For all the talk of a new approach to growth in Greater Cambridge, the principle now underpinning the proposed development corporation has a distinctly familiar ring.

The government’s ambition is clear: infrastructure should not be an afterthought to development. The new Greater Cambridge Development Corporation is intended to coordinate the delivery of transport, utilities, community facilities and other essential infrastructure alongside growth, with the government explicitly framing the approach as ‘infrastructure-first’.

That sounds like a significant departure from the model with which the planning system is often associated (often unfairly!): allocate land, grant permissions, build homes and then spend years trying to catch up with the roads, schools, water supply and public transport needed to support them. But the underlying idea is not new. Indeed, it echoes one of the central principles behind the post-war New Towns programme – and particularly Milton Keynes.

Learning from Milton Keynes

Milton Keynes was planned on the basis that growth needed to be supported by strategic infrastructure from the outset. Its grid road network, land assembly powers and long-term approach to development allowed infrastructure and expansion to be considered as parts of the same exercise, rather than as separate problems to be solved in sequence.

The city still promotes the idea of ‘I before E’ – Infrastructure before Expansion. The phrase may sound like a neat piece of planning shorthand, but it encapsulates a challenge that Greater Cambridge knows only too well.

Cambridge’s economic success has placed enormous pressure on its physical and social infrastructure. Housing affordability, water availability, transport capacity and congestion are all recognised as constraints on future growth. The government’s consultation on the Development Corporation argued that fragmented decision-making, infrastructure deficiencies and uncertainty over long-term funding have made it difficult to deliver the scale of intervention required.

The proposed answer is to create a body capable of bringing together powers over land, investment and strategic development, while coordinating with local authorities, transport bodies and utility providers. The government has also said that the Development Corporation will be able to help plan, fund and deliver enabling infrastructure, including utilities, transport, green space and social infrastructure. That is where the comparison with Milton Keynes becomes particularly interesting.

A Different Challenge for Greater Cambridge

Development corporations have historically offered something that the conventional planning system can struggle to provide: a single organisation with a long-term remit, significant powers and the ability to connect land, infrastructure and development finance. The government itself has pointed to the history of Milton Keynes and London Docklands as evidence that major growth initiatives can benefit from being centrally-led by a development corporation.

Of course, reproducing the Milton Keynes model in Cambridge would be neither possible nor desirable. Greater Cambridge is a very different place, with different environmental constraints, an established historic city and a complex political geography. Cambridge City Council has also raised concerns about the proposed corporation’s planning powers, local democratic influence and the practical funding of ‘infrastructure-first growth. And that points to the real test.

Infrastructure First, but What Does That Mean?

‘Infrastructure first’ is an attractive principle, but its success will depend on whether it means genuinely front-loading investment and coordinating delivery – or simply producing another set of infrastructure strategies while development continues to outpace provision.

The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation therefore represents more than a new institutional arrangement. It’s a test of whether an old New Town lesson can still work in a 21st-century growth economy: get the infrastructure right, and expansion has somewhere sustainable to go.

Get the sequence wrong, and the familiar story of homes first and infrastructure later risks repeating itself.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Infrastructure Before Expansion appeared first on Apex Planning.

Even before Andy Burnham was named as Keir Starmer’s successor, he spoke about committing to deliver the “biggest council house building programme since the post-war period”, generating significant debate across the construction and property sectors.

Burnham has argued that housing should be treated as national infrastructure, placing affordable and council housing at the centre of economic growth, health outcomes and social mobility. The Chartered Institute of Housing welcomed this approach, noting that more than 1.3 million households remain on waiting lists and that increasing the supply of genuinely affordable homes is essential to tackling homelessness and reducing pressure on the private rented sector.

However, the consensus across local government and the housing sector is that ambition alone will not be enough. Recent analysis from Inside Housing highlights that councils require greater borrowing flexibility, long-term funding certainty, access to affordable land, additional planning capacity and a skilled construction workforce, if large-scale council housebuilding is to become a reality. These themes closely mirror the industry’s earlier calls for sustained investment and planning reform.

Planning Reform and Local Powers

Planning reform is equally central to Burnham’s agenda. Greater devolution of planning powers to metro mayors is intended to speed up decision-making and better align housing delivery with local infrastructure and economic priorities. However, recent research warns that devolution alone will not automatically increase housing delivery unless governance, funding and accountability arrangements are carefully designed.

