How to make sure your development plans survive the May local elections

The starting point is a strong legal framework. Strategic partnerships are not informal arrangements; they are underpinned by binding contractual frameworks, whether through overarching development agreements or joint-venture vehicles. These agreements are entered into by local authorities as corporate entities, not by political administrations. A change in leadership does not provide a simple exit route.

Indeed, the consequences of withdrawal can be significant. Termination provisions are typically robust, requiring compensation for costs incurred and, in many cases, loss of profit. This creates a strong incentive for continuity, even when political priorities are built on change.

“This shared governance model matters. It ensures that no single political group can easily halt progress and that decisions are taken collectively, often requiring unanimity”

More importantly, the structure of these partnerships is deliberately designed to dilute unilateral decision-making. Governance frameworks commonly include a hierarchy of boards: a partnership or project board, an operations board and a series of working groups, each with defined decision-making powers. Representation is often balanced across partners, with independent oversight introduced through jointly appointed supervisors.

This shared governance model matters. It ensures that no single political group can easily halt progress and that decisions are taken collectively, often requiring unanimity.

Post-election changes are far more likely to result in recalibration than retreat: adjustments to housing mix, increased emphasis on social or affordable tenures, stronger community benefits or shifts in delivery. Wholesale abandonment of partnerships is rare, not least because of the financial and reputational implications.

This resilience does not happen by accident. It is designed in from the outset. Ensuring that local authority representatives on boards are sufficiently senior is critical. Decisions taken at project board level must carry weight, with cabinet or mayoral approval acting as a formal step rather than a potential barrier.

Where this alignment is missing, political change can introduce delay, particularly where new administrations seek to revisit earlier decisions.

Equally important is anchoring partnerships in statutory and strategic frameworks. Local plans, housing strategies and adopted delivery targets provide continuity beyond electoral cycles. These documents are not easily or quickly rewritten, meaning that partnerships aligned with them benefit from a degree of political insulation.

Financial structure also plays a role. Partnerships that embed interdependence – through revenue sharing, open-book accounting and shared risk – are inherently more difficult to unwind. Similarly, structures such as LLP joint ventures create a degree of separation from the local authority itself, limiting the scope for direct political intervention.

“Cross-party briefings during procurement and prior to key decisions can build broader political consensus, reducing the risk of disruption following elections”

That said, developers and investors must remain realistic about the operating environment.

Local authorities bring significant bargaining power to partnerships, particularly where land is involved. Their procurement processes can be slow, and political scrutiny can extend timelines further. For private sector and registered provider partners, this requires a degree of patience, and a willingness to accept that delivery may not always proceed at the pace initially envisaged.

In this context, early engagement becomes critical. Cross-party briefings during procurement and prior to key decisions can build broader political consensus, reducing the risk of disruption following elections. Likewise, early delivery of visible benefits – public realm improvements, community facilities or affordable housing – can help secure public support, making partnerships more politically resilient.

Ultimately, the most successful partnerships share a common set of characteristics. They are legally robust, financially interdependent, supported across political lines, anchored by experienced officers and capable of demonstrating clear public value.

The political cycle will always bring change. But for partnerships that are well-structured, transparent and aligned with long-term housing need, that change is more likely to shape delivery than to stop it.

Shazia Bashir, partner, Winckworth Sherwood