Grow Places

GP 52: UK Politics, Housing, Growth: with Kevin McKeever of Lowick Group

• Grow Places

Share episode

In this episode, Tom Larsson is joined by Kevin McKeever, Managing Director of Lowick Group, a leading strategic communications and public affairs consultancy working at the intersection of development, politics, and community. Kevin also recently co-founded Hedry, a cross-party consultancy focused on building resilience in the built environment.

This wide-ranging and honest conversation unpacks the urgent challenges facing the UK’s housing and planning system, from viability and delivery to trust and political will. Drawing on decades of experience in local government, Westminster, and large-scale regeneration, Kevin provides sharp insights into the systemic issues stalling progress and what it will take to build places that work for people now and in the future.

Topics covered include:

  • Why trust has broken down between developers and the public sector
  • The economics of viability and the political misunderstanding around it
  • How the left and right frame “growth” and what that means for cities
  • The role of public sector land and long-term partnerships in delivery
  • The limitations of our planning system and the case for a reset

Kevin also shares personal reflections on why this work matters to him and the human impact of good development done well.

💡 Whether you're a planner, policymaker, developer or engaged citizen, this episode offers a deeply informed and thought-provoking perspective on how to get Britain building again, fairly, sustainably, and strategically.

🔗 Listen now and subscribe for future episodes: www.growplaces.com/podcast

SPEAKER_00:

Hello and welcome to the Grow Places Podcast, where we explore the virtuous circle of people, growth, and place. Brought to you by Grow Places and hosted by our founder, Tom Larson.

SPEAKER_01:

Kevin, thanks very much for joining me today on the Grow Places Podcast. Great to be here, Tom. Thanks for the invitation. Yeah, no, I think this is going to be super, super interesting conversation, very relevant and um and broad. And so yeah, I think it's gonna be really interesting. But uh before we dive into it, why don't you just give a bit of an intro to yourself?

SPEAKER_02:

Yep. So, well, I'm Kevin McKeever, as you've already said. I'm the founder of Political Consultancy Loick, which is about eight years old, focusing in uh the labour areas, which I'm sure we're gonna talk about. And then recently the three-month-old Head Dream, a co-founder of that, which is a cross-party, particularly resilient consultancy as well, operating in the built environment. So um, background recently in Built Environment and the politics of that, and a longtime background uh in Westminster local politics too. Good. So, what's going on at the moment then? Oh, that's a that's a big open question, isn't it? I mean, what isn't going on? Um, if you remember when the Prime Minister was uh elected, part of his pitch last year was that politics should tread more lightly in people's lives, particularly after the Boris Johnson and the trust years. It's probably fair to say the last few weeks over the summer in particular, and even uh today, you know, politics is in the news every day and probably not for the for the right reasons. Um, and whilst we get distracted by the politics of personalities, you know, characters leaving 10 Downing Street, leaving the government entirely, uh, reshuffles, uh, you know, the this is all against the backdrop of what we know is a tough economic inheritance for this government and a tough economic situation for the country. And that's felt no more acutely when it comes to the sectors that you and I often talk about, which is, you know, people and place. It is here in London, where we're sat, you know, on the South Bank, it's never been harder to deliver housing, both the finances of it, the cost of delivering it, the skills needed, you know, and it's you know, it'd be very easy to get quite depressed about the state of our industry, our sector, and our country. I think there's lots of reasons why we shouldn't do that, but I can see why many can be a bit down in in the mouth. So that's that's probably what's going on. The answer, a lot, and in the other answer, not a lot.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Very well put. And um, so maybe sort of scratching at the surface there then a little bit, you've you've kind of touched on housing as one of the big themes. But what what other big themes do you think there are? Obviously, um in in politics broadly, but specifically related to the built environment, people and place.

