Author: Rick Hebditch

The planning system interferes with the rights we have to do what we want with our own land, and tries to influence the use of land so that it serves the public interest. So it’s always been important that planning decisions have democratic legitimacy. But all that is about to change – here’s why that’s a worry.

The change comes from a new regulation which makes local councils delegate planning applications to officers rather than to committees of elected councillors. The statutory instrument (SI) is being debate in the House of Lords chamber and in a House of Commons committee tomorrow (Tuesday 30 June) and will then go to a vote in both houses.

The SI comes from the Planning and Infrastructure Act passed last year, which created the power for Government to create a “national scheme of delegation”. Currently most minor applications already go to officers for decision already under their own local schemes of delegation. The new national scheme of delegation just creates a rule that this always has to happen.

But what we’re most worried about is that the national scheme of delegation also makes it much harder for big or controversial schemes to be decided by councillors meeting in public. Schemes would only now be allowed to go to committees if both the lead officer and the chair of the committee agree that it should, and the statutory guidance that they must follow in making that decision says this should only be in “exceptional” circumstances.

This means virtually all decisions being taken behind closed doors and with the public not being able to have their voice heard in committee as most councils currently allow.

We’ve set out concerns in this briefing alongside the Town and Country Planning Association and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. We hope Ministers reflect on their plans and ensure councils can still take the most significant decisions transparently and democratically.

Briefing for MPs and Peers on the national scheme of delegation: https://betterplanningcoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/National-Scheme-of-Delegation-Brief-BPC-TCPA-CPRE-1.pdf

Planning policy isn’t acting in the public interest. Here’s six changes that can make planning policy better.
The Government consulted on a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) from December 2025. It’s the biggest change since the NPPF was first introduced in over a decade ago.

We think the draft NPPF needs changes if it is to support plan-making and decision-taking in the public interest.

The current wording fails to be sufficiently consistent with legal duties and designations. And it only prioritises the Government’s economic policies and strategies, downplaying social and environmental policies which together make up the three pillars of sustainable development.

So here’s the six changes we want to see. You can read more about them in our short paper here.

1. Sustainable development needs to be fully embedded in NPPF policies – the draft NPPF references economic strategies and plans but not social or environment equivalents undermining the statutory duty to deliver sustainable development
2. The boosted “presumption in favour of sustainable development” needs changes to ensure it delivers quality development – not least removing the loophole where development should be presumed to go ahead outside settlements where the local planning authorities fails either the housing land supply test (showing five years’ worth of land to meet the higher housing targets introduced in 2024) or the housing delivery test (which looks at whether housing targets have been met by private and other developers)
3. The Land Use Framework’s principles and data should be essential elements in the development of spatial development strategies and local plans
4. The relative weighting of policies in the NPPF should reflect the intent of Parliament in statutory protections and duties for heritage and protected landscapes rather than attempting to subvert these intentions, across many different policies
5. The NPPF should encourage rather than constrain local ambition to meet climate change targets (for example being able to require higher standards in energy efficiency), and biodiversity targets, air quality and pollution prevention
6. Co-production and co-design approaches should be required in the creation of local plans and development of significant sites, to build consensus and allow communities a voice

At the moment, Parliament gets to scrutinise changes in policy for national infrastructure but not for policy covering all other forms of development. With the recent centralisation of planning policy by Whitehall, we think that needs to change. Here’s why.

The involvement of Parliament in scrutinising national infrastructure planning policy is comes from the 2008 Planning Act, which set up the “nationally significant infrastructure” planning system following a Treasury led review.

The post-2008 approach combined national policies set by the executive (and not open to challenge in decisions) with decision-making being taken outside democratic control by the Planning Inspectorate (subsequently changed to government ministers).

For the rest of the planning system, decisions are mostly taken locally, based first on the Local Plan and then backed up by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Decisions are formally taken by the council through its planning committee, but delegated to officers for the majority of less significant decisions.

But that is changing. In future, national policy now has much greater priority in decisions through comprehensive “national decision-making policies” set out in the new draft NPPF, outranking the Local Plan which can’t vary those policies and which is relegated to being just more of a map.

