Quantum PR's Blog

Can Coalition planning reforms help to re-build the economy? By Charlie Vavasour

Managing Director Charlie Vavasour

The Coalition’s hopes for economic recovery increasingly lie on the shoulders of infrastructure developers, and reforms to the UK’s planning policy have so far been seen as the vehicle to deliver substantive change and, ultimately, growth.

The government has recently revealed plans to stimulate house building across Britain. Planning regulations will be relaxed, applications fast-tracked, and first time buyers offered support. The Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill, worth up to £50 billion in government guarantees, is currently under consideration by the Parliament. This is all good news for developers, who need both a more favourable planning system and better access to finance for proposed projects.

Yet much of the Coalition’s attitude to planning policy reform appears inconsistent, particularly with regards to the future of greenbelt land. In March the government published its National Planning Policy Framework, and (then) planning minster Greg Clark’s foreword stated: “Green Belt land that has been depleted of diversity can be refilled by nature.” Just months later, the Chancellor announced plans which will make it harder for residents to object to new developments and encourage councils to allow building on greenbelt land. How these proposals will fit in with the Localism Act and whether they will come to fruition or wither on the vine, as with the proposed privatisation of Britain’s forests, remains to be seen.

Relaxing planning policy is one step, and a useful one from a development standpoint. However, where waste management and energy infrastructure is concerned and energy-from-waste in particular, the ability of local communities to challenge and overturn planning decisions remains a constant thorn in the side of developers. The chief executive of Viridor, Colin Drummond, recently lambasted the “culture of the kneejerk judicial review” which disrupts and delays projects, even after development consent has been received. A reappraisal of the post-planning process and the potential for consent to be stripped retrospectively is appropriate, given the importance of nationally significant infrastructure projects to the economy’s future.