5 things we learnt from May's housebuilding speech

1) The housing debate has evolved beyond unhelpful binaries  

Not too long ago national discussions on house building were reduced to an oversimplification of brownfield verses green belt. Having an increasingly large portion of the electorate priced out of the market has forced the Conservatives to move beyond generic platitudes and arbitrary targets. May’s diagnosis of the problem was nuanced, acknowledging the need to develop a stronger planning system linked to the delivery of physical homes rather than the designation of sites.

2) Despite a better understanding of the issues, May is not yet willing to engage radical solutions 

After the precision of her analysis, there were no real headline solutions. There were no announcements on further commitments to infrastructure which would make poorly connected areas viable locations for development. There was no mention of additional powers and funds for Local Authorities to build more. 

Perhaps most disappointingly, there was no acknowledgement of the need to shift the dynamic of taxation from properties to land. This move has been backed by Labour, and even has the support of some Conservative backbenchers. Perhaps the only really radical thing about the speech was the audience; its been a long time since a Prime Minister has addressed the humble town planner and acknowledged the importance of planning policy.  

3) The Conservatives are focusing their energy on land banking and developer obligations

In the absence of any tangible increase in funding, May has decided to target disingenuous developers who hoard land to artificially inflate house prices. Given the Conservative’s predisposition for private sector delivery, its unlikely the big stick mooted by both the Prime Minister and her housing minister is likely to be anything more than rhetorical. 

The recent battle in Haringay bought to light public exasperation with developers reneging on early promises to deliver community infrastructure. Whilst reform in this area is undoubtedly welcome, there is a risk of oversimplifying roles as local communities and developers are cast as heroes and villains respectively. Transforming the way developers pay for obligations won’t stop them overbidding for sites in the first place, nor will it address the local aversion to change that slows delivery. 

4) Shoring up protection for the Green Belt will only reassure existing Conservative voters 

Last month’s protests in Oxford are an illustration of how green belt encroachment remains a key concern in the Tory heartlands. The careful and considered release of some parts of the Green Belt has long been mooted as a legitimate move to increase housing supply, and has the support of cabinet ministers including the Chancellor. May’s speech suggested she believes the pendulum has swung too far towards erosion, mooting support for more stringent ways to examine whether land should be released. Backed by her track record of blocking development in her Maidenhead constituency, this won’t help accusations that she’s a “nimby” at heart. It also won’t resonant with voters beyond the Conservative core. 

5) The government is desperate to show they’re still delivering some sort of domestic agenda 

Brexit casts a long shadow; a key objective of May’s speech was to answer future accusations that her party’s obsession with leaving the EU has stalled progress on challenges closer to home. Its quite possible yesterday’s speech will be followed up with renewed focus on the NHS and social care in the coming months. Lets hope those announcements do a better job of matching rhetoric with funding.