Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Second Reading, House of Commons, Monday 24 March 2025: LGA response

• The LGA supports the ambition of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to speed up infrastructure delivery, improve planning processes, and introduce new approaches to energy and transport infrastructure. The Bill includes several long-standing LGA asks, such as making it easier for councils to purchase vacant land for housebuilding, localising planning fees, and increasing planning capacity. These measures have the potential to support councils in delivering the homes and infrastructure communities need. However, concerns remain about how the Bill will ensure that councils – who best understand the needs of their areas – remain central to the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the foundation of the English planning system, and any reforms must safeguard local oversight and transparency.
• The Bill introduces a range of reforms, including a requirement to review National Policy Statements (NPSs) every five years, new powers for the Secretary of State to bypass development consent requirements for certain Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), and changes to the electricity grid connection process to prioritise projects that are ready to proceed. It establishes a cap and floor scheme for Long Duration Electricity Storage (LDES), introduces financial benefits for households living near new electricity transmission infrastructure, and amends the Forestry Act 1967 to allow the use of forestry land for renewable energy generation. It also streamlines decision-making for transport infrastructure, reforms the process for installing electric vehicle (EV) charge points, enables local planning authorities to set their own planning fees, strengthens compulsory purchase powers, and introduces Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) alongside a new Nature Restoration Levy.
• The requirement to review National Policy Statements (NPSs) at least every five years is a welcome step, as it will provide greater certainty and improve strategic infrastructure planning. However, it is essential that councils are fully engaged in shaping these reviews to ensure that national policy reflects local priorities and supports the sustainable development of communities. The Bill also grants the Secretary of State new powers to bypass the development consent process for certain infrastructure projects. While streamlining decision-making can help accelerate infrastructure delivery, it is crucial that councils retain the ability to represent local concerns and that transparency in decision-making is upheld.
• The LGA supports reforms to improve the electricity grid connection process, which could unlock stalled renewable energy projects and help councils advance local energy schemes. However, local authorities must be fully engaged in strategic energy planning to ensure benefits are felt at a local level. Proposals to introduce a cap and floor scheme for LDES are positive, but planning decisions for these projects should remain within the remit of local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act.
• Ensuring that communities hosting energy infrastructure receive a fair share of benefits is important, and the introduction of a consumer benefits scheme for households living near new transmission projects is a step in the right direction. However, the scheme must be designed in a way that ensures fairness and provides proportionate compensation. The Bill’s amendments to the Forestry Act 1967 to enable renewable energy generation on forestry land must also ensure that biodiversity, public access, and fire safety considerations are fully addressed.
• Reforms to transport infrastructure processes could provide benefits by streamlining decision-making, but it is essential that councils retain their ability to represent local concerns. The introduction of statutory deadlines for determining applications must not lead to rushed decisions or place additional strain on council resources.
• Changes to the approval process for EV charge points aim to accelerate deployment, but the LGA has concerns that removing certain licensing requirements could limit local authorities’ ability to coordinate EV infrastructure in a strategic and effective manner.
• The ability for councils to set their own planning fees is a positive step that could help local planning authorities recover costs and improve resourcing. However, it is essential that councils receive full new burdens funding for any additional responsibilities introduced by the Bill. Proposals to increase the delegation of planning decisions may impact the role of elected councillors in local decision-making. The LGA is clear that councillors and communities must retain a strong voice in shaping the places where they live, and any changes must uphold transparency and democratic accountability.
• The introduction of Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) and a Nature Restoration Levy could help support nature recovery, but these new measures must not place additional unfunded burdens on councils. Local authorities must be fully involved in their implementation to ensure they deliver meaningful outcomes for communities and the environment.
• The Government must work with councils to ensure that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill strengthens the ability of local planning authorities to deliver sustainable development, infrastructure, and housing in a way that meets the needs of local communities. Councils must remain at the heart of the planning process, with the funding, powers, and capacity to ensure that decisions are made transparently and in the best interests of the people they represent.

Chapter 1: Nationally significant infrastructure projects 

• Clause 1 establishes a new requirement for National Policy Statements (NPSs) to be subject to a full review and updated at least every five years through amendments to section 6(1) and (2) of the Planning Act 2008. The Secretary of State’s existing power to review the whole or part of an NPS at any time, so long as certain conditions are met, is retained. The Clause also sets out timescales for NPSs to be reviewed and amended depending on their original date of designation.  
   
• Clause 3(which inserts new sections 35B, 35C and 35D into the Planning Act 2008) provides a new power for the Secretary of State to give a direction disapplying the requirement for development consent for certain specified development falling within the meaning and description of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) in the Act. It also sets out conditions (under subsection (6) of new section 35B) where requests are made by a person who has the power to make a local development order, mayoral development order, or a simplified planning zone scheme (these persons may include local planning authorities or Mayoral Development corporations). 
   
