The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold planning permission for the £180 million Portland Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) in Dorset, UK marks a decisive moment for waste-to-energy delivery in the UK. After six years of process and challenge, the project can finally proceed.

As part of the professional team involved in the Portland project, tor&co saw first-hand how a sound, well-evidenced scheme can still stall in the gaps between policy, perception and process. The lessons are clear: delivery needs advocates, not just compliance writes Paul Rogers, Technical Director, tor&co.

For the Government, it matches a wider policy drive to accelerate infrastructure, tighten the waste hierarchy, and meet net-zero goals through domestic energy resilience. But this case also exposes the structural hurdles that continue to slow delivery.

As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill moves through Parliament and reforms to judicial review are debated, the Portland judgment offers five lessons that policymakers and promoters cannot ignore.

1.           Planning still takes too long to prove the obvious

Even when a proposal’s consistency with policy is clear, the system drags. The Portland ERF was fully consistent with national waste and energy policy, yet consent took six years and survived multiple rounds of litigation. The reforms proposed under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will streamline parts of the consenting process for major schemes, but unless mirrored in Town and Country Planning Act projects, the gains will be uneven. Such drawn-out timeframes undermine the Government’s ambition for an ‘infrastructure decade.’

2.           Public perception remains the biggest unseen constraint

Energy from waste still struggles against outdated perceptions of pollution and health risk. The Portland case saw well-organised local opposition despite Environment Agency oversight and proven emissions controls. The challenge is not just communications; it’s structural. Planning authorities must adjudicate evidence in the face of misinformation, and often with limited resources, and this can be subject to significant local political pressures. If reforms are to restore trust in decision-making, Government must equip local authorities to handle technical scrutiny at speed and with confidence.

3.           Spatial strategy must be read as a whole

A critical finding of the Court was that spatial strategies for waste management should be interpreted holistically. The Court confirmed that decision-makers can weigh the waste hierarchy, self-sufficiency and proximity principles together and form a balanced judgment. This clarification is essential. It signals that future waste infrastructure need not meet all principles equally to be policy-compliant, a pragmatic step for regions short on residual waste capacity. For developers and councils, it provides firmer ground to advance modern facilities that close local treatment gaps rather than export waste across borders.

4.           Judicial review risk is distorting investment

The judgment also reignites the debate over access to judicial review. While challenges are a democratic safeguard, too many cases are being ‘gamed’ to delay infrastructure with little cost or risk to objectors. The government’s proposal to narrow challenge routes for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects is welcome, but Portland shows why this logic must extend further. A predictable and proportionate challenge system is essential if investors are to keep faith in the UK consenting regime.

5.           Delivery culture matters as much as reform

Even best-practice engagement and full technical disclosure did not prevent delay. This underlines that planning reform alone is not enough. The system needs a shared delivery mindset across departments, regulators and local authorities to turn policy ambition into outcomes.

How developers can make reform work for them

With the Portland decision providing legal clarity and Government reform ongoing, developers in the waste-to-energy and wider infrastructure sectors should:

• Audit their pipeline: Identify projects most exposed to procedural delay and challenge risk.
• Use policy language: Demonstrate clear compliance with the waste hierarchy, self-sufficiency and proximity principles, but show balanced reasoning, as endorsed by the Court.
• Invest in early engagement: Build local understanding of emissions control and energy benefit before applications are lodged.
• Monitor reform: Keep close watch on judicial-review and infrastructure-delivery reforms to stay ahead of procedural risk.

The Portland judgment closes one chapter, but the delivery deficit it exposes is far from resolved. If the UK wants to recover energy from waste, it must first recover time, cost, and confidence.

Later living housing is regarded as critical – so why is it given so little attention? Martin Miller makes the case for more robust policies to support housing for people in later life

It’s been a year since the Older People’s Housing Taskforce published Our Future Homes , its landmark independent report – backed by two government-funded research projects but frustratingly published too late to influence the December 2024 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Its message was clear: if the UK is serious about tackling the housing crisis, it must ensure more housing for people in later life and strengthen national and local planning policies required to deliver it.

A year on, the need for reform remains. National planning policy was not bolstered following the Government’s publication of the 2024 NPPF, and local planning authorities have therefore yet to receive the policy clarity required to translate good intentions into meaningful action.

But what is the state of play since the report and how can the sector inject greater urgency into a policy area that by 2038 will be critical to 57 per cent more of us when compared to 2018?

A part of the housing crisis puzzle

Many planning authorities don’t understand the concept of ‘housing with care’ or recognise the societal benefits which integrated retirement communities can provide. In short, they provide ‘right size’ accommodation, can help keep people healthier for longer and provide social infrastructure to reduce isolation and demand on public health services.

The benefits of purpose-built retirement communities for the wider housing market also remain painfully under-appreciated. According to a report by Homes for Later Living, surplus bedrooms are expected to reach more than 20 million in the UK by 2040, with older households contributing 60 per cent of these

It also shows, if all over-65s that wished to could move, one million homes would be directly released for sale, and two million bedrooms would become available. Each new later living home has been shown to free up at least one, often two, family homes, and these developments are able to be brought forward without adding pressure on local school places – often a concern for other types of residential proposals.

A strategic commitment to later living is therefore not a niche policy for an ageing population; it is a mainstream housing policy that will help get Britain building and the market moving again.

Whilst planning authorities and the general public seem to be fixated on the delivery of affordable housing, later living is the only type of housing which national planning practice guidance regards as critical – and this has been the case for the last six years.

A policy vacuum

It has been three years since Professor Les Mayhew called for the government to build 50,000 new homes for older people each year to tackle the UK’s housing and social care crisis. But despite a recognition of the critical need for older persons’ housing, national planning policy only requires local planning authorities to establish the need, size, type and tenure of housing for different groups in the community, and to reflect this in local planning policies.

There is no requirement for development plans to provide a specific quantum of housing for older people or to allocate sites for such accommodation. Consequently, it is no surprise that very few local plans do. This often leaves proponents of well-designed, sustainable and socially beneficial schemes preparing speculative planning applications on unallocated sites and arguing their planning merits in a policy vacuum. This can be a slow, uncertain and costly pathway to securing a planning permission and it will undoubtedly deter many from trying.

Without a truly supportive strategic planning framework, the sector cannot scale, no matter how strong the demographic or policy case may be.

Why spatial planning must step up for later living

If the UK wants to unlock housing for all generations, later living must take its place alongside affordable housing, urban regeneration and infrastructure delivery priorities with clear support from local planning authorities through local plan allocations. And the system needs to recognise that the release of family homes onto the market will be a direct strategic benefit of later-living development.

This argument has long been championed by Lord Best – co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups for Housing and Care for Older People, as well as New Towns – a champion for improved later living development, who argued that 10 per cent of new homes should be allocated by local planning authoroties for later living.

What needs to be done?

One year on from the taskforce report, the message is unchanged, but the stakes are higher: without strengthened planning policy for later living accommodation, the UK is unlikely to solve its housing crisis.

Developers within the retirement sector could do more by promoting land through the development plan process, something which the industry doesn’t tend to do, but which the housebuilding sector does frequently. Local planning authorities can do more by recognising the wider benefits of later living homes and allocating more land for retirement communities in their local plans. And the government can do more by strengthening national policy to require more later living homes to be delivered.

Further amendments to national planning policy are due to be published in the coming weeks, but will the sector get an early Christmas present?

Grid reform and the delivery deficit: Why the planning sector must engage beyond policy

Last week’s House of Lords report into electricity grid infrastructure delivers a blunt verdict: ‘The grid is not ready’ for net zero. Published by the Industry and Regulators Committee, the report points to critical institutional failings that limit delivery of the UK’s clean power ambitions.

As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill reaches its Report Stage, these structural issues matter. For those seeking timely grid connections, this scrutiny is only the beginning. The debate has focused on queue reform, but the deeper threat to delivery may now lie in the planning system itself.

Capacity questions that still need answers

While grid connection reform is welcome, its scope is fundamentally redistributive. The new ‘first-ready, first-served’ approach may help advance projects with planning certainty (Gateway 2), but it doesn’t create new capacity. Without urgent investment in physical infrastructure and reinforcement, developers will still be competing for access.

Gateway 1 projects face a real risk of delay or abandonment unless supported by strategic coordination and funding. Their later connection dates could push investment elsewhere or cause delays. Cancelled projects risk millions in lost UK investment. The Committee also warned that too much reliance is being placed on unproven reforms that may not deliver at scale or pace, risking bottlenecks even after reforms.

Meanwhile, Great British Energy’s emerging role introduces uncertainty. If it acts as a generator or investor, it may compete for grid headroom. Without a clear remit, it could crowd out private capital.

These are not theoretical concerns. NESO estimates over 700 GW of projects are stuck in queues, while just 150 GW is needed to meet net zero by 2035. Queue reform may help in the short term, but unresolved capacity will slow delivery.

