This log is long. I apologise.
These two, planning and politics, are in conflict. Not one of the main political parties acknowledges this fact. For example, economically the nation needs policies to accelerate growth and improve productivity. Short term policy fixes, a confrontational mind-set in Westminster, policy U-turns at elections and slavish party loyalty, at the expense of national duty, hinders economic progress.
But myopic planning policy at local level is far worse than short-term economic thinking . Westminster’s political veterans started down this shameful path decades ago. They taught local leaders the some bad habits. Kick for touch. Avoid reality. Pass the buck. Snag is, after five decades of opportunism the spatial pigeons are coming back to roost. Before the political virus of selfishness spread, many local councillors were politically independent and loyal to their areas. For many local leaders, with strong political affiliations this is no longer the case. Local communities, their prosperity and their areas quality has suffered as a result. There are examples emerging of the consequences.
Solving England’s housing supply problem with sustainable spatial (location) policies that protect the local environment and facilitates net zero aspirations needs a generational vision, local collaboration and spatial insight. For a start, when legitimate local fears of change conflict with national needs for need for growth, or national infrastructure there must be an independent, non-governmental spatial body responsible for the decision. Labour seem to understand this fact. The Conservatives do not. Financial compensation will be part of their powers. Local residents opposition to change, coloured by short-term, inward looking beliefs for example slows local growth hot spots. In turn, this mind-set blocks national growth. Instead residents in host locations need to be incentivised to welcome new homes. That means they must compensated with cash, paid by a housing export supplement which is provided by residents in growth areas who enjoy the benefits growth brings to them, but are keen to transfer elsewhere responsibility for the housing and infrastructure demand, economic growth also brings . After all their children and grandchildren will be amongst the emigrants needing this financial kick-start. By adopting this approach, levelling up will become a reality in these areas.
You say this is too radical? You say it is a political non-starter. Is this so? The National Infrastructure Commission is one existing variant. It lacks enforcement powers. Another existing variant, with serious enforcement powers is the Lands Tribunal. Or you may simply say financial incentives for residents are unnecessary? Let me convince you with the evidence from the mouths of our political leaders, mostly statements they have made in the last two or three weeks.
All the main political parties find new housing supply a difficult topic. Unfortunately this creates opportunities for unprincipled political milking. For the Conservatives, their thinking from top to bottom of the party, both locally and nationally can politely be described as confused. Following the loss last week of over 1000 local councillors Simon Clarke MP, a former cabinet minister said the Prime Minister’s decision late last year to drop mandatory local housing targets was a major mistake, adding that doing so tries to pander to the public’s worst instincts. He warns, “We cannot become the party of nimbyism. It will be highly damaging to the country, and our electoral fortunes”.
From the opposite corner, Theresa Villiers MP, who led the 50+ autumn revolution of Tory MP’s opposed to the housing targets rejected Clarke’s view, saying “These elections show how much people care about protecting their local environment from overdevelopment”. Let us be honest. In this assessment she is spot on. So, how does the Conservative party go forward?
The Conservative leader, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, is struggling too. At Prime Minister’s Questions (3 May 2023) there was a ding-ding between Sunak and the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer. Starmer said the PM’s ‘decision to scrap housing targets is killing the dream of home ownership for a generation’. This is a view supported by research from the established planning firm, Lichfields, who predict the abandonment of the targets means the 300,000 new homes national target will not be achieved, adding that the number of new homes built could fall from 233,000 a year to 155,000 a year because of the changes to planning policy.
The remainder of the PM v KS exchanges was silly, misleading and incomplete. PM: “The right hon.and learned Gentleman wants to impose top-down housing targets, concrete over the green belt and ride roughshod over local communities”. This is unfair to Labour. Starmer says “…the only power the Prime Minister has given to local communities is not to build houses”. This is unfair to the Conservatives. In fact local councils have the powers they need to build, but not the leadership self-confidence or expertise to use these powers. Importantly the PM then reveals the source of the Conservative party leadership failure. First Starmer says “Why does he not stop the excuses, stop blaming everyone else, and just build some houses instead.”. In reply all the PM can manage is is a dig at the Labour mayor of London’s rate of house building-an unrelated issue. Seems the PM has no answer.