• This clause also makes consequential amendment to the Electricity Act 1989 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to ensure that where a direction has been made, onshore generating stations do not require consent under section 36(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, so that they can apply for consent through an alternative consenting route, and to ensure that the Marine Management Organisation is able to perform their electricity consent functions for applicable development subject to a section 35B(1) direction. 
   
• Clauses 4, 5 and 6 set out changes to the processes by which development consents are consulted on and accepted by the Secretary of State. 

LGA view

• The LGA supports these clauses. NPSs are critical tools for infrastructure delivery, but it is important they reflect and build on local planning policies and ensure that infrastructure decisions align with community needs. The commitment to reviewing NPSs at least every five years is a positive step and it is important that local authorities are able to engage in the process and draw on their expertise and knowledge to shape national policy and to ensure that projects deliver local benefits. To do this and to engage fully in the accompanying NSIP processes councils need to be appropriately resourced.
• It is important that the planning system remains sufficiently transparent to secure public trust. The processes by which decisions are made to use alternative routes to development consent must enable this transparency and Clause 4, 5 and 6 seek to provide for this. 

Chapter 2: Electricity Infrastructure 

Connections to the electricity transmission and distribution systems

• The Bill proposes a change to the electricity connection process moving from a ‘first come, first served’ to a ‘first ready, first connected’ process and require NESO and DNOs to prioritise projects for connection based on strategic and system plans (e.g. the proposed Clean Power 2030 Action Plan), including applying technological and locational criteria. 

LGA view

• This change is welcomed. Some members have been unable to take renewable energy projects forward because they have been unable to connect to the grid due to a long queue of projects in the connections queue, some unlikely to go forward. Another impact of this first come, first served connections queue is the case of a new housing development in Biggleswade, Bedfordshire unable to connect to the local substation resulting in a new substation being built using Housing Infrastructure Funds. 

Long duration electricity storage

• The Bill gives effect to the proposals set out in the government response to the January 2024 consultation to introduce an LDES cap and floor scheme, with Ofgem as the delivery body. 

LGA view

• LGA understands the need for Long Duration Electricity Storage (LDES) and welcomes the cap and floor scheme to address the project viability. Planning decisions for LDES should be made locally by the local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act. 

Consumer benefits

• The government’s mission for clean power by 2030 means that some communities will see an increase in the amount of transmission network infrastructure being built in their area, transporting new clean energy from where it is generated, to where it is needed. 
   
• The Bill proposes to establish a scheme through regulations, to recognise communities living near new eligible onshore, above ground transmission network infrastructure, and certain major upgrades of existing projects. This will largely be through applying credits to the accounts of eligible billpayers living in properties closest to this transmission network infrastructure 

LGA view

• The LGA is a strong supporter of community benefits and consumer benefits where a section of the community is asked to host energy infrastructure needed to supply neighbouring communities and the nation. Benefits should be proportionate and worthwhile to ensure communities and individuals feel valued and included.
• Government should consider not overburdening communities, especially when they a less well-off and less economically mobile. Community and consumer benefits only go someway to redress the balance of inequality or perceived inequality. 

Electricity generation on forestry land 

• The Bill will amend the Forestry Act 1967 for the purpose of enabling the appropriate forestry authorities in England and Wales to use and permit the use of forestry land for the generation, transmission, storage and supply of electricity from renewable sources. 

LGA view 

• Forestry land is ideal for the generation, transmission, storage and supply of electricity from renewable sources if access and rights of way are not limited and adequate fire safety measures are put in place. 

Chapter 3: Transport Infrastructure 

Amendments to the Highways Act 1980

• The Highways Act 1980 (HA80) is concerned with the management and operation of the strategic road network and major roads in England and Wales. Applications for transport orders under the HA80 regime are made by (or on behalf of) the promoters of the scheme. Beyond the construction and maintenance of the strategic road network and major roads, orders under the HA80 regime can also relate to local bypass or link roads, off-street car parking and the construction of a bridge over or a tunnel under any specified navigable waters as part of a trunk road, special road, highway, and roads that join trunk or classified roads.
   
• The Bill aims to make various technical amendments to HA80, with the intention of streamlining and improving the efficiency of delivering road infrastructure schemes and ensuring processes within the HA80 regime are fit for purpose and proportionate. 

