Month: December 2024

And Now Take A Deep Breath…

Can I share with you that there have been times this year when the pace of announcements in terms of changes to the planning system, when taken with some significant case law to digest, has led me to wonder how I am meant to keep up?

Even in the last month, no sooner than the new National Planning Policy Framework and associated announcements (see my 14 December 2024 blog post I Love It When A National Planning Policy Framework Comes Together) was published, there were pre-Christmas sucker punches in the form of:

I’m not complaining; change is needed. However, now is not the time for deep dives into either topic, other than to say this:

  • The English Devolution white paper is necessary, if complex, reading. Aside from heralding significant local government reorganisation and devolution of power to sub-national levels, for us the most key paragraph 3.5, housing and strategic planning, which concludes with this summary of what is proposed:

 “Box A: Universal system of strategic planning

The government has been clear that it will implement a universal system of strategic planning within the next five years. The model that is proposed is the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS), which is well established in London, the London Plan having been produced and continually reviewed over 20 years.  As set out at 3.5, where Strategic Authorities exist, they will be responsible for producing or agreeing the SDS for their areas.

While it is our ambition for every area of England to be covered by a Strategic Authority, this will be a gradual process. We want to move quickly on strategic planning. This means that where no Strategic Authority is in place or is planned to be in place, the government will take a power through the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill to direct defined groupings of upper-tier county councils, unitary councils, and in some cases Foundation Strategic Authorities to deliver an SDS. Given the intention to have all SDSs produced by Strategic Authorities in due course, the government believes it makes sense in the first instance for these groupings of local authorities to be guided by the sensible geography criteria that have been set out for agreeing new devolution deals (see 2.2.1). The arrangements for agreeing a SDS in areas without a Strategic Authority will follow the same principles as Foundation Strategic Authorities.

In all areas, SDSs will guide development for the Local Planning Authorities in the area, and their local plans will need to be in general conformity with the SDS. However, Local Planning Authorities should not delay development of Local Plans while they await the adoption of an SDS. Relevant Local Plans should continue to be updated or developed alongside the SDS process.

Areas will be able to set a SDS to enable their area to grow, identify the infrastructure that is needed and strategic locations for development. This will include an obligation to apportion an assessment of the housing need of the Strategic Authority across its constituent members. The government intends for that assessment to be the cumulative total of the local housing need of each constituent member, as determined by the Standard Method set out in national planning policy. The apportioned figure set for each constituent member in the SDS will then be the minimum housing requirement for the purposes of each member authority’s next Local Plan. Agreement on the precise distribution of housing need will be agreed through the SDS development process. We also expect that the authorities producing SDSs will be able to encourage the pooling of resources and prioritising of efforts across their constituent authorities to meet housing need.

The content of SDSs will be kept deliberately high level with the dual purpose of preserving detailed policy and site allocations for local planning authorities through their local plans, and for enabling strategic plans to be produced quickly, with the intention of achieving national coverage by the end of this Parliament. The government expects high levels of collaboration to be demonstrated between the Strategic or upper-tier local authorities who are responsible for the SDSs and local planning authorities in the area. There will be a formal duty for responsible authorities to consult district councils on the development of the SDS and a route for district councils to raise concerns with the planning inspectorate.

Across all areas, these arrangements will encourage partnership working and we envisage that there will be genuine opportunities for efficiencies by sharing research, evidence and expertise that can support both the SDS and Local Plans. However, the government is determined to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, SDSs can be concluded and adopted in a reasonable time period. In order to ensure universal coverage of strategic plans, we will legislate for intervention powers, which will enable the government to intervene where plans are not forthcoming to the timeframe. These will include directing on timetables or particular policy content such as the distribution of housing need, through to taking over the preparation of an SDS and adopting it on behalf of strategic planning authorities.”

The intention of achieving national coverage by the end of this Parliament”! The necessary legislative changes will be introduced in part via the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill and partly through the forthcoming English Devolution Bill. I’m pleased to be part of the strategic planning working group chaired by Catriona Riddell and founded by Prior + Partners which is looking to help lay the groundwork to ensure that strategic planning can work effectively. Three half days sessions have been held so far, with two to follow in January.

But there will be plenty more to explore in the white paper beyond the introduction of strategic development strategies. For instance, once the relevant strategic development strategy is in place, Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have equivalent development management powers as the London Mayor, enabling them to intervene with applications of potential strategic importance and will have the power to raise a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy to support the delivery of strategic infrastructure projects.

There are other nuggets hidden away in the text, for instance the proposed replacement of the community “right to bid” for assets of community value by a strengthened “right to buy”.

  • As for the Government’s compulsory purchase compensation proposals, the big news is of course the potential widening of the scope for “no hope value” CPOs, to include acquisitions of “brownfield land in built-up areas, suitable for housing delivery, but with no extant planning permission for residential development” and “land allocated for residential development in an adopted plan but which has not come forward for development.” I speculated as to what might be proposed, and as to the potential implications, in my 21 July 2024 blog post, Hope/No Hope. Although you may prefer just to try my Spotify playlist, A Deep Dive Into Land Value Capture.

Can I end on a more serious note? I started this post wondering how people are meant to keep up. I’ve also been wondering what the best role is for blogs like this. I started writing it for my own benefit – just to join the dots on what is happening week by week , as well as for amusement – I like writing! It’s brilliant that many of you regularly read what I do but I never meant to replace more reliable sources of CPD. Indeed just preparing summaries of documents is not what this blog is about. It hit me hard when I learned that EG (formerly the Estates Gazette) will be closing next year. Those are proper journalists. My gratitude goes out to all of those in the specialist press (particular shout-outs to Planning and the Planner) and also those in the sensible end of mainstream media who are all trained, and paid, to report and analyse on what is happening. I can only provide amateur snapshots. The day job – practising, rather than pontificating on, all this stuff – is always my bigger focus. This is a golden age for planning  and planning law blogs (I’m always in awe of eg Zack, Nicola, Sam Stafford, Philip Barnes, Paul Smith and others – oh no who have I offended by omission?) but we need to keep professional journalism alive too!

Related thought: this week there was a fascinating The Lawyer Podcast: Christmas Special — is someone you know a workaholic? Do listen – it is equally relevant for planners as lawyers! The evening I listened to it I was going to go back to my desk to read one of the documents I mentioned above but, taking in its message, I stopped and deliberately closed my eyes and listened to some music instead. Our professional area of interest is so intertwined with public policy, industry gossip etc that I find it difficult sometimes to work out whether what I am doing is work. Maybe LinkedIn needs that gambling industry warning: “When the Fun Stops, Stop”.

Now stop and have fun! Merry Christmas.

Simon Ricketts, 21 December 2024

I’m dreaming of a white cat Christmas…

I Love It When A National Planning Policy Framework Comes Together

As John “Hannibal” Smith never quite said on The A-Team.

You’ve read the various summaries of the 12 December 2024 NPPF and accompanying announcements.

This is just a set of links to the various documents and a summary of what they tell us as to what is to come.

I give you:

  • The following revised elements of the government’s planning practice guidance:

“Local plan intervention

The Secretary of State has wide-ranging plan-making intervention powers under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. What are the policy criteria that apply to certain intervention decisions?

Decisions on intervention will be taken in line with relevant legal tests and should have regard to plan progress and local development needs. The Secretary of State may also consider other matters that they deem relevant to the case, including sub regional or regional or national development needs. 

These criteria will be used by the Secretary of State to inform decisions on exercising local plan intervention powers set out in sections 27 and 27A of the 2004 Act. They will also be used to inform decisions on local plan and minerals and waste plan intervention taken under sections 15HA and 15HD of the 2004 Act (when amended by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023). They replace the previous criteria in the 2017 Housing White Paper.

Planning authorities will be invited to put forward any exceptional circumstances that they think that the Secretary of State should consider in relation to any plan-making intervention action”

  • Viability – the only revision being to include this new passage:

“Golden Rules for Green Belt development 

Where development takes place on land situated in, or released from, the Green Belt and is subject to the ‘Golden Rules’ set out in paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework, site specific viability assessment should not be undertaken or taken into account for the purpose of reducing developer contributions, including affordable housing. The government intends to review this Viability Guidance and will be considering whether there are circumstances in which site-specific viability assessment may be taken into account, for example, on large sites and Previously Developed Land.

Prior to development plan policies for affordable housing being updated in accordance with paragraph 67 in the National Planning Policy Framework, the amount of affordable housing contributions required are subject to an overall cap of 50% (see paragraph 157 of the NPPF). This 50% cap does not prevent a developer from agreeing to provide affordable housing contributions which exceed the 50% cap, in any particular case.

