heart of all great architecture. i am an admirer of architect's skill and vision. a believer in their mission to make homes more thanjust a machine for living but a delight to the eye and a statement of belief in the future. but my conviction we need to build more beautifully is notjust a matter of taste it makes sense in policy terms. as recent advice shows, opposition to new homes and communities drops dramatically when the development is beautiful. asked how they felt about a large increase in homes in the local area, 43% surveyed were resolutely opposed. but this falls to 20% when reassured the development will be in keeping with local architecture and traditions. in the market also shows the merit in building to exacting aesthetic standards. the development that his majesty the king championed and so carefully master planned next to dorchester is not to everyone�*s taste, but it is undeniably built

with great attention to aesthetic considerations. it's also a community where the difference between housing ten years is impossible for any visitor to discern, homes for rent for those owner occupied vessel together in harmony and the result of this thoughtful planning is means the homes are worth more on the opening market than those in the county town of dorchester itself. the new here is more valuable than the old. people have fallen back in love with the future. that is very far from the future. that is very far from the case of many temporary new developments and extensions to existing settlements. an even bigger objection to a new development in the absence of beauty is the lack of new infrastructure to accompany new homes. existing communities which see new homes built too often too often not see the primary care and gp surgeries, schools, road improvements and other amenities that should follow. they experienced irrelevant as additional pressure on school places, longer waiting times

for appointments and treatment, greater congestion and impaired quality—of—life. and again this is neither an isolated or exceptional concern. the same recent polling i referenced a moment ago makes the point is stark. it promise the housing will be accompanied by more local services such as gp surgeries and schools, support for development rockets. and alongside that concern on infrastructure arrests and anxiety about the lack of democratic control over new development. the way in which local plan making can currently be challenged and overturned, the sense that numbers of new homes are crudely imposed rather than thoughtfully calculated. the feeling that local representatives cannot shape the communities in the way they would wish and all of this has stoked opposition and at its most severe has led to a fear of local authorities to adopt new plans for any homes at all. there are also legitimate environmental concerns about new development, especially when it concerns outside existing

urban areas. green fields are lost for ever. habitats eroded and biodiversity harm. of course there are not objectors and a love for newts was one which dare not speak its name before the planning application went in on the way in which some existing environmental regulations work is over complex, inefficient and counter—productive but the environmental externalities of new div element especially on green fields rich with wildlife are real. our interventions include those coming from the environment act mean the effects are managed much better than ever before, and even so, unless we can see new div element is concentrated in new areas with a loss of environmental amenity at the lowest and can lead to enhance biodiversity, then resistance will endure. a final objection to nude of element links all of the above concerns. residents who have grown up in a move to a community which they have grown to love all share an attachment to neighbourhood. a sense of place

matters. we do not live in units, but in homes. and we want our homes to not only be well constructed and safe and decent, we want them to be well connected, part of the community were human interaction is ritual —— rich, natural and easy and thatis ritual —— rich, natural and easy and that is why planning is so important and why their planners and local governments and developers matters so much. planning is the means by which we bring harmony to development, make places to hear and people to connect. planners give communities a heart by appealing to our souls. communities a heart by appealing to oursouls. planners communities a heart by appealing to our souls. planners take landscapes which have been neglected, despoiled or left fallow and build something to delight the eye and command affection. it's a great pity that the skill and vision of planning professionals has not always enjoyed the respect it deserves but i'm determined to ensure that planning is recognised as it should be as the profession which answers to and serves our deepest needs as social animals, the quest for community.

the five factors i have mentioned is crucial to winning back support for new development, which will allow us to fall back, democracy, the environment, and neighbourhood. together they spell biden. i hope i will not be misinterpreted by anyone when i say that i am violently pro—biden. i should add that one of my civil service college pointed out that arranging the different order they of course spell in bed, but i thought in bed with d lock might not be the best slogan for developers everywhere. the developers of the new national planning framework has been informed by these, the central role of planning in shaping communities on the route to many more and more beautiful homes to a

plan led system, and alongside the living rank act make the delivery of infrastructure make it faster and easier. we strengthen the democratic voice in shaping the development and alongside other measures, which we've introduced such as biodiversity net gain, we better protect and enhance our natural environment and we've put neighbourhood at the heart of place making. it confirms that the statistical model for future housing based on population growth and affordability criteria remains the basis on which communities should plan for new homes. it has always been the case that this number was supposed to be advisory for local authorities but that principle has been more honoured in the breach than the observance. the local authorities that sought to vary the number in account to take protection of the green belt or other areas of environmental heritage have found the planning inspectorate invisibly attached to the number first thought of with only very few exceptions.

