Bob Seely is the MP for the Isle of Wight.
There’s been some curious reaction to last week’s poor election results. One has been to blame the result on our housing and planning policy.
This argument not only lacks any evidence but also prevents us from presenting what is frankly a positive story.
In last week’s local elections, our core and potential supporters did not come out to vote because, last year, we did not govern as well as we should. The answer to that is to govern better – which, thanks to Rishi Sunak’s leadership, we are now doing.
Blaming housing is akin to finding a policy you don’t like and sacrificially dumping it to appease the gods of electability.
Here are the facts. Since 2010, we have built 2.26 million additional homes, including 626,600 affordable homes. In 2021/2022, we built 232,000 homes, the third-highest annual total in the past 30 years.
Some 829,000 households have purchased a home with help from Government-backed schemes since 2010, and perhaps most impressively, last year there were 400,000 first-time buyers, the highest for 20 years
So, let’s just repeat that final fact. Last year we had the best first-time buyer rate for two decades. That is something to shout about, not to attack ourselves over. We have a good story to tell, especially compared to Labour; if our (entirely arbitrary, it has to be said) housing target had been 200,000 or 250,000, we’d be on or near target now.
However, it is clear that some communities are feeling the intense pressure. The system has become increasingly weighted towards developers, who in some cases have aggressively gamed the system.
That’s why those of us concerned believed we needed some adjustment to the system; there is currently far too much dependence on greenfield sites.
By way of background, there are two major trends that have combined to cause pressure on rural and southern housing. First, the nationwide flow from city centres to suburbs, and second, the population flow from North to South.
As a result, in my constituency of the Isle of Wight we have increased our population by around 50 percent since the 1960s, putting pressure on a range of public services, whilst many northern and midland cities have lost population, not only relatively to the South, but in absolute numbers too.
So, what does the agreement with Michael Gove (and it hasn’t come into effect yet, so again, any attempt to blame the new approach on electoral defeat is without substance) amount to?
The purpose was to find a way forward to make housing community-led, environment-led and regeneration-led. What have been the results?
First, targets remain. Anyone who wants their council to increase their targets is very welcome to do so, but there is greater leeway given to local circumstances and local community wishes. This is about localism and local democratic accountability, something that every conservative should support.
Second, we need to do more to make sure that developers develop. The Government has asked the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate this.
The ten large developers control 70 percent of housing supply. They restrict supply to inflate land value, housing prices, and their share prices (and bonuses).
More permissions don’t mean more housing if those permissions just get added to the land bank. There are over 900,000 outstanding planning permissions, including 500,000 on brownfield sites. Councils, which are often blamed for housing problems, agree 80 percent of permissions.
It’s the developers that are holding back supply. We believe use-it-or-lose-it would encourage developers to develop.
Third, we want more focus on brownfield sites – these sites drive community regeneration, and for young buyers especially, are much more likely to be near services and jobs.
Fourth, we urged the Government to strengthen council powers on compulsory purchase; the Law Society has now been commissioned to do the work.
Additionally, we asked for a character test. If developers have a poor track record, they should be refused permissions. We also welcome more variation in planning department charges so that they can do their work more efficiently.
Fifth, on first-time buyers, we were insistent that councils can and should identify the type of development most needed in their area to encourage first-time buyers.
Sixth, we agreed that the Infrastructure Levy will be set locally, to allow some councils to charge more for greenfield development, whilst other councils will be able to set a lower level if they are happy to see more greenfield development.
Seventh, we want more of a focus on redevelopment in cities. We are a small island, yet we have some of lowest city densities in the world.
So, what is going to give? We believe that under-pressure councils in the shires and some suburbs will choose to lower their numbers. The Government has committed to offset that by encouraging higher numbers in cities – especially northern cities, which have been depopulating for fifty years.
This is important, not only to take pressure off the South, but to help the critical project of our age, levelling-up – regeneration – of those left-behind areas. Better jobs and plentiful housing are critical ingredients in that regeneration agenda. This is something we should all welcome.
I, like some of my colleagues, remain rightly neuralgic about out-of-town, low density, car-dependent, anti-environmental, soulless, large-scale housing estates plonked on the edge of towns with scarcely a thought about design, transport, or a sense of community.
We want to end this lazy and unsustainable reliance on greenfield sites, which comes at the expense of city and town centres where there are schools, shops and jobs; we want housing to regenerate urban areas, not hollow them out. We want housing to be beautiful and to add to communities.
We need more focus on young people. We want under-pressure areas to be able to focus on building for their young people, through housing association or a new generation of council building.
This is an agenda we can all welcome. I also thank Gove for his willingness to engage. We will have a better system as a result, and one which is geared to being community-led, environment-led and regeneration-led.
Last week’s elections weren’t great. But my hope is that it was a reaction to the past year. We now need to get behind Sunak’s leadership and make our case – no one else will do it for us.
Many of us believe we can win next year, and I am one of them. But we need to stay together to make it happen.
