Tag Archives: development

The new NPPF: why consultation can no longer be a tick-box exercise

The government surprised us over the summer recess by unveiling the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), showing the new Prime Minister’s urgency to get Britain building. However, the changes have left councillors concerned about how much control they will have over development in their area. With their ability to refuse applications potentially reduced, early engagement and consultation will become increasingly important for councillors and residents to influence proposals.

The new framework places greater emphasis on national planning policy and strengthens the presumption in favour of development. For major applications, it also expects developers to engage with stakeholders early to identify and address key planning issues before submission.

Additionally, the government’s proposals for a national scheme of delegation is due to come into force in October this year, which would see more applications decided by officers. One councillor told me that residents will be “very upset” when they understand the implications, leaving councillors having to explain why they are “unable to do anything”.

Cllr Chris Hossack (Reform), cabinet member at Essex County Council and a Chelgate colleague, said the changes were “a step towards centralisation of planning policy”, with less weight given to local plans where their policies conflict with national policy. However, he also acknowledged that some councils had “brought this upon themselves by making poor quality refusal decisions that are not defendable”.

This is an issue we sometimes see at planning committees. Councillors refuse applications against officer advice, only for those decisions to be overturned at appeal. They can then tell residents they opposed the development, but their hands were tied by central government. The result is often the same development, but with just delays and costs to the taxpayer.

The new NPPF could help change that mindset. If councillors know an application is likely to be approved, there is little point sticking their heads in the sand. They might as well engage early, raise residents’ concerns and work with the developer to get the best possible outcome for their community.

This does not mean, however, developers can do the bare minimum. If consultation becomes the main opportunity to influence proposals, it needs to be more than a tick-box exercise. Holding an exhibition, collecting comments and submitting a Statement of Community Involvement does not necessarily mean residents or councillors have genuinely been listened to.

Cllr Hossack said developers need to listen through “meaningful prior engagement”, identify local needs and ensure housing growth can be accommodated by local services and infrastructure. Developers should therefore show how feedback has influenced their proposals, whether through changes to access, building heights, landscaping or local infrastructure. Where concerns cannot be addressed, they should explain why.

Hossack added “My own view is that the changes will hopefully encourage developers and councillors to work better together, rather than councillors refusing to engage and developers treating consultation as a tick-box exercise. Residents will always find ways to frustrate applications if they feel development is being forced upon them. If you can show that feedback has influenced proposals and secured community benefits it should help to build local trust and make for a smoother planning committee meeting”.

South Midlands August Update

Chelgate Local operates in three regions. South Midlands covers Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire. To view our South Midlands team and projects, please see our Midlands page. To discuss upcoming projects in the region, please call Guy Orton, Senior Account Executive, on 020 7939 7950 or email.

Buckinghamshire 

August was a quiet month with no major planning application decisions in Buckinghamshire. 

There were no defections, new vacancies or by-election dates announced in Buckinghamshire during the month. 

Northamptonshire 

August was also quiet for major planning applications in North Northamptonshire, while West Northamptonshire Strategic Planning Committee mat on 18 August and considered several major schemes: an outline application for up to 450 homes on land northeast of Brackley Grange Cottages, Halse Road, Brackley was approved, and members also approved a reserved matters application for 169 homes at Dallington Grange, Kingsthorpe. A reserved matters application for 35 homes on land at Overstone Lane, Overstone, was also approved, and an application for 128 homes at Towcester Vale, Towcester was similarly approved. 

There were no defections, new vacancies or by-election dates announced in Northamptonshire during August. 

West Northamptonshire Council’s Planning Policy Committee heard that the authority had identified a 4.3 year housing land supply as of April 2026 – down from the 5.5 years which was predicted in 2025. The council is therefore unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. 

Warwickshire 

Rugby Borough Council 

Rugby Planning Committee met on 5 August and considered no major planning applications.  

There were no defections, new vacancies or by-election dates announced in Rugby during June. 

Rugby’s political group leaders have written jointly to the Government supporting its decision to create two new unitary councils in Warwickshire, with Rugby set to be grouped with North Warwickshire and Nuneaton and Bedworth. While the groups previously held different views on local government reorganisation, they have agreed to work together to protect Rugby’s interests, calling for a strong local voice, fair representation, sustainable funding, and meaningful local decision-making, including the creation of a Rugby Town Council. 

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 

In Nuneaton, the Planning Applications Committee did not meet in August with the next meeting scheduled for 22 September.  

There were no defections or local by-elections announced during the month. 

Cambridgeshire

Cambridge City Council 

Cambridge City Council’s Joint Development Management Committee met on 19 August and approved the reserved matters application for the appearance, layout and scale for 425 homes and flexible commercial floorspace at land north of Cambridge North Station. The Planning Committee did not meet in August, with the next meeting scheduled for 2 September. 