LGA view

• The changes will impact the promoters of strategic roads network schemes – the Government/ National Highways – as was as local highways authorities as described above. Whilst there appear to be potential cost and speed benefits to local authority led schemes, further consultation with the sector will be required to understand the full implications of the measures proposed, including how changes to strategic road schemes could be of concern to local highways authorities and residents 

Amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992

• Currently, an order made under the TWA92 is the usual way to authorise new railways or tramways in England and Wales (as well as guided transport schemes and inland waterways). Matters that can be authorised by a TWA92 order include things like powers to construct, maintain and operate a transport system, compulsory powers and the rights to use land on a short/ long-term basis (e.g. to access for work site).  Under the current system, in certain circumstances, multiple applications and authorisations are required for a single project, which can be an inefficient allocation of resources and cost to firms seeking to make applications, and lead to lengthy consenting processes for projects. 
   
• The Bill will make various technical amendments to the TWA92 to ensure the regime is fit for purpose and proportionate, with the intention of streamlining and improving the efficiency of delivering new transport schemes. These include enabling cost recovery by statutory consultees and local authorities, introducing statutory deadlines for determination of applications to provide certainty to stakeholders, enabling additional authorisations to streamline multiple processes. 

LGA view

• There could be benefits to local authority led schemes through the streamlining of processes and allowing cost recovery. The introduction of statutory deadlines for determination of projects could risk sub-optimal decision being made and/ or diverting resources from other priority work for councils. Further consultation will be needed with local authorities to determine the likely full impact of measures. 

Electric vehicle charge points

• The installation of EV charge points on the public road network is currently subject to various highways and consents procedures. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA) and the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) require those carrying out street works to apply for either a permit or a licence under section 50 of NRSWA from the relevant Highway Authority before carrying out works. Permits are available to those with a statutory right to carry out works on the highway, whereas those who do not have a statutory right can apply for a section 50 licence. 
   
• The Bill will streamline the approval of street works needed for the installation of EV public charge points by removing the need for licences where the works are capable of being authorised by permits. The Government hopes that this will expedite the installation of public charge points.  

LGA view

• Councils were concerned that a complete relaxation would mean a free for all for EV charge point operators/ installers (EVCPOs). However, our understanding is that EVCPOs will only be able to use permits, rather than Section 5 (S50), if they are working on behalf of a local authority and will be given permitted development powers as the TCPA is being amended to this effect.  There may still be elements of the install that may still require a S50, e.g. if the power supply to the charge point is not adopted by an IDNO/DNO that has statutory undertaker status.
• If the apparatus is being installed for private commercial gain, then the EVCPO will still have to apply for Planning Consent and go through the S50 process. This does offer highways authorities some comfort insomuch that the council retains control over who and where the charge points can be placed etc and it’s not a free for all. Ultimately, it should serve to assist those councils delivering government funded initiatives.
• It is worth stating that a fundamental problem remains in that it is (charge point operators) an unregulated business which makes it more difficult for local authorities. The presumption of permits in this instance rests on it being an authority instigated scheme where they have control. 

Chapter 1: Planning decisions 

Clause 44 - Fees for planning applications etc.

• The Bill will make changes to the planning fees model to ensure that LPAs (which includes the Mayor of London and a specified person acting in its capacity as LPA) can recover the costs of delivering their relevant planning functions through fee revenue. 
   
• The Bill will provide the Secretary of State with a power to sub-delegate the setting of fees or charges to LPAs. This would enable LPAs to set a planning fee or charge at a level that reflects the individual costs to the LPA to carry out the function for which it is imposed.  
   
• The Bill will further introduce a power that the income from planning fees or charges is applied towards the delivery of the planning function. This will ensure improved service delivery and provide for greater transparency for applicants on where their money is being spent.  

LGA view

• The LGA supports this clause allowing local authorities to set their own planning application fees. This will help to address growing and real concerns that planning departments are facing regarding resourcing and capacity constraints.
• The LGA believes that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about funding local services, including planning departments. The decision to ringfence funding should be made at the local authority level, based on the individual funding gap (or surplus) their planning department is in.
• We do not believe it necessary and therefore disagree that the Secretary of State should be provided with powers to intervene with individual council's planning application fee setting. The approach to fee setting, as set out in the Bill, will not permit councils to set fees which exceed cost recovery. It is therefore not necessary to ‘ensure that the fees charged by LPAs do not exceed cost recovery’ through the powers in this clause provided to the Secretary of State.  

Clause 45 Training for local planning authorities in England

• The Bill will require committee members to undertake mandatory training before they can take planning decisions. The power to require planning committee members to complete training aims to create consistency in training and ensure that key areas of law that are relevant to a planning committee member’s decision-making functions are understood to an adequate standard across in England.  
   
• A certificate of completion will be required to evidence completion of training.  

