James Miller talks about ending homelessness, building social housing on council owned brownfield sites prioritised for local people and protecting the green belt - as the ‘Front-Line’ Mayor of Essex

Introduction

In this blog I continue to use my campaign mantra that talks about my determination to be a ‘front-line Mayor of Essex, getting our house in order first’, which means seeing with my own eyeballs the results of the decisions that I and my potential council have taken as I venture into the next government remit of the future Mayor of Essex: housing.

I explain how as part of our ‘Spatial Development Strategy’ (a 20 to 25 year plan for housing, transport and infrastructure) will be underpinned by my moral ambition to end involuntary homelessness; build social housing on publicly owned brownfield sites only; reject all development on greenbelt land; and enforce private developers to fulfil their agreed quota of social housing, which will be set at a minimum of 50% for the foreseeable future, whilst actually building on what they have already been given planning permission to do so.

What does the government want from the Mayor?

Have you ever heard of Spatial Development Strategies, Homes England, Mayoral Development Corporations, call in’ powers for planning applications and Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy? Because this is the remit of the Mayor the government has set out.

Some will have heard of all this. The small band of those who work or are affected within these areas and the even smaller group of people that are interested as a hobby.

Before being elevated to the lofty heights of the Confelicity Mayor of Essex candidate, I had little idea of the technical terms used by the government. My citizen interest stems from my visceral views on green belt land, social housing and homelessness, but my understanding of the legal terms and bodies developed many years before us, up to now, was the same as the rest of the 99.9% of us. This is because like the rest of us, I am no politician!

Now, I must brag, I am fairly well versed in what this all means! In layman terms the Mayor is to: make a long-term plan for housing, jobs, transport, and sustainability for the next 25 years or so in Essex (SDS); get funds off of government (our money) to pay for roads, schools, utilities, etc (Homes England); get a group of people to make sure it happens in key areas (MDCs), override people that might stop the Mayor’s plans (“call ins), and charge developers money that helps pay for infrastructure to help make it happen (MCIL).

Spatial Development Strategy

A fancy name for what will be the single most important factor in housing in Essex over the next 20 to 30 years. It is a legally binding strategic plan that all other plans must sit within.

In regard to the housing part, this is why:

It will determine what will happen to green, brown and so-called grey belt land and how much social housing will be built, aside from many other matters that will fundamentally shape the future of Essex.

In regard to developing an SDS, I intend to

• End involuntary homelessness

  
  

• Never build on green belt land

  
  

• Seek to achieve 100% social housing on publicly owned brownfield sites

  
  

• Ensure a minimum 50% social housing on private developments (note I have said “social”, not “affordable”, which I will come to later, by using all enforcement powers at the Mayor's disposal.

  
  

• Any housing the developer has planning permission for will have to be completed before applying for any more builds.

  
  

• Housing Associations are founded on building and managing social housing, and it will be those organisations that I will turn to in order to fulfil the demand from the roughly 30,000 families on the social housing waiting list across Essex.

  
  

• I will also look to facilitate the creation of more Housing Associations by providing seed funding, land, or technical advice.

The following is the long-handed version.

Homelessness 

Unfortunately, the major non-vote winner is homelessness. To be blunt, most people with a roof over their head are looking for any way their bills can come down and perhaps the last thing they need are policies that take their money and direct it to people whom they may not give all that much thought to - sorry though they may be.

Yet, I believe it is a must.

It is so easy to judge, but a person on the street has every right to a decent life just the same as anyone else - as patronising as that might sound. 

When we walk past a homeless person, many of us might have mixed feelings ranging from sympathy, guilt and fear to disgust and disdain.  Often we just want to walk past and move back to whatever we were thinking about.  We may want nothing to do with them and see them as a blight on the landscape similar to that of graffiti on walls - rather than as a person who for reasons ended up in their current position. 

I spent one night “on the streets” where I took part in a charity event shining a spotlight on homelessness.  My condescension knew no bounds as I wrote about how hard it was as I put my head against my soft pillow the following night.

I cannot truly understand the experience and would never want to. However, the truth is life can change in an instant and any one of us could conceivably find ourselves in a similar position if circumstances were to go the wrong way.

Selfishly, I want to know the system we have in our country will be there if ever I find myself in trouble, and selflessly, I genuinely do not want anybody to live on the streets unless they choose to.

There are a number of solutions across the world that work to varying degrees.  The Finnish model is one that has reportedly seen homelessness almost become a thing of the past.  They invested huge sums to build the appropriate number of suitable and dignified accommodation while at the same time providing the mental and physical support required to get a person back on their feet and back into society.  In the longer term, it has seen homelessness fall to nearly nothing, and the original investment was off-set to a large degree with less need for mental and physical health and accommadation.

Were Essex to adopt a similar scaled down strategy, it is estimated (according to AI) that it would cost 1% of the total budget per year of Essex, Southend and Thurrock.

Easier said than done as it would be a monumental task to identify suitable brownfield sites; find willing developers; unify all the mental and physical professionals and all other stakeholders that will need to participate; draft appropriate regulations; and agree that 1% of budget should be spent this way.

There may also be other solutions, but the overriding point is that getting our house in order first is the way in which I believe the money needs to be spent.

It needs a front-line Mayor in the room with all those with the knowledge and experience  of homelessness who will be able to provide all the vital information to make something like this possible - if it is even so.

In Southend, I have had the privilege to become friends with John Barber, founder of Southend Homeless Action Network (SHAN).  He has brought together people from all arenas of Southend and it is his example that I wish to follow Essex-wide.

There are, apparently, 1600 people on the streets in Essex and one way or another I intend to personally ensure they all find suitable accommodation and support. When I walk past a homeless person I see that as a direct reflection of leadership, and if I elected, it would be totally wrong of me to put money into a vanity project rather than look after the most vulnerable of us.

Enforcement of social housing quotas for private developers

I will use every enforcement measure to ensure developers fulfil their social housing quotas including issuing enforcement notices if the S106 obligations aren’t being met and penalties such as financial clawbacks, where the developer must repay profits if affordable units are not delivered, repayment of land discounts, restrictions on future planning approvals, and maintain a consistent threat of Mayor intervention via call-in powers to incentivise compliance.

Difference between social and affordable housing

I should also make pains to ensure the properties are social housing and not affordable housing - the difference, for one, being that the former is around 50% off market value and the later only 20%. Maybe 20% was once a reasonable figure, but that was a long time ago. With today’s prices, a 20% discount means most people cannot get near home ownership.

I will call in planning applications if a council is about to approve a scheme with less social housing than the SDS requires.

It sounds a little like I am out for the developers, which I am not. They are businesses and are fully entitled to make a profit. However, we must get our house in order first, and that means sorting out the social housing waiting list as far as we can. Greenbelt land

Firstly, the Confelicity Party will never build on green belt land. We voted on this as one of our first policies and we are incensed by what this Labour government are doing.

“Build baby build” is their flippant and disrespectful slogan and they are serious. “Yes in my backyard” (YIMBY for short) is their motto, and they have changed the rules to include green belt land being miraculously transformed into brand new “grey belt”, while removing the powers of local government to make it far easier for developers to do as they wish.

Had the majority of residents in Essex wanted to "build, baby build", then as a locally-driven party, we would have had to reconsider our position. As it is, the opposition to this is almost unanimous and I am proud to have arranged the ‘Save Bournes Green Chase green belt’ protests and the recent one that has brought the 'Save Green Belt' campaigns from Wakering to Basildon together, as part of helping to form the “Green Belters” group.

Ultimately, you will be able to rely on me to do everything in my power to stop and block any threat to a blade of grass or a perfectly healthy crop.

Critique of the Government Housing Targets

“The government is committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament, and Mayoral Combined County Authorities are integral to meeting that commitment”.

This extraordinary figure has been plucked out of thin air to align with political ambitions - not actual demand. No one has gone around the country and asked the question: what are your housing requirements?

Granted, that would be a bit of an undertaking, however, this exact process was supposedly carried in Southend to determine which properties would receive their brand new bins in their newly agreed fortnightly waste collections scheme. If it’s good enough for waste, perhaps housing might also receive the same pampering?

As it is, the calculation is 0.8% of current housing stock plus an affordability extra, which in Southend works out as 1400 homes to be built every year.

The only genuine figures we have emanate from the social housing waiting lists from each council. Unfortunately, due to the ‘Homelessness Act 2002’, which removed the statutory duty to maintain a Housing Register as of 31 January 2003’, according the LGA, the actual social housing need across Essex is difficult to find. In Southend it is well publicised to be around 1400. Information on other authorities that I have found range somewhere near the same, although Harlow Council reports over 5,500 households. Perhaps the figure is around 30,000 across Essex.

Aside from this information there is no information. The truth is green belt land has been made vulnerable by this government on mythical pretences.

The chosen number way up high in Labour’s case was 1.5 million this time around, but it could just as easily have been two or three million depending on the whim of those behind policy making wheel.

There is demand for housing in this country - of that there is no doubt. What it is precisely is exactly the matter at hand and I do not believe it should simply be based on guesswork, political ideology or what may look good as a soundbite. The government may well want the Mayor to carry out their demands, but I will not be prepared to destroy green belt until such time that it is clear that there really isn’t any other choice. And even then I would object!

Priority housing for local people

Residents who have grown up in the family home and want to live close by should be given the chance to do so. In that respect, I will introduce policies that prioritise local people with any new builds, while developing on brownfield sites only.

We would ensure infrastructure be built alongside all new housing developments. However, unlike the current local Labour coalition in Southend, rather than just say “infrastructure-led”, we will state exactly what that means in money terms and actual physical terms i.e. how many schools; hospitals; GP surgeries; amendments to sewage systems; police stations, etc.

Conclusion

I will treat homelessness as a disaster response: no one will sleep on the streets, even for a night. No assessments, no conditions, no delays. Give people housing first, then offer support.

Then we will get local people a home by making it affordable.

All done preserving our precious green belt.

Reference

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consolidated-budgeting-guidance-2025-to-2026/consolidated-budgeting-guidance-2025-26