the new m ppf now, more clearly, upholds the spirit of the original intention. local authorities have the comfort of knowing that they need not redraw the green belt or sacrifice protected landscapes to meet housing numbers. let me be clear. while this is a more robust assertion of previous principles and protections, it is not a route to the evasion of responsibilities. local authorities must provide rigorous evidence justifying their apartment —— departure from assessed housing need and do everything to identify other land suitable for development and while the planning inspectorate will respect well—made cases, it will not accept undershooting that is not firmly seated in an environmental or other safeguards. it's about sensitive adjustments in meeting targets, not their abandonment. and to incentivise further the early adoption of robust plans with a strong pipeline of future homes, we will ensure that any local authority

which has an up—to—date plan in place demonstrating how houses will be built over a five year term will be built over a five year term will be afforded new and stronger protections from speculative development occurring in areas that the local community has not zoned for developing. these will be supplemented by changes to the housing delivery test which acts and assessments on the previous three years of housing delivery and weather has been under delivery consequences will rightly follow. authorities will continue to be subject to these consequences producing an action plan for improvement where their delivery falls below 95% of need and they will become subject to the presumption of sustainable develop mutware delivery falls below 75%. however the 20% buffer that the authority needs to add to the housing supply warehousing delivery falls below 85% of the requirement will now only apply to those authorities that do not have an up—to—date plan in place. so all of the incentives are clear. you should

have an up—to—date plan in place. in the new framework also places beauty and sensitivity to the existing built environment at the heart of plan making. local authorities have licence to resist insensitive over diversification in areas of divine character, whether that's in the suburbs of bexley or barnet, through the adoption of appropriate design codes and we made the much wider adopted design codes more easy and attractive through the work of the new public body which champions beauty in building, and in tandem with the levelling up a regeneration act, the mppf facilitates the livery of new infrastructure and the infrastructure levy will not only give authorities additional resource to fund public services it will also actively incentivise develop meant in urban areas where schools, surgeries and transport links already exist. incentivising urban development and regeneration about which i will say more in a minute, helps safeguard nature but because we recognise there will always be

cases where develop must occur on greenfield sites, the new biodiversity net gain tariff will ensure that any loss of habitat is more than made up for by developer investment in new or recovered landscapes which will be homes for wildlife restoration. our new framework also strengthens the protections afforded to neighbourhood plans, even where local planning authorities have failed to put their own plans in place and respects the special circumstances of island communities and recognises the importance of prime agricultural land. the remainder in the framework we are publishing today which will bolster supply including the promotion of small sites for self and custom—built homes and increases upward extension is in the form of a roofs. we have striven for the balance that facilitates dishonourable development constrained by appropriate protection and that's a balance i'm confident we have struck. these changes taken together ensure that new homes will be more beautiful and

deliver more new infrastructure. they strengthen democratic involvement in the planning system and enhance the built and natural environment and enable us to both protect the character of existing neighbourhoods and build attractive new neighbourhoods. and because we have listened to the footfall and measured concerns about how the planning system works and made sensitive, practical improvements, there is now no excuse for any local authority not to have a plan in place stop no excuse not to ensure that homes are delivered swiftly and efficiently through that plan and no excuse for leaving communities and the next generation without the homes they need. and that's the difference between the conservatives in government and labour. we have listened to the concerns of communities, including actually members of the shadow cabinet, about new developments. we are doubling down on making it easier to build homes on brownfield sites where people want to live and we are, as i

will demonstrate, taking on the vested interests and slow actors in the planning process but i'm afraid as we saw recently, keir starmer instructed his party to block the release of 100,000 new homes. a fear that labour have failed to back the builders and first—time buyers at every opportunity. conservatives by contrast have tackled the reasonable concerns which have sometimes stood in the way of new development and have a plan for future development as well. and now we will be just as rigorous and robust in rooting out the delays and blockages and bad practice in our planning system as ever. i will make sure that every local authority is held to account for delivery against its plan, for the speed in which planning applications are processed and also the rationality of their decision—making. at the department for education i saw nothing so concentrated the mind of system leaders as sharper accountability. rigorous inspection, robust league tables and i will apply the same

principles and approach to performance in local planning authorities. we will publish league tables revealing the real performance of local planning authorities on the speed at which they respond on the level of approvals. there delivery against targets. we will ensure that these league tables reflect how the system is gamed by some at the moment. some authorities use so—called extension of time agreements, that's to say an insistence on delays, to slow the system. to agree with such displays gets rid of their plans altogether. 0nly gets rid of their plans altogether. only 9% of local authorities determined 70% or more of nonmajor applications, within the statutory eight week period and what is worse is stripping out the extension of time agreements and only 1% of local authorities managed to get through at least 60% of planning applications within the statutory 13

week period. by revealing how many planning applications are actually processed in the proper time limit and how simply —— how many simply appear to be because of the use of the extension of time agreements, we will more clearly identify the good planning authorities on those hiding behind the agreements to mask their desultory nuts. i'm so concerned by the ballooning use of these where they use as jumped more than fourfold in under a decade, i will take action now and intend to constrain their use including banning them for household applications, limiting when in the process they can apply and prohibiting repeat extension of time agreements, and these are all measures on which we will consult shortly. by using league tables to more rigorously identify those who are actually strong performers in the system and resist the use of these agreements, we can also easily identify the good practice exemplified in other ways and spread it across the system. and we know at the heart of the practice is respect

for the professionaljudgment of planners. their role is critical in local government but their expertise is often undervalued by some local authorities. the respect that should be accorded to their thoughtful decision—making is not always apparent. there are too many instances where planning committees overturn the plan recommendations for the approval of new developments, even when the proposal is entirely in line with the local planning policies. when that happens the developer understandably appeals the developer understandably appeals thejudgment and almost the developer understandably appeals the judgment and almost invariably wins. the local authority will end “p wins. the local authority will end up paying the costs and divert in council tax money away from vital services and the new homes we need will have been delayed, impoverishing everyone. so we will lay out the details of which local authorities are most promiscuously rejecting planning applications against officers advice and we will make transparent the amount it is costing local taxpayers. local authorities like the liberal democrat run waverley have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of

local peoples money defending their decisions to reject appropriate development. in the cases they lose again and again our money down the drain for local people and such behaviour needs to be called out, so local authorities must have a plan and must deliver against it and must demonstrate fast and effective performance. and central government is providing resources to make the system work better. the significant extra funding for local authority planning is coming through in the autumn statement. the planning skills delivery fund was boosted by £5 million to £29 million and after the first round of funding 108 80 local authorities receiving over £40 million collectively a new planning fees came into force, bringing extra into local planning sources and major applications by 30% and minor by 25% and the indexing arrangement means they rise in line with inflation. i want to be clear. these

fees must be spent on planning services. that is a hard requirement on local authorities. while the government does constrain local authorities use their general fund, and some is allocated to planning, i expect every local authority spending on planning services to rise as a result of this fee increase. at the same time the planning inspectorate is strengthening its operations and i am holding it to higher standards. there is additional help coming from the office of place now fully up and running in stoke—on—trent under its introductory chair, nicholas boy smith and it will produce elements of design codes and evidence—based exemplar packs that councils can download and adapt, further streamlining and speeding up quality development. and we also is standing up development. and we also is standing up our super squad members, the new team of leading planners and specialists whose talents will be used across the system to unlock

systems and £35 million has been announced to support the work and also at the autumn statement, the chancellor added an additional £5 million to support the local development order, an underused weapon in planning and somerset council is using a local development council from a council is using a local development councilfrom a brand of council is using a local development council from a brand of the m5, the royal 0rdnance factory into a new enterprise —— containing 1.1 metres of smart campus space. we want to see more local authorities embracing what has been done but we recognise the many using a novel tool with a project of a loss of theme can be daunting so will we use the £5 million to support £5 million in the pipeline to get the ldi was in place, and if successful, we hope to expand the support more widely. so there is support for my department and the treasury with additional cash, expertise and greater flexibility in the use of planning tools. and i know the majority of