SPEAKER_02:

I think the politics of people and place all actually all comes together. And I think the wider political context is actually informing and driving and being affected by a number one issue for us and me, and particularly here in London but around the country, which is housing, right? A good, safe society grows, is productive, and is happy off the back of a secure home. So if you have, if you don't have a security of tenure, you're uncertain, you know, that makes it hard to commit to a job, makes it hard to have children. If you do have children, then it's tough if they are, you know, growing up in substandard accommodation, or how are kids supposed to learn effectively if they're doing their homework in a cramped house or if they've got to travel, you know, across huge distances to get to school. Um, what are the pressures on our housing market? You know, reform would have us believe it's all well, the reform phrase, of course, famously is we don't have a housing problem, we've got a people problem. You know, it's kind of supply and demand. Well, we talk about increasing the housing, the housing uh supply, you know, the government's got a target of 1.5 million over this parliament. Actually, this country needs over the next generation 10 million houses. So actually, 1.5 is pretty modest. The right, the populist right is saying, well, maybe we don't need the housing if we remove the people. And that's again, actually, is you know, politics is influencing the housing debate in a different way. But fundamentally, we don't have enough quality homes at the right price that this country needs to uh house people in a decent manner and also to make sure we have a cohesive society where people can live, learn, and grow. And that is no more acute than here in London, but applies across the country as well. So I think when we see people protesting outside the Britannia Hotel and, you know, by Canary Wharf, that has its roots, I think, meant partly in the housing crisis. It has its roots, you know, it's being inflamed by populist politics, misinformation, uh, and nefarious characters on the hard right of politics. But fundamentally, we're in an age of uncertainty. People are uncertain, you know, about their, fundamentally about their home. They're uncertain about the job they might do in the future if they have one. You know, if we had a blue-collar uh, you know, recession of the 80s, which wiped out, you know, the remnants of industrialization. We're probably about to go through that now in the white-collar uh uh sectors of the economy. So people are unsure about their home, they're unsure about the future of their workplace, they're unsure about whether or not they can afford the cost of living, they're not sure if they can afford the cost of retirement, uh, you know, and they think, and all the while the world seems a much more uncertain place, you know. Certainly in the world that I grew up in in the 90s, which post-fall of the Berlin Wall and that kind of the defeat of communism, and you know, it felt like a great time to be alive, the 90s, early noughties. It certainly doesn't feel like that now. And I think that what we see through the prison of the housing crisis is just emblematic of a real age of uncertainty and a lack of confidence in this country, and that drives all sorts of political, social political dynamics, some of which got quite unhealthy.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah. No, well, I agree with everything you're saying though, and there's obviously a huge amount of insight and huge amount of um different aspects to to that. But as you say, that that kind of uh fundamental notion of kind of safety security for people, and then how do you kind of layer from that I think is is fundamental to what we do in the built environment and um and all those themes. So so so how how do you think in in that context um growth fits in? Where do you see growth? Because obviously it's a strong narrative at the moment within um party politics, um obviously Labour particularly, but I don't think it's just Labour, it's just generally in Western economies there is this kind of idea about growth. Um so so what does that what does that term mean to you? How do you think about that? Obviously, I'm quite interested because we have it in our name.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, absolutely. Well, I think growth is the you know, it's the mission of this government, as you you know rightly point out, is kind of the mission of most Western governments at the moment because we're in an era of low growth. And actually, you look at the UK, we take a step back. We our era of low growth started arguably in 2008. You look at the right, you know, the rising GDP per capita, um, up until 2008, we're broadly tracking the United States. Um, now we're nowhere near the US. We've massively tailed off. So we've never really recovered from financial crisis. We've seen we you know appear to have a we have a lot ongoing productivity problem. And so growth is about you know investing in people to work in the right industries that deliver a better return for the country. And that's why the government's focused on you know the big tech deals announced last week with President Trump being in the country. It's why you know they're keen to build, you know, a good old-fashioned growth stimulus is get people to work, building infrastructure that then itself has a multiplier effect, whether that's HS2, whether it's a second runway at Gatwick, whether it's Heathrow, whether it's Newtowns. So that's what it kind of means in the abstract, and that's where politics is. But to me, what it means is going back to that principle of security in place, growth is about ensuring that people have a positive future where when they're working and putting into society, there's a greater return. Growth to me means that if you're working hard today and finding it tough to meet the mortgage or your rent because you don't own yet, and maybe you're thinking of having children, yet you have children, you have the confidence that the economy is growing, that you're able to buy a bigger house in due course when your kids are older, that your children will have a better future than than you've had. That to me is kind of like the the social end of growth. And that's often lost in the debate nationally and economically. That what is growth when it's personalized? It's more pay, it's a secure existence, it's having investing in your family's future, it's you know, and it's having more disposable income, and it's generally growing the pie so that you know everyone has a greater share of a larger pie of national wealth. And at the moment, that's just that's just not the case.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. And and how do you see that growth related to places then as in terms of what how can cities, towns, how can they enable equitable growth?

