Jeremy's Blog 19th July 2024: The New Development Policies

This article by Jeremy Moody first appeared in the CAAV e-Briefing of 18th July 2024

For a government that has not been in office for quite a fortnight, it has set out much of its stall on development control, housing and infrastructure for England, put at the heart of its economic growth agenda. Yesterday's King's Speech, with supporting papers, outlined the initial legislative programme with a combination of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English Devolution Bill. This builds on the legislation of the previous government, notably the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.

Development control would be moved to combined councils led by mayors given housing targets on pain of having policies imposed. Once sites are allocated, public comments could cover operational points, not the principle of development. Procedures are to be streamlined.

Similarly, the processes for significant infrastructure, now likely to include data centres, laboratories and prisons, are to be accelerated for ministerial decision. Charles Banner KC reported on this to the previous government just before the election – his report, not yet published, may inform this.

The breach in market value made by the 2023 Act looks likely to be widened, whether still for limited purposes or to influence negotiations. With our varied housing markets, the risks are of some development being unattractive. Market value was legislated for in 1959 to reverse the problems of a two tier development land market created by the shadow of compulsory powers.

But that is only half the agenda. Especially for planning, non-legislative actions, already underway, are at least as important, especially for a government that will soon find how short a five year Parliament is for real change. Reimposed housing targets, an amended NPPF, revised guidance for councils to look at development in green belts (when sensible development will need more than grey belt areas which might often be more biodiverse) and an open door for onshore wind are already out or in train. A working group on new town sites is expected soon. Guidance could press harder on residual land values by insisting more firmly on affordable housing or other points.

Ministers are becoming more active, expecting to call in more applications and pressing on four major stalled housing plans. On Friday, we had the ministerial decisions approving three large solar farms, covering 6,500 acres (10 square miles) on the basis of pre-existing policies – with more to come. The urgency and scale of quadrupling our renewable energy generation, as part of answering climate change, was pre-eminent, noting it would naturally use land and change landscapes. A parallel might be seen with the land in similar areas put under concrete for airfields when the nation needed both them and food in 1940.

But we are a nation that expects voices to be heard. The use of the late 1940s planning and compulsory purchase legislation, when the gentleman in Whitehall said he knew best, created a reaction. The Crichel Down affair prompted the 1957 Franks Report on Tribunals and Inquiries that brought the administrative appeals structure we recognise, including planning appeals.

Since then, judicial review has exploded as a further hurdle, used and abused to challenge process (but often really principle). A salutary tale is told in this webnote on the six appeals concerning the Friston sub-station, showing the expense and effort that people are willing to commit to this – here fruitlessly, save for the cost and delay imposed on the project. Backbenchers are still likely to oppose development in their areas. Re-bottling the genie may be hard but an acid test for the government's resolution is how far it is willing to contain the judicial reviews that might otherwise be as frustrating in the future as in the past.

Beyond that, how might the government manage matters where anti-development mayors are elected or mayors come to be seen as major-generals once were. More broadly, devolution may entrench local interests, not drive productivity. How is a restless public persuaded to accept change when we may be 5 million houses light and adrift on climate change with all the consequences of both.

Keir Starmer told October's Labour conference both that “politics should tread lightly on people’s lives” and “our restrictive planning system … we must bulldoze through it” – reconciling those aims will be key to managing such a flagship policy in a democracy.