To say that 2025 has been dramatic (by planning standards) would be an understatement. The government’s overhaul of the planning system is really starting to manifest on the ground thanks to the previous changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the emerging Planning & Infrastructure Bill (PIB) and Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB).
Here is a round up of the latest changes and how they are affecting Norfolk and Suffolk.
5-year land supply (5YHLS) and the ‘tilted balance’
It has been the case for many years that all local authorities must be able to demonstrate that they have planned for at least 5 years of housing growth in their area. How important this is, and how the 5 years is calculated, has been tweaked over the years, but the recent overhaul has seen a new methodology for calculating land supply that factors in affordability of the area as well as previous under-delivery. The result is that many local authorities now cannot demonstrate the 5 years, when they could under the previous government and methodology.
Almost every local authority in Norfolk and Suffolk has now confirmed they cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS:
- East Suffolk (Waveney only)
- West Suffolk
- Mid Suffolk
- Greater Norwich – including South Norfolk and Broadland
- Kings Lynn & West Norfolk
- Breckland
- North Norfolk
Without a 5 YHLS, the ‘tilted balance’ applies. This is where Councils must approve planning applications for new homes unless the adverse impacts of doing so would ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. Also called the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, this situation effectively renders any existing planning policies nul and void.
In practice, this means that planning applications that would normally be refused may be granted planning permission if a local authority cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS. However, it is important to note that the scheme must still not cause any unacceptable harm, so if a proposal has poor vehicular access, or would harm a listed building, have flooding issues etc, it will likely still be refused regardless of the land supply position.
Local authorities are now making plans to rectify their under-supply, which will take months or even years for many of them, and the ‘tilted balance’ applies until the 5 years can be demonstrated.
While this is an opportunity for those wishing to develop their land, it is understandably cause for concern for others, particularly in rural areas. Delivering 1.5 million homes will result in significant changes to all parts of the country. But recent case law has shown that heritage, environment, access etc are still valid reasons to refuse an application, even in areas of under-supply.
Nutrient neutrality and an Environmental Delivery Plan
Nutrient neutrality has now been affecting most of Norfolk for over 3 years, stalling development in the area. The PIB has introduced a Nature Restoration Levy, which is a government-led system where developers pay a levy which funds a large-scale mitigation scheme to mitigate nutrient impacts. This is very welcome news, as on-site nutrient neutrality mitigation is very difficult to achieve. However, it will take time to come into force – likely between 6 months and a year. Note, this will not be able to be used for Biodiversity Net Gain.
Planning committees
The PIB seeks to improve the planning committee process, by introducing mandatory training for all committee members, for which certificates will be issued on completion. There are also proposals to bring in separate committees dedicated to strategic decisions, and to bring in a national scheme of delegation, which sets out the ‘triggers’ for an application to go to committee.
Statutory consultees
Statutory consultees are parties whom it is mandatory to consult with on a planning application. Examples include the local flood authority, parish or town council, county highways and the historic environment team for works to heritage assets. Currently, all consultees have a deadline by which to respond to an application, but in practice, some miss the deadline, leaving the case officer unable to issue a decision. The proposed changes would reduce the number of statutory consultees and provide case officers with more freedom to determine an application without their comment if they have missed their deadline.
This is a particularly welcome change, as though on the whole, consultees meet their deadline, it is not uncommon for comments received weeks after the deadline to be taken into account and cause last minute problems.
Increasing planning application fees
Application fees already went up in 2023, but are increasing again as of 1st April 2025. This has unfortunately coincided with an increase in the admin fee charged by the Planning Portal (through which all applications must be made). All fees are increasing by 1.7%, and will increase each year in line with inflation. Fees are also being increased fir specific application types, with Section 73 applications now carrying three separate fees according to the type of development. Householder applications are increasing from £258 to £528 for a single dwelling and from £509 to £1,043 for two or more. Fees for minor works within the curtilage of a dwelling are not changing. Prior approval applications are doubling.
Compulsory purchase
There was panic in the farming community in particular when news circulated of proposed greater use of compulsory purchase rights, whereby the government can acquire land by force in order to release it for development. However, to provide some reassurance, the aim of this appears to be to unlock otherwise stalled developments for infrastructure, schools and housing where land assembly is preventing development from going ahead.
Our view
The government have acted quickly to make sure their changes have an impact within their term. It is quite an exciting time to be working in planning, and certainly a positive climate for those working in development. Of course, a potential influx of development land coming to the market may negatively impact land values, but developers are always looking for sites, and the changes should provide more land for small and medium sized housebuilders, which is positive.
The proposed changes to the planning committee process and statutory consultee role are very welcome, and though the planning application fee increase will be hard to stomach for small applications, providing it results in a better planning service, I feel it will be worth it.
We certainly appear to be in a pro-development world, but whether this filters down to planning officers and validation teams remains to be seen. I predict plenty of planning by appeal over the next few months!
