Is England in a perennial state of planning reform because it sure seems like it? As a young researcher of international comparative planning practice, whenever I read the news from England’s planning sector, it seems Westminster is constantly tossing around the term ‘planning reform’ with each consecutive government. After Labour’s landslide victory in July, the new cabinet ministers immediately hit the streets promoting planning reform as a solution to getting Britain building again. But this rhetoric of getting Britain building again has been bandied about for a while now: Cameron, Johnson, Truss, and Sunak all tossed around ideas for reforming the country’s ‘broken’ planning system.

You may be thinking: “At least Teresa May didn’t propose planning reform”, to which I quote her 2018 speech on “rewriting the rules on planning” … sounds a lot like planning reform, no? So, if only one of the last five Conservative prime ministers were able to actually pass a real form of planning reform (Cameron’s New Localism Reform in 2012), then why is Labour relying on planning reform as a panacea to the UK’s economic woes? Rachel Reeves, in her first speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke about reforming the planning system to help kick start the British economy.

For me, an external observant to English planning, it was quite surprising to see Rachel Reeves explicitly connect planning reform to her strategy for growing the economy. It’s demonstrative of the kind of interconnected, holistic policymaking that understands the vital role in which the planning system can facilitate economic growth. And Labour’s decision to have Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, instead of Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, introduce England’s newest round of planning reform signals a different approach to planning reform that Labour is serious about making changes.

But when you ask what those changes are, I am not sure if it truly constitutes reform but rather more tweaks to a planning system under constant political pressure. During her speech, Mrs Reeves briefly outlined Labour’s vision for this reform: the reintroduction of housing targets for local councils, streamlining the process for permitting nationally significant infrastructure, opening up parts of the greenbelt for development and hiring a further 300 planners to serve local councils. While these measures will certainly impact how planning authorities approach new development, this isn’t exactly indicative of the kind of wide scale change that Labour politicians are promoting it as.

From my perspective, the term ‘planning reform’ suggests a legal intervention that would fundamentally change how planning practitioners conduct their practice as the planning system is restructured around a new way of doing its day-to-day business. While Labour plans on releasing further details of its proposed planning reform before the summer recess in August, based on what we currently know, these new planning measures seem to address more cosmetic issues rather than address fundamental challenges to England’s discretionary form of planning practice.

So, reflecting on this idea that England has been in a perennial stasis of planning reform, I would instead see it as a series of failed attempts to develop a coherent strategy of what forward planning should look like in England. And based on the initial rhetoric of Labour, I am not sure if they have a real, long-term vision for reforming planning in England. Instead, they seem to be sticking to regurgitating some of Blair’s old planning policies like with the reintroduction of council housing targets and stronger regionalisation of planning decisions through a new devolution bill. At the same time, they want to appear hard against the ‘NIMBY’ crowd and push new development into places where there is significant resistance to the large-scale infrastructural projects that Labour wants to implement.

For example, during her first press conference, Rachel Reeves did assert that Angela Rayner would yield her ministerial authority to override local decisions that refuse nationally significant developments, and we have already seen Labour U-turn some major planning decisions against new data centres that the previous Conservative government refused to grant permission for. Additionally, hiring desperate needed new personnel for its under-funded planning authorities will help the planning system get back on its feet and improve local councils’ responsiveness for new development projects. But altogether, as the rosy after-election glee fades, it’ll be interesting to watch how Labour advances their agenda for planning reform as their underdeveloped vision for the future development of the country is scrutinised and put to test.