Image description: An aerial shot of a house-build in progress, with scaffolding around the property and two builders on the roof. Image by Steffen Coonan / Pexels.

Planning reforms aim to slash delivery time and cost

The Labour Government has said their planning reforms will “slash a year off infrastructure delivery”, after announcing it is removing the requirement for statutory consultation in the pre-application period for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), like roads, rail, reservoirs and clean energy projects.

The government announcement claims major infrastructure works have been held up by uniquely burdensome statutory consultation requirements, costing developers time and money, and leaving communities “fatigued and confused”. The government emphasised their recognition of “vital” community voices, and they will be setting out new statutory guidance to promote meaningful local engagement.

The governments says it hope the streamlining of infrastructure projects will reduce delays and potentially saving over £1 billion for industry and taxpayers this Parliament. The Prime Minister also believes it will help the UK realise its ambition of being a clean energy superpower.

Can developers pay cash to trash? 

In contrast to the government’s optimism, opponents say scrapping consultation for major infrastructure could harm wildlife and will in fact add to planning delays.

Leading economists, former government advisers and ecologists are reportedly calling for a key section of the government’s planning bill to be changed because it creates a “licence to kill nature”.

The letter warns that part three of the planning and infrastructure bill, applying mainly to England and Wales, allows developers to pay “cash to trash” wildlife and the environment. They say it allows companies to sidestep environmental laws affecting their project by instead paying into a national nature levy. While at present builders are supposed to follow a “mitigation hierarchy”: avoid, minimise, mitigate, offset, the new bill means developers jump straight to option 4: offsetting.

Part three of the bill also creates a conflict of interest for Natural England, which is supposed to be independent, because the body would be responsible for deciding on conservation plans and assessing their success while being reliant on the new nature levy for its own funding. The bill also created “a dangerous loophole where political convenience can override ecological reality” because Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, would be the final arbiter of whether the nature levy system could be put in place for developers, rather than the environment secretary and an independent body.

Sir Partha Dasgupta, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Cambridge told the Guardian the nature levy allowed companies to “buy out” of existing nature obligations and effectively removed decades of nature laws. Rather than speeding up the planning process, the nature levy would harm economic growth, he said.