The perils of politics in land promotion and development
Despite a General Election being underway, Ian Barnett, National Land Director at Leaders Romans Group, explores the idea of having a future free of politics impacts on the development sector.
As those who have put forward land for development will know, the process from a local plan’s ‘call for sites’ to a land sale typically stretches beyond the length four-year political term. And yet development is all too easily derailed, or substantially delayed, by short-term political thinking.
This is demonstrated time and time again. Earlier this parliament, Boris Johnson made a conference in which he said that he would not support greenfield development, and as his comments ricocheted around town halls up and down the country, many local plans were halted.
Another impasse occurred following Liz Truss’ comment about ‘Stalinist national housing targets’ and then Rishi Sunak’s substantial changes to national planning policy and the effective scrapping of housing targets. Both were the result of a political rebellion fuelled by entrenched NIMBYism within communities.
Many local plans are now stalled and landowners are left unsure of the future potential for their territory. In every case, local politics is the root of the problem: residents resist development and the councillors that represent them fear an own-goal, scored by the notorious ‘political football’.
Democracy has had an active role in planning since the first Town and Country Planning Act in 1947. I am not endorsing a US-style, market-led approach to planning which deprives residents from having a voice. But the next election must not be fought on opposition to development
While there is undoubtedly a role for local voices in development decisions, it is clear from the new towns delivery programme and the establishment of development corporations that housing targets are only met when decisions are outside the remit of local authorities.
An ‘infrastructure first’ approach which brings together infrastructure, housing, energy and climate change in a de-politicised environment to expedite the creation of new settlements is part of the solution.
In the UK, the closest we ever have got to this model was the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) which were introduced by the last Labour government in 2004. RSSs established a spatial vision and strategy specific to a region, for example, including the identification of areas for development with a 20 year timescale while also providing direction for local development frameworks on a local (borough / district) level.
They provided a cohesive approach to housing targets, transport planning and regionally-specific policies which is so problematic within the two-tier system. Even then, politics hampered progress: they were denied time to crystallise and ultimately withdrawn before they had chance to come to fruition.
Saying ‘yes’ to utilising land for development works best top-down, rather than bottom up. Ideally, a national spatial plan could kick-start development strategically and effectively. Community involvement would have a role to play within this national approach and of course only land put forward for development by its owner would be considered. But engagement process must be efficient (is three rounds of consultation on a design code alone really the best route to fast-tracking development?), and consistent. As neighbourhood planning has demonstrated, the potential for a specific community to impact on planning decisions lies in that community’s demographic: neighbourhoods with a professional, prosperous and permanent demographic are likely to exert more power than deprived areas with transient communities.
As recent politics has demonstrated, speeches berating development of greenfield land and the surrender of housing targets might bring about short-term political success. But to enable the sale of land suitable for development, create new settlements, and in doing so, achieve the (political) goal of providing the housing that this country needs, requires long-term commitment. A government which could enable this – if necessary, by relinquishing some local political power – could achieve and a lasting legacy for which they would be proud.
Images: Ivan Bandura and Heather Mount
More on rethinking the development sector:
Why councils should get statutory powers over economic development