In paragraph 157, the highest existing affordable housing requirement that would otherwise apply means the highest requirement that the local planning authority could seek in line with its existing policy. For example, (a) if a policy is framed as “up to 30%” then the uplift is applied to 30%; and (b) if a policy is framed as “30% subject to viability” then the uplift should be applied to 30% regardless of viability. The percentage uplift should be applied to the proportion of affordable housing that would otherwise be delivered on site.”

What is still to come? Well, we can glean at least the following from the above:

From the Government’s response document:

  • Whilst of course we are expecting a paper on strategic planning before Christmas, ahead of a Devolution Bill, the response document says this: “Given that government has committed to introduce a universal system of strategic planning, specific wording to address how strategic plans are tested will be considered in a future revision to the National Planning Policy Framework. No changes to the National Planning Policy Framework will be made at this point.”
  • Possible further measures in relation to brownfield development: “Following the launch of the consultation, the government published a paper on ‘Brownfield Passports – Making the Most of Urban Land’. The purpose of the paper is to consider whether there are opportunities to go further in terms of providing faster and more certain routes to permission for urban brownfield land. Although not a formal consultation, the paper is intended to inform further discussions on this issue. The government will take into account the views received in deciding what further action could be taken, with the intention that any changes to policy would be incorporated as part of future planning changes to deliver a set of national policies for decision making.”
  • “We will also be publishing further guidance on Green Belt reviews in January 2025, to ensure a more consistent approach to the identification of grey belt land. This will assist in ensuring inappropriate or high performing land is not identified for release or development and will set out how the performance of Green Belt should be assessed. This guidance will also provide guidance on how to ensure that parcels of land identified for development do not fundamentally undermine the purpose of the wider Green Belt.” This will also include further guidance on the identification of grey belt.
  • “…we intend to publish planning practice guidance on Local Nature Recovery Strategies as soon as possible in January 2025. This will further clarify the role of Local Nature Recovery Strategies when it comes to enhancing the Green Belt and provide greater certainty for stakeholders when it comes to the role of Local Nature Recovery Strategies in the planning decision making process and the plan-making system.”
  • “In the context of our wider reforms to planning policy, we will review the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites next year.”
  • As regards viability assessment in relation to green belt sites: “To make sure that the viability system works to optimise developer contributions, allowing negotiations only where genuinely necessary, the government intends to update viability planning practice guidance. Prior to new viability guidance being published, site specific viability assessment should not be used. As part of the review, government will consider the circumstances in which site specific viability assessment is allowed, with specific reference to large sites and Previously Developed Land.” “Overall, the government still believes there is merit in providing more guidance on benchmark land values. However more work is required to review and then implement the approach. The government is therefore considering the treatment of benchmark land values as part of a review into the viability planning practice guidance in 2025.”
  • “The government is considering making reforms to the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed-up site delivery and lower costs of development delivered through compulsory purchase powers to ensure benefits are delivered for communities. Any government reforms to the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules will be considered as part of the changes to be made in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and will be subject to the consultation process for that Bill.”
  • The government will consider further the approach to exception sites and will also take further steps to encourage the delivery of mixed tenure developments “including setting a site size threshold above which sites must deliver a mix of tenures”. It will consider what further steps it can take to support social and affordable housing as part of its national development management policies promised for next year.
  • In relation to measures to encourage build out of permitted schemes:

“To bring greater transparency and accountability we will go further, and take the steps necessary to implement build out reporting. We will implement the following provisions in the Levelling–up and Regeneration Act 2023, following technical consultation:

Housing developers will be required to formally notify  local planning authorities before they commence development (via development commencement notices) and then report annually to them on their actual housing delivery (via development progress reports). This will ensure that local planning authorities can clearly identify where delays occur, enabling them to work more effectively with developers to tackle the issue.

We will also be bringing forward a measure to provide local planning authorities with the power to decline future planning applications made by developers who fail to build out earlier planning permissions granted on land in the authority’s area at a reasonable rate.”

