On 13 March 2024 the Institute of Government think-tank published a valuable paper, How should The the next government complete the job of English devolution? A serious and sensible piece of work, that reminds me of the earlier, heavyweight CMA report in some regards, more blind spots. . This new analysis of the governance weaknesses in England is informative and makes pithy observations. For example that “It is (therefore ) welcome that there is a consensus across the political spectrum on the need for wider and deeper devolution”, adding that by 2030 Michael Gove, like Labour wants all areas in England who want devolution to have it by then. Can we guess where devolution will not be wanted? See their map first of all for clues.
Perhaps the most promising but also most disappointing observation is on page 5, headed Focus on its Priorities which says ‘Given the broad consensus that increasing productivity growth is a pressing priority, the economic geography of areas should be key, meaning that new (devolution) deals should align where possible with ‘travel to work’ areas, local housing and labour markets. However, where local support for devolution is weak, the process may have to move more slowly to allow time for building of local consent’. In order to move forward consensus is key; this truth is foundational. But for how much longer does the Institute for Government think we need to wait, to win local support?.Another generation perhaps? Nimbyism is abundant and thriving despite its shameful consequences. Post WW2 history shows waiting does not work!
So who is going to persuade host communities to welcome change, when it involves home building and workspace building at scale in prosperous locations? In my opinion even a consensus based Whitehall policy will fail to drive forward growth policies in the places where house prices are two times their fair level, which employers rank as optimum locations.? Combined authorities or mayoral led regions without planning powers can buy acquiescence to growth based slogans from local communities because local council leaders will tell their electors what they want to hear: that they can have more government investment in infrastructure etc and better funding by playing the game. In elevated demand locations in the south the dead hand of no change councils will not coalesce to promote meaningful growth, nor contribute to national need for lots more new homes despite postures of support. Overlooking this fact is a worrying error by a well regarded think-tank. What do I mean? Their electors, generally subscribers to the ‘you can have your cake and eat it school of thought’ will not let their leaders join a self-denial movement,. What is in it for them? Catriona Riddell, strategic planning expert in Planning 4 April 2024 shrewdly points out that ‘….without spatial planning powers to help support an integrated approach to place-based growth, devolution may end up being an expensive project that fails to deliver.’.
My own experience on the one hand, widespread contemporary attitudes fearing change and the love of local spatial disputes by the media suggests that heavy weight, elite commentators simply fail to appreciate how deeply rooted, long established the irritant opposition to local change in popular areas is and will remain until this mind-set is directly tackled., How can this shift in thinking be achieved even with a Whitehall growth consensus, itself a vital win? Could a consensus based government policy pay host locations and surcharge overspill export locations, despite the contentious outcomes? Can a policy relying on consensus also rely on audacity? Is this local democracy in the open? How does it look two generations ahead?
Ian Campbell
8 April 2024:
