Amid the shock of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR)halvingits growth forecast last month, one remarkable finding gets too little attention. Itpredictshousebuilding will rise to its highest level in 40 years, adding 0.2% growth or £6.8bn by 2029-30, potentially rising to more than 0.4% by 2034-35. The government has said that housingscoresthe biggest positive growth effect from a “zero-cost policy” the OBR has ever forecast.This is especially remarkable given that 2024 saw thefewest planning permissionsgranted for new homes for a decade, and the worst on record, according tothe Home Builders Federation (HBF). Planning applicationsplummetedwhen the last governmentscrappedcouncils’ mandatory housing targets, but since Labour reimposed a national planning policy framework, applications in the works have risen bymore than 160%.The OBR expects Angela Rayner to reach1.3m of her 1.5m new homes target, but that’s without taking into account the planning act now going through parliament, clearing obstacles in its path. Nor does the OBR include last month’s£2bn of new investmentto support the “biggest boost in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation”, including up to 18,000 new social and affordable homes, a “down payment” ahead of more long-term investment promised later this year.Also uncounted was the “new homes accelerator” scheme sending planning experts to speed up delivery by unblocking thousands of new homes, including onseven new sitesannounced earlier this year. Nor did the OBR count in GDP growth from new towns:more than100 proposalsare with the new towns taskforce, reporting this summer. All these, the government says, should see the 1.5 new homes target reached.The planning bill can’t come soon enough: reform was proposed by Conservative governments but stymied by Tory MPs fearful of developments in their patch. Take the frustrations of just one social housing provider, Stonewater. It aims to build 1,000 social homes a year, havingsecured £200m investmentin 2023 and£250m in 2021, and currently manages 40,000 homes. But many developments are stuck in council planning departments: the law demands a response within 13 weeks – but without fines they can delay for years. Stonewater, they tell me, had one held up for two and half years in Frome; another for 62 homes in Worcester took almost as long. Right now they await permission for 72 homes in Lutterworth, Leicestershire, on land they bought back in October 2021. The final hitch is with the county council’s highways – they say, when I ask, that it will be resolved “soon”, but it’s still not signed.In Terrington St Clement, near King’s Lynn, Norfolk, Stonewater bought land for 87 homes in 2023 – there is outline agreement for building but still no permit. “Private developers can afford to wait,” says Jonathan Layzell of Stonewater. “When they build, they sell and get their money back fast – but we rely on long-term income from social rents while paying a mortgage. Missing years of rent in planning delays means we build less.” Isn’t it easier to get permission for social housing, especially in the rural areas where Stonewater builds? He laughs: “That’s what I had thought, but it’s harder. There’s social stigma: ‘We don’t want those people here.’ We argue back: ‘Who’s going to work in your schools, shops, pubs, local services?’ But the answer is often: ‘Over there, not here.’”Time and again council planning committees override the advice of professional planning departments, even when planners warn them the applicant will undoubtedly appeal and win, costing the council about £100,000. But the planners say councillors want to prove to their ward “I tried to stop it”, even when they knew they couldn’t block a site within an agreed local plan. That’s why the new billtakes awaymuch power from council planning committees. All but major decisions will be made by professional planners, council committees will be smaller and – here’s a novelty – councillors on that committee will have to be trained in planning, with a certificate to prove it. (Somewhat ironic when ministers controlling billions scoot through revolving doors between departments of which they know nearly nothing with no hint of training.)All that is good news. But big blockages remain, especially the lack of experienced planners lost in the Tory years. Take the district council ofKing’s Lynn and West Norfolk, where Stonewater has been waiting since 2021 for its 87 homes. They’ve had bigger things on their plate, such as three years of due process before finallyrejecting plansfor a pig and chicken factory megafarm this month.The council had no local plan, butLabournow demands one, so it has had to double housing sites to nearly 1,000 a year. Drawing it up took “in excess of 175,000 officer hours of research, analysis, planning and more”, independent councillor Jim Moriarty, cabinet member for planning, says. He welcomes Labour’s planning bill, but public comments suggest local outrage at more housing. As ever: “Yes, but not here.”UK housebuilders ‘very bad’ at building houses, says wildlife charity CEORead moreMoriatry managed to hire two planners last week, but he’s still two short. It’s a country-wide problem, says the HBF, whose reportPlanning on Emptyshows the worst-hit councils short of 40-50% planners. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RITP) tells me the crisis is not in recruits but in retaining the experienced: 25% leave for the private sector. The government promises300 more planners, but the HBF says it needs 7,000. Less stress and higher pay is a strong draw to private work, so the new bill allows councils to raise planning fees to cover a department’s costs, including paying planners more, so long as there’s no suggestion of councils selling permissions for profit.Lack of seasoned planners is only one obstacle. The government is accelerating construction training, but the HBF says every 10,000 additional new homes need 30,000 new recruits. Here’s Labour’s dilemma: do Home Office immigration numbers matter more than meeting the housing target with migrant workers? Ask the public and they back visas for construction workers by 38% to 16% against. Anti-migrant sentiment will always be a winner for the right. But success in building the most homes in 40 years would surely become one of Labour’s flagship boasts.Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Britain needs houses, and Labour’s bold plan will address that. But it may require more migrants | Polly Toynbee
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Labour's Housing Strategy Aims for Record Construction Amid Planning Challenges and Workforce Shortages"
The Guardian
7.9
TruthLens AI Summary
The recent report from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) presents a notable increase in housebuilding projections for the UK, predicting the highest levels in 40 years. This anticipated growth could contribute an additional 0.2% to the economic growth by 2029-30, with potential increases beyond 0.4% by 2034-35. The government's housing policy has been credited with this positive outlook, despite the disheartening context of the lowest number of planning permissions granted for new homes in a decade. Following Labour's reintroduction of a national planning policy framework, planning applications have surged by over 160%. The OBR estimates that Angela Rayner may achieve 1.3 million of her 1.5 million new homes target, aided by a new planning act aimed at accelerating development and a recent £2 billion investment to boost social and affordable housing. Additionally, the government plans to expedite the building process through initiatives like the 'new homes accelerator' scheme, which deploys planning experts to resolve bottlenecks in the housing development process.