Alongside wider reforms, Burnham is also considering extending the use of Article 4 Directions to restrict permitted development rights for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), giving local authorities greater control over conversions where communities believe concentrations of HMOs are placing pressure on neighbourhoods.

Recent announcements suggest the government’s direction of travel remains firmly towards devolved decision-making. Burnham has pledged additional powers for regional mayors, with housing, planning and regeneration sitting alongside transport and skills as key priorities. While the vision has been broadly welcomed, the coming months will determine whether reforms to planning, funding and local authority powers are sufficient to translate political ambition into the scale of housing delivery the UK continues to require.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Can the PM’s Housing Ambition Meet Delivery Challenges? appeared first on Apex Planning.

The Government’s proposed national scheme of delegation has sparked considerable debate across the planning sector, but recent comments from Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook suggest that local authorities will retain more flexibility than many had anticipated.

While the Planning and Infrastructure Act introduces a national framework for determining which planning applications are decided by officers and which are referred to planning committees, councils will still be able to develop their own processes for deciding how applications are filtered before reaching that stage.

Under the proposed system, which the government consulted on in May 2025. straightforward Schedule 1 applications, such as householder developments and minor commercial schemes, will be delegated to planning officers. Schedule 2 applications, however, can be referred to committee if both the council’s chief planning officer (or equivalent) and the committee chair agree that the proposal meets the new ‘gateway test’.

Local Authorities Retain Important Flexibility

Crucially, the Minister has confirmed that local planning authorities will be free to establish their own triage arrangements for Schedule 2 applications. This is an acknowledgement that authorities differ significantly in workload, resources and local priorities. Rather than requiring every Schedule 2 application to pass through the same process, councils can design systems that ensure only those schemes with genuine strategic or contentious planning issues reach the gateway assessment.

The Government’s implementation guidance even encourages authorities expecting high volumes of Schedule 2 applications to adopt triage systems to prevent unnecessary delays and avoid overwhelming senior officers and committee chairs.

What the Changes Mean for Applicants

For applicants and developers, this means that while decision-making should become more streamlined overall, there is unlikely to be complete uniformity across England. Councils may still operate slightly different referral processes, potentially allowing ward councillors to request that certain applications are considered under the gateway test where local circumstances justify it.

The Minister defended this local discretion by emphasising the professionalism of planning officers. Officers remain legally obliged to consider all material planning considerations, apply local and national planning policy, and act in accordance with professional codes of conduct. The Government’s position is that greater delegation should improve efficiency without compromising the quality or integrity of planning decisions.

The Government has also confirmed that applications on unallocated land will, in most cases, be subject to the gateway test where they fall within Schedule 2, rather than automatically being delegated or automatically referred to committee.

Preparing for Implementation

With implementation now delayed until 31 October, councils have additional time to prepare. The coming months will be critical as authorities refine their local processes and applicants begin to understand how the new national framework will operate in practice.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Delegation Scheme Could Offer More Freedom appeared first on Apex Planning.

The planning industry had been expecting the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) this summer, but recent political developments have introduced fresh uncertainty over the timetable.

The draft revised NPPF, published in December 2025, represented one of the most significant overhauls of national planning policy in recent years. Since then, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has consistently maintained that the final version would be published during summer 2026. Chief Planner Joanna Averley reiterated this timeline in her March newsletter, while Housing Minister Baroness Taylor confirmed at the Planning Summit in June that the government’s consultation response would be issued “in the summer”.

However, the unexpected resignation of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the anticipated appointment of Andy Burnham as Labour leader and Prime Minister have inevitably raised questions about whether that timetable remains achievable.

Burnham has already signalled that housing and regeneration will sit at the heart of his government’s agenda. In a recent policy announcement, he pledged to deliver what he described as the biggest council house building programme since the post-war era as part of a 10-year mission to raise living standards across the country. His proposals also include the creation of a new government hub in Manchester, branded ‘No. 10 in the North’, alongside measures to boost youth employment and encourage more young people into construction and skilled trades. Against that backdrop, it is understandable that any incoming administration may wish to ensure the revised NPPF fully aligns with its wider ambitions for housing delivery, economic growth and planning reform before giving it the final green light.

Political change creates uncertainty

With Parliament due to rise for the summer recess in mid-July and the Labour leadership race expected to conclude around the same time, there is a very narrow window in which the revised NPPF could be approved and published. Industry sources have suggested that, while officials are continuing to finalise the document, there is growing recognition that a new Prime Minister and potentially a new Chancellor may wish to review such an important policy before it is released.

