Following the Chancellor’s first major speech of the new Parliamentary session on planning reform and green belt, Council leaders react to her views and set out their intent to work with the new government.
In her first major policy speech of the new Parliamentary session on planning reform, the new Chancellor, Rachel Reeves described how “fourteen years of chaos and economic irresponsibility” have made Labour “inherit the worst set of circumstances since the Second World War.”
The Chancellor has previously acknowledged the difficulty of the country’s fiscal position, calling for an “iron grip” on public finances. Reeves hopes that private sector investment can make up the difference, calling it the “lifeblood” of the economy. The planning reforms announced by Reeves are likely designed to achieve Labour’s ambitious housing targets without stretching government finances further.
In addition to the poor state of the country’s finances, she criticised the Conservatives for their “decisions deferred, and decisions ducked” regarding the housing crisis. In contrast, she positioned the Labour party as being able to “take the difficult decisions.” After setting the scene of both fiscal irresponsibility and inaction under the previous Government, the Chancellor described a plan focusing on two main elements of reform: enhancing the power of the central government in guiding housing policy and encouraging private construction by reforming the planning framework.
What do councils think of Labour’s planning reform?
The Chancellor’s speech today echoes the mandatory housebuilding target made by the Conservatives in 2019. Housebuilding targets were eventually rowed back to become non-mandatory in 2022, in large part due to opposition by Conservative councils. If history is anything to go by, maintaining support from councils will be crucial to the success of this policy.
Planning leaders from eight Labour councillors told Curia that they were strongly supportive of the Chancellor’s plan and were already working to achieve the Government’s ambitious targets. Lib Dem council planning leaders, Councillors Todd Olive and Keith House agreed with the objectives of Labour’s planning reform but criticised the Chancellor’s speech as “heavy on rhetoric and light on details.”
Conservative planning lead for the New Forest District Council was more critical, calling planning reform “the very opposite of what people want.”
A market solution
With debt to GDP at its highest level in eighty years, it was expected that the Chancellor would heavily utilise the private sector to achieve objectives. Key to this has been her planned revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Although a few councillors told us that the Chancellor was overly vague on specifics, the objectives of NPPF reform are to reduce costs and ambiguities for developers while still maintaining standards.
When asked whether her plan relied too much on the private sector, the Chancellor responded by emphasising that Keir Starmer would be “interventionist” and would not let private developers “off the hook,” guiding private sector investment towards the construction of affordable housing. The idea of guiding private sector investment to achieve government ends is reminiscent of the previous Labour Government under Tony Blair.
The Labour councillors who spoke to Chamber were highly supportive of this initiative. Councillor Matthew Spoors told us that “the private sector is well placed to provide the homes that are needed,” however, he emphasised the need for government to ensure that developers “produce the housing mix the country needs.”
Not everyone is convinced by the degree to which a market-dominated approach can solve this problem. Green Councillor, Andrew Stringer expressed scepticism over the ability of the Government to guide the private sector to build housing in a way that is “sustainable and affordable to those excluded under the past regime,” stating that “more of the same is not change.” Conservative Councillor, Richard Wright also criticised the heavy role played by developers.
Conservative Councillor, Mark Crane criticised this target as impractical, stating “we don’t have enough tradespeople to build the houses suggested.” ‘Create Streets Foundation’ chairman Nicholas Boys Smith and ‘Make UK Modular’ have both advocated modular housing, a process which would dramatically reduce the labour required for house construction in Curia’s Levelling Up Commission report.
Leader for Development on the North Kesteven District Council, and Conservative Councillor, Richard Wright was sharper in his criticism. He criticised the speech for treating planning reform like “a magic wand,” instead calling for government to work with local government, rather than private developers.
Does their green belt policy give the central government too much power?
“Is this a declaration of war against NIMBYs?” Rachel Reeves was asked following her speech this morning; a characterisation she did not appear to deny. Labour’s campaign pledged to put planning reform “front and centre” of their party platform, however, some local councils argue that centrally set housing targets fail to consider local conditions and needs. With this speech reiterating that Labour believes planning reform to be central to their mandate, how do local governments feel about the renewed involvement of the central government in housebuilding?
As was expected, some of the policy announcements were focused on enhancing the input of Westminster in planning decisions. The Chancellor emphasised that local authorities would have a say in where and how developments happen; however, developments would have to happen. Additionally, decisions on ‘large projects’ would be made nationally, rather than locally, a significant increase in the central government’s power.
Hampshire Council Head of Planning and LibDem Councillor, Keith House, whilst saying that Labour was playing “good mood music” on reforming the National Planning Policy Framework, suggested Labour focus on the role of local councils in addressing the housing shortage, which would be better suited to “fill much of this gap if encouraged and empowered.” LibDem Chelmsford Councillor Rose Moore found little to criticise, expressing hope for co-operation between the council and the government on housing construction.
“It is very clear that what we need in this country is more affordable homes, in the right places, with the right infrastructure. Too often ‘in the right places,’ means ‘not here.’”
Cllr Peter Marland, Labour Leader of Milton Keynes City Council
Conservative Richard Wright was less keen: “Planning reform cannot work if just dictated from the centre.” This was a position backed up by fellow Conservative Derek Tipp who characterised Labour’s policy as “taking power away from local people and councils.” In Tipp’s view, mandatory targets are an overreach of the central government, which “does not always know what is right for a particular area.”
Leader of the Labour Milton Keynes City Council, Peter Marland criticised this kind of thinking in his comments to Curia: “It is very clear that what we need in this country is more affordable homes, in the right places, with the right infrastructure. Too often ‘in the right places,’ means ‘not here.’”
Final thought
The opinion of council planners on the future of housing are understandably mixed given the lack of detail available. In the view of Labour and Lib Dem councillors, the setting of mandatory targets is not dictating planning from above, but bringing down the cost of living for residents in a way that maintains the right of councils to decide where housing is built.
Conservative councillors, on the other hand, told us that these targets had the potential to overbuild in communities, resulting in environments that communities objected to. It is noteworthy that criticism of Reeves’ reliance on private developers was drawn from Conservative and Lib Dem councillors, rather than the Labour party.
Local Government clearly stands ready to engage with the new government on their plans for planning reform.
