Today’s Sky News (28 December 2025) has a story by their City Editor, Mark Kleinman saying that Sir Keir Starmer has has ordered Britain’s key watchdogs to remove barriers to growth, in an attempt to kickstart Britain’s sluggish economy. He has written to more than ten regulators demanding they submit details of pro-growth initiatives by mid—January. Planning authorities are not mentioned but the Environment Agency is a recipient of the letter. Then the story goes on to remind readers what the PM said at the International Investment Summit in the autumn which is new to me and I would suggest, if taken at face value, highly significant. He said:
“The key test for me on regulation is of course growth. We’ve got to look at regulation across the piece, and where it is needlessly holding back investment we need to take our country forward. Where it is stopping us building the homes, the warehouses, grid connectors, roads, trainlines, then mark my words- we will get rid of it.”
Few now doubt that planning regulation, simply the planning system holds back growth. It has done so for decades in the high demand areas like the Thames Valley. Finding ways round the opposition to growth was the theme of the two reports I published as Senior Partner of Campbell Gordon in February 1990, Growth v Quality of Life, A Thames Valley Solution and in June 1992 Prosperity at Risk: Will Planning policies delay Economic Recovery? A year later at the Berkshire Structure Plan 1991-2006 examining in public I was invited to give evidence to the Inspectors on the impact on Business and Industry of the proposed policies. Conclusions 7.01, 7.02 and 7.04 said:
”The evidence shows that far from conforming to Government policy, the County Councils employment policies, if approved without alteration, provide space for less than half half the plan period, and will be unrealistic as a response to business needs……… . The policies are designed to secure a reduction in the amount of development in the county. Part of the strategy is to restrain severely the amount of development which would create more jobs..The threat is such, therefore, that the local economy could be damaged rather than enhanced by the restrictions advocated by the County Council. Such a threat to a local economy, which was said to be one of the strongest in the country, cannot be in the interests of the region or the nation”.
Removing or amending written regulations is one thing. Going head to head with local opponents to local change is another thing. Matthew Pennycook, the Housing Minister has responsibility under the Deputy PM, Angela Rayner to deliver growth. As the evidence shows, local opposition to spatial growth has trumped national growth priorities for more than a generation. It is worth recalling that the Conservatives were in power from 1979 to 1997; Labour from 1997 to 2010; and the Conservatives (plus the Liberal Democrats in coalition) from 2010 to 2024. During this forty five year cycle, I was in practice in the Thames Valley from 1976 to 2014. The dominant theme throughout that period was not seeking out and fulfilling demand for commercial space, but finding the right commercial space that the companies wanted. Not one political party was prepared to challenge the local orthodoxy, which sought to severely restrain growth. Since then this absence of leadership faced with local opposition to local change has failed to resolve the conflict.
If this PM is serious about prioritising national growth priorities over local pressure groups who wish to stop or slow down the rate of change, he must take control of the variable which is unique to planning regulation, development land. Calling a spade a spade in spatial language vocabulary means Labour must be prepared to nationalise the development rights of development land. There is no other way. And it must happen with the support of the other political parties.
Can he take this heroic step? If he intends to get rid of the biggest barrier to economic growth taking this step is essential. Can it be done with local support? Yes, if the messaging is effective and the timescale is sufficient.
Ian Campbell
28 December 2024