From a planning perspective, this would not be an unreasonable approach. The revised NPPF represents a significant policy intervention that will influence decision-making across England, affecting housing delivery, local plan preparation, green belt policy, infrastructure planning and development management for years to come. Any incoming administration is likely to want confidence that the document reflects its priorities before allowing publication.

That said, reports from within government remain mixed. Some sources continue to suggest that officials are working towards publication before Parliament rises, while others believe a short delay into August is becoming increasingly likely. There is precedent for releasing major planning policy outside the parliamentary sitting calendar, with the 2020 Planning White Paper published during the summer recess.

What does this mean for the planning sector?

For local planning authorities, developers and landowners, the uncertainty will be frustrating. Many are awaiting the final policy wording before progressing Local Plans, reviewing site promotion strategies or submitting planning applications. Until the revised framework is published, there remains an element of caution around decisions that could be affected by the forthcoming changes.

At this stage, the revised NPPF appears to be substantially complete, with the question now being one of political timing rather than policy content. Whether publication comes before the summer recess or shortly afterwards, the planning sector can expect the new framework to shape planning practice and development decisions for the foreseeable future.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Will the Revised NPPF be Published Before Parliament’s Summer Recess? appeared first on Apex Planning.

While the delay provides local planning authorities (LPAs) with additional preparation time, it also comes with a clear warning: councils that fail to align their constitutions with the new framework could face judicial review challenges.

The NSOD represents one of the most significant changes to planning decision-making in recent years. Designed to create greater consistency across England, the scheme establishes national rules governing which planning applications must be determined by planning officers and which may be considered by planning committees.

Council Constitutions

Under the new arrangements, straightforward applications such as householder developments and minor commercial or residential schemes will generally be delegated to officers. More complex applications will fall into a second category, where referral to committee will only be possible if both the chief planning officer and committee chair agree that the proposal raises significant economic, social, environmental or planning issues.

“This is interesting,” says Paul Smith of Milton Keynes-based Apex Planning Consultants, “because it would mean that Ward councillors cannot ask for planning applications to be ‘called in‘ – traditionally, this happens where constituents, often residents who do not like a particular application are vehemently against a planning application. It means they can try to persuade other councillors, who sit on the Planning Committee to refuse planning permission. One intention of the government is to try to avoid good planning applications from being refused on ‘political grounds’, rather than ‘planning reasons for refusal’. It is also trying to speed up the delivery of new housing.”

The Government’s recently published guidance emphasises that councils must update their constitutions to reflect these requirements before the regulations come into force. Failure to do so could leave planning decisions vulnerable to legal challenge, potentially resulting in decisions being quashed by the courts.

The consultation response and accompanying guidance also clarify several important aspects of the new system. Notably, large reserved matters applications involving 500 or more homes, or developments creating at least 50,000 square metres of floorspace, will remain eligible for committee scrutiny through the gateway process. This reflects concerns raised during consultation that major phased developments could have substantial long-term impacts and may warrant member oversight.

Planning Committees

Other significant changes include the decision to categorise Section 73 applications alongside their original planning permissions rather than automatically delegating them to officers. The guidance also allows planning committees to consider ‘own interest’ applications submitted by the authority itself, or by individuals connected to it, without needing to satisfy the gateway test where transparency and public accountability require member involvement.

In addition, planning committees will be capped at a maximum of 13 members, with authorities encouraged to consider whether smaller committees could support more effective decision-making.

As Paul points out: this still relies on planning officers making good decisions, which is never a guarantee. “With the best will in the world, planning officers can make poor decisions, overlooking critical information, but they can also make subjective decisions that mean they apply more weight to negatives than positives related to a proposed development.

“This is not necessarily a bad thing, professional judgement should be encouraged, nevertheless it is highly frustrating for developers and planning consultants, particularly if a subsequent appeal is allowed, meaning the planning officer’s refusal was the wrong decision.”

Looking ahead, the regulations require the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the NSOD by October 2028. For now, however, the focus for local authorities is clear: use the extra month wisely, ensure governance arrangements are updated, and prepare for a fundamental shift in how planning decisions are made.

