Title

Instead of opposing eco-towns, shouldn't the LGA be working with central government to see if it can make them work? asks Nick Raynsford. Housing has traditionally been an issue that has generated conflict between central and local government. Central government has to take a national perspective, and from this vantage point, it is all too clear that, for many years, we have not built enough homes to meet economic and social requirements. As a result, as Kate Barker's report demonstrated, there is a serious shortage of homes to meet needs, and house prices have been driven up to unsustainable levels. We are now experiencing the painful process of market adjustment. From a local perspective, however, the issue looks very different. Taking their lead from local residents, most councils tend to see new housing developments as potentially unwelcome impositions. Even if they don't succumb to NIMBY opposition, there are usually doubts about the type of homes being proposed, or the adequacy of local infrastructure to support new housing development. Even in authorities that are, in principle, sympathetic to more housing, local opposition can often prompt councillors to refuse permission, leaving the developer to secure planning consent on appeal. This, of course, just adds one further element of conflict, as the ‘diktat' of an unaccountable planning inspector is blamed for the outcome. The current row over eco-towns is a classic illustration of the conflict. From a central government perspective, some additional new settlements are one of the elements necessary to bring about the expanded output of housing that the country clearly needs. While much has been done to increase the proportion of development on brownfield land in recent years, this will not of itself be sufficient to support all the new housing required. But, if new developments are to be approved – and don't let's forget that new towns formed a significant element in the country's housing programme from the 1940s until the 1970s – they must meet exceptionally high environmental standards. This is the entirely logical thinking behind the eco-town concept. From a local perspective, however, there is almost always a reason, often provided by a vociferous local action group, to conclude that an eco-town is not welcome. So, with a few honourable exceptions, most localities have reacted violently against eco-towns. Often this opposition is supported by detailed analyses highlighting weaknesses in specific eco-town proposals. Of course, some of the schemes were poorly designed, and did not merit the eco-town badge. However, the motive of the campaigners has not been to improve the environmental credentials of the local scheme – it has been to get the proposal rejected or withdrawn. One ‘localist' argument often advanced against eco-towns is that they have not been developed through the normal planning procedures – a perfectly fair criticism, if the normal planning procedures were delivering sufficient homes. But, as we all know, they are not. Am I the only observer to conclude that this protracted stand-off between central and local government over housing in general, and eco-towns in particular, is not in the country's best interests? Is it not time for some real leadership from both sides? Central government must recognise that simply imposing housing numbers from above on a sullen and hostile local government community is not the best way forward. And local government must recognise that it has to play a more engaged and constructive role in making the case for increased housing provision – and not just elsewhere. Wouldn't it make a refreshing change if the LGA could now step back from its threatened legal challenges to eco-towns and, instead, offer to engage constructively with central government on a pilot programme? This would be limited to a few locations on the understanding that central and local government would work closely together to achieve the best-possible environmental outcomes – as well as wider social and economic benefits. The pilot eco-towns could then be evaluated as a basis for a decision, to be endorsed on both sides, as to whether more might be designated in future years. Indeed, there could be a common commitment to identify the most suitable potential sites. Is this hope for a more constructive approach doomed to fall on deaf ears? Nick Raynsford is former local government minister

Title

WHITEHALL

Opening up to eco-towns

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING