It’s housing day in the Labour campaign grid. This morning’s papers lead on not one, not two, but three different pledges: a permanent mortgage guarantee scheme; proposals to try and give locals “first dibs” on new developments, and a tantalising set of artist’s impressions (courtesy of Create Streets) of what their new builds could look like. Per the Times:
“Labour is promising to cover Britain in Edwardian-style mansion blocks and “tree-lined streets of townhouses” as it takes inspiration from the planners behind Michael Gove’s design philosophy.
“Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said that only “attractive homes” would be allowed in the party’s building blitz, as she set out a series of indicative designs aimed at reducing local opposition to development.”
There are a lot of problems with Labour’s housing offer. Most obviously, ‘Freedom to Buy’ is a demand subsidy that will push prices up by expanding the volume of credit available to be pumped into a supply shortage. This has been extremely bad policy when the Conservatives did it, and it’s no different when Labour propose it.
As for giving locals first preference on new developments, we can only hope this proposal is as toothless as it sounds; it’s hard to see how one can advertise a property exclusively to locals in the age of the internet.
Some Conservative MPs are very keen on new housing being locals-only, but Britain has no use for a hukou system: one of the biggest problems with the housing crisis is that it restricts mobility, preventing people from moving to new areas that better suit their circumstances and aspirations. People should be able to move to the Isle of Wight – to pick an example at random – even if islanders would rather they didn’t.
I have also set out elsewhere why neither Sir Keir Starmer’s proposals for new towns or to invent a ‘grey belt’ designation for ugly green belt land are likely to deliver nearly as much as the Opposition imply. At root, the problem is that neither policy engages with the fundamental causes of the housing crisis, which are our insanely onerous planning system and the veto power wielded by councils who don’t want development.
But the story which invites the most interesting question for Labour is the one about building beautiful.
This is not only because, as I point out in the above-linked article on the grey belt, their insistence on strong aesthetic standards is directly undercut by their sky-high demands for affordable (i.e. below-market) prices. Beauty is an additional cost for developers, recouped through higher prices; the easiest way to try and ensure a property sells at 20 per cent below the local average is to build an ugly home.
No, the even more interesting question is whether or not Labour really intends to build the sort of buildings represented in those gorgeous graphics from Create Streets. Because as far as I can tell, they feature quite heavily several features of classic urban design which, whilst justly popular with the public, are actually illegal to build into new properties today.
They make very heavy use, for example, of ‘stoops’ – that is, a small number of steps up to a front door. These are very popular in historic design, look lovely, and can deliver plenty of practical benefits: allowing a half-basement that gets natural light, elevating the ground floor for improved light and privacy, and adding an extra storey with only half the impact on the streetscape and skyline.
However, they pretty much banned. The current building regulations require that every single new-build be wheelchair accessible on the ground floor. So unless you have a secondary entrance that is, no front step for you.
Now this makes sense for shops and public buildings, and there may be a case for having an ‘accessible housing requirement’ to ensure a percentage of large developments is suitable for mobility-impaired residents. But the current rule, applied maximally even to private residences, is absurd. As I wrote last year:
“Yes, accessibility for people with mobility challenges is important. But it is absurd to stipulate that every single new-build home be wheelchair accessible when less than two per cent of the population uses a wheelchair. Yet we do (Document M), and in the process ban features such as stoops, often both practical and beautiful, and suited to the needs and tastes of the great majority of the population.
“Scrapping the regulations in Document M would be to ‘compromise on accessibility’, just as scrapping those in Document O would be to ‘compromise on safety’. And that’s fine. We already strike such compromises anyway, by permitting windows to open or houses to have second floors at all.”
That was in a piece about Michael Gove’s much-touted review of the Government’s apparently-accidental decision to ban sash windows, which as far as I know was never actually completed. So the windows are probably illegal too: too close to the ground (what if people fall out?!), and too big (we recently started legislating for maximum window sizes, and they’re tiny).
And let’s not forget those beautiful balconies, which look like the sort you find in many cherished historic town and city centres. Not only are they too low for modern standards, but the railings are also (brace yourself) too far apart. We apparently have very strict rules in place to make sure a baby’s head (no really) doesn’t get stuck in them, not that this seemed to be something that happened much to the generations of Georgians, Victorians, and Edwardians who build in this style.
Overall, under the current rules, to build Create Streets (again, lovely) townscapes would, according to one expert, need “a listed building exception” and “permission from the local heritage officer”. (This is why period properties continue to demand premium prices, despite all the drawbacks in terms of heating and insulation.)
Of course, if Labour were in government Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner could simply rip up the building codebook and start again. She writes in today’s Daily Telegraph that “Keir and I know there’ll be tough decisions to make” – but does that really mean these decisions?
Britain’s insistence on regulating for the perfect at the expense of the good, and for trying to eliminate particular risks with no regard for the less-tangible costs and trade-offs involved, is a national disease. I’d love to be wrong, but it doesn’t seem likely that a Labour government is going take the axe to even the most onerous and ill-judged safety, accessibility, and energy-efficiency regulations.
But at the very least, someone should ask Rayner the question – and if not, why she’s publishing such alluring illustrations of things her party has no intention of building.
