In this third politics of housing supply blog I set out steps the five political parties, working together must take to mend England’s broken housing supply. The objective is to build lots more new homes in England with local support, (local vested interests and local residents), by introducing and building a long term solution with credible delivery scope.
Regardless of what all political parties say, an enduring solution cannot be delivered by one political party alone. It will 10+ years to put the new system into place and to turn local opponents of local land use change into welcoming hosts. It will also require local councils to take on and become responsible for two new roles. One, deciding where all at scale or significant future housing in their areas will go, according to their own master plan. And two becoming responsible for delivering the land, in rural areas, and the legal ownerships in urban areas, sufficiently large for the building projects they want to proceed within the time frames they want.
Neither of these new roles is overtly political. Instead its introduction will be a return to aclong lost civic agenda. Local politics may have a role to play, after spatial and masterplan phases are completed, in deciding the distribution and timing of tenure types, including affordable and market homes. But locational and timing decisions about building are not ideological.
The first and most obvious barrier is always local opposition to building, in both rural and urban areas. Reversing these sentiments at this point in time, after decades of diminishing confidence in planning and change in all its forms looks scary. In fact there is already a fairly high level of support for many more new homes but micro concerns rapidly emerge when it is clear the homes will impact the lifestyle of local residents in specific locations. This fear of nearby change must be addressed many years before any work might start. Residents need to know what the land use changes will do to them, where the changes will be and understandably what, if anything is in it for them.
They will be receptive to arguments about the need to keep their community viable, without it changing out of recognition. They will be amenable to arguments about generational fairness, the need for their families to live their lives in their home areas where they grew up, provided there are jobs so that local services will continue to be able to afford and attract staff.
Providing local financial incentives to local residents is an obvious incentive, especially to those residents most directly effected by future change.
Other areas of concern which, once future building projects are in the gift of the local authority will be guarantees that the necessary infrastructure will be provided in advance. Likewise those residents most likely to be directly impacted legitimate fears must be addressed head-on, whether it is disruptive building work or overloaded local infrastructure.
Local vested land owning interests is another key group who will strongly oppose local land use change if the locations or time frames are expected to adversely change their pre-conceived expectations, especially if their land, an asset with a book value, is likely to be subject to compulsory purchase for building. To overcome this legitimate fear when land is bought by the council the price paid for it must include 100% of the hope value. But, as local councils will need to capture this added valuè themselves they must buy the land long before, at least 10+ years, before building will commence. Buying long in advance means the open market value including hood value on the one hand, , and the open market value of the land in its existing, current use will be much the same. It is immediately apparent that shrewd councils will buy in key ransom sites long in advance, to ensure the hope value they pay is kept low.
What will the buildings look like is another natural concern to existing residents. But introducing detailed design rules is likely to cause problems. Guide lines dealing with density, heights, materials, private car access, private and public open space, and its long term maintenance responsibilities will be a better way to proceed. The objective will be that the new homes, if valued by comparison with existing local homes will carry a significant premium. That premium will the measure of spatial, design, infrastructure and timing success. It is occasionally a done already. Poundbury is an example, say 25%.
Finally how will long term locations be identified and placed under the effective long term control of local councils. Such locations, once identified as future building locations must be placed on an official building land register set up by and maintained by the appropriate government department. Decisions on these locations, often contentious in the. short term if made 10+ years ahead will be easier and will return to local councils control of the future land use of their areas.
The last question is how is the purchase by local councils of long term building locations is funded? Provided their timings are right through loans secured on the future development value of these locations, which will be purchased long ahead at their current us value normal commercial debt will suffice.
For councils to pursue this sort of long term masterplanning they must also see financial incentives for their residents which enables them to deliver their own council’s particular wish list. So the blessing of the Treasury will also be needed.
Ian Campbell
24 April 2026
