Can Starmer get Britain building?

By Antony Morrison – Associate Partner – Campaigns

‘At our best when at our boldest’. This was Tony Blair’s rallying cry to party members at Labour’s 2002 conference.

Twenty-three years on, this mantra seems to guide Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer as they steer through Parliament some of the biggest reforms in decades to planning and local government.

The objective is clear: more homes, more infrastructure, more growth, more quickly.

But what will the changes mean in practice, will they achieve their aim, and do they go far enough – or even too far?

A builders’ charter?

Even before the publication of the Planning Bill, the government set out ambitious plans to significantly increase local house-building targets – with new Unitary and Mayoral Combined Authorities tasked with taking a more strategic approach to local development.

Now, the Planning & Infrastructure Bill goes even further – with three big changes that will most directly impact local communities and councils:

The creation of a National Scheme of Delegation.

This change will minimise the number of planning applications determined by local councillors at Planning Committees, with more decisions instead ‘delegated’ to planning officers.

This means that applications which conform to Local Plans and Spatial Strategies (or in the absence of these the NPPF), and which have undertaken statutory consultation, should – in most cases – automatically get permission.

Greater emphasis on regional Spatial Strategies.

Regional Mayors and strategic authorities will now wield significant powers over the creation of strategic development plans for their areas. Councils must also ensure their Local Plans conform with these spatial strategies.

In effect, this means the biggest decisions taken by local politicians will now be during the creation of Spatial Strategies and Local Plans – which will determine the location and type of development in their area – rather than at the Planning Committee stage.

Streamlined infrastructure approvals.

For critical infrastructure, the Bill aims to streamline both the consultation and approval process. Meaning consultation reports can be shorter, more concise responses to issues raised – and removing initial paper stage for Judicial Reviews of nationally important infrastructure projects.

For the first time, communities will be incentivised to support local energy infrastructure – with discounts on their power bills to the tune of up to £2,500 over ten years.

Beyond this, the Bill contains wider powers for Development Corporations to support the building of a new generation of New Towns, and measures to make Compulsory Purchase more locally-delegated and affordable.

Together the government hopes these changes will deliver a step-change in the pace and scale of new development across the country – helping achieve their pledge of 1.5 million new homes and 95% clean energy.

Striking the right balance?

Many of these changes will prove highly controversial with councils and communities required to take on more development. But do they strike the right balance between democratic accountability and the need to get Britain building?

Critics argue that the scope for local residents and councillors to influence and determine planning applications will be significantly reduced – with local authorities given little choice but to accommodate nationally-imposed targets. 

But in many ways that’s the point. 

The government has not been shy about its desire to prevent ‘NIMBYs’ from blocking so many developments. 

Instead, the government argues that the best route for communities to engage is through the Local Plan process – with the national scheme of delegation providing greater clarity over which applications are determined by Committee.

Will the reforms deliver?

There’s little doubt these reforms are bold. But if the government is to achieve its ambitions, they’re only one piece of the puzzle – and there remain significant obstacles to delivery:

A difficult starting point:

A dramatic increase in annual completions will be needed to deliver 1.5 million new homes this Parliament.

The National House Building Council estimates 124,144 new homes were built in 2024 – a 7% drop compared to 2023 – and only 104,232 new permissions granted.

This will need to rapidly pick-up to at least 370,000 new homes a year if the government is to get anywhere near reaching its target.

A lack of skills:

There remains a significant skills shortage in the construction industry.

Industry leaders estimate a 30% increase in the construction workforce will be needed – with tens of thousands more bricklayers, groundworkers, carpenters, electricians, roofers, plumbers and plasterers, alongside hundreds more specialist engineers.

Even with extra investment in recruitment and training by government and industry, these are not skills which can be taught overnight.

A need for investment:

It is yet to be seen whether the government is going to invest the sums needed to kickstart a house-building revolution.

Whilst much of the funding will come from the private sector, a new generation of New Towns – and accompanying infrastructure – will require significant direct government investment.

All eyes will therefore be on Rachel Reeves to see what capital investment is allocated to housing and transport alongside the Spring Statement and Spending Review.

Legal wrangles:

For some, the planning reforms still don’t go far enough.

Whilst the Bill removes one part of the Judicial Review processes, those pushing for a bigger step-change in infrastructure and development believe a wider review and reigning-in of JR powers are needed.

At the same time, some councils forced to take a large increase in housing might seek to challenge the rationality and deliverability of the targets imposed by government.

In all, nobody can doubt the government’s intent to take a bold approach to planning reforms. 

Politically, this comes with both opportunities and risks.

It risks the ire of voters forced to take large amounts of new development in their local communities.

Those who have spent years fighting to defend local green spaces and protect the character of their towns and villages are unlikely to simply roll-over – as MPs across the country are bound to find out.

But the government calculates that the prize of new infrastructure, more housing and economic growth will be worth the pain. With a generation of working-age families giving credit to the government for delivering better transport and more affordable housing.

Whether any of this can be built quickly enough to make a noticeable difference before the next election, the jury – or perhaps Judicial Review – is still out.