I’ve just read the small-print and worked out the misery Angela Rayner’s about to unleash
When it comes to house-building I reckon everyone is at least a touch NIMBY.
Even those more liberal about planning would still feel badly done by if they’d shelled out top whack for their dream property only for a mammoth, ugly new estate to be plonked next door, meaning soaring traffic, a fight for local school places and more people making it harder to get a precious appointment at the local doctors’.
Labour seems to be taking a hard line on these concerns, with housing secretary Angela Rayner vowing to quickly dump new houses here, there and everywhere in a bid to tackle the UK’s housing crisis, which sees many people not place their foot on the housing ladder until they’re into their 40s.
I absolutely agree that this is a scandal and action needs to be taken to rectify this. However, what I feel is sneaky – and just plain wrong – is the new approach by Rayner and friends.
The first thing which I foresee causing monstrous issues is the Government’s recently announced proposal that would see some planning applications given automatic approval – meaning the local community can’t get their say on how, for example, a big new apartment block next to their home might impact on their life before it gets a big green tick.
Housing Minister Angela Rayner plans to built on green belt land to tackle the UK’s housing shortage (Image: Getty)
Angela Rayner wants to build 1.5m homes in the next five years (Image: Getty)
But far more worrying is its sketchy definition of green belt land which is there as a vanguard against precious countryside being concreted over and one town merging into another.
Labour promised that they would prioritise building on so-called “grey belt” land, which is basically a term they’ve conjured up to mean areas of the green belt that are considered “low quality” such as disused car parks and wasteland. I can see how that makes sense.
Dig just ever so slightly, however, and you’ll see that’s not really what’s on the chopping block. And please don’t glaze over whilst I get ever-so-slightly technical on this.
Rayner’s proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework are set to go far further in building on green belt land than I think they have made clear.
The draft new version of the document states that grey belt land will not only be previously developed land but also that which makes “a limited contribution to the five green belt purposes”.
Can you see how this rather changes the “we’ll only build on the worst bits” line that’s so far been trotted out? It’s far too open to interpretation.
Under the new plans, building on the green belt can also be considered if local authorities are unable to demonstrate that they have enough sites for development in line with their targets – which we know have been jacked up to the extreme as Labour attempts to build 1.5m houses in five years.
So why is this concerning to all those living in leafy suburbs?
Well, I am a councillor for such a place and we are surrounded by glorious countryside that doesn’t have the protections of green belt land.
It is nonetheless treasured by those living here. How on earth are people in these kind of areas going to hold back inappropriate new developments if this is how Labour is treating the most sacrosanct?
I’m happy to be called a NIMBY if that means I am looking out for locals who are concerned about how inappropriate developments will affect their way of life. Sadly, I fear, that battle has just become so much harder.
SEE MORE :
I was in the room for winter fuel vote – Keir Starmer faces one glaringly obvious problem
Unite celebrated the vote by hugging and cheering (Image: Getty)
When Unite Union’s general secretary Sharon Graham took to the main conference stage to call for a reversal of Rachel Reeves’ “cruel” winter fuel payments, the hall erupted into several tireless rounds of applause.
Standing ovations and fist raising followed suit.
She made a fierce plea for the fuel allowance to be returned to up to 10 million pensioners who have now had it picked from their pockets.
This is the moment union organisers, Labour members and the media had been waiting for. The crescendo, which had been building up since Sunday, led to this moment.
But the mood music at the Liverpool event soon took a turn.
There were multiple standing ovations when a delegate who had been receiving the allowance argued in favour of cutting it.
Keir Starmer delivered his speech at the party conference on Tuesday to a packed crowd (Image: Getty)
Labour member Maggie Cosin said she did not need the winter fuel payment and the money should be used to help children and others in need.
The member from Dover and Deal Constituency Labour Party told conference: “Every single year, £200 comes into my bank account and every year I go and buy stuff for the food bank with it.
“I don’t need it, the children of this country need it.”
Ms Cosin said there is a need to “sort the economy”, adding: “It’s not a matter of taking it away from poor pensioners, it’s a matter of getting it to others.”
A younger delegate who followed after received more praise from the packed hall when she called for it to be axed.
At this moment. the result of this vote looked very uncertain.
Minutes later, the audience was asked to raise their hands if they were in favour of the motion. Half the room raised their hands.
They were then asked to raise their hands if they were against it. Half the room’s palms went up towards the roof.
Low whispers echoed across the hall which almost 24 hours earlier was heaving for Sir Keir Starmer’s speech.
Ultimately, the chair decided to pass the motion which led to some shaking of heads among some corners while union leaders jumped for joy – literally.
If that doesn’t highlight the splits within Labour on this issue, I don’t know what does.
Someone behind me made a half-hearted attempt at chanting “save the winter fuel payment” which echoed out of the conference earlier today but that fell flat.
Sir Keir is now almost 3,300 miles away from Liverpool attending a United Nations meeting in New York.
But he has not been spared the humiliation.
This was a rebuke from his supporters and paymaster over one of the first financial decisions taken by Labour in office is an embarrassment for No 10.
Thankfully for the new PM, the vote is non-binding so he won’t be held sausage by the unions
But after just 83 days in power, Sir Keir has seemingly lost the support of many in his party.