And the decision-making process has also changed – now there are regulations from central government that set out that pretty much all decisions should by default go to officers rather than to democratically elected councillors. This also effectively removes the right for the public to be heard in those decisions, a right that has been gradually extended to most councils in the last couple of decades.

This combination of detailed policy set by national government with officer-only decisions makes it even more important that the national policy is given sufficient scrutiny, alongside the formal consultation on the new NPPF. That’s why our members have written to the MPs who chair the housing, communities and local government committee, the environmental audit committee and the environment, food and rural affairs committee to ask for a short scrutiny session on the new NPPF.

You can read our letter here.

We hope that the MPs respond positively to our request and give the new NPPF the scrutiny it needs.

The government consultation on their new draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ends today. We’ve submitted our response – you can read it here.

The new version of the NPPF being consulted on is the biggest change in planning policy since the NPPF was first introduced in 2012.

There are some positive aspects of the new policy

• A clearer layout dividing up policies to influence new sub-regional spatial development strategies and Local Plans from those to guide decisions on individual applications (new “national decision making policies” or NDMPs)
• A better description of what sustainable development is and what it aims to do
• More focus on a “spatial dimension” to where development should go, encouraging development in settlements rather than open countryside
• A higher priority for tackling climate change
• Encouragement of good design principles

But for each of these positive moves, there is also a flipside

• NDMPs could over-centralise and over-standardise policy, risking a system that is inflexible and unable to reflect local circumstances. The draft NPPF also has a restriction on Local Plans being able to set their own local quantitative standards on things like energy efficiency or biodiversity net gain policies
• Mentions of sustainable development are many times outnumbered by “growth” which is defined very much in short-term policies, and the definition of sustainable development comes in a chapter that states it’s not actual policy to follow
• The spatial dimension to development has plenty of get-out clauses with broad categories of development still allowed, and along with the boosted policy that has a presumption in favour of development it would be difficult to call out poor development except in a very few cases
• The positives on climate change seem (in combination with other policies) to include a loophole which could make it easier for oil and gas development in some circumstances
• Good design also needs to ensure that developments are not completely car-dependent and car-dominated but the transport chapter of the new NPPF lacks weight compared to other chapters and the overall push to let development through

Our members are also worried about some of the implications for protections for heritage, protected landscapes like National Parks and the natural environment so we’re also calling for changes on these too.

The Government published a new draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) just before Christmas. It’s the biggest change in national planning policy for over a decade, and is a big restructure and rewrite of what has gone before – as well as a much longer document (50% more pages compared to the current version of the NPPF).

This post sets out the main issues for Better Planning Coalition members as they will be looking at the draft. It’s a long post – but there’s a lot to look at with all the changes in policy. A version of this blog as a briefing for MPs and peers is also available here.

Lots of people rushed out their hot takes before Christmas but hopefully this provides a more considered view on how the new NPPF might serve the public interest in planning.

National and local balance

Planning policy (including the new draft National Planning Policy Framework) is still premised on there being published Local Plans to shape development  – but only 30% of England is covered by one. The new statutory process for Local Plans established by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) plus additional resources for planning teams may help make sure plans are published. But in the meantime – combined with new housing targets, local government reorganisation, new sub-regional spatial development strategies (SDSs) which Local Plans have to follow and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) itself – there will be a dearth of up-to-date and agreed local plans.

So the NPPF will be the main decision-making tool for many local areas and decisions. The restructuring of the new draft NPPF into policies to inform the making of SDSs and Local Plans, and then “national decision-making policies” (NDMPs) for individual applications should therefore be helpful – provided those NDMPs are not written with too many caveats to allow poor development to receive approval.

Weighting policies, rules-based decisions and the presumption in favour of development

The current NPPF uses a variety of adjectives for those matters which are given additional weight in consideration in planning decisions (“substantial”, “great”, “significant”). The new draft NPPF now replaces these different terms with just “substantial”. This standardisation probably helps clarity. We will also want to look at which criteria are given substantial weight, and the implications of any changes to other wording (eg changes to remove reference to “reject(ing)” development).

The new draft also aims to make policy more “rules-based”. If this is to happen, then rules also need to say “no” sometimes as well as “yes”. It’s important therefore that policies do not have broad caveats to allow development through that should be refused because it is not in the public interest or if it runs counter to truly sustainable development.

