We are the village Green preservation society
Opinion | rural planning
Ray Davies, the Kinks frontman and famously witty chronicler of English life, wanted to protect strawberry jam, vaudeville and variety back in the late 1960s. Today, Suffolk and Norfolk face a more pressing challenge: how to retain the rural character that has defined them for generations, at a time when national planning policy is quietly shifting against local control.
Two planning mechanisms in particular are creating growing problems for our counties: the expanding use of Permission in Principle (PiP) and the so-called tilted balance within the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, they are placing increasing strain on local democracy, rural protections and the character of the countryside. While the government’s aim is to accelerate housing delivery, the unintended consequence is a system that risks real and lasting harm to the communities, landscapes and infrastructure that make East Anglia distinctive.
Permission in Principle allows developers to secure agreement for housing on a site without providing full details at the outset. Critical matters such as drainage, layout, access and design are deferred to a later stage. The tilted balance, meanwhile, comes into play when councils cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, tipping decisions in favour of development even where proposals conflict with adopted local policies.
In both Suffolk and Norfolk, several districts are currently struggling to maintain that five-year supply. The result is heightened vulnerability. Developers are acutely aware of this and are submitting applications at pace, including in locations that would previously have been considered unacceptable. Once PiP approval is granted, communities may only become aware of proposals after the principle of development has already been established.
The impact on rural identity is becoming increasingly visible. From the Dedham Vale to the Norfolk Broads, our landscapes are among the most distinctive in the country. Villages that have retained their form for centuries are now facing speculative proposals that stretch, or ignore entirely, long-established settlement boundaries. At the same time, local plans, often the product of years of consultation and evidence-gathering, are being weakened by tilted balance decisions. Policies intended to protect farmland, heritage settings and wildlife corridors are being set aside when housing numbers are not being met.
Infrastructure pressures add to the concern. Anyone who has tried to book a GP appointment in parts of North Norfolk, or rely on infrequent rural bus services in Suffolk, will know that capacity is already stretched. Schools, surgeries, roads and drainage systems were not designed to absorb sudden waves of development, yet PiP approvals are frequently granted without firm or deliverable infrastructure solutions in place. In areas such as Mid Suffolk and South Norfolk, schemes have been approved despite clear evidence of transport and service constraints, simply because housing targets were given overriding weight.
Environmental risk is also rising. Both counties contain ecologically sensitive areas. The Broads are subject to strict nutrient neutrality requirements, while much of Suffolk’s coastal belt is protected, low-lying or vulnerable to flooding. Under PiP, environmental assessments are often deferred, and under the tilted balance those concerns may be overridden if housing “benefits” are deemed to outweigh harm. In practice, this can lead to risky decisions, with homes permitted on flood-prone land or close to protected habitats, and the consequences only becoming apparent years later.
Perhaps most troubling is the erosion of community voice. Under PiP, residents may not even know that a site has received approval in principle until meaningful opportunities to object have passed. Where the tilted balance applies, the views of parish councils and neighbourhood plans carry significantly less weight if a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply. In a region where local identity and civic engagement are strong, this represents a profound shift.
None of this is an argument against new homes. We urgently need more housing, particularly genuinely affordable housing. But delivery must not come at the expense of place. A more balanced system would restrict PiP to genuinely appropriate locations with proven infrastructure capacity, support councils in adopting up-to-date local plans that restore planning control, ensure environmental protections remain robust even under housing pressure, and make developers accountable for building homes rather than simply banking land.
District councils have a critical role to play. They must not simply shoehorn unsuitable developments through via in-house permitted development decisions or committee processes where councillors feel compelled to follow officer recommendations regardless of merit. Housing targets are just that: targets. They should not place pieces of our history in the firing line. If a proposal is wrong for its location, it should be refused. Best and most versatile agricultural land must be protected, and heritage assets treated with care. As one senior planner recently remarked at committee, “Once it’s gone, it’s gone.”
Planning should be about shaping places, not just meeting numbers. If PiP and the tilted balance continue unchecked, they risk eroding East Anglia’s countryside one permission at a time, without solving the underlying housing problems they are meant to address.
It is time for a more measured approach, one that puts people, place and long-term sustainability first. As Ray Davies put it, “There is no future without the past.” For Suffolk and Norfolk, that is a lesson worth heeding.
