200,000, 250,000, 300,000? The conversation about housing policy is more auction that action plan. Politicians of all parties are coming, painstakingly slowly, to 'get' the pain our housing crisis is causing. They're pledging to build more - one of the main problems we face, although far from the only one. But understanding isn't the same as acting, and saying you'll do something doesn't explain how you'll make it happen. Within that space, between rhetoric and reality, sits a worrying credibility gap which we must work through. If we don't we'll end up in the same cul-de-sac five years hence asking why so few new homes are being built.
Let's look at just a couple of examples to illustrate why the number of new builds is so low. The government has been quick to point the finger of blame at the planning system. We are repeatedly told it is the root cause of the failure to build more homes. Developers tend to agree - a cosy consensus. Who is going to come to the defence of humble town hall planning officers? It is a very convenient alibi - it just isn't actually true. In the year up to September 2014 240,000 were given planning permission (roughly the number of new homes we need to be building). We can hardly blame planners for not delivering.
It is in fact Eric Pickles over the last five years who has blocked the building of thousands of new homes in communities by overriding the decisions of local planners and Councillors. On Thursday he stepped in to veto a 189-home scheme in Cheshire. In January he halted plans for 6,000 new homes in Aylesbury. Pickles, in his position as Local Government Secretary, has demonstrated supreme ingenuity by dismissing the two things he should be championing most - new homes and local decision making - in one go.
Another huge problem is land banking. There are 214,000 "stalled developments" in London alone. Developers will inevitably seek to maximise their profits no matter what the costs are to everyone else. It is why we need government: to consider interests beyond the individual. To think about the wider good and to challenge excessive, harmful greed.
Most agree the practice is profoundly wrong, regardless of party affiliation. Boris Johnson has called land banking "pernicious" and Ed Miliband has promised "use it or lose it" powers for local authorities. How would such powers work though? Where would the money come from for councils to buy land from developers when they refuse to, er, develop it. Presumably developers would just threaten legal challenges which they could afford to fight, and local authorities could not.
What I'm getting at is this. In the lead up to the election, as well as asking how many, we must ask how. What will change so the above doesn't keep happening? How about not blocking new homes approved by councils - for arguments sake let's call it 'localism'? How about introducing new taxes on land which has been given planning permission? Let's make hoarding to manipulate house prices not financially viable. Whilst we're at it why not create a fund to enable councils to compulsory purchase land developers should be building on but aren’t. We must lift the cap on councils so that they can borrow to build. This is just a smidgen of the action needed...the list goes on.
We need a plan as well as a promise. Good hopes and high bids aren't enough, not anymore.
Comments