The new draft NPPF introduces a new approach to the existing presumption in favour of development, differentiating between development within defined settlement boundaries which should be automatically approved[1] and development outside settlement boundaries, which generally should be presumed to be refused except in some specific cases. In principle, this is welcome, protecting greenfield sites and ensuring new development is closer to existing services and employment opportunities and public transport.

However, settlement outside settlement boundaries would be approved where a development would address an evidenced unmet need, which for housing means the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test.[2] Approval would only be refused in those situations where the adverse effects of the proposed development would seriously outweigh the development’s contribution to that unmet need. And this would primarily be assessed against those NDMPs whose wording sets out that development proposals should be refused in identified circumstances (ie an implied tougher test for rejection).[3]

All the policies in the NPPF that fall short of requiring refusal will be of limited effect if local authorities can’t show a five year housing supply (difficult those areas where the Government unilaterally increased them in 2024) and others will struggle to meet the Housing Delivery Test given the slump in house-building caused by cost inflation, skills shortages and weak demand caused by economic insecurity (house building in November 2025 was 24.1% lower than in October 2022[4]).

Green Belt

The new draft NPPF also seeks to reduce the size of the Green Belt from three policies:

• SDSs and Local Plans’ Green Belt review process (involving regular review of the Green Belt and a requirement for assessment of whether development can be met within the extent of the current Green Belt, with planning inspectors able to recommend a review of the Green Belt as part of the tests of the soundness of a proposed SDS or Local Plan)
• Grey belt (x2 – both local planning authorities being required to redefine Green Belt as grey belt plus speculative applications claiming that the site would count as grey belt)
• Development around railway stations (both encouraging LPAs to remove areas of land from stations from being part of the Green Belt and giving the green light to applications for development for some stations where sites still sit in the formal Green Belt)[5]

Overall, it seems like official policy is to have a much smaller Green Belt but to aim for what is left of the Green Belt to be better for access, recreation and nature. But a “better” Green Belt will depend on other policies and funding beyond planning. Government should be clearer about its intentions for the Green Belt and the role of other policy, for instance in an overarching policy statement on the Green Belt, setting out how funding, land—use planning and regulation can deliver greater benefits from the Green Belt.

Viability, density, design and sustainable transport

There are welcome changes on housing viability and density. These are already the focus of lobbying from private interests to weaken them. On viability, the new draft NPPF seeks to reduce the potential for developers to try and negotiate down on affordable housing provision on a site by site basis through more standardised inputs and clarity in the Local Plan. The National Audit Office warned last year that councils “are stretched, both in terms of finances and skills, meaning they are often unable to effectively challenge developers” when it comes to site-by-site negotiations, and that this was getting worse.[6]

There has been growing interest in the role of density in supporting agglomeration and through to grow the productivity and prosperity of UK cities. The new “Northern Growth Strategy: Case for change” from the Treasury, MHCLG and the Department for Transport says that “increasing the density of northern cities is essential to unlocking agglomeration benefits and driving productivity growth across northern city regions”.[7] The new draft NPPF rightly intends to support intensification of land uses in urban and suburban areas, and set clear expectations for minimum densities in locations with good transport connectivity

However, the Treasury has also been pushing for weakening the Green Belt and supporting greenfield development around “more productive” cities like London, Cambridge and Oxford, as “greater housing availability increases labour mobility which contributes further to growth, by allowing people to move to high productivity places.[8]However, given the generally fixed level of private housebuilding, freeing up Green Belt land for development may not necessarily result in more net homes if housebuilders switch from more challenging and expensive brownfield urban development sites.

The design and transport sections are also strong but the ability for its recommendations to shape development is weaker than the overall presumption in favour of development. The contribution to meeting unmet need for development is likely to trump requirements on design and sustainable transport.

