In these divided and tumultuous times, it seems we can at least agree on something: the objectionable Bolshevism of housing targets. From the soon to be ex-Prime Minister and her Cabinet to the comment pages of the Guardian they are denounced as Stalinist and Leninist without so much as a show trial.
With the government and its putative ‘anti-growth coalition’ united in sentiment and rhetoric on housing targets it may seem their end is nigh. However, planners will recognise we’ve been here before, right down to the Soviet tropes.
In 2010 the Coalition pledged to abolish “failed Soviet tractor style top-down planning targets”. They duly did remove regionally set targets, but after a period of uncertainty guidance on meeting objectively assessed housing need was introduced. This was followed by a national target of 300,000 in 2017 and the Standard Methodology, which effectively provided government set housing targets for each local authority in 2018. Housing targets are a political post-war survivor and perform useful practical and democratic functions which are worthy of examination before we bin them all over again.
The accusation of Bolshevism is of course wide of the mark. Ensuring there are enough homes for people to live in has broad appeal across the political spectrum. Indeed, housing targets were pushed to political prominence in Britain by Keith Joseph, a key influence on the current Prime Minister’s ideological (and sartorial) lodestar, Margaret Thatcher. As Housing Minister, Joseph touted the Tory target of 400,000 a year to the 1963 Conservative Party conference and lambasted the Labour opposition for not having a target.
The use of targets has changed since the 1960s as the government is no longer directly responsible for building a large proportion of new houses. Targets now serve as an imperfect but helpful focus for government housing policy by influencing through the planning system the amount of land available for housing. Without a clear and quantified understanding of housing need and demand, far fewer houses would be given planning permission. New land is only generally made available for housing through plans or applications when it can be demonstrated it is necessary to meet current or future needs. Evidenced targets play a vital role in this regard.
Targets are partly a practical necessity (aligning housebuilding with infrastructure) and partly a democratic way to balance competing interests. These attributes may not endear targets to those seeking ideological purity, but they chart a course through undesirable alternatives. They are a compromise between a libertarian free for all, where people can build wherever they choose, and an exclusive, communitarian, beggar thy neighbour approach, where those fortunate to live near undeveloped land in and around cities and towns are able to exercise an absolute veto over its use. The former fails to recognise people’s desire to shape, debate and influence what happens in their local area. The latter fails to give voice to families seeking a home of their own and most of the population who consider we are facing a housing crisis.
The housing crisis, while a national problem with regional variations, must be solved on individual sites across the country. Without a clear target which local authorities are required to meet there will be a high risk of vocal local objectors successfully lobbying Councillors to prevent housebuilding. While those in need of a home make their voices well heard at the national level they do not, and cannot be expected, to lobby in favour of specific developments. Those commenting on planning applications play a valuable role in the process but without housing targets reflecting the needs of those looking for a home of their own there will be a clear democratic deficit in planning for housing.
Ending evidence-based housing targets would be a major loss to the tools we need to fix a housing crisis growing ever starker with sky high energy costs and escalating mortgage rates. Even if, as history indicates, targets do return or somehow survive, perhaps forgotten about during the current political turmoil, the uncertainty is causing planning delays and turning the focus away from building the homes we so dearly need.
