‘We’ve not had any planning approvals in this area for over two years now, ’ says Roger Jelley with a sigh. ‘We’ve already laid people off and have had to write off the best part of £1/2 million

But there’s a bigger knock-on effect for the people we work with. I’m getting pleading letters from local subbies, asking if there’s any work at all I can give them. I keep having to say no.”

“It’s very tough for us,” he continues. “This has had a huge effect on my business.” Jelley, co-founder of Surrey-based developer Premier Properties, is in no doubt what has caused this commercial downturn though he has kept his business in rude health by moving regions. He lays the blame squarely at the feet of the government agency formerly known as English Nature, which is now part of a EE more powerful super-agency, Natural England.

The exact source of his despair is a decision taken by the body in 2005 to designate the area where he operates the Thames Basin Heaths that cover 8,400 hectares across Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire a special protection area (SPA), to protect ground-nesting birds such as the Dartford warbler, nightjar and woodlark. The result? A cessation of all housebuilding in the area, which lasted several months until interim agreements were reached.

Jelley and others operating in the area believe Natural England’s powers are out of control. Instead of helping the government, he argues, it is working directly against crucial housing targets for the region.

For the birds

The government does have grand plans for the area. Planning inspectors in the South-east recently overruled local housing targets, demanding a rise in housebuilding across the region from 28,900 to 32,000 homes per year until 2026.

Originally, 40,000 new homes had been proposed for the SPA over the next 20 years. But the same planning inspectors have concluded that an additional 6,000 homes could be built near the SPA in the next two decades without adversely affecting the heathland.

English Nature, however, introduced an embargo on new housing development within a 5km radius of the SPA to protect the habitats of the ground-nesting birds and is allowing only a proportion of this figure to proceed. It’s hitting developers hard.

“English Nature caught the government off guard,” Jelley maintains. “It saw an opportunity to increase its power and outsmarted the government. It even threatened to sue councils if they allowed developments in the SPA.”

Jonathan Price, a planning specialist at Natural England, says it was the agency’s legal duty to protect the wildlife. “The Thames Basin Heaths have legal protection from an EU directive. We are trying to find a way to deliver housing in the area and make it legitimate. The delay is inevitable because it is a complicated process. These areas are the crown jewels of England’s wildlife we have to protect them.”

Although Jelley’s situation is particular to his territory, his complaint – that government agencies wield too much power and stand in the way of crucial developments is repeated time and again up and down the country. As Gareth Capner, senior partner of planning consultant Barton Willmore, puts it: “The Highways Agency, Environment Agency and Natural England remain significant obstacles to delivery.”

Many would argue the statistics speak for themselves. The latest figures from the Environment Agency reveal that it objected to 4,201 planning applications in 2005/06 on flood risk grounds a record 37% of all applications received during this period.

Road to nowhere

The Highways Agency, a statutory planning consultee, directed or advised 227 refusals in the last financial year, 6% of applications received, on the grounds that the trunk road network would not operate in an efficient and safe manner if further development took place in those areas.

Like Natural England, the Highways Agency also raises hackles in the industry with its perceived stubborn attitude. One housebuilder involved in a major scheme in the South-east that has run into trouble with the agency

says he has found negotiating with it extremely difficult. “From my experience, it’s very hard to get them to change their minds. If they don’t want development in that area, you’ve got a very long task ahead of you. It’s common for it to take years to sort out,” he says.

What many in the industry fear most is the Highways Agency’s use of the dreaded Article 14. This “holding direction” allows the agency to direct that planning permission should not be granted (either indefinitely or for a specified period), and has been known to stifle development in certain regions for years on end.

Developers and councils say their frustration turns to exasperation when they try to bring forward ambitious plans that meet key government themes, such as large sustainable housing schemes, only to be met with resistance from a different arm of government. The subsequent delays usually hit local residents hardest, as the region’s economic progress is often dependent on new developments and the benefits they bring.

Cranbrook new town

One such case is Cranbrook new town near Exeter. The development, which is expected to provide 6,500 homes by 2026, has been widely championed by central government as an exemplar sustainable development. It was praised for its eco-designed homes and potential use of renewable energy. But the Highways Agency has slapped an Article 14 on Cranbrook and four other developments, including a science park, in the immediate vicinity. Now their futures look problematic.

