Air conditioning is becoming an increasingly familiar sight on UK buildings – and that could create a growing challenge for planning authorities.

As summers become hotter and concerns about overheating increase, more householders and businesses are looking for ways to keep buildings cool. But while the need for cooling may be becoming harder to ignore, the planning system does not have a simple, blanket answer to the question of when an external air-conditioning unit needs permission.

The government recently sought to clarify the position, rejecting reports that air conditioning had effectively been ‘banned’ in homes. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said air-conditioning units can be installed in existing and new homes and that, in many cases, a small domestic installation will not require planning permission where it does not materially affect the building’s external appearance.

But there is no blanket exemption, and that leaves considerable scope for judgement at local level.

When Does Air Conditioning Need Planning Permission?

So when does an air-con unit become a planning matter?

The starting point for this question is whether the installation amounts to operational development. A portable unit vented through a window is unlikely to raise the same planning questions as a substantial external unit fixed to a wall.

Where an installation is classed as operational development, the next issue is whether it materially affects the external appearance of the building. That assessment will inevitably depend on context. A relatively small unit may not be controversial on a large commercial building but will be far more conspicuous on a modest house or a prominent historic property.

Location is therefore crucial. A unit positioned at the rear of a building may have considerably less visual impact than one facing the street.

Other considerations can include noise and residential amenity, while conservation-area controls or planning conditions can affect whether permitted development rights are applicable.

There’s also an interesting comparison with air-source heat pumps. Certain domestic heat-pump installations benefit from permitted development rights, subject to conditions and limitations including size, location and technical standards. The current rules are set out in Class G of Part 14 of the GPDO.

Climate Adaptation Versus Visual Impact

This is where the issue becomes more complicated.

Planning has traditionally had a strong role in reducing energy demand – through considered orientation, insulation, shading and other measures designed to prevent buildings overheating in the first place. But what happens when those measures aren’t enough?

For occupants of poorly ventilated, south-facing or otherwise overheating homes, mechanical cooling can move from being a luxury to something vital to comfort, health and adaptability.

So the planning system faces a balancing act: how can buildings adapt to a changing climate without creating unacceptable impacts on streetscape, heritage or neighbours?

The issue may become more significant as temperatures rise. And that challenge could be closer than it sounds. A government-commissioned study published in 2025 by energy consultancy LCP Delta highlighted the scale of the potential problem, estimating that under a 4°C warming scenario, around 90% of homes in England could require mechanical cooling by 2080. It also found that millions of properties are already experiencing summertime overheating.

Government policy already recognises the importance of reducing barriers to low-carbon heating technologies, including through changes to permitted development rights for air-source heat pumps.

For planners, the challenge may increasingly be to distinguish between unnecessary visual clutter and reasonable climate adaptation.

The answer may not be to permit every air-conditioning unit automatically – but neither is it likely to be sustainable to treat cooling as an afterthought as overheating becomes a more pressing issue.

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 Air Conditioning Becomes a Hot Topic for Planners appeared first on Apex Planning.

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.

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.

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.

First, in the Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has confirmed a substantial £48 million boost to expand planning capacity across England. This will fund the recruitment of 350 new planners annually, alongside expansion of the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme and creation of a new Planning Careers Hub aimed at retention and retraining.

If delivered, this would help the government fulfil its ambition of 1,400 additional planners over this Parliament – four times the original manifesto pledge. The move has been warmly welcomed by the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) and others who argue that chronic understaffing has slowed investment and stalled growth. However, questions remain around whether this funding is additional to last autumn’s £46 million allocation and whether the 350-planner figure is indeed annual.

The sector continues to grapple with concerns about the withdrawal of Level 7 apprenticeship funding for over-22s earlier this year – a decision widely seen as threatening the professional pipeline. While the new recruitment drive is significant, workforce challenges remain far from resolved

Paul Smith from Apex Planning Consultants also draws attention to the recent RTPI report regarding impending planned retirement by many current town planners and concern that the new planners could be filling the resulting vacancies more than adding to the existing pool of professionals. He also points out that the intention to recruit new town planners is certainly laudable, but it will take several years for new recruits to qualify and then build real-world experience before they make a difference.

