“Housing is the first of the public services… work, family life, health and education are all undermined by crowded houses” so said the Conservative manifesto for the 1951 general election. It was this recognition that led to the original pledge to build 300,000 homes per year, a target unlike our own in that it was not mere politics sitting there idly without chance of ever being met; it was met, and by 1953 it was surpassed.
This was possible because housing was treated as it was described in the manifesto: the first of the public services. Although housing only ranked 13th in the cabinet list, the job was given to Harold Macmillan, the future Prime Minister, who was empowered to do what it took to overcome the housing shortage of the day. Arguably 300,000 was not enough to rebuild the stock lost in the 2nd World War and make up for paused building; however, it showed a determination to appoint a political heavyweight to confront the powerful interest groups of the time to build more housing. These problems are not new to us – Macmillan believed the job to be a poisoned chalice, whilst Churchill argued that it would make or break his career. The latter proved to be true, and ‘Super Mac’ was born.
What this showed is a determination to take housing seriously, placing it on a pedestal and sometimes making unpopular and difficult decisions to improve outcomes. Sadly, the Governments of today have failed to recognise this. Since coming into power after the 2010 election we have had 15 different Housing Ministers – an average of one every 310 days. At this rate, it becomes impossible for even those who work in the industry to keep up; indeed, since the 2019 election it has been particularly difficult with 7 different Housing Ministers or a new one every 165 days.
Unfortunately, housing is one of the most difficult portfolios and it takes a strong political backbone for any Government to make the necessary changes to improve the country. Take the example of the former Secretary of State Robert Jenrick – after publishing the rather interesting Planning for the Future white paper in 2020, anti-development activists sprung into action resulting in the shock Tory defeat in the Chesham & Amersham byelection. Soon after he was moved on. Delivering meaningful reform to a portfolio that is so controversial requires close attention to detail, expertise in dealing with interest groups, and a passion for the area. Sadly 15 Ministers since 2010 does not indicate that successive Governments are that concerned about Ministers being given the time to develop these skills.
Indeed, we are currently at a critical point in housing policy due to the draft changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Effectively, planners must exercise their functions “with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development” under Section 39(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. What the NPPF does is provide the Government’s view on what this means in practice. It is therefore hard to overstate its importance in our planning system.
I plan on exploring these changes in more detail at a later date, but in short, the Government is proposing to make the current housing need targets merely suggestive, allowing authorities to make local plans that fail to meet them. The effects of this are already being seen with many local authorities, such as the Isle of Wight and South Staffordshire, who have chosen to pause the rollout of their new plans as they predict the new NPPF will not require them to be as liberal to new housebuilding. The new housing minister will inevitably play a key role in the future of the NPPF: if they do not do so with enough precision, then there are two options of what will happen: 1) house building declines; or 2) she upsets anti-development activists and will be sacked.
There is no reason why Rachel Maclean cannot be a success. She has a good track record when it comes to housing and has backed development in her constituency of Redditch, working with the good people at Create Streets. However, even the most talented person cannot excel at their job if they are not provided the time to grasp the importance and scale of the portfolio. Treating housing as a political parcel to be passed around the party is why we have not seen any reform, meaning that the scale of the crisis has only accelerated. The Conservatives need to be reminded, as Labour MP Andrew Western did in his maiden speech last month, that housing is the first of the public services and deserves to be treated as such. Let’s hope the Government were taking note.