  • Updated policy guidance will be published on how the ‘vision-led’ approach to transport planning should apply in practice.
  • “After considering the comments received requesting further clarity on terminology and the application of policy for renewable and low carbon energy development, we will shortly be updating planning practice guidance to support these changes in practice.”
  • “The government plans to publish a 12-week consultation on land use early in the New Year. The consultation will inform the development of a Land Use Framework for England, to be published in 2025. This will set out the government’s vision for long-term land use change and focus on the principles for land use decision making and priority areas for policy change.”
  • On energy standards for developments:

“The government will bring forward future standards next year which will set our new homes and buildings on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels and ensures they are fit for a net zero future. We will also keep building regulations under review to ensure that new buildings are built to mitigate the risk of climate change, including through a potential review of Part O, which seeks to mitigate the risk of overheating, and water efficiency options.” “…we intend to update planning practice guidance to assist local authorities in considering carbon emissions within the plan-making process, and to support developers in using carbon accounting to reduce carbon emissions as part of their development proposals.”

  • “We will consider whether further changes are required to manage flood risk, coastal change and sustainable drainage systems provision through the planning system when we consult on further planning reform, including a set of national policies related to decision making.”
  • On planning application fees:

“The government intend to bring forward regulations to implement the increase of householder application fees at the earliest opportunity, subject to Parliamentary procedures. The charge for prior approvals notifications will also be increased at a similar rate to the increase for householder application fees. Through these regulations the government also intend to increase fees for applications to discharge conditions and to introduce a new banded fee structure for S73 applications to reflect different development types. The previous government consulted on this proposal in the consultation ‘An Accelerated Planning System’ in March 2024.

The government have announced their intention to take forward measures in the proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill to introduce a power for local planning authorities to be able to set their own fees. As part of these proposals, we will conduct a comprehensive review of all national fees in order to establish a robust baseline for full cost recovery of fees and to inform a national default fee.”

“The government intends to take forward measures in the proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill to introduce a power for local planning authorities to be able to vary or set their own fees. The government intends to pursue a model that would enable local variation from a national default fee. In varying or setting their own fees, local authorities will not be able to be set fees above costs. The government will provide guidance on fee setting, including what costs can be recovered. Where local planning authorities set their own fees, or vary from a national fee, they will have to consult and publish their schedule of fees. The Secretary of State will have the power to intervene where it is considered fees are excessive or unjustified. The government will continue to monitor the performance of local planning authorities. These measures are all subject to Parliamentary procedures.

The detail of fee localisation will be set out in affirmative regulations and supported by guidance. We will also undertake a benchmarking exercise to establish a robust baseline for full cost recovery of fees and to inform a national default fee. We will consult further on the details of local fee setting model and the benchmarking of costs in due course.”

From the minister’s statement to the House of Commons:

  • “As part of the Government’s plans to deliver much needed affordable homes, Homes England is today launching a new clearing service to help unblock the delivery of section 106 affordable housing. This follows reports in recent months of developers experiencing greater difficulty in selling section 106 affordable homes for which they have planning permission. This new service will help improve the functioning of the market for affordable housing, by supporting buyers and sellers to find each other more effectively – with developers able to share details of unsold section 106 affordable homes for registered providers and local authorities to search. The service aims to facilitate dialogue and partnerships that allow homes to be delivered in line with the originally agreed tenure mix set out in section 106 agreements. It will also provide new data and insight into the section 106 market. The Government is calling on all developers with uncontracted section 106 affordable homes, including small and medium builders, to proactively and pragmatically engage with the new clearing service, and on registered providers and local planning authorities to engage positively as providers and enablers of affordable housing. This is an important step in unlocking these homes and driving delivery.”

(Details of Homes England’s new Section 106 Affordable Housing Clearing Service are on its website). 

  • “As proposed in the summer, we will bring onshore wind back into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects consenting regime, and raise the threshold of projects for both onshore wind and solar to 100MW. We will follow through with prescribing data centres, gigafactories and laboratories as types of business or commercial development capable of being directed into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects consenting regime, depending on the scale of the project.”

That’s all for now, until the next door on MHCLG’s advent calendar opens.

Simon Ricketts, 14 December 2024

Personal views, et cetera

Fundamental (Or Helpful At Least) Alteration To Scope Of Section 73 Applications?

I want to share with you my colleague Susannah Herbert’s summary today of yesterday’s Court of Appeal judgment, Test Valley Borough Council v Fiske . It will form part of our next weekly case update (subscribe for free here).

What follows is all Susicity rather than Simonicity:

The Court of Appeal has clarified the scope of variations that can be made by an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  Lord Justice Holgate’s leading judgment also contains guidance on the Wheatcroft principle as well as the scope of section 96A.

