Bright Blue's Planning Reform: A Radical Shift That Could Reshape UK Housing

A centre-right think tank has called for one of the most aggressive rollbacks of local planning control in modern British history, arguing that councils should lose the power to block housing developments unless they've already specified where building can occur. The proposal from Bright Blue marks a striking ideological departure for a think tank traditionally aligned with moderate Conservatism. That such a proposal emerges from the centre-right, rather than from Labour's growth-focused technocrats, suggests the housing crisis has finally exhausted patience across the political spectrum.

The recommendations sit within a broader argument about the cost-of-living crisis. Bright Blue's research calculates that combined housing and energy costs in the UK run 44 per cent higher than the OECD average, a premium that falls disproportionately on households earning below the median. Rather than frame this as an income problem requiring wage subsidies or benefits increases, the think tank positions it as a structural failure in how Britain prices essential goods.

The planning reform gambit

Bartek Staniszewski, Bright Blue's head of policy, describes the current approach as "managing scarcity" when government should be "striving for plenty". The language is pointed. For years, planning reform has meant tinkering at the edges whilst preserving the fundamental power of local authorities to say no.

Enjoying this article?

Get stories like this in your inbox every week.

Join the Community

Stripping Local Planning Authorities of their veto power without Local Development Orders in place would essentially force councils to adopt a zonal system or watch developments proceed regardless.

Under the suggested system, councils would need to produce Local Development Orders specifying acceptable development types and locations. Without those documents in place, planning authorities couldn't block projects. The model shifts Britain closer to systems used in parts of continental Europe and Japan, where zoning rules replace discretionary approval.

Political feasibility remains the obvious question. The Conservative Party spent years defending local control over planning decisions, treating NIMBYism as democratic expression rather than economic vandalism. Labour has shown more appetite for reform, but even Rachel Reeves has been careful not to alienate local government. A policy this aggressive would trigger immediate resistance from councils across the political spectrum, particularly in areas where blocking development has become the primary visible function of local democracy.

Bright Blue couples the planning power grab with £163 million in annual funding for 7,500 additional planners in local authorities. According to the Royal Town Planning Institute, a quarter of public sector planners departed between 2013 and 2020, creating capacity constraints that slow even approved projects. The spending commitment acknowledges that faster decision-making requires investment, not just regulatory change.

Building regulations under scrutiny

The report also targets building safety regulations, specifically the requirement for structures over 60 metres to include two staircases. Bright Blue argues this constraint has limited housing supply, particularly in London where land costs make taller buildings more viable. Housing experts remain divided on whether regulatory changes like this materially affect supply.

Land costs, not staircase requirements, typically determine project viability. But the willingness to revisit post-Grenfell safety standards indicates how urgently the think tank views the supply crisis.

On energy, the recommendations turn to market design rather than supply constraints. Britain's electricity pricing operates on a marginal cost system, where the most expensive generating source sets the wholesale price. Gas-fired power plants set that price 97 per cent of the time in 2021, according to Bright Blue's figures, despite gas representing only 40 per cent of generation between 2017 and 2021.

Bright Blue proposes an Electricity Pricing Commission within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, with a three-year mandate to recommend alternative pricing models. The government has consulted on similar reforms but progress has stalled. Treasury resistance to market intervention likely explains part of the delay. Any move away from marginal pricing creates winners and losers, and the current system benefits generators who've already made investments based on existing rules.

The inequality arithmetic

The distributional impact provides the political edge for these arguments. Bright Blue's research shows low-to-middle income households spent 8.5 per cent of disposable income on energy in 2023-24, up from 5.9 per cent in 2019-20. For above-median earners, the 2023-24 figure was 5.6 per cent. These figures likely capture direct energy bills only, excluding embedded costs in goods and services, but the direction is clear enough.

Housing follows the same pattern, with the poorest quarter spending 21 per cent of household income on accommodation, three and a half times the proportion paid by the richest quarter.

What's shifted is the willingness of centre-right voices to propose solutions that override market mechanisms and local democratic processes. Planning reform that strips councils of blocking powers would once have been unthinkable from this quarter of the political spectrum.

That Bright Blue feels comfortable advocating it suggests the ancien régime around housing has finally lost intellectual credibility, even among its traditional defenders.

Whether Labour adopts proposals this aggressive remains uncertain. The government needs growth and housing supply to deliver on its economic promises. But it also needs to maintain relationships with local authorities and avoid accusations of centralism. The Bright Blue proposals offer political cover for radical action.

When even the centre-right thinks councils have too much power over development, the path to reform becomes clearer. Implementation, as always, will prove harder than diagnosis.

More articles by Ross Williams