Referring Refusals

In a shift away from localism, Housing Secretary Steve Reed is reportedly preparing to require councils to refer all refusals for schemes of more than 150 homes directly to Central Government. Under these plans, ministers could ‘call in’ such applications and decide their outcomes – potentially overruling local opposition.

Supporters of the proposal, including the Home Builders Federation, say this could unlock stalled large sites and help restore viability where regulatory burdens have stacked up. However, the Local Government Association has criticised the proposal for diminishing democratic accountability, while legal experts warn that the Planning Inspectorate’s resources would need considerable reinforcement.

The move mirrors existing mayoral powers in London, and may align with broader devolution proposals, but it marks a clear intention by ministers to intervene more assertively in major residential decision-making.

Paul Smith comments, “Such a move certainly has resource implications for the Planning Inspectorate. However, it is also possible that it can be more efficient in determining applications by not being bogged down in local politics.”

‘Default Yes’

Steve Reed has also provided more clarity on the proposed ‘default yes’ policy for new homes near stations. The policy – which even applies to Green Belt sites – will only be triggered where stations are well-connected, within reasonable walking distance, and where services run frequently.

However, Green Belt development will still need to meet the government’s Golden Rules, including delivering 15 percentage points more affordable housing than local requirements (capped at 50%), as well as infrastructure upgrades and enhanced accessible green space. More detailed definitions, particularly around service frequency, are still to come in the upcoming NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) update. Matthew Pennycook MP, says the updated NPPF is expected to be published before parliament rises on 18th December.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

The government’s flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill has now cleared the Lords, following assurances that initial environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will be limited strictly to nutrient pollution. Wider EDPs will not be progressed until evidence from the first tranche is reported back to Parliament.

This sequencing provides some breathing space for developers concerned that earlier drafts risked introducing wide-ranging new environmental obligations without sufficient clarity. Nevertheless, Natural England will take on a central role in delivering mitigation funded through the new Nature Restoration Fund.

NDMPs

Perhaps the most contentious development is the government’s decision to bring forward National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) on a non-statutory basis, meaning they will function only as material considerations rather than carrying the legal weight originally intended under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act.

Senior planning KC Christopher Katkowski has described this as a “huge missed opportunity”, arguing that statutory NDMPs would have offered clearer, stronger pro-growth direction. Others, including the Planning Officers’ Society, note that making NDMPs statutory could have destabilised adopted local plans overnight due to LURA’s rigid drafting. Whilst Matthew Pennycook MP was quoted in Planning Resource recently, saying that opting for statutory national development management policies would have caused “disruption and delay” to the planning system.

Statutory Consultees

Finally, the government has launched its long-awaited consultation on removing statutory consultee status from Sport England, the Theatres Trust and the Gardens Trust, potentially eliminating around 3,000 consultations a year. Ministers argue this will streamline decision-making; the effectiveness of this measure will depend on how non-statutory engagement evolves in practice. The consultation runs until 13 January.

Paul Smith further commented, “It is always prudent to look at ways to streamline the planning process and remove unnecessary barriers, and this move should be welcomed. However, it is questionable how significant this particular move will be in releasing land for housing and major development proposals.”

For the planning industry, all the above changes represent central intervention, more pressure for speed, and significant organisational change. The coming months – particularly the NPPF update – will determine how coherently these reforms align into a functioning system capable of meeting the Government’s 1.5 million homes ambition.

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 A Busy Month for the Planning Industry appeared first on Apex Planning.

Recent figures from TerraQuest’s Planning Portal reveal that planning applications for new homes jumped by nearly a third between April and June 2025 compared with the same period in 2024. In total, 69,597 new homes were applied for in Q2, up from 52,282 the previous year. This is welcome news for ministers, who are banking on delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliamentary term. However, separate data published on 18 September from Glenigan suggests 221,000 individual homes were granted permission in the year to June 2025, down from 237,000 in the year to June 2024.