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. But if you think of things like estate regeneration and mixed communities that have developed across London, you know, one response to the housing crisis is not a mass house building program of generic homes. That would be such a failure. You know, the yes, we need more housing, we need the right sort of housing. That housing needs to be, you know, near amenities. It needs to be providing access to work in a way that we wouldn't have been looking at 30, 40 years ago when people talking about commuting in from outer London more. So I think growth in a in a housing context, in a in a regeneration context in particular, is about places that are fit for the future, that promote healthy lifestyles, that promote social integration through mixed tenures, that have accessible, decent public services, schools, GP surgeries, and have decent 21st century transport connections, whether that's cycle lanes or you know, the DLR in the case of rate regeneration in East London. I think that's that that's what it means. Um, you know, it's not just growing the economy for its own sake, it's growth is creating exciting, better places where people can thrive and feel safe and put down routes.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, well, I think that that that's really well put and completely agree with everything you've said. And and I think there's um, you know, the there would there must be a lot of consensus around everything you've said. Obviously, clearly that certain people might may have different views. Um, so so the kind of the messaging and the mission is seems to be quite clear. Um, the how how to as opposed to the why to, I think is is kind of where you and I spend a lot of our time and and and maybe there's a lot of the energy at the moment is is is directed towards. Um so so so how do you do you see that then? Because in an environment where there is you know, we talk about viability in our industry, which in in simple terms is you know the economics of development or the economics of doing um anything really within the society. Um it all comes back to that that ever so uh boring topic of money, doesn't it? Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, exactly. Um and I think we have a fundamental problem at the moment, which has been long running and particularly exists on the left with the Labour Party and national and local government, of a mistrust often of motives on both sides. They've never known a time when the expectations, or the very least, the public expectations of politicians at a local and national level are not necessarily rooted in the reality of developers, and there's a mistrust between the two and the economic and actually a real mistrust of the of the data of the economics of housing delivery. You know, the the cost of land, the most expensive element of any development is the land. Used to be, yeah. Yeah, well, then we know about public construction, though. Public construction now, exactly. Yeah, yeah. Even the starting point that was never really understood by, you know. And then you layer in a 60% increase in construction costs, and then you layer in, you know, the the the risk that the capital risk that you're gonna have to price in based on, you know, fire safety regulations and everything else, or just the planning risk generally. Um, and I think the the often on the left, there's a view that developers are um, you know, out to get get on over on the public sector, that they're operating at massive margins, that they are opaque when it comes to you know going through the numbers and being honest about it. And then I think on the developer side, there's a disconnect thinking all the politicians are stupid, they don't understand it, which is not the case. Sometimes they don't, but they do understand the principles. Um, and that you know, uh that's led to a position where we're not able to deliver a lot of housing in in London in particular. That is the public and the private in there, I think, are slightly detached. I think the private appreciation on issues like viability, particularly, say, amongst many London council leaders, is known. Um is known by the mayor of London and the deputy mayor. You know, they the era of 35%, you know, um, at a baseline affordable level for large parts of the cap of the capital are gone. And that's likely to be formally recognised pretty soon. And that might start to get us to get us moving. So I think moving the developers back to what you know, trying to meet in the middle again between developer expectation um and the economics of delivery, and then the public sector and the political, particularly on the left, understanding of the economic realities. I think hopefully we can inch them closer together again. I think the the we've had a problem that in the kind of the good years, as it were, of which didn't seem good at the time, but they seem a lot better than they were 10 years ago. We've definitely had a layering on of the planning system, the planning delivery uh taking on lots of other social policy objectives, education, health, transport, you know. Um, you see that, you know, you know when you go through viability just exactly what all the demands are on a planning application. And actually, the system can't cope with that. And that's happened in an era of tightening fiscal context for central government and local government. You can see why that's happened, but the development, it would reach a point where that's become overloaded. So we're going to have to have a reset where some of those expectations are released. Um systems like, for instance, which seem good at the time, late-stage reviews, you know, basically allowing for a mechanism in the future that if developers do better than expected, then you essentially claw that back and get more affordable housing. Seems okay seemed okay in principle at the time when it was introduced by James Murray here in London. But actually, the market the market often views that as you know of a communistile uh cap on you know what they're able to earn. And in a difficult time like now, the concept of a late-stage review just kills the pricing of risk for capital coming into the sector along with everything else. So I think we're probably at a point where we need a reset and I say meat in the middle from the public and the private sector, and particularly that the labour side of the public sector, where understanding has been varied, but also it's been based in a lot of cynicism about development sector and a lot of mistrust.