The expression "it's just not cricket" originated in 19th-century Britain, reflecting cricket's supposed reputation for fair play, integrity, and sportsmanship. It became a metaphor for unfair, dishonest, or unsportsmanlike behaviour; however, over the years, the phrase endured and evolved into an encompassing expression for anything that violates a sense of tradition. To effect societal changes, we need to resolve our housing perma-crisis, but do we need to phase out traditional norms of British bureaucracy to achieve that, and how easy will that be, given that the fabric of British society has long been structured around unwritten social rules?
This week, according to Reuters, a government minister cited an example of a conversion of an office block into 140 apartments being delayed after a sports body, automatically included in planning decisions, determined that cricket experts had not been engaged to provide their opinion on whether a 10ft fence was sufficient to protect future residents from cricket balls launched from an adjacent sports ground. Given the time consumed in reaching out to both Brian Lara and Moeen Ali for their prospective opinions, is it finally time to call howzat on the old system before the rain stops play? The government certainly thinks so, with further legislation on planning reforms due later this week. It's been revealed that a staggering 25 agencies have a legal right to be consulted on planning applications, with many having a default objection setting to justify their agency's mandate and existence. Now, we are all for an uncompromising sense of due diligence and sensible, balanced decision-making, which is a hot political issue in world news right now; sweeping 'Department of Government Efficiency'-esq changes seem doomed to backfire, with vital checks and measures getting caught up in the brush, yet creating a bureaucratic infrastructure almost 'for the sake of it' in such a self-defeating manner isn't sensible either. The bigger question is, why are we like this?
When considering the bigger picture, we have a long and proud tradition of bureaucracy that dates back to our days as an imperial power. The civil service became a model of efficiency and meticulous record-keeping, and this culture of precision has permeated government institutions. The appreciation for process is still evident today, from the paperwork-laden world of local councils to the labyrinthine rules surrounding taxes, benefits, and planning permissions. Our bureaucracy often prioritises process over pragmatism. This commitment to administrative precision and excellence reinforces our broader cultural obsession with rules. This fixation on rules and processes is a significant factor in the British government's struggle to overcome local resistance to new housing developments. Our planning system is heavily bureaucratic, granting local councils and residents substantial influence over decision-making. Each new development undergoes a byzantine approval process, where objections must be formally addressed, regardless of their insignificance. This leads to lengthy delays and, often, outright cancellations of projects, meaning that nothing ever gets built.
Residents, particularly in affluent areas, skilfully use the minutiae of planning laws to block developments they oppose. They cite concerns such as traffic, environmental impact, heritage preservation, and even the "character" of a neighbourhood. While some objections are legitimate, they often mask a more profound resistance to change, especially when affordable housing is involved. This isn't about blaming any particular group; the system itself is the issue. It fosters a fantasy of a world without progress and perpetuates a monetary hierarchy, with progress disproportionately harming the least affluent. This situation needs to be amended for the benefit of all.
Our culture's preference for process and traditions over pragmatism means that even when a government like ours is determined to push through reforms, it is caught in a web of procedural obstacles, public inquiries, and legal challenges. The result? A culture that values rules and resists change over practical solutions exacerbates a chronic housing shortage. The burden now really lies with the government to communicate the necessity of these changes to the country; just as the funding of homebuilding has evolved into something exciting and technologically driven, the entire process of housebuilding needs to adapt to be leaner and more efficient, to meet the demands of the next generation.
Invest & Fund has returned over £300 million of capital and interest to lenders with zero losses, showing the rigour that governs our business.
To take maximum advantage of this robust and exciting asset class, please visit www.investandfund.com
Don't invest unless you're prepared to lose money. This is a high-risk investment. You may not be able to access your money quickly and are unlikely to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 minutes to learn more.