Two housing experts with insight and experience have recently told us why house prices are excessive. Both make telling points. Both offer solutions. The solutions point in different directions. One solution could work. The other is will not. Both agree that the planning changes now being put forward by the government will fail to mend the broken housing supply market. With this melancholy view, I agree. But Steve Reed, housing Minister disagrees.
On January 8th 2026 Chris Worrall, Fellow of the think tank Onward published in Conservative Home his analysis of the housing problem, titled Our consultative planning system delivers anything but proper democratic consent. His key point, and it is a good one, matters. He asks if riding rough-shod over local democracy is agreeable? It is not. There is an absolute necessity to win local support for local change. He warns:
“England’s planning system is being rebuilt in a way that silences communities, evades demographic reality, and mistakes administrative speed for democratic legitimacy.”
Here is an accurate summary of the rot the government’s planned planning changes will deliver. Far more to the point, Worrall’s concern echoes the views of the Conservative Party. Gareth Bacon, MP said in the Commons on 16 December 2025
”Finally, the views of local people are not a burden in assessing planning applications; they are among the most important important factors………It is increasingly clear that the planning system that this Government are not just envisaging and planning for, but actively creating, is one in which such local concerns are much harder to raise. His Majesty’s Opposition do not believe that local people and local democracy should suffer for that.”.
So far, so good. Bacon is right. And as Worrall points out in his Conservative Home piece Bacon’s point was unanswered in the Commons debate on planning reform. To repeat several previous blogs on the need for consensus, : as no political party on its own can mend the market, the government’s failure to respond in a constructive and fruitful way to this omission is, one a lost opportunity and two, shows government does not yet understand how the real world of property works. This failure is more than a pity, it guarantees the policy changes Labour plan to introduce will fail to deliver. I rather like Worrall’s summary:
“The silence was telling. When a government cannot defend the democratic foundations of its reforms, it reaches for process”.
Despite these crusty criticisms of the government’s attempts let’s be positive too. . At least they are trying to mend a failed system. Which reflects credit on Sir Keir Starmer. His party are taking planning policy failure seriously. . Their struggles jog memories. Over 14 years the Conservatives did not only fail to mend the broken supply system, they made the housing market far worse. Acts of wanton short-sightedness (look at the abolition of strategic planning in 2001; look at the rejection of Boris’ zoning proposals in 2021) can only be quietly buried if the new Conservative leadership atone’s with declarations of its unfeigned support for policy reality. Planning is a wicked issue for all parties. All have ducked the issue for several decades. Working hand in hand they might succeed. Continuing with another round of yaboo politics guarantees another decade of housing failure.
So to my chagrin reading Worrall’s market solution I understood how deeply hidden even too apt commentators the core problem lies. His solution to housing supply failure is to upgrade Statements of Community Involvement by changes in the proposed NPPF, to. alter their balance. Make them become the reliable voice of the whole community at key stages, no longer merely the voice of the voluntary, self-selected participants. His point, with which my heart throbs with hope, is that “….councils can hear the whole community rather than only the loudest voices……” when councillors decide whether or not to give planning consent. But this isn’t reality. Look at the history of planning and local involvement for the last fifty years. Look at the rudimentary lessons of post WW2 local history. Residents fear of change. Local leaders cavalierly disregard of the needs of future generations. The obvious egotistical priorities of the haves, turning deaf ears to the needs of the have-nots. Local leaders who ignore reality. Who climbs to the top in local communities? Who gets the power and influence? Who runs the local community? It is not the silent majority. It is the vocal minority. It is not the civic minded looking a generation ahead. It is the political opportunists looking at the imminent election a year or two ahead who call the shots.
To stop the inevitable repetition the existing flawed system delivers new housing supply systems must be put in place that deliver the long term balanced outcomes for all generations. This reality is made obvious by their inactivity of the silent majority when planning decisions are being made by councillors. Thinking that a beefed up version of the SCI will look far ahead is wishful thinking, which ignores history and experience. Local leaders are there to block local threats. They are not there to deliver national economic priorities.