Confidence among developers is clearly rebounding, supported by policy reforms such as updates to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently progressing through Parliament. Geoff Keal, CEO at TerraQuest, observed: “There are clear signs of sector recovery, with our data revealing a notable rise in planning activity. The recent uplift points to growing confidence among developers and housebuilders.”

But while planning applications are rising, the actual delivery and occupation of homes is another matter. Across much of England, thousands of dwellings remain delayed by regulatory and infrastructure bottlenecks. Two of the most significant obstacles are the building regulations approval process and the limitations of the country’s wastewater infrastructure.

Building regulations and the sign-off problem

The government’s Building Safety Act 2022 introduced a new Building Safety Regulator (BSR) to oversee the design and construction of higher-risk buildings and to raise safety standards across the sector. While widely supported in principle, the reforms have created bottlenecks in practice.

One of the biggest issues lies at Gateway 2, the approval stage that must be cleared before construction can begin. Although the statutory target for decisions is 12 weeks, many applications are taking significantly longer. Developers report widespread delays, and some applications are being rejected due to missing or unclear information.

Without approval, homes cannot progress from the construction stage to occupation. As Emily Leonard of law firm Freeths noted in an article For PBDC Today: “These are positive words for many involved in the construction industry, who have voiced concerns about the BSR’s role and effectiveness. Developers and funders, in particular, will want to see tangible improvements – and promptly.”

The government has announced reforms to speed up the process, including a fast-track pathway and increased staffing, but for now, the sign-off bottleneck remains a major drag on housing delivery.

Sewerage capacity: a hidden roadblock

Alongside building regulations, wastewater infrastructure has emerged as another serious barrier. Sewerage companies across large parts of the south and east of England are objecting to planning applications on the grounds that treatment plants lack the capacity to support new developments.

In some cases, councils grant permission but impose ‘grampian’ conditions – meaning the homes cannot be built or occupied until sewerage upgrades are secured. The problem is that many treatment works will not be expanded for years, leaving developments in limbo.

A new report by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) – A Drain on the Nation – highlights the scale of the problem. According to the research, wastewater policy is delaying around 30,000 homes, including 7,000 affordable homes. This also stalls an estimated £900m in Section 106 contributions that would otherwise fund local schools, green spaces, and infrastructure.

David O’Leary, executive director at HBF, was blunt in his comment to PBC Today: “These delays are yet another example of how misalignment between planning authorities, utility companies, and national policy is choking off housing supply. Water companies are legally responsible for ensuring network capacity and have received £2.3bn from developers over the past five years to do so. Yet in the absence of clear national direction, planning permissions are being blocked, tens of thousands of homes delayed, and billions of pounds of community investment withheld.”

The bigger picture

The paradox is striking: planning applications are rising and developers are ready to build, but regulatory bottlenecks and infrastructure gaps are just two issues stopping homes from being completed and occupied. Unless the issues with building sign-off and sewerage capacity are resolved, the government’s ambition of delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029 will remain out of reach.

Unlocking housing supply requires more than planning approvals. It demands a coordinated approach where building regulations are applied effectively but efficiently, and where vital infrastructure keeps pace with development. Until then, the gap between homes planned and homes delivered will continue to frustrate both builders and would-be buyers

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 The Widening Gap between Application and Build appeared first on Apex Planning.

The rise of AI (Artificial Intelligence) is a contentious subject, depending upon what industry you work within. While it may be entertaining social media users, who have enjoyed turning themselves into boxed action figures or creating images of their future children, many in the creative industries see it as a threat to how they earn a living.

However, the promise of one AI tool could modernise the planning system – with one simple aim, to quickly retrieve historical files and data and speed up the whole process – and support the government’s target to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.

Speaking at London Tech Week last month, the Prime Minister announced the launch of ‘Extract’ – an AI assistant for planning officers and local councils, developed by government with support from Google.

