How will a changed approach to strategic planning fit alongside devolution plans?

In theory, yes. By clarifying roles and removing duplication, the combined effect of local government reform and SDSs could streamline planning and unlock delays.

Cross-boundary issues, from transport infrastructure to housing markets, can be tackled at the right scale. Local authorities will be free to focus on the specific issues and sites within their remit, without the burden of single-handedly resolving regional tensions.

Importantly, the existence of a regional strategy should ease some of the political friction at the local level. Currently, housing targets are a source of tension for councillors, many of whom find themselves in the unenviable position of defending unpopular decisions with little political cover.

If housing numbers are agreed at a regional level and cascaded down, local leaders may find it easier to focus on implementation rather than justification. This does not remove politics from the process – and nor should it – but it does redistribute some of the heat. 

“Local plans can remain focused on deliverability – assessing viability, identifying sites and engaging with local communities – while SDSs provide the strategic spine”

The new planning landscape will also need to accommodate a revitalised role for development corporations. With the New Towns Taskforce due to decide on the location of the first 12 new towns imminently, it seems likely that we will see more development corporations emerge over the next few years. However, the geography of the new towns will not necessarily sit neatly within local authority or SDS boundaries – a potential complication which may need addressing. 

Development corporations can be powerful tools. They have the convening power to bring infrastructure providers to the table, the legal authority to use compulsory purchase powers and the flexibility to manage complex, long-term schemes. At 10,000 homes and more, which is likely the minimum viable size for a new town, these features will be necessary.

The Cambridge Growth Company, which looks set to evolve into the first of a new draft of development corporations, already offers a prototype model and Oxford, at the other end of the arc, could well follow suit. 

But today’s development corporations cannot be facsimiles of those used in the post-war era. The context is more complex. Public scrutiny is sharper, organised opposition is stronger and trust in planning is weaker. Communication, transparency and engagement must be front and centre. Development corporations must operate not only as delivery agents, but as public-facing institutions – politically aware, locally grounded and equipped to build consensus. 

In my view, for planning to succeed and for housing targets, including social and affordable homes, to be met, the regional level is imperative. It represents a pragmatic way to bring back a regional tier without recreating the bureaucracies of the past. It would allow for infrastructure and housing needs to be planned across functional economic areas, facilitate better collaboration with agencies and statutory consultees, and enable a more rational approach to allocating affordable housing across urban and rural areas. 

As with all planning reform, much will depend on implementation: new structures alone do not build homes or lay railway lines. Change will require people, resources and, above all, political will. But if done well, the combination of streamlined local authorities, strategic spatial planning and empowered delivery bodies could usher in a more functional planning system – one that is capable of delivering the homes, infrastructure and places the country needs. 

Peter Canavan, partner, Carter Jonas