March 2025 saw the UK government introduce the Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025. Part of the government’s ambitious growth agenda, the Bill’s aim is to expedite the delivery of 1.5 million homes and fast-track 150 major infrastructure planning decisions by the end of the current parliamentary term.
Key Objectives
The government’s guide to the Bill sets out its five overarching objectives as:
- Delivering a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure.
- Introducing a more strategic approach to nature recovery.
- Improving certainty and decision-making in the planning system.
- Unlocking land and securing public value for large scale investment.
- Introducing effective new mechanisms for cross boundary strategic planning.
So how will the above objectives be achieved?
Planning Fee Increases
The industry has, for a while, been calling for planning fees to be ringfenced for delivering planning services, which has not been the case in the past when planning fees have been increased. The new Bill removes the default position of fees being set nationally and allows local authorities to set their own planning fees.
What stops those authorities from profiteering in this new arrangement? The Bill requires the new fees to be set no higher than the cost of processing the application i.e. ensuring cost recovery rather than creating additional income. Safeguards will allow the Secretary of State to direct a review of the level of fees a local authority has set if they are felt to be inappropriate.
Will higher fees result in better service? Many developers I have spoken to in recent years have indicated they are not averse to paying higher fees but only if they receive a better service. The last few fee increases have not seen an improved delivery of planning services. The Bill will ensure the increased planning fees are ringfenced and reinvested into delivering planning services. They cannot be diverted to support a council’s other struggling service areas.
Planning Committee Reform
Those submitting planning applications on land with the benefit of an allocation in the local plan, have been exceedingly disgruntled at being dragged to planning committee and then refused permission against officer recommendation. The sites with the benefit of an allocation will have already been considered suitable for development as part of the local plan process and that principle should not be reconsidered at permission stage. Many of these decisions are subsequently overturned by an Inspector at appeal. This inevitably creates substantial delay and wasted costs for both developer and the local authority purse. This is an issue the government’s planning committee reforms are designed to overcome.
So how does the Bill propose to resolve this issue? A national scheme of delegation. This scheme will set out which decisions will go to officers to decide, and which will go to planning committee. It is understood that those applications which are clearly in accordance with a local plan, regardless of scale, will be decided by officers, and any speculative applications not considered by the local plan process may be considered by committee.
Some are concerned that this is contrary to local democracy and the ability of councillors to speak on behalf of their constituents. The counter argument is that councillors and locals who want to have their say should engage with their local plan process, which is when sites and their suitability for development are considered. Therefore, once allocated, no one should be surprised when they come forward for development as per the local plan. Planning officers can then deal with these applications which should, in turn, help to speed up the decision process. Unallocated sites which have not had the level of local plan scrutiny can then be discussed at committee.
I recently observed my own local authority conduct a council meeting in which they were debating and voting on whether to consult on the preferred site options. There was substantial public interest with the gallery full and protests being held outside. The level of misunderstanding and mistrust of the planning process, and in particular the local plan process, was clear from the debate, both at the meeting and subsequently on social media. In my view, and alongside these reforms, more work needs to be done educating and informing both the public and councillors to allow meaningful engagement at the local plan stage of the process.
The Bill does go some way to address this point by proposing mandatory training for all planning committee members. Currently there is no statutory requirement for new planning committee members to receive training. Although most local authorities do provide some training, the approach to training is not uniform leading to an inconsistency in knowledge. If enacted, the Bill will require planning committee members to hold a valid certificate evidencing their training to sit on the committee.
The Bill also recommends smaller, more targeted committees and legislation will be brought forward to regulate their size and composition. Some lawyers may be disappointed to hear, hoping it would present another area of challenge, non compliance with the new training, composition and size requirements will not render a decision invalid.
Reforms to the NSIP (‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’) Process
The government has identified that failure to build sufficient critical infrastructure has constrained economic growth and undermined the country’s energy security. The consenting period for such projects has more than doubled in recent years and judicial review challenges have spiked to just shy of 60% after a long-term average of 10%. The Bill aims to make the process of delivering these projects quicker and easier.
How will the Bill do this?
- Consultation requirements for NSIPs will be streamlined.
- National Policy Statements are to be kept up to date. They are to be reviewed every five years to keep up to speed with developments in technology and changes to government policy.
