Andy Burnham, our new Prime Minister has opened up to The Sunday Times, (David Collins; ‘Politics, Inside Burnham’s No10 North. a week ago, August 23, 2026) to explain his plans to turbo-charge growth across the the UK. Specifically that housebuilding is a core objective for Burnham’s new No10 North ‘growth project based in GCHQ’s offices in Heron House in Manchester city centre, Collins). Conspicuously Collins adds that
‘Burnham can talk endlessly when it comes to devolution and what mayors need to create growth, but becomes cautious and guarded when discussing world affairs like the Strait of Hormuz…’.
These clues about the new PM’s personal comfort zone towards devolution, hose building and economic growth matter. Because most of it is not new. Currently he is one of only two front line politicians who not only has an opinion about the housing supply failure but relevant front line delivery experience too. The other is Simon Dudley, of Reform UK. Both of them have a rare expertise, enabling them to assess and say what will and will not work in spatial terms whilst also being mindful of the political hurdles to be overcome. (By the way, perhaps London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, Ben Houchen(Tees Valley) and Andy Street may also have these essential but rare insights too, but they not figures known in dealings with me sufficient to assess). Incidentally no main-stream media journalists, with the exception of Vicky Spratt, at The I Newspaper, has the necessary background understanding, informed knowledge or personal investigative expertise to add value, so it is no surprise that David Collins failed to ask one of the two fundamental and unanswered questions and obtained a fluffy reply to the other, examined below, and in addition see blog dated 26 August 2026, ‘Welcome but flawed + delivery which I will come back to below.
The status of David Collins interview with the Prime Minister in the eyes of the government is made clear in a message from the government’s own press office (MHCLG press, 26 August 2026- Housing) which refers to the interview under the title Coverage of plans to strengthen mayoral powers over planning decisions. The release makes these interesting points
~the government has been clear that any mayoral interventions would still need to be consistent with planning law and local development plans. The reforms are intended to help local leaders unlock development, accelerate housing delivery and support growth across England, (What about the mad call for sites system? And how about changing to a long term plan period, ie 60 years?)
~ Several reports noted that the government believes the reforms will help speed up development, support economic growth and unblock housing schemes that have become stalled in the planning system.
~ and it added comments used by broadcasters from the Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook ‘At the end of the day, it’s local leaders who know best how to realise the full economic potential of their areas. These new powers will help them to do that and ensure we get good growth in every postcode’. (Yes, they do. But will they act?)
These building and economic growth intentions are welcome. And perhaps they may be sufficient in the Midlands and the North. For the South, where local resistance to change is far stronger, where resistance to spatial change started decades ago. And mind -sets negativity towards change is far more vocal. So in judging the credibility of the Prime Ministers aspirations some historic context context will help. David Collins first reminded readers Burnham anligned himself to locals protesting at a huge 2000-home development in Hindley Green. And then he asked the PM ‘Could devolution to empower mayors push through important projects disempower councillors, MPs and the people they represent?’ Burnham’s reply is incomplete. He says
“ I can understand that argument. Sometimes-and I have done this as the MP for Makerfield-challenge does need to be made to local decision-making, and actually it cuts both ways. It’s not all about Nimbyism. Sometimes it’s the other way round. It’s a local authority putting forward something that’s unacceptable in terms of the impact on the community….so it’s a two-way street. The question is: do you want somebody who’s elected by the people of that area to consider a decision, or a far less accountable decision making process.”. At present Inspectors decide. Instead he says mayors will decide. But they will, unlike Inspectors, be elected. What makes the PM think a mayor for the Thames Valley will place national needs ahead of his electors local fears? In the Thames Valley many local council leaders think their towns and communities are full up. Which explains why opposition to local change is articulate, entrenched, unbending and – in reality- self-centred whatever soft words are used to the contrary. This fear needs to put into a historic context. A generation ago, in February 1990 Berkshire County Council (it was abolished seven years later) issued Towards 2000, Shaping the Future of Berkshire which said
‘Berkshire lies in the most economically buoyant part of Britain’s most successfully region. ….It’s 3/4 million people are involved in a wide range of employment from high tech research ….and, in spite of having one of the fastest rates of population growth in the country, the pace of economic expansion is causing serious labour and skills shortages. ….Development activity is adding to the pressures on the environment. It is commonly said that Berkshire suffers from the problems of success. Unless these problems can be solved, the success could end’.
About 15 years later, in November 2005 the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), also now abolished published its Review of Economic Strategy for South East England 2006-2016, which repeated the warnings saying
’It would be folly to assume that the South East’s current position as a world class region is assured. The biggest challenge of all is to overcome complacency. ….Housing in the region is characterised by high demand and inelastic supply….Maintaining and safeguarding the South Easts existing position as a world class region in such a challenging environment will be a major achievement and success is by no means assured.
The question always comes back to one intractable problem. How are existing articulate, comfortable housed and complacent residents to be persuaded to become welcome hosts? The PMs interview acknowledges there is a problem, even in Makerfield but offers no solution. Unless the mayors for red-hot growth areas like the Thames Valley whether elected or appointed have an obligation to place national growth needs above local resistance to change. If this is the PMs intention, it is not mentioned in the interview. Sounds as if No10 North thinking has reached where Berkshire was in the 1990s, a generation ago!
The other crucial issue is cross-party support for introducing long term spatial plans which have local support. Resolving the conflict between local fear of change and the national need for economic growth is a difficult challenge that must be grasped for the reasons set out in the earlier blogs this month. I hope the new PMs team is not going to fall into the same trap, of thinking that on their own, without cross-party support they can win the trust of landowners, local residents opposed to change and long term investors. Because they cannot. I feel disappointed, after the encouraging early pronouncements. Perhaps Burnham has not yet appreciated the scale and depth of opposition to local change in the southern shires and the wealthy areas of London which will drive national growth. If these areas remain in their long established impass, opposing all at scale change because the case for it is not made, and therefore not understood it will be a tragedy for the young, for the nation and even for the boomers who will see their heirs struggle and slowly slide into second rate outcomes.
Ian Campbell
31 August 2026