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. Yeah, no, I think that's all very fair. And um uh and you know, there's no smoke without fire in any of these things, is there? So, like there's a there's a reason why over the past maybe that trust hasn't been there. And um, as you say, for some of those reasons you identify. Um, but but with with such sort of short in the context of the environment um election cycles, you know, a four-year cycle where really first year you're getting your feet under the table, you've got two years to do something, and then you're preparing for the next election. If you're lucky, you know, you get four years. Um, that compared to a development project or let even less so, like a piece of infrastructure like Crossrail or something like that. Um yeah, you know, it doesn't really allow for those those two sort of um things to kind of overlap. Um so so I'm very interested in how we can kind of build that trust, as you say, that is uh that that extends beyond any election cycle. Um because some of these some of these things are are frankly cross-party, really, aren't they? Yeah. No, you might we might disagree with the um the cause or maybe the solution um to what they might be, as we've kind of been talking about. But I think people are understanding what the issues are um that people are grappling with, and it just becomes kind of polarizing at the moment. Um without that that trust, whether it's trust between the industry that we're kind of talking about here, or or more broadly, a kind of societal trust between between people.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, I think that's right. And we do need the trust is built, you know, often on the foundations of you know, doing what you say you'll do, which the development industry is sometimes not good at, or elements of it. The one of the say when it comes to affordable housing, rightly they get ported and say to me, Well, how come this development can't do 35% when these two are being consented nearby that that are? Now the answer is gonna be these people aren't gonna build out those 35%, and they're probably gonna just they just got the consent to be able to flip the land. You know, that is that that affects everybody. So the kind of maybe the development sector has to get better at you know, calling out you know, that sort of behavior. So I think that that's one thing, and that that then leads to the you know, the communities often say, Well, are you gonna build this? You know, lots of areas but have lots of consultation, like you know, the Dock East London Docklands often get consultation fatigue, and actually they often don't what they consult on never happens. So there's trust is built on doing what you say you'll do. Um, and the flip side of that is for the public sector, is you know, providing the context in which it's easy to do that, so not changing the rules as you go, which I think you know it does happen as well, uh, and then be an open, have an open dialogue about the reality of what changes over time. You look at, you know, a big estate regeneration, which can be you know 20, 25 years, that's a generational program. It's perfectly reasonable that the master plan consented in 2006 is not gonna be, you know, it's gonna it's not gonna be fit for purpose in 2025. Perhaps we need to be more upfront about saying that early, you know, rather than say, you know, saying to uh a whole community that over time this is what your estate is going to look like, that actually this is going to evolve as the, you know, as we all do. So I think building trust requires, as I say, do what you say you'll do, public sector and politicians providing a framework of certainty, and then within that, both acknowledging the kind of inherent variability that adjusting circumstances, you know, presents. Um, and I think that that would go, that would go some way. I mean, I remember particularly on the trust between Labour and the development sector before the general election, I remember speaking to senior politicians and and officials at the Labour Party when they're doing sector by sector engagement. And the one sector they hadn't formally properly organised and approached me to help organise and help on was with the built environment. And that's because the first thing they said, well, the most of them are Tory donors. Uh, and um, you know, we don't really we don't like working with them. Um, and in fact, very early on, for instance, I remember Keir Starmer's team would only let him basically speak to um uh social providers, and Angela Rayner early on would only talk to social providers and the likes of you know Lisa Nandy when she was in brief. So, you know, that trust is a long is a long road because it's been a long time uh in the breaking, if it ever existed.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And um how how how do you see the um the notion or the idea of pro-business then broad in in a broader sense? Because there is um, you know, a very I think a lazy kind of um thing which is like attributed to the left is okay, well the left is isn't pro-business and the right somehow is pro-business. Um and obviously it's quite topical at the moment with you know some of the the press in the news around um big occupies leaving or tax or whatever it might be. And um, and that all filters down into to development as well, doesn't it? A developer having confidence that the local authority, whether it's a borough level or um at national level, is kind of pro-development in some sense. And and what I think that really means is that there is that maybe not trust, but at least there's a kind of understanding of where each party comes from, uh sorry, which each side comes from, I should say. And um and that maybe there's a kind of collective will toward work towards a solution. Um yeah, so how do you see that?

