East Midlands Councils’ Director of Policy and Infrastructure, Andrew Pritchard, on planning reform and how it aligns with the Government’s wider ambitions for housing, health, climate resilience and community safety.
There is a lot going on at the moment.
The Planning & Infrastructure Bill received Royal Assent just before Christmas, quickly followed by the annual festive consultation on major changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
In February, Ministers published proposals for the geography of new Spatial Development Strategies, as well as seeking expressions of interest from groups of councils wishing to form non-mayoral ‘Foundation Strategic Authorities’.
Such is the pace of planning reform that Ministers are still implementing key aspects of the last Government’s Levelling Up & Regeneration Act – with regulations on a 30-month process for delivering new-style local plans expected later this year.
In parallel, Ministers are pressing ahead with proposals to replace two-tier local government with large unitary authorities. Consultation on a range of options for each county area is currently underway, with elections to new ‘shadow’ councils planned for May 2027. If re-organisation goes ahead as planned, by 1st April 2028, the 5.1 million people living in the East Midlands will be served by 10-12 unitary councils (compared to 39 existing councils) and 3-4 ‘Strategic Authorities (including 2 mayors).
Bewildered? You’re probably not the only one.
With all these complex overlapping change processes in play, it is easy to forget about outcomes. So how will planning reform contribute to Minister’s wider priorities for ‘mission-led Government’?
More homes
The Government’s key manifesto commitment was to build 1.5 million homes over the lifetime of this Parliament. Figures tend to lag, but it seems likely that with just over 3 years to go, we are still over a million homes short. I have written previously about how driving up the number of consents is unlikely to ramp up the building of actual homes, given the private sector’s delivery model. Reorganising local government is not likely to help either.
But we are now approaching the end-game. If a house is going to be built (and occupied) by May 2029, it will very likely be in the system now as an allocation, outline or full consent. Innovative measures to accelerate build-out rates, increased investment in social housing and turbo-charging the construction industry must surely be the Government’s focus if it is going to get anywhere near its target.
Less flooding
This year’s unremitting wet weather has reminded us again of the devastating impact flooding has on people and businesses. Our winters are becoming warmer and wetter, and sea levels are rising. We are starting to see the abandonment of places due to repeated flooding. The ‘Flood Re’ insurance deal, which has been a lifeline for many ‘at -risk’ communities, only has only 13 years left to run.
In 2024, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted concerns about the number of homes which continue to be built in flood-risk areas. Insurance giant Aviva has just published an analysis suggesting that between 2022 and 2024, 44,000 new homes were built across England in areas of high or medium flood-risk.
It seems clear that planning policy has been too permissive. Revising the NPPF is an opportunity to tighten it up. But the changes the Government are proposing appear to be heading in the opposite direction. The ‘sequential test’ will no longer be applied in areas only at risk of surface water flooding, where it is believed that risk can be ‘designed out’. Reference to development ‘not being permitted’ in flood risk areas has been removed to give decision makers greater flexibility (despite Ministers wanting to create a less ambiguous ‘rules-based’ planning system).
Healthier communities
So far this year, the NHS appears to have weathered the winter, but the long-term pressures remain. As the Health Secretary said last year:
“We are living longer, but too many are living in poorer health. More people are managing multiple conditions. Demand for mental health and special educational needs support has exploded. We are paying a heavy price for social failure, with schools, hospitals and GPs increasingly expected to pick up the pieces.” [source]
It is now 16 years since Michael Marmot published his landmark report on the social determinants of health, noting that:
“People’s health is affected by the nature of their physical environment; living in poor housing, in a deprived neighbourhood with a lack of access to green spaces impacts negatively on physical and mental health”.
We know that inequalities in healthy life expectancy are a key issue in the East Midlands, particularly among women.
Planning is an important statutory lever that can shape multiple determinants of health in a comprehensive way. But the revised NPPF removes references to planning promoting good health and reducing health inequalities and focuses policy on providing health facilities, rather than reducing the need for medical interventions through healthy placemaking. This feels like a lose/lose situation for both people and the NHS.
Safer communities
The level of violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a particular concern of the Prime Minister. The Government’s recently published anti-VAWG strategy advocates a ‘whole society’ approach, noting that:
Safety is not just about reducing risk, it is about creating environments that foster confidence, dignity, and freedom of movement. Design and planning are critical tools in achieving this. Well-lit streets, accessible transport, and thoughtful urban design can deter violence, reduce opportunities for harm, and send a clear message that public spaces belong to everyone. By embedding considerations of VAWG into planning and transport guidance, we can ensure that safety is built into the fabric of our communities, making public spaces welcoming and secure for all.
But the new NPPF is silent on the issue. When pressed as to why, an MHCLC spokesperson was reported as saying:
“The NPPF is a planning document. It sets out guidelines for housebuilding and planning in England. The VAWG strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny…it is unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined.” [source]
Mission led Government?
There is a political consensus that we need to build more homes, particularly social housing. No one wants to be flooded or to live with the threat of flooding hanging over them. Everyone agrees that keeping people healthier for longer is the only way we can keep the NHS affordable and that the level of violence against women and girls must be tackled.
If planning reform is to support a genuinely mission-led government, it must be less focused on producing housing consents and more on delivery – and better aligned with key objectives such as climate resilience, public health, and community safety. Otherwise, the planning system risks exacerbating existing ‘wicked’ problems rather than improving outcomes for people and places.
More on planning Reform:
Read our blog post on planning reform, housing targets and the challenges of housing delivery, here: https://www.emcouncils.gov.uk/blog-post-building-the-field-of-dreams/