And there’s one more consideration, Paul concludes: “In terms of speeding up the planning process, the National Scheme of Delegation could be a good thing, but for it to be especially effective the government should still find ways to encourage more people to join the planning profession so that the dearth of planning officers/consultants can be reversed. This will ensure that more time is available to make good-quality decisions on every planning application, including proper interaction and negotiation during the decision-making process.”

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Delay for NSOD implementation appeared first on Apex Planning.

The UK government has confirmed a significant shift in how Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) will be applied across the housing sector – balancing environmental ambition with development practicality.

Introduced under the Environment Act 2021 and enforced from 2024, BNG requires developers to commit to the delivery of at least a 10% improvement in biodiversity before securing planning approval. The policy has been widely regarded as a cornerstone of the UK’s environmental strategy, but its implementation has not been without friction – particularly for smaller developers and self-builders.

The latest consultation on the changes, released in April 2026, has decided to bring to an end the exemption of self-build and custom housebuilding projects from BNG requirements. This decision might be viewed as a signal of a firm commitment to maintaining environmental standards across all development types, regardless of scale or ownership structure.

Defra (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) argues that by applying consistent rules across the board, local planning authorities can avoid navigating a patchwork of exceptions, which has previously slowed down decision-making.

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook had earlier indicated the government’s intention to streamline planning processes, and this move aligns with that broader agenda.

For self-builders, this is a mixed outcome. On the one hand, the lack of exemption means additional cost, complexity, and potentially longer planning timelines. Many self-build projects operate on tight budgets, and commissioning ecological assessments or securing biodiversity units – especially off-site – could add several thousand pounds to project costs.

On the other hand, the simplification of rules may actually reduce confusion. Previously, navigating whether a project qualified for exemptions could be unclear. A more uniform system, combined with increased flexibility around off-site biodiversity gains, could make compliance more predictable – even if not cheaper.

There is also a design implication: self-builders may increasingly need to factor biodiversity into the site layout from the outset, integrating features such as native planting, green roofs, or habitat corridors to meet requirements in a cost-effective way.

BNG Exemptions

While self-builders won’t be let off the hook, Defra has introduced several targeted exemptions set to take effect from 31 July 2026 (subject to parliamentary approval). These include developments where biodiversity enhancement is the primary goal, temporary planning permissions (up to five years) and projects improving public green spaces such as parks and playing fields.

Perhaps most impactful, though, is the exemption for small residential developments. Sites delivering between one and nine homes – now capped at 0.2 hectares, down from the previously proposed 0.5 hectares – will no longer need to meet BNG requirements (Defra consultation response, April 2026). According to Defra, this could exempt around 50% of residential planning applications that were previously subject to the rules, in effect meaning self-builders could still see their proposed development to be exempt.

For SME developers, this threshold change is likely to be significant. Many small builders operate on sites just above or below these limits, so the revised 0.2-hectare cap becomes a critical dividing line.

Those who fall within the exemption will benefit from reduced costs and faster planning decisions – potentially improving viability for marginal sites – because it is rare for a SME developer’s site to be large enough to provide on-site BNG (because BNG cannot be provided within gardens) therefore purchasing off-site credits is normal and far from inexpensive. However, developers just above the threshold may feel disproportionately impacted, facing full BNG requirements while competing with exempt schemes nearby.

This could unintentionally influence land-acquisition strategies, with developers favouring smaller, sub-threshold sites to avoid BNG obligations. Over time, this may reshape the type and scale of residential development coming forward, particularly in rural and edge-of-settlement locations.

Off-site Provisions

At the same time, the ability to rely more on off-site biodiversity gains could help SME developers who lack the space or expertise to deliver ecological improvements on-site. Still, access to affordable off-site units – and a transparent market for them – will be key to ensuring this flexibility translates into real-world benefits.

Another notable reform involves the ‘biodiversity gain hierarchy’, a framework guiding how developers meet their obligations. Traditionally, according to guidance on the Environment Act 2021, developers were expected to prioritise on-site biodiversity improvements, followed by off-site measures, and finally statutory credits.

Under the new changes, according to the consultation response, Defra plans to make it easier to use off-site biodiversity gains earlier in the process. This flexibility could unlock more efficient delivery, especially for urban or constrained sites where on-site enhancements are difficult.

In parallel, the government has delayed the rollout of BNG requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects until November 2026. This marks another postponement, reflecting ongoing challenges in aligning large-scale development with biodiversity goals.

