Skip to main content

But how?


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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Charities, politics and pragmatism

This blog considers the parameters and possibilities for charities seeking to influence policy in the context of a looming general election. There are two broad questions for charities to think about when developing their approach to public affairs. One relates to legalities and the other pragmatism. I will briefly reflect on each in turn.  I wanted to start by making a statement that should go without saying. Attempting to improve public policy is a noble pursuit. Many undermine and belittle it, often driven by ideological or commercial interests, however this activity is vital to a thriving democracy. It should be prized; and pursued without fear or favour. It is entirely proper for charities to argue for changes in policy, regulation, law and spending. Guidance from the Charity Commission makes clear that "campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities." Although it should not be the sole purpose of a charity and must be undertaken "only...
Post a Comment
Read more

Don't be poor

Following the Spring Statement in March, the Resolution Foundation published analysis estimating that another 1.3 million people would be pushed into poverty next year. Professor Michael Marmot has warned of an impending “humanitarian calamity” and argued that to deprive citizens of basic material needs robs them of their dignity. In place of a policy response to the poverty pandemic there is a void. Cue the Health Disparities White Paper (currently being drafted in the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities). It could be out as soon as May or June, so the influencing window is narrow. The priority given, by the public and politicians, to tackling the elective backlog in the NHS is understandable. We can see it, right here and right now. However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has also acknowledged the link between poverty and poor health and outlined his ambition to address the ‘social backlog’. Both are essential and both are connected. The Preve...
Post a Comment
Read more

It’s called ‘public’ health

In times of trauma, we look to family, friends and neighbours for solace and strength. But the nature of the COVID-19 threat, a virus transmitted through close contact with others, tested this instinct. Despite that, people emerged as one of the main tools in the response to COVID-19. Communities rallied to deliver food parcels and medical supplies, we wore face coverings to protect others and adapted our behaviour as part of a common cause to limit illness and death. One innovative approach to building and sustaining community power was the COVID-19 Community Champions Scheme . As rapidly developed vaccines offered hope, attention turned to delivering messages to diverse and disadvantaged communities that made them feel comfortable about stepping up and receiving a vaccination. The messenger was key, especially in poorer areas and particular ethic minority groups. They had to be trusted by people and rooted in their area. The idea behind Community Champions was to encourage and ...
Post a Comment
Read more