The red queen’s gambit Angela Rayner is determined to beat the blockers. But convincing them rather than crushing them is possible

The 14-acre estate, which sits between the M25, the Grand Union Canal, and a sewage and water treatment works, has one building of note – a Grade II listed farmhouse, once part of a 17th-century manor house that stood on the site, which is now used as offices. Bucolic England this is not.

Yet the estate sits within green-belt land, which is why in 2023 the local council rejected plans to transform the site into a state-of-the-art data centre. Never mind that the site is already developed, ideally connected to major transport links, and ripe for additional investment. Or indeed that it was designated by the council as part of an ‘Opportunity Area’ earmarked for development to support employment opportunities. Never mind, also, that the estate is a rare example of a site fulfilling all the requirements to build and operate a successful data centre. The size and complexity of data centres mean that only a small number of sites are suitable for their construction and operation. But, given Court Lane’s location within the Slough-Hayes data centre ‘golden corridor’ and its proximity to many fibre networks, it ticks all the boxes. Despite these favourable factors, Buckinghamshire County Council concluded that the proposals represented “inappropriate development in the green belt” – and rejected the planning application.

Sensibly, the owner of the site, asset manager Patrizia, appealed the council’s decision. And, in late 2024, communities secretary Angela Rayner gave the scheme the green light, citing the UK’s growing need for data centres, which the government has designated as critical infrastructure. According to Patrizia, the proposals — which comprise a 700,000 sq ft 140 megawatt data centre, as well as full refurbishment of the historic farmhouse — will see an investment of around £670 million in the local economy and, once operational, will bring around 90 highly skilled workers onsite, generating an estimated local impact of £12 million gross value added per year. Rayner recognised that these benefits and the wider benefit to UK plc far outweighed any supposed impact on the area’s green belt.

Going grey

In many ways, the Court Lane development is a microcosm, representing the myriad issues the government faces as it seeks to ‘get Britain building’ and lift the economy out of the doldrums. The industrial site is a great example of what ministers have described as ‘grey belt’ land – previously developed sites that, by an accident of planning policy, fall within the green belt and therefore face restrictions to development. Estate agent Knight Frank estimates there are around 11,000 previously developed sites like Court Lane that could be brought forward for development. The sites — which constitute less than 1% of green-belt land — are mainly concentrated in the south of England, with just over 40% within the London green-belt area. They could provide as many as 200,000 homes. The government has instructed local councils to review their green-belt areas and identify grey-belt sites that could be brought forward for development. Rayner’s decision to overrule local objections and back the development of Court Lane was in line with this approach. It should give cause for optimism that ministers are prepared to walk the walk when it comes to boosting the economy.

This was not an isolated decision. In the first six months of government, Rayner approved 13 schemes, including Marks & Spencer’s highly controversial proposals to demolish and redevelop its flagship store on Oxford Street. She also gave the green light to nine major infrastructure projects, spanning airports, solar farms, major housing developments – and data centres like Court Lane. Arguably, Rayner has shown more zeal for the government’s growth mission than any other departmental minister. With the government bogged down in many areas and the economy stuttering, she has so far proven capable of taking the difficult decisions that are necessary to prioritise growth. But that alone won’t be enough.

Delayed decisions

The problem the government faces is their levers to boost economic growth will take time to have an impact, particularly when to comes to building homes and infrastructure. Rayner’s decisions to overturn local councils’ rejections of planning applications is one way of speeding up delivery, but in a limited way. The government has committed to making 150 decisions on major economic infrastructure applications over this parliament – more than doubling the decisions made in the previous parliament – but ultimately this is more about sending a signal about its priorities, rather than actually driving growth. The holy grail is to reform the planning system to ensure homes and infrastructure are approved at the local level, avoiding the need to navigate the time-consuming and costly appeals process, and eventually ending up on a minister’s desk. But will the planning reforms the government has set out achieve this?

The challenge Rayner faces is immense. The planning system has unquestionably been a significant blocker on the delivery of homes and critical infrastructure, leading to delays and spiralling costs. The average time to achieve planning consent for nationally significant infrastructure increased from 2.6 to 4.2 years between 2012 and 2023, while currently over half of major infrastructure planning decisions are being challenged in court, compared to a long-term average of 10%, leading to 18 months delay, on average, and millions in additional costs. Meanwhile, the housing crisis continues to worsen: the government estimates that at least 300,000 net additional dwellings are needed each year to meet demand but, over the last decade, the figure has never exceeded 250,000 annually and has sometimes fallen below 150,000. The latest data shows that planning approvals fell to a ten-year low last year, while the pace of housebuilding has fallen to the slowest rate since the financial crisis. Speak to any housing developer and they will tell you that even getting close to government’s target of 1.5 million homes over the parliament will be hugely difficult – and achieving it, impossible.

