This blog pulls together the conclusions of the last three blogs, 14th August (Thames Valley answer); 25th August (Welcome but flawed, twice); and 26th August (Welcome but flawed+delivery). It essential that the 28 October 2026 budget, and white paper set out in Rewiring the State-Cabinet statement, 31 July 2026) contains a credible delivery plan to overcome lack of trust towards change held by local residents, and a similar lack of trust held by investors seeking long term policy consistency.
The existing call for sites mechanism for selecting building locations is spatial madness. It has not simply lost the confidence of local residents, it has destroyed trust in local politics. It also results in haphazard spatial planning without a thought through long term infrastructure plan. Such chaos has generated scepticism from long term investors, normally keen to invest in long term markets where lack of supply is the dominate characteristic.
The way forward must be spatially led to deliver widespread conceptual understanding of the choices. The 14 August 2026 blog is an example of a spatial led solution, using the Thames Valley’s homes supply deficit to show the sort of long term, spatial based thinking that is needed. Other examples in urban areas will be Old Oak Common and Canary Wharf. Whilst the blog dated 29 July 2026 (Does Forest City set the housing agenda?) explains the principles of putting national needs ahead of local fears.
To create the essential level of trust amongst both local residents and long term investors it is clear that a credible housing supply solution must offer both local residents, and investors long term spatial certainty. It will need spatial strategies like the one suggested for the Thames Valley in every area of England.
As the private sector has shown over several decades it cannot deliver land supply spatial answers which win local support, responsibility for the delivery of housing land must be now passed to local councils, or regional development corporations. Therefore, to ensure their cooperation land owners and land speculators must be guaranteed generous compensation, not based on long term hope value dreams, but based on announcement day open market value including and existing hope value. The status of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) may need to be upgraded to re-assure owners they will be treated fairly.
What is long term? It is looking far ahead beyond the expiry dates of local plans. Because delivery of high quality places needs time. IMO building trust exceeds one generation (30/35) years. To remove uncertainty and replace it with spatial certainty we need to be looking at the 2030s for the short term, and two plus generations for the long term. Spatial choices about where to build within these time windows will not mean building will happen there, but it will mean building will not happen elsewhere. Unexpected change will fall. Early debate about spatial options will flush out all the choices, the menu of good and bad characteristics for all options will reduce future hostility to future land use change.
Ian Campbell
28 August 2026
