Removing conflict about future land use choices, big or small in scale, whether the change is in a rural or urban location needs detailed thought within a strategic, ie longterm context. Therefore it must be cross-party led. So here is my proposal for resolving long term housing supply pressures in the Thames Valley ( and maybe in parts of London too).
Resolving land use conflicts becomes easier and credible to assess and weight up by making the theoretical discussion geographically specific. In an earlier blog I use the example of Wokingham Borough as a location where after decades of disjointed, haphazard and uncoordinated housing outcomes residents feel frustrated and disillusioned with the results and exasperated with their local leaders spatial failures. . With good reason. But allocating blame when there is little or no understanding of spatial theory is unwarranted. Wokingham is a place defined by housing policy failure over several decades. Few who foresaw the consequences of unbridled jobs growth unaccompanied by an acceptable supply of housing had the power or ability to call a halt before runaway house price escalation had taken hold. . Wokingham was run by a council with leaders little better or worse than almost ever other local council in the Thames Valley: caught in the dilemma of enjoying the benefits of economic growth with no popular pressure to deliver matching, unwanted homes. Central government’s responsibilities for seeing the opportunities and the risks of unplanned spatial growth died when strategic planning was stopped in 2011.
After years of Conservative Party dominance in Wokingham of the council and the local Conservative Member of Parliament, each were replaced with Liberal Democrat political leaders. Wokingham’s spatial failures over fifty years are therefore a helpful example of the bad outcomes housing supply policy failures produce: bluntly unhappy local residents; excessive house prices and rents; unnecessary car travel and open countryside overwhelmed by pop-up new homes unloved and unwelcomed by existing Wokingham residents. This is spatial policy failure on a grand scale.
But the surprising and encouraging thing today is this. That when it comes to delivering future spatial planning obligations , both main political parties are seriously angered with the latest spatial land use obligations placed on Wokingham Borough by the government. In other words so far as future housing supply is concerned, there is no deep-seated ideological or spatial divide between local political leaders. Each party rejects the housing supply policies the borough must deliver by 2045. Which seems to prove that party politics locally are at best irrelevant and at worst are destructive, In Wokingham’s case, and as I have said in previous blogs, in my opinion party rivalries are a major cause of Wokingham’s failures. But Wokingham is not unique. Therefore what does the local anger directed at widespread spatial failure over several decades tell us?
In essence there is a deeply rooted conflict between local wishes, put forward to local councillors by local residents about where future land use should happen, as they believe their town is full-up. So they object to government set national economic and growth priorities which demand a significant increase in the number of homes available to buy and to rent locally. Briefly these directions from a government are needed to tackle the housing supply deficit and to make homes once again affordable. There is no evidence that I know, that Wokingham’s residents do not accept the view that nationally more homes are needed. Few dispute that house prices and rents are too high and inhibit labour mobility. But spatially, ie. where the new homes are to go is a very different matter.
Wokingham’s residents opposition to new homes often will articulate their doubts about a proposed actual location. Or it maybe rejection of the need for new homes in their town, as Wokingham is seen to be full-up. Many fear, with good reason based on experience that most of the new homes needed the government’s says, will be built in the open countryside. As the town centre area is tiny, opponents are, in my opinion, right to have these doubts. . One party, the Conservatives are pushing for the new homes to be built in the centre of Wokingham, and not in the open countryside. This preference reflects a wish to enhance new residents accessibility to public transport and reduce their dependency on cars, which are sensible aspirations in theory when the location is a major urban centre. . But as a retired land buyer I wonder where, without statutory powers to buy up large areas of centrally located lower value homes for demolition (and in Wokingham there are not many) and their wholesale replacement with new, higher density medium rise blocks which will be constructed to boost densities, such spatial policies in Wokingham are deliverable. They will be highly controversial and will lack cross-party support, without which little can be achieved, Regeneration at higher densities in a large urban metropolis makes sense if policy timing is far ahead, but in a small country town like Wokingham it is not a deliverable spatial strategy.
The governance conflict goes deeper. Local democracy suffers from a common defect.It is widespread and enduring spatial myopia. What does this mean? There are two strands to understand. First most local residents living in wealthy dormitory areas like Wokingham welcome and exploit the prosperity that decades of jobs growth has brought to their lives. But few residents connect the employment opportunities this buoyancy has provided with a subsequent need to build a lots of new homes for the next generation of workers, including for their own off-spring. . Instead the need for local housing is blamed on the belief that immigration is the problem. Stopping it will reduce housing demand and the few homes needed can be built elsewhere.. There is some truth in both these convictions, but appropriate levels of immigration are likely to continue; needed to maintain and drive national economic growth.
Two, spatial myopia is also, as recent history shows, the inability of existing residents, and their leaders to think far ahead strategically. If Wokingham is full-up, and if the future supply of homes must therefore be placed somewhere else, then the obvious question is where do they go? Is there another possible location? How far away will it be? How welcoming will hosts there be towards new residents exported from Wokingham, and so on? Put differently, Wokingham must put in place an overspill policy, which indicates where, when and how many new homes will be exported. It also means that Wokingham must reach an agreement with the host location that it will accommodate these additional homes. Existing residents in host locations within reasonable distance of Wokingham may take a different view about Wokingham’s overspill needs being passed to them. The contentious aspects of an active overspill policy in a semi-rural area like Wokingham are obvious. Solutions like financial incentives for residents in host locations are also obvious. Wokingham on its own does not have the power to resolve these policy conflicts.