LGA view

• We support this clause which will require mandatory training for planning committee members and of persons exercising mayoral planning functions. It is important that councillors receive the training they need to make informed decisions on proposals in their localities and have the tools and understanding to undertake their vital roles in the democratic planning process. The majority of councils across the country already undertake some form of training for committee members - however the content, frequency and delivery approach vary. Consistency and standardisation are therefore welcome to ensure robust decisions can be made by all planning committees.
• Consideration will need to be given to how, and how quickly, training will be updated to reflect changes to national and local policy and new challenges or considerations in the planning system. The format of the training will be critical to its success, rather than it being a tick-box exercise. Government must consider the merits and challenges of whether the training should be delivered in-person, online or via an e-module with regards to speed of roll-out, member engagement, ability to personalise training and answer specific questions and form of assessment.
• We agree with the clause that sets out that a ‘certificate of completion’ will be granted upon completion of training. We believe however that assessment of member understanding of the content of training, rather than simply attendance (whether in-person or virtual), is considered necessary for verification that training has been successful.
• Local government want to work with Government as these proposals develop so all committee members can access the same quality of training. We support the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) to be the preferred provider of a training programme for planning committee members, given their long history of providing well-received and thorough training and their in-depth knowledge of planning committees and the planning system. 

Clause 46 Delegation of planning decisions in England

• The Bill will introduce a national scheme of delegation that will through regulations set out which planning functions should be delegated to planning officers for a decision and which should go instead to a planning committee or sub-committee. This measure will ensure that there is greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions. 
   
• The Bill will provide a regulation-making power to issue statutory guidance on the national scheme of delegation alongside a power to limit the size of planning committees. 

LGA view

• Without knowing the details of what the schemes content might look like, it is difficult to comment on the substance of this clause.
• We have some concerns about the approaches to a national scheme of delegation set out in the Government’s working paper and we do not have a clear consensus on how a national scheme could be achieved. Working with local authorities of different types and geographies will be key.
• If our concerns are properly addressed and the scheme is well implemented, a national scheme of delegation could drive clarity and consistency across planning committees and to improve speed and efficiencies in decision-making for local authorities.
• Planning committees make decisions on only a small percentage of applications each year – and those applications typically involve either larger or more controversial schemes that require greater scrutiny by those who represent their place and communities. This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded. Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself if there is not an official role for the local community and their representatives in decision-making for the schemes that matter most to them.
• We do not support the clause that would legislate parameters on committee size. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the make-up of their planning committee membership. The Planning Advisory Service’s recent analysis of planning committees shows that the majority of committees are made up of nine to twelve members – however we do not equate the size of a committee to its functionality and effectiveness, and the Government should continue to permit individual local authorities the discretion with regards to the size of committee membership.
• What works for one local authority’s planning committee does not reflect what is appropriate or workable for another’s, so whilst in principle we could support a national scheme of delegation, it must come with significant room for flexibility on how it is applied sensibly in place by individual planning authorities. We therefore welcome provisions which set out that statutory guidance to encourage best practice about a national scheme of delegation and the size of planning committees will go alongside regulations.  

Chapter 2: Spatial Development Strategies 

Clause 47 Spatial development strategies 

• The Bill will provide for the implementation of a system of strategic planning for England. The Bill will require combined authorities and combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, to produce a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS). Where combined authorities do not currently exist, upper tier county councils and unitary authorities will be given the SDS duty and the Bill will include a power for the Secretary of State to direct groupings of upper-tier county councils, unitary councils and, if appropriate combined authorities, in order to deliver an SDS. 
   
• The scope and content of an SDS will be kept at a strategic level to preserve the role of the local plan, produced by local planning authorities. This includes not being able to allocate specific sites. Once the SDS is adopted, it will become part of the development plan for the area and local plans will need to be in general conformity with it. 

