Reid says ‘jobs are on the line’ for more than 1.5 million housing targets as experts warn unlikely to be achieved

Justin RowlattBBC Panorama and

Anna LamcheBBC News

Getty Images A smiling Steve Reed in a crisp suit and tie, wearing a red baseball cap embroidered with the words "Build Build Baby!"Getty Images

Housing Secretary Steve Reid says his job should be “on the line” over his pledge to build 1.5 million new homes in England – but two leading experts told BBC Panorama that the government looks like it will not meet its target.

Professor Paul Cheshire, who has advised previous governments on planning policy, said it was “absolutely impossible” it would work.

Meanwhile, Neil Jefferson of the Home Builders Federation, which represents private housebuilders, warned that the government’s target “appears increasingly out of reach”.

But Reid insisted he would “definitely” hit the target and told Panorama that widespread doubts would make the “celebration sweeter” when he hits it.

The promise to build homes during the next parliamentary session, which is scheduled to last until 2029, was the cornerstone of Labour’s manifesto.

“My job should be on the line if I fail to achieve my goal,” Reed said. “I expect to be held accountable.”

But Jefferson told Panorama that home construction is “stabilizing” at about 200,000 new homes per year, instead of the 300,000 per year needed to achieve the goal.

He said the cumbersome planning process, environmental regulations and skills shortages – among other issues – are impacting construction rates in the industry.

Neil Jefferson, a man with short brown hair, wears a white shirt and jacket

The goal of 1.5 million new homes seems “increasingly distant” to Neil Jefferson

Many large or controversial planning applications are currently decided not by trained council planning officers, but by elected local councilors on planning committees.

This means that national priorities such as building more homes often clash with local opposition.

Councils are also supposed to adopt a “local plan”, a document that sets out where development should take place and how it aligns with national policy. These plans can help simplify planning approvals – if a proposal fits the plan, it should get permission unless there is a strong reason to reject it.

This means that these documents are controversial, and can often face fierce local opposition.

Less than a third of councils currently have an up-to-date local plan in England, according to the Planning Inspectorate.

But Reid told Panorama that the government would soon force councils to adopt a local plan.

Under the proposed changes, councils would have to develop a plan within 30 months of starting the process – instead of the current average of seven years.

The government also announced that it would boost funding and training for planning authorities to assist them with their plans.

Reid insisted government reforms would help developers build more homes, including imposing new housebuilding targets on councils and “more powers” ​​for him to call – or review – “unreasonably” rejected housing development plans.

The government has also proposed reforms to the rules governing protected green belt land, which makes up 12.5% ​​of land in England.

The first Green Belt was created in the 1930s to try to prevent cities from spreading into the countryside. But many sections of the green belt today contain intensive agricultural units, industrial buildings, quarries and golf courses.

The government has come up with a new concept called “Grey Belt”. The aim is to make it easier to obtain planning permission for green belt land that is considered low quality or has already been built on.

However, the government has left it up to each local authority to decide which sites are locally eligible for Gray Belt.

BBC climate editor Justin Rowlatt, wearing a black puffy coat, drives an open-top car down a country lane, next to economist Paul Cheshire in the passenger seat, his hands folded on his stomach.

Professor Cheshire believes that Green Belt land of limited environmental or social value could be put to better use

Professor Cheshire, a former economist at the London School of Economics, said this was a missed opportunity: “If the Gray Belt had been defined in a legally watertight way… it could have been cut and dried, and a lot of houses could have been built, but they didn’t.

He added: “They have left it to the ambiguity of the planning system and therefore to local lobbyists, and… it’s not going to happen.”

For Professor Cheshire, the government’s reforms “won’t make much difference”. He added, “It is absolutely impossible to build 1.5 million homes.”

A thin green banner promoting the Future Earth newsletter with text that says:

Leave a Comment