The current use of paper documents and scanned PDFs hinders the planning process, making it inefficient, with backlogs and wasted resources. It’s estimated that 250,000 estimated hours are spent by planning officers in the UK each year manually checking these documents. This new tool could dramatically reduce delays.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Digital Planning Programme is working with the government’s Incubator for AI (i.AI), part of the DSIT (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) on an AI tool that quickly creates higher-quality data.

With the help of the tool, old planning documents can be transformed into clear digital data in only 40 seconds. Handwritten notes, and even old, unclear maps can be digitised in seconds – a vast improvement on the 1-2 hours it can currently take planning staff to achieve any results.

Because the tool can call on information from thousands of files, it can create more accurate data, and in turn cut down on errors and delays. By default, this will free up planners’ time to focus on other planning needs.

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said: “The UK’s planning system has been held back for too long by outdated paper documents, and slow processes, making it nearly impossible for councils to make informed decisions quickly.

“As part of our Plan for Change, we’re using the power of AI to transform sluggish systems so we can start to rebuild. With Extract, councils will have access to better quality data so they can move more quickly on planning decisions and get on with driving growth.

“Technology like this could be a vital step towards councils meeting targets to help build the 1.5 million new homes the country needs, all while updating and improving the planning system for the future.”

The technology is currently in testing mode and could be made available to councils later this year.

Paul Smith, from Milton Keynes-based Apex Planning Consultants says: “E-government has promised this type of benefit for years, however, if it is achievable, it will certainly speed things up, not just for local councils but applicants/planning consultants too. All too often I have to request that historical files are retrieved from council archives for review, which can take a few days or several weeks, because they must find the paper copies then scan and email them or upload them to their own planning portals.

“Other benefits might be that the current archived material can be organised and filed more efficiently, compiling approved and superseded drawings and reports, removing duplications, and placing reports into subject folders, meaning it is easier to conduct background research.”

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 AI Tool Promises to Cut Planning Backlogs and Delays appeared first on Apex Planning.

It all comes down to the suggestion that the money injected into the economy by future house building will go towards providing better public services. The extra £3.4bn estimated to be generated may well encourage those in charge to push through planning improvements to allow this extra money to filter through, especially as people will be able to move closer to where the jobs are – as we mentioned recently with planning for new houses on the outskirts of cities such as Cambridge and Oxford.

But these developments will rely on changes to planning regulation.

Planning and Infrastructure

Improvements to the planning process will have to take place, including those in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, introduced in Parliament on 11 March 2025. The government issued guidance the same day. One of the amendments for this new national regulation will be looking at what types of decisions should be made not by local authority planning committees but by professional planning officers. Quite how this will be achieved is yet to be finalised, but it could see everything apart from a small selection of planning applications being taken out of the hands of the planning committees, where decisions are made by elected councillors.

It is hoped this will speed up the process, meaning decisions can be made under delegated powers, rather than waiting for the usual monthly cycle of a planning committee, but also it will remove emotive, non-planning considerations that can see perfectly acceptable planning applications refused, forcing applicants to use the appeal process to achieve planning permission; this can have a significant impact on the timings for delivering our much-needed new housing and increase the overall cost of the development. Of course, in extreme situations there is also the potential to avoid local people paying the costs of an appeal, which is paid for through the taxpayers’ own money.

Part of this is the likelihood of the Conservative-created national development management policies being used to form broad priorities that may override those in local plans. Areas would be ‘zoned’ rather than decisions made piecemeal on each application – we mentioned in our last blog how the Labour government is keen to see building on what it terms Grey Belt land.

Spatial Development

Another proposal is for spatial development strategies, although the government states this does not herald a return to regional planning, which was abolished by Sir Eric Pickles during a previous Conservative administration, it will be more closely described as a sub-regional model.

The objective of the spatial development strategies will be to provide broad policies for the delivery of housing, economic growth, infrastructure, and climate resilience, with local plan polices needing to reflect them, and continuing to allocate appropriate land for development.

Planning System

The Spring Statement noted that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the changes to England’s planning system announced last year, will boost housebuilding by 170,000 over five years.

