Our planning system has a basic flaw.

Despite the significant efforts of this Labour Government to improve it through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, when it comes to local planning decisions, the system treats whoever shouts loudest as if they speak for everyone.

Too often I see a small, highly motivated and often well-funded minority dominating consultations, spreading fear and worry while the people most affected by the housing crisis never get heard at all. Renters, young families, first-time buyers, trapped older generations looking to downsize. The result is delay, conflict, and decisions that feel detached from wider public opinion.

This should really matter to my fellow MPs and councillors, because the public is not instinctively anti-housing. 

New polling by Public First shows that MPs who back housebuilding are seen more positively than those who oppose it. Forty-six per cent of voters say they would view a pro-housing MP more favourably, compared with just fifteen per cent negatively. Opposing development can win support from a vocal minority who try to dominate local Facebook groups, but it is riskier overall. Most strikingly, support rises sharply when new homes are clearly linked to who they are for: families, older people, and first-time buyers. Pro-housing MPs are also seen as standing up for young people and first-time buyers, groups the public strongly sympathises with. 

Too many developments still end up being refused locally and then won at appeal. This is not because people reject development. It is because the system is not capturing opinion properly.

I do believe this is fixable. We need a more representative approach to planning.

Representative planning is exactly what it sounds like, making sure the planning process is representative of the whole community. We want to see greater use of structured, demographically robust engagement to understand what whole communities think, not just those who turn up to object. Citizens’ panels, representative surveys, and deliberative engagement are already common in other areas of public policy. In planning, they are still treated as optional or experimental. That is a mistake.

Councillors are routinely asked to make major decisions based on consultation responses that are self-selecting and unrepresentative. Developers are exposed to unnecessary delay and risk, even where there is broad local support for well-designed schemes. And communities are left feeling that planning is something done to them, not with them.

Representative planning does not remove disagreement. It does not guarantee approval. But it does change the quality of the debate. It allows decision-makers to distinguish between widespread concern and concentrated opposition. It helps surface the silent majority who support development in principle but want reassurance about design, infrastructure, and who benefits.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) rightly emphasises community engagement, but it does not actively promote representative approaches. Planning guidance must be clearer. On large or contentious schemes, developers should be encouraged by the councils who rely on them  to demonstrate how representative engagement has shaped proposals. Councils should be supported to commission or require robust, independent consultation. Planning policy statements should recognise representative engagement as best practice, not a box-ticking exercise.

With the Government now consulting on an update to the NPPF, and with Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook MP confirming that there will not be another planning bill in this parliamentary term, we need to see practical steps from MHCLG to embed a fairer, more just way of consulting and delivering on the homes and infrastructure we need.

If Labour is serious about delivery and democratic legitimacy, this is a reform we should lead.

Written by Mike Reader MP

Member of Parliament for Northampton South