Planning improvements, but not yet delivery-ready

Recent reforms offer useful changes, but many are targeted at improving the NSIPs regime. Raising the NSIP threshold for solar and wind to 100MW enables more projects to go through local planning. Updated policy now gives greater weight to low-carbon energy. Onshore wind can now re-enter the planning system in England. Under-resourced councils could face delays.

But the Lords Committee is clear: consent reform alone won’t deliver net-zero-scale infrastructure.  Overlaps between Ofgem, DNOs, NESO and the incoming Future System Operator remain unresolved. Developers need confidence that reforms lead to viable projects.

As one witness told the Committee, “planning and delivery need to be joined at the hip”; a principle not yet reflected in how reforms are being implemented. The Committee specifically criticised the absence of a joined-up government plan linking grid investment, planning policy and delivery timelines. A missing framework that continues to undermine project confidence and coordination.

Winners, losers and uncertainties

The shift to ‘first-ready’ will advantage developers with planning consent and clear investment backing. But many early-phase and innovative projects may fall behind and risk losing financing windows. This shift risks a two-speed pipeline, stalling early-phase projects.

Without the kind of central delivery body recommended by the Lords Committee, akin to a Net Zero Delivery Agency, grid strategy remains fragmented, and risks reinforcing outdated infrastructure patterns.

Great British Energy’s role adds further complexity. If it functions as a generator or grid actor, developers need assurance that access remains transparent and not seen as a competitor, especially for SMEs.

What developers should do now?

With political momentum building but delivery questions mounting, developers must approach current reforms with pragmatism and speed. In this shifting landscape:

• Audit your pipeline: Prioritise projects with planning certainty and investment backing. Ready-to-build status is now a competitive advantage.
• Engage regionally: Work with DNOs and councils to ease bottlenecks.
• Make the case beyond emissions: Highlight jobs, resilience and energy security.
• Track institutional reform: Monitor how the Future System Operator and Great British Energy evolve.

The Committee also flagged that Ofgem’s regulatory framework may be constraining DNO investment flexibility. Developers should stay alert to how this could affect local reinforcement and capacity upgrades.

The Lords’ report has rightly re-centred the debate on delivery risk. Developers now need to respond with speed, strategy and strong planning advice. Reform is in motion. Now the connections must follow.

These promotions strengthen our leadership and expertise across key areas, and we’re excited to see the impact they will continue to make in driving excellence for our clients and projects.

Please join us in congratulating them on this achievement!

Nigel joins tor&co’s expanding Bristol office and team of architects. With a deep interest in place making, gained over many years in the industry, Nigel brings a wealth of practice, delivery and regional experience across Bristol and the South West.

“I am delighted to be working with tor&co at this exciting stage in its history, especially as it also involves contributing to the success of projects across all of the offices.”

Making sure that housing projects foster strong, healthy and sustainable places is our priority, so today tor&co is proud to launch its New Communities Credentials. 

For more than 40 years, we have been a leader in planning and designing new communities. We promote and masterplan new settlements, the growth of existing towns and the regeneration of urban neighbourhoods. Around 96% of our planning applications in this sector win approval.

From inception to delivery, from initial site appraisal to environmental statements, landscape and heritage assessments and design codes, we turn constraints into opportunities and local concerns into understanding. Have a closer look at tor&co’s communities work

Please download the New Communities Brochure Here

Our journey to deliver successful outcomes for clients takes another step forward with the board’s appointment of leading planning professional Simon Prescott as chairman.

A charted town planner and advocate for spatial planning, Simon joins following the opening of our new Bristol office and at a time of renewed national and local focus on strategic planning, housing delivery and placemaking.

His appointment reunites him with managing director Jacqueline Mulliner. Simon and Jacqueline first studied town planning at the University of the West of England in Bristol.

“This is a great time to join tor&co,

“The team has a strong track record, great clients and a clear commitment to supporting partners committed to vibrant places and sustainable growth.”

A track record of success

Simon brings more than 30 years’ experience in strategic planning, land promotion and development to his new role. He spent 17 years at Barton Willmore, serving as equity partner between 2009 and 2022. He has led major regeneration schemes across the region, including urban extensions at Taunton, the former Cadbury site in Keynsham, and Bath’s Foxhill redevelopment.

“Simon brings valuable experience and knowledge at a time when places across the country need good planning and thoughtful design more than ever,” added Jacqueline.

“His appointment reflects our commitment to helping clients succeed by securing and delivering sustainable development and building on our track record.”

Get in touch with the team if you’d like to discuss your project.