A white paper in teal

Reform published a detailed planning policy paper on the first morning of conference. It spent the next two days talking about something else.

For 18 months the working assumption about Reform on planning was that the party held objections rather than a position: an immigration argument doing duty as a housing argument, alongside a well-developed list of things it did not want built and places – such as the Green Belt – it wanted to remain untouched.

The Planning Teal Paper, published on Thursday and authored by deputy leader Richard Tice, sets out the shape of a potential Reform Planning Bill across two strands, planning and business rates. Tice launched it to a full room on the first morning. He spent most of his career in housebuilding and leaned on that with a ‘build Britain, build’ message.  

Alongside the paper, he trailed an apprenticeship credit for 16- to 18-year-olds entering the trades and restated the party’s existing pledge of delivering 50,000 affordable social homes a year – although without further detail on where these might be. 

Banking on brownfield, greenfield as a last resort

On brownfield land, Reform would remove Community Infrastructure Levy payments, all other Section 106 financial contributions, and affordable housing requirements entirely, except in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Bristol, where a 5% on-site requirement would apply to schemes of 20 or more homes. 

Brownfield residential schemes would carry a presumption of approval in all but the most exceptional cases, and that presumption would apply regardless of whether a land supply or delivery shortfall exists. Biodiversity Net Gain, the Habitats Regulations and environmental statement requirements would be repealed for brownfield development. Permitted development rights would be widened substantially, including general change of use to residential. Landfill tax would be abolished for brownfield sites, with stamp duty, rental income tax and capital gains exemptions for a decade after completion.

However, national housing land supply targets would be removed, with councils deciding for themselves how much greenfield land they need, assessed against demographic projections drawn from the party’s net negative immigration plans. Greenfield schemes would have to demonstrate that insufficient brownfield land exists to meet local need. The affordable requirement on greenfield sites of 10 or more homes would be 15% on-site, three times the figure proposed for the largest cities on brownfield. Grey belt is folded into the greenfield category throughout. 

Centralising policy, decentralising numbers

Spatial development strategies, including the London Plan, would be abolished. Local plans would be capped at five years, made map-based, and stripped of the requirement to set out planning policies at all, with policy determined nationally instead. National planning policy would be made statutory so that it prevails over legacy local plans. Authorities would have one year to complete a plan, with the Planning Inspectorate stepping in only where a council has failed to start or finish, and able to commission private sector planners to do it. 

Judicial review of both plans and decisions would be curtailed, with a four-week permission window and the removal of costs protection for unsuccessful claimants. Detailed matters, as distinct from the principle of development, could be signed off by licensed private professionals on the approved-inspector model. 

The planning conversation

The planning and housing fringes were the busiest they have been at a Reform conference and the tone inside them was pragmatic rather than ideological. Housebuilders, housing associations and council leaders turned up in numbers and spent most of the time on the mechanics of delivery: capacity in planning departments, viability, the length of the process, and the accumulation of costs that now sits on every home built. 

The clearest divide was over targets. Notably, housebuilders used the party’s own fringes to warn that removing national housing targets would lead to a collapse in delivery and urged Reform to reconsider. Reform’s answer was that the system rather than the target is the binding constraint, and that the party is as frustrated by delay as the industry is.

There was substantial common ground in the discussions as well. Both the party and industry accept that the planning process is too slow and too expensive; that consultation as currently practised often reaches the people with time to attend rather than the people affected; and that the value generated by development too rarely reaches the communities absorbing it. Stewardship of new places, rather than the number of homes built, came up repeatedly as the real source of local hostility.

The conference around it

Reform’s inaugural business day drew criticism from corporate attendees, most of it aimed at a dinner sold at £395 plus VAT a head on the promise of direct access to senior figures. Attendees told trade press that no Reform representative appeared at their table, that promised evening receptions did not materialise, and that several would not return. Reform disputes this, saying almost 400 guests attended and all but one table had a representative present.

On Thursday evening, ahead of the main conference day on Friday, Channel 4 broadcast an undercover investigation into party donations, and by Friday morning two senior figures including the party’s Head of Policy had stepped down. Leader Nigel Farage denied any wrongdoing and the controversy certainly did not appear to cut through to the Reform activists and politicians on the ground. However, the media coverage of the sting overshadowed many of the messages that the party was seeking to land about its agenda for the first 100 days of a future Reform government.

Farage’s speech was delayed by an hour for a security alert and interrupted five times by protesters. Its content focused less on the what than on the how of implementing the party’s agenda: a declared national emergency; Parliament sitting around the clock; new peers appointed in bulk or a referendum on the Lords if it resisted; judges’ reliance on the ECHR removed; obstructive civil servants replaced by figures from business; and ministers sacked if they missed their 100-day targets, with symbolic ‘pre-resignations’ announced at conference by figures including Richard Tice and Robert Jenrick. Farage predicted an early election in spring 2027, echoing his prediction at last year’s conference. 

The floor told a different story from the podium. The exhibition was visibly busier than 2025, with more branded stands, more food and drink and better production values. This was the first Reform gathering that looked like a party conference rather than a rally, although the makeup of rank-and-file members in attendance continued to convey a more grassroots feel. 

The next step?

Reform UK’s conference last year was branded ‘The Next Step’. The party is now arguably at even more of a crossroads now than it was then, facing the heat of greater media and public scrutiny and with the challenge of regaining momentum lost over the summer. Whether Farage’s 2027 general election prediction comes true or not, next year will see local elections in England and Wales in which Reform will hope to build on its successes over the last two years.

More in Common presented new polling at conference, indicating that while Reform’s base is shrinking, it remains the most motivated bloc in British politics. Immigration remains the glue holding together a coalition that disagrees on economics. Tactical consolidation against Reform is increasing, as recent by-elections have shown. However, the party’s ceiling remains above 35% – and therefore clearly in majority territory – if it converts the voters currently considering it, half of whom voted Conservative in 2024. 

The condition those voters attach is evidence that Reform is ready to govern. Both in local government and in its national organisation, the party will now be seeking to provide this.

Get in touch

To discuss what Reform UK’s conference and planning policy mean for your business, please contact:

Email: insights@kandaconsulting.co.uk
Telephone: 020 3900 3676