Conflict of interests

The Conservative Party’s green paper Open source planning takes a revolutionary approach to the planning system: abolition of regional and national dictat (regional spatial strategies, building targets, appeals against local planners), and decisions determined principally at neighbourhood level. To overcome local opposition, the green paper proposes not only some financial incentives for councils but cash from developers’ contributions which the neighbourhood itself can spend.

As president of the Local Government Association, I commend the decentralisation agenda. And I know local authorities often show real leadership in supporting plans for much-needed new housing. But unpopular decisions at ward level are only easy for councillors with unassailable majorities. Saying ‘yes’ to bitterly contested but desperately needed new development is more likely at a tier of government able to see the benefits of new homes from a national or regional perspective.

Getting voters’ general support for new homes at county, city or town level is a very different matter to getting their support for new building actually on their doorstep. Devolving planning decisions below the level of the democratically elected authority sounds a risky strategy. We know those most affected - the people who need the new homes - are unlikely to be involved in the process.

Perhaps the head teacher - who has seen too many young lives blighted by housing problems and, in some areas, is worrying about a collapse in pupil numbers - and maybe the local vicar - anxious to see young parishioners get a home of their own - will favour the building of affordable new homes. But their voices, and their votes, may not prevail against the majority view: that more homes mean more traffic, more disruption during months of construction, more noise, more children (who, it is so often assumed, will cause trouble). Lurid rumours may circulate that social housing will be occupied by feckless single parents and drug-addicts. And that house prices will fall dramatically. These fears invariably turn out to be urban myths. But modest funds for community benefit seem very unlikely to allay them.

In the difficult years ahead, citizen power is going to be essential - not least on social housing estates - to harness community self-help and unlock good neighbourliness. But where different groups of citizens have diametrically opposed interests, higher level intervention becomes essential.
In truth, it is hard to imagine workable democratic procedures for ensuring a balanced planning decision by those living adjacent to a proposed new development. This suggests that the green paper’s radical devolution - beyond councils to local neighbourhoods - could perpetuate, not relieve, the current crisis in housebuilding.

Lord Best is president of the LGA but writes in a personal capacity