History of growing local opposition. Tories abolish the future. New government must find ways to reverse the 1970/1980’s silent, undemocratic revolution.
Why is there very little local support for change? Why is there so little foresight? Why are local leaders so often myopic as a group despite the obvious detrimental consequences? Why do local residents not make the connections? Too few homes today: means vey expensive homes for their children and grandchildren tomorrow. Answer, because no change suits their short term, small horizon outlooks. These groups, harshly but accurately called nimbies are passionate, conviction-driven, shortsighted local activist opponents of spatial change in their area. They have successfully warped the agenda for economic growth, for house building and for the new infrastructure. They are tenacious opponents of change with decades of success slowing and stopping growth in their localities. Many are natural leaders and thrive on their ability to protect the local area from ugly, disruptive change. (Change need not be ugly! ). This negative perspective makes a lot of sense for them, can often be solidly justified from a local point of view, and is shared by many like-minded residents.
Their power driven reputation for successful opposition deters investors, causes multiple increases in the cost of infrastructure as developers and infrastructure providers try and second guess the next assault front. Opposing arguments that it makes new homes too small and too unaffordable are not debated. They are ignored. Forty plus years of real time housing policy has created unaffordability. Nimbies are the reason why so many young people cannot afford the home their parents bought a generation ago. This outcome is broken planning and democratic failure on a grand scale. Forty plus years ago the nimby lobby mounted a sneaky revolution in the high demand areas. The costs were concealed. They cleverly replaced democracy with special pleading and potent advocacy for no change. They won. Their example which started in the Thames Valley is now followed nearly everywhere in England.
Let me examine failure’s consequences. There is a governance chasm between local aspirations, usually for no change, and national priorities for growth, to invest and be internationally competitive. And the national need is to raise the taxes to pay for the public services people want: but the chasm! It is immense. It remains unbridged. What happened? In 2010 the David Cameron led government took power, adopting the mantra of abolition of statist intervention. . In the process he also, (unintentionally I suppose) abolished the future. It was an unwise and nearly irresponsible response to right wing Tory beliefs the market for land will find its own level. Nonsense as rationing of building land has operated for decades. To meet this objective all forms of regional and strategic planning, were removed, installing instead the phoney duty for councils to co-operate. This spatial step was akin to leaving the children in the playground, telling them to be nice to one another, removing adult supervision, saying that left to their devices councils behaviour would produce market dividends. It did for landowners. The call for sites system started the haphazard spatial chaos which has destroyed trust in the planning system. A few years later Theresa May said the system was broken. It was. And it still is. This is Labour’s inheritance. Rightly Labour now want to return spatial powers to local communities. But they cannot do it in five years if the outcome is not to be ill-considered spatial solutions built on trivial master planning done on the cheap, at a rush with no longer term, generational plan as the foundation. Nor can Labour do it without ensuring local communities becomes owners of the future land which matters.These steps take time, cannot be rushed and need cross-party ownership.
A little more history might help the understanding and reminds us of what not to do. In 1997, 2001 and 2006 Labour paid little attention to housing, despite the fast growing locally led opposition to building new homes. despite the local welcome for new jobs, out of town business parks and even shopping centres in fast growth locations. A few commentators, and I was one pointed out you cannot have one without the other. (See Growth v. Quality of Life , a Thames Valley solution; 1991) . In the nineties, for example Prudential invested heavily in a potential new urban extension to Reading of 7500 new homes, possible new rail stations and motorway Parkway links. The short distance to central Reading, the public transport links and the many existing much liked but little used water features are the characteristics of sustainable growth, underwritten by a long term investor. Some local support at the start seeped away as the years and costs clocked up. The land remains largely underused, or derelict. Will Reading Borough pick up the abandoned project?
Taking yet another step back in time helps too. Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1989 and she, and her successor John Major fiddled with regional planning, with little enthusiasm. Investment opportunities drifted by as the TNT revolution fired up in the USA, and fizzled in England. IT employers queued to get into the Thames Valley long before the Oxford/MK/Cambridge arc had mention. Many were turned away by supply blockages. Jobs were welcome. Homes were not. Questions about staff availability grew. . The mantra became put the new homes east of London but keep the jobs in Thames Valley. Crude spatial nonsense coloured popular sentiment and local Structure Plans. Political leaders played along. I gave expert evidence at the Examination in Public. . For some MP’s in rural constituencies what mattered was to ignore the future if it contained difficult issues like locations for new homes,, and focus on the sexy bits, like job creation, with tabloid potential today. . It was and remains abdication of leadership. None of the three parties have a clear conscience or a clean record. Even in Labour led Reading there was opposition only a decade ago to an urban extension to Reading.
The general election endorsement last month of Labour’s spatial priorities means it is time for some honesty and sincere commitment to the national needs and our future needs and the re-weighting of local priorities. This is a tough ask in an era of devolution locally. Indeed, is this re-ordering possible in England’s aggressive confrontational style of governance? The housing supply industry; the infrastructure supply industry; the investment industry: all have a problem which needs cross-party solutions to fulfil sustainable expectations. None will take five year parliamentary snap shot solutions seriously. They will be nursery outcomes. Instead we need first class graduation outcomes.
I return to the central question. How to obtain local support for local change? How can this government reverse the silent, anti-democratic revolution that happened in the seventies and eighties in the fast growth locations in the south? On a personal level I have limited experience of communication strategies, or the potential of PR to put a message across. In earlier blogs I have stressed the need for time and the need to stop spatial surprises. And I have given examples of urban successes in the recent past. Talk to the landed estates; talk to the veterans of the CNT; talk to the investors who are seeking long term, steady growth openings; most of all talk to the political opposition to find and build on common ground. And do not talk to groups who have their own agenda, whether spatial, commercial or environmental until the government first has in place a national spatial plan with local support. Most of all, follow the market. This means follow the new jobs location decisions made by the new employers. They know where they want to be: ask them. And follow their spatial priorities. These guidelines will bring the changes and the growth the government seeks and will do so on a long term, generational basis.
In the meantime Angela Rayner please start the spatial housing debate around financial reality. If you, Local Residenr do not want your share of the housing your area needs, think carefully that you may pay those areas that will host your housing exports.Do you agree it is fair? This financial debate will corner the misguided and will refocus the mind-set of the others. Now is the moment to be radical. Please use your goodwill before sentiment changes.
Ian Campbell
5 August 2024
.
