pockets have always won since the 1980’s. But if Burnham, Badenoch and the other political leaders are seen to be sharing objectives for economic growth, spatial change and policy continuity at Westminster level, with a shared intention to put Westminster’s national agenda in prime position, with local priorities to once again to become subservient, then vested interests will adapt and may cooperate whilst long term investors will recover their trust in Westminster’s ability to deliver.
Will this governance and consistency change be enough to deliver the changes the PM needs? Unfortunately the answer again is no. He wants, and rightly so, to deliver a rebalancing of growth throughout England. But, with one exception, it is not in his gift. It is employers, not politicians and not employees who decide where tomorrow’s economic growth, ie. employment growth will happen. Here we are talking about the employers who in the main do not already exist. For example where are all tomorrow’s employers whose task will be rolling out AI choose to locate? Forget about what local leaders say. Look at what happened in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Where did the new generation of TNT and IT employers set up business? Where were the skills? In London and the Thames Valley centres like Reading, Slough and Heathrow and for three spatial reasons. One proximity to London (where many of their customers were based. Two, proximity to Heathrow (which offered fastest access to their markets. And three proximity to the places where they and their families most wanted to live-appealing, quintessential English countryside and villages. Barriers to growth like ODP’s (office development permits) and IDC’s (industrial development certificates) failed. So did did subsidies (like nil rents paid by local councils. There is widespread and false belief in the power of government to win spatial tussles. Post war history, in the UK and internationally shows this power is an illusion.
So, how can the PM change the remorseless dynamic established by years and decades of unbalance? There is one exception as mentioned which is in the gift of government. It is deciding the location of parliament and its supporting bureaucracy, the Whitehall departments. If there was a cross-party consensus to close the Palace of Westminster and all the central London/Whitehall based government departments and move them to one area to the north (not the current small scale scatter gun policy) over 30 years not only would the host area enjoy new regeneration but large parts of the private sector would move north too.
Here are my recommendations. Are they unrealistic? Until recently I thought it was possible. But as explored in a recent earlier blog, now that both main party political leaders are publicly talking about working together perhaps this sort of blue sky thinking is not too radical?
Ian Campbell
24 July 2026
