Councils warn that the government’s new planning rules override local voices and could leave rural areas vulnerable to speculative development

Councils in county areas today warn that the government’s planning reforms weakens local communities’ voices in the planning system and raises the prospect of speculative and unsuitable development in rural areas.

Responding to the government’s consultation on its proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the County Councils Network (CCN) says that the proposals would shift planning decisions away from local authorities and communities - towards a nationally-set framework from government.

This is because the new NPPF moves towards a ‘one size fits all’ set of decision-making policies, set by government. Many of these will override local policies, making it harder for councils to challenge development in all but exceptional circumstances.

These include a presumption to approve development near any ‘well connected’ train stations alongside greater pressure to approve development outside of towns and villages if there is ‘unmet need’. And because the government has given county authorities high housing targets as well the re-introduction of a ‘five-year land supply’, it will be harder for councils to refuse unsuitable development.

Under the government’s mandatory housing targets, introduced last year, on average county areas will see a 56% increase in the number of homes they have to deliver – 64,000 per year or an extra 1,245 houses per week. This is over seven times the increase for councils in England’s major cities.

In a previous survey ran by the CCN, seven in ten councils said they supported the principle of nationally-set targets, but over nine in ten respondents believed their target was too high, whilst others raised concerns over a lack of infrastructure to support development.

Measures planned by government that weaken local communities’ voice in the planning system include:

• The new Decision-Making Policies centralise much of planning policy, effectively overriding councils’ local decisions. It means councils will have to approve developments that adhere to these ‘one size fits all’ policies.
  ‍
• Consequently, councils ‘should approve’ development near any train station with four or more trains an hour, putting many rural stations open to speculative and damaging development – and with no consideration of infrastructure capacity.
  ‍
• Councils will also be told to approve development on the outskirts of towns and villages where there is ‘unmet need’, which could lead to increased piecemeal and speculative development, regardless of infrastructure capacity.
  ‍
• This is because the continued requirement for the ‘five year’ housing land supply will mean county unitary councils have to show evidence they have a supply of deliverable sites to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing targets. Local authorities say this sets up councils to fail: developers could build out their planning permissions slowly – or not in full – ensuring that councils cannot meet their land supply targets. This means developers could use this ‘unmet need’ policy to secure approval for unpopular and unsuitable development.
  ‍
• Previous announcements in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill seek to ‘streamline’ development, only allowing councils’ planning committees to debate major developments and presuming approval for smaller proposals. This is a significant concern in rural areas where even a few dozen homes can dramatically alter a village.

The CCN argues that all these measures could lead to a ‘developer free for all’ in county areas whereby councils’ ability to debate and challenge unsuitable proposals is severely weakened.

CCN says these changes risk undermining the plan-led planning system, where councils set out a long-term vision for housing and growth through their Local Plans, identifying appropriate sites for development and ensuring infrastructure can support it.

Councils say that they support ambitions to increase housing supply and want to grow their economies. However, councils warn that the increasing use of national planning policies risks weakening locally – and democratically - agreed plans, with national rules potentially taking precedence.

To prevent this, the government should scrap the requirement to maintain a five-year supply where an authority has an up-to-date local plan or at least publish stronger guidance to prevent the rule from being manipulated by developers.

It is also urging ministers to allow greater flexibility in National Decision-Making Policies, enabling local authorities to tailor planning policies to the needs of their communities and to incorporate residents’ views. Local authorities already approve nine in 10 planning applications – they argue that further powers to encourage developer build-out are necessary.

Whilst the government has announced a raft of planning changes since it took power in summer 2024, it has made few pledges to boost infrastructure - at a time when housing targets are dramatically increasing for many county areas.

Cllr Andrew Husband, Housing and Planning Spokesperson for the County Councils Network, said:

“County and unitary councils across the country recognise the need to increase housebuilding of all tenures to improve affordability and many are in favour of nationally set targets. However, measures in the updated NPPF alongside the imposition of high housing targets severely weakening our communities’ voices whilst empowering developers.

“If the government implements these ‘one size fits all’ policies that supersede local decision-making in tandem with its housing targets and its re-introduction of the five-year land supply, then rural and county areas could face a developer free-for-all at a time when their infrastructure is already buckling under the strain. Councils will have extremely limited powers to prevent unsuitable and unpopular development, which could lead to public distrust in the planning system.

“Some of these measures may be appropriate in large urban areas, but in rural communities even a few dozen homes can dramatically change the character of a village. Government should rethink its approach and ensure that housing growth is matched by investment in roads, public services and local infrastructure.”