The new housing minister, Lucy Frazer is well intentioned, like all her predecessors. That is good. Rightly she says ‘what people often object to isn’t always homes, it’s about ugly large developments that are crowbarred without their consent into their areas…..’.
Widespread recognition at all levels that current house prices and rents are excessive is very good too. Until around the 2010 general election the growing housing deficit was largely ignored by successive governments and exploited by a multiplicity of consultancy professionals. Some of us, and the first post WW2 baby boomers, remember the time long ago when most accommodation in England was perfectly affordable to those with an average job, with the small exception of highly desirable parts of the West End or prime Kensington, Chelsea and Knightsbridge. The downward spiral in affordability, the millstone of unnecessary, unproductive growing debt over two generations is an indictment of failure by governments and local councils. The shame of democratic failure is extensive and can be shared widely.
If you doubt we have gone backwards read this. In January 1947 Lewis Silkin MP said
“Already the world is looking eagerly to this country to see how we intend to solve the problem of the rebuilding of our blitzed towns and cities and the redevelopment of our dreary, ugly, squalid industrial towns; how we are to decongest the overcrowded large towns, and how we intend to build our new towns; how we are going to reconcile the growth of great new industrial activity with desirable, convenient and attractive conditions of living”.
The solution was the Commission for New Towns. They built the homes needed. They pocketed the added value planning consent creates. Were the master plans, the designs, the roads perfect. Certainly not. That is not the point. Today we can do far better in these contentious sectors, but we still cannot find the building land where the homes will go. In a country where there is plenty of open land this is nonsense. The simple question remains: how do we reconcile growth with attractive living conditions? Finding the right location is step one. Local councils taking ownership of the land in the right location is step two. Rocket science is not needed. Instead savvy common sense is necessary.
The new minister says she wants communities to be able to contribute. Will this input provide the sound judgement needed? Aren’t local plans built on this principle? So far they too have failed to win local support. Will levelling up be the answer? Without a return to some sort of strategic planning first of all? I propose a different approach. It means local communities take responsibility for delivery of building land as well as planning policy. The private sector has pioneered an answer that works, that is tested in the market and has passed the test. Look at the place making examples of landed estates in rural and urban areas. Look at the generational timescales they adopt. Look at their ability to create premium values by discreetly, consistently, sometimes over centuries following place stewardship principles (see Canalas & Raco, The work that place does: The London Landed Estates and a curatorial approach to estate management). At Poundbury in Dorset the Crown Estate have created 30% premiums. Place stewardship principles works but needs inputs by selfless leaders not intimidated by local vested interests committed to their community’s future vision who will be manage local expectations with shrewd foresight. How are these leaders to be found? There is also a balance to be found between local accountability and long term, community priorities when conflicts arise? The CNT did it for the nation. Who can do it for local communities? Their first step is obtain control of the land their community will need far ahead.
Ian Campbell
8 November 2022