SPEAKER_02:

I think the concept of being pro-business, you know, particularly on the left, starts in it in a position of you know, in a capitalist economy, markets need to be regulated and controlled and constrained, and their motives probably aren't always you've got to assume their motives aren't at the very least aren't neutral. That is different from the rights that would say no, an enterprise economy is built on a market flourishing and it needs some controls. So there's inherent, quite frankly, in large parts of the left, suspicion of the the profit motive. It does come down to that. I think being a pro-business in the the broadest sense is about allowing creating the environment for business to flourish, help grow the economy, but in a way which uh is fair, um, is non-exploitative, and that can be in terms of employment conditions, wages, but also the type of accommodation in the housing context, the type of accommodation and communities people are living in, um, and which is uh has a social conscience. And I think that's the kind of position that most on the left would would come from. Fundamentally, however, that lots of people in the Labour Party who perhaps don't have a private sector background, and that goes for the grassroots as well as parliament. Um large number of the parliamentary party not had significant experience in the for-profit sector, um, you know, for um for them, they're focused on distributing the proceeds of you know of growth, but distributing the wealth. Um, you know, the politician I worked for when I was quite young was quite fond of saying, um, you know, in order to distribute wealth, someone's got to create it in the first place, and you can't forget the other half of it. And I think that's often the case that happens. Um, you know, look at it at the moment in the debate around uh you know what's happening in Parliament, around, say, two child benefit cap and things like that. It's all very well and good, but fundamentally we do have to go back to the basics of having more wealth in the economy, and then we can work out how it's distributed. Whereas some elements on the left can be concerned with um the fairness, the kind of the intellectual fairness of they'd rather be intellectually pure on the distribution of a smaller pie than take some of the guardrails back a bit in order to allow for a bigger pie in the first place. So I think that's the way the pro-business and therefore is quite an elastic concept.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. Yeah, okay. That's well well put. I'd not thought about it that way before. Um but one way, one way the public sector can sort of sidestep that to some respect is is by taking the initiative and being uh direct in development, whether it's big infrastructure projects or whether it's bringing the rail back in or whether it's developing land that's in private sector sorry, public sector. Um so how how do you see that element of uh of taking responsibility and and delivering um towards these targets as as the public sector?

SPEAKER_02:

I think the the the public sector should do much more of that enabling, particularly on the land. You know, wherever we are in the country, there are large swathes of public sector land. And actually, you know, we've got a housing grant system which has gone up under Labour, and some of the movement that the housing market in London on the affordable side has been because of increased housing grant, but actually the public sector were more proactive in its uh putting its land in early and you know, and having a model whereby the public gain is out the back end, whether it's long-term lease, whatever the model is, uh that could go go a long way. Um, that you the public sectors don't take on a large part of the risk. I think you know, local authorities are great at long-term regeneration programs where they work in partnership over a long period of time, they get the best results. So the costs are more controlled, you know, that they've got long-term partners and some great developers out there that local authorities speak highly of. But fundamentally, you know, we we have never built more houses in this country at any one time than when it's been led by the public sector. The great council house building programme post-second world war was led, obviously led by uh the public sector. Now, it doesn't mean to say that, say, in the case of new towns, that they are it's a public builder that's doing it, but you know, maybe it should be the public sector doing the master planning and control and sales of plots and you know getting the development gain from it. The public sector, I think, should be an active participant in in development and housing growth, but it should also um it should be a facilitator of private sector involvement too.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And um and w one way, one sort of lever that the the um public sector has is obviously the fiscal policy and printing of money, or you know, how how how how do you see the approach there? Because obviously it's always seen as a kind of short-term win sometimes to kind of to do that. There's obviously it's very public, you know, the pressure that Donald Trump's put on the Fed, for example, to to deal with interest rates and so on and uh sort of stimulate though that sort of terminology kind of comes through. Do you see we're maybe moving into an era here in the UK where that happens?

