The government have three huge prioritises, explains Victoria Yeandle of Lanpro. Here, she discusses whether they can all be achieved before the next general election and if not, what gives?
Since Sir Keir Starmer’s election over 12 months ago, his party have faced the harsh reality of politics. However, despite many curveballs their focus to deliver growth, environmental change and democracy has remained clear.
The focus on growth was plain as soon as Labour came into office. In her first speech as chancellor, Rachel Reeves declared that growth was ‘our national mission’. She said planning system reform was at the forefront to help achieve this growth. To help reach 1.5 million homes across the parliamentary term, mandatory housing targets were re-introduced.
In its manifesto, Labour also committed to protecting nature. The Nature Restoration Fund, set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, would give power to Natural England to design and deliver an Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP), providing a strategic approach to nature conservation. Once adopted, developers would be able to pay into a simple fund, streamlining the decision-making process.
The government’s mantra: ‘Sustained economic growth is the number one mission of this government, but this cannot come at the expense of our natural environment.’
So theoretically, it is growth 1-environment 1. But is this likely to happen in practice?
In January 2025, Reeves vowed to go faster and farther to kickstart the economy. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill (through the Nature Restoration Fund) would remove environmental issues that slow down development, (she noted the £100 million bat tunnel built for HS2) and introduce regulations setting out which planning decisions are made by delegated decision rather than at planning committees.
The bill appears to show that growth is at the heart of government decisions, potentially at the expense of local decision-making. This is highlighted by 55% of voters agreeing that councils’ and local residents’ views should trump economic growth, while MPs tended to prioritise growth over local opinion.
The government’s implementation of mandatory housing targets for councils has led to a significant increase in their housing requirements. This increase means that nearly half of councils cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Even if applications are refused by councils, developers have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (taking the decision out of local hands). If there is a lack of a five-year supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies unless the impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (paragraph 11 of the NPPF), meaning that there is a greater likelihood of permission being granted.
Therefore, there is an argument that on the government’s agenda it is growth 1-democracy 0.
But what about the environment?
In May 2025, the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee warned that without substantial private investment and clear commitments, the UK may not meet its pledge to protect 30% of land by 2030 and offer communities greater access to nature. Ministers have urged the government to ‘unequivocally support’ biodiversity net gain. The chair of the committee warned that the Nature Restoration Fund ‘risks undermining market confidence, further depleting nature in some communities.’
Some environmental groups advocate that nature is not a barrier to development rather that they can work in harmony, which is supported by the public. A recent poll shows that 66% of the public believe that nature is fundamental to economic growth. However, the chancellor confirmed in January 2025 that growth was the most important issue rather than net zero requirements. The Green Finance Institute has also estimated that the degradation of nature could lead to an estimated 12% reduction in GDP, in direct contrast to the government’s ambitions.
As shown by Rachel Reeves’s comments, for the government it’s growth 1-environment 0.
Can there be a balance between the three?
The government’s focus on growth is understandable. The need for housing is undeniable but there must be a balance, ensuring that growth is sustainable. Housing in the right locations with good and sustainable access to nature improves physical and mental wellbeing, highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The EDP may be suitable for SME developers, given the potential size of sites. However, there should be a greater focus on larger developments providing suitable greenspaces onsite for nature and residents to flourish. Developers must also be held to account to ensure that they adhere to their environmental promises. A recent survey from a wildlife charity showed that only half of the 6,000 homes across 42 developments had implemented their ecological enhancement schemes, although the mandatory monitoring regarding biodiversity net gain should help to ensure these schemes are realised, subject to suitable enforcement measures.
Early engagement with local residents is also crucial to ensure that suitable greenspace is provided alongside housing growth. Ongoing engagement with local residents not only can help shape development and respond directly to their concerns but also be a tool to gain support, meaning that it is more likely to be approved by councils, avoiding an appeal.
Devolution may offer the balance, with Strategic Authorities playing a crucial role in leading environmental delivery across the regions, supporting growth in the right places while giving communities a greater say in the decision-making process. There is public support for devolution. In 2021, 83% of voters in metro mayoral areas were in favour of more local devolution.
However, the timings as to when devolution will be implemented and what it actually entails, set out in the English Devolution Bill, remain to be seen. In the meantime, the government’s ambitions for growth and housing delivery may mean that the environment and democracy fall away, especially if more schemes are approved at appeal and there is a lack of suitable enforcement measures to ensure developers adhere to their environmental commitments.
This article was written by Victoria Yeandle, associate planner at Lanpro.
Images via Victoria Yeandle and Nick Kane via UnSplash
Other features:
Leave a Reply