Following a clash between the government and Lords over net zero planning, concerns have been about achieving climate goals
Over the last few weeks, the government and the Lords have been at loggerheads over how the planning system should assess and enable the UK’s transition to net zero carbon emissions.
No surprise there; our planning system is not fit for purpose when it comes to local climate action.
Lords battled to amend the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) to ensure climate change mitigation in planning decisions is firmly enshrined in legislation.
The government was opposed to the move. Last week, rather than kibosh the bill altogether, the Lords reluctantly accepted a weaker government concession, and the bill began its final passage into law.
Led by crossbench peer Lord Ravensdale, the Lords’ so-called “last climate amendment standing” — owing to the number of defeated climate amendments to the LURB — would have required the Secretary of State and all planning bodies to give particular regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change when developing statutory spatial plans and when assessing planning applications.
Is the National Planning Policy Framework enough?
The government argued that such a new duty was unnecessary, claiming we can rely on existing policy documents like the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to embed net zero considerations into planning decisions sufficiently.
Housing Minister Rachel Maclean attempted to scare backbenchers tempted to support the Lords amendment, warning that putting “special regard” on the statute books would trigger a rise in “excessive litigation.”
When the bill returned to the Commons, the government swiftly removed the Lords amendment. But the Lords weren’t deterred and insisted again on reinstating it. In response, the government insisted on disagreeing.
It proposed a watered-down amendment that requires the Minister to have regard for the need to mitigate climate change when developing planning policy, deleting the requirement for this duty to apply to planning decisions.
It seems a minor change but significantly dilutes Lord Ravensdale’s amendment. Last week, the Lords relented and accepted the concession rather than derailing the whole bill — something the unelected house is understandably keen to avoid.
The government’s rationale for opposing the original amendment is that no new climate change duty is needed because one already exists, requiring local plan-making to address mitigation and adaptation. They argue that the national planning policy contained in the NPPF is sufficient to guide appropriate consideration of climate change in decisions.
Researchers have argued for a change to net zero policy
However, research from bodies, including the Climate Change Committee and Mission Zero, has found the current approach inadequate. The Lords’ proposed duty would expand the scope from just plan-making to include decision-making and covering national policy.
As highlighted in the recent “Powers In Place” report from UK100, the current misalignment of duties on plan-makers versus decision-takers has weakened local net zero plans during the approval process. Planning Inspectors making these decisions are not bound by the same strict climate mitigation duties as the councils originally developed the proposals.
For example, West Oxfordshire’s ‘Salt Cross Area Action Plan,’ which would have required all new developments to demonstrate net zero operational carbon emissions on-site, was watered down by the Planning Inspectorate.
The Inspectorate opposed the ambitious plan, saying, “We are not satisfied that Policy 2 [Net Zero Carbon Development] is either consistent with national policy or justified.”
At the same time, UK100 member Lancaster City Council developed a Climate Emergency Local Plan to set higher energy efficiency and carbon standards than current building regulations, although not as ambitious as plans previously approved in places like Cornwall or Bath & North East Somerset. However, the Inspector’s report required this policy to be removed, stating it would “fail to accord with the Written Ministerial Statement and the Planning and Energy Act 2008”.
These decisions demonstrate the inconsistency in planning decision-making, where individual Inspectors apply different standards and give different weight to the climate change mitigation considerations stated in the NPPF. In the Bath & Somerset case, a different Inspector reviewed similar policies.
Still, he came to an opposite conclusion, stating that national policy had significantly reduced the relevance of the ministerial statement opposing higher energy efficiency standards.
The planning system needs to be more efficient to achieve net zero goals
Such inconsistent application of climate considerations undermines the UK’s transition to net zero. It can take councils several years to develop local plans, and each appeal won by the Planning Inspectorate against strong climate policies represents a step backward.
Facing this inconsistency, the potential for downgrading, and uncertainty over costs understandably leads many planning policymakers to “play it safe” and stick to only the minimum standards they must meet. This poses significant challenges to councils in planning and implementing ambitious sustainability projects in their local areas.
The government’s concession to include climate change considerations when developing national planning guidance is far from a comprehensive victory. But as the only climate measure to gain any traction during the passage of the LURB, it is a step in the right direction. Lord Ravensdale’s success in securing a commitment to reference carbon budgets is also evident in explanatory notes.
However, it’s no fix for councils like Lancaster. Only a clear legal duty applied to all planning decision-makers would help thread the needle, giving equal weight to climate change mitigation considerations between local plan-makers and those adjudicating them nationally.
Without this alignment, England is at risk of building high-carbon housing, transport, and energy infrastructure that will lock in emissions for decades.
Christopher Hammond
UK100 Chief Executive
