Britain’s planning system has long been criticised by logistics developers as slow, uncertain and vulnerable to local objection. Now, proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework have been broadly welcomed by the industry, with the representative Rail Freight Group arguing that the changes could remove some of the most persistent barriers to new terminal development while offering stronger protection for existing sites.
However, the trade body has stopped short of full endorsement. In its response to the consultation by the UK’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it warned that land allocation, safeguarding and minerals policy still present significant risks. The group said the new regime could support economic growth and modal shift, but only if rail freight is embedded early in strategic planning and protected from competing land uses.
Economic strategy and terminal delivery
The timing of the consultation coincides with tangible progress on long-delayed projects. New rail freight capacity at Northampton is coming on stream (with an official opening this week), while development has advanced at Radlett near St Albans. Both schemes have spent years in the planning system and faced repeated objections and procedural delays. Nevertheless, both are examples of the radically changed industrial landscape of Britain, which now relies far more heavily on intermodal terminals than it did on the marshalling yards and heavy industrial complexes of the last century.
For freight operators, these cases illustrate the stakes. The Rail Freight Group said the draft framework’s stronger alignment with national economic and industrial strategy should help ensure that logistics infrastructure is treated as a core component of commercial development rather than an afterthought. With government policy targeting substantial growth in rail freight by mid-century, the availability of well-located terminals will be decisive.
The organisation also supported proposals to ensure that employment land and logistics sites are planned to meet demand. Embedding rail freight in strategic plans, it argued, would allow developers to secure sites before land values and competing uses make rail-connected facilities unviable.
Clearer rules for freight and logistics sites
The draft framework’s decision-making guidance for freight uses has also been welcomed. The Rail Freight Group said clearer policy on transport access, environmental impact and operational requirements should help planning authorities assess schemes more consistently and reduce uncertainty for developers.
Particular support was given to clarification of the “agent of change” principle, which places responsibility on new developments to mitigate impacts on existing operations. For rail freight, this is seen as a critical safeguard against housing or mixed-use schemes constraining terminal activity through noise or traffic complaints. By strengthening this protection, the reforms could reduce the risk of established rail-connected facilities being compromised by neighbouring development.
This is an issue that has previously limited capacity at some sites. A case in point bing the abandonment of plans for a terminal at Ravenscraig in Scotland (as reported by RailFreight.com). The former steelworks site has been largely redeveloped for residential and commercial use, and present-day residents objected to the perceived disturbance of heavy rail operations on their doorsteps.
Land safeguards and minerals policy questioned
Despite its broadly positive tone, the Rail Freight Group highlighted what it sees as unresolved weaknesses. A principal concern expressed is the need for local plans to identify and protect rail freight sites at an early stage. Without explicit allocation, the group warned, suitable land—particularly in urban areas—could be lost to higher-value uses before rail schemes are brought forward.
Concerns were also raised about aggregates and industrial minerals policy, a core rail freight market. The group echoed producers’ worries that the draft framework removes explicit recognition of the need for a steady and adequate supply of these materials to support construction and infrastructure.
Baulking at bulk operations
For freight operators, this is more than a sectoral issue. Rail plays a central role in moving bulk materials to major cities, reducing road congestion and emissions. Any weakening of policy support for extraction and distribution could therefore have knock-on effects for both logistics networks and national infrastructure delivery.
Overall, the industry view is that the proposed planning reforms could mark a turning point for rail freight development in Britain. It is certainly more in line with the government’s own net-zero ambitions for the UK economy. What is required now is a coalition of economic priorities, land safeguarding and supply-chain resilience, to fully reflect the final framework. Unfortunately, Britain, at least politically, does not have a good record on coalitions.