Will Labour finally inject some life into our sclerotic planning system?

This article is by our Director of Public Affairs, Gerry McFall. You can email him here.

The art of politics involves producing a policy platform that gives the right ‘vibes’ and supports an electoral strategy. 

Sensing a potential political opportunitiy, in his recent speech to the British Chambers of Commerce Sir Keir Starmer said “we choose the builders, not the blockers”, from offshore windfarms, critical infrastructure to restoring mandatory housing targets. He linked our poor economic performance to supply side measures, mainly the planning framework and how the system as currently configured acts as a brake on economic growth. In follow up interviews he talked about building homes and giving local authorities the power to direct where houses are built, even if it is on the ‘sacred’ green belt.

It is worth pausing to make the point that while many people imagine the green belt as being the Lake District the reality is quite different. 60% of the green belt is used for intensive farming and guidance specifically states that “the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a green belt or to its continued protection” which means plenty of sites designated that would much better fit with a ‘brownfield’ designation.

Planning reform, the green belt and housing targets are one of those issues politicians of all colours like to talk about but once in power generally runs into political NIMBY reality. The current Labour plans on this subject are - like many area - still at ‘slogan’ stage without much detail.

As ever, the announcement and the accompanying leaked manifesto lack sufficient detail. Nothing on what to do with the Planning Inspectorate, how to bring the Planning Act 2008 back to its original purpose, modifications to address the nutrient neutrality rules which - according to the Home Builders Federation - are holding back 120,000 new homes. 

Even so, the political challenge that comes with this topic has already started to rear itself. The former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell tweeted that “The Green Belt was… legislated for by the Attlee Labour Government in 1940s & has been the fundamental basis of a battle to protect the environment in working class urban constituencies like mine over decades”.

The Thatcher Government knew how important housing was to aspiration and benefited electorally from their ‘right to buy’ policy for council housing. 

Housing is a critical aspirational policy, not just for the young, but also for the parents of those children who often are asked to bankroll the deposit. It potentially has a double electoral benefit as well as being the right policy for economic growth. It is also a policy commitment with geographic spread so it ticks the ‘levelling up’ issue - a regional growth problem that has plagued successive governments. 

Electorally, the selling of council homes was a masterclass in political strategy by Thatcher. However, that policy has a long tail. Britain’s rate of house building peaked in 1968 and despite a minor rebound from an all time low in 2010 still is significantly short of meeting demand. According to the Centre for Cities we have a backlog of 4.3m homes that should have been built to keep up with population growth. All this leads to average house prices more than ten times the average salary.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the political divide, Michael Gove has been on the offensive recently about housing, proclaiming that he is fundamentally ‘pro housing’ and recognising it is critical to winning over younger voters priced out of the market. However, after 13 years around the cabinet table many businesses will see Gove’s proclamation as a hollow and not backed up by meaningful action. Indeed, he controversially blocked a new 165-home scheme from Berkeley Homes recently citing ‘design concerns’ despite the scheme being backed by the local council and the Planning Inspectorate.

Home owners have always been a central tenet of the Conservative voting coalition but with fewer and fewer people able to get on the property ladder they face a structural electoral challenge they find nearly impossible to address because of party division. 

Conservative NIMBY’s took a wrecking ball to Michael Gove’s flagship Levelling Up Bill forcing the government to switch mandatory house building targets to being “advisory.”  

Keir Starmer’s speech was light on detail, but his direction of travel was clear in terms of trying to align policy with electoral strategy. However, there is a bit of NIMBYism in every MP when it comes to their constituency and just because the leader says it does not mean it will become so. Party management is always a key issue.

The limited detail on what Labour’s approach to planning reform would look like in reality provides an opportunity for business. Labour have already said they want business at the heart of their policy creation process, so those presenting credible worked up policy solutions have a good chance of being listened to.

If you’d like to speak to us about how best to engage Labour in the run up to the next election and develop serious policy work get in touch with a member of the team.