Despite these optimistic projections, significant challenges remain, particularly in the planning process. Social housing providers like Stonewater are facing delays, with some projects stalled for years due to council planning inefficiencies. The planning bill currently under discussion aims to streamline decision-making by reducing the power of local councils and increasing the role of professional planners, who will now require training and certification. Nonetheless, the shortage of experienced planners, exacerbated by recent years of Conservative governance, poses a considerable hurdle. The Home Builders Federation reports that many councils are operating with a 40-50% shortfall in planners, complicating the ability to meet housing targets. Furthermore, the need for migrant workers in construction is a contentious issue, with public support for visas for these workers, which may play a crucial role in achieving Labour's ambitious housing goals. Ultimately, while Labour's initiatives could lead to a historic increase in housing construction, the interplay of planning reforms, workforce challenges, and public sentiment on immigration will significantly influence their success.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a detailed analysis of the current housing crisis in Britain, emphasizing the Labour Party's plans to increase house building amidst a backdrop of economic challenges. It highlights the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) optimistic forecasts for housing growth, which are seen as a significant positive economic driver. However, it also suggests that achieving these ambitious housing targets may depend on an increase in immigration to meet labor demands in the construction sector.
Government Initiatives and Economic Projections
The article references the OBR's prediction of a resurgence in housebuilding, which is projected to reach the highest levels in four decades, contributing significantly to economic growth. This is particularly noteworthy given the recent decline in planning permissions, which have affected new housing projects. The piece underscores the Labour Party's efforts to reinstate a national planning policy framework, which has led to a dramatic increase in planning applications. These initiatives are framed as essential for reaching the ambitious goal of 1.5 million new homes.
Potential Migration Implications
A critical aspect raised in the article is the implication of immigration in achieving these housing targets. The suggestion that more migrants may be needed to fill labor shortages in the construction industry hints at broader societal discussions about immigration policy. This aspect may resonate differently across various political and social groups, potentially creating divisions or support depending on perspectives on immigration.
Public Perception and Political Strategy
The narrative aims to shape public perception by highlighting the Labour Party's proactive approach to a pressing issue. By presenting Labour's housing plan as a solution to the housing crisis, the article seeks to bolster support for the party. The framing of the housing initiative as a "zero-cost policy" might also be an attempt to appeal to fiscally conservative voters who may be skeptical of extensive government spending.
Comparative Context and Broader Implications
In the broader context, the article reflects ongoing debates about housing policy, economic growth, and immigration in the UK. By connecting housing development to economic recovery, it positions the Labour Party favorably against its political rivals, particularly the Conservative Party, which has faced criticism for its handling of housing issues.
Trustworthiness of the Information
The article relies on data from reputable sources like the OBR and the Home Builders Federation, which lends credibility to the claims made. However, the emphasis on future projections and the potential impact of immigration could be seen as speculative, introducing an element of uncertainty. The language employed is persuasive, aiming to invoke a sense of urgency and optimism about Labour's plans while potentially glossing over the complexities of implementing such policies.
Potential Market Reactions
The focus on housing and construction may influence stock market activities, particularly for companies involved in real estate and construction. Investments in housing could lead to increased demand for stocks in these sectors, while fluctuating immigration policies could also affect labor availability and costs.
Conclusion
In summary, the article serves to promote Labour’s housing agenda while addressing the broader economic implications of housing development and immigration. The language and framing suggest a strategic attempt to galvanize public support for Labour's policies amidst ongoing economic challenges. The article presents a balanced mix of optimism and caution, reflecting the complexities of the housing crisis and the political landscape.