Climate and nature crises and valued landscapes

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) 2024 Progress Report to Parliament called for Government to “make overall planning policy consistent with Net Zero”. This followed the 2022 Progress Report, where the CCC called for “embedding Net Zero alignment as a core requirement within the planning reforms in the upcoming [Levelling Up and Regeneration] bill and the supporting frameworks and guidance documents”. The new draft NPPF does strengthen planning policy through effectively saying that commercial fossil fuel extraction should be turned down. But much of the wording remains the same as for previous versions of the NPPF, linking in a footnote to the Climate Change Act but not explicitly for what carbon budgets should mean for planning policy and development, and with a lack of supporting guidance.

We are also disappointed about the proposals to weaken local ambition on climate change and nature through restrictions on higher quantitative targets (eg on energy efficiency) and on biodiversity net gain. This further removes planning from local democratic control, with policies imposed top-down from Whitehall alongside the removal of local democratic decision making on controversial development.

More broadly on nature, the Prime Minister has said that “we need to do everything we can to prevent [nature’s] decline and to turn it around, because we’re losing things we may never get back”.[9] The new draft NPPF does do a better job of linking policies to the new local nature recovery strategies – but these are still developing documents of varying quality and impact and again not reflective of doing everything we can to turn around the decline of the natural environment.

Some wording has also been lost from this chapter. The current NPPF says that “planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…protecting and enhancing valued landscapes”. This has been used by those seeking to protect areas that are treasured by local communities but what counts as a “valued” landscape has been a matter of debate. Now this phrase has disappeared with the corresponding NDMP (N2(1d) saying developments should “conserve and enhance existing natural features of visual, historic or nature conservation value (such as established trees and hedgerows) wherever possible”. This would apply to more areas but the debate on meaning is now likely to shift to the meaning of “wherever possible” in this policy. Given that planning decisions weight up all material considerations anyway, the caveat is not necessary.  

Heritage

The shift in the draft NPPF to a more supportive stance for sensitive and sustainable use of heritage buildings and sites could be helpful for conservation (if conservation is defined as the sensitive management of change). But it is important that any concerns from the heritage sector about unintended consequences are listened to.

Sub-regional spatial development strategies

The new draft NPPF is the first chance to formally set out what the new sub-regional spatial development strategies (SDSs) should look like. The new draft policy PM1 on what should be included is not entirely consistent with the Planning and Infrastructure Act which sets out the legal requirements for SDSs, and which explicitly mentions affordable housing and climate mitigation and adaptation, unlike policy PM1. The consultation should be an opportunity to look at how they interact with the rest of the planning system, with more public debate about what they can achieve. There

Sustainable development – the purpose of planning and the debate on planning’s future

Finally, the inclusion of a purpose of planning in the new draft NPPF is welcome, as is that this purpose is defined as being “to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, by managing the use and development of land in the long-term public interest”. However, the rest of the text in the draft NPPF uses “growth” far more than “sustainable development” (48 growth mentions in the NPPF and annexes, compared to eight times for sustainable development). And “growth” is used quite loosely without the need to say what is meant by it – eg if it is about a short-term boost to the economy or long-term foundations for sustainable development or trade-offs and opportunity costs that come from choices to support some activities within the planning system).

We hope the consultation process is used to draw out of some of these bigger issues beyond individual text changes. We also hope it is used to engage widely with communities and the range of stakeholders concerned with the public interest outcomes from the planning system. It’s really important that MHCLG offer opportunities for engagement with all those with an interest in the outcomes from planning, not just those in the “development and planning industry”[10] (not least as most planners now work in the private sector) and that as many organisations as possible respond to the consultation.

The consultation document says that “making the best use of land is a fundamental objective of the planning system”. That finite capacity of land is now under pressure for more and more uses – included farming, housing, flood management, recreation, landscape, heritage conservation, space for the recovery of nature, energy (renewables and energy crops), the management of water supply, transport and other infrastructure and coastal change. All this as it comes under increasing stress from the impacts of climate change and damage to natural capital. It is vital that decisions taken now reflect the need for sustainable development and do not compromise long-term needs for short-term private interests.

---

[1] Note that land within settlement boundaries is not necessarily previously developed (brownfield) land as boundaries can be set beyond that land which is built up. Some exceptions to approval within settlement boundaries are provided. See S3-S4 policies in the new draft NPPF.