In the High Court, Morris J had held that the use of section 73 was subject to two restrictions and that conditions imposed under section 73 would be unlawful if:

(1) they are inconsistent in a material way with the operative part of the original permission (“restriction 1“);

(2) if they make a “fundamental alteration” of the development permitted by the original permission, reading that permission as a whole (“restriction 2“).

This was in contrast to the case of Armstrong v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 176 (Admin) decided earlier that year which had concluded that the only restriction on the use of section 73 was restriction 1 and that there was no “fundamental alteration” test.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that restriction 1 does apply to section 73 permissions and restriction 1 is the correct test (paragraph 121) and that restriction 2 does not apply (paragraph 126).

Restriction 1

In respect of the scope of restriction 1, paragraph 130 explains that “Restriction (1) is not limited to conditions which fundamentally or substantially alter the operative part of the earlier planning permission. Whilst a de minimis alteration of an operative part may not be ultra vires s.73 (see Lane J in R (Atwill) v New Forest National Park Authority [2023] EWHC 625 (Admin); [2023] PTSR 1471 at [64]), that concept only refers to trifling matters which are ignored by the law. It would not apply, for example, to the alteration of that part of a grant which relates to incidental or ancillary development.”

It was accepted that Finney v Welsh Ministers [2019] EWCA Civ 1868; [2020] PTSR 455 had decided that the operative part of a planning permission granted under s.73 cannot differ from the operative part of an extant permission.  The planning permission that was the subject of this case stated in the operative part that original 2017 full planning permission was granted for “for the above development in accordance with the approved plans listed below” and the section 73 planning permission also used this formulation.  The ”above development” included reference to a substation and the effect of the plans approved pursuant to the section 73 permission was to exclude the substation from the development authorised by the permission.  This therefore breached restriction 1 because this exclusion of the substation means that the conditions of the section 73 permission are inconsistent with the operative part of that consent (paragraph 36).

Extent of the operative part of the permission

In terms of what is to be considered the extent of the operative part of the permission, the judgment also notes (at paragraph 37), that there were various other changes made to the plans that had been referred to in the operative part of the permission which would “At first sight … appear to infringe the [Finney] principle”.  The court did not hear argument on this point so this was not elaborated on.  However, this suggests that where plans are listed or directly referred to in the description of development, such plans would be included in the scope of the operative part of the permission and therefore, it would not be possible to amend them by way of a section 73 application.

Wheatcroft

The judgment also addressed the relevance of the Wheatcroft principle that had been cited in many of the relevant cases.  The judgment explains “The important point here is that the Wheatcroft principle is concerned with the effects of altering a development proposal on the process for assessing and determining the merits of a planning application (or appeal), including procedural effects on parties participating in that process. By contrast, the limits of the power conferred by s.73 are concerned with the relationship between the alteration of conditions in an existing planning permission and the protection of substantive development rights granted by that permission. This is a completely different matter, which is subject to the express language of s.73.”

Restriction 2

In respect of restriction 2, paragraph 126 states that “Provided that a s.73 permission does not alter the operative part of an extant permission, there is nothing in Finney to suggest that conditions imposed under s. 73 may not have the effect of substantially or fundamentally altering the earlier planning permission.”.  The reasoning (paragraph 129) explains that:

(1) Section 73 is limited to applications to develop land without complying with conditions attached to a permission previously granted (s.73(1)). Parliament has empowered a LPA to grant a s.73 permission without any of the conditions to which the original permission was subject. What the planning authority may consider is limited by s.73(2). Parliament has expressly provided for specific situations where the power may not be used (s.73(4) and (5)). But it has not restricted the power to vary or remove conditions previously imposed to non-substantial or non-fundamental alterations;

(2) Parliament has inserted s.96A into the TCPA 1990, allowing for an application to be made to alter both a grant of planning permission and the conditions imposed, subject to a restriction to non-material amendments. In addition, the new s.73B will allow for the grant of a new permission “not substantially different” from an existing permission. If Parliament had wished to prohibit the imposition under s.73 of conditions which make a “fundamental” or “substantial” alteration to a permission without changing the operative part, it would have said so in the legislation;

(3) The power in s.73 is subject to the restriction that it may not result in a permission, the operative part and/or the conditions of which are inconsistent with the operative part of the earlier permission, either in terms of the language used or its effect. No justification has been identified for imposing restriction (2) as an additional limitation on the power of s.73, in the light of the statutory purpose of that provision;

(4) Parliament has provided what it considers to be adequate procedural protections for the consideration of s.73 applications, including consultation and an opportunity for representations to be made;

(5) Although a substantial or fundamental alteration may be sought under s.73, that does not dictate the outcome of the application. The planning authority has ample jurisdiction to determine the planning merits of any such application

This is also helpful in confirming that s96A allows for non-material amendments to both the description of development and the conditions attached to a permission.  Points 4 and 5 are also a helpful reminder that the LPA does have discretion in deciding whether a section 73 application is acceptable in planning terms.

