Have now completed a first read of this recently published report, Beyond the permacrisis-delivering 1000 homes a day, intended to mould the new government’s approach to housing policy, I have one severe criticism. But first a personal declaration. Is there a conflict? As I am listed as one of the Contributors.
There is a lot of good intellectual and process based analysis in many of their Recommendations. Although the rush to action may be unwise. As too little weight is given to the market and the the reactions of the key players.
Page 40. “The Government’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament is the lynchpin of its policy platform. Succeed and it will be well set to deliver on its other missions:: ……..Fail and it cannot succeed anywhere.”
I do not agree. Regardless of what the Government says they will not build 1.5 million new homes by 2029’s general election. They may fail for lack of builders. I do not not know. They will certainly fail their own numbers test, of this we can sure, because many of the sites they hope will contribute the new supply are marinated in negativity. How come? The source may be landowners, option holders or building partners hibernating whilst they wait for the government policy on land prices to change again. Or it may be local leadership steeped in myopic blinkers. Or it may be local residents, their local councillors and in some cases their local MP’s trying to swallow the bitter pill being forced down their throat: accommodating far more homes than they want. I do not know how long this sort of nasty medicine takes to be delivered and digested. But until the process has happened these sites will be hot; they will be contentious and – in political terms- they will be wicked. Do not be surprised if local leaders run off in the opposite direction. In time negative attitudes will change.Hey, hoe! It will take time. The RBT report is optimistic to ignore the time needed to remove spatial negativity. And is a good example of the common assumption that sense will prevail over prejudice if the facts are seen with clarity. Perhaps. But change is long, painful process in an old country nostalgic for the past. . Fortunately failing to fulfil their own 2029 numbers test at the next general election does not matter if meaningful long term alignment on spatial policy, or national spatial plan with cross-party support is in place by then. Laying the right groundwork is the priority.
Which brings me to my one criticism! Why is local support not mentioned? Astute people like planners and civil servants must be wondering how to turn reluctant host communities into welcoming communities. So am I. Once again I suggest the crude but effective answer. Money. Rates subsidies for the host communities and rates levies for the export communities. Many say money talks. I suggest it is time for the government to grasp this nettle.
Ian Campbell
30 October 2024
