Reading the summary of Rachel Reeves, Labour’s shadow chancellor of the exchequer Mais speech, 19 March 2024 about their planning reforms I was overwhelmed with relief and shaken with concerns. My feelings of bedlam were, and remain an odd sensation of suspended hope and oppressive fear.
Relief because Reeves did not hit one nail on the head, but successfully hit several planning nails on their respective heads. It is rare to see accurate analysis of the planning system from the top down. But I was shaken too by the elementary omissions which, without effective remedy, will stop these plans dead in their tracks whatever Labour may say and hope.
There are two cardinal omissions in Labour’s thinking. These omissions are two threads, making one grave, possibly insoluble problem. Put one way, how does a government win local support for local spatial change from host locations? Put another way, how does a government obtain cross-party support for a long term delivery policy, which is essential and without which Labour’s rejuvenation miracle will fail?
Rachel Reeves made several accurate observations about the English planning system. She said the planning system is the “ single greatest obstacle to our economic success” and is a “barrier to opportunity”. She added that “This Labour party will put planning reform at the very centre of our economic and political argument…”. summarising Labour planning objectives as a “once in a generation overhaul, to deliver the infrastructure and housing that is fundamental to our ambitions for home ownership, decarbonisation and growth”. Of even greater importance, at least in delivery terms is the remark last week by Michael Pennycock, Labour’s shadow housing and planning minister promising an effective mechanism for cross-boundary strategic planning. Good stuff by them both, but can Labour achieve cross-party cooperation to deliver these reforms, and even if they can, how can Labour win local support for spatial change?
Am I too pessimistic? Perhaps the most encouraging signal from Ms Reeves speech is this insight, saying planning reform “has become a byword for political timidity in the face of vested interests and a graveyard of economic argument.”. She is right. To which I would simply add, ‘and how, for several decades’. But finding ways of unlocking this contentious issue, in hot spot locations whether in booming Berkshire, not so radical Richmond upon Thames, or clobbered Cambridge will be a mighty contest. Sorry to say it, but I do not think they can succeed. Where do you start? How do you do it? Simply put, by what means can politicians win local support for local spatial change? The last four decades suggest only by subterfuge and Machiavellian detours, which are surely not preferred techniques in twenty first century democratic and emotionally charged, highly opinionated England?
In the spirit of positive thought, one clue comes to mind buried in the debris of recent local government history in Reading. Three changes decades ago happened in quick succession. A long established, well entrenched chief executive retired, Reading became a unitary authority responsible for its own area and Labour took power from the Conservatives and then retained it. Labour’s priority was not maintaining the status quo but economic growth. And the Conservatives, once in opposition accepted the policy changes introduced by Labour, , perhaps thinking it was not their responsibility.,which of course was true. Without this mind-set change at the seat of power the transformation of Reading from a modest centre and railway juncture to the leading commercial and new industries dynamo of the twenties would not have occurred. Could this pattern be repeated in the decades ahead at national level?
Look at the reverse example to see the penalty of resisting change. See what happens as haphazard growth swamps reluctant residents. Wokingham and Bracknell today are transformed or trashed, make your choice, following decades of growth, one as a post war new town with a master plan and the other as a reluctant unplanned dormitory to its lusty neighbour to the west and thrusting growth zones close by like Slough, Heathrow and London. Wokingham Borough recently asked all its residents how the felt about the growth and the prospect of more to come. Spatial growth started in the sixties, at Lower Earley, said at the time to be the biggest private housing estate in Europe. Was there a proud spatial vision for Wokingham in the sixties,, where I briefly lived but worked in nearby Reading. If so, despite my time as a buyer of residential building land I never found it. Is Wokingham an example to follow or one to avoid? Ask its residents how they voted, and then ask them their reasons.
Yet economic reality and generational fairness means we need growth. And this means spatial change. We need jobs where employers decide in a market based economy and we need homes nearby which the next generation can afford. But we do not want to concrete over the beautiful countryside or destroy popular city centres.,The best of. both locations provide users with the quality of life for which they yearn , and the best that nature and (sometimes) man can offer. Is it possible to protect both and the offer the generations the best start possible? Short termism fails. Policy U-turns fail. In my opinion some respect, some humility and some cooperation might help to find our way forward. I see this opportunity as the defining challenge our nation now faces. My fear is, despite Labours dreams, we will fail.
Ian Campbell
24 March 2024
