Institute report good analysis of system defects. But solution is wishful thinking
The regarded think tank, the Institute for Government has published (30 August 2024) a thorough analysis of the the reasons why successive governments have found it difficult to deliver on housebuilding pledges. How the government can build more homes, written by the Institute is an up to date and nearly complete analysis of decades of failed housing policy. Containing helpful recommendations for mending the broken system. Well worth reading. Analysts putting forward thoughtful solutions, with merit are a rarity. The report needs to be taken seriously. So the fact it contains important errors, one being of foundational importance matters a great deal.
Unlike so many reports on housing policy failure, this Institute for Government review recognises and directly tries to address the conflict between national needs and local priorities. Recognition of the centrality of this process failure matters a lot. But their recommended way forward is a disappointing misjudgement. This is a shame. It will not suffice. But their analysis accurately states the problem.
”England’s planning system is one of the biggest barriers to housebuilding. Previous governments have not dealt with the fundamental problem that local vetoes on development have trumped housing targets’”. Section 4, page 7 :’Prioritise national housing targets over local objections’. ’ Full weight and recognition is given by the author to the fact this government, (uniquely since the seventies to my knowledge), is serious about achieving its housebuilding ambitions. Indeed it goes on to add the government will need to, and this is printed in bold, ‘remain firm on its commitment that national targets trump local objections to make its reforms stick’. With all this aspirational stuff, I agree. There is more. The author adds, the government appears to have prioritised directing new housing towards areas where it is most unaffordable . Like the Thames Valley where I started my career buying housing land in 1968, and founded a professional consultancy in 1978, now a scary 46 or 56 years ago! The report correctly captures the governance dilemma. It has my full endorsement,
“But because the voices opposing development are louder than those supporting it, there remain strong disincentives for MP’s to support planning reform. Their mailbags get inundated with messages from constituents opposing local development. It is not uncommon for MP’s to post on social media to celebrate that they have helped to fight off an unpopular local development.”
What is the answer? What does the Institute say the government should do? After all their report concludes
”In this report we have set out our analysis of what has held previous governments back and what the government should do to make its reforms a success”. ; page 76.
Unfortunately the proposed steps to overcome local opposition to local change and win local support for change are, I will be blunt, wishful thinking. Indeed, section 7 (page 57) starts with a promising heading, ‘Ensure local areas share in the benefits of new housing’. The intention here is right. If local residents believe they will see benefits they will, eventually become welcome hosts. Achieving this mind-set reversal in local growth areas is essential. Failure to achieve this reversal is the foundational misfire of decades of government policy reset attempts. So far, the new government is repeating the same unsuccessful mantra, but more loudly and with more candour, both welcome but insufficient attributes. But not intellectually convincingly enough to convince veteran opponents of local change it will be different; will be permanent this time around. The core proposal in the report is to ensure local people see development improving their local infrastructure, and adding new homes that are affordable for the local population. The author says ‘There are many potential benefits to new development.. Done right, housebuilding programmes could bring local economic growth, higher living standards and more affordable housing. The government needs to incentivise local areas to.build and ensure that local citizens benefit from new development ‘. With these sentiments too I agree absolutely. But without deliverable solutions they are wishful thinking. How are they to be convinced?
The report reminds us that the government is also proposing a cap on how much landowners receive for undeveloped agricultural land. Introducing a two tier pricing system may win some local support from local residents. It will be opposed foot and nail by veteran landowners highly motivated to delay building land supply until there is a policy U-turn , they hope in 2029. The report adds, ‘If the government can pass and implement these reforms…….Whatever the method, it is reasonable for local areas…..’. What on earth makes the author think local residents will act reasonably after forty years of doing the opposite? Yes, many local residents without an axe to grind, without land to sell will hold reasonable views if the building work is not near them. But they will not be amongst the activists. The opposition will always be a small noisy lobby of self-interested residents, landowners, conservationists, and local pressure groups and the local media. They may be small in number, , but for forty years they have usually won local battles..Why else are prices and rents unaffordable? Often local site limitations provide powerful reasons to oppose building. There is frequently a legitimate and special reason why building on the selected site is simply wrong. This report shows no insight into these crude, but all powerful blockers of change.
My solution is set out in the Housing Manifesto 2024 published on the 29th April on this blog. Crudely put, you pay the residents in host locations. And you avoid paying landowners hope value, by ensuring the local council buys long term building land long before it will be needed at existing use value, when market uncertainties extinguish hope value. To deliver these outcomes requires long term, cross-party consistent spatial policy making which is rooted in civic thinking, not irrelevant party political ideology.
Ian Campbell
1 September 2024
