MP’s in Westminster all know we need to build lots more homes. It is not politically divisive. Prices and rents are too high. Nor is the need to also have for local support divisive. The divisions that arise are spatial, where do the new homes go? But community leaders priorities in local areas do diverge, for good spatial reasons. Each location is unique. Their residents live with the results, good or bad. .Councils in weaker economic growth areas sensibly put more weight on job creation, whilst those located in the popular areas can take this generator of prosperity for granted, and instead worry about new housing eating up their valued open countryside, or their equally highly valued urban premium locations. Their residents are in elite areas and want no change.
So comments in today’s media high-light the opportunities and the threats for both parties. For example Ed Balls. (Times, 26 February 2024, Parties must work together to close the regional divides) rightly says “….if the next government wants to kickstart growth …….the two main parties just commit themselves to a common agenda that lasts beyond one parliament”. As mentioned in the post dated 21 February 2024 a long term approach is essential.
Also in today’s media , Sky News. (https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-outlines-desire-for-patriotic-economy- through-boosting-home-ownership-13080985) Sir Keir Starmer outlines his desire to run a ‘patriotic economy’ through boosting home ownership pans creating the the ‘next generation’ of new gowns if Labour wins the election. The piece adds, “ Under their plans for housing , Labour will pledge to reform planning laws to allow 1.5m new homes to be built, while its ‘ next generation’n of towns will be funded by raising taxes on foreign owners of UK property’.
Funding is a red herring for either party, provided they plan ahead, and enable councils to buy the future house building land 10/20 years in advance. when open market values will be the same as development values one or two decades later. No need to wack foreign owners. Equally muddled is the comment by the Conservative housing minister, Lee Rowley claiming his party have a plan and Labour do not. Neither has a plan that can be delivered with local support to build the housing an ageing population needs, that supports essential immigration and is delivered to zero carbon standards over two generations until the spatial nettle is grasped and local residents in the target locations are on board. This needs high level, market led master planning , consistent policy making and shrewd thinking. For example few or no private cars, and London standards of public transport. Bluntly, where do the few million homes that will be needed go, with local support.? What is in it for existing residents? Preferred locations must first be short-listed, so the debate is credible.
This is the biggest planning challenge ever seen for whoever is in power. And both main political parties show no evidence that either understands what drives the spatial decision. What may be possible and the no-go locations. It is not what voters want. It is not what MP’s as legislators want. It is not what conservationists want. But it is what tomorrow’s generation of employers want. In this debate future employers will call the spatial shots. There is one exception, which is in the gift of politicians. . Which is so unlikely a to be risible. It is to move central government and the legislators out of central London to a new, single, concentrated venue.This radical shift would make an impact. It will not happen.
How are future employers to be persuaded to go where residents and politicians want? They, and the councils concerned have to make weak appeal locations appealing. If not, employers will locate in Europe. Low and free rents does not work. Subsidies do not either. Look at post war location of industry failed initiatives, (Office Development Permits and Industrial Development Certificates), In my opinion there are no proven routes to deliver a levelling up programme which are real, even with cross-party support. I hope I am wrong. But political parties working together over several decades, following the principles of good estate management might find a solution.
Ian Campbell
26 February 2024
