Does the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill risk delaying the preparation of local plans?

The reality is that uncertainty breeds caution. Some LPAs have rushed to submit plans in order to secure transitional arrangements under the most recent National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Others have paused work altogether, citing the prospect of governance change. Neither approach inspires confidence.

Recent experience shows the risks of rushing. Plans pushed through to meet political deadlines have been found wanting at examination, while others have been withdrawn when political control shifted. Far from speeding up the process, the stop-start cycle wastes time and undermines confidence.

For housing associations, the consequences are immediate: without robust local plans, affordable housing targets stall. Government statistics already show that affordable housing starts fell by 39% in 2023-24, and by 88% in London. A planning hiatus caused by devolution could make matters worse, exacerbating an already fragile pipeline.

“Plans pushed through to meet political deadlines have been found wanting at examination, while others have been withdrawn when political control shifted”

Technically, it is possible to prepare a plan regardless of structures. Evidence on housing need, economic growth and infrastructure requirements can be gathered under any governance model. The sticking point is politics. 

Local plans ultimately require councillors to make hard choices: how much housing to plan for, where growth should be focused and how to balance local opposition with national imperatives. When local government boundaries are in flux, the incentive is often to postpone those choices until the new authority is in place.

This is where the bill’s proposal for Strategic Authorities and mayoral-led Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs) comes into play. If implemented effectively, SDSs could insulate local plans from some of the most divisive debates by elevating housing numbers and spatial priorities to a higher tier.

SDSs, alongside Mayoral Development Orders (MDOs), are the bill’s most promising tools. A robust SDS could provide the strategic spine – setting housing numbers, identifying infrastructure priorities and resolving cross-boundary disputes. Local plans would then be freed to focus on practical questions of site allocation, deliverability and design standards.

The risk, however, lies in transition. Areas undergoing both devolution and reorganisation may face a period when responsibility for an SDS shifts between authorities. Regulations under the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill may provide for this, but in the meantime, planners and investors face uncertainty.

“Shadow authorities” may keep work moving during these transitions, but experience suggests timetables will slip. The longer plans are delayed, the greater the risk that speculative applications fill the vacuum, undermining trust in both local and national planning reforms. 

Another innovation in the bill is the requirement for local authorities to establish effective neighbourhood governance. The stated aim is to bring decisions closer to residents. In principle, this aligns with the “community empowerment” aspect of the bill, making communities co-authors of change rather than passive recipients. 

But the tension with SDSs is obvious. If housing numbers are set at the strategic level, while neighbourhood forums are empowered at the hyper-local level, there is significant scope for conflict. Communities may resist housing targets imposed “from above”, while lacking the funding to produce neighbourhood plans of their own.

The government has already withdrawn direct support for neighbourhood planning. Instead, funding is now channelled into regeneration initiatives, with 25 “trailblazer neighbourhoods” announced earlier this summer. While this shift may produce tangible projects, it risks creating a two-tier system: well-funded regeneration areas gaining influence and under-resourced communities left behind.

For planners, the practical question is how neighbourhood governance will dovetail with local plans. Without resources, many communities may lack the incentive to engage, reducing neighbourhood planning to a policy aspiration rather than a functioning tier.

“If housing numbers are set at the strategic level, while neighbourhood forums are empowered at the hyper-local level, there is significant scope for conflict”

Taken together, the reforms create three moving parts: local government reorganisation, regional strategic planning and neighbourhood empowerment. Each makes sense individually, but unless carefully integrated, they risk fragmenting the system further.

The government’s ambition is laudable: stronger local plans, more responsive communities and clearer regional strategies. But without transitional clarity, resources and political will, the result may be the opposite: local plans stalled, housing delivery further delayed and communities disillusioned.

England already faces a housing shortfall that may exceed 500,000 homes by the end of this parliament. Affordable housing starts are declining, private sector confidence is faltering and major regeneration projects depend on clarity from the planning system. 

For housing associations and local government leaders alike, any delay caused by devolution risks compounding these pressures. For investors, it threatens to undermine confidence at a moment when long-term capital is urgently needed. And for planners, it raises the spectre of yet another reform cycle that slows rather than accelerates delivery. 

In my view, the answer lies in leaning into the bill’s strategic tools. If SDSs are introduced quickly, with robust transitional arrangements, they can provide the certainty needed to keep local plans on track. If MDOs are used intelligently, they can fast-track complex schemes and boost delivery. 

At the same time, clarity is essential. Ministers must reiterate that local plans should progress regardless of reorganisation. Combined authorities must commit to publishing SDSs on clear timetables. And neighbourhood governance must be matched with resources, to ensure communities are participants rather than bystanders. 

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is one of the most ambitious attempts to reshape local government and planning in a generation. It has the potential to strengthen strategic planning, empower communities and accelerate delivery. But it also carries the risk of disruption, delay and fragmentation.

The choice lies in implementation. With clear transitional arrangements, strategic leadership and genuine community support, the bill could mark a turning point for planning in England. Without them, it may become another chapter in the long history of reforms that promised clarity but delivered uncertainty.

Either way, local plans remain the test. If they progress, the system will endure. If they stall, the consequences will be felt not just by planners, but by every community waiting for the homes, infrastructure and regeneration they represent. 

For housing associations, every delay to local plan preparation is a delay to much-needed housing. The government’s reforms may ultimately provide a clearer framework for growth, but unless transitional arrangements are watertight, the short-term effect could be fewer affordable homes delivered when demand has never been greater.

The bill’s ambition is admirable, but delivery will be the true test.

Peter Canavan, partner, Carter Jonas