SPEAKER_02:

Because it sort of papers over cracks, but I think uh potentially, I think the at the moment, as of today, that we pretty much have an economic consensus, I'd say, between left and right, but at least between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as it manifests itself in government at the moment, where you know, with our with our debt to GDP ratio being what it is, we are we are we we are particularly sensitive to any movements in the guilt markets. And why does that matter? Because if we want new schools, hospitals, homes, that matters because if the guilt markets move up, then we're paying more and we're you know, we're mortgaging future generations to pay for it equally. You know, if we print money, then we're gonna you know we're gonna be fueling inflation. And we've seen inflationary shocks to varying degrees over the last couple of years, both because of Ukraine, obviously after you know the the horrendous uh mini-budget with with trusts. So I think the role of government here is to, you know, first and foremost, keep inflation under control, because nothing damages the economy and household finances more than you know, eating into the value of uh of the money we earn. And we've we've seen that in Britain in the 70s, you know, we've seen it in Argentina, you know, in the last 20 years in extremists as well. So I think that is is the core role. You know, any attempt to disrupt that order, you know, could be devastating for us. And that I think that could become a risk with reform in due course, I'm sure labeling services will point out. It's not yet manifest itself as a massive risk in the US, but you know, the US economy is very hot. So the story is not written. The end is not written by any stretch on the economic policy of the Trump administration. Um, you know, it probably after France, the US is probably the most good, you know, concerning when it comes to public debt. So I think hopefully here the conversation will not lead to a kind of you know get the interest rates down and uh have a surge of borrowing to pump up the economy. Um, you know, uh but we don't know what the reform's economic policy is going to be, so it may well they may well do that. But I think at the moment there's a there's a consensus. If you look at the debate potentially within the Labour Party, Andy Burden's made comments about not being in hockey to the guilt markets. He clearly like to spend more and nationalise more. Um, whether that's in the best interests of the economy in the country, I think is probably the jury's out on that.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah. Agree. And um you mentioned sort of partnerships there broadly, but maybe we dive into that a little bit more because as you say, I I do think there's a huge opportunity for public-private partnerships um where e each are kind of some alignment and some trust, there's some shared values around whether it's a project level or kind of or larger than that. Um and and and so maybe maybe how how how bold do you think we kind of need to be or could be in in that respect? Um obviously, maybe a sub note to that, obviously, from our perspective, like SMEs as well. Like, how can how can it not only be the kind of the big house builders or the ones who've got prop five projects of a certain scale for track record?

SPEAKER_02:

I I think it's tough because you know, we talk about long-term partnerships to de-risk projects, both financially and you know, in the case of construction to you know, avoid the risk of failure, particularly in things like long-term estate regeneration but other parts of development that kind of mitigates against the involvement of SMEs. That's kind of where the sector's going. Um, and yet there are you know, some boroughs are very good in London at having you know, targeting SMEs for some of their info programs and smaller site programs. Um, you know, it kind of is a truism that also when house built in was flourishing, it was pretty diverse. There were big regional players, there were small local builders. Uh so should local authorities, you know, it's a mixed message to local authorities to say partnership's important, which is long-term partners, which means big, you know, uh deep balance sheet, safe balance sheet, and also a strong track record. But also we need to facilitate the rise of you know SME builders, which probably also means you know being uh much more open to you know modern methods of construction and different types of housing delivery. Um, you know, maybe uh maybe that's something that we can see more of in the imminent new towns. And that'd be great to see some of the master planning provide you know plots and areas in the new towns for SME builders, for regional contractors, you know, for modern methods of construction. But I think fundamentally partnership for the public sector is always going to be based on managing risk, and that's fundamentally going to come down to safe, long term, probably quite you know, well established corporate private sector partners.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, that's really interesting. And um, and so you know, Kevin, we've had an amazing in depth conversation there, super insightful from you given your relationships, um uh uh uh At senior levels within within particularly the Labour Party and just in politics generally. Um, but your work is also kind of rooted in the places, isn't it? The neighborhoods, the communities that you're operating in, whether that's advising clients like us in terms of um public consultation and and and neighbourly matters and stakeholder engagement. So so how how do you see that and particularly maybe around the the the planning um system and and and kind of yeah, that that element of process?