local planning authorities will use the additional support to deliver a better system and big salary developing. but where there is and has been consistent underperformance, i will act and today i'm taking steps to deal with underperformance in the planning system and there is no greater failure than the failure to actually have a plan in place. that is why today i'm issuing a direction to seven of the worst authorities in terms of plan making who fail not just to adopt a plan but even submit one to examination since 2004. saint organs, amber valley, ashfield, medway, up wood, basildon and consol point will all need to provide me with a plan timetable in 12 weeks. should they fail, i will consider further intervention to ensure that a plan is put in place. and i'm prepared to act wherever there is failure. i think all other authorities should have a timetable for an up—to—date plan in place in the same time frame with a copy provided to my department. i'm also

acting to deal with more planning authorities that have persistently underperformed in dealing with planning applications. i've already use the designation framework to make lottery produce a plan and allowing developers to apply directly to the planning inspectorate to a decision and today i'm designating another two district council for poor quality councilfor poor quality decision—making, council for poor quality decision—making, surely councilfor poor quality decision—making, surely unfair and i will review and make sure we are not letting authorities that should be doing better, and we are also publishing the full results of the 2022 housing delivery test which will see 20 local authorities become subject to the assumption of sustainable develop meant as a consequence of their poor housing delivery. but i recognise that performance is notjust concerning local authorities. performance is notjust concerning localauthorities. i'm performance is notjust concerning local authorities. i'm also worried about delay and procrastination with statutory consultees. statuary co nsultees statutory consultees. statuary consultees are an important check and balance in the planning system, safeguarding the environment and

respecting heritage, ensuring health and safety considerations are properly taken into account. it all matters to me, but the performance of natural england, the environ agency, historic england and other arms length body needs to improve —— the environment agency. a superficial glance at the statistics suggest most statutory consultees react in the 21 day limit but look closer and you can observe the regular use of holding responses, effectively, i'll get back to you later and an acknowledgement. it meets the headline target for a response but it disguises foot dragging and delays developing. the wider public interest is poorly served by this. we are helping statutory consultees to do better thanks to the levelling up and regeneration act, we are already acting to allow them to charge for pre—application advice and that will have the twin benefit of tackling problems upstream for developers and reducing the slew of downstream request from local authorities and i'm clear with this advice and consultation is providing it to be judicious and pragmatic in their

approach as too much caution serves no 1's interest, but more is needed, so today i'm asking sam richards to lead a rapid three month review into the wider statutory consultees system and he is an energy specialist anna green hero and understands the need to protect the natural world, understands the need to protect the naturalworld, but understands the need to protect the natural world, but with experience at government and the highest level, he will ensure that necessarily delay everywhere is tackled comprehensively. some will look at whether the current group of consultees is right and whether performance reporting is effective and whether the absence of a reply within an appropriate time light should be treated as a green light rather than a red one. sam will report back to be on the chancellor and we will seek to act on his recommendations in the new year. and i've spoken a great deal this morning that the need for all of us to do better for people and communities and in recognising this i accept his majesty's government must raise its game in particular in relation to infrastructure delivery. my relation to infrastructure delivery. my colleague lee rowley has been leading the way. his paper, getting

britain building again, speeding up infrastructure delivery outlines what more we need to do and the plan lee has put together commits the government to speed, simplicity, certainty and a focus on delivery and it sets out what it means in practice. we are changing the planning process for national infrastructure, aiming to cut up to five months of the consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects and are building the capacity and capability of local authorities and arm's—length bodies to deal with these projects, and we know having up—to—date national policy statements matters in facilitating delivery. a new national policy statements on energy and national networks will be in place before the end of this financial year, supplementing the national policy statement on water resources that was designated this september. we are also streamlining and standardising the process for reviewing these policy statements. we will be publishing spatial data

on major projects for the first time, helping those involved to better understand the impact on local places, communities and the environment and we are undertaking a three month review that will look at whether more 24 hour working should be applied to large infrastructure projects in the uk, drawing on lessons from countries that have already taken the step, such as spain. and we will look to tackle some of the uncertainty in the system that flows from judicial reviews, knowing even unsuccessful challenges can delay a project for years. a scheme to improve the a428 has just been delayed for another year byjudicial review. and as we do all of this, we must continue to learn from the best thinkers outside of government, such as professor ben fly berg who is dedicated his career on how to manage megaprojects from the olympic games to the developments of cities, and cities is where as i laid out in the long

