Labour’s authoritarianism continues – this time over housing

Housing secretary Steve Reed is expected to announce that local councils will lose their power to prevent large-scale housing developments. The move is part of Labour’s plan to build 1.5 million new homes before the next general election. However, the proposed changes have already come under fire for their perceived erosion of local democracy.

Continuing Labour’s current habit of pathetic Trump impressions, Reed stated that:

The changes we are making today will strengthen the seismic shift already under way through our landmark Bill.

We will ‘build, baby, build’ with 1.5 million new homes and communities that working people desperately want and need.

Labour ‘back in the driving seat’, apparently…

The Labour government is clearly rattled. To meet their target, they’ll need to build around 300,000 houses a year over their 5-year term. However, construction was completed on fewer than 197,000 houses in 2024. That’s actually down 24,500 for the 221,000 completed in 2023.

A government source told the Times that:

We know the powers at our disposal have their limits so it’s only right that we look again and put ministers back in the driving seat if councils are standing in the way of good developments. This has always been about how, not if, new homes are built, and the housing secretary is clear we are leaving no stone unturned to build 1.5 million homes. The message is clear: go big, go bold, go build.

The housing secretary will issue a legally binding instruction to local councils: they must inform his office if they intend to block any new development of 150 houses or more. Then, Reed will send in an unelected planning inspector to determine whether the project should continue. The housing secretary will then have the power to make the final decision, completely overriding any local opposition.

Local government criticism

Inevitably, Labour’s plans have drawn criticism from councillors and local-government representatives. The national representative body for local authorities, the Local Government Association, stated that:

Councils are central to addressing the housebuilding crisis across the country and are ready to play their part, already approving nine out of ten planning applications which come before them.

Councils know their communities best and should remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.

Conversely, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) – the trade association for domestic builders in England and Wales – hailed the decision. It stated that the change will:

help ensure more larger sites come forward and prevent unnecessary delays to sites appropriate for development. If the government can [also] reduce taxes on housebuilding and regulatory costs so more sites are viable, and ensure more people are able to buy, the move could help drive housing supply.

Help to Buy is desperately needed

The HBF last month warned the government that it was being overly optimistic in its forecasts of economic growth from housebuilding. It also called on finance minister Rachel Reeves to use this week’s upcoming Autumn Budget to help first-time buyers by reintroducing a variation on ‘Help to Buy’:

We are calling on Government to introduce a new homeownership scheme, part-funded by developers – Freedom to Buy.

The end of Help to Buy left the market without meaningful government support for home ownership for the first time in decades.

Combined with high interest rates, stretched affordability, and limited access to high loan-to-value mortgages for new builds, the sales environment has become increasingly fragile, particularly in London and other high-cost regions.

The HBF’s urging here is a useful reminder for the Labour government. Without an actual plan to help first-time buyers, building all the houses in the world will do nothing to help the UK’s housing crisis. It will, however, provide plenty of second homes for people who are already on the property ladder – or lucrative investments for major firms which buy up such developments wholesale. But surely such a suggestion is far too cynical, hey?

Featured image via the Canary