Keir Starmer vows to bulldoze ‘Nimby’ objections to Green Belt housebuilding: PM says the country is being ‘held to ransom by blockers and bureaucrats’_Nhy
Keir Starmer has today vowed to bulldoze the objections of local people to get hundreds of thousands of new homes built across Britain – including on swathes of the Green Belt.
The Prime Minister today said the UK was being ‘held to ransom by blockers and bureaucrats’ to unleash a surge in construction.
Writing in the Times he said that Nimbys were ‘suffocating the aspirations of working families and obscuring the future of our country’.
As well as blocking housing he also attacked blocks on vital infrastructure to go with them, including roads, electricity pylons and reservoirs.
But he is facing kickback from local councils, including those run by Labour, who say a target of 1.5million new homes by 2029 – 300,000 per year – set by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner is ‘unrealistic’.
Yvonne Gagen, the Labour leader of West Lancashire Borough Council, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme its target had been upped from 166,000 news homes to 605,000.
‘The targets are unrealistic and we will really, really struggle to deliver that,’ she said.
‘I really do feel that the government should start listening to the vast majority of councils. I feel that we are going to be on a collision course with Labour and it is not just Labour councils, it is Liberal Democrats it is Conservatives, they have all said them same thing.’
The Prime Minister today said the UK was being ‘held to ransom by blockers and bureaucrats’ to unleash a surge in construction.
Writing in the Times he said that Nimbys were ‘suffocating the aspirations of working families and obscuring the future of our country’.
But he is facing kickback from local councils, including those run by Labour, who say a target of 1.5million new homes by 2029 – 300,000 per year – set by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner is ‘unrealistic’.
Writing in the Times, Sir Keir said: ‘Britain is in the grip of the worst housing crisis in living memory.
‘For too long, the country has been held to ransom by the blockers and bureaucrats who have stopped the country building, choked off growth and driven prices through the roof.
‘They’re suffocating the aspirations of working families and obscuring the future of our country. Those days are over…
‘Generations before us built the infrastructure the entire nation was proud of — from civic buildings to train stations, hospitals to schools.
‘So we will introduce a new golden era of building. That’s why we’re fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure by the end of parliament, more than double those decided in the previous parliament.
‘We’ll build the schools, the hospitals, the railways and roads, the towns and villages, that will shape our national landscape for years to come and fuel growth in every region and nation.’
But the expansion may also be hindered by a lack of workers.
According to the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), the UK needs an extra 250,000 construction workers by 2028 in order to meet demand.
At the same time, businesses are struggling to recruit after 120,000 foreign workers went home during the pandemic and immigration restrictions saw the proportion of migrants in the sector fall slightly to just under 10 per cent.
In March 2023, the previous government expanded the shortage occupation list to include more construction jobs, but Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook said this had not ‘made a huge difference’.
He told Times Radio on Friday that the struggle to recruit foreign construction workers ‘speaks to some of the foundational importance of migration as part of the plan for change’.
The minister said: ‘We’ve got to do more to upskill our own workforce, to ensure that those training places, those apprenticeships and ultimately those jobs are coming from people that live in this country to fill those vacancies.
‘You can’t rely wholly on an overseas workforce.’
His comments follow the Prime Minister’s inclusion of a housebuilding target as one of his six ‘milestones’ that he wants his Government to be judged on.
That target – described by Mr Pennycook as ‘stretching but achievable’ – involves building 300,000 homes per year, something that has not been done since the 1970s.
But with the CITB estimating the construction industry needs to recruit 50,300 workers a year over the next five years, the housebuilding target could come into conflict with the Government’s aim of reducing migration.
Mr Pennycook stressed the need to train British workers, pointing to the investment of £140 million in 32 home building skills hubs.
He added: ‘This has got to be a cross-government effort on the skills agenda, and construction skills in particular, because it involves a series of challenges around training, around local labour markets.’
SEE MORE:
Labour’s union allies demand Starmer hikes statutory sick pay despite fears of another hammer blow to businesses after Budget NICs raid
Ministers are facing demands to hike statutory sick pay despite fears the Budget has already delivered a hammer blow to businesses.
Some 24 union leaders have written to Keir Starmer urging him to honour a promise to ‘strengthen’ the SSP payments.
They are pushing for the level – due to rise £2 to £118.75 a week in April – to be upgraded in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through Parliament.
However, business groups have raised alarm at soaring costs from the expansion of rights, a big rise to the national minimum wage and the Chancellor’s huge NICs raid.
Many employers go beyond the statutory sick pay, but it is often used by smaller firms and lower-paid workers.
Angela Rayner told the TUC last year that SSP would rise – although she did not specify how much.
Some 24 union leaders have written to Keir Starmer (pictured with Angela Rayner) urging him to honour a promise to ‘strengthen’ the SSP payments
The Employment Rights Bill will sick pay eligibility and make it available from day one of an illness – instead of the fourth day.
The letter to Sir Keir was coordinated by the Safe Sick Pay campaign, according to the BBC.
Signatories include the leaders of the PCS, the NEU, the Bakers’ Union, and the CWU.
The BBC said Professor Nicola Ranger, chief executive at the Royal College of Nursing, has warned the government must ‘live up to’ commitments.
‘Forcing nursing staff to choose between going to work unwell or struggling to make ends meet if they take leave is not only unfair but a risk to patients too.
‘People will only receive £3 an hour when they are off sick.’
The chair of the BMA’s executive council, Professor Phil Banfield, said: ‘Moving onto SSP often means a huge drop in income for many people, forcing them to go back to work before they are fit to do so.
‘All of this contributes to further physical or mental ill health, and more sick leave.’
The TUC’s response to a government consultation said: ‘If the government is to fully meet its pledge to ‘strengthen’ sick pay, the rate of SSP must also increase.
‘As it stands, the level is inadequate to meet basic living standards and…. is around 20 per cent of average earnings – amongst the lowest of the UK’s European counterparts.’
Shazia Ejaz of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) said proposals to expand the scope of SSP were already set to cause problems.
They are pushing for the SSP level – due to rise £2 to £118.75 a week in April – to be upgraded in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through Parliament
She said: ‘It is important to strike a good balance between the need to make sure people have better levels of SSP and the reality of businesses (especially SMEs) being able to afford this additional cost at a time when they are already struggling with a wide range of rising employment costs, including the National Insurance rises in the Budget, new regulatory costs from the Bill and a minimum wage that has risen by a quarter in just three years.
‘Small businesses, which make up a significant portion of the market, would bear a disproportionate cost burden, with 60 per cent of new SSP costs falling on them
‘We urge the government to set the rate of SSP at a level that encourages employers to retain staff, rather than having to move swiftly to capability-based dismissal.’