Despite planning reforms aimed at delivering 1.5 million homes by 2029, challenges persist. Lawrence Turner of Boyer explores the impact of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ recent announcements.
In her high profile January speech the Chancellor Rachel Reeves outlined plans to go ‘further and faster’ to deliver the Government’s Plan for Change. Her announcement included a commitment to several high profile schemes including the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor, the redevelopment of Old Trafford in Manchester, and an increase of housing around transport hubs.
At Boyer, our first reaction was to welcome the Government’s latest announcement on planning reforms and its commitment to introducing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill this spring. But we are all too aware that this is no mean feat: as the Home Builders Federation (HBF) recently reported, new build completions saw a “significant decline,” to just 198,610 in 2024, illustrating a substantial gap between the current situation and the Government’s ambitions to enable 1.5 million new homes by mid-2029.
We support the promotion of new homes near to transport hubs, forming the most sustainable patterns of development. We agree that planning applications for housing in such sustainable locations should receive a default ‘yes’ response.
The consequences of change
It is worth considering that the means necessary to considerably increase housing delivery must reflect the immensity of the challenge. And there’s lots to learn from the past in this respect: many politicians – Liz Truss springs to mind – refer to ‘cutting red tape’ to deliver much-needed change. But it is important to consider why the red tape exists – what it is intended to protect, and how the system will function in its absence?
For example, in introducing ‘devolution’ to push ‘strategic’ planning decisions up a tier, how will local communities react? In using Simplified Planning Zones to fast-track planning applications for data centres and associated infrastructure, will the necessary scrutiny be lost?
How will the reform be received at the local level?
While we recognise that meeting the Government’s ambitious housebuilding pledge necessitates further planning reform to tackle the housing crisis, this reform also needs to be driven at a local level. It is, therefore important that the Government critically assesses the implications of these reforms on local authority responses to housing delivery.
Given the dynamics of local politics, it is inevitable that some local authorities may simply project an image of co-operation with the Government’s objectives; and a closer examination may reveal potential resistance at the planning committee level. Particularly concerning is the likelihood that some planning committees may oppose developments that contradict their long-held positions on green belt release, or the status quo around the number of homes councillors believe is politically acceptable in their towns and cities. Or, that some authorities leverage neighbourhood planning as a political tool to undermine housing delivery, limiting housing supply further.
How will locals respond to centralised decision-making?
In such scenarios, it is plausible that the Government will need to intervene and ‘call in’ applications, favouring high-profile schemes to underscore the principle that housing needs must prevail over local opposition. This shift away from appeasing NIMBYs, which was prevalent in the previous administration, could prompt planning committees to reconsider their stances on development. Changing the mindset of some local authorities is fundamental to the creation of a positive planning environment that provides developers with greater certainty in the planning system, encouraging increased investment and growth for our towns and cities.
Devolution – or not?
Both the English Devolution Bill and future Planning and Infrastructure Bill promise further devolution. We understand that responsibility for strategic planning is to be removed from a local level and bestowed at a higher (regional) level. But is this transfer of power upwards actually devolution? Likewise, the introduction of a suite of National Development Management Policies which local authorities will be required to adhere to, limiting the opportunity to address these issues on a local level – or, is it a sacrifice worth making, essential to speed up decision-making and deliver homes more quickly?
Additionally, the geographical coverage of devolution appears unclear, and potentially chaotic. The last Labour Government put in place Regional Spatial Strategies to oversee strategic planning, ensuring that coverage was universal and plan-making was undertaken at a regional level. The current proposal for devolution is a sub-regional approach, which seems an over-concession to local politics. Relying on local authorities to decide amongst themselves whether and how they form combined mayoral authorities does not represent an objective start to plan-making. This will inevitably lead to situations where local politics trump proper strategic planning, leading to situations where some local authorities fall between two regional bodies, while retaining their strategic planning powers at a local authority level. Clarification is urgently required on this if we are to restore a degree of certainty to local planning authorities, investors and developers.
Devolution (defined by the Government as ‘decision making moved closer to the citizen’) would, ironically, have a greater presence in those local authorities who had retained the status quo, as opposed to those whose planning powers were transferred to a higher level.
This patchwork approach to devolution may lead to a peculiar disparity in planning powers. Currently, the London Combined Authority possesses these powers, while Manchester, for example, is in the process of acquiring them. Meanwhile, other devolved assemblies will, initially at least, have less autonomy over planning matters. The question remains: will these powers reside at the national, or local level?
Challenges to the development pipeline remain
However, even with further planning reforms, the construction industry faces formidable challenges; current workforce shortages in the construction industry pose significant barriers to the Government’s plan to turbocharge house building. The Government has promised funding for 300 additional planners. Irrespective of the fact that this would allow for less than 0.5 planners per local authority – and considerably less so if devolved bodies also require strategic planning expertise – it is not only planners that are required to enable development to take place.
At a local authority level alone, planning positively requires input from conservation officers, ecology officers, highways to name a few. Beyond planning, development requires a huge range of skills, from construction workers to sales and marketing. In many circumstances, government support will be needed to ensure that the necessary skills are available.
To effectively address the housing crisis, it is therefore imperative that the details of the forthcoming planning reforms include measures to increase capacity and skills within supply chains and supporting industries.
Uncertainty remains
Despite many positives, the change in government has created considerable uncertainty in planning and development. Local authorities are still grappling with the transitional arrangements of the NPPF and how best to progress their local plans. Developers, although hopeful about increased planning success, face uncertainty in implementing their planning permissions, grappling with challenges such as financial viability and a limited supply chain.
If the Government can bring local authorities and local people with them, we are optimistic that these reforms will not only address the urgent housing crisis but also elevate the standard of living for local communities. However, there are some significant hurdles in the path to achieving this success.
Lawrence Turner is director of Boyer