Creating sustainable communities in a ‘growth area’ : identifying tensions between sub-regional policy, sub-regional governance, and wider market appetites

The South-East Midlands sub-region was identified in English government policy as the largest ‘growth area’ under the Sustainable Communities Plan implemented from 2000. This identified house-building’ as a fundamental driver of new sustainable residential development across Northamptonshire, Milton Keynes, Luton, Bedford and Aylesbury Vale, and a series of strategic targets for housing and community growth were constructed through the adoption of central, regional and local planning and development policies. Such policy development has not to date been mirrored in any sub-regional governance that could champion these policies and implement the level of growth, infrastructure provision, and ‘sustainability’ sought across the sub-region. With the downturn in wider economic conditions experienced since 2007, the disparity between policy aspirations and house-building practice has become ever more pronounced, with a corresponding gulf developing between different sets of interests for any balanced or ‘SMART’ growth to become embedded in the sub-region. This paper draws from work underway in ESRC-funded research to examine the kinds of policy identified to drive the creation of sustainable communities across the South-East Midlands sub-region. Whilst individual local authorities in the sub-region have developed a range of subtle interpretations of how development and ‘growth’ might assist longer-term sustainability, the paper notes a lack of political or governance structures - notwithstanding the recently constructed Local Economic Partnership - that could help secure this across local authority boundaries. The paper identifies different government aspirations for what new housing development might deliver at both macro-economic and micro-neighbourhood levels, but also notes the tensions and conflicting aspirations of the UK’s private sector house-building interests, and their readiness to challenge policy demands. The manner in which the UK house-building and supply is influenced by a discrete number of such private development bodies is therefore examined to ascertain what that bodes for future policy attempts to stimulate any change in house-building delivery : the conclusion is drawn that there is a clear confusion at local and community levels for what further house-building might offer to communities in the future. The paper finally notes the lack of discernable means to identify ‘sustainability’ within what development has taken place in the South-East Midlands area to date, and the argument is made that the championing of any ‘more’ sustainable practices must be able demonstrate how that impacts upon the real living standards of households and communities.