Overall, for self-builders and small developers, the picture is nuanced. While some will benefit from exemptions and increased flexibility, others will face new costs and strategic decisions. Ultimately, success will depend on how clearly the system is implemented – and whether the emerging biodiversity market can support projects of all sizes without becoming a barrier to delivery.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post BNG Across Housing Sees Major Shift appeared first on Apex Planning.

While framed as a revival of post-war ‘new towns’, the reality is more nuanced – and for planning professionals, far more complex.

The proposed seven locations include two close to Apex Planning Consultants:

• Tempsford, Bedfordshire: up to 40,000 homes built around a new East West Rail station, which will link residents to Cambridge, Oxford, London and Milton Keynes.
• Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire: a plan to expand the city by about 40,000 homes and a new local transport system for the centre, improving connectivity in the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor.

At first glance, the list blends genuinely new settlements – such as Tempsford – with urban extensions, regeneration schemes, and densification projects. Locations such as Thamesmead in London are not ‘new towns’ in the traditional sense, but rather strategic intensifications of existing urban areas. This signals a clear shift in how government is interpreting large-scale delivery: it’s less about standalone settlements, more about maximising existing economic hubs, and for the cynics, simply a way of speeding up the delivery of desperately needed new housing which is otherwise faltering.

For planners, this hybrid model raises important questions. The traditional new town approach offered a blank canvas for infrastructure, land assembly, and placemaking. By contrast, regeneration-led schemes must contend with existing land ownership patterns, infrastructure constraints, and community integration challenges. While these sites may benefit from established economic ecosystems, they are inherently more complex to deliver.

Geographically, the recommendations also reveal a southern bias, with a concentration of sites in London and the South East, which may prompt debate around regional equity and the alignment with broader ‘levelling up’ ambitions. However, many of the chosen locations are closely tied to existing or emerging economic corridors, suggesting that productivity and growth potential have been prioritised over spatial balance.

The new towns plan to offer:

• A design for modern life – vibrant high streets, shared green spaces, and the ability to get around neighbourhoods without a car.
• The aim of at least 40% affordable housing – making them more affordable for those on an ‘ordinary’ income.
• At least half of affordable homes available at social rent – usually owned by a housing association or local council.

Delivery mechanisms will be significant. Decision-making may be streamlined, but may also create tensions with local authorities, particularly around housing targets and land-use priorities.

Compulsory purchase powers, including the use of the ‘no scheme principle’, will play a pivotal role in land assembly. While this may help control costs and accelerate delivery, it introduces further complexity around valuation, viability, and stakeholder engagement – areas where planning professionals will need to exercise both technical expertise and careful judgement.

“well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live with all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities”

The recent Strategic Environmental Assessment report states that good planning, upfront investment, and high-quality design will be the best way to achieve development at this scale.

The government aims for: ‘’well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live with all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities’’.

Ultimately, the NTT’s recommendations underline a key reality: there is no single solution to the UK’s housing crisis. New towns – whether genuinely new or strategically reimagined – will contribute to long-term supply, but they are unlikely to meet short-term delivery targets in isolation.

For the planning industry, the message is clear. Success will depend not just on scale, but on quality. Placemaking, connectivity, and sustainability must remain central to these developments. If the next generation of new towns is to succeed, they must be about more than housing numbers – they must be places where people genuinely want to live, work, and stay.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Ambitious Plans for New Towns appeared first on Apex Planning.

From 1 April 2026, the rules governing the vast majority of planning appeals in England are changing – specifically the 94.7% of appeals that proceed by way of the written representations procedure. The change relates to appeals lodged on or after 1 April 2026.

These reforms, introduced alongside the updated procedural guidance published on 12 February 2026 by the Planning Inspectorate, are designed to speed up decision-making. But they also introduce new risks for applicants, local planning authorities (LPAs), and third parties alike.

Unlike appeals conducted by hearing or inquiry, written representation appeals involve neither formal discussion or cross-examination. Historically, a faster ‘expedited’ version of this process has been limited mainly to householder and minor commercial cases.

However, from April, this streamlined route will be extended to most written representation appeals – including refusals of planning permission, prior approval, reserved matters, advertisement consent, permission in principle, and applications under sections 73 and 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Right first time

The most significant procedural shift is this: appellants will no longer be able to submit new evidence at the appeal stage if it was not already considered by the LPA when determining the original application.

Instead, Inspectors will determine appeals solely on the basis of:

• The original planning application and all submitted supporting materials
• The LPA’s decision notice and reasons for refusal
• Committee minutes and the officer’s report
• The appeal form and appeal questionnaire.

