Planning and Infrastructure Bill: CLA analysis

Earlier this month, the government introduced the long-awaited Planning and Infrastructure Bill to the House of Commons. The lengthy bill covers changes to compulsory purchase legislation, energy and transport infrastructure and the administration of local planning authorities.

Here, we cover some of the proposed changes and give an initial assessment of their impact.

Nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) are projects of a large size that are deemed important enough for the relevant government minister to be responsible for approving them. This means planning applications for these projects are made to the Planning Inspectorate rather than to a local authority.

The process of applying for a development consent order (a type of planning permission) is set out in the Planning Act 2008. An application is determined against a set of national policy statements, which are specific to the NSIP regime. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill would require these policy statements to be fully reviewed and updated at least every five years.

Currently the Planning Act 2008 requires NSIP applicants to consult certain bodies and persons when preparing their development consent order application. This includes stakeholders who might be entitled to claim compensation if the NSIP is granted permission and delivered. These consultees are called “category 3 persons”. The bill as currently drafted removes the requirement to consult category 3 persons during the pre-application stage.

The bill also amends how the judicial review process works for NSIP development consent decisions made by the secretary of state, so that if the High Court finds the appeal is “totally without merit” the person making the appeal will no longer be able to progress this to the Court of Appeal.

Nationally significant infrastructure projects can have a significant impact on CLA members, particularly if the proposed project is on, goes through, or is near the members’ land.

The review of national policy statements could increase the CLA’s ability to influence how NSIPs will be determined. We have mixed feelings about removing the requirement to consult category 3 persons. On one hand, they can genuinely be highly impacted by the works, but on the other, keeping track of all of them can be burdensome and many will hardly be affected. If the removal meant more thorough consultation with those losing land, we would be tentatively supportive. We are concerned, however, that it will just be seen as a cost saving measure and these more thorough consultations will not occur.

There has been much media attention on the compulsory purchase provisions within the bill. These provisions make relatively minor amendments to legislation that already exists in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was enacted under the previous Conservative Government. The fact that the changes are minor will make them no less concerning for CLA members.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act allowed hope value to be removed via an application to the secretary of state for sites delivering affordable housing, healthcare or education facilities. This bill seeks to extend the removal of hope value to “loss payments”, which add a set amount to the claim based on property value to cover the disruption and distress of the loss.

The bill expands powers to acquire land temporarily. These powers can already be used without giving business owners any advance or ongoing payment to cover this loss. A statutory mechanism to allow advance payments exists, but has never been brought into force, and this bill does not replicate this mechanism for the expanded powers.

There are also minor changes that streamline the process for those with existing compulsory purchase powers to exercise them, including streamlining the process for parish councils looking to use their compulsory purchase powers.

The bill misses an opportunity to improve the relationship between those losing property to compulsory purchase and the authorities acquiring it. To those unfamiliar with it, compulsory purchase is complex and intimidating. This can lead those affected to feel that powers are being used arbitrarily or maliciously.

The removal of hope value from home loss payments is concerning, although is likely to have a more considerable impact on those losing their home to urban regeneration projects.

This is one of the core areas we will be focusing on when working to improve the bill, including:

• Introducing an enforceable Compulsory Purchase Code of Practice to the bill
• Removing from the bill changes to home loss payments
• Allowing advance payments for land compulsorily acquired temporarily
• Removing any streamlining provisions in the bill that limit landowners’ ability to challenge the use of compulsory purchase powers

The bill introduces new environmental delivery plans (EDPs). EDPs will set out how damage to protected species or features of protected sites (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Areas), which are likely to be negatively affected by development, may be mitigated. The EDPs will include the features that are expected to be impacted, the conservations measures that will be taken by or on behalf of Natural England, the amount of nature restoration levy to be paid to cover the cost of those measures, and the environmental obligations which is are discharged or modified when the developer pays the levy.

There are provisions to ensure that Natural England pay due attention to the impact a levy will have on viability of development. The bill provides Natural England with the power to acquire land through compulsory purchase to deliver EDPs.

This section of the bill is drafted to unlock developments that have stalled due to nature conservation requirements, such as nutrient neutrality. However, we have serious concerns about the extensive powers being extended to Natural England, including whether they are appropriately skilled or resourced to handle this extra responsibility. We are particularly opposed to Natural England using compulsory purchase powers to deliver the EDPs.

Preceding the bill, the government set out its intention to reform the way planning decisions are made. The bill brings these reforms forward, including mandatory training for local planning authority members. In addition, it will create a new national scheme of delegation (setting out which applications can be determined at officer level and which should be determined at committee level).

Currently, planning fees in England are set nationally by central government. The bill changes this to allow local authorities to set planning fees themselves, up to a maximum of full cost recovery, increased fees are ring-fenced to planning departments. Full cost recovery does not include plan-making or enforcement costs. The secretary of state will be able to override locally set planning if they are deemed too high or too low.

Full cost recovery of planning fees will disadvantage smaller sites, which will proportionally see a higher increase in fees than larger sites. This is because the time and resource to determine a planning application is not directly proportional to the number of homes delivered. The CLA supports the ring-fencing of planning fees, and this is something we have continually lobbied for. However, without the government setting a clear direction of how the public planning sector will be upskilled and how jobs in local planning authorities will become more attractive, increased fees alone will not improve the planning service and will negatively impact the financial viability of small sites.

National Parks and the Broads Authority have been excluded from the national scheme of delegation. We think that this exclusion (again) from this more progressive planning measure neglects these communities and businesses. We intend to oppose the exclusion of National Parks from the national scheme of delegation.

A 2024 CLA planning survey identified that 94% of rural businesses across England and Wales feel there is a lack of knowledge on rural issues and agricultural matters in the planning system. The new mandatory training must include rural issues and the importance of planning for agricultural businesses.

The bill aims to reintroduce a system of strategic planning across England. New larger authorities, which could be created through the devolution process, will need to adopt a spatial development strategy. These strategic documents would identify the development needs of an area, but unlike local plans would not allocate specific sites. The spatial development strategies have to ensure that development contributes to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change and take account of local nature recovery strategies.

Without more detail on how devolution deals in England will be structured, it is difficult to understand the full impact of a move towards strategic planning. There is a risk that if planning is enacted across wider geographical areas small rural sites and development projects will go to the bottom of the pile and will be more likely to be delayed.