Conclusions

A section 73 permission cannot be granted if it would conflict with the operative part of the permission in a way that is more than de minimis (restriction 1).

There is no test of “fundamental alteration” applicable to section 73, and therefore, provided that the conditions are not in conflict with the operative part of the permission, a section 73 permission may include conditions that allow for a development that would otherwise be considered a fundamental alteration to the original permission.

The operative part of a planning permission may be considered to include plans referred to in that part of the permission which may reduce the scope of potential section 73 applications depending on the specific wording of the permission.

It is also important to note that section 73 applications are still subject to consultation and they should be decided in accordance with the development plan and any material considerations.

The government has not confirmed a timetable for bringing section 73B into force.  This would allow local planning authorities to grant permission under this section if they are satisfied that its effect will not be “substantially different” from that of the existing permission.  Section 73B will allow for amendments to both the operative part of the permission and the conditions which should allow for a more straightforward process in many cases, but subject to that “not substantially different” limitation.

Thanks Susannah. Back to me for a final brief comment: Dear MHCLG, this is all unnecessary complexity and a significant cause of delay in the delivery of development. Yes to bringing section 73B into force but it could be improved upon (whisper the additional complication of “Hillside” for scheme amendments) and the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill would surely be an early opportunity!

Simon Ricketts, 11 December 2024

Personal views, et cetera

James Bond…Or Mission Impossible?

Below each of the Government’s “missions” we now have a set of “measurable milestones” – although if a milestone isn’t measurable isn’t it just a stone?

See the prime minister’s speech at Pinewood Studios (hence his James Bond quip) on 5 December 2024, the Delivering change: our road-map for a mission-led government plan and press statement, PM sets out blueprint for decade of national renewal.

This may be a shallow comment to make upfront but as always (it’s not just this government) the organisational cliché bingo is so disappointing:

  • kickstarting
  • turbo-charge
  • driving through
  • breaking down barriers

I’d be run out of a partners’ meeting if I used such language I suspect.

Missions…

I always liked that intro to Mission Impossible where the hidden tape recorder is found and the recording starts: “Good morning [X], your mission, should you choose to accept it….”

The missions of this government are not easy to keep in mind. There were five at the time of the general election. There are now six:

  • Strong Foundations
  • Kickstarting Economic Growth
  • An NHS Fit for the Future
  • Safer Streets
  • Break Down Barriers to Opportunity
  • Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

From the press statement:

“The milestones for change set out in the plan will track the government’s progress against each of the missions by the end of the parliament, ensuring accountability to the public.”

“These include a new commitment to fast track planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, and the biggest housebuilding and infrastructure push in 50 years to turbocharge economic growth across the country.”

In the plan itself, the “kickstarting economic growth” mission has two milestones:

  • Milestone: Raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom
  • Milestone: Rebuilding Britain

As to the second milestone (I have emboldened the key passages):

“The failure of the planning regime has not just left us without the homes we need. Britain also lacks other key infrastructure that we should be able to rely on such as transport and energy, or gigafactories and data centres needed for industries of the future.

It is slower and more costly to build economic infrastructure in England than other major countries like France and Italy. No new reservoir has been built since 1992.

The time it takes to secure planning permission for major economic infrastructure projects has almost doubled in the last decade to more than 4 years. Our growth mission will change this: fast-tracking infrastructure delivery and home building and enabling businesses to invest.”

“Our milestone

We must make the dream of home ownership a reality for people across the country. New homes must be supported with the right infrastructure, from roads to reservoirs. 

So, through the growth mission, the government has a hugely ambitious milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England this Parliament.

A boost in new homes must deliver for aspiring owners and renters, and provide secure, affordable and quality housing.

We will do this while delivering the infrastructure the country needs – not simply through investment, but by reforming planning rules and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure by the end of this Parliament – more than double the number decided in the previous Parliament.

In building 1.5 million homes, we will measure progress through the number of net additional dwellings built in England over the course of this Parliament.”

