Whilst we are, at the time of writing, in the midst of our annual pre-Christmas rush to get things completed and submitted, it is always worth reflecting on what has happened and what we have achieved during 2025 and looking ahead to changes afoot.
Planning on the national agenda
In the Labour government’s first full year in charge it has grappled with numerous planning related challenges in its quest to use construction as a means to kickstart the economy. The rhetoric around planning and planners has been mixed, with talk about ‘freeing up the planning system’ so that it is not a ‘barrier to growth’ contrasting with the good news in the budget that the chancellor will allocate an extra £48 million over the next three years to boost the planning system, with the government claiming that it will allow the recruitment of 350 additional planners by the end of this parliament.
In December 2024, the Government announced a series of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Housebuilding in particular became a key part of the plan for growth and a central component of Labour’s plan. The aim is to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the course of this parliament and this target has brought greater responsibility for local planning authorities, who must meet their own needs or find neighbouring authorities to shoulder some of the burden.
The recent Autumn statement also confirmed that more reform is still to come. A new Local Plan-making system will come into force in early 2026, and new regulations introducing a 30-month timeline for creating and adopting Local Plans. The government has also stated its intention to publish a revised NPPF for consultation by the end of 2025, to take account of the changes to Local Plan development, with changes implemented mid-2026.
Grey belt grey areas
I think for me, the planning story of the year has been the introduction of the concept of ‘grey belt’ land. This has definitely opened up more land for potential development than I or many others would have anticipated. When the idea was originally floated, the premise was that large parts of the Green Belt are of “poor quality and ugly” and should therefore be considered suitable for development. The NPPF, updated in December 2024, states that land can be designated as grey belt if it “does not strongly contribute” to three of the main purposes of the green belt, which are to stop towns merging, prevent urban sprawl and protect historic towns. Angela Rayner (remember her?) said grey belt sites should be “disused garages for example or car parks” and it was “not the rolling hills of Suffolk that we’re building on” during her tenure as secretary of state for housing. However, that’s not quite how its panned out in reality and a (presumably) unintended consequence is that small greenfield sites on the edges of medium to large sized villages (not towns or cities) are particularly likely to be classed as grey belt. But, surprise surprise, things are rarely that simple. An appeal (insert link) for 100 homes on Land at Boscobel Lane, Bishops Wood, South Staffordshire was recently dismissed due to an Inspector’s ruling that it was not a sustainable location and due to concerns about its impact on the setting of listed church but in other cases for large scale housing and commercial developments have been accepted despite their impact upon various designated heritage assets. Lord Charles Banner KC raised the matter of these two cases at the Planning Law Conference in London at the start of December, pointing out that these inconsistencies cause confusion and should be clarified as soon as possible. I certainly hope that the revised NPPF will help to clarify the assessment of grey belt land.
BNG: time for another look?
The legal requirement to provide 10% biodiversity net gains continues to be a very divisive subject and one that is providing a real thorn in the side for many of our clients. The overall aim of halting the decline in our natural habitats is hard to argue with but is the current system really working? The requirement to address this on all but the smallest of developments has, in my experience, resulted in significant additional costs and time delays both in submitting applications and in getting applications determined. The problem is that every site needs to be surveyed and assessed for a ‘baseline value’ before a biodiversity metric needs to be produced setting out how any ‘habitat’ (i.e. grassland, trees, hedges and water bodies) can be compensated for. This all takes time and money and, often, the cost of actually carrying out the enhancement part (e.g. planting new trees or creating a new pond) is a fraction (sometimes only 10%) of the overall associated costs. When you add in the chronic resource shortages amongst local authority planning teams and ecological teams (normally county wildlife trusts) consulted on these applications, even where there is an applicant willing to provide the 10% uplift these things can take months. Surely there is a better way of doing this on the small sites with the use of some sort of financial levy, therefore putting more money towards actually carrying out biodiversity improvements? The government carried out a consultation exercise in May on “Improving the implementation of biodiversity net gain for minor, medium and brownfield development” but the outcomes of this are yet to be published. I think its fair to say that changes to the current system will be made, possibly by simplifications for minor sites (1–9 homes) which may be granted partial or full exemption from BNG or subject to simplified requirements.
