Cllr David Rogers is the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group on Cherwell District Council.
There is a certain irony in discovering that life becomes considerably less stressful the moment you stop sitting on a planning committee. As a repentant former member of one, I have had the unusual privilege of watching the current planning chaos from the sidelines.
The view is not encouraging.
In my district, the Liberal Democrat administration has lost control of development management and is perilously close to losing control of planning policy itself.
The council has now been designated by the Secretary of State for poor planning performance, otherwise known as being placed into special measures. Developers can increasingly bypass the local planning authority altogether and submit applications directly to the Planning Inspectorate.
For residents, parish councils and elected members alike, that represents a profound loss of local democratic control.
The picture is no better when it comes to the Local Plan. At its recent preliminary examination, the Inspector heard serious concerns that may require substantial further work. Even more striking was the intervention from King’s Counsel representing major developers, whose criticism of the modifications proposed by the council was compelling. The authority that, under Conservative administration, prided itself on having a robust, defensible planning framework now finds itself struggling to demonstrate that its strategy is sound.
This is particularly frustrating because, for the best part of two decades, our district demonstrated that growth and conservation are not mutually exclusive. We delivered homes, often exceeding government targets, while protecting the character of our rural villages.
Employment land was allocated successfully, businesses expanded, and strong commercial growth translated into healthy business rates income. That, in turn, helped keep council tax comparatively low while maintaining local services. It was hardly a perfect system, but it was one that broadly worked. Now the landscape has been turned upside down.
Labour entered office determined to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. It is an eye-catching political slogan, but slogans do not build houses. Homes are delivered by developers, financed by investors and purchased by families. Those decisions depend upon economic confidence, viable development economics and stable financial markets.
Instead, the Government has systematically dismantled many of the safeguards within the planning system while paying insufficient attention to the wider economic environment in which development actually takes place. The result is increasingly visible on planning committees across the country.
Higher inflation, elevated borrowing costs and increased financing expenses have fundamentally altered development viability.
Developers who previously operated comfortably at profit margins of around 15 per cent are now routinely arguing that schemes require returns closer to 20 per cent before lenders and investors will proceed.
The consequences are becoming painfully obvious.
Even in desirable parts of rural North Oxfordshire, where gross development values can reach £425 to £450 per square foot and three-bedroom homes command prices approaching £550,000, developers are increasingly arguing that affordable housing obligations are no longer financially viable. One after another, Section 106 agreements are being reopened. Affordable housing numbers are being renegotiated downwards. Infrastructure contributions are coming under pressure. Community benefits that local residents were promised are suddenly described as “unviable”.
This exposes one of the great contradictions at the heart of Labour’s planning reforms. Ministers have made it significantly easier to secure planning permission, yet they have simultaneously created an economic environment in which developers argue they cannot afford to provide the very affordable housing that ministers claim to prioritise.
Planning permission, by itself, does not deliver homes. Economic confidence does. Viability matters. Interest rates matter. Inflation matters.
If those fundamentals are ignored, the inevitable outcome is precisely what we are now witnessing: more permissions, fewer obligations, and continuing disputes over whether developments can actually proceed as originally approved. The greatest losers are the communities expected to accommodate new housing. They are asked to accept substantial development yet increasingly receive fewer affordable homes, reduced infrastructure and diminished community facilities in return.
That is not a sustainable bargain. Conservatives should not be afraid to argue that economic competence and planning success are inseparable.
A planning system can only function properly when the wider economy supports investment, controls inflation and rewards enterprise. Stable public finances, predictable markets and confidence among investors are not abstract Treasury concepts.
They determine whether affordable homes are delivered and mitigation is delivered. The experience in my own district should serve as a warning. Local political leadership matters, but so too does national economic policy.
When both fail simultaneously, planning descends into uncertainty, local democracy is weakened and communities lose confidence that development is genuinely being managed in the public interest.
Britain unquestionably needs more homes. But it also needs homes that are genuinely affordable, supported by infrastructure and delivered within a planning framework that commands public confidence through Local plans and consultation. Simply removing the guardrails while undermining the economic conditions that make development viable is not a housing strategy.
It is a recipe for farce. From where I am sitting, the planning system is not merely under pressure. It’s a clear signal of fiscal incompetence and the desperate need for the Labour Government to get out of the way and let those who can deliver growth get back to power.