This is the ugly truth. Political parties in Westminster do not want to admit it. In the high demand fast growth areas, and in the high demand dormitory areas of the Home Counties and Southern England, local councils do not want, and do not intend to provide the homes needed in the future. Both main political parties pay lip service to the national need for lots of new homes. Neither shows any proof they know what to do. Nor awareness of the pitfalls to be overcome if pragmatic policies, essential to delivery are to be put in place. They show no sixth sense of the fierce menaces local opponents can muster. Both can take comfort from the fact that the LibDems, Greens and Reform UK level of timorousness is worse than theirs! All parties fear short term hub-bub. Despite subscribing to the primacy of economic growth, none will confront media led chaotic prattle- driven by selling more copies or clicks today, regardless of the damage caused to the young’s tomorrow.
This assertion is sweeping. It is brutal. It needs to be proved.. Here are the facts.
Let us start with Labour. They are in power. Michael Pennycook is the Housing Minister. His department has generated a tsunami of new initiatives since coming into government twenty months ago. This intense level of well-meaning activity is very welcome. His party acknowledges there is a massive supply-side problem. Berating Conservative controlled Buckinghamshire Council in a letter to them dated 13 February 2026 (Planning Resource, Michael Connelly, 16 February 2026) Pennycook, noting their poor performance with past plan making ( that the council has not yet made site allocations available to the public) is concerned there is a significant risk that the council will once again fail to meet its own milestones. In his letter he warns
“…there is high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of the area’s potential “.
Make the most of the area’s potential! Forget it. He takes Buckinghamshire to court.Why? For encouraging development to come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis. Land which comes forward for building through the existing call for sites (local plan) method of forward planning arrives in a hit and miss manner, with little or no control of the timing or location. Yes, of course it is a speculative process. These unsure characteristics-in truth haphazard spatial planning: which is an oxymoron-define an established but little understood (local plan) land supply policy. It is a policy which relies on a market led system of supply. Pennycook is complaining about failings of the official call for sites method of deciding where, and where not, to build. Markets thrive on chaos, and respond to price signals. So landowners who put forward their sites for inclusion in draft local plans do so quite properly because it is in their best interest. Whether these random locations are situated in the best spots to serve the long term interests of the local community is a gamble. It will be a happy, but unlikely coincidence if this was usually the case. Does the Minister understand he is using plasticine to build planning foundations for the future? This insane process explains the broken the supply system.
So after 20 months in office it ought to be plain to the Minister the call for sites system is not sound, . It is in my opinion the commanding reason why planners and the planning system is not trusted. Has he understood it must be replaced? Of greater importance, has he understood that his party alone cannot make this change? A generation of bad planning process needs cross-party support to find a better way. Let’s move on.
Where are the Conservatives on housing? Until the summer 2024 general election the answer was simple. Their policy was not to talk about it. Conservative MPs too know we need the homes and the economic growth building and investment will bring, but they also know the locations where new homes are needed most of all are usually controlled by Conservative councils who locally want growth and prosperity but do not want the new homes and newcomers growth delivers. But the Conservative Party face a grim threat. To quote Sir James Cleverly, shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government:
”Housing sits at the heart of aspiration. As Conservatives, we instinctively understand that having a home of your own matters: having a home gives people a stake in their society, their community, and their country. ……The portfolio I now hold of housing, communities and local government also provides a vital opportunity to engage younger people. The uncomfortable truth is that over the past few elections, the average age of the Conservative voter has crept steadily upwards. We are not getting the level of engagement we need from people under 50, and I am not talking about teenagers, but people in their 30s and 40s. ………Not only are too few of them voting Conservative: many are considering leaving the country for a better life elsewhere. One of the causes of that is housing: either the difficulty in buying a home, rental costs eating a disproportionate amount of salary, or small or inadequate housing meaning people feel that they cannot settle down and start a family………If we want to form the next government, we must offer an aspirational vision for a new generation” (Foreword, Conservative Party Forum, 9 February 2026).
These too are welcome words. Putting aside ideological divisions between Labour and Conservatives, the policy gap between these two parties is modest. After all Cleverly’s exhortations are echoed by Sir Mel Stride, Conservative shadow chancellor of the exchequer who, on the PM Radio 4 programme (3/03/26) said to Evan Davis planning needs supply-side reforms in order to re-wire the economy. He is also correct. But, like Labour, the Conservatives alone cannot re-wire the English economy. We need here to look at the problem from the other perspective: local people and their point of view. Their leaders will and do stop governments building. How are to be persuaded?
Frustration and muddle-headedness seem to sum up Liberal Democrat councillor Ian Thorn’s, leader of Wiltshire Council feelings ‘
To receive this letter is extremely disappointing given the significant work already undertaken and our willingness to address the issues’ ( Planning Resource, Alex King, 3 March 2026).
