The government’s newly announced Pro-Growth Package, part of its broader Planning and Infrastructure Bill, promises to “unshackle Britain” and get the country building again. With nearly 900 major housing schemes reportedly blocked in the past year, the ambition to cut through red tape and accelerate development is, on the surface, a welcome move for the property sector.
But as with any sweeping reform, concerns lie within the detail and its delivery. The headline measures within the package include:
- New powers for the Secretary of State to override local council planning refusals.
- Streamlining Natural England’s advisory role, allowing it to focus on high-priority applications.
- Faster approvals for reservoirs, windfarms and large housing schemes.
- Reducing judicial review delays that stall vital housing projects.
- Unlocking stalled developments and preventing planning permissions from expiring due to court delays.
The government presents the Pro-Growth Package as a method to boost clean energy, water security, and housing supply, while also driving investment and job creation. It’s a bold attempt to tackle long-standing blockers in the planning system and respond to the urgent need for infrastructure and housing.
The Housing Secretary Steve Reed recognises the struggles of the planning system saying:
“Sluggish planning has real world consequences. Every new house blocked deprives a family of a home. Every infrastructure project that gets delayed blocks someone from a much-needed job. This will now end.”
From a property professional’s standpoint, the intent is encouraging. The sector has long been affected by slow, inconsistent planning decisions and a lack of clarity around environmental constraints. Many in the industry have been calling for the reduction of friction and streamlining of planning processes, especially for large-scale developments which are much more likely to run into hurdles.
But while the reforms sound promising, there are reasons to be cautious. Centralising decision-making by giving ministers more power over local councils could undermine local democracy and lead to friction between national and local priorities. Equally, judicial review reforms may help unlock stalled projects, but they must be carefully managed to avoid eroding legal accountability. In short, the package should be managed to remove barriers, while keeping the checks and balances which ensure responsible development.
As with many government initiatives, the real test will be in implementation. Will these measures genuinely speed up delivery without compromising quality, sustainability, or community engagement? Will local authorities be supported or sidelined? For now, the team at Muller Property Group welcome the direction of travel but remain engaged, informed and ready to scrutinise how these changes play out in realtime.