There were no defections or local by-elections announced during the month. 

East Cambridgeshire District Council 

East Cambridgeshire District Council’s Planning Committee met on 5 August and approved the major application for 60 homes at Millstone Park (phase 6) in Newmarket.  

There were no defections or local by-elections announced during the month. 

South Cambridgeshire District Council  

South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Planning Committee met on 12 August and approved number of applications including a 49.99MW solar farm at land off Low Fen in Horningsea and an application for 58 residential living apartments in Cambourne. 

There were no defections or local by-elections announced during the month. 

Huntingdonshire District Council  

In Huntingdonshire, the Development Management Committee met on 17 August and considered no major planning applications.  

Huntingdonshire District Council has been left without a majority after two Green councillors quit the Liberal Democrat-led coalition, citing a loss of confidence in the administration. Cllrs Lara Davenport-Ray and Stephen Ferguson said their concerns included the handling of town centre regeneration proposals, particularly plans shared by developers to build homes on council-owned car parks in St Neots, St Ives and Huntingdon, which they argue go beyond what cabinet originally agreed. 

Peterborough City Council 

Peterborough City Council’s Planning and Environmental Protection Committee did not meeting August, with the next meeting scheduled for 1 September. 

The Fletton and Woodston by-election has now been confirmed for Thursday 16 July. The by-election follows the resignation of Daisy Blakemore-Creedon in May. Ms Blakemore-Creedon had been sitting as an independent councillor when she resigned, having originally been elected for Labour in 2024. All candidates have now been confirmed for the vote. 

Cambridge Local Government Reform news 

Two Liberal Democrat MPs have urged the Government not to proceed with “Option D” for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough local government reorganisation, warning it would be a flawed approach with limited public support. The option would split the area into three unitary authorities, but the MPs argue that if ministers cannot identify a model clearly in the interests of local people, retaining the current system would be preferable to creating financially weak or poorly aligned councils. 

Oxfordshire

Cherwell District Council 

Cherwell District Council’s Planning Committee meeting for 13 August was cancelled; the next meeting is scheduled for 3 September.  

There was no election updates announced in Cherwell during the month. 

South Oxfordshire District Council 

South Oxfordshire District Council’s Planning Committee met on 17 June, with one major housing application approved for 16 homes at Pennyhill, Harpsden. 

There were also no defections, vacancies or by-election updates announced during August.  

West Oxfordshire District Council 

West Oxfordshire District Council’s Development Management Sub-committee meeting on 10 August to discuss a number of applications including an outline application for up to 80 homes on land off Common Road, North Leigh. The application was recommended for approval but the application was refused amid fears of an Iron Age monument and concerns the proposal was “not proportionate or appropriate”. The next meeting on 14 August has been cancelled, and the next meeting is scheduled for 7 September. 

There were no defections, vacancies or by-election updates announced during August.  

Vale of White Horse District Council 

Vale of White Horse District Council’s Planning Committee meeting on 19 August was cancelled. 

No councillor or election updates.  

Bedfordshire

Bedford Borough Council 

Bedford Borough Council’s Planning Committee met on 10 August but no major residential applications were discussed. 

There were no election updates announced in Bedford during June. 

Central Bedfordshire Council 

In August, the development management committee met on 26 August and discussed a minor solar farm (7MW) application with battery energy storage at land north A603 in Sandy, which was approved. Plus, they discussed an outline application for the for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of up to 17 dwellings and off Station Road, Langford. The application was also approved  

There were no election updates announced in Central Bedfordshire during June. 

Luton Council 

Luton Council’s Development Management Committee did not meet in August with their next meeting scheduled for 23 September.  

Cllr David Franks, who was elected for the Liberal Democrats in Barnfield ward, has left the party over its nomination of a Reform UK councillor for a committee post. 

Sophie Coghlan

Senior Account Executive

Sophie Coghlan graduated from Manchester Metropolitan University in July 2024 with a marketing degree and joined Chelgate Local in August 2025 as an account executive. She was promoted to senior account executive in February 2026.

Sophie is passionate about growing her career in public affairs and public relations, focusing on planning communications and community engagement.

She has been working primarily on projects in the North Thames region, in particular Essex and Hertfordshire.

Email:  Sophie Coghlan
Tel: 020 7939 7950

 

planning committee

Understanding councillors

By Michael Hardware, Director of Planning and Property

We have all at some point come out of a planning committee wondering what had just happened. A perfectly reasonable policy-compliant planning application had been unexpectedly refused for vague and perhaps spurious reasons, or on an issue which you were not aware of.