LGA view

• Local authorities are best placed to work collaboratively together and tackle cross-boundary challenges such as housebuilding, delivering infrastructure and climate resilience. The LGA welcomes the commitment to achieve universal coverage of strategic planning in England. However, it is vital that constituent local authorities, and local communities, have a meaningful voice and role within regional approaches to spatial planning which should be led at a local or locally agreed appropriate level, including fair and proportionate representation on strategic planning boards where appropriate.
• Requiring local leaders to develop an SDS is a resource-intensive and time-consuming exercise. It is imperative that this new requirement on authorities is accompanied by measures to ensure local government is sufficiently resourced to deliver this new burden – both in terms of finances and sufficiently skilled and experienced planners / professional staff to undertake the work.
• The Government must remain mindful of resourcing and capacity implications as well as transitional arrangements for the development of local plans and SDS in light of wider local government reorganisation and devolution over the coming years. We do not therefore believe it appropriate for the Secretary of State to have powers to require a principal authority to cease the development of an SDS should they become part of a strategic planning board, but that the progress made to date on the relevant SDS should be taken into account in full by the strategic planning board.
• We are concerned that the provisions in new sections 12I (4)-(5) means that constituent local authorities for the strategy area that are not the strategic planning authority for the SDS has a right to appear at public examination of the plan, and it is solely at the discretion of the examiner to invite them. Those authorities should have a right to be heard at examination of SDS should they wish.
• The LGA believes that local leaders are best placed to work collaboratively to resolve challenges related to SDS preparation, and that the Secretary of State's intervention should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. We are concerned by the provisions in new section ‘12P: Powers where a strategic planning authority is failing etc.’ As currently drafted, the grounds for intervention are too vague and open-ended. In particular, the inclusion of the phrase ‘or may be’ introduces ambiguity and could be interpreted so broadly that it effectively grants the Secretary of State a blank cheque to intervene. The LGA is therefore calling on the Government to clearly define the criteria for intervention and to ensure that any decision to intervene must be supported by clear, evidenced justification.
• The Secretary of State should only be able to intervene once it becomes clear that SDS preparation is failing and would therefore have implications for local housing delivery.
• As such, we therefore ask the Government to review the provisions in new section ‘12R: Liability for Secretary of State’s costs of intervention’which would see strategic planning authorities or boards required to reimburse the Secretary of State for costs related to intervention.
• We do not support the provisions in new section ‘12Q: Power to approve strategy where adoption resolution not passed’, which undermines the democratic role of local leaders in the SDS process by giving powers to the Secretary of State to approve the strategy if they consider it appropriate to do so in the event of a unanimous vote against passing a resolution to adopt an SDS.  

Environmental Delivery Plans

Clauses 48-49 set out the outline and scope for new environmental delivery plans (EDPs). This is a new type of plan, to be developed by Natural England (NE).

• EDPs will set out the conservation measures that will be taken to address the impact of specified types of development on relevant environmental features such as a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a specific protected species. The EDP will set out the amount of the nature restoration levy to be paid by developers to Natural England, and the relevant environmental obligations that will be discharged, disapplied or modified because of the making of the payment. 
   
• An EDP can cover all, or part of England. An area within the EDP can be excluded from the obligations and operate under the existing legal framework. 

LGA view

• Developing environment improvement plans at a strategic level makes best use of limited skills and expertise. The LGA’s inquiry into nutrient and water neutrality called for solutions to be developed at catchment level, and our research found 17,000 homes a year were held up by nutrient neutrality and a further 3,000 by water neutrality.
• The Bill places a range of new complex responsibilities on Natural England (NE). It will be important to ensure NE has the support, core funding, expertise and capacity to play the role set out, and that the capacity exists in the wider policy and delivery partners to deliver the ambition alongside ambitions for Biodiversity Net Gain and other environmental policy.
• It will be important to balance catchment geographies, Environmental Development Plan geographies, and administrative geographies, such as those set out in Local Nature Recovery Strategies.
• Paying for environmental obligations through a levy on development may simplify the development process, but the potential cost of the levy is a concern if it reduces the amount of funding development can provide for other concerns such as affordable housing. We need to understand the cut-off point where development would not be able to go ahead due to the added overhead costs.
• It is good to see that the ambition of EDPs is for environmental improvement, not just offsetting existing environmental damage. However, we still need action to tackle the underlying causes of pollution and environmental damage created by the water and agriculture industries. This requires greater investment, regulation, and earlier and more effective engagement with local government.
• We need to understand how EDPs would work alongside the significant investment that councils have already made in creating wetlands and other schemes to allow new homes to be built. Councils could be exposed to significant financial risk if they no longer have a mechanism to recoup the cost of substantial upfront investment.
• The provision to allow NE to require additional standards to offset the impact of new development in certain environments - for instance allowing NE to set higher water efficiency standards in areas of water scarcity – is interesting though may create some uncertainty for developers. This uncertainty could be reduced through setting out the options in guidance in advance from which NE can use as necessary, these standards should be developed in partnership with developers. 

Clauses 50-54: Environmental features, environmental impacts and conservation measures

• Subsection (7) specifies that conservation measures can take the form of requirements for Natural England to request that development is granted subject to certain conditions (for example planning conditions that require development to meet a certain level of water efficiency). This creates a presumption that the condition set out in the EDP will be imposed, but it is not an absolute duty.
• Natural England must have regard to certain other plans when preparing an EDP including local nature recovery strategies and protected sites strategies.
• Clause 54 requires Natural England to consult the public and relevant public authorities on EDPs for a period of 28 days.  

