The Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025, now at Report Stage in the House of Lords, raises continuing concerns about centralisation, weakened environmental safeguards, and reduced local accountability. These issues are particularly relevant to Harrow, where local planning capacity, green infrastructure, and community participation are central to shaping sustainable development.
As the Bill is expected to complete Lords scrutiny by the end of the year and move to the Commons in early 2026, Harrow’s elected representatives may wish to ensure that local priorities are fully reflected in the final legislation.
The Bill’s centralising provisions could restrict Harrow Council’s ability to set planning priorities on housing density, town centre regeneration, and transport links. Increased ministerial control and the wider use of development corporations risk diminishing local transparency and community influence over major development decisions.
The proposed Nature Restoration Levy seeks to link development with biodiversity recovery, but without statutory ring-fencing, there is no guarantee that funds raised in Harrow will be reinvested locally. This could leave the borough facing the environmental costs of growth without corresponding investment in green infrastructure or ecological restoration.
Replacing Environmental Impact Assessments with Environmental Outcomes Reports shifts to an outcome-based model that may reduce consultation and weaken environmental scrutiny. Smaller authorities such as Harrow may struggle to secure the expertise needed to assess these reports effectively, potentially undermining protection for green belt land, heritage assets, and flood-sensitive areas.
Reforms to compulsory purchase powers aim to speed up infrastructure delivery but could erode community protections and fair compensation. This may disadvantage Harrow’s residents and small businesses affected by regeneration or transport-related developments further. In addition, the Bill’s broad “connected purposes” clause grants the minister wide discretion to extend its scope through secondary legislation, limiting both parliamentary and local oversight.
As the Bill approaches its final stages, Harrow’s representatives in Parliament and local government may wish to seek assurances that local planning authorities retain statutory rights to determine major applications, that meaningful consultation is secured before decisions by central agencies or development corporations, that Nature Restoration Levy proceeds are ring-fenced for local reinvestment, that Environmental Outcomes Reports provide equivalent transparency to current assessment regimes, and that residents and small businesses are protected from unfair compulsory acquisition.
As the Bill is expected to complete Lords scrutiny by the end of the year and move to the Commons in early 2026, Harrow’s elected representatives may wish to ensure that local priorities are fully reflected in the final legislation.
The Bill’s centralising provisions could restrict Harrow Council’s ability to set planning priorities on housing density, town centre regeneration, and transport links. Increased ministerial control and the wider use of development corporations risk diminishing local transparency and community influence over major development decisions.
The proposed Nature Restoration Levy seeks to link development with biodiversity recovery, but without statutory ring-fencing, there is no guarantee that funds raised in Harrow will be reinvested locally. This could leave the borough facing the environmental costs of growth without corresponding investment in green infrastructure or ecological restoration.
Replacing Environmental Impact Assessments with Environmental Outcomes Reports shifts to an outcome-based model that may reduce consultation and weaken environmental scrutiny. Smaller authorities such as Harrow may struggle to secure the expertise needed to assess these reports effectively, potentially undermining protection for green belt land, heritage assets, and flood-sensitive areas.
Reforms to compulsory purchase powers aim to speed up infrastructure delivery but could erode community protections and fair compensation. This may disadvantage Harrow’s residents and small businesses affected by regeneration or transport-related developments further. In addition, the Bill’s broad “connected purposes” clause grants the minister wide discretion to extend its scope through secondary legislation, limiting both parliamentary and local oversight.
As the Bill approaches its final stages, Harrow’s representatives in Parliament and local government may wish to seek assurances that local planning authorities retain statutory rights to determine major applications, that meaningful consultation is secured before decisions by central agencies or development corporations, that Nature Restoration Levy proceeds are ring-fenced for local reinvestment, that Environmental Outcomes Reports provide equivalent transparency to current assessment regimes, and that residents and small businesses are protected from unfair compulsory acquisition.
Harrow Monitoring Group 