It was also announced that £625m will be allocated in England for launching a construction skills package to train up to 60,000 more skilled workers over four years. This is good news as Paul Smith at Apex Planning Consultants has previously pointed out that all the plans for boosting construction were moot if there were no skilled workers to carry them out.

He adds that: “Housebuilders and developers maintain that skills shortages are a significant issue that slows the pace of development and needs to be addressed with radical approaches. Whilst they themselves have introduced and increased in-house apprenticeships, including partnering with colleges and universities, more needs to be done, and this is likely to mean government assistance.”

An additional £2 billion will also be invested in social and affordable housing.

Maybe there will be some good news for those retailers and small businesses too, as people coming into their areas to live in all these new homes will hopefully spend more with them too…

It certainly looks like Keir Starmer is sticking to his pre-election promise of backing the “builders, not the blockers”.

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 Springing into Construction Action appeared first on Apex Planning.

New Towns Taskforce

The chair of the new New Towns Taskforce, which held its first meeting in Milton Keynes, has identified that the area nearby has ‘considerable potential’ as the site of a New Town, due to its location in the M1 corridor and between Oxford and Cambridge.

However, he added that no locations had as yet been identified. The Taskforce met in the city to learn more about how it had been developed and what lessons could be learned from its development over the years.

One key point he raised was that funding the maintenance of infrastructure was important, in order to avoid the new towns becoming a ‘burden on later generations’, especially when large swathes of development are all built at once.

Paul Smith, from Milton Keynes-based Apex Planning Consultants, comments: ’I believe this is very pertinent. MK was built at pace, and it means large areas have aged at the same time and even now after just 40-50 years they are largely outdated and need to be replaced at huge cost. As such, if a new town is to come forward, maintenance is key, but so too is the need for architecture and planning to look far forwards to where technology, living requirements, amenity requirements, travel patterns and modes of transport are concerned. They need to factor in lifetime standards so the buildings (including homes, places of work and leisure) are truly adaptable and repairable too. This would help to minimise the need for wholesale demolition and redevelopment, which is environmentally and financially costly.’

Learnings from Northstowe

But while the New Town Taskforce goes about its work, it’s unlikely that Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million houses in five years is going to be fulfilled solely by the creation of said New Towns. For example, the residents of Northstowe in Cambridgeshire, had been sold the dream of a thriving community in the first new town in the UK since Milton Keynes was built. Six years on, however, and only 1,480 homes have been built, far short of the 10,000 promised, and while there are three schools and a pub, there is no sign of a GP’s surgery or shops.

That said, there is light at the end of the tunnel for Northstowe, with Homes England appointing profit-with-purpose developer, TOWN, to deliver a new cohousing community there. TOWN is now in the process of building a group of future residents, who will help to shape the new cohousing community through a codesign process. The plan is to include 40% affordable housing, as well as communal spaces and facilities.

Workforce and Collaboration

But there are other hurdles in the way of New Towns. David Hopkins, a Conservative councillor in Milton Keynes City Council, pointed out that the prospect of major new housing and transport developments nearby should prompt a pause in the local authority putting together its next local plan, as new major developments could see the council having to ‘quite literally tear up and start again’.

The impact on the planning industry also can’t be ignored. The government has pledged funding for 300 junior planning officers for councils, but this adds up to less than one per council. As Paul notes: ’This will not accelerate the planning and development industry. In any event, it will take time to encourage and secure the recruitment of the 300 planners, particularly as many in the profession are growing increasingly undervalued. The stress and pay conditions experienced in council planning departments is often cited for the reasons so many leave and it is then difficult to recruit to fill the gap.’

Without an efficient and well-resourced planning system, and a lot less red tape, the drive to build new homes will not be accelerated. Paul adds: ’We need councils and council planning officers and elected members who are truly welcoming of housing developments, that are pragmatic and willing to find solutions to problems. Of course, developers must recognise their role in helping the council to achieve this objective too. This may in part mean paying reasonable prices for land, rather than acquiring land at any cost. Landowners should be encouraged to recognise the need for more realistic land valuations.’