term plan for housing, is where we must concentrate more of our new development. as edward glazer, the great urbanist roach, cities enable the collaboration that makes humanity shine most brightly. the agglomeration effect, the economic growth when talent is concentrated occurs most powerfully in cities. efficient use of precious land for development happens most effectively in cities. environmental protections are stronger when populations live in close proximity, in cities. that is why we are using central governments convening power and billions of public money to supercharged of element in our cities, through programmes such as the brownfield infrastructure land fund and other resources through homes england, delivering the biggest urban regeneration programme for decades. we are working in wolverhampton, blackpool, sheffield, birmingham, york, manchester, leeds, london and liverpool. we will be seeing more injanuary about

london and liverpool. we will be seeing more in january about further steps we will take to drive forward urban regeneration nationwide, to provide the homes we need in the places where people want to live and where we can best boost economic growth. but today i want briefly to outline further steps we are taking in to the critical locations to deliver growth. first london. radical action is required in london where the homes we need are simply not being built. in the last three years, the average number of net additional dwellings provided by the mayor of london has beenjust 38,000. that's 15,000 fewer homes every year than the mayor's own target in his london plan. not only that, but it was over 63,000 homes lower than actual need last year, as calculated by the standard method, the target setting process by which we hold other local leaders to account. this is a significant effect on the availability of homes for those who wish to live and work in the capital. london's house

prices remain the most expensive in the uk, at an average of £537,000, on average. london has the lowest level of homeownership in the country, the highest number of renters and the greatest number of people in temporary accommodation, including over 80,000 children. we are pumping billions of pounds of central government money into building affordable homes in london but the mayors approach is frustrating delivery and i'm strongly in favour of affordable and social housing but the requirement of the mayor of london for such a high percentage of affordable homes in every need of element imposes such significant cost that in many cases development doesn't go ahead at all. and so we get no new homes, and no new affordable homes. london boroughs which have recently gone to the labour party such as westminster and wandsworth are now only exacerbating the problem. i said in july i wanted to work with america london to tackle the worsening crisis and i still do, but in the many conversations that i am my

officials have had with developers, boroughs and consultants and other partners, it's become evident that changes to the london plan itself are needed if our capital is to get the homes it's people need to fill out —— flourish and thrive. i therefore asked for partners to review the london plan and identify where changes to policy could speed up where changes to policy could speed up the delivery of much needed homes in urban city sites in the heart of the capital. they will report to me early next year and i hope we can agree a plan for reform and delivery with the mayor, but if not, i reserve the right to intervene. if housing targets are to mean anything, we cannot have failure to meet them in such a terrible way persist under the labour party's london mayor. in london is not the only city where we are taking steps to build many more homes. again in july, i outlined the visit —— a vision for cambridge 2040, new urban quarter, plugged into the existing city rather than orbiting it, with

beautiful new classical buildings, rich parkland, concert halls and museums providing new homes for thousands each year, and further ambitious developments around and in the city to liberate its potential with tens of thousands of new homes. nowhere is the future being shaped most decisively than in cambridge, global leadership, life science and techis global leadership, life science and tech is a national asset, but until now its growth has been constrained. lab space and homes for the scientists and technicians and sports stars who power innovation have not been provided in the number and at the scale or with the pace required. that is why appointed peter feenan as chair of the delivery group injuly and since then he has been working flat out to deliver our vision for the city, in collaboration with local leaders and representatives. delivering our vision means laying the groundwork for the long term and it starts now. we will establish a new development corporation with a broadly based board to steer its efforts. these we will arm with the right leadership and the full range of powers

necessary to marshal this huge project over the next two decades, regardless of the shifting sands of westminster. we recognise it will require upfront investment. we must also ensure we have an approach towards water which reflects the nature of cambridge�*s. we will see more about uses of water supply in the new year because our vision for cambridge is going to exemplify what it means to fullback in love with the future. it is to set the standard for how we protect and preserve what makes a city special. i began by recalling how much we can learn from the victorians and their spirit of endeavour and ambition. their belief in progress and the restless quest to innovate. i believe we can not just