LGA view

• It is good that the Bill recognises the link between EDPs and existing strategies. However, we already suffer from a lack of clarity on how environmental plans and strategies are meant to work together, including the land use framework.
• Local Nature Recovery Strategies need to have proper teeth and resources if they are to provide a strong foundation for EDPs.
• Where an EDP requires action from a local planning authority, we would expect the levy funding to follow.
• The consultation window should be longer than 28 days. The LGA recommends six to twelve weeks as best practice when consulting residents.  

Environmental delivery plans: reporting and enforcement

• Natural England must publish reports at least twice over the EDP period - once covering the period from commencement of the EDP to its mid-point, and then a second report covering the mid-point of the EDP until its end date.  

LGA view

• We are concerned that Natural England could end up as both the delivery body for the plan and the environmental regulator. This would be a clear conflict of interest.
• Delivery plans may benefit from additional powers, for example to require data and co-operation from private organisations such as water companies. 

The nature restoration levy

• To progress with a planning permission, developers must pay a nature restoration levy that is relevant to the impact of the development and through which the EDP can deliver the required conservation improvements.  
   
• Natural England are required to set out how much the conservation measures will cost, and to consider matters relating to economic viability of the development. It must set out charging schedules, and it must list the conservation measures they may take payment for. 
   
• There are allowances for developers to pay in something other than money, and that it can be collected by another body on the behalf of NE (such as a local authority). 

LGA view

• Requiring NE to both to set out conservative measures and charging schedules for these, and to consider the matters relating to the economic viability of the development could be a challenging balance. The measures will cost what they cost, and the variation of those costs will vary the impact on the overall financing of schemes. The emphasis might be on providing NE support to ensure costs are accurate.
• Local authorities may be interested in collecting payment on the behalf of the NE in some cases, but this should be a matter for the local authority to decide on, and should not be determined by NE. 

Natural England: powers and duties

• This grants the powers to NE to administer EDPs, including to develop land and provide payment to another to take conservation measures.
• NE will be required to publish annual reports. 

LGA view

• Some local authorities may be interested to take forward conservation measures on the behalf of NE, and this option should not be ruled out. 

Designation of another body for EDPs

• This sets out power to designate another public body to act as the delivery body, which may replace or be in addition to the delivery role of NE. 

LGA view

• Some local authorities may be interested to act as the delivery body in some instances, and this option should not be ruled out. 

Supplementary

• It sets out a duty on all public bodies to co-operate with NE in preparing and implementing EDPs, to provide reasonable assistance, and to have regard to any guidance. 

LGA view

• New requirements on local authorities should be proportionate. 

Clause 79: areas for development and remit

• This clause amends the New Towns Act 1981, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (LGPLA 1980), and the Localism Act 2011 (LA 2011), to provide greater clarity and flexibility for development corporations in terms of the variety, extent, and types of the geographical areas over which they can operate. This will ensure that each development corporation model is fit for purpose and can be used to respond to site-specific challenges without having to retrofit the scope of the project to match the development corporation model used, with the overall aim of advancing the use of development corporations to deliver large-scale property development. 

LGA view

• The LGA supports this clause which gives greater flexibilities to development corporations to deliver as appropriate. 

Clause 80: Duties to have regard to sustainable development and climate change 

• This clause provides for the standardisation of objectives on sustainable development, climate change, and good design across all development corporation types, through amendments to the New Towns Act 1981 (NTA 1981), the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and the Localism Act 2011. At present, only New Town Development Corporations are required to aim to contribute to sustainable development (section 4(1A) NTA 1981) and the legislative framework does not require any development corporation model to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. The intention of this clause is to create certainty for local communities that development corporations must consider sustainable development, climate change, and good design at the heart of delivery 

LGA view

• We support this clause.  

Clause 81: Powers in relation to infrastructure

• Existing provisions for infrastructure powers differ across development corporation models. While all development corporation types have access to relatively broad overarching powers, provisions for Mayoral Development Corporations (MDCs) also specify a long list of infrastructure MDCs can provide (section 205 Localism Act 2011). The same list is not provided for other development corporation types (section 4(1) New Towns Act 1981, section 136(3) Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980). This clause therefore standardises the list of infrastructure that can be provided by all development corporation types, equalising it with existing MDC provisions. This will ensure greater certainty for development corporations to deliver the range of infrastructure necessary for large-scale developments.  
   
• Heat network infrastructure is not currently explicitly listed alongside the other types of infrastructure development corporations can provide. This clause rectifies this, so that all development corporation types will have clarity concerning the provision of heat networks in the areas they develop. This explicitly recognises heat as a distinct utility alongside others (including electricity and gas) and is consistent with the broad ambitions of development corporations in respect of sustainable development and climate change.  
   
• Subsection (4) removes the current restrictions on New Town Development Corporations and locally led New Town Development Corporations so they can provide railway, light railway or tramway activity (section 5(5) New Towns Act 1981), as is currently the case for Urban Development Corporations, locally led Urban Development Corporations and MDCs 

LGA view

• We support this clause.  