Home truths

The first part of the government’s planning reforms was set out at the end of 2024, with the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This set out more detail on the requirement for councils to identify and prioritise grey-belt sites in the green belt, like Court Lane. But the focus of the revised NPPF is on a dramatic increase in housebuilding targets as part of the local planning process. Councils must meet a new combined target of 370,000 homes a year, with the government setting individual mandatory targets for councils to ramp up construction.

The aim is to boost housebuilding by making more land available, but this process – which involves councils revising their local plans – will take years to flow through to an increase in housing numbers. It will also face opposition from local councils, including Labour-led authorities, many of whom have made clear that it is one thing to set a target, another to deliver on it, citing barriers such as strains on local infrastructure, land shortages, and a lack of capacity in the planning system and construction industry. Former Labour-run Broxtowe council in Nottinghamshire, for example, described the proposed changes as “very challenging, if not impossible to achieve”. South Tyneside, another Labour-run council, said the plans were “wholly unrealistic”; while the independent-run council in Central Bedfordshire, said the area would be left “absolutely swamped with growth that the infrastructure just cannot support”.

The reforms proposed for the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, unveiled in March, are bolder still. The most contentious proposal is focused on bypassing planning committees by shifting the decision-making from local councillors to planning officers for applications that comply with local plans. The proposal is aimed at preventing planning committees from routinely ignoring the expert advice of planning officers. This happens all too frequently. SEC Newgate’s National Planning Barometer, an annual survey of planning committee members across England and Wales, last year found that while a large majority of councillors say they believe their local planning department has high expertise (85%), a similar proportion (80%) admit to voting against their planning officer recommendations over the past 12 months — with 46% voting against three or more times.

Plan of action

The government’s reforms, therefore, are aimed at ensuring that if a scheme is in line with a local council’s policies and local plan, it should be rubber-stamped by planning officers, rather than facing rejection by a planning committee that may be swayed by local opposition. This will also circumvent the situation whereby a planning committee washes its hands of a controversial planning application, rejecting it in committee to appease campaigners in the full knowledge that it will be approved later upon appeal. By delegating more decisions to professional officers, the government hopes to expedite the planning process and provide greater certainty to developers.

Planning pinch

This proposal is proving controversial as it is seen as a watering down of local decision-making. One of the few real powers left to councillors to shape their local communities is through planning committees. But delegated decision-making already happens and has increased dramatically over the last 25 years. According to the government, 96% of decisions were made by officers in Q2 2024 compared to 75% in 2000, with committees now usually focusing on the largest or most controversial applications. What the government’s reforms aim to ensure is that there is more consistency across the country on what types of schemes are delegated, with only the most significant considered by planning committee. It is the definition of what constitutes a ‘significant’ scheme – a figure of more than 100 homes has been mooted – that will prove the most controversial and test the resolve of many Labour MPs.

Ultimately, this points to the biggest challenge Rayner faces: getting the balance right between accelerating planning and not running roughshod over local opinion. Rayner argues that under the delegated powers, a scheme must be aligned with local plans, and the best way for councillors and communities to engage in proposed development is through the local-plan process, which will be agreed by the council. The aim is to expedite proposals that are aligned with the local plan – while ensuring a development that isn’t part of the local plan still goes to the planning committee.

Nevertheless, the risk is that government’s reforms only inflame local opposition, particularly in more rural areas, where Conservatives are already claiming Labour is pursuing a “war on rural England” with its “family farm tax”. Ministers can be full-throated in their support for delivering new homes and new infrastructure, but that is no guarantee they will be able to overcome local opposition to development. Saying you will face down Nimbys is one thing. Doing it is another. Will Labour backbenchers with narrow majorities fall in behind the party line where the  ‘blockers’ are their own voters?

Rayner at least seems to recognise this risk. She has underlined the importance of good design in creating developments that are attractive and therefore more likely to be supported by communities. She has also stressed that development must come with critical supporting infrastructure so as not to overwhelm local areas. But there are also other ways to build a more supportive environment for development. One of the golden threads that runs through SEC Newgate’s National Planning Barometer is the need for better communication between all parties, and greater trust and responsibility. The planning system is far too adversarial in its approach. Community consultation works so much better when residents are properly informed. Developers could bring the community on the journey earlier on in the process, seeking input into their evolving designs and listening to what residents actually want. The process would also benefit from more engagement and better communication between councillors and developers throughout the process, alongside planning officers.

A greater focus on collaboration and more authentic and transparent communication is not the stuff that makes headlines, but it could make a real difference in resolving opposition to development – turning Nimbys into Yimbys, delivering the homes and infrastructure the country needs. As Rayner drives through her reforms, she would do well to also consider softer approaches that seek to win support for development through better engagement and communication, rather than forcing it upon communities. The success of the government’s central mission to drive economic growth depends upon it.