Govt bolsters planning bill to tackle ‘blockers’

CPRE so close to getting that the only thing they conserve is managed decline.

Democracy is well and truly dead in this country since Labour took office. The next 3 years can’t come quick enough to get Reed and co. booted out.

Will Natural England still be allowed to weigh in on application that are not ‘high profile’?

Yes. You can see more details regarding this amendment in particular on page 29 of the link to the full amendment proposals in the story.

October 14, 2025 at 12:11 pm

By Julia Hatmaker

Not sure if Phil Saunders thinks Reform are going to be any more democratic, given that people appear to think they’re the governmen-elect. I can assure you they won’t be, Phil. Although planning is not a democratic process anyway – it is a quasi-judicial one.

The problem with…

“Every new house blocked deprives a family of a home. Every infrastructure project that gets delayed blocks someone from a much-needed job.”

… is that in many cases the reason why the new house is blocked is because its acceptability is dependent upon infrastructure which there is no mechanism or finance to deliver. If the government genuinely want to deliver the homes they say they do – which wouldn’t be a bad thing – then they need to find a way of guaranteeing the supporting infrastructure is provided.

Whilst planning isn’t and never should be a public referendum, you can’t blame local councils for following the interests of their residents whose experience over the last 50 years has been that you get the houses but all too often without the critical infrastructure required to support it, resulting (admittedly alongside other factors) in the congestion that also stymies economic growth, in the difficulties faced by many families getting their kids into a local school, in the impossibility of getting a GP appointment etc. etc.

It would be interesting to see how many of the actual planning applications for housing were approved, the vast majority of applications 90% are for other things not new houses!!
It’s easy to say 9 in 10 applications are approved when a big percentage are just formalities

Tell that to Liverpool Labour councillors who love blocking anything that will grow city.

The bill , will allow the developers to do what they do best, that is to build our much needed housing.

We don’t need more homes in many places just less people.

Gummed up by the endless tinkering of the planning system which introduces an ever increasing list of requirements i.e BNG which puts pressure on Council’s dwindling planning resources.

Phil Saunders, we have a massive housing shortage, and over the last 14 years much needed infrastructure projects have been starved of cash and delayed due to the outdated planning system. These changes are a step in the right direction which no political party, apart from maybe the Greens, will overturn.

@Nostradarmus If immigration is reduced under Reform, the main driver of housing demand will naturally ease. That means there’s less justification for large-scale housebuilding. Instead of expanding endlessly, the priority should shift toward improving existing homes, regenerating empty properties, and protecting our local environments. If Reform is truly committed to preserving everything “British,” then our countryside should be no exception..

Anonymous 12.46pm – you talk about the potential negative impact of new housing on GPs and schools but in many cases an influx of new housing and families have prevented schools from closing or led to GP surgeries opening or expanding and increased footfall for local shops.

Let’s have more mayors to improve local democracy.
Let’s take away Planning Authority powers to make sure central govt has its way.

I wonder if the new planning laws will allow travellers to park up wherever they want as well.

@October 14, 2025 at 4:20 pm
By Phil Saunders

The majority of net immigration is international students.

To reduce migration you would probably do a mixture of things like retraining existing employers, using technology, etc.

Maybe Phil Saunders might want to recognise that GM has spent the last 30 years building an economic model that means it’s now the fastest growing city region in the UK. Most of us think that’s good and want to it keep that position, but it’s going to keep the demand for housing high irrespective of immigration.

Therein lie two issues, Phil Saunders. Reform are not committed to that and if you think they are, I have a bridge available And I’d like to see your evidence that immigration is the main driver for housing. Please make sure you reference chronic under delivery of housing over several decades and demographic changes in this country beyond migration numbers.

None of which, in any event, relates to your comment about democracy.

Phil Saunders – it’s a Reform myth that the housing crisis is because of immigration. Changes in family dynamics are mainly responsible such as more single person households, more family breakups and older people living longer and occupying oversized family homes. Please don’t fall for the nonsense from politicians who will say anything to get elected.

Let me repeat it: democracy is dead in all but name. The people don’t want endless housing estates forced upon them — and the party that finally listens will win the next general election.

The planning system is far too democratic. We don’t take a popular vote to decide how best to treat illnesses, or consult the public endlessly on strategies to improve education, so why do we treat every opinion as equally valid when it comes to town planning? There’s a raft of experts, trained and accredited, who are accountable to chartering bodies. Their views/submission are tested by qualified local authority experts in planning departments, and then there is a further tier of checks and balances in the Planning Inspectorate. We need a government that will take strong decisive action to grow the economy, and unlocking a way to deliver swifter planning decisions is key to that.

When it comes to new housing and determining how many homes are needed, local communities and councils are best placed to make those decisions—not Whitehall. Phil Saunders is correct, democracy is effectively dead under this government.

So local green spaces will disappear under concrete and tarmac!! People who query projects are not nimbys, we just care about our local areas and communities, and labour claim to be the party for the people!!!!!!

Yawn, yawn, another day, another soundbite. When will we see action instead of empty rhetoric? It’s frustrating to watch someone with just two years in a housing-related role suddenly positioned as an expert, claiming to “bolster the system.” I spent 40 years working within that very system, and I’ve seen first-hand how each new layer of red tape and tinkering only made things slower and more complex.

If policymakers are serious about reform, they should be required to publish an impact statement alongside every announcement. That means clearly identifying what changes are being made, how success will be measured, and when we can expect results. Without that, it’s just noise.

The consultation process is another mess. There are too many voices—many with narrow, niche agendas—given equal weight to those with real, system-wide impact. Government-funded quangos and “wonk groups,” especially in environmental policy, often dominate the conversation without accountability or a holistic view of the housing challenge.

We don’t need more slogans. We need clarity, accountability, and fewer cooks in the kitchen.

Everything in this country is too democratic

@Anon 1:54pm “Everything in this country is too democratic” Really??? If want to live in a communist state then you’ve got the right government in charge.

You know Reformists are in the comments when they start describing the current government as communist. Freedom of speech is vital. It allows you to see people for what they are and what they know.

You’ve lost my vote, Steve Reed — and many others too. Calling people who protect nature “blockers” is divisive and undemocratic. Attacking our landscapes and farmlands is vandalism. The next GE will come sooner than you think.

They want to bury the past and people’s connection to it… No rolling green hills will be left if they keep on and on and on.. yes housing is needed.. but there’s more population than work at the moment… Farming needs to be able to employ more workers locally.. and with supermarket stranglehold on food prices.. not likely.. and the supermarkets don’t want to hire people either.

Well you’ve gained my vote Steve. Clearly the environment, sites of significant environmental/conservation interest and green belt will continue to be protected. What the government are doing is stripping away NIMBY powers to stand in the way of any development, anywhere. We need more homes, we need economic growth – it’s time we pushed these time-wasters out of the way to improve people’s lives and our towns and cities.

Agree with the comment that what we need is less people and better and affordable housing for those we already have. I used to naively think that’s what socialism was all about. People have well and truly woken up to the truth now. Sold down the river by the same old arguments for decades. It is changing though and you can tell they really don’t like the idea because they can’t control it.

Looking at some of the comments on here, the only people who will be backing Labour in next GE will be the developers. People power will win through in the end and Labour will forever regret selling off our green and pleasant land.

Jez, if this policy provides a roof over people’s head who desperately need a home perhaps they will vote Labour. The reality is that this has been needed for years and no political party will over turn these reforms.