Clause 82: Exercise of transport functions

• This clause places a duty of cooperation on relevant transport authorities, such that they must have regard to, and cooperate in the development and implementation of, the plans of development corporations (new section 9A(1) and 140A(1)).  
   
• Where this duty of co-operation is not fulfilled – resulting, for example, in a failure to produce key outputs in an agreed timeframe, or transport provisions being blocked and impacting growth potential – this clause grants the Secretary of State the power to direct relevant local transport authorities to cooperate (new section 9A(2) and 140A(2)). Where this direction is not complied with, the Secretary of State will have the power to transfer specific transport powers by regulations from local transport authorities to the development corporation in relation to its red line area (new section 9A(3) and 140A(3)). These provisions do not apply to Mayoral Development Corporations. 
   
• In some circumstances, effective use of transport powers may require the transfer of property, rights, and liabilities from the transport authority to the development corporation, e.g. where the development corporation needs to undertake upgrades to existing highways within its red line area. This clause therefore also provides a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes when transferring transport powers (new section 9B and 140B). 

LGA view

• Councils would be happy to support the work of development corporations as long as this is within their means. However, there may be circumstances where a council may object to supporting the development corporation on perfectly legitimate grounds - such as protecting the social, economic and environmental interests of residents. Where there is disagreement, we would propose the matter is taken to adjudication first, before a decision is taken by the Secretary of State. 

Clause 83: Electronic service etc

• This clause amends legislation underpinning the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules to allow the service of statutory notices to be undertaken by electronic methods of communication. 

LGA view

• We support this clause which will mean that notices and documents required to be served under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, the Land Compensation Act 1961, and the Land Compensation Act 1973 can be served electronically if parties agree in writing to receive services in that way or where the recipient is a public authority.  

Clause 84: Required content of newspaper notices

• This clause simplifies the information relating to the description of land required to be included in newspaper notices on the making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs). It is anticipated that this will deliver administrative cost savings for acquiring authorities 

LGA view

• The LGA supports this clause. However, we consider that the legislation should go further than this and remove the requirement for the publication of public notices in local newspapers entirely. The results of an LGA survey published in 2023 estimated that upwards of £28 million is spent per year on statutory notices which could be saved if the law was changed. The statutory requirements date back more than 50 years, when local and weekly newspapers and radio were popular sources of local information. Since that time there has been vast changes in technology and shifts in consumer preferences. This requirement, which essentially amounts to taxpayer subsidy of the commercial newspaper industry, remains in force despite evidence to show that the public’s news and information consumption habits have changed (a move online and to mobile technology) and the circulation of local newspapers is falling. 

Clause 85: Confirmation by acquiring authority: orders with modifications

• The clause allows an acquiring authority to confirm its own compulsory purchase order (CPO) with modifications providing they do not affect a person’s interest in land. It also allows this where they do, provided the affected person gives their consent for the modification being made. 

LGA view

• The LGA supports this clause which will speed-up the decision-making process for CPOs, by allowing confirmation decisions to be taken by acquiring authorities where orders require non-controversial modifications to be made 

Clause 86: General vesting declarations: expedited procedure

• This clause amends the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 and introduces processes for the earlier taking of possession of land/property by acquiring authorities under the general vesting declaration procedure. Following the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order (CPO), instead of having to wait a minimum of three months to take possession of land/property, acquiring authorities may take possession under the general vesting declaration procedure after a minimum of six weeks. 

LGA view

• The LGA supports this clause which allows for an expedited notice process for the vesting of interests in land and properties under the general vesting declaration procedure. 

Clause 87: General vesting declarations: advancement of vesting by agreement

• The clause amends the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (‘the 1981 Act’) and introduces a process for the earlier taking of possession of land/property under the general vesting declaration procedure by agreement. 

LGA view

• We support this clause which will enable those with an interest in land included in a CPO to enter into an agreement with the acquiring authority for their interest to vest in the authority earlier than the existing minimum three months’ notice period. 

Clause 89: Home loss payments: exclusions

• The clause amends the Land Compensation 1973 and introduces new section 32A into that Act which excludes the right to a home loss payment in certain situations. 

LGA view

• We support this clause that will apply exclusions to home loss payments where property owners have failed to comply with a statutory notice or order served on them to make improvements to their neglected land or properties on a relevant date – which will be when the decision on whether the compulsory purchase of the person’s property will continue is made. We consider that this will assist in lowering the costs for local authorities to deliver improvements to properties and bring them back into effective use through the CPO process, as well as providing an incentive for statutory enforcement notices/orders to be complied with. However, we consider that this exclusion should be discretionary for local authorities to apply, as there may be genuine reasons why an owner has been unable to comply, which is out of their control.  