So it is wrong to label Labour’s attempts at change as democratic failure. Either it is misunderstanding or worse, it is misinformation. It is true that asking local communities to accept growth without being honestly told why housing numbers keep rising shows there is a democratic deficit at the heart of Labour’s approach. As reality rules supreme, local communities must be told there are choices to be made. Build here, not there, for example. Which do you want?
By the way, why is immigration blamed for the housing supply problem? If this is the whole story, the problem will soon start to fade away. Falling birth rates are already reducing the inward immigration flow. Soon it may turn into outward emigration flow. But this populist red-herring it is not the problem An ageing healthier population adds to demand as expectations rise. People are living longer. And vacating their earthly homes later. Smaller households needs also adds to demand. Wealthier families want bigger homes. Frail individuals want appropriate accommodation.
Pause and think. Does anyone think that that if immigration ceases to be a problem, if emigration exceeds immigration, house prices or rents will then become affordable? Will they then become affordable?
In conclusion Worrall says
“Labour have chosen a different path. It rides roughshod over communities while insisting it acts in their interests.That is not progressive. It is technocratic”.
I’d say in reply ….’That is not progressive’. No, it is frustration. With good reason. Getting on for two generations of domestic housing policy failure. Decades of spatial policy failure, in an island with with plenty of undeveloped land and large areas of sub-standard, low density urban housing land, and bfs of empty air space above. And since these spatial failures first became obvious more than a generation ago neither of the two political parties, Labour or Conservatives have found a solution. A bunch of war loving, parochial bosses seem to run the show. It hardly a surprise that frustration is a driving force for change.. Unfortunately tinkering with the SCI will not change human nature. So we must change the system. As Prof Paul Cheshire points out, we face some big threats if realty is ignored, election after election.
Cheshire is an LSE emeritus professor. In a recent Sky/Top Stories (10 January 2026) interview with Brad Young, Money Feature writer on Money Blog he was asked if “Is it time to give up the green belt?”. He says that the government’s proposals for planning change leave out a crucial element, ‘wresting power from local councils’. He added ‘House prices will continue to increase relative to incomes in the long term unless we supply more land’. This blunt truth matters too, because Cheshire also adds
‘The housing crisis, which we have created by policy, it’s not something that naturally occurs is really creating serious social divisions and conflicts of interest between the priced-out and homeowners”. Finally warning that green belt winners are residents living in them. The losers are poor people whose housing is more expensive and towns are over-crammed.
Compare these views of this government adviser with those of Secretary of State for Housing, Steve Reed who extols to Money Box ‘…..our plans for a new generation of new towns (that) will …..restore the dreams of home ownership across the country’. Wishing thinking? Something is missing here, as the government has not announced any policy plans for buying all the land with the full support of local landowners and local councils. Both interest groups are necessary. Winning the support of both is doable, with the right approach. But with three and half years to go to the next general election, and no evidence of the necessity for policy alignment from the government the inevitable policy derailment is on the horizon: another policy U-turn in 2029 and another decade of stasis through the thirties!
How is a solution doable? Yes it is complicated. Yes all the moving parts must work together. On the evidence of several decades of policy failure, described above they do not. Prof. Cheshire’s prediction there will be too little land is prescient. The succession of housing ministers who fail as yaboo politics continues from one government to the next is toxic.
The long term supply of house building land must be identified in the short term to deliver future long term market equilibrium requirements. . And this new approach must happen with local support and landowner support.
The key to success is timing. In order for local councils to take control of the future supply of housing in their areas, not only the amount of homes but in particular the locations. So they must introduce a time policy. This means deciding 10+ years ahead the at scale locations for new homes. And importantly they must 10+ years ahead take ownership control of these locations. The advantage is that planning this far ahead means they the open market value of the land will be based on the existing use value. The ‘symptoms’ of hope value will this far ahead be blocked. The symptoms of hope value are the twin uncertainties, timing uncertainty , ie when will building start? And location uncertainty, ie. where precisely will building take place? Provided control of the land happens whilst these two uncertainties remain dominant most of, or 100% of land value capture will go to the buyer, the local council. Introducing this time policy will stop land owners successfully relying on the 1974 Court of Appeal decision which determined that the landowner should receive the hope value.
Local political groups must work in alignment to deliver a shared long term policy for their communities.
Ian Campbell
18 January 2026