So let’s test this spatial thinking with another example. One that exists in a long established urban area which, by definition has no open countryside on which to build. After my family moved away my wife and I moved into the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. After decades in rural Surrey and rural Berkshire we appreciate the amenities urban living in London offers, supported by the highly developed public transport choices that facilitate easy and economical access to these amenities. But homes prices in the London Borough are ridiculously high. About twice what they should be in my opinion. Often more than ten times wages and salaries. So where will the next generation of Richmond’s children live, if they want to stay in London? Unless they are well-off it is likely they will be compelled to leave Richmond. and live elsewhere. Because it seems if the local plan is followed there is zero prospect lots of new homes will be built in the next two decades in and around Richmond to make the price of new homes affordable for young people in ten or even twenty years from now. In other words an unofficial housing demand overspill export policy is already in place, forcing the next generation of Richmond’s residents to move away. Or does Richmond upon Thames have a long term, generational supply policy to stop an export housing housing policy becoming the default reality? Not to my knowledge, As other London Boroughs will have the same severe land constraints they must be facing the same dilemma as Richmond. And same unofficial export policy. Their housing policies too are probably to ignore the real problem, as it is too divisive to address, but pay lip service to minimalist default policy. So is this London’s housing supply default policy of failure? Is it how we wish to continue to ignore housing supply needs of the next next generation? If so, it looks like governance failure of such totality that, regardless of existing residents options about future housing the conflict cannot be resolved as its existence is not admitted. But it will be the outcome, by default if reality is not seen, understood and acted upon whether in Richmond or Wokingham.
Having said this, it seems to be an unseen and overlooked massive policy failure, without common purpose amongst political parties. Put bluntly, it looks as if it may happen by default. Which if correct is a very bad outlook for the young of today and their children. Each council needs a spatial policy which looks far ahead, two generations in my opinion. Local leaders failed a generation ago. Unless spatial reality is faced, it will happen again.
In February 1990, a generation ago, I published Growth v. quality of life, a Thames Valley solution. Here is the Preface in full
What is the the future of the Thames Valley? In the 21st Century, it will be different-but better or worse? Many people who niw live or work in the Thames Valley share a concern that whilst it is a prosperous part of the United Kingdom, all is not well. Congestion on the roads; lack of affordable housing for vital workers; and acute staff shortages show that, despite the prosperity something is wrong. There is a fear that problems of today may become acute as the years go by.
These concerns exist. There is an emerging consensus that “something must be done”. But no consensus on which is the right route forward. There is a growing risk that important issues and choices will not be addressed until the problems are generally admitted as immediate and acute. By then the damage will already have taken place, to the environment and economy.
This paper proposes a way forward. It is radical. Its success depends upon the foresight of the community. Bearing in mind that it proposes a community three times larger than Foxley Wood, which generated much debate and plenty of opposition, the timing may seem foolhardy. This is not so. Berkshire County Council have now released their consultation paper Towards 2000. Its purpose is to stimulate a debate about the future of Berkshire. It is hoped that the proposal put forward here can form part of that debate.
Rapid growth in the Thames Valley in the last two decades has not been accompanied by a corresponding investment in infrastructure and public services. Perhaps it is thought that a policy of neglect towards the Thames Valley infrastructure will help to redress the imbalance between the North and South. So it will. And if so, it sentences the residents of the Thames Valley to a decline in the quality of their lives. Part of the case for the solution contained in this paper is a belief the sacrifice is neither necessary or acceptable. But, it stresses the need for the Thames Valley (if it is to continue to be a green and pleasant place in which to live and work) to look after its own destiny.
In February 1990,when this paper was published average house prices in the Thames Valley (source, ChatGPT) were £80,000 compared to £380.000 today. After adjusting for inflation the £80,000 figure is about £200,000, so in real terms prices have nearly doubled, leading to a significant reduction in residents spending power.
The housing supply question was not answered in 1990. It looks as if it will not be answered today. Where do the new homes needed go? Perhaps we now, for the first time, have a means of finding an answer? Will the new Thames Valley Mayor be able to supply the answer? . As noted in the last blog, this new step has considerable potential to introduce at last long term, strategic cross-border spatial planning. It is also good to see the current leader of Wokingham council Cllr Stephen Conway has welcomed the concept of a Thames Valley Mayoral Authority (MSA). But big questions about the extent of the Mayor’s future role remain unanswered. . For example if there is conflict between his/her powers and and policy objectives and those of local councils, whose priorities will prevail? To whom are mayors answerable? By whom are they paid? By whom are they appointed? These are unknowns, but this is an important and sensible step forward.
Returning to fears of building homes local residents do not want. two more key omissions remain if these fears are to be allayed. One is finding a design genre that is liked by new and existing residents, which achieves sufficiently high densities, minimises private car usage and creates premium values. As very few admired examples exist in England- the only one I can recall is Leon Krier’s first design for Poundbury based on a concept using late Victorian mansion block heights and traditional, proven materials. And in addition maglev public transport means of travel so far fewer private cars are wanted.
And two, recognition that locations and timings of homes delivery are in the gift of land owners. So therefore councils too must become landowners. The clever ones will buy when building land prices are low, just as they are today. My suggestions about where at scale new homes in the Thames Valley can be built between now and the end if this century, say 2084 are set out out in an earlier blog. In Richmond the options exist too, but they will have different considerations.
To sum up, local leaders and their supporters must introduce flexible long term spatial policies for their areas. Flexible in timing and flexible in location. As residents do not like land use change, the future building focus must be on the opportunities, community benefits, and public amenities to be provided. Good change can deliver premium outcomes environmentally and financially, by not repeating the bad changes that have plagued so much Thames Valley development for fifty years.
Ian Campbell
1 November 2026
