David Rogers: When councillors are stripped of planning powers, we lose the ability to shape our own communities

Cllr David Rogers is the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group on Cherwell District Council.

There are moments in a nation’s story when clarity is needed—clarity of purpose, clarity of responsibility, and clarity of leadership.

Today, we face such a moment in the realm of housing and planning.

The Government’s approach, wrapped in the appearance of ambition, is in truth a recipe for disappointment. Targets without the means to deliver them are not plans; they are aspirations dressed up as policy and aspirations alone do not build homes, communities, or a stronger nation. We are told that 1.5 million new homes will rise over the course of this Parliament. A laudable ambition, perhaps and a grating slogan on Steve Reed’s baseball cap. However, ambition does not lay bricks, and speeches do not mix mortar.

The simple, unavoidable fact is that the capacity of this country to deliver such numbers is finite. There are only so many builders, only so many bricks, and only so many roof tiles. You cannot conjure skilled tradespeople from thin air, nor can you will infrastructure into existence by hoping developers will fill the void.

Instead of addressing these constraints with realism and responsibility, the Government has revised the National Planning Policy Framework in a manner that weakens the very structure needed to ensure good, sustainable development. Planning committees which are local, accountable, democratically rooted, are finding our role diminished, our judgement constrained, and our residents increasingly frustrated.

Targets have been altered in ways that make sound planning all but impossible. Councillors across the country are finding that the system no longer asks, “Is this development right for this community?” but instead asks, “Can anyone stop it?” Developers are now freer than ever to submit applications wherever they choose, irrespective of whether essential infrastructure exists or can be delivered in time.

Britain’s backbone services—electrical supply, foul water systems, school places, GP surgeries—cannot be treated as mere afterthoughts.

Legal mechanisms such as the Community Infrastructure Levy or Section 106 agreements exist to help match growth with service provision, but without the guiding hand of local democratic oversight, these mechanisms become inconsistent and, increasingly, insufficient.

When we councillors are stripped of the ability to shape the future of our own communities, we lose our heritage.

What we now see instead is speculative development in our rural communities. In areas where the harm is acknowledged, the transport links are poor, and the employment opportunities limited.

In these Category A villages, the cumulative impact is becoming unmistakable. Jobs are scarce, bus routes often non-existent, and the modest housing needs that once justified gentle, proportionate growth are exceeded many times over. The housing deemed affordable is rarely that.

These new developments are more likely to serve as homes for those commuting by car to work or those retiring to the countryside. Yet the developments continue, driven not by community need but by the commercial logic of building where land is cheapest and resistance weakest. Rising business costs have chilled the appetite of registered housing providers.

Faced with financial pressures, many now seek only large-volume acquisitions, leaving smaller developments with a handful of affordable homes increasingly unsupported. Where once there was a pathway to mixed, balanced communities, that benefit is eroding.

Britain needs housing—of that, there is no doubt. Every government has sought to build more homes, and rightly so.

Under 20 years of Conservative-rule Cherwell District Council had a consistent policy of develop around the towns where more services are available and, as far as reasonable, protect the villages. Not frozen is aspic, but allowed to grown gently.

The path forward is clear. We must refocus development toward our market towns—places that can sustain it, that can plan for it, and that can grow with it. Our Towns where retail is in retreat and town centres would benefit from increased footfall. We must protect rural communities from inappropriate, infrastructure-poor expansion. We must insist that developers build where they have already secured land, where infrastructure can be delivered, and which will help local authorities can regain a robust five-year housing land supply position. Only then will local plans regain their relevance, and only then can order be restored to our planning system.

Planning is not merely about where we build—it is about who we are as a nation. It is time to restore sense, structure, and responsibility to British planning.

The country deserves nothing less.