Two government appointed inspectors have recommended that Wiltshire withdraws its draft local plan(submitted in November 2024) from examination saying that the council’s proposed solutions to address their ‘significant soundness concerns’ are ‘unrealistic’. The inspectors have ‘fundamental concerns about the spatial strategy’. Cllr Ian Thorn says
‘We will be considering how best to proceed in the coming days, and a further update will follow’.
It seems likely he sees conflict ahead. A government that wants to put in place the foundations for more growth locally, and a local electorate which does not. As most of these councils want the jobs, but not the homes, why are we surprised there is hostility? There is nothing new about it. Local anger started in the Thames Valley in the 80s, and has spread across most of England. . It is rooted in wishful thinking. You cannot have prosperity and jobs, without homes. You cannot have homes without infrastructure.
Take another topical example of suppressed conflict. Rother District Council in East Sussex last adopted a local plan in 2014 (Planning Resource, Natasha Norris, 26 February 2026). They are now consulting on a new draft strategy which provides 54% of its housing need. Despite the 46% shortfall, the draft says neighbouring authorities are not in a position to accommodate Rother’s unmet needs, whilst it has left ‘no stone unturned’ in the process of identifying sites to meet the district’s needs. Put simply their housing availability assessment concludes there is ‘insufficient capacity’ to meet the government’s requirements. Tough cheese on the next generation of Rother’s citizens: lots of them will be homeless or exiles. But Rother District Council have an alibi to explain their conduct. Around 90% of the District is either a National Landscape or a protected habitat site; both deemed not suitable for development.
Castle Point Borough Council in Essex also submitted a strategy to the Minister on 31 January 2026 that mets only 53% of its housing needs. More homeless and more exiles coming down the track in the 2030s and 2040s. Their alibi to stop development is green belt. 53% is green belt. Deputy leader of Castle Point Council is Independent councillor Warren Gibson. He says
‘Castle Point is one of the most constrained areas of England. …….the council considers the government figure to be unlikely to be achievable, which is why the draft Castle Point Plan proposes a significantly lower ….housing provision….”
Perhaps the classic example of spatial policy failure is Three Rivers District Council in Hertfordshire who last adopted a local plan in 2011 (Planning Resource, Natasha Norris, 6 February 2026) . Pennycook has ordered the Liberal Democrat run authority to stop consulting on a final draft local plan that meets only 56% of their housing requirement, as the Minister has ‘little confidence’ that the council plan will sound or legally compliant. The reaction of Three Rivers. Council leader articulates the conflict with clarity. Following a meeting on 27 January 2026, Cllr Stephen Giles-Medhurst said
’Over the years, the government has been urging us to meet their high and unrealistic housing figures-and each time we have rejected this and have fought for a local plan that meets about 56% of their target while providing the right type of housing, employment space and infrastructure in the right places and retaining 73% of our green belt”.
Pennycook takes a different view to Giles-Medhurst, saying (5 February 2026 letter) there is ‘little explanation publicly available to justify this approach’. It is reported the Conservative group on the council wanted a much lower number. Giles-Medhurst feels strongly they are right, saying
”I believe our plan for 7027 homes is the right one that protects most of our green belt whilst still providing new homes and the infrastructure we need. It is fully supported by evidence, and is backed by the Three Rivers Joint Residents’ Association as well as other political groups on the council, Labour, Green and Independent councillors. There were no votes against it at our Full Council meeting on 27 February 2026……I welcome having feedback on our plan from the Minister when he reviews the evidence and welcome the opportunity of discussing constructively with the minister and officials as well as showing the minister around Three Rivers and our area that consists of 75% green belt’.
Is there a solution? The building land delivery process is not working. The Conservatives are concerned to preserve local democracy. The other political parties will also want to do so. How can this be achieved whilst encouraging and enabling investment in the future? The national priority is economic growth. Is this objective incompatible with preserving local choices? As I have said in earlier blogs, in my opinion all councils must introduce and take responsibility for a new long term spatial strategy for their areas, which will take effect when existing local plans end in the 2030’s. . The intention of this new council driven spatial policy will be first to remove surprise from planning and second to put local councils in direct control of where new building will, and will not go. And also when it will happen. The call for sites system is a failed policy. Within half a generation it must become redundant. Councils must then resume spatial leadership of their areas. For fifty years the market has tried to do the spatial job at local level and has failed. The symptoms of failure are in plain-sight- affordability, alienation, infrastructure, trust in planning. Political leaders in Westminster must come together,; there is no other way to deliver a more acceptable future to the next generation. Only by working together can they defeat the vested interests.
Ian Campbell
4 March 2026
