The government’s passion for economic growth is led by its drive to build lots more new homes and infrastructure fast. Following four decades of housing policy failure few who worry about our nation’s, and children’s future will lack this passion. The price of new homes is far too high. So are residential rents. The ability to deliver the future electric power where it will be needed is in doubt. Why? Why? Why? Many worriers will feel shame this is England’s reality today. We cannot blame the Europeans (Brexit) or the Americans (Trump). So the fiasco must be owned by us and us alone.
Many others, open minded citizens who care too that the costs of living, mortgages and energy costs are far too high for them and the next generation, , but they also worry that England’s quintessential green and pleasant land is being going to be concreted over by profit driven developers. My experience endorses their fears. They too know many more new homes are needed, but of course not near them. At this point it is often easier to stop thinking…..well I am busy, and anyway near who then? Why not dump them somewhere nearly but out of sight? There must be suitable locations. And actually there are if some public sector property departments faced private sector rigours. But the residents say, certainly not here,, and how do we persuade them lot over there to become hosts for the housing and families we don’t want? Difficult dilemmas? What I am saying is that despite the government having in its sights local councillors on local planning committees, and restrictions on local spatial rebellions (both high risk strategies without local understanding and local support) their ‘growth’ policies will be scuppered by local, grass-routes opponents of spatial change.
The only way to make intelligible the depth of apprehension felt locally, for which local councillors please remember are merely the mouth piece is to look at examples of locations where wild thinking will sterilise growth. One has featured before in this blog. They are Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham. Edgware, part of the London Borough of Barnett is new. Each shows how difficult it will be for this government to persuade local residents to become willing to hosts of spatial change. But they must do so, or fail.
Maidenhead Great Park Team. A fabulous piece of open countryside, over 130 acres, near Maidenhead town centre and the station , on the new Elisabeth line is owned by the council and ear-marked by them for about 1500 new homes. Building on it is sacrilege. But more than 80% of the Royal Borough is green belt so the council are strong their partners will build here. After all, it is a highly sustainable location. But the MGPT have, or had other hopes. After a long and passionate campaign of opposition it looks as if all their efforts will be in vain despite the obvious fact that a public open space park in this location in the town could be a wonderful asset for the town’s future. Shame is the MGPT started their campaign too late, and had, and have no constructive alternatives to offer for the 1500 homes despite promptings.
Their council here in Windsor and Maidenhead are just about as blind. A few years ago they commissioned a sensible study with Slough Council of alternative house building locations and then put the report away somewhere and ignored it. Needless to say, changes in political control are a red herring but appeal to local restless residents in large numbers at local elections. The result will years more local stasis, and unstated council policy to follow a future commitment to minimal growth, minimal house building and minimal infrastructure. Left to its own devices the open market would build over every acre of the rural borough several times over given the fancy house prices. The conflict between fear of change and future prosperity is acute here. You doubt this is reality, and it will be the future? I know one shrewd past resident who bought a house nearby in the nineties for half a million, spent twice this on it, and sold two plus decades later for three times the amount spent, all tax free as a principal private residence!
Save Our Edgware This group is opposed to their council’s plans to build 2300 new homes above the station and on adjoining land. Where else? Which sounds sensible if you do not live in the area. Long time since I last visited. It will be a high density project, say eight storeys in a low density area but where else do the borough build? Perhaps a new town an hour to the north? Or demolish a chunk of Edgware’s suburbia and replace it with gentle densification? Or on Richmond Park.
Yes, these seem silly suggestions but they illustrate the scale of the decisions someone must face, decide and deliver unless we prefer the alternative: economic slippage, unaffordable homes, sluggish or no increase in prosperity in the future. Is this opt-put acceptable? The government, local councils and local residents need to decide what matters. Since the seventies spatial policy, including new housing supply has avoided facing geographically reality, and in failing to do so, has put England’s future prosperity and competitiveness at risk. It is time this nonsense is binned and replaced with a political consensus constructed on facts and choices between known alternatives.
Ian Campbell
22 April 2025
