For the first time in 73 years, we have witnessed a King’s Speech written by a Labour Government. Like Clement Attlee’s Government back then, Keir Starmer’s administration sees itself as picking up the pieces of a broken country. Attlee’s challenge was the housing shortage caused by the Second World War’s impact on construction for seven years and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of buildings. Starmer also faces an uphill battle to fix our housing shortage, albeit one caused by our own laws.
The Prime Minister has been elected on a promise to get Britain building again, unblocking the planning system and overriding entrenched Nimby opposition to new homes. Today’s speech showed great ambition, but with only a few lines available per priority, we’ll have to wait longer to see if Labour can navigate the thorniest issues in planning policy.
The Government announced it will introduce a Planning and Infrastructure Bill, aimed at getting new homes built as well as the infrastructure needed to support those homes. Labour want to streamline the delivery of National Grid upgrades and clean energy, reform compulsory purchase orders, boost planning committees’ capacity and streamline their processes.
The Government also briefed that it would reintroduce mandatory housing targets for councils. Michael Gove, formerly Angela Rayner’s Conservative equivalent in Rishi Sunak’s government, weakened these by making the ‘standard method’ of calculating housing need merely advisory after a backbench revolt against Robert Jenrick’s poorly thought-out housing reforms. Making this mandatory again means that councils will have to allocate sufficient land in their local plans for developers to be able to build the centrally-set target. If the local authority fails to plan for sufficient homes, they will lose a substantial portion of their powers to block developments, and developers will find themselves likely to get out-of-plan developments approved on appeal.
In addition to reinstating targets, Labour have announced that councils will face more pressure to allocate sites for development and adopt local plans. This is crucial to making the current system work. In theory, we have a ‘plan-led’ system: local authorities are strongly encouraged to plan the homes the area is judged to need, but the authority can choose what sorts of homes they are, where they go, and so on.
But some councils have shirked this responsibility, slowing down the process or even refusing to adopt plans at all. St Albans’ last plan, for example, dates to 1994. This is often because the downsides of not having a plan – the loss of powers – have historically been less painful than the political controversy of planning for new homes. The Government has promised that people will be asked ‘how’ to build more homes in their area, not ‘if’ those homes should be built. This is absolutely the right approach: councils should not be able to slow down and block new housing in their area indefinitely.
These measures, combined with other announcements like pushing for the release of more poor-quality green belt and overruling local councils by ‘calling in’ stalled commercial development projects like data centres, show exciting ambition from Labour, and a willingness to pick battles where they believe it can deliver growth. However, by sticking broadly within the confines of the existing planning system, they may fall prey to some of its well-documented failings.
The British planning system is not designed to build houses where they are most needed. It was introduced with the deliberate goal of moving activity away from places deemed to be ‘too successful’ in order to push economic activity to other places in the country. In the 1960s, the national government blocked factories and offices in thriving cities like Birmingham, Coventry, and Leicester, and forced local authorities there to plan for depopulation.
Today, the housing shortage is most severe in places where people have access to good jobs. Cities like London, Cambridge and York are all experiencing acutely high house prices and rents. The mandatory targets, allocated using the standard method, will build homes evenly across the country. This will help, but Labour could do even more good by ensuring that homes are focused on the most unaffordable areas, and by avoiding unnecessary controversy in areas where there’s lower demand.
One of Labour’s other ideas could be helpful in this regard: new towns. Just one day before the election was called, Rayner promised to set up a new towns commission within the first six months, and sites announced within the Parliament. Historically, new towns have been successful when built near existing economic and jobs centres – like Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Crawley, or, further back in history, Letchworth Garden City, and Edinburgh New Town. By contrast, they have been less popular when poor transport connections have left towns isolated, and residents with few economic options. Skelmersdale, a second generation New Town from the 1960s, has no rail, despite a population of nearly 40,000.
Today, the best prospects for new towns are urban extensions of thriving cities like Oxford and Cambridge. There is also the exciting possibility of a Tempsford New Town at the intersection of the East Coast Mainline and East West Rail. People living here would have fast links to Oxford, Cambridge, London and even York and Edinburgh. Plans for new towns can be combined with smaller scale policies, such as enabling upward extensions or supporting estate renewal to deliver more and better council homes at the local level.
So, what should a Yimby make of the King’s Speech and his Government’s housing plans? Well I’d give them a 9/10 for ambition: Keir Starmer said he was a Yimby on the campaign trail and so far, he’s governing like one. Targets, green belt release and stricter rules on councils will get homes unblocked quickly. The planned boost for the rollout of infrastructure is also key – building homes can’t work if there isn’t water, power and transport to serve them. However, planning is a notoriously detail-oriented area, with small differences in rules driving hugely divergent outcomes. We’ll have to wait and see if the final policy and legislation can deliver the homes they’ve promised.
Labour should take an ‘all of the above’ approach to building homes, especially in places with the highest prices. Anything they can do to get homes built as quickly as possible they should do.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