Clause 91: Amendments relating to section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961

• This clause amends the legislation which allows authorities to include in their compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) directions that the assessment of compensation relating to open market value of land compulsory purchased is to be assessed in accordance with section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (‘a section 14A direction’) so that value attributed to the prospect of the granting of planning permission ('hope value') can be disregarded. 
   
• The clause allows authorities to confirm their own CPOs which include section 14A directions providing certain conditions have been met, for example, the CPO is not objected to. 
   
• The clause enables section 14A directions to be included in CPOs made on behalf of parish/town or community councils providing the CPOs are facilitating affordable housing. 

LGA view

• The LGA supports the clause that will allow directions to remove compensation payable for prospective planning permissions (‘hope value’) to be included in CPOs made on behalf of parish/town or community councils by principal councils under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972 where the schemes underlying the orders are providing affordable or social housing. This would support the appetite amongst some local (town, parish and community) councils for a more proactive approach to be taken to the use of CPOs. However, a potential increase in requests from parish/town or community councils as a result of these changes, will require councils to have sufficient capacity and expertise to act on their behalf.
• The LGA also supports the clause that will mean where a CPO includes a direction to remove hope value but there are no objections to the CPO, that the confirmation decision can be taken by the acquiring authority. This will speed-up the decision-making process, although recognising that decisions on the confirmation of CPOs which include directions to remove hope value where there are objections will be undertaken instead by inspectors. More broadly, the LGA has long argued that the default position should be that acquiring authorities should be able to confirm their own compulsory purchase orders and as a backstop, the Secretary of State could retain the ability to use his/her recovery powers in specific circumstances. 
• It is considered that there is also scope for the Government’s proposals to go further and automatically limit the payment of hope value in compulsory purchase more generally. As a result of this approach, we consider that there would be more instances of land being acquired by an agreement with the landowner, before a CPO is required. This is because it would restore the credibility of using a CPO as a tool to encourage and negotiate with landowners to release their land voluntarily at an early stage.  

Further CPO reform

LGA view

• More broadly, the LGA considers that there is further scope to reform other aspects of CPO legislation.
• Stronger compulsory purchase type powers where permissions have expired and development has not commenced – ‘use it or lose it’ This would be used as a measure of last resort and with appropriate safeguards to allow councils to tackle sites which have had planning permission for a long time but which have not been built out in line with agreed timescales. Councils would need to demonstrate plans for the development of the site within a reasonable period of time after acquisition. As well as incentivising developers to complete a timely build-out their scheme after planning permission has been granted, councils would be confident that they can act promptly and decisively to acquire land that is vacant to meet local needs. 
• Powers for councils to direct the use of publicly owned land. There is a need to speed up the process of assembly of surplus land owned by different public landowners in an area. Changes to compulsory purchase legislation provide an opportunity to implement the recommendation in the Elphicke-House report to give councils a power of direction on publicly owned land. This will enable councils to fast-track acquisition of un-used public land in their area to support redevelopment or regeneration opportunities. The reduction in processing time will enable councils to acquire land at an earlier stage.
• A proposal that does not relate to legislation is as follows: Councils must be sufficiently resourced and have an adequate supply of Compulsory Purchase Order expertise to respond to the needs of communities. Councils have highlighted that implementing the CPO process requires considerable resources to be of any significant use in facilitating town centre regeneration. Councils must be supported to access and build CPO expertise. As MHCLG’s Register of CPO decisions illustrates, there are only a small proportion of councils that currently use compulsory purchase powers under the Town and Country Planning, Housing and Local Government Acts. The LGA also has a role to play and could with appropriate funding support capacity-building through our sector-led improvement offer. The LGA has previously hosted a technical masterclass for local authorities on understanding compulsory purchase orders and compensation. 
• Separately, we welcome the independent Law Commission’s consultation on compulsory purchase which seeks views on ways to simplify, consolidate and modernise compulsory purchase legislation. The LGA has been arguing for more than a decade that there should be a more fundamental consolidation and streamlining of the legislative provisions for compulsory purchase. A number of different Acts and statutory instruments introduced over more than 150 years pertaining to compulsory purchase have resulted in antiquated legal terminology, inconsistences and uncertainties, all of which add to the costs of the CPO process and the scope for dispute. This has resulted in law relating to compulsory purchase becoming overly complex and increasingly inaccessible. There should be a fundamental review of all legislation pertaining to compulsory purchase with a view to bringing it all together in a single Act for a modern-day CPO system. 

Elliot Gregory, Public Affairs and Campaigns Advisor

Email: [email protected]

Mobile: 020 7664 3059