[2] The Housing Delivery Test measures net homes delivered in a local authority area against the homes required,

using national statistics and local authority data, showing where delivery has fallen below the local planning authority’s housing requirement over the previous three years.

[3] See draft policy S5, paras 1j and 2

[4] ONS construction output https://bsky.app/profile/noblefrancis.bsky.social/post/3mchbsjyr3c2n

[5] For sites near stations that are put forward by developers, these will need to be located in the top 60 travel to work areas and be within walking distance of “reasonably connected” stations or tram stops (four services per hour, at least two in both directions).

[6] https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/improving-local-areas-through-developer-funding/?nab=0

[7] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-growth-strategy-case-for-change

[8] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/obr-concludes-planning-reforms-will-bring-housebuilding-to-its-highest-level-in-40-years

[9] Interview in National Trust magazine, January 2026

[10] https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1945094/clear-obstacles-yet-clog-governments-reconditioned-planning-system-catriona-riddell

The Government published its new draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) this week. This post sets out the main changes and what we would like to see reflected in the final version, after the consultation on the new text.

We will be working with members to develop our response to all the changes.

The Better Planning Coalition is calling for:

• Decisions to be taken in line with Local Plans. This is particularly important for local ambition to tackle climate change given the role local government and planning can play in reducing emissions from homes and transport, which are the sectors where emissions need to be cut in the coming decade
• No blanket presumption in favour of development – we need to ensure development is good quality, not just a free for all where developers can pick and choose the most profitable sites and relegate the wider public interest
• Planning policy to support biodiversity net gain (BNG). Removing BNG requirements threatens to undermine nature recovery at scale, including progress towards legal Environment Act targets, and commitments in the Government’s Environmental Improvement Plan
• The default yes to development near railway stations (which includes the Green Belt) to be accompanied by a clear definition of “well‑connected,” and require that developments build genuine new communities, not just dormitory settlements. Only then will this policy deliver real walking, cycling and public transport options, support sustainable communities, and protect against car‑dependent sprawl

Some of the key changes are summarised below. Additionally, there’s a welcome change with a clearer purpose of planning statement at the top of the NPPF, recognising that “the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, by managing the use and development of land in the long-term public interest.”

1. A permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development

• Default yes to development within settlements unless ruled out by the NPPF itself (based on its new national decision making policies contained within the document)
• Outside settlements, broadly the same position as now where presumption in favour of development applies where local planning authorities don’t have a five year housing supply or don’t meet 75% on housing delivery test

2. Building homes around stations

• Yes to development within reasonable walking distance plus at least four trains an hour (at least two every hour in one direction), including in Green Belt
• Minimum densities – a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site, or 50 dwellings per hectare where the station or stop is defined as ‘well-connected’

3. Driving urban and suburban densification

• Redevelopment of corner and other low density plots, upward extensions and infill development (including with residential plots as long as it doesn’t double the size of the building or result in loss of more than 50% of the green space)
• Set clear expectations that authorities should set minimum densities in well connected locations, including around train stations and town centres, and support an overall increase in density within settlements.

4. Securing a diverse mix of homes

• Stronger support for rural social and affordable housing, and setting clearer expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people
• Weakening on affordable housing requirements “where local requirements have been met for the mix of affordable homes” in developments for market sale

5. Supporting small and medium sites

• Expanding proposed “medium” category for development to be up to 2.5ha with weaker requirements for this category (also could mean these sites only going to officers for approval rather than council committees under separate earlier consultation on the national scheme of delegation for how planning decisions are made)

6. Streamlining local standards

• Limiting quantitative standards in development plans to only those specific issues where local variation is justified and avoid duplication – this would stop more ambitious local energy efficiency targets

7. Boosting local and regional economies

• Consulting on whether the town centre sequential test should be removed (where retail needs to first look at whether sites in town centres before considering out of town sites)
• Stronger focus on growth in Local Plans including identifying suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics

8. Supporting critical and growth minerals

• Encourage critical raw materials (eg lithium in Cornwall) and restrict coal and other fossil fuels

9. Embedding a vision-led approach to transport

• “We want to further embed the changes made in December 2024, which signalled the importance of moving away from a ‘predict and provide’ approach to transport planning that can create unattractive environments dominated by cars.”

