Have Andy Burnham and Kemi Badenoch just crossed the (planning) Rubicon? Both have expressed a wish to work with political opponents. Burnham (2 July 2026 interview with LBC, Daniel Green) said his approach to governing will based on three principles
:(1) putting place before party;
(2) prioritising problem-solving over political point scoring; and
(3) taking a long-term rather than a short-term view of policy making
. This non- political, long term, problem based mind-set is crucial to mending the broken planning system.
Even more important for concerned local residents is Kemi Badenoch’s response, ( see below) as it tilts, for the first time in decades, the spatial balance towards consensus- the essential foundation for nationally led strategic planning. But there is a snag. Rational, long term consensual spatial will take time , and in the meantime the delays will be as hairy as hell for those in collateral damage target areas like Windlesham ( see the previous blog). The recent Planning Inspectorate decision to grant planning consent on appeal for over 150 new homes on a green field in Windlesham is ground shaking in planning terms. The field is green belt. Both parties agreed it is also grey belt. The decision means green fields which are also zoned as green belt, if the land use patchwork of nearby uses are not open countryside, the previous gold standard of land protection many relied upon has lost its anchor. . After all, it means land areas which are within the green belt, whether like the Windlesham appeal example are without any houses, or land areas already hosts to large homes and gardens of one sort or another are, based on the new Windlesham precedent no longer guaranteed safe from building.
Or is this decision wrong? Is it a maverick decision which will be neutered once the Conservatives return to power? For local opponents of land use change in the popular dormitory areas that make up the Home Counties around London this is the core question.So it makes sense to drill down into this area of political ideology. It may seem seem extreme. It is not. Tracing the thread of thinking from which future grey belt emerges will throw light on the dilemma facing residents in in colateral damage zones., : ‘we want growth but we also want local democracy to make local spatial decisions that are fair to us too’ but it will be a tough trail to follow. Where are the clues?
Kemi Badenoch is the Conservative leader. She should know a bit about this trail from the opposition point of view. She has just recorded (18 July 2026) some very important thinking in a broadcast of a BBC interview for Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg (19 July 2026). Which is great timing. I wonder if she realises why its planning significance is so important? Because what she said is highly revealing when analysed in the context of recent Tory government planning set-backs. To understand the trail we must take a step back in time to accurately gauge whether the Conservative Party’s next steps on grey belt, green belt, new towns in the countryside and regeneration and densification in urban areas will be driven by national needs or local fears? No small matter, but often overlooked, Rather like a powerful mine hidden out of sight, only now exposed by changing circumstances. When will it explode? The appeal decision has lit the fuse.
Remember the start of covid and the lock-downs? The trail starts there in 2020 (thanks to ChatGPT for filling in the memory gaps). Theresa Villiers was the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, until unseated at the 2024 general election. She ably led the Tory backbench rebellion in 2022 against the Boris Johnson government white paper ‘2020 Planning for the Future’. It proposed placing mandatory housing targets on local councils. Villiers led a 50+ MPs into a successful challenge in 2022, converting a national policy to promote growth, for example 300,000 new homes a year, into a national aspiration subservient to local decisions. Put plainly, her intervention made sure local interests were to trump national needs if and when conflict between to two priorities arose. Now reader please pause and think about this outcome! Do you exclaim! Surely this sort of demotion of national priorities, in favour of short-sighted local pressure groups cannot be allowed to stand? Isn’t it tantamount to national suicide? Yes, but as I say often overlooked!
Hurrah! Yesterday and in the programme broadcast today Kemi has set out her approach to the next Theresa Villiers backbench rebellion. It will be different. The change is very welcome. . She said “What the country needs right now is someone who can take tough decisions, who can face down the Labour MPs that don’t want to do anything difficult”. (BBC NEWS, Politics, Adam Goldsmith Burnham is ‘people pleaser’ with ‘airey fairy’ plans, says Kemi Badenoch. Other relevant takeaways are a willingness to work with anyone if they are constructive; a recognition that the adversarial nature of Prime Minister’s Questions are not to taken as a benchmark, in fact being happy to work on a cross-party basis and find common ground. These themes are music to my ears. Particularly if Kemi Badenoch will, when the time comes face-down Conservative back- bench MPs who do not want to do anything difficult, saying ‘What the country needs now is someone who can take tough decisions, …’’. Because there are tough spatial decisions waiting to made by app the political leaders.
The Windlesham appeal decision is a perfect spatial example of the dilemma ahead. All agree we needs lots more new homes in areas of high demand. Far fewer agree where these homes should go. Labour under Starmer and housing minister Pennycook have made a start, which is welcome. But without cross- party support their plans will fail in 2029 if local councils still have the power to derail national needs. So, how should Surrey Heath respond? How is it to protect its residents, who bought their homes in good faith and now face new unknowns which may impact their futures? Indeed how can all all the Thames valley councils, enjoying the benefits past growth has delivered whilst facing deep rooted resistance to the provision of housing on the scale needed, now proceed? Is there a solution?
One alternative is the example offered by the radical, maverick but eye-opening idea to build a new city of one million people called Forest City 1 to the east of Cambridge. As much of the inner Home Counties closest to London is green belt, and at risk of designation as grey belt in part, why not build Forest City 2 on the nearest large chunk of unprotected Thames Valley land between Reading and Basingstoke? For some old timers it is a hoary old chestnut already with an apt name: Readingstoke. In 1990 well aware of the hidden conflicts emerging, in a political environment welcoming new jobs and resisting new homes, I published a plan for a new urban extension south of Reading. It badly fell foul of the Ministry of Defence when they saw the location was bang in the middle of their unknown Burghfield and Aldermarston nuclear facilities long term no-build zone. Nearly an own goal! Fortunately there is lots more unprotected land well served by public transport links if the boundaries are redrawn enough to build Forest City 2.
The reality is this. To solve the Thames Valley housing deficit there are no easy options. This could be guessed a generation ago. The Windlesham appeal turns this wicked issue into a threatening reality. Over the next thirty years places like Windlesham will be rebuilt with little or no new infrastructure, or a very big new city must be built somewhere to west of Surrey Heath, large enough able to absorb the housing overspill of Surrey Heath; Windsor and Maidenhead; Wokingham Borough and Reading Borough. Provided Hampshire, and Basingstoke and the Blackwater councils, the host authorities all agree too! What will they want in return?
The Snows Ride Windlesham appeal decision creates a local dilemma. Its consequences will create difficult long term uncertainties for local residents. But a new supply of homes is desperately needed at national level. How is the right balance to be struck so collateral damage is removed and the homes needed today, and by future generations are to be built? It looks as if Burnham and Badenoch have another challenging domestic policy fix to discuss. Perhaps there is also another option? Urban regeneration, often better described as urban zoning, intended to increase densities in selected urban locations. A sensibile policy in theory, but one that can only be tackled realistically on a local cross-party basis. Is policy alignment on urban regeneration, demanding a sophisticated level of cooperation too much even for Westminster MP’s whose personal career horizons are one to five years? Unfortunately housing delivery at state of the art level needs one to three generations to design and deliver. Old Oak Common is happening. Canary Wharf and Nine Elms happened? Can these examples be rolled out elsewhere, thus reducing the pressures on The Windleshams of tomorrow?
Ian Campbell
19 July 2026
