Take the party politics out of planning and housing policies

-


Planning, housing and infrastructure have never been more salient political issues. For good reason. The UK may have economically recovered from Covid earlier than thought, but as a country we are not well. We are ailed by the significant and competing challenges of affordability, productivity and climate breakdown. Where Labour might once have prescribed public spending, a challenging fiscal picture has led them to join the Conservatives in calling for growth. Planning represents a potential route to administer that treatment and manage its side effects, but it is not currently fulfilling its potential.

We see evidence of this in national news. We are struggling to deliver enough homes in the right parts of the country at prices people can afford. Capacity issues across waterway, sewer and electricity grid systems are constraining development. Large infrastructure projects are expensive and complex; HS2 is battling to connect into London, let alone the rest of the country. Whilst these may seem like disparate topics, they are united by a common issue; the UK’s inability to plan effectively for long term growth.

How should planning address the situation? Free marketeers fantasise about radical reform, rooted largely in deregulation. Labour have alluded to a re-engagement with strategic thinking. There are pitfalls on both sides. Eliminating red tape can result in short term benefits, but unacceptable standards of development long term. Planning strategically takes time and resources, both of which are currently in short supply.

There is a further complicating factor. Planning has not just become political, but politicised. A recent Economist article suggested housing has become as contentious as Brexit. This wouldn’t be an issue if planning were not so tied to the election cycle. While the National Infrastructure Commission and Homes England have a degree of independence, there is an argument to be made that like national defense and monetary policy, planning for the future is essential enough to necessitate greater separation.

We began with a health metaphor and it’s worth labouring under it a little longer. If you visit the doctor, you may be simultaneously prescribed medicine to treat the immediate symptoms and advised to make longer term changes to your lifestyle. To fully realise the potential of planning we must not fall into the trap of either or thinking. We can start the legislative changes to decouple planning from the election cycle AND pursue multi-scale strategic planning (national, regional and local) AND explore stop gaps for acute issues.

It’s not impossible. Germany has a long history of depoliticising planning and housing policies. Many European countries have national spatial plans as well as regional strategies. In the Netherlands municipal authorities play a role in land assembly (a far cry from picking the best of a bad bunch of submitted sites) and are much better resourced, with 2.7 times as many planners per person than the UK. Even infrastructure is cheaper to deliver. If we can embrace a “both/and” approach, planning for growth could become, if not a cure-all, then an effective remedy.

Co-authored with Jas Bhalla
Originally published in the Architects Journal

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Living with Beauty

-
Image
Living with Beauty is the final report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission; an independent body set up to “advise government on how to promote and increase the use of high-quality design for new build homes and neighbourhoods”. Personally, I thought “Living with Beauty” sounded like a semi-fictional memoir about sharing an apartment with a drag queen (named Beauty) in 1980’s New York. I don’t think this a view shared by many and is likely due to the speed with which I consumed the Netflix show “POSE” rather than any flaw in the Commission’s report titling. What’s good about it? Title notwithstanding, the report sets out many positive and diverse ideas about how to improve the design of new development in the UK. Interestingly a lot of the recommendations in the report are far more structural than they are aesthetic. So, it does talk about introducing design codes at both national and local level, but it also talks about stewardship, land value capture and a gre...
Read more

To grasp the nettle: How to deal with housing, climate and levelling up (Cover story for The Planner January 2023)

-
Image
December 2022. The levelling up and regeneration bill is merrily making its way through the report stage to a soundtrack of supermarket Christmas tunes. It’s a special time when MPs can gather round, suggesting amendments. Puncturing the festive legislative atmosphere, a group of Conservative MPs tabled a mutinous amendment seeking prohibition of mandatory housing targets and the abolition of five-year land supply. Surely, you cried, so few people couldn’t have such an impact? But they could. When I reached the fifth door of my advent calendar, Michael Gove capitulated. Although targets were only ever a starting point, it represented a shift. There is broad consensus this will reduce housing delivery and undermine plan-making: Merry Christmas. A crisis If you possess a functioning memory you may recall a government promise to build 300,000 houses a year, reaffirmed by Gove as recently as October. Many argue we don’t need that many. I believe we do. If anything, housing needs are undere...
Read more