THREAD : Most councillors I know understand the need for new homes and accept robust targets and the trade-offs that are inevitably if we are to meet them. But the peculiarities of our system lead to decisions like this, lemme try and explain. https://twitter.com/layo_gp/status/1352206740092235776

When drafting our Local Plan, comments from colleagues often take a broader view, looking at the needs of our borough AS A WHOLE. The need for economic growth, densification and regeneration + the need to tackle housing need and combat gentrification by building more is accepted

These things are then balanced and traded off against ensuring good design, protecting unique heritage, and ensuring manageable density for the area’s infrastructure.

But that’s then when the fun stops and democracy takes a turn.

After all that work AND CONSULTATION to approve our planning policy, balancing the competing needs of the borough’s residents.. we have the opportunity to go against it all and chuck out policy compliant applications at a planning committee!

Democracy from national to regional government works in tandem, formulating the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan and our Local Plan in sync. We are elected to form these policies, and we consult on them thoroughly when they’re being drafted (far too slowly).

But all this work can be undone by a small number of hyper-local opponents of new homes. The arbitrary power for cllrs to strike down planning applications means you can stop new homes if you can persuade a handful of laypeople who might have a vested interest in supporting you!

The nature of our planning system encourages people to prevent stuff being built in their backyard. The system encourages engagement at the final stage, people only get involved on a hyper-local ‘this affects me’ basis. This isn’t conducive to seeing the bigger picture.

It takes time to get involved in the planning system, submit those responses, and attend the committee. It means we hear from the time-rich. They are usually, yep, you guessed it, home-owners.

In brutally simplistic terms (excluding those pesky societal and structural issues caused by our housing crisis and growing generational inequality) it is in a home-owners interest to restrict housing supply locally and keep their asset’s price rising.

I’ve never once had a homeless family attend a planning committee. Are they just not fussed? No, they probably are! But they do not have the resources and time to get involved in the planning process. Moreover, decisions are often shaped around a very localised impact.

I sometimes wonder whether any private renter has ever spoken against an application at one of my committees? Probably not. They’re much more transient and mostly on assured short-hold tenancies. Many are locked out of the dream of bedding in roots in a community.

Private renters are more likely to be less affluent and less time-rich, they’re likely to be younger as well. They’re less likely to vote in local election. The furious people at your planning committee? Yeah, they vote.

In some areas - yeah, I am looking at you outer London Tories and commuter shires - it is in the self-serving politician’s interest to block new homes or densification. They don’t want young Labour-voting professionals moving en masse!

I’ve sat in planning committees - the pressure to cave to the impassioned objections by a loud minority proclaiming to speak for the entire borough’s community - can be immense.

Most councillor lament that their hands are tied by national planning policy, they wish they had more discretionary control to block homes! Sometimes it is posturing, playing to the objectors. But most of the time it is genuine frustration. I’ve felt it too at times.

But in our profoundly centralised country most councillors have very limited powers. Backbencher councillors? Essentially zilch. Planning Committee is the one place where we can very obviously shape the area around us.

So how do we change this system that institutionalises the power of NIMBYs? I don’t think simply asking councillors to not be swayed by an impassioned room will work - the incentives for local politicians to support NIMBYs is just too strong.

Just look at any Lib Dem Group!

But a new wave of hip young researchers and Twitter-savvy YIMBYs are highlighting the way in which our discretionary planning system creates shortages, incentivises land-banking, and sharply hinders small developers.

Check out @PricedOutUK and this https://www.centreforcities.org/publication/planning-for-the-future/

I’ve tried to be speak to Labour colleagues about the broken system I’ve seen first hand - the glacial speed of the planning process, the insecurity it causes developers who land bank as insurance, the stifling of the competition needed to challenge the seller’s market...

The response I get from colleagues? ‘Our discretionary planning powers are all we have, why would we give it up? And anyway, our votes on committees are ‘democracy in action’. Blocking new homes against our perfectly-democratically formed planning policies is democracy.

There’s also a more esoteric reason why colleagues won’t hear this out. Those I speak to see the bureaucracy of our planning system as a bulwark against lowering standards. They instinctively reject ideas about cutting red tape and increasing competition to raise standards.

We have a planning system that restricts supply and competition. But when I speak out for reform, I’m simply told that all developers are just socially malevolent, rather than manipulating a flawed system to their advantage. A flawed system that can be reformed.

I’m told that the only way to solve the housing crisis is for a state-funded mass building programme of social homes. Something the Tories would never do because of ideological and self-preservation reasons (social housing creates Labour voters, basically). So what to do?

Labourites sit on our hands, seemingly rejecting planning reform out of hand because it’s a Tory “developers charters” without any serious attempt to engage in the issues. Instead of working constructively cross party for reform, we just wait for the house building revolution.

On my next mega-thread triggered by boredom and frustration, I’ll take on another barrier in the fight against the housing crisis - leftwing NIMBYism that campaigns against new affordable homes because they’re not affordable enough therefore making housing more unaffordable! Fun. https://twitter.com/layo_gp/status/1352410405793112065