Bob Seely is the MP for the Isle of Wight.
There’s been some curious reaction to last week’s poor election results. One has been to blame the result on our housing and planning policy.
This argument not only lacks any evidence but also prevents us from presenting what is frankly a positive story.
In last week’s local elections, our core and potential supporters did not come out to vote because, last year, we did not govern as well as we should. The answer to that is to govern better – which, thanks to Rishi Sunak’s leadership, we are now doing.
Blaming housing is akin to finding a policy you don’t like and sacrificially dumping it to appease the gods of electability.
Here are the facts. Since 2010, we have built 2.26 million additional homes, including 626,600 affordable homes. In 2021/2022, we built 232,000 homes, the third-highest annual total in the past 30 years.
Some 829,000 households have purchased a home with help from Government-backed schemes since 2010, and perhaps most impressively, last year there were 400,000 first-time buyers, the highest for 20 years
So, let’s just repeat that final fact. Last year we had the best first-time buyer rate for two decades. That is something to shout about, not to attack ourselves over. We have a good story to tell, especially compared to Labour; if our (entirely arbitrary, it has to be said) housing target had been 200,000 or 250,000, we’d be on or near target now.
However, it is clear that some communities are feeling the intense pressure. The system has become increasingly weighted towards developers, who in some cases have aggressively gamed the system.
That’s why those of us concerned believed we needed some adjustment to the system; there is currently far too much dependence on greenfield sites.
By way of background, there are two major trends that have combined to cause pressure on rural and southern housing. First, the nationwide flow from city centres to suburbs, and second, the population flow from North to South.
As a result, in my constituency of the Isle of Wight we have increased our population by around 50 percent since the 1960s, putting pressure on a range of public services, whilst many northern and midland cities have lost population, not only relatively to the South, but in absolute numbers too.
So, what does the agreement with Michael Gove (and it hasn’t come into effect yet, so again, any attempt to blame the new approach on electoral defeat is without substance) amount to?
The purpose was to find a way forward to make housing community-led, environment-led and regeneration-led. What have been the results?
First, targets remain. Anyone who wants their council to increase their targets is very welcome to do so, but there is greater leeway given to local circumstances and local community wishes. This is about localism and local democratic accountability, something that every conservative should support.
Second, we need to do more to make sure that developers develop. The Government has asked the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate this.
The ten large developers control 70 percent of housing supply. They restrict supply to inflate land value, housing prices, and their share prices (and bonuses).
More permissions don’t mean more housing if those permissions just get added to the land bank. There are over 900,000 outstanding planning permissions, including 500,000 on brownfield sites. Councils, which are often blamed for housing problems, agree 80 percent of permissions.
It’s the developers that are holding back supply. We believe use-it-or-lose-it would encourage developers to develop.
Third, we want more focus on brownfield sites – these sites drive community regeneration, and for young buyers especially, are much more likely to be near services and jobs.
Fourth, we urged the Government to strengthen council powers on compulsory purchase; the Law Society has now been commissioned to do the work.
Additionally, we asked for a character test. If developers have a poor track record, they should be refused permissions. We also welcome more variation in planning department charges so that they can do their work more efficiently.
Fifth, on first-time buyers, we were insistent that councils can and should identify the type of development most needed in their area to encourage first-time buyers.
Sixth, we agreed that the Infrastructure Levy will be set locally, to allow some councils to charge more for greenfield development, whilst other councils will be able to set a lower level if they are happy to see more greenfield development.
Seventh, we want more of a focus on redevelopment in cities. We are a small island, yet we have some of lowest city densities in the world.
So, what is going to give? We believe that under-pressure councils in the shires and some suburbs will choose to lower their numbers. The Government has committed to offset that by encouraging higher numbers in cities – especially northern cities, which have been depopulating for fifty years.
This is important, not only to take pressure off the South, but to help the critical project of our age, levelling-up – regeneration – of those left-behind areas. Better jobs and plentiful housing are critical ingredients in that regeneration agenda. This is something we should all welcome.
I, like some of my colleagues, remain rightly neuralgic about out-of-town, low density, car-dependent, anti-environmental, soulless, large-scale housing estates plonked on the edge of towns with scarcely a thought about design, transport, or a sense of community.
We want to end this lazy and unsustainable reliance on greenfield sites, which comes at the expense of city and town centres where there are schools, shops and jobs; we want housing to regenerate urban areas, not hollow them out. We want housing to be beautiful and to add to communities.
We need more focus on young people. We want under-pressure areas to be able to focus on building for their young people, through housing association or a new generation of council building.
This is an agenda we can all welcome. I also thank Gove for his willingness to engage. We will have a better system as a result, and one which is geared to being community-led, environment-led and regeneration-led.
Last week’s elections weren’t great. But my hope is that it was a reaction to the past year. We now need to get behind Sunak’s leadership and make our case – no one else will do it for us.
Many of us believe we can win next year, and I am one of them. But we need to stay together to make it happen.