From councillors declining climate training in West Northamptonshire to North Northamptonshire pushing carbon neutral targets back twenty years, Reform’s scepticism toward net zero commitments are unmistakable. Yet, while political rhetoric may shift with electoral winds, the legal framework governing planning decisions remains firmly anchored in statute.  

The question for Reform councils isn’t whether to act on climate, but how to communicate that action to the voters who elected them. 

The legal reality 

Regardless of political ideology, councils operate within binding legal constraints that don’t accommodate climate scepticism. The National Planning Policy Framework explicitly requires the planning system to support the transition to a low carbon future. The Climate Change Act 2008 amended in 2019 mandates net zero by 2050, whilst Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local plan policies designed to secure climate adaptation and mitigation. Add mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain and the Public Sector Equality Duty, which demands consideration of climate’s disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and the statutory framework becomes impossible to ignore. 

In practice, this means planning officers must assess climate and sustainability compliance regardless of political direction from members. Local plan inspectors will test climate policies at examination and weak or absent policies risk plan failure. Decisions made without “due regard” to these obligations face judicial review or Secretary of State intervention. For developers, this creates a stark reality: legal compliance represents the baseline, whatever the political mood music suggests. 

The risk of non-compliance extends beyond legal challenge. Central government intervention would undermine the very local control that Reform champions, whilst delays caused by legal challenges damage council credibility and stall the development the party claims to support. The cost – both financial and reputational – falls on everyone. 

The communication opportunity 

Climate messaging often fails to connect with the voters Reform represents. Abstract targets for 2030 or 2050 feel disconnected from immediate concerns about household bills, NHS waiting times and crumbling local infrastructure. Technical language about carbon budgets and thermal efficiency alienates rather than engages.  

Yet those same voters often care deeply about lower energy bills. They want protection from flooding that threatens their homes and insurance premiums. They value quality green spaces, reliable infrastructure and local job opportunities. They respond to “common sense” solutions that deliver tangible improvements to daily life. Climate action delivers precisely these outcomes – but we often don’t shout about it enough. 

Reframing to reflect local benefits 

The opportunity for Reform councils lies in translation, not abandonment. Better insulated homes save residents hundreds of pounds annually on heating costs. Solar panels on council buildings reduce running costs, freeing money for frontline services.  

Sustainable drainage systems aren’t merely an environmental checkbox – they prevent properties from flooding, protect insurance premiums and prove cheaper than hard engineering solutions. Green infrastructure and trees on streets increase property values whilst improving air quality and mental health. Active travel infrastructure cuts family transport costs.  

For those working in the built environment, this demands a shift in approach. Developers should lead sustainability statements with economics: highlight lower running costs for buyers and tenants rather than carbon reduction percentages.  

The path forward 

Climate obligations in planning are legally binding, not negotiable. The choice Reform councils face is how to communicate and deliver climate action, not whether to act at all.  

Success means delivering what residents actually want: lower household costs, protected property values, quality local infrastructure and economic opportunity. Failure means legal challenges, central intervention and ultimately letting down the voters who elected councillors promising practical solutions over political posturing.