10.Better addressing climate change

• “take a proactive approach to both mitigation and adaptation in relation to climate change, in a way that links to other relevant policies in the draft Framework”

11.Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

• reflect Local Nature Recovery Strategies, recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features
• Although much was made of the inclusion of swift bricks, the actual requirement looks pretty weak on swift bricks and other features for wildlife (we will check back on what was promised in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill debates) – particularly given the direction elsewhere in the NPPF about not adding to/replicating building regulations

12.Taking a more positive approach to the use of heritage assets

• “We want a clearer and more positive approach which can better support suitable heritage related development, replacing the current policies that are difficult to navigate”

We will be producing a fuller briefing on the implications of the changes in the new year.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill today finished it parliamentary journey. So, what can we learn about the state of planning reform from its nine-month passage through parliament? 

The bill is a key part of the Labour government’s programme for government. It was introduced to a background chorus of complaints about bats, newts, blockers and NIMBYs from Number 10 and the Treasury, alongside shock from nature organisations that what they thought would be a relatively positive proposal for developers to fund larger scale nature restoration had turned into a scheme that seemed to allow developers to bypass basic environmental protections.  

CPRE and others in the environment sector were alarmed at the loss of democracy in planning. Ministers in Whitehall will decide what decisions would be made by elected councillors and which would have to go to officers through a new “national scheme of delegation”. This will deprive people of the right to speak as part of local decision-making. Legal requirements for developers to consult on major infrastructure projects before they submit plans will be replaced by vaguer guidance. 

The alarm about these changes overrode any welcome for the positive elements in the bill, such as the reintroduction of strategic planning, more resources for local planning teams and help for development corporations to deliver more public benefits over private landowning interests.

It was disappointing to see Number 10 and the Treasury rhetoric set this up as a test of strength, coupled with their desire to convince the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to increase short-term economic forecasts on the back of more development near big cities.  

There is also a powerful lobby (with questionable taste in hats) in the Labour Party convinced that their simple answer to housing and infrastructure problems (getting the state out of the way and giving free reign to land promoters and developers) is all it takes to solve the housing crisis. 

Added to this, the government has a huge majority and it’s still early in the parliament, with MPs hoping for promotion and mostly keen to avoid open discontent.  

Despite this we have won changes to the bill, most notably on part three which sets up the Nature Restoration Fund and Environmental Delivery Plans which allow developers to avoid their environmental obligations by paying into a fund for larger scale offsite nature projects.  

There are a number of reasons why the government has needed to shift its position.  

Firstly, the public just doesn’t agree that nature and the countryside should be sacrificed for infrastructure and housing. Development is necessary, but anything that smacks of giving developers carte blanche immediately raises concerns.

Public trust in politicians (and developers) is low in contrast to public support for organisations like the National Trust and RSPB. When these organisations mobilise, politicians should be worried. Alongside National Parks and National Landscapes, these landowning charities will also be key to delivering any ambitions the government has in its wider natural environment policy, including targets in the new Environmental Improvement Plan. 

The government also needs to get legislation through the House of Lords where there is no party majority. Although the power of peers is limited, they can delay legislation. And the Lords also contains a wealth of expertise which ministers would be wise to listen to. On the environment, Peers are also well organised with the Peers for the Planet briefing their 160 supporters in the Upper House on the implications of legislation.  

Within the government and its backbenchers, there are also differences of opinion. MHCLG under Angela Rayner tended to avoid the rhetoric seen from Number 10 and the chancellor. Defra ministers also sought to address concerns on the bill. And on the backbenchers, although not always visible to the public, some Labour MPs were active in trying to amend the bill.

The bill has also seen growing coordination across those sectors with an interest in how the planning system can serve the public interest, including through the Better Planning Coalition. The Better Planning Coalition worked closely with other networks like Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Heritage Alliance, and brought together organisations from energy, transport, housing, climate and nature sectors who have concerns about the Bill.  

Finally, there is reality itself. Developers, whether energy companies or housebuilders, will only build if there is a profit at the end of it. Yes, improving the planning process can reduce costs and provide more certainty, but if there is no profit, there is no building. Housing developers in particular will not build more if it threatens to reduce house prices. Economic uncertainty is far more a driver of slowing construction rates than newts or NIMBYs. 

