Last month, the Government tabled amendments to its Planning and Infrastructure Bill in a House of Lords Committee. The Bill is designed to free up the planning process, particularly surrounding Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

The amendments to the Bill place additional ‘safeguards’ to Environmental Delivery Plans, a mechanism introduced in the Bill which requires developers to set out how they plan to mitigate the environmental impact of plans. They are complex, but the result is there will be more opportunities for environmental groups to strike down a development in the courts.

This has caused somewhat of a commotion in the YIMBY political world. Articles and tweets criticising the government, and even a high-profile Labour defection. At Iceni Engagement, we’ve been speaking with developers and stakeholders, and consensus is clear: the industry is unimpressed.

To explain why this has caused such a tumult, consider Labour’s objectives at the 2024 General Election. The Labour Party in opposition and early into government prioritised house building as a key target of the government. To achieve this, the Government reformed the NPPF to, among other things, reduce the number of statutory consultees and introduce grey belt – establishing a clear direction towards a de-risked, streamlined planning process. These amendments contradict this. A government that is serious about implementing the policy of building 1.5 million homes would look to reduce legal uncertainty and planning risk, not increase it as these amendments do. This is not to say the Bill in its entirety is now worthless. There are still many provisions within the Bill that will speed up the planning process, but these amendments pour cold water on the proposed law.

Why has the Government done this? It would appear No.10 views housing as less of a priority for voters and not worth spending political capital on – a currency in short supply. Environmental groups have been pressuring the government for an amendment such as this, and fighting it could be costly, resulting in negative press No.10 can scarcely afford. Disquiet in the YIMBY world is perhaps seen by the government as being more manageable than relentless op-eds by CPRE et al, a potential rebellion, or even another Chirs Hinchliff situation.  The government is likely keeping its powder dry for interventions more impactful to electoral outcomes.

This is a reminder that planning strategy must always be aligned with political context. At Iceni Engagement, we provide developers and promoters with the insight and foresight needed to navigate shifting government priorities.