The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has been passed – what have we learnt from its passage through Parliament
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.