The developments, by the East Devon New Community Partners consortium, which includes Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon Homes, have been stalled because of wranglings with the Highways Agency over the design and funding of improvements to junctions 29 and 30 on the M5, which will handle the greater volume of traffic going to the new developments. Outline approval was granted in December last year – subject to the agency’s issues, among others, being sorted out. At the time, council officials said it would all be taken care of by March 2007.

During the summer, Ben Bradshaw, Exeter MP and minister for the South-west, entered the fray, promising to put pressure on the Department for Transport, the parent body of the Highways Agency, to sort out the mess.

He also acknowledged the inherent problems in the system. “It seems to me that it may be down to cultural problems – not engaging with big developments from an early stage – and that will have to change. With a strong drive from the government, these are the types of blockages that have to be addressed.”

Tim Jones, chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council, is furious that the delays are hitting the local economy. “We’ve been negotiating for some time on this and the delay is completely unacceptable, as these schemes are crucial to ensure Exeter’s economic growth can be sustained,” he complains. “We’ve been waiting for a science park in Exeter for years. Meanwhile, Plymouth has got one and is making hay. The Highways Agency should be capable of delivering economic development.”

Heavy-handed

Ian Harrison, deputy economy and environment director at Devon council, says he expects the plans to move forward soon, but admits the Highways Agency has acted in a rather heavy-handed way. “The holding direction is a fairly blunt instrument,” he says. “The agency is not deliberately trying to hold development up; it just can’t give the go-ahead until it is sure the right improvements will be made to the junctions. I know some people are getting frustrated by the amount of time this has taken.”

The agency says the length of time it takes to make a decision is dependent on the completeness and accuracy of the material provided. It also hints at problems in its relationship with developers and calls on them to contact the agency as early as possible, preferably before a formal planning application is submitted, to discuss and agree any transport-related impacts.

But as well as the perception that the agencies are responsible for creating long delays, there is also concern that they are too controlling and can stand in the way of what they consider unwanted development. This is the accusation levelled at the Environment Agency, which acquired new powers last January. As well as having more influence over local development frameworks, it now has the ability to call-in cases where a council wants to grant planning permission against the agency’s advice on flood risk.

Flooded with work

Many in the industry believe the Environment Agency has been given too much responsibility and not enough resources to handle it properly. “The Environment Agency is under-resourced and struggling with its new powers,” says one planning source, who asked not to be named.

“It’s ridiculous, the government is demanding more new homes and has acknowledged that a significant proportion of these will have to be built on flood plains but, in light of the summer floods, the Environment Agency is more strict than ever. We have a site where we have had to go through incredible hoops in order to get the Environment Agency on our side.”

The agency is also quick to remind councils that the introduction of PPS25, which relates to flooding, means it can refuse planning permission if no flood-risk assessment is produced for certain developments. It is angry that many developers continue to ignore this requirement and points out that unsatisfactory flood-risk assessments accounted for 68% of the 4,201 objections in 2005/06.

Mark Southgate, head of planning at the Environment Agency, says developers must take flood risk more seriously. “The floods in July, especially in Hull, were the result of surface water run-off. The drains can’t cope and there are government rules to help work against this now. All we do is uphold the policy. If developers talked to us early on, they would experience fewer delays.”

There are those in the industry, however, who believe the agencies are doing a fair job. Bob Lane, chief executive of North Northants Development Company, who has had run-ins with the agencies in the past, argues that their remits are not to facilitate development.

“We shouldn’t shoot the messengers,” he says. “The Highways Agency, for example, is doing the job it is set up to do meet government congestion targets. They object to new housing because it will increase congestion on their roads. The problems occur when the agencies’ remits are at odds with the latest government agenda, such as housing growth.”

Few deny that the agencies are overworked, over-stressed and have a tough task balancing the government’s growth agenda with their own remits. Their beef lies with the tools and methods used by the agencies, which they claim are heavy-handed and create significant barriers to delivery. “I do understand they have a job to do,” says Jelley. “But logically we can’t stop building homes forever. Between us, we’ll have to find a way to deliver.”