Comment: Local councils must take responsibility for housing
Local councillors have been infantilised after years of hiding behind central government decisions.
By George Hollingbery
I’ll set my stall out from the get go; I think the new homes bonus is a good idea.
Now there are plenty out there who disagree and there are plenty who think it’s a good idea but expensive.
All I know is that in 11 years of being a local councillor, it became increasingly difficult for us as a planning authority to get the houses built that we knew we needed.
It’s certainly true to say that the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) and the compulsion on housing provision they contained led to the provision in local plans and core strategies for many new houses to be built.
But it in doing so, it removed the need of local councillors to think about the merits or otherwise of new local housing.
This had two effects. First it infantilised councils. Always having government imposed numbers to hide behind, councillors were never put in a place where they had to make strong, positive arguments for increased local housing. Of course some did anyway but, confronted with vocal and hostile opposition, most took the easy option of hiding behind the skirts of government.
Second, it polarised opinion. With little or nothing in the way of local consultation or championing by councillors, it was easy for those opposed to housing to make their case volubly and persuasively. They did so successfully time and time again. When open source planning was published a couple of years ago, I was one of those that welcomed it with open arms.
Here was a serious attempt to address the democratic deficit and administrative logjam that had come to define plans for house building in the UK.
The document (and the consequent localism bill) raise a huge number of issues and ideas that are beyond the province of this article, but it was in the measures aimed at increasing housing supply that I took most comfort.
My experience as a councillor was that, if we took plans for development out to our constituents, confronted them with the challenges we faced as an area and carefully explained why we were proposing what we were, we could take people with us.
Under the former regime, this simply wasn’t necessary. Local councillors could simply wash their hands of the whole affair and blame everything on government.
This change is the first – and in my mind principal – plank upon which the new proposals rest. By empowering local communities to shape their own responses to the needs of their population, we draw them into believing in the solution. We have to listen to their concerns, and they in turn are exposed to the problems that need solving.
I believe that in most cases it will be unnecessary for communities to draw up their own neighbourhood plans. Good councils while setting the needs framework, will listen to communities and adapt their proposals so as to be acceptable to local people.
This is all well and fine, but where does the new homes bonus (NHB) fit in?
My view is that it should very much be there as a compensation for communities which will be losing ‘amenity’ through the development of new homes.
At the moment any benefits that accrue through new homes being built are very much in the realm of a ‘public good’ as far as an individual home-owner is concerned.
Critical mass for a shop, the continuation of a local school, the potential to reduce out commuting by building local employment sites are all attractive outcomes from development but many individual households may well see no direct benefit from a development and indeed may well see exactly the opposite.
So why not soften the blow with a contribution to whatever the community wants to spend the money on? Indeed, why not go further and perhaps give a council tax reduction for a period for those most affected?
There are all sorts of ideas as to what you might do with the new homes bonus but they should all share the same characteristic, that of recognising the inconvenience and difficulty that may be caused to those already living in an area by the building of new housing.
With real, in depth consultation, engagement with communities on what are the problems and potential solutions for their area and this new element of realism about recognising that development isn’t all roses for those there already, I really can see communities beginning to accept new housing in a way that might previously have been regarded as unlikely.
Since I so clearly welcome the ideas, you might wonder why I have called a debate on the proposals.
Simply, I have concerns about some of the details. There is a good deal of confusion out there in the development community and local councils about the structures to raise money for the infrastructure needed by a development and where NHB fits in. Where does Section 106 fit in? What is happening to open spaces funding. What about potential timing differences between council analysis of community infrastructure levy (CIL) needs and the phasing out of section 106? What can NHB be used for?
I also want to probe ministers about where NHB payments go. The 20/80 split in two tier authorities seems fair enough but I want to ask what guarantees a community that has welcomed development will get that NHB will flow to them rather than elsewhere.
I also want to ask about cross border issues. There will be many cases where a development has a much greater effect on a neighbouring authority’s residents than on its own. Surely there must be a case for a mechanism that requires that NHB flow across borders where it makes sense for it to do so.
I look forward to the answers and to local councils pushing ahead with these proposals that I believe will lead to more houses being built for those that we all know desperately need them.
George Hollingbery is the Conservative MP for Meon Valley.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