- Opportunities for judicial review challenges are to be reduced. The paper permission stage and the right of appeal for cases deemed totally without merit will be removed. There is already scepticism about whether these reforms go far enough particularly when the percentage of all judicial review challenges (not just planning) deemed totally without merit are so low.
- Flexibility on consenting routes. The Secretary of State will be able to direct projects out of the NSIP regime if it would be better suited to consent via an alternative route.
In relation to connecting energy projects to the grid, the Bill proposes a change to the first come first served connection process to a first ready, first served system. This will mean that more viable projects, which are ready to be connected, are not held up by projects that are not ready.
In an effort to engage communities most affected by new network infrastructure, the Bill proposes a discount on bills for those living closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure. The current thinking is to offer a discount of £2,500 over 10 years for those living 500m from the new infrastructure. Whether this is truly an incentive remains to be seen.
Introduction of a Nature Restoration Fund
Very often the conflict between nature and development has led to both stalling. The government wants to stop environmental protections being seen as a barrier to development by introducing a Nature Restoration Fund managed by Natural England (‘NE’). This fund will be used on strategic interventions to provide greater benefit for nature than the current bespoke mitigation approach. It is badged as going beyond simply offsetting harm and unlocking the positive impacts development can have on driving nature recovery.
It is believed the fund will be structured in a similar way to the Community Infrastructure Levy which may dismay developers given the intricacies of that system. However, its aim is to simplify matters for developers in terms of offsetting environmental impacts whilst producing real benefits for nature.
This fund will support Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) drawn up by NE, which are designed to deliver large scale mitigation projects such as nutrient neutrality and the specific environmental impact a particular development will have. Payment of the levy into the Fund will discharge a developer’s obligation, with the onus on NE to deliver the mitigation.
Whether or not these EDPs will be cost-effective for both nature and developers remain to be seen once we have more detail.
CPO (‘Compulsory Purchase Order’) Reforms
The Bill seeks to reform the CPO process by:
- Allowing statutory notices to be delivered electronically.
- Simplify information to be included in newspaper notices.
- Provide for more delegation of decisions.
- Quicker vesting of land.
- Changes to loss payments.
The Bill aims to ensure compensation paid to landowners for land acquired compulsorily is fair and not excessive, an objective helped in part by removing hope value where CPO powers are used to deliver schemes that have a compelling case in the public interest (i.e. affordable housing, regeneration, or educational or health-related needs).
Spatial Development Strategies
The Bill introduces Spatial Development Strategies (‘SDS’), and many will be forgiven for thinking this harks back to the good old times of regional planning. While slightly before my time, many in the industry talk fondly of the regional planning times but they were considered by the government to cover too large an area. So, what will SDSs offer?
The government has stated we need to plan for growth on a larger scale. SDSs are proposed to facilitate cross boundary working to address development needs whether that be housing or infrastructure. Although covering a wider area, SDSs will slot into the hierarchy of plans above local plans which will themselves need to accord with the higher ranking SDS. Whilst the SDS may be able to stipulate how much development land is needed and its general distribution, it cannot specify specific sites for development. This will remain the remit of the relevant local plan.
Additional regulatory detail should reveal further information of what the SDSs will include. They will work in a similar way to - and have been modelled on - the current position in London where each authority’s local plan must conform with the wider London Plan.
Conclusion
There are many more reforms proposed by the Bill not all have been covered here. Although in the main the reaction to the Bill has been positive in its efforts to streamline and reduce regulatory burden, not everyone has heralded it as a new dawn. Environmental advocates have expressed concerns over the perceived compromises made to environmental protections.
Key messages from this Bill are speed, consistency and certainty – all points that the industry has been shouting about for some time. A positive turning point for the planning system? Proof is in the pudding, so they say. The Bill still has a number of stages to complete before it is enacted but early indications are positive. As always, the devil is in the detail. Even if enacted, there will be further regulation that needs to come forward to put the flesh on the bones.
The materials on this website are provided for general information purposes only, and do not provide definitive advice. They do not amount to legal or other professional advice and so you should not rely on any information contained on this website as if it were such advice.
Wright Hassall does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on any information published on this site. Definitive advice can only be given with full knowledge of all relevant facts. If you need such advice please contact a member of our professional staff.
The information published across our Knowledge Base is correct at the time of going to press.