“…we will publish ten-year strategies for housing and infrastructure next spring, with clear priorities, plans to deliver, and a pipeline of projects for investors and supply chains. These will reflect our next steps – reform, investment, supply. We will:

  • Reform the planning system so that it is pro-growth and pro-infrastructure. We will publish a new National Planning Policy Framework by the end of 2024 and update all relevant National Policy Statements by next summer. We will make improvements to planning at a local level, modernising planning committees and increasing local planning capacity.
    We will use the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to create a win-win for development and nature; and streamline processes for critical infrastructure.
    For the first time we will strategically join up decisions on housing, business growth and infrastructure at both a national and local level, with the Westminster government’s industrial, housing and infrastructure strategies aligning with the local growth plans and strategic development plans led by mayors. Only by delivering these reforms will we unlock investment and delivery.”
  • “Work in partnership with local leaders, housebuilders and infrastructure developers to deliver investment into these sectors”
  • “Increase supply and deliver the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation”

As far as “measurable milestones” go we have the government doubling down on its 1.5 million new homes commitment; we have this “150 planning decisions on major infrastructure” commitment (NB perhaps don’t assume that only NSIPs count – I refer below to decisions this week in relation to a proposed data centre and to a proposed prison, both under the Town and Country Planning Act); the promised new NPPF (all betting now is on 12 December), and updated “relevant” national policy statements by next summer.

Given that come the next general election the government will undoubtedly be held to account, is it right for it to stick with that 1.5m new homes pledge when it is not likely to be met (albeit that the Conservatives’ pre-election pledge, ridiculously, was even higher at 1.6M)? Is a single target such as this the right approach, or (as may be the case with the milestone adopted in relation to the “NHS fit for the future” mission of reducing average waits for planned hospital care to 18 weeks) might it unhelpfully skew organisational behaviour and focus?

Almost more important than all this was the tone of the prime minister’s speech itself – many people picking up on his colourful references to civil servants “comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline” and to “the nimbys, the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats…the alliance of naysayers”. I’m not sure that he could be more clear as to the direction that this government will be taking in order to deliver on those milestones.

I set out sections of his speech below because it is interesting to see the tone: this is fighting talk.

“There’s no investment in our public services, without difficult decisions. 

No solution to the housing crisis, without approving controversial development… “

“Clearly if we don’t turbocharge housebuilding with reform… 

We’re won’t meet that milestone.”

“I do think too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline.”

“take our planning system… 

A blockage in our economy that is so big…

It obscures an entire future… 

Stops this country building roads, grid connections, laboratories, trainlines, warehouses, windfarms, power stations…

You name it. 

A chokehold on the growth our country needs…

Suffocating the aspirations of working families. 

I mean – you walk around our country…

You look at our infrastructure…  

And it is clear almost immediately…  

That we have long freeloaded off the British genius of the past. 

Because we won’t build a future… 

We haven’t built a reservoir for over 30 years… 

And even the projects we do approve…

Are fought tooth and nail… 

Nail and tooth… 

Until you end up

With the absurd spectacle of a £100m bat tunnel… 

Holding up the country’s single biggest infrastructure project. 

Driving up taxes and the cost of living, beyond belief. 

I tell you now…

This Government will not accept this nonsense anymore. 

We will streamline the approval process in the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill… 

And driving through that reform – I can announce another new target… 

Not just 1.5 million homes…

But also 150 major infrastructure projects… 

A milestone that will triple the number of decisions on national infrastructure compared with the last Parliament.  

And just as important… 

Will send a very clear message…

To the nimbys, the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats… 

The alliance of naysayers… 

The people who say no “Britain can’t do this”… 

We can’t get things done in our country.  

We say to them – you no longer have the upper hand…

Britain says yes.”

Of course, actions speak louder than words. This week we have seen M&S’ Oxford Street project finally approved following the quashing of the previous government’s decision (see my 2 March 2024 blog post M&S Mess 2: “The SoS Appears To Have Become Thoroughly Confused On This Point”); a green belt data centre project allowed on appeal, the appeal having been recovered for the Secretary of State’s decision-making very soon after the July 2024 election, and a prison project approved against the inspector’s recommendations (see my 10 June 2024 blog post New Prisons https://simonicity.com/2024/06/10/new-prisons/ for more general context).

“This tape will now self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck.”

Simon Ricketts, 7 December 2024

Personal views, et cetera