The new Starmer led government has rapidly raised expectations that it will tackle the housing crisis with vigour. In eight months their new initiatives show sincerity, determination, some good sense mixed with naivety too. But are they listening to the right voices? When trying to change embedded processes, governance boundaries and feifdoms run by vested interests whose livelihoods rely on no change these interests, regardless of the language they use are intended to echo government hopes. But experience shows they will, naturally and properly faithfully follow their own interests.
For example is it wise to give platforms to traders, developers and builders whose business model is short term trading profits, not long term place making? Confused? Well I wonder about trade federations giving government advice about solving the housing supply problem? From the consumer point of view their marketplace for decades is broken. Has anyone researched the share price of quoted house builders and the affordability ratio of house prices and salaries since 1985? I have not. My hunch is that as affordability has worsened share prices, driven by rising house prices have in real germs gone up…….a lot. Is there a link?
So I found the recent honest remarks about their priorities made on LinkedIn by Ashley Kensingston, who is National Land Director at Lovells Strategic Land (part of the Morgan Sindall Group) illuminating. They are focused on unlocking land for residential-led development. The importance of true partnerships with landowners is stressed, saying ‘We always work in genuine partnership with landowners to plan the development of sites in a way that suits their and our needs and priorities’. There is also recognition too that the sector must develop green belt responsibly to create sustainable places not just for homes, but for high-quality green spaces including schools and employment spaces.
These observations offer some reassurance but do not seem to displace the commercial imperative of the land owner or this company seeking building land. Would a local council, responsible for local land use change which has local support in mind have the same approach? In my opinion, no. Yet these are the voices which the government listens too. Are they misguided to do so? Land is a scarce resource. Its value is overwhelming dependant upon decisions of local communities, and their previous generations long gone. Shrewd speculators in land trade on these legacies. Which for them is right. Is it also the right approach for the local community which does not have the same quick deal profits in mind?
Ian Campbell
28 February 2025
