Labour government – Wealden and houses

In the May 2023 District Council elections, one of the topics that was particularly relevant was that of property and house building in the District. Without a Local Plan there was what was widely perceived to be a developer free for all. Residents of Wealden lived with the constant threat that their community would be suddenly subjected to inappropriate development, placing further pressure on already creaking at the seams infrastructure.

In February this year, Wealden District Council voted to put its Local Plan draft out for Regulation 18 Consultation. This process started in March and included a number of public events across the District. The plan outlines the sites that the District Planners and Development Management team consider to be suitable for development along with figures infrastructure requirements and much other good stuff. You can find a copy of the Regulation 18 plan document here (external link).

Roll forward to July 30th and the newly elected Labour Government launched a consultation on planning changes to the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed changes looked like they would throw a grenade into Wealden’s Local Plan process.

Labour’s new figures for Wealden

One of the first things Labour did was reinstate national and local housing figures. Under the previous conservative numbers, Wealden was required to deliver 1,186 dwellings per annum (“dpa”). The Alliance Reg 18 plan calls for the delivery of 15,729 houses over the life of the plan (to 2040). This equates to a figure of 953 dpa to be delivered.

Now for a little bit of maths

The Labour Party’s new baseline mandatory figure for Wealden is 1,397 dpa (+17.7% on the previous Conservative advisory number). Added to this is a 5% “buffer” which equates to an additional 69.85 dpa (let’s be conservative and round down to 69). The 1,397 figure is also subjected to a 20% “uplift” as the delivered housing figure (ie the one we can’t control) is less than 85% of the baseline requirement (on a rolling average of the preceding 3 years). The uplift number is therefore 279.4 additional houses per annum (lets round down to 279). It’s arguably not unreasonable to apply the 20% across the plan life as (to my knowledge) there hasn’t been a time in recent history where the delivery rate (which WDC don’t control by the way) has been above 85%.

So, under Labour, Wealden would in theory be required to “deliver” 1,745 dpa (1,397+69+279). This is whopping 83% above the suggested Reg 18 document and 104% above the actual delivered reference number between 2021 – 2023. That figure is 855 houses per annum (under the Conservatives).

(Lack of) Leadership

The level of development that Labour proposes has huge implications for the Wealden landscape, our residents and consequently their quality of life. In a housing market where suitable land is a scarce resource and the use of which needs to be balanced with other potential uses it’s unlikely that (even with the levels of development advanced) the houses will become significantly cheaper.

Other Districts and Boroughs have written joint and cross party letters to the Minister for Housing (Angela Rayner) but, since July, Wealden’s current political leadership had said nothing on this issue. It was all very odd.

Then, on the 15th October, press reports started to emerge of a letter purportedly written by Rachel Millward (the Green Party Leader of Wealden District Council) and James Partridge (her Liberal Democrat sidekick and deputy leader). No other Councillors had been consulted and confusion reigned for a couple of days. Her Cabinet colleagues (and people that ordinarily should have been intimately involved with communication sent to Government) said that the letter was not from the District Council and that it was “from the politicians”.

As you can see, the letter was sent on WDC official letterhead. A reasonable person could draw the inference that given it was sent using Council Resources it had the endorsement of the Council. As stated, this was not the case. It’s yet another example of poor Governance by the Alliance who ride roughshod over rules and laws designed to prevent exactly the sort of unilateral decisions for which the minority Wealden Alliance is becoming well known.

Arguable corruption of process

The arguable misuse of Council Resources was then further compounded by a “news release” on Wealden’s Council website outlining the “political” letter. If you’ve read it (above) then you’ll no doubt note that Councillors Millward and Patridge argue for powers to purchase land (from potentially unwilling sellers) and want to “build social homes at scale” (cover Wealden in Council Estates). Quite where they think the money for this soviet ideal is going to come from is anyone’s’ guess. A suggestion of yet more taxation is likely and lets not forget the Alliance (aided by 2 Labour Councillors) voted to increase taxes on a subset of Wealden residents back in February (read more about that here). The Alliance likes tax.

Councillors response

Thankfully, challenge on the process and Alliance narrative is alive and well. Since the letter from Councillors Millward and Partridge, 2 responses have been sent. The first was a joint letter signed by 40% of the Council outlining the concerns around governance and process. The second, by Conservative Councillor Michael Lunn addressing the Alliance’s silence and lack of criticism around the huge burden that Labour is attempting to force on Wealden residents.

A Labour Alliance in Green and Yellow clothing?

Perhaps however, it’s no surprise that the Alliance does not want to be more robust in its criticism of Labour given their continued existence relies on keeping their 2 (unofficial ) labour members happy. Did Wealden vote for that? I don’t think so.

Councillor Millward did say after all that a Labour Government with a Green MP would be a “win – win”. She’s now complaining (ineffectively) about the consequences of that very scenario made real.