Jeremy's Blog 5th April 2024: Labour Says More About Planning
This article by Jeremy Moody first appeared in the CAAV e-Briefing of 4th April 2024
Keir Starmer’s Labour Party (like the Conservatives in Canada) clearly feels it is working a rich electoral vein in positioning itself as the advocate for more housing, while other parties carve up the opponents between them. Following his references in the autumn to “bulldozing” the planning system for England, the document issued for the launch of its local election campaign suggest that “sub-regional” mayors may be a key means to do this. What is not spelt out is the time needed to achieve increased housing and how public support might be maintained over that time.
With the scale of our housing shortage, it refers to densifying core cities (present Government policy also) as well as to new towns – having indicated an early consultation on sites – urban extensions and smaller sites. The aim is to build 1.5 million homes in five years. Starting from present levels, that might in practice imply over 500,000 houses as a target for 2029/30 – an enormous figure, limited by more than lack of construction capacity.
The paper expects devolved mayors to deliver development within national targets, above the heads of local councils:
“By holding strategic decision-making over housing policy at a local authority level … we are failing to seize the opportunity to build more homes in places where people need them to live and work. We believe new combined authorities or devolution settlements should be tailored to functional economic areas.”
Mayors would be a means for delivery, “a say over “how” new homes are delivered”:
“it will require a greater level of strategy and direction from national government. It will involve the reintroduction of mandatory local housing targets to get Britain building again”.
This would see “local authorities coming together to take on new powers to boost their economies” and “Labour will support areas to … liberalise planning for housing, infrastructure and employment.”
The present mayors are very largely urban-based, relevant to few rural areas; Cornwall and East Angla rejected mayors. While the new Levelling Up and Regeneration Act gives powers to impose such combined councils with mayors, this would take some time (though new town sites with compulsory purchase powers might already be in hand). Even before any new mayoral areas are created, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough with its existing mayor (York now acquiring one) could be an early flashpoint for this approach, as the needs of life sciences meet infrastructure constraints and local opinion. In time, new mayors might be elected on anti-development tickets.
There would also be “‘Planning passports’ for urban brownfield delivery, a tough package of planning reform to fast track approvals and delivery of high density housing on urban brownfield sites”. Yet, Labour would inherit extant local plans, nutrient neutrality, biodiversity net gain, the design codes provisions and the emerging county level Local Nature Recovery Strategies – before the new sub-regional approaches develop.
Labour’s shadow Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has then applied this to new prison spaces:
“For too long in this country, we just haven’t been able to build anything. This country needs the delivery of those prison places. I am just not prepared to put public protection at risk.” (Sunday Times, 31st March)
Asked if local authorities could block proposals, she said they could “iron out any difficulties” and work on transport and infrastructure issues, echoing Keir Starmer’s responses on housing to the Today programme in October:
“But in the end, if a site is appropriate, it will be built, and the decision is ultimately made by the minister. Fundamentally, once you have said it is of national importance, what we are saying is it’s going to happen.”
While some of the seats Labour needs to win favour development, a higher electoral tide would bring MPs for seats more opposed. Labour MPs, as well as Conservative MPs, have resisted development, including affordable housing. Even with the force of a manifesto commitment, a large majority creates its own internal opposition, especially for a government still fettered by the realities of public finance, a sluggish economy and likely headwinds (including cultural resistance to development). The NIMBY position has a corrosive ambiguity, perhaps accepting the language of development but resisting its practice, now illustrated in arguments over new housing around Milton Keynes pleading a Green Belt that does not exist. The coming arguments over which areas of the Green Belts are sufficiently “grey” for building at the scale needed will give MPs “wiggle room” to resist imposed development.
With few magic wands, the realists should not expect the new approach to deliver new housing of the scale in mind before 2030, needing to create, embed and hold public support until then. While re-casting the planning system may be a necessary condition for progress, it may take more politics than “bulldozing” to achieve success.