SPEAKER_02:

I think the the process is not perfect by by any stretch. I think when it comes to I think lots of people are very well-intentioned when it comes to community engagement, the amount of variability that you can actually consult on is often very limited. Um, you know, in theory, that should be resolved by the fact that the community will have been involved in the neighbourhood planning process and therefore they're basing, you know, that the the development proposals are based on a local plan that everyone's bought into and and is then going forward to be considered by you know uh counsellors on a planning committee on the basis of their you know borough wide um strategic framework. But the fact is that isn't really the case. You know, most people don't get involved in neighbourhood planning, and most people don't get involved in the planning process until they want to object to something. I think that's creates quite a broken, a broken system. I think we need at the community level a much greater voice for those who are potential future beneficiaries of development. Um, you know, we've done it a few times where we've had you know the voice of those on the housing waiting list in boroughs like Tower Hamlets. We've brought them to the fore when it's come to a state regeneration, uh, whether it's uh young people who are potentially having to move out of the borough where they're generations of their family have lived, in particular the case in it's some some parts of Inner London. So and then planning committees should be you know cognizant of that and it should be structured in a way that they're considering future as well as current residents. Of course, they are councillors, they're part-time, they are making decisions based on the information in front of them, but also their main, you know, their main pressures are from very loud, you know, electors, and therefore it's probably less it's quite bold. There are councillors and councils that do it. And this is not a left-right thing. Uh you know, seeing conservative, Labour, Lib Dem councillors, green, you know, most probably less green councillors, um, you know, advocate for growth for future generations. So I think the community engagement side, I think the processes are often done well, but I think ultimately they could be more impactful when it comes to the decision making. I think planning committees themselves are often, you know, there are some great planning committees, and there's some really good, well-intentioned planning chairs, long-standing and counsellors. There are many who, you know, are probably less informed about the decisions they're making than they should be. Um, and it can often be making, you know, throwing out officer recommendations on quite spurious grounds. That happens less, actually, they probably did it maybe 12 months ago in some parts of London. So I think the moving to a situation where there's much more permitted development once the uh the local parameters in a in a local plan are set, I think is desirable. And obviously that's happen that the indications are that's happening via the first planning and infrastructure bill that's going through Parliament. There'd be reduced role of, you know, um reduced number of planning committee members, etc. Um, I had a fascinating conversation this morning with an American client who's developing a landmark site in in the West End, um, and he's just delivered a development in Manhattan. And he said that the Planning Consultant was taking him through the process to get from you know day one pre-app through to resolutions of grant, and he was, you know, took some persuading that that was you know a realistic view because in Manhattan, actually, if you fit the the criteria for the zoning, you're pretty much done left to get on with it. It's obviously not that quite that straightforward, but it's not far off. And he kind of said, it's no wonder you you guys are having a problem doing anything. And I think we kind of need to we need to reflect on that international experience.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah. Well, it's it's an interesting um example because on the previous episode of the podcast, we had Kai Yuan from um big uh Bianca Engels group architects, and um they work all across the world, and and he said that the UK is by far the slowest place in the world that they work from a planning perspective. He said it's it's a fascinating place and rich, and you know, all these other examples of culturally rich, I mean, in terms of the the process, but um, but yeah, he was like just in terms of pure speed and certainty is the slowest. And so yeah, we we do have to probably think about that some respects. Um, but it's it's not an easy one to unpick the planning system, and we're we're definitely not going to kind of kind of solve it today. But I do think as part of this sort of growth agenda, as part of this get Britain building, you know, it's it's it's fundamental, isn't it?

SPEAKER_02:

It just shouldn't be this hard, yeah. It shouldn't take this long. Yeah, you know, it shouldn't be possible to deliver, you know, a uh a tunnel uh in Scandinavia for the same cost to do the pre-app work on the Lower Thames Crossing. Yeah. But it's just ludicrous. Yeah. You know, it's the amount it's cost to, you know, in the preparation for the second runway application for Gatwick, you know, this remind ourselves, isn't heathrow where you you know demolishing homes and expanding the airport boundary? We're moving a service runway 12 meters that's taken this long to a runway 12 meters within the existing airport boundary. It should not be this hard. And that is not a left-right thing.

