Why Labour’s approach to tackling the housing crisis is wrong - Andy Brown

When a government becomes convinced by a theory it can be very difficult to get it to change its mind. Particularly when that government has a massive majority.

One of this government’s central beliefs is that the best way to provide more housing for British people is to reduce the power of planning committees and to impose hefty targets for new buildings on any council where there is a big gap between house prices and earnings.

This is a deeply flawed approach. There is no guarantee that building houses on green fields will meet real local need or make any impact on house prices or the ability of local people to buy those homes.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The latest figures I saw show that the average price of a home in North Yorkshire was £262,500. That was 8.79 times the average local salary. An eye watering discrepancy which has led to the new government setting North Yorkshire a target of building twice as many houses every year as it currently does.

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner during a visit to a housing development. PIC: Joe Giddens/PA WireLabour deputy leader Angela Rayner during a visit to a housing development. PIC: Joe Giddens/PA Wire
Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner during a visit to a housing development. PIC: Joe Giddens/PA Wire

Unfortunately that huge discrepancy between house prices and earnings is not actually the product of slow house building. It is the result of homes being bought by people other than those who earn their income locally.

What gets built in North Yorkshire gets purchased by those who can afford the prices. Regardless of where they have previously lived or what they want to do with the property. When someone leaves London to buy a retirement home in the Dales the new home doesn’t in any way help to retain local people in their community. When the property is bought up as an investment and immediately goes out on Airbnb it helps no one who has lived for years in the locality to obtain their first home. When a property is acquired as a second home investment by someone who visits on a few weekends in the year then that also makes not one iota of difference to local affordability.

There are parts of the Dales and places such as Whitby where it is extraordinarily unlikely that any new properties will go to people who work locally. All that is likely to happen if we weaken controls over what can be built is that a lot of new properties will go onto green fields in inappropriate locations. Those same green areas that help make those locations attractive places to live.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Weakening the ability of local planning committees to influence what happens in the local area is not a great way to meet actual housing need. I have been on planning committees in this region for over five years and I have seen a stream of inappropriate applications along with some very good ones. Someone needs to protect the public from the former and make sure there are appropriate conditions on applications that have a huge impact on the lives of local people.

Setting developers free to slap up ugly houses that stand out sharply from the longstanding locally distinctive style isn’t a good idea. Harrogate has, for example, a long and proud tradition of stone buildings of a very clear character. Do we want to be the generation that surrounds that town with red brick estates that could have been located anywhere in the country? It is important for local councillors to be able to insist on high design standards and to protect the local character of our communities.

I’ve been on planning committees that have secured useful and practical improvements to developments that help provide future residents with low energy costs and low emissions whilst improving the environment. By contrast there are other locations across Yorkshire where new housing estates, offices and warehouses are still being built without any solar panels, heat pumps or battery storage.

Time and again developments come forward on inappropriate land such as that close to flood plains or with little thought for the implications on off site sewage systems or local facilities such as doctors or schools. In those circumstances planning committees often impose conditions that make real and genuine improvements to the impact of the development on the local community.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Residents who attend meetings of planning committees usually expect their local councillor to be speaking up for their community and seeking to secure its best interests. Unfortunately the law already means that this isn’t always what drives the decision. There is a legal obligation to presume that development should proceed. Developers are allowed to appeal against any decision they don’t like, and heavy costs can be awarded against councils. Local residents have no such rights.

Yet, flawed as the existing system is, it does allow some degree of local community say in what happens within their local community. It is all too easy to dismiss this as not in my backyard. Frequently I listen to knowledgeable local people putting forward genuine reasons why a scheme needs to be significantly improved before it can be passed.

Andy Brown is the Green Party councillor for Aire Valley in North Yorkshire.

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.

News you can trust since 1754
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice