On August 20, 2025, the landscape of British infrastructure planning and local regeneration found itself at a crossroads, shaped by sweeping legislative reforms and bold urban ambitions. In Westminster, the UK government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill stirred debate by proposing to remove the duty for developers of large infrastructure projects to consult with local communities and authorities before the formal planning process. Meanwhile, in Greater Manchester, the town of Stalybridge set its sights on a transformative £11.1 million regeneration scheme, hinging on the remediation of four underused plots of council-owned land near its train station.
These two stories, though separated by scale and geography, are linked by a common thread: the tension between speed, efficiency, and democratic participation in the planning and delivery of major projects. As policymakers and local leaders weigh the costs and benefits of their approaches, communities and experts alike are asking whether the rush to build risks sidelining the very people such projects are meant to serve.
According to The Conversation, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill now before Parliament has been criticized for “pitting the environment against economic growth.” Yet, less widely reported is its impact on citizen involvement. The bill removes a cornerstone of British democracy: the opportunity for citizens to participate in decision-making about infrastructure that affects their lives. Developers of nationally significant projects—those deemed essential by government policy statements—would no longer be required to consult local communities or authorities before the formal planning process begins.
This shift is not without precedent. Since the 2008 Planning Act, projects like new roads, railways, and energy facilities have followed a separate process, emphasizing speed over fairness. The goal was to streamline delivery, but the evidence suggests that delays and rising costs in projects such as the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, the Thames Tideway Tunnel, and the HS2 high-speed rail line have little to do with planning procedures. Instead, these so-called “megaprojects” often suffer from challenges that arise during construction and delivery—long after the ink has dried on planning approvals.
Under the new bill, communities and affected groups would be limited to making their case in writing or in public hearings where, as The Conversation notes, “time to speak is limited, often to 15 minutes.” Critics argue this approach makes it harder for local voices to be heard and may not even deliver the promised speed, as unresolved issues can resurface during the more costly construction phase.
Yet research and international examples point to a better way. When citizens are involved in public deliberative forums with experts and planners, they can make well-reasoned, long-term decisions that stand the test of time. Canada’s 1977 Berger Inquiry into a proposed gas pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley is often cited as a benchmark: the inquiry traveled over 17,000 miles, gathering testimony from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in eight languages, with experts and citizens testifying on equal terms. This approach, rooted in deliberative democracy, has since gained traction worldwide.
France, for example, responded to conflicts over high-speed rail lines in the 1990s by pioneering early, non-binding scrutiny for all large infrastructure projects, overseen by an independent agency. National debates on climate change have also helped build political consensus that endures across changing governments. In the UK, the Innovation in Democracy programme demonstrated that deliberative assemblies can be designed to fit the complex geographies of infrastructure, often extending beyond the boundaries of local authorities.
Despite the technical complexity and disruptive nature of large-scale infrastructure, trust in planning remains low—a reflection, perhaps, of a broader decline in faith in politics. Advocates for deliberative democracy argue that involving citizens more meaningfully in decision-making can help restore trust and deliver better outcomes, especially as the country faces challenges like the transition to renewable energy and the need to mitigate climate change.
Meanwhile, on the ground in Greater Manchester, the principles of regeneration and public benefit are being put to the test in Stalybridge. As reported on August 20, 2025, the release of four underused plots of land near the town’s train station could unlock an ambitious £11.1 million scheme to revitalize the western edge of the town centre. The council-owned sites on Waterloo Road, Castle Street, Caroline Street, and Bridge Street are slated for remediation—a process that will remove pollutants and contaminants, making them safe for redevelopment.
The vision, as outlined in the Stalybridge West masterplan, is to create “a lively urban quarter in the town.” Plans call for a mix of housing types and tenures, from one-bedroom apartments to larger family homes, all set within a secure environment surrounded by new and refurbished commercial and public buildings. The scheme also includes a new multi-storey car park to replace existing surface parking, a pedestrian footbridge across the River Tame to improve access to the new residential quarter, upgraded roads, and enhancements to public spaces.
A spokesperson for Tameside Council confirmed, “These are the council owned sites identified for new residential development and the new multi-storey car park in the case of Waterloo Road. This is set out in the Stalybridge Town Centre Framework, Stalybridge West Development Prospectus and on the Council Regenerating Stalybridge webpages. These planning applications are required so that the land can be remediated to enable future development.”
This regeneration effort is part of a broader strategy, propelled by a £19.9 million Levelling Up grant. The funding supports a range of projects across Stalybridge, including the restoration of the Astley-Cheetham Library and Art Gallery, improvements to the Stalybridge Civic Hall, upgrades to public squares, and enhancements to the road network. The aim is to create a “new destination” offering local jobs, amenities, public spaces, access to leisure, and a vibrant cultural life—an appealing prospect for a town perched on the edge of the Peak District with easy access to Manchester and Leeds.
In both the national debate over infrastructure planning and the local ambitions of Stalybridge, the stakes are high. The choices made today will shape communities for generations to come. As the UK grapples with how best to deliver the infrastructure it needs—efficiently, fairly, and sustainably—the question remains: will speed and centralization take precedence, or will the value of democratic participation and local voices win the day?
One thing is certain: the future of British infrastructure and urban regeneration will depend not just on the projects themselves, but on how—and by whom—decisions are made.