Local politics
As reported recently there are some concerted efforts amongst a number of the Derbyshire authorities to get new Local Plans updated or reviewed. All the while, the spectre of local government reorganisation (LGR) is looming large over Derbyshire at present. The ‘One Derbyshire, Two Councils’ plan proposes to reduce the number of local authorities covering Derbyshire from 10 to two, with one covering the north of the county, and one covering the south. At present there are four separate proposals differentiated on the basis of where the boundary line between the northern and southern unitary councils could be drawn. New unitary councils would likely take on full duties from April 2028 and this is proving to be another incentive for local authorities to get up-to-date plans in place before the inevitable flux and uncertainty of LGR kicks in. We will watch the process unfold with interest.
Cheshire East, which itself was born out of local government reorganisation in Cheshire in 2009, is also reviewing its own Local Plan and one proposal to deliver a high proportion of its housing needs is the Adlington New Town proposal which is one of 12 locations identified as potential new towns by a government taskforce. According to a prospectus produced by the landowners, the “ambition is to build between 14,000 and 20,000 tech-enabled, affordable homes with up to 40% of the overall housing being Shared Ownership, Discounted Market Rent, Social Rent, and affordable housing for key workers and other priority housing groups.” However, despite the apparent government support, Cheshire East councillors have passed a motion to formally object to the proposal and write to the housing secretary stating the reasons for its opposition. Having read through the prospectus, there are some strong arguments in favour of Adlington given its proximity to the strategic road and rail network and its location at the heart of the Greater Manchester Southern Growth Corridor and the Cheshire Growth Sector clusters. However, there is a long way to go before any houses are built given that most of the nearly 1,000 hectares of land is Green Belt and the powerful opposition it already faces.
Successes
For PDP, we have had another year with many proud achievements for our clients and more details can be found on the News page on our website. Particular highlights include the approval of two major schemes for Clowes Developments UK Ltd in the Amber Valley borough. One was for around 170 new homes, delivering much-needed housing for the community and the other scheme was for around 12 hectares of commercial employment land, creating opportunities for businesses and driving economic growth. These developments represent a significant investment in the area, supporting jobs, housing, and long-term prosperity. We look forward to seeing these projects come to life and the positive impact they will bring.
On the staffing front, we wish Diane Johns many happy years of retirement after 14 years as our Office Manager. Her replacement Suzanne has some big shoes to fill but is already proving a great addition to the team. Sadly, the man who has compiled our newsletter for the last 6 years, Gary Stringer, is off to pastures new. We wish you all the best Gary and promise to keep the newsletter going even when you’re gone! We continue to do our bit at PDP to develop our own talent by taking on graduates, sandwich year students and apprentices in both the Planning and Architectural teams.
On the social side of things, in June we went on our annual study trip, this time to York. It was fascinating to learn about the York Minster Neighbourhood Plan which sets out an ambitious masterplan to sustain and enhance the cultural significance and environmental value of York Minster’s Precinct and its buildings through specially created planning policy. Delivery of the Neighbourhood Plan will signal the biggest programme of planned works at York Minster and within the Minster Precinct Neighbourhood Area in 150 years. We continue to assist neighbourhood groups on a number of Neighbourhood Plans and it is striking how different the challenge is with each Neighbourhood Plan.
Well that’s it for another year. If ever you have any feedback on our newsletter we would love to hear it in order to make it more useful and more tailored to what our readers actually want. All that remains for me to say is that we will continue to strive for ever more sustainable development and hope to see many of you over the next 12 months.
I would like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Richard Pigott, Director, Chartered Town Planner, Planning & Design Practice Ltd
