Government Housing Figures - It's the Economy Stupid!

I am still struggling to understand what the actual message the Government is trying to convey through their approach to the idea of the standard approach to housing need. On the face of it, the ability to set a number for every local authority may have sense. It is a non-arguable number that then needs embedding into Local Plans. BUT.....

The very mixed messages coming out since the September figures were published is now creating confusion. Let's face it, it is non-sensical to suggest diminishing numbers in patently obvious areas of targetting for signifcant economic growth. Cambridge for example.

We then have the thorny issue of the Northern Powerhouse. We need significant changes to our economic prosperity to push this agenda for everyone's benefit. So why then start to shrink away from boosting housing numbers and then setting hares running in Greater Manchester?

But tellingly, with nothing said so far by anyone on this, the NPPF asks for Local Industrial Strategies, which should be daughter documents of the National Industrial Strategy, to be accounted for in Local Plan production and decision-making.

This brings me to a simple, logical conclusion. We should be having government (ideally in agreement with local authorities and city regions, but by imposition if needs be) set a simple economic minimum growth target for each area / region NOT a housing number. The number would surely then follow on from the OAN base figures to then have the right outcomes. By all means factor in current affordability ratios as well and lack of past delivery. Taken in combination we might get somewhere towards the right kind of aspirational but realistic housing numbers that HAVE to account for economic targets, not locally made up fudging of a series of numbers to simply acqueisce to local politics.

At present, the OAN figures simply provide an easy get out for lower housing numbers for those Local Authorities too sensitive to Green Belt matters. Don't get me wrong, brownfield sites should always be considred as the best answer. But if it were that easy it would be happening already everywhere. Multi-owned sites, contamination, and utter lack of viability in some parts of the country is the reality we face.

The additional card that government should play in this respect is also simple. Why not add in to the NPPF (or through Secretary of State Statement), that if a site actually doesn't fulfill the purposes of Green Belt function, then it should automatically be removed from it through the Local Plan. Too much of a sacred cow may be? But if we are all serious about solving a very real housing crisis and boosting our economy, the above two actions could go a long way to helping. Simply inverting the actual constraining policy approaches makes a lot more sense to me!

What do you think?