Third parties will also not be able to make further representations during the appeal process. Their views will only be considered if submitted during the application stage. Where a section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking is required, it must be executed and submitted at the point of appeal.

This represents a clear policy shift towards front-loading the planning process. As Paul Smith at Apex Planning Consultants explains: “While the new procedure will seemingly speed things up using this particular procedure, it places more need for the planning application to be robust from the outset. This could mean more upfront expense for applicants that might not be necessary if the application is approved; however it might prove to be a cost saving if it is refused and they are reliant on an appeal. Effectively, there will continue to be jeopardy in the planning process.”

Efficiency v jeopardy

The government’s justification is largely based on efficiency. According to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Regulations, as of March 2025 appeals using the existing Part 2 written representations procedure took an average of 29 weeks to determine, compared with 18 weeks under Part 1.

By December 2025, those averages had improved to 21 and 14 weeks respectively – with hearings taking around 25 weeks and inquiries 38 weeks.

While quicker decisions are broadly welcome, concerns remain. Will this expanded expedited process gradually become the default, even in more complex cases where the level of public interest or technical dispute might justify more scrutiny? What happens where applicants request a hearing or inquiry but are directed to written representations instead? And in cases where planning committee members refuse an application against officer advice, will LPAs now need more detailed committee minutes to ensure that inspectors fully understand the reasons for refusal?

Of course, it is also recognised that this is guidance from the Planning Inspectorate only, it is not law, however, it remains to be seen how robustly it will be applied and what, if any, special circumstances might allow for ‘new information’ to be submitted with an appeal.

Ultimately, the strategy for applicants is becoming clearer: planning submissions must now be comprehensive, policy-justified and effectively ‘appeal-ready from the outset – with key issues addressed, third-party concerns responded to, and section 106 obligations substantially progressed before any potential refusal is issued.

Speed may be improving – but so too is the procedural jeopardy.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Be Planning Appeal-Ready from 1 April appeared first on Apex Planning.

The Oxford–Cambridge Corridor has long been promoted as one of the UK’s greatest untapped economic opportunities. Stretching across roughly 100 miles and connecting two world-leading university cities, the corridor has the potential to become a powerhouse for science, technology, innovation and housing delivery. Yet despite ambitious plans first outlined nearly a decade ago, progress on a truly strategic vision has stalled.

In 2017, the National Infrastructure Commission proposed building up to one million new homes across what was then called the OxCam Arc, by 2050. The idea was to match infrastructure investment with housing and employment growth, creating a globally competitive region similar to California’s Silicon Valley. While the proposals were initially welcomed, political momentum faded. By 2021, the plans had been quietly shelved, and development since then has been fragmented and largely uncoordinated.

Paul Smith at Apex Planning Consultants argues that this loss of strategic direction has been the core problem. He notes that from the very beginning, delivery depended on too many separate bodies working together – local authorities, highways agencies, rail operators, environmental regulators, landowners and developers. Without strong leadership from the centre, no single organisation had the authority or responsibility to align priorities, agree growth targets, or coordinate infrastructure. The result, he says, has been “a myriad of disjointed, small scale and ad-hoc developments” rather than a coherent regional strategy.

Project Hawking

This is why a new proposal from Labour Together, an influential Labour think tank, has attracted significant attention. The group is calling for the creation of a powerful development corporation to act as a ‘supreme planning authority’ for the corridor. This body, dubbed the Hawking Development Corporation (as it links the two universities that span physicist Stephen Hawking’s career), would be given responsibility for setting the overall vision, granting planning permissions, coordinating infrastructure and even managing environmental regulation across the region.

The report argues that a single, well-resourced organisation reporting directly to the Chancellor would cut through political complexity and institutional gridlock. Rather than seeking permission from multiple local bodies, the corporation would consult local leaders but retain ultimate decision-making power. Its remit would include land acquisition, planning, development and investment over a 25-year horizon.

Paul believes this approach could genuinely rejuvenate the corridor concept. In his view, the original idea failed not because it lacked merit, but because it lacked delivery mechanisms. A development corporation with real authority could finally bring together housing numbers, transport investment, environmental management and commercial growth into one strategic framework. Importantly, it could also provide the long-term certainty needed for major investors and infrastructure providers.

