Planning deregulation carries serious political risks for Labour
4 min read
The origins of Britain’s planning system are as deeply rooted in the legacy of the great post-war Labour government as the National Health Service and welfare state.
The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act facilitated Labour’s historic council housebuilding programme and rebalanced power between wealthy landowners and workers. This policy embodies Labour values.
Now, amid a deep housing crisis, with over eight million people facing unmet housing needs, the government is seeking to reshape the planning system. But there is a key limitation in its approach: a narrow focus on increasing housing supply, when we already have substantially more homes per capita than we did 50 years ago.
We must reject the narrative that planning is the problem
In 1971 we had roughly one dwelling for every three people in the UK. Today there is one for every 2.2 people. Yet since 1971 UK house prices have risen by 3,878 per cent. England has seen 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households since 2015.
The misdiagnosis on supply leads to the flawed conclusion that the solution to the housing crisis is cutting so-called red tape. In this case, red tape seems to mean democratic engagement in the planning process, meaningful community consultation and essential environmental protections.
The problem with the government’s open ear to HSBC, BlackRock and Phoenix on housing policy is that private finance will always prioritise profits over meeting housing needs. Our planning system has faced relentless attacks from developers, well-funded lobbyists and their political mouthpieces precisely because it puts people before profit.
We must not allow the debate on planning to be reduced to superficial conversations about “builders vs blockers” when the reality is more complex. The overwhelming majority of planning applications are approved. The planning system often grants more permissions than the private sector delivers, with over a million homes granted planning permission in the past decade still yet to be built.
Deregulation of the planning system will result in serious political risks for Labour. My constituents do not want to lose control over shaping their communities. Disempowerment erodes trust and breeds resentment.
And what will we have to show for it? The government still won’t be building the homes we need, as developers will continue maximising profits by drip-feeding developments into the system, keeping prices high and prioritising buy-to-rents, build-to-rents, luxury apartments and large executive homes over the affordable and council housing our communities desperately need. Meanwhile, our wider economic model, including a monetary system in which credit creation by private banks causes massive asset-price inflation, will continue to push house prices further out of reach of ordinary people.
To tackle the housing crisis, we need a wide-reaching approach, incorporating economic reform alongside empowering local authorities. I am working on a range of amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, aiming to set out a clear progressive alternative for planning and housebuilding – one that, in the radical tradition of the 1947 Act, does not shy away from taking on the developer lobby. It is pro-building, pro-worker, pro-public health and pro-environment.
For instance, we must end the ‘call for sites’ approach to Local Plan making. Instead, councils should be empowered to proactively identify the best locations for meeting housing need in line with strict criteria for sustainable development and assemble this land as necessary, free from ‘hope value’ through expanded compulsory purchase powers. Let’s put an end to local authorities having to choose where development can go from sub-optimal sites offered by wealthy landowners and developers, while also securing land value uplifts to fund desperately needed council housing alongside the parks, infrastructure and public services so often missing from new build estates.
The challenge for the left in the debate ahead is to refuse to allow the discussion on planning to be reduced to a narrow conversation, with developer demands for deregulation on one side and privileged land-owning voices on the other.
There is a case for improving the development consenting process – this must be coupled with improved funding for planning departments, which were hard-hit by Conservative austerity. But we must reject the narrative that planning is the problem; that the housing crisis is somehow Clement Attlee’s fault. We should speak with confidence about the planning system – not as a blocker, but as an essential tool that can enable the construction of new communities that meet all the needs and aspirations of ordinary people.
Chris Hinchliff, Labour MP for North East Hertfordshire
