Angela’s Inspiring Progress

Angela Rayner’s proposed overhaul of planning rules, aiming to address Britain’s housing crisis, has sparked debate. While commendable in its ambition to increase housing supply, particularly in high-demand areas like the South East, the proposed changes fall short of the radical reform needed to truly resolve the issue. The central problem lies in the continued existence of national planning control, epitomized by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, which effectively restricts development in valuable areas like the Green Belt surrounding London. This artificial constraint prevents the natural process of wealth creation that occurs when land is transitioned from lower-value uses (e.g., green fields) to higher-value uses (e.g., housing). The argument is that by allowing construction in these desirable areas, not only would more housing become available, but overall wealth would increase.

The current system, by limiting housing supply in high-demand areas, artificially inflates prices, making homeownership unattainable for many and exacerbating existing inequalities. The Green Belt, ostensibly designed to preserve green spaces and prevent urban sprawl, has become a tool for maintaining exclusivity, benefiting a select few while restricting access for the broader population. The proposed increase in housing targets, while a step in the right direction, fails to address the fundamental issue of centralized planning control. Tinkering with the existing framework, even with a significant increase in permitted development, will not solve the systemic problem of restricted supply. The true solution, according to the author, lies in dismantling national planning control altogether.

The author argues that a truly effective solution would involve abolishing the Town and Country Planning Act and its successors, thereby freeing the market to respond to demand. This would empower individuals and developers to build houses where they perceive a need, catering to diverse preferences and price points. The market, guided by the forces of supply and demand, would naturally gravitate towards building the types of housing people desire, in the locations they prefer, and at the densities they find acceptable. This approach, rooted in free market principles, contrasts sharply with the current system of centralized planning, which often fails to accurately predict or meet the evolving housing needs of the population.

Rayner’s plan, while seemingly ambitious, is ultimately insufficient as it retains the core problem of national planning control. It represents a continuation of the top-down approach that has contributed to the housing crisis in the first place. Rather than empowering local communities and developers to respond to local market demands, the government continues to dictate where and what type of housing can be built. This approach inevitably leads to misallocation of resources, delays, and a persistent shortage of affordable housing. The author contends that the fear of “concreting over” the Home Counties is misplaced. A free market approach would not necessarily lead to rampant development but rather a more efficient and responsive allocation of land use.

The inherent flaw in the current system lies in its reliance on centralized planning, which struggles to keep pace with the dynamic nature of housing demand. A truly efficient system would allow builders to respond directly to market signals, constructing housing where it is most needed and in the styles and sizes that people desire. This would lead to a more diverse and affordable housing market, benefiting a wider range of individuals and families. The current system, by contrast, favors established homeowners and developers with privileged access to the planning process, perpetuating existing inequalities and exacerbating the housing crisis.

The author concludes that Rayner’s proposals, while presented as a significant overhaul, ultimately represent a missed opportunity for genuine reform. By clinging to the outdated and restrictive framework of national planning control, the government is perpetuating the very system that created the housing crisis in the first place. The only effective solution, the author argues, is to dismantle this system entirely and embrace a free market approach that empowers individuals and developers to respond directly to the needs of the population. This would not only increase the supply of housing but also lead to a more diverse, affordable, and responsive housing market that better serves the needs of all citizens.