The prognosis for Housing under labour

So, the election is out of the way, and we can now dispense with the various election manifestos that were intended to influence our voting intentions.

However, we now need to look solely at Labour and their manifesto as one hopes there’s was issued with good intent, after much thought and in the knowledge, they were likely to become the next government.

The headline solution for housing was the delivery 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament.

Due to low number of new builds over the last couple of years the current housing stock is insufficient to meet demand. Consequently, there is no need for the government to create any further demand as it is already there. What it needs to do is facilitate supply. Unlike education and health, it does not provide housing and relies on third parties to deliver, which is the number one flaw when it comes to promising delivery.

Labour has talked about rescoping green belt land into areas that are now deemed to be “grey”. Albeit, like all parties, Labour are insisting that brownfield sites will have preference but this has always been the case. Redefining what is “grey” is potentially a game changer and should open up more scope for development, hopefully on land bordering on existing infrastructure making planning and build times that much quicker. There is an opportunity to look at major cities in the UK and find grey land that abuts the current city boundaries. To achieve any meaningful success, you need to find sites for 1000 + units.

Labour will need to redefine what it means by grey as soon as possible, and without any ambiguity. If there is ambiguity, potential areas for development will get bogged down in political and legal wrangling that will delay delivery and more than likely turn off potential housebuilders who have limited resources to tie up in planning and shareholder to satisfy.

Labour have advocated restoring housing targets and ensuring planning authorities have up to date Local Plans. Absolutely all good intentions but how will they enforce and when? Local Authorities may be hindered by insufficient resources (Labour plans to hire 300 new planning officers- but that will not be an instant remedy) as well current infrastructure limitations. The preparation of a local plan could take 12 to 18 months based on past performance. So, enforcement is a real issue in the life of a government with a 5-year term.

Due to timelines being a constant bug bear to planning there needs to be a radical change in how we go about delivering housing and infrastructure. There needs to be a plan for the country spanning 5 to 10 years which is updated every 2-3 years created by a Statutory Body very similar to the Bank of England. This would be non-political but it’s membership would consist of all the relevant specialists to determine where, when and how our infrastructure would evolve.

They would consider housing needs and all support services, determine the best locations and effectively override Local Authorities, if need be, with compulsory purchase orders. However, one would hope there would be constructive dialogue considering local issues. Milton Keynes took 10 years to develop. All major infrastructure works take years to put together HS2, Crossrail even merely widening the M25. So, we need a long term sustainable solution.

Let’s call the statutory body the Commission for Infrastructure working with Homes England, National Grid, Local Mayors etc that has a clear mandate. Surely, a focused and transparent plan would give confidence to housebuilders to build and consumers to buy? Wouldn’t employers look to support such initiatives with their investment in workplaces knowing they have a local workforce to recruit from?

In reality, the target of 1.5 million new homes is currently just wishful thinking if not misleading. The infrastructure to deliver is not there as there are insufficient planners and construction workers. However, if Labour were to create an all-powerful Commission for Infrastructure with authority and a clear framework, they could leave a major legacy to the British Public; one thinks of Aneurin Bevan and the formation of the National Health Service.