Finally, the workforce is needed to actually build these new homes, and skilled workers in the construction industry are in short supply. Apprenticeships need to be more widely available, and funding for education in this sector also needs to be addressed.

Next Steps

The government’s New Towns Taskforce will deliver a list of potential locations for new settlements to ministers by next July. The ‘call for evidence‘ as detailed via the link runs until 13 December 2024.

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 New Towns – The Future for New Housing Development? appeared first on Apex Planning.

The new Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has announced a number of planning system reforms, among them a recalculation of the required number of new homes needed to meet demand and the targeting of ‘grey belt’ land in the Green Belt.

The new homes target has increased to 370,000 per annum, an average increase for local authorities of 20 per cent on the current 306,500.

The increase is part of a system shake-up, which sees the new Labour Government aim to provide a total of 1.5 million homes over the next five years. It said this would boost homebuilding in areas that are most in need of new homes.

However, the figure could be markedly different for some urban planning authorities, as Labour has decided to do away with the ‘urban uplift’, which saw some cities required to plan for 35 per cent more urban homes. For example, in London, the need has dropped from 99,000 to 80,000 homes.

Planning System Reforms

Other proposals include changes to local plan intervention criteria; the release of ‘grey belt’ sites situated in green belt land in a bid to spark homebuilding; and the introduction of ‘comprehensive’ coverage of strategic plans across England.

If put into action, these proposals could see local authorities that can’t meet housing need be forced to review land in the green belt to see if sites can be released. They should first look at brownfield sites but turn their attention to ‘grey belt’ sites if needed. Councils with local plans that are out of date, or that have particularly poor track records on delivering housing, will be expected to approve grey belt applications.

It’s not a free-for-all on grey belt sites though. Applications will have to follow ‘golden rules’ – delivering 50% affordable homes, increasing access to green spaces and supplying the necessary infrastructure such as schools and GP surgeries.

The government also proposes to remove references to ‘beauty’ within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and add a wider range of developments under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning (NSIP) system, to increase renewables and digital infrastructure projects.

Housing targets will be mandatory under changes to the NPPF. However, councils will be able to cite constraints through local plans as a reason not to comply with targets.

Angela Rayner said: “Today [30 July 2024] marks a significant step to getting Britain building again.

“Our decisive reforms to the planning system correct the errors of the past and set us on our way to tackling the housing crisis, delivering 1.5 million homes for those who really need them.”

Sector’s Response

Responding to the proposals, Victoria Hills, chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute, said that they “have the potential to rebuild trust in our planning system. We believe that the government’s goals for housing, energy, and transport can be accomplished through collaboration with planners in both the public and private sectors.”

Justin Young, chief executive of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, said: “Securing the homes the UK requires needs more than one solution, and it is encouraging to see many of them addressed today.

“Setting localised housing targets to ensure that what is needed is built in the right places and with the right infrastructure, and working with local authorities that know their areas better than anyone, will help secure the bold ambitions of government as well as providing jobs and opportunities.”

Planning Resource reported that Nigel Hugill, chief executive of developer Urban&Civic, said: “Recent experience is that setting clear targets for each local planning authority is absolutely fundamental to lifting housing numbers’’, while Councillor Claire Holland, housing spokesperson for the Local Government Association, commented: “While national government can provide useful guidance, it is local councils and communities who know their areas best, so changes to national planning policy should be suitably flexible to allow authorities to make judgement decisions on managing competing demands for uses in their local areas. We will look carefully at the changes proposed to planning policy and housing targets.’’

She added that councils need the power to support the faster build of schemes, and suggested a ‘stalled sites’ council tax premium, along with a streamlined compulsory purchase process to acquire stalled sites or sites where developers do not build out to agreed rates.

Paul Brocklehurst, chairman of the Land, Planning and Development Federation, concluded: ‘’The measures that the government is announcing are the first giant stride in the long walk to achieving that goal.”

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 New Government Sets Targets for Home Provision appeared first on Apex Planning.