ELECTION


viewed in the same vein by many voters. My prognosis? Watch Labour as it reviews policies and analyses what happened when it was in power, but don’t expect electoral breakthroughs for a while. Developers take note! These 26 new Labour councils are, largely,


former Labour citadels which they had lost over the last decade as their traditional supporters lost faith in the Party. Now that they have won back their old friends, newly-elected Labour councillors will be taking extra care to listen very attentively to voters on all issues, including development.


THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY How was it for the Conservatives? They did well. They made net gains in their council control – losing control of eight but gaining control of 11 – not bad at all when you consider that their party at Westminster is slashing public spending at a rate not seen for decades. Importantly, they are still the dominant political force in local government, controlling 157 councils to Labour’s 57 and the Liberal Democrats’ 11. The Conservatives appear to be winning the argument at a local


level in many places and the result must, at least in part, be seen as a vote of confidence in David Cameron - at least among those who voted Conservative at the 2010 General election.


WHAT DOES THE RESULT TELL US ABOUT LOCALISM? Localism is a policy with such an important part to play in creating Cameron’s cherished ‘Big Society’? It did not appear to play much of a part in the party’s success at the polls. While they will be pleased with the results they are not winning many new supporters as a result of what they are doing in Government, while they got a clear ‘thumbs up’ from those that voted for them at last year’s general Election.


THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS And the Liberal Democrats? The results were nothing short of a disaster. Years of painstaking work building up a local support base came crashing down. They lost 695 councillors, half of all their councillors across the country, and control of nine councils. Worse than the local elections results was voters’ flat rejection


of a change in the voting system. The AV referendum was the big concession won when the Party agreed to enter into a coalition with the Conservatives. They used Labour’s willingness to offer a referendum on proportional representation as a bargaining chip to get the best coalition deal with the Conservatives. Their hope was that the pain of being part of a Government that


savagely slashed spending would be worth it in the long term if they could see an increase in their representation at Westminster as a result of the new AV system. The gamble failed and the party must now endure another four years of unpopularity – the price they were prepared to pay for their referendum. It must feel like paying a huge mortgage on a house that is in negative equity.


WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY? There will be no change in localism, I’m afraid. It was one of the first policy areas the Conservative and Liberal Democrat negotiators agreed on when they were negotiating the coalition agreement a year ago. Both sides felt that they were ‘on the same page’ on the issue and so it was agreed quickly. The Coalition will last its full five-year term. Both Coalition


Party Leaders now need it to continue to protect them from their opponents and critics among their own ranks. The only option for Cameron and Clegg is to last the course and deliver the country


Government’s ‘noose on development’


Cluttons has called on the Government to consider reviewing the new affordable housing regime. Far from providing further


social housing, Cluttons believes private and public residential development is now nearly impossible under the new funding regime which has reduced the viability of many UK developments. Where large numbers


of social housing units are required as part of the planning requirement, cuts in the social housing grant paid to developers will result in sites grinding to a halt or not even getting off the ground. David Parry, partner in Cluttons’ Land and


development division, said: “The Government has


effectively jinxed the concept of private housing supporting the development of affordable accommodation. In many parts of the UK, the fi gures just simply don’t add up and developers will no longer be able to support the construction of social housing. “We are in no doubt that it


is a policy designed for much stronger economic times and is wholly unsuited when the economy is still wavering. Today, we are calling on the Government to reconsider these changes and consult with the industry once again about better funding arrangements.” ‘The Financial Noose on


Residential Development’, Cluttons’ latest research paper, is available to download at – http://tinyurl.com/6jldcmt. The paper considers the


various fi nancial challenges which are facing residential development and examines how these have affected the market. The paper goes on to discuss potential routes which may help developers overcome the fi nance barrier.


from recession. Their good personal chemistry is a key factor too - they get on well and want to make it work. Compare that to the poisonous rivalry between Blair and Brown and look how that damaged their governments. Beyond this, remember that, at a national level, the political


landscape is in a great state of flux. The key battle is ‘who was/is right on the economy?’ Cameron and Osborne are still locking horns on this issue with Miliband and Balls. Whoever wins the argument will form the next Government after the 2015 General Election. While that ‘macro argument’ is underway, expect maximum


sensitivity from councillors about local issues. They need to keep fighting to retain their supporters and win new ones. More than ever before it’s important for developers to work


issues through with residents and other local stakeholders so that they do not become problems for councillors in the first place.


www.propertydrum.com/articles/localelect. Do you have any views on the local elections? Log on and add your comments.


PROPERTYdrum JUNE 2011 27


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66