SPEAKER_01:

No, no, exactly. And and at the end of the day, what I think planning and development does have an amazing opportunity to kind of improve people's quality of life and kind of tackle some of these big issues that we're talking about here. You know, we've we've touched on housing, growth, affordability, um, public services. And for you personally, then, you know, all of all of that is clearly, you know, really emotive for you, really driving you on a day-to-day basis. So, so so so why are you, yeah, why are you doing this? Why are you really putting your energy into to the businesses and to politics and and its surroundings really?

SPEAKER_02:

Because I think it's one area where you get to see the effect of your work and the positive human impact of it. It can take some time to do that, as you say, and you sometimes lose the kind of you know, the wood for the trees. But you know, a great example is where I live in East London. I can see from my balcony the the first project I ever worked on, one of the first ever worked on consultation in over the river in in Canningtown, which, you know, I remember doing the door-by-door consultation on decant for Newham Council and remembering like quite how what poor quality housing that was, and how it was pretty, you know, it was a pretty grim area. It was really suffering uh for the decline of the docks uh throughout the 70s and 80s. Um, it had real problems with um social uh cohesion. Um and then, you know, I go there now, and it's you know, it's it's vibrant, it's a mixed community, it's got higher quality housing, it's got decent public spaces, and it's got local amenities. And you think actually that is something that we've been part of. I was literally sat in a porter cabin on this site not far off 20 years, 18 years ago, you know, doing consultations on the images on buildings that are now there. And I think that I that's great. Um I can't think of any other areas where you you kind of get that that impact of of your work. And you know, we and the other thing is when we do when you do housing handovers, you know, and we're doing one in Tower Hamlets relatively recently, where you meet the people that are moving into the home, and they you know that's the person that was on the waiting list, or they were living with their family or you know, sofa surfing, and here they are in their home. And we can lose sight of that sometimes. These aren't units, these are homes, and seeing them built and people in them is is quite humble.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah. Um and why does that mean so much to you personally, that that aspect? Because it it's not doesn't to everyone.

SPEAKER_02:

I don't I I don't know. I think it's partly about to do with the principles of social justice, which got me into politics in the first place. I've also always had a fascination with um the kind of the urban environment. Um, not that we're described like that. I used to, as a kid, I didn't grow up in London, but I used to memorize memorized the map of of London. We had an A to Z from a from a school trip to London, and I used to memorized it. I used to look and run my finger and imagine I was going down these roads and look at the buildings and um, you know.

SPEAKER_01:

So you passed the knowledge then.

SPEAKER_02:

I think I probably would have done maybe when I was a bit younger. Yeah, I would have passed that test, might have failed a couple of other social tests. Um had always been kind of fascinated um uh with that. Um, I didn't think I'd end up working in it in this, but here I am.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. Amazing. Well, um, I think it's um honestly the insights that you I'm really glad you've come on because I wanted to have you on for a while. Um, just because I think your perspective is is so important. You know, we really really value that relationship that we've got together. And um, and I and I think it's just good to to talk about these things. You know, what we we really value about this platform is the long-form nature and narrative of the conversation because uh everything is so nuanced in our built environment and and in politics and society more broadly, and um, you know, uh 140 characters isn't necessarily enough to uh to describe things that we're we're really talking about here. So I'm really grateful for you giving giving your time. And and I think if if more of these kind of conversations were were aired, not necessarily just on podcasts, but you know, held between people of different perspectives and different um uh roles within in within industries, um I think uh can go a long way to maybe hopefully moving towards some of these big themes and big challenges. So yeah, grateful to carry on with these conversations and um thanks for your time today.

SPEAKER_02:

Absolutely. Thanks for inviting me on. It's been great, as always is chatting with you, Tom. And I think you're right, when people are given the chance to understand other people's perspectives in an in a non-combative um you know forum, then only good can can come from it. And I think you know, well done to you for being a big advocate of having those long form conversations. I know it's really appreciated.

SPEAKER_01:

Thanks, Kevin.

SPEAKER_00:

Thank you for listening to the Grow Places podcast. For more information, visit growplaces.com and follow us at We Grow Places across all social channels. See you next time.