May leads planning policy Tory rebellion
Algorithm risks ‘turning the Garden of England into a patio’ and hits ‘levellingup’ agenda, say Tory MPS
Theresa May led a backbench rebellion against the Government’s “illconceived” housing algorithm yesterday, as Tory opposition to new planning proposals builds. The former prime minister warned the building formula “flies in the face” of ministers’ “levelling-up” agenda and would lead to more investment in London and the South East. Analysis has suggested that many of the homes needed to meet the annual 330,000 target would be built in Tory heartlands.
THERESA MAY led a backbench rebellion against the Government’s “ill conceived” housing algorithm yesterday, as Tory opposition to new planning proposals builds.
The former prime minister warned the building formula “flies in the face” of ministers’ “levelling-up” agenda and would lead to more investment in London and the South East.
Analysis has alarmed Conservative MPS and councillors after it was suggested that many of the homes needed to meet the annual 330,000 target would be built in Tory heartlands.
“The problem with these proposals, the problem with this algorithm, is that it doesn’t guarantee a single extra home being built and, far from levelling up, it forces more investment into London and the South,” Mrs May said, calling it “mechanistic” and “ill-conceived”.
She was one of a number of former Cabinet ministers to speak out during a motion debate put forward by Bob Seely, a Tory backbencher. MPS voted through the motion, which requests a Commons debate and vote on the system before it is introduced. However, ministers do not need to accede to the demands as the motion is non-binding.
Damian Green, Mrs May’s former deputy and the MP for Ashford in Kent, suggested the Government was “in danger of turning the Garden of England into a patio”.
Addressing Christopher Pincher, the housing minister, he said: “Can I gently say to the minister that algorithms are a tool for mathematicians, not politicians. And I object to his particular algorithm for two reasons: in principle, because a national algorithm destroys local decision-making; and in practice, because this particular algorithm will bake in overdevelopment in the South and underdevelopment in the North.
“This won’t be levelling up, this will be levelling over green fields with concrete.”
Jeremy Hunt, the former foreign secretary, said “simply increasing” targets would not help those unable to get on the housing ladder and would force councils to encroach on greenbelt land.
Chris Grayling, the former transport secretary, accused the Government of pursuing “exactly the opposite of what this country actually needs to achieve” with its planning reforms.
Mr Pincher suggested the Government could compromise on the issue.
He acknowledged concerns about “too many homes in the South and not enough in the Midlands and the North” and what that meant for “our countryside in contrast to our urban areas”.
Mr Pincer added: “I want to reassure the House that through this consultation process we are committed to addressing any supposed imbalances.”
A “revised” standard method for calculating housing need is part of the Government’s proposed planning reforms. The formula assesses the need for building in areas across the country and sets housing targets accordingly.
However, analysis by Lichfields, a planning consultancy, of the proposed method showed sharp increases in areas with high Conservative support. The plans aim to deliver an extra five million homes in England in the next 15 years, nearly a third in rural counties.
In Chichester, West Sussex, the annual target is predicted to rise from 425 to 1,120; in Reigate, Surrey, it would rise from 460 to 1,091; and in Tonbridge, Kent, to increase from 425 to 1,440. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said the proposed reforms would “cut red tape and make the system faster”.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the plan was still out for consultation and “the figures reported are entirely speculative”.