You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

The key role mayors can play to drive housebuilding

Comment16.04.25by Sean Eke

Mayors need to be empowered if we want to tackle the housebuilding crisis, says Sean Eke, a researcher from thinktank Reform

Sean Eke

Sean Eke is a researcher at Reform Think Tank

Sharelines

Mayors need to be empowered if we want to tackle the housebuilding crisis, says Sean Eke, a researcher from thinktank Reform #UKhousing

The housing crisis requires no introduction. In England, the average home costs almost eight times an average income (almost double what the ratio was in 2000), the average first-time buyer is now 34 years old, and we have not built more than 300,000 homes a year since the 1960s.

Government plans to tackle this crisis took a significant step forward with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill receiving its second reading in the House of Commons.

Among widespread fanfare, particularly around the national scheme of delegation for planning committees, one under-discussed aspect of this bill is its empowerment of mayors.

Chiefly, mayors will have a duty to prepare a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) and be able to deploy strengthened development corporations. Taken alongside measures announced in last year’s English Devolution White Paper — for example, greater mayoral direction over affordable housing programmes and closer ties with Homes England — these changes represent a dramatic increase in mayoral power to drive housebuilding.

This is a good thing.

Regional planning allows for greater coordination of housing, infrastructure and economic growth across local authority boundaries. Since the removal of regional spatial strategies in 2010, this coordination has been sorely missed, with measures such as the duty to cooperate failing to adequately prevent fragmentation and misalignment.

Furthermore, mayors have a wealth of housing experience. Whether providing affordable housing, redeveloping brownfield land, retrofitting homes or signing working agreements with Homes England, mayors have been at the forefront of delivering and improving housing for more than a decade.

“Whether providing affordable housing, redeveloping brownfield land, retrofitting homes or signing working agreements with Homes England, mayors have been at the forefront of delivering and improving housing for more than a decade”

Development corporations have been particularly successful, with the London Legacy Development Corporation alone constructing more than 13,000 homes since 2012.

Capitalising on the benefits of regional planning and the experience of mayors could be a game-changer if we are to meet the 1.5 million homes target. But mayors are currently too weak to fully capitalise on these proposed new powers.

One primary concern is the inability of mayors to make decisions.

Outside of London — where the Greater London Authority’s unique governing model permits Sir Sadiq Khan greater freedom of manoeuvre — mayors have few powers they can exercise without the approval of their board.

Taking decisions in this manner is designed to foster collaboration and consensus-building. Interviewees for our recent paper confirmed that this is often the case. But this can just as easily lead to gridlock if an agreement is not reached — something to which the vexatious nature of housing is particularly prone.

Board members may slow decisions by dragging their feet, or simply exercise a veto. Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West of England combined authorities have all failed to agree on an SDS, despite having the power to do so and the enthusiasm of their respective mayors, because of disagreements.

Equally worrying is the inability of mayors to action decisions. Combined authorities only employ roughly 1 person per 1,000 population. This is 15 times less than international comparisons (Toronto and Frankfurt), and five times less than some local authorities (Kent County Council). A smaller workforce means a smaller capacity to deliver on decisions.

Even more troublesome is the way workforce shortages appear particularly acute in areas central to housing delivery. Between 2013 and 2020, a quarter of planners left the public sector; data and digital teams have been hollowed out following decades of outsourcing; and some mayoral support teams consist of only five people.

The absence of enough planners to design policy, digital experts to analyse data and executive staff to support mayors can impede housing delivery, through planning application delays, insufficient oversight or cumbersome SDSs (the London Plan now “works to frustrate rather than facilitate the delivery of new homes”).

“Between 2013 and 2020, a quarter of planners left the public sector, data and digital teams have been hollowed out following decades of outsourcing and some mayoral support teams consist of only five people”

Giving mayors greater power is a bold and necessary step towards unlocking more housing.

However, these powers will be wasted if mayors are unable to take or action decisions. The government has taken steps to address this, for example by shifting combined authority boards to simple majority voting and providing extra funding to recruit more planners. But, as we have argued, these do not go far enough.

The assumption should be that combined authority boards pass proposals which are elements of mayoral programmes — further increasing the ability of mayors to deliver on their manifesto commitments — and the proposed local government workforce development group must pay particular attention to combined authority workforces.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the planning system and build desperately needed homes. Mayors are a key component of this and must be provided with the strength needed to deliver.

Sean Eke, researcher, Reform