What is the next step? The PM’s housing minister, Rachael Maclean has given critics a hostage to fortune. She says judge us by our actions, when rejecting the government’s lack of response to the 40,000+ submissions to the government’s 2020 white papers intended to address the broken planning system, which she admits “Unfortunately, it doesn’t always deliver the homes we need, when we need them and where they’re most in demand.”. All the same she is confident the reforms the government is bringing forward will be the answer. Can we be confident of 300,000 new homes a year, by the next general election? Watch and wait. If the government fails, who has responsibility? Judge us by our actions says Rachael Maclean. Fine. So as leaders with integrity, who will resign if the government fails to deliver the homes it has promised? Sunak? Gove? Maclean?
Mind you, Labour too has it share of policy muddle and confusion. My biggest fear is they will introduce policies which lack cross-party support, and antagonise land owners. If this happens, the market in housing land will dry-up. Experience shows they are most important of the three market players (the other two are residents/conservationists and local leaders) with the fire-power to block new supply policies if their financial best interests are treated unfairly. On the otherhand Labour seem to realise, as the Conservatives do not, that local and national policy trade-offs are needed.
Windsor and Maidenhead is an interesting example of how not plan. Perhaps this is why at the recent local elections the Conservatives lost political control of the council? The Liberal Democrats are now in the majority. The change happened shortly after a very public spat last month between the leaders of RBWM council and Slough council which neatly captures the unreality of government housing policy at local level. It was triggered by recent publication of the Wider Area Growth Study, Part 2 produced by consultants Stantec (previously Peter Brett Associates). It is a study of the spatial housing options available to the two councils and South Buckinghamshire council to accommodate Slough’s housing shortfall (13,500 units by 2039: they have no land left) if council borders àre ignored. It bluntly states there is little or no brownfield capacity and warns the housing needed cannot be provided on non-green belt sites. Their recommended solution is a new community on the south side of the M4 between Maidenhead and Reading in the middle of nowhere, with poor access they admit. Knowing the area well (Paley Street) this spatial solution is daft.
Equally daft, but also in RBWM is the council sponsored proposal to close and sell off for housing the publicly owned Maidenhead golf course, a major green amenity in the centre of the town. Local residents are up in arms. With good reason. The shame is all they say is no, not here. No doubt the residents of Paley Street will respond in the same passionate, sincere and myopic manner once their threat becomes real.
And days before the local election this shouting match is the result. The Maidenhead Advertiser (14 April 2023) says Council leaders clash over ‘bombshell’ housing report. Coun.Andrew Johnson, Conservative leader of the Royal Borough says he disagrees with the reports conclusions (his council were one of Stantec’s clients) and he added that he would have to be dragged kicking and screaming if asked to provide land for Slough’s surging housing demand. So much for the duty to cooperate or the new duty to align! But he is to the point. “If Slough come knocking, the response will be ‘That’s your problem, not mine. I’m not releasing any of my greenbelt to build your houses on, sort you own problems out’ “.
Coun.James Swindlehurst, leader of the Labour run Slough Borough Council responded by saying “The fact is that the Royal Borough’s supply problems stem in large part from his own administration’s past political decisions-or lack thereof-in relation to meeting housing need”.
The Royal Borough do face a real dilemma. More than 80% of their open land is green belt protected. The land is mostly flat or gently undulating.It does not not warrant protection offered by an AONB designation. By no means is all this green belt land open to the public for recreation or walking, but unusually as a lot is Crown Estate much, but not all the land is open to public access. Lucky residents.
What will the new LD council do? They can carry on the bickering, short term, myopic approach, started in the 70’s which ensures most of the next generation of residents cannot afford to stay near their families, or they can look at overspill and incentive policies with neighbours which are acceptable to local residents and local councillors. This means a bi-partisan, long term housing policy. It will be interesting to see if they have foresight that the Conservatives lack. If they fail, leaders of all three political parties need to be brave, and working together grasp the spatial nettle. If a sustainable location does not exist for the new homes within their boundaries, they must look for new settlement locations beyond their boundaries. Who can they persuade?
Ian Campbell
11 May 2023
