News

 

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has now completed its Parliamentary stages and is awaiting Royal Assent. As a keystone of the government’s ambition to “get Britain building again”, the Bill represents the most significant package of planning and infrastructure reform in over a decade. Given the strong presence of property, housing, infrastructure and planning professionals across ISV’s membership, this legislation will be of direct interest to many. 

What the Bill is trying to achieve 

The government’s stated aim is to deliver a faster, more predictable planning and consenting system, addressing what it sees as structural delays that constrain housing supply, infrastructure delivery and energy security.  

Key reforms include: 

• Streamlining Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) processes 
  and limiting opportunities for delay 
  
• Introducing strategic planning at a sub-regional scale through Spatial 
  Development Strategies 
  
• Reforming planning committees, including mandatory training and clearer 
  delegation to professional officers 
  
• Strengthening development corporations and compulsory purchase powers to 
  unlock land for housing and infrastructure 

From a social value perspective, these changes are framed by the government as enabling earlier certainty, better coordination and faster delivery of homes, transport, energy and public amenities.

 

Nature recovery: opportunity and concern 

One of the most significant changes is the introduction of the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) and Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs). These allow developers to meet environmental obligations through strategic, coordinated interventions rather than project-by-project mitigation, with the intention of reducing delay and achieving more meaningful nature recovery outcomes. Supporters argue that this could free up specialist ecological capacity, reduce administrative burdens for small and medium developments, and enable larger scale, longer-term environmental improvements However, this approach has also attracted substantial concern from environmental charities and campaign groups.  

Organisations including The Wildlife Trusts, Wildlife & Countryside Link, Wild Justice and the RSPB Youth Council have warned that replacing site-specific assessments with strategic plans risks weakening existing environmental protections, particularly for protected habitats and species. Critics argue that the reforms could allow environmental harm to occur before restoration benefits are delivered. 

Communities and infrastructure 

The Bill introduces a mandatory, centralised scheme to provide electricity bill discounts for households near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure, responding to longstanding concerns that communities hosting nationally important infrastructure often experience disruption without clear local benefit. 

This measure has been welcomed by many as a tangible step towards sharing the benefits of the energy transition more fairly, and as a recognition that social value is critical to building public consent for major infrastructure. 

What this means for social value 

Overall, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill highlights an ongoing tension at the heart of planning reform: how to deliver growth, housing and infrastructure faster while maintaining environmental standards, community trust and long-term social value. 

For ISV members, the Bill reinforces the importance of: 

• Embedding social and environmental outcomes early in development and 
  infrastructure planning 
  
• Demonstrating how growth can deliver tangible benefits for communities and 
  nature 
  
• Engaging constructively with evolving policy frameworks as they move from 
  legislation into practice 

As the Bill receives Royal Assent and secondary legislation and guidance follow, ISV will continue to track its implementation and explore what these reforms mean for delivering genuine social value on the ground.

By Christopher Jones, Advocacy Officer

 

The Government’s Autumn Budget sets out a wide range of fiscal and social policy measures intended to ‘cut the cost of living, cut waiting lists, and support economic stability’. But what are the implications of the Chancellor’s Budget for communities, public services, SMEs, VCSEs, and large organisations engaged in purpose-led work? Here, we break down the major measures, the potential benefits, and the areas where uncertainty remains.

Ending the Two-Child Benefit Cap: A Significant Shift for Social 
Outcomes 

 

One of the most notable announcements was the removal of the two-child benefit cap. Many organisations across the social sector have long highlighted this policy’s impact on childhood poverty and household resilience. The change is likely to increase welfare spending over the coming years but also has the potential to significantly reduce child poverty levels. 

This shift will strengthen family wellbeing, improve children’s long-term life chances, and ultimately reduce pressure on local health, housing, education and Local Authority children’s services. Crucially, strained VCSE support and crisis services across all of these areas are likely to benefit from this policy and the resulting material increase in household income. 

 

Extended Freeze on Income Tax Thresholds: Pressures on Households, 
Staff, and Employers

 

The extended freeze on income tax thresholds to 2030/31, or ‘stealth tax’, represents a more complex policy to assess from a social value perspective. On the one hand, the measure will substantially raise revenue for the Government and has undoubtedly functioned as a mechanism to free up spending in other areas, allowing for policies such as the removal of the benefit cap and additional funding for devolved regions.

 

On the other hand, social value is fundamentally about impact on people, and, in spite of any potential for broader economic and social benefits in the longer-term, the most tangible and keenly felt impact of the freeze on people in the short-term will be one of additional financial strain.

 

Increased Funding for Mayors and Devolved Governments – 
Opportunities for Localised Social Value

 

The Budget commits an additional £13bn to regional and devolved administrations. This presents meaningful opportunities for place-based investment, local economic development, and integrated social value approaches that reflect community priorities. This increase may also expand the role that SMEs and VCSEs can play in delivering social, economic, and environmental outcomes at regional level, provided commissioning environments are designed to enable broad participation.

 

NHS Staffing and Technology Investment – Potential for System-Wide Impact

 

Additional investment in NHS staffing and £300m for technology modernisation could significantly improve service efficiency, patient experience, and the workplace wellbeing of overburdened NHS staff, at a time where improvement across all three areas is badly needed. For public-sector members and suppliers in our network, this may create opportunities for innovation, partnership, and improved outcomes across health and care systems. Of course, technology-led change does also require effective implementation, skills support, and long-term planning to fully realise its social value benefits.

 

Changes to Fuel Duty, EV Mileage Charges, and Decarbonisation Incentives 

 

The Budget includes future increases to fuel duty and the introduction of a mileage-based charge for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles from 2028. While part of a wider transition to a sustainable fiscal model as transport decarbonises, these measures may raise operational costs for organisations relying on vehicle fleets, particularly SMEs and VCSEs. At the Institute for Social Value, we continue to advocate for supportive transition 
frameworks to ensure small organisations can decarbonise affordably and continue to deliver social value in their communities. 

 

Salary-Sacrifice Pension Reform

 

The introduction of National Insurance contributions on salary-sacrificed pensions above a threshold represents another area where the impact will vary across our membership. Larger employers may absorb administrative or financial implications more easily, while SMEs and VCSEs may face additional complexity. We will monitor how this policy evolves in practice and share guidance with members as more detail becomes available.

 

A Mixed Landscape for Social Value

 

The Autumn Budget contains several promising developments that have the potential to improve outcomes for families, communities, and public services, particularly the removal of the two-child benefit cap, increased welfare spending, and investment in the NHS. At the same time, some measures introduce new financial or administrative pressures, especially for SMEs and VCSEs already operating in challenging economic conditions. These organisations are essential to delivering social value across the UK; supporting their resilience must remain a national priority.

Our work in the coming months will continue to: 

• Analyse the real-world impact of these measures as they develop
• Support members — large and small — in responding effectively
• Advocating for policy environments that enable social value creation
• Ensuring SME and VCSE voices remain central to national discussions

By Christopher Jones, Advocacy Officer

In a previous blog and in our October Newsletter, we published our commentary on the procurement process led by Great British Nuclear (GBN) for a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition, where we argued that the characterisation and criticism of social value requirements as mere red tape distracts from the more important question of how social value can be embedded meaningfully in public spending. Today, in light of a fresh article in The Times further critiquing the role of social value in public spending, we return to the conversation.

On the 9th of November, The Times published an article titled 'Calls to end 'pantomime' social-value requirements in public contracts', which reports that some policymakers and commentators are calling for the social-value regime in public procurement to be scrapped, branding it a 'pointless pantomime'.

We believe this second article highlights three key problems: misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and mis-design. Each of these deserves a clear response.

Misunderstanding: Policy, not pantomime

The Times article quotes voices claiming that firms are burdened by social value requirements, branding them "a pointless pantomime that just prices start-ups out of working with government". Social value is represented as performance rather than policy.

At The Institute for Social Value, we disagree. Social Value is not a showpiece or a box-ticking exercise. It is, as we argued in our previous response, a strategic framework that ensures public spending delivers long-term benefits for people, places, and the planet. Social Value has the power to bring more inclusive employment, more resilient supply chains, and improved community wellbeing. It is not about theatre; it is about results.

The continued portrayal of social value as 'red tape' reveals a worrying trend in public debate that focuses on process at the expense of purpose. If we are serious about improving value for money, we should be continuing to ask how to design social value criteria as effectively as possible, not how to remove them entirely.

Misrepresentation: Getting proportion right

The Times piece also argues that large public sector organisations impose “miscellaneous requirements” that small companies cannot meet, while large firms hire teams to “tick boxes and game the process”.

We agree that if social value is applied poorly, it can become burdensome or exclusionary; this is something that we at the Institute have long highlighted as a challenge that must be addressed. But it is crucial to understand that this is a failure of design, not of principle.

Social value requirements must be proportionate, transparent, and genuinely connected to outcomes. They should support smaller firms and VCSEs, who are often best placed to deliver those outcomes, to compete, not lock them out. They should be measurable and linked to the purpose and crucially the Location of each contract.

In the SMR competition, for example, social value commitments focused on workplace diversity, inclusive employment, and support for disadvantaged groups. These were not decorative extras. They were designed to ensure that investment in major infrastructure also strengthened local opportunity.

Mis-design: Reform, not retreat

The Times article notes that public procurement is worth around £400 bn a year and cites critics that suggest current rules slow procurement timelines and make processes unnecessarily complex.

The answer is not to abandon social value. The answer, again, is to refine its implementation.

At ISV, we believe reform should focus on three things. First, integrating social value considerations that are proportionate and practical. Second, continuing to improve oversight and accountability so that commitments are delivered, not just promised. Third, supporting smaller suppliers with clearer guidance and examples of good practice.

Designed in this way, procurement has the potential to become a driver of quality and accountability, rather than a source of delay.

Pushing back against the narrative

In our previous blog we argued that inclusive employment, fair supply chains, and local economic resilience are not peripheral benefits but core components of responsible public spending.

The new article risks pushing the conversation in the opposite direction. Labelling social value a ‘pantomime’ trivialises genuine efforts to ensure tax payers-funded projects deliver benefits that extend beyond the balance sheet. If we allow that framing to take hold, we risk undermining years of progress in building procurement systems that reflect modern social priorities.

Member Spotlight - whatimpact

What Does Social Value Mean in the Context of Political Action?

Introducing the ISV Professional Pathways Forum