The government’s welcome planning reforms alone won’t deliver Starmer’s ‘building boom’

The planning system has been a major blocker on the delivery of critical infrastructure and new housing, delaying development and increasing costs. Average waits to get consent for nationally significant infrastructure increased from 2.6 to 4.2 years between 2012 and 2023. And currently over half of major infrastructure planning decisions are being challenged in court, compared to a long-term average of 10%, adding an average of 18 months delay and millions to costs. 

So it is welcome that the government has announced proposals for several major changes to planning regulations, in advance of its promised Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now due this Spring.

A new ‘zoning scheme’ will require parliamentary support

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has announced that the Bill will include plans to introduce a ‘zoning scheme’, granting a ‘presumption in favour of building’ in areas with easy access to productive urban centres, like commuter train stations. If implemented quickly, this could help the government accelerate housebuilding in critical areas faster than via previously announced changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (which will take years before higher housing targets are reflected in all local plans).  ¹³ Savills, ‘What the transition arrangements for Local Plans mean for housing delivery’, blog, 20 December 2024, https://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/370757/residential-property/what-the-transition-arrangements-for-local-plans-mean-for-housing-delivery.aspx  It would also allow the government to target housebuilding in the areas that it thinks will be most critical for driving national growth.

This major addition to the government’s planning reforms was not trailed specifically in the Labour manifesto, nor in the King’s Speech briefings setting out what the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would contain, and will test the resolve of Labour MPs. Many will want to back plans for new homes, but the new zones may prove controversial if there is little regional or local say in the type and design of development there. The chancellor’s job will be to persuade MPs that the productivity benefits, nationally and locally, are worth the intervention. 

Reducing legal challenges for significant infrastructure makes sense

The government is right to try to reduce the number of opportunities for legal challenges to new nationally significant infrastructure: down to two for most challenges and only one for those judged ‘totally without merit’. This follows the recommendations of a review initiated under the previous government, which suggested that three opportunities for challenge were excessive and causing delays. 

Likewise, planning applicants are required to consult a long list of statutory consultees along with other bodies. The government has declared a moratorium on new statutory consultees, has proposed changing how consultation is taken into account in planning acceptance requirements, and is considering the introduction of a duty on all parties to engage substantively to resolve disagreements at an earlier stage. Both these changes make sense and could reduce delays quickly: a major win for the government’s infrastructure plans.

Streamlining environment assessments and mitigations would be welcome

Currently, developers must complete separate environmental assessments for each project, which can run to tens of thousands of pages (44,000 for Sizewell C), and sometimes duplicate assessments already conducted by the government or other projects. It is then their responsibility to come up with actions to mitigate potential harms, which are isolated from actions taken as part of other projects. Increasing numbers of regulations – some of which conflict or duplicate each other or vary across the country – have made it more complex and costly for developers – especially SMEs – to ensure compliance. Environmental obligations introduced without warning or appropriate compliance mechanisms – such as ‘nutrient neutrality’ – have also created major blocks on building.  ¹⁴ Metcalfe S, From the ground up: how the government can build more homes, Institute for Government, p. 46-47.  

The government is now proposing that a delivery body (Natural England is floated as a possibility) instead produces higher-level ‘Delivery Plans’, determining standardised levels of environmental mitigation needed for certain types and scales of development in a specific catchment area. Developers will then pay a single charge into a ‘Nature Restoration Fund’, which the delivery body will use to fund appropriate mitigations, including by pooling contributions from multiple developers to fund larger strategic mitigations. 

An effective delivery body, properly resourced, could reduce duplication, costs and uncertainty, ensuring that appropriate environmental protections are in place while streamlining the process for developers. But an ineffective one could fail to reduce costs and delays, or even increase them. To avoid major opposition, the delivery body will need to be seen to act in an evidence-based way that aligns with the government’s stated aim to deliver a ‘win-win’ for nature and development. A body like Natural England – which some developers currently see as a ‘blocker’ to building – will need to show that it can act in an even-handed way.

Delivering Starmer’s ‘building boom’ needs more than planning reform

Reforms to the planning system are undoubtedly needed to bring down costs and speed up delivery, and the government has not shied away from making major changes.  ¹⁵ https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/rachel-reeves-planning-reform  

But even streamlining planning rules will not deliver the government’s promised 150 new major projects and 1.5 million homes this parliament. Many other factors, from interest rates and market incentives to the availability of the skilled workforce and materials needed, are also critical. 

The government’s new ‘10 Year Infrastructure Working Paper’ sets out some potential interventions to support supply chains, mostly focused on increasing certainty, and also promises a ‘Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy’. Addressing one major building ‘blocker’ – the planning system – is an important and positive first step. But getting interventions in skills and supply chains right is also crucial to delivering on the government’s ambitious housing and energy targets.  ¹⁶ https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/labour-housing-ambitions