Although planning committees are not supposed to be political, politics can sometimes get in the way. Members consider applications on their merits, but occasionally conflicting priorities can influence decisions.

Politics never goes away

After all, councillors are politicians. They were elected to represent their wards – if they do not then they will not be elected next time. This is a key motivation and becomes more significant the closer to an election you get. In councils where elections are by thirds, the politics never goes away. Although councillors are still elected for four years, the political groups are always in election mode as there are local elections every year – even on the fourth year, the elections are for counties.

This is exacerbated where a council has a small overall majority. The controlling parties will understandably be paranoid about losing any seats and so will not take decisions which are politically risky. The opposition will be all fired-up as taking control is only an election away – they will be challenging every decision vociferously, probably out of all proportion to the issue at hand!

Similarly, councillors in marginal wards will be particularly susceptible to politics: they know that one wrong move will change that majority resulting in their, or their colleagues, being beaten at the next election. They will want to be seen to be campaigning for the community, fighting for what it wants, and sticking-up for every resident who has an injustice. This, even if it goes against their own personal views, and possibly against those of their party. Similarly, opposition candidates will be over-critical of everything.

Any proposed development will always motivate the noisy minority, creating a perception the community is against these. A good ward councillor will be able to judge whether that is the case and act accordingly. More often than not, however, we will see the ward councillor campaigning against a proposed development for the reasons outlined above.

Even without the influence of elections, there is an inherent conflict of interests: although ward councillors are elected to represent their wards, they are also bound to consider what is good for the community as a whole. This is where the planning committee system works well – the committee is drawn from the wider area and so will have a more detached view and will be able to consider the wider benefits of a proposal. Ward councillors will always be allowed to speak on applications affecting their wards, and where they sit on the committee, may be able to participate in the debate and vote, although they will need to declare the interest. Other councils, however, exclude sitting ward councillors in these circumstances either for that item or for the whole meeting, requiring a substitution.

Avoiding googlies at planning committee

But it is the ‘googly’ at the committee meeting which is the most frustrating: an issue which has not come up before, or you thought had been addressed, suddenly becomes huge on the night and results in a refusal or deferment. Although politics sometimes is the cause of these, it is more often a late issue raised by residents which touches a nerve, or through rumour or hearsay has been blown out of all proportion. Conversations with members before committees should identify these, and hopefully provide time for them to be addressed ahead of the committee.

Whenever contemplating a planning application, it is important for you to understand the political environment you are entering from the outset: the make-up of the council, the balance of power, what wards are up for election and the marginality of those wards. It is also important to know the general position on development, the local issues and the potential for opposition for your development before you start.

Letwin Review highlights need for more housing variation

Sir Oliver Letwin, who was charged with the task of explaining the “significant gap” between housing completions and the amount of land allocated in areas of high demand, has released his eagerly awaited interim report.

As in his letter in March, Letwin does stress that the “homogeneity of the types and tenures of the homes on offer and the limit on the rate at which the market will absorb them are the fundamental drivers of the slow rate of build out”.

He urges house builders to diversify the homes constructed within each site to cater to different markets simultaneously – thus accelerating build out rates.

Different strokes for different folks

Letwin suggests developers look at providing different types of tenure – open market sale, open market private rented, ‘affordable’ rented and ‘social’ rented – as well as different forms of accommodation, such as retirement housing and student living blocks, all as part of the same scheme.

The report finds that buyers for these different tenure types don’t compete, so developers could develop more of a site at once without driving property prices down and threatening their business model.

In addition, rather than building rows of identikit semi-detached homes with monotonous landscaping and bland interiors, house builders could also offer custom- and self-build options, or simply provide a variety of looks to appeal to different tastes.

Whether builders accept this or not is another matter – they stand to lose out if they are forced to diversify their housing offer across sites.

Letwin is also cagey on how this diversification will take place, saying the ‘policy levers’ to bring this about while not harming sites economically will form the second half of his review, reporting to Budget.

Banking on land?

Significantly, Letwin finds that none of the UK’s biggest housebuilders deliberately ‘land bank’, with no evidence that developers sit on land they own and then wait for it to rise in value to maximise their profits.

He states: “Their business models depend on generating profits out of sales of housing, rather than out of the increasing value of land holdings; and it is the profitability of the sale of housing that they are trying to protect by building only at the ‘market absorption rate’ for their products.”

We absolutely didn’t need a drawn-out Government Review to tell us this, of course, but having official evidence could aid future Government funding decisions on driving up housebuilding.

What’s more, by moving towards a more varied housing model and accelerating build out rates, developers might finally be able to disprove the myth of land banking once and for all.

You can read the full report here.