Planning reform is not over. MHCLG want the changes to bed down but Number 10 and the Treasury are looking to push for more changes to make it easier to build nuclear power stations and to scrap parts of the Habitats Directive which legally protects wildlife, setting themselves up for a fight with many of their own backbenchers, members of the House of Lords and mass membership conservation charities.  

It’s a battle we don’t need. We think it’s time to listen to what works and plan development with communities, not against them.  

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill starts its report stage in the House of Lords today.

This is almost the last stage for the Bill to be amended, and the Government tabled 67 amendments to the Bill last week, part of 264 amendments tabled by peers.

Steve Reed, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, said that with these amendments he was “taking the fight directly to the blockers who would rather see Britain stagnate than see spades in the ground”. In truth, the biggest “blocker” addressed in the amendments is a proposal to find a way to stop the Ministry of Defence having a blanket ban on wind farms near its Eskdalemuir seismic array.

Most of the amendments are fairly unproblematic. But we remain worried by two amendments in particular.

One is a new clause to allow Ministers to be able to issue ‘holding directions’ to stop councils refusing planning permission whilst they consider using their ‘call-in’ powers. We believe that this amendment requires sufficient scrutiny and are worried about the lack of time to do so, and lack of detailed justification for it. It might mean no real change at all but there is a risk that a future Secretary of State could perhaps use this power to incentivise certain types of development (for instance fracking) against the wishes of local communities and their elected representatives.

The other new government amendment we’re worried about is amendment number 68 which would mean that Natural England no longer has to respond to requests for support from local councils. Instead, they would publish a statement on how they would prioritise any help they provide, after consultation with ministers.

This change could be far reaching, with Natural England having already seen a reduction in capacity and capability to support local authorities, and with those authorities themselves seeing a reduction in skills and capacity. Almost all (97%) local planning departments reported some planning skills gaps. For those reporting gaps, the most commonly reported ones were in ecology and biodiversity (72%). Prioritisation
risks being used as justification for further cuts at Natural England.

While it is welcome that Natural England will produce a statement on how they will prioritise their support, it is disappointing that the only statutory commitment on this is to consult the Secretary of State and not local authorities or other stakeholders.

We are also concerned this amendment comes before the forthcoming MHCLG consultation on statutory consultees – peers will be asked to approve this without seeing the wider picture of the Government’s reform package for statutory consultees which the statement on prioritisation would sit within.

We’re also backing new amendments from peers. In particular, we’re asking the House of Lords to support:

• Baroness Pinnock’s amendments numbers 11 and 12 on ensuring developers of big national infrastructure engage and consult meaningfully with communities before they submit schemes for approval by Government
• Lord Ravensdale’s amendment 114 on a climate and nature duty for the planning system and those making decisions within it
• Baroness Parminter’s amendment 148 and Baroness Willis’ amendment 130 which provide additional safeguards on the operation of Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs)

You can read more on our view on the key amendments being discussed in our briefing here.

Last week, the House of Commons debated the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The Bill will set up new strategic authorities, taking the model of the Mayor of London and metro-mayors and extending it right across England.

Together with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, this Bill will over time create a very powerful regional layer of authorities covering planning, housing, regeneration and transport. This could be really positive, with these new authorities able to coordinate policy and delivery across different issues, as the Mayor of London can.

But with greater power should come greater responsibility and a governance and legislative framework to match. Wet think the Bill needs to do more to ensure:

• Sufficient scrutiny and accountability of strategic mayors and authorities
• Strategic mayors and authorities address the needs of all communities
• Long-term issues are addressed, such as tackling climate change (including adapting to a changing climate), restoring nature and tackling health inequalities
• The transition to strategic authorities does not overwhelm existing resources still further, given it will take place alongside major local government reorganisation

Richard Hebditch (Better Planning Coalition coordinator) and Naomi Luhde-Thompson (director of coalition member Rights Community Action) will be talking through our concerns at the House of Commons bill committee’s evidence session on the Bill this coming Tuesday (16 September).

You can read our briefing for last week’s debate here.