The government has published its Plans for change. They provide insight into the personal beliefs and convictions of the Prime Minister. So the fact that he has put his head on the block to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 matters. And he is saying some very sensible things, which I dearly hope he and his government can deliver. These extracts capture the flavour.
“ The sheer scale of the housing crisis demands a radical response. …..we will rebuild Britain, delivering new homes and the critical infrastructure that underpins economic growth…………Affordability of housing has fallen drastically as too few houses have been built….The government will deliver housing of every tenure in the right places …..(page 23)…..We will : Reform the planning system so that it is pro-growth and pro-infrastructure……. For the first time we will strategically join up decisions on housing, business growth and infrastructure at both national and local level, with the Westminster government’s industrial, housing and infrastructure strategies aligning with local growth plans and strategic development plans led by mayors. Only by delivering these reforms will we unlock investment and delivery” .(page 25).
The government diagnosis of the broken planning system, and its causes is accurate and does not pull punches. It deserves full attention. It is a welcome statement of a worthy objective. The question is can the government deliver? Does it have delivery in its gift?
By. 2029, the housing target of 1.5 million new homes is not possible.But by then can they lay the foundations for the radical changes needed provided they have answers to these questions
how will they turn reluctant hosts/councils into welcoming hosts?
how will they stop local pressure groups passionately opposed to change near them to reverse gear?
how will they prevent local land owners from screwing up spatial change initiatives without paying when development value for their land , which for the community is unfair?
By-passing local planning committees is tempting but all my instincts say this approach and local devolution will conflict. Local opposition to significant local change is deep bedded and may be terminal. The government policy is right but delivery which relies on short term brow-beating and not long term persuasion which is also linked to financial incentives and sanctions will fail. Opponents of change will hibernate until there is a change of government. Unless the government can also obtain support across the political divide they will fail. . As spatial planning is not an ideological issue, in theory this is possible. But the divisive passions of political labels, exported to local communities has blocked common sense, and civic sense since the seventies. Why will attitudes be different today?
Ian Campbell
11 December 2024
