\t\t\t\t\t\tEmail\t\t\t\t\t\tShare on Email\n\t\t\t\t<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"Getty](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/GettyImages-1741996656-e1761565262948.jpg\")
\t\t\t<\/p>\n
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill promises faster decisions and greener outcomes. But will it actually deliver, asks James Clark<\/p>\n
Nervousness, delays and complex rules continue to plague our planning system. Balancing legislative reform whilst instilling trust in the system is an equation the government is yet to master. With the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently progressing through parliament, the government is promising faster decisions, greener outcomes and fewer delays \u2014 but will it deliver?<\/p>\n
What will change after the Planning and Infrastructure Bill?<\/p>\n
The Bill<\/a> is aimed at modernising planning and speeding up development. Headline changes<\/a> include Environmental Delivery Plans and a Nature Restoration Fund to unlock development through strategic environmental investment; a national delegation scheme, enabling more decisions to be taken at officer level; and empowering planning authorities to set planning fees locally, ringfencing funds to ensure reinvestment in planning services.<\/p>\n Recent government amendments to \u201cget Britain building faster\u201d include a range of measures from streamlining reservoir approvals to accelerate critical infrastructure; placing limits on judicial review to restrict appeals; extended lifetimes for certain planning permissions; and inclusion of marine projects within the Nature Restoration Fund, amongst others.<\/p>\n Too much, too soon?<\/p>\n While these reforms are broadly welcomed, many in the industry argue that stability is now essential. In the past few years, developers have already faced major changes, including the changes introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, the introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain and an updated National Planning Policy Framework that reintroduced mandatory housing targets, and introduced the new \u201cgrey belt\u201d policy.<\/p>\n Frequent legislative changes, however positive, risk creating an unpredictable planning environment that could stall development rather than accelerate it. The system needs time to bed down; constant change may otherwise risk paralysis.<\/p>\n The principle of proportionality<\/p>\n A standout proposal is the introduction of a \u201cprinciple of proportionality\u201d in planning. Proposed by Lord Banner, Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson, this amendment would apply widely \u2013 to planning applications, environmental impact assessments, habitats assessments, and judicial and statutory reviews.<\/p>\n In essence, it means that the information and evidence required to determine an application should be proportionate to the project itself: the issues should be considered in light of decisions already made and whether any of the issues can be managed through future regulation (such as planning conditions or obligations).<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\tRead more<\/p>\n \t\t\tReeves to limit legal challenges to key infrastructure projects<\/a><\/p>\n This could be transformative. Currently, consultants adopt a defensive approach, often producing lengthy, complex documents to withstand potential challenges. While understandable, given how contentious and adversarial the planning system has become, this practice drives up costs and delays.\u00a0<\/p>\n For this reform to succeed, regulations must provide clear guidance on what constitutes \u201csufficient\u201d information. Greater clarity on what\u2019s required will prevent such a gold-plated approach to applications, which is only perpetuating a vicious cycle of delays.<\/p>\n On-the-ground solutions<\/p>\n Legislation and policy alone will not solve the system\u2019s inefficiencies. Practical changes will be equally important. For instance, while some local planning authorities now permit electronic execution of Section 106 agreements, adoption remains patchy. On complex schemes involving multiple parties, particularly where a party is based outside the UK, reliance on wet ink signatures can delay completion and the issuing of planning permission significantly, sometimes by months.<\/p>\n Targeted government investment to enable the widespread adoption of digital execution for Section 106 agreements could significantly cut delays and accelerate development.<\/p>\n The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a bold attempt from the government to streamline planning and unlock development. Yet, after a series of rapid reforms from Labour, stability may now be the priority, allowing changes to filter down into local development plans and for developers to get to grips with the changes.\u00a0<\/p>\n If implemented well, particularly the principle of proportionality, these reforms could reduce complexity and speed up delivery. But if the pace of change continues unchecked, the risk is an ever-shifting landscape that hinders progress rather than enabling it.<\/p>\n James Clark is a partner at Foot Anstey<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\tRead more<\/p>\n