Self-Financing & Sustainable

The think tank also proposes that the corporation be largely self-funding, using land value capture to finance development. By buying land, securing planning permission and reinvesting uplift in value, the corporation could generate revenue while reducing reliance on public spending. This model has historical precedent in post-war new towns and urban regeneration schemes.

With ministers reportedly considering the proposal, the idea of a supreme planning authority may finally return the Oxford–Cambridge Corridor to the national agenda. After years of drift, the combination of political backing and a strong institutional structure could be what is needed to turn a promising concept into a delivered reality. As Paul suggests, without top-down coordination, the corridor will continue to underperform. With it, the region could once again become one of the UK’s most ambitious growth projects.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Hope for the Ox-Cam Corridor? appeared first on Apex Planning.

The government has announced a significant change in how Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) will apply to small development sites, confirming that schemes below 0.2 hectares will be exempt from the requirement to deliver a minimum 10% uplift in biodiversity. However, the new exemption requires secondary legislation to be fully enacted, meaning current applications are still subject to the existing BNG rules.

For many SME developers, this represents a welcome adjustment to a policy that, while well intentioned, has proved difficult to implement on smaller schemes.

BNG Challenges

Since BNG became a statutory requirement in 2024, developers have been required to demonstrate biodiversity enhancement either on site or through off-site mitigation. While early evidence suggests the system is working effectively for larger developments, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has acknowledged that smaller schemes – particularly those on brownfield land – are finding BNG more challenging and disproportionately expensive to deliver.

Paul Smith at Apex Planning Consultants believes this is an issue that has been some time coming. “In my opinion, relaxing the rules for SME-type developers in respect of small development sites will be hugely advantageous. I am finding that some still do not fully appreciate the implications of BNG, both in terms of the work that needs to be completed to support and justify a planning application, and then the cost of mitigating ‘harm’ or loss of biodiversity and enhancing the baseline value by at least 10%.”

For small sites, achieving BNG on site is often unrealistic due to space constraints. As Paul explains, “Many such developers try to provide BNG on site, however with small sites it is just not feasible to achieve the requisite mitigation and enhancement, so purchasing off-site credits is the only other option.” This, however, can create further problems, as these credits can be expensive to purchase, and add to already high development costs.

The issue is compounded by variations in how local planning authorities manage off-site BNG. Paul notes that “different councils apply different rules: some require the purchase of the off-site credits to be controlled via a S.106 legal agreement, whereas others are more pragmatic and are willing to control and monitor the purchase by imposing a planning condition.” In his view, exempting small sites from BNG requirements could be hugely beneficial to the viability of SME developers.

DEFRA

DEFRA has confirmed that the exemption for sites below 0.2 hectares is intended to reduce costs for SME developers while also saving time and resources for local planning authorities. The announcement follows a consultation on improving BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development.

The department has also stated that it will consult on a further targeted exemption for brownfield residential development, potentially covering sites of up to 2.5 hectares, depending on how brownfield land is defined. DEFRA has said this approach would support housing delivery on land of lower ecological value while maintaining strong BNG outcomes elsewhere.

There remains, however, a wider debate about the role of small sites in the natural environment. Paul acknowledges this tension: “There is also an argument that says this should be deemed acceptable anyway, because small sites with habitat might offer little ecological and habitat value, so their loss to development is not significant.” At the same time, he recognises the counter-argument: “Small sites contribute to the natural environment of those people living nearby… and it means wildlife is forced to congregate in fewer albeit large locations, clustered together, rather than naturally spreading themselves across the country.”

Ultimately, Paul suggests that policy balance is driving the government’s position. “It is arguably a conundrum, however, it seems the government’s opinion is that on balance the benefit of exempting small sites to more easily gain more housing, while still allowing for BNG on larger development sites, is worthwhile.”

Alongside the exemption, DEFRA has committed to making off-site BNG delivery “easier, quicker and cheaper”, with further details expected, including a full consultation response and implementation timeline. Until changes are formally introduced, developers are advised to continue complying with existing BNG legislation.

While BNG will remain a statutory and central part of planning policy, the exemption for small sites signals a more proportionate and flexible approach – one that recognises the realities faced by SME developers while continuing to support the government’s wider environmental ambitions.

If you would like to discuss your own new project with us, or just find out more about what we do, please continue to browse the website or drop us an email to: info@apexplanning.co.uk without obligation.

The post Biodiversity Net Gain: A welcome shift for SME developers appeared first on Apex Planning.