Building Britain’s future: how the Infrastructure Act will affect local authorities

By Steven McGinty

After several months of debate, the Infrastructure Act was given royal assent on the 12th February 2015, introducing a number of important changes. The Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech with the intention to:

“bolster investment in infrastructure and reform planning law to improve economic competitiveness”.

On the day of its assent, Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, expanded on this, explaining that:

“This act will hugely boost Britain’s competitiveness in transport, energy provision, housing development and nationally significant infrastructure projects. Cost efficient infrastructure development is all part of the government’s long term economic plan, boosting competitiveness, jobs and growth.”

The Act has resulted in a number of policy changes.  The majority of these are relatively mundane and are unlikely to engender much public scrutiny; however, there are a few high profile and controversial changes. Below I’ve outlined some of the most important changes for local authorities, as well as communities.

Land Registry

The Act has introduced changes to Local Land Charges, transferring responsibility from individual local councils in England and Wales to the Land Registry, which will be providing a broader range of services. This was recommended in the ‘Land Registry, Wider Powers and Local Land Charges’ report, which suggested a need to standardise costs and provide a more predictable service.

This has been criticised by the Local Government Association (LGA), who have suggested that local councils are best placed to meet the needs of businesses and local residents.  They have also raised concerns about the costs involved in making technical changes to local council systems, as well as the disruption it would cause to the property market. It’s estimated that local councils have about 20 million entries on their registers of Local Land Charges, across 350 local councils.

Community Rights and energy exploration (fracking and renewable energy)

Individuals within or connected to a community have been given the rights to buy a stake in renewable electricity schemes.  This appears to have been well received, as local residents are now able to receive some of the financial benefits of local electricity production.

However, changes to hydraulic fracking have been a lot more controversial.  The Act allows energy companies the right to exploit petroleum or deep geothermal energy, without notifying the owners of the land, as long as it’s at least 300 meters below surface level. They also have the right to put any substance underground, to change the condition of the land, and to leave material behind.

Not surprisingly, campaigners, such as Simon Clydesdale from Greenpeace UK, have criticised these changes, suggesting that the new legislation is encouraging fracking and is so loosely worded that it could possibly permit the burial of nuclear waste.

Discharge of Planning Conditions

The Act makes it clear that certain types of planning conditions can be discharged if on application to the local authority, the developer has not had a decision made within the prescribed period. It also allows the Secretary of State to make a development order relating to the discharge of a planning condition in an area. This would mean that local authorities would not be able to stop these developments for lack of written approval.

Mayoral Development Orders

These orders provide greater powers to the Mayor of London to grant planning permission for development on specified sites within Greater London. It’s been seen as a useful reform to make it easier for planning permission to be granted on complex sites that cross local authority boundaries. This has been viewed as important for tackling London’s housing shortage.

Although not all of the changes are as high profile as fracking, it’s important that local authorities take time to examine the Infrastructure Act, and to make sure that they are ready to respond to the new legislative environment.

Although many of the changes in the Infrastructure Act will not come into force until a later date, local authorities need to be aware of the possible impact on planning processes and procedures.

Over two thirds of UK local authorities use Idox solutions to effectively manage the property and development lifecycle.

The Idox Information Service can give you access to a wealth of further information on planning issues. To find out more on how to become a member, contact us.

Further reading

6 thoughts on “Building Britain’s future: how the Infrastructure Act will affect local authorities

  1. Pingback: 3 Reasons Western Economies Must Invest in Infrastructure | Small Biz Viewpoints

  2. Steven,
    I’ve only skim-read the Act but I guess you’re more familiar with the detail. Am I right to assume it did not include any mention of digital access infrastructure? I see the Public Works Loan Board disappears Was that on account of the LGA’s Municipal Bonds Agency ? I thought the latter was intended to be an alternative PWLB (HM Treasury). My earlier paper on Municipal Enterprise refers –

    The Foundation for Information Society Policy (FISP) may soon be seeking expert opinion for a comment on a new report currently being drafted. Let me know if interested.


    • Hi,

      Thanks for commenting and sharing your paper. That’s correct, the Act doesn’t appear to include any reference to digital access infrastructure, it’s very much focused on the physical infrastructure. I’ve spent a decent amount of time reviewing the Act, specifically as it relates to local councils, but I certainly wouldn’t consider myself an expert on infrastructure policy.

      I think you have raised a very interesting point on the Public Works Loan Board. I found an interesting debate from the House of Lords that seems to shed some light on the decision. It’s quite a long read but John Hayes, Minister for State (Department for Transport), outlines his reasoning. He suggests: ‘The abolition of the PWLB will remove bureaucracy and align accountability for lending to local authorities’. Although, he doesn’t make any direct reference to the Municipal Bonds Agency.

      Debate link available here:


      • Steven,
        Thanks for the feedback. On the PWLB question I’ve now had the following from a contact at the Local Government Association:

        “The wherewithal to abolish the PWLB and any subsequent abolition will in reality have no more than cosmetic impact. As you will see at this link( ), the PWLB is a statutory body of 12 Commissioners that retain a quasi ceremonial role only. The Commissioners are unpaid and exist simply so that the function of central government lending to local government complies with statute. The real work of lending to local government is undertaken by the Debt Management Office. Any move to abolish the PWLB won’t change that or the process councils go through to borrow from the government.

        It will have no impact on the Municipal Bonds Agency, which is now up and running as a standalone, independent company.
        For an update on the Agency you would need to contact Aidan Brady, the Chief Executive.”

        Let’s keep in touch – the FISP paper will need informed commentary sometime in the next few weeks and I’m sure an idox perspective would be welcome.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi,

        Thanks for passing on that clarification. And absolutely, we’d certainly consider providing an Idox viewpoint.


Leave a Reply to Editor Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.