Is this a return to strategic planning abolished by Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011? The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) last month published a report they commissioned written by Tony Poulter entitled Homes England Public Bodies Review 2023. Significantly it says Homes England should play a bigger role in leading and promoting sites for 10,000 homes or more. Michael Gove, Housing Minister welcomes the report’s recommendations. After the.Cambridge tripling in size proposal first floated last summer by the government, endorsement of this lofty thinking is also encouraging. Are we on the way back to strategic planning by the back door?
But once again it is a divorced step which illuminates the Government’s unjoined up thinking. Haphazard here and hazard there comes to mind. Where is the policy for winning local support? Where is the policy for spatial policy thinking? Master planning and master developer projects need at the very least as a starting point some spatial context. We shall grow the economy there but not here. For example the employment market evidence identifies growth locations, and therefore housing demand over the next two generations. Together they will lead the spatial evolution. . Understanding how this driver of change works, or can be nudged is elemental. How will the growth locations connect to one another? And connect into the existing infrastructure? Communities of 10,000 new homes need a generation to plan and build out. Is there Westminster level consensus support for this patchwork across the political divide? Is this new report building upon the recent evidence of levelling up consensus? Levelling up consensus matters a lot, and needs nurturing. Is there recognition at least there is one secure foothold for the future? Where does this report fit into the big picture? This government must clarify its priorities.
You cannot build thumping great development projects willy nilly. And you certainly cannot build them anywhere without local support. Designing and building the ways and mean delivery machine first, and delaying the big policy objectives seems to be a case of putting the horse and cart in the wrong order. Is Michael Gove’s department full of disingenuous or well intentioned light weights who know they need to think ahead because someone has told them, but don’t know where to begin? Because Gove knows. To repeat the message of recent posts. A two generations national spatial plan first, and local support second, (with incentives to host communities if this is necessary to speed things up) is the starting point. In our vibrant and tribal democracy think spatial first and think communications second. It seems to be mothers wit. . Win local support for change and if you are patient, you win economic growth, productivity growth, affordable homes, protection of rural areas we love, climate goals and maybe more. Not bad?
There is one more win. Planning far ahead means funding ceases to be a barrier. One important Treasury concern can be parked. Land value capture enables viability. All this revolution needs is leadership, some political courage at this general election and resolution afterwards as those with vested interests try and return to muddle and frustration. With consensus in place in Westminster most of them can be co-opted with unselfish compensation.
Ian Campbell
12 April 2024
