Under new proposals, metro mayors will be able to call in schemes of 150+ homes, before spatial development strategies have even been completed. Where does that leave developers? Simon Prescott offers some strategic thinking

“For too long, Britain has been held back by a system that says no, delaying projects, blocking growth and leaving communities behind.” 

Andy Burnham? No. Sir Keir Starmer, in June. That is the clue to the latest planning announcement. Burnham is accelerating a transfer of power he inherited, not inventing one.

Nor is this a nationwide copy of Sadiq Khan’s recent 50-home intervention threshold. London’s three-stage call-in system, operating since 2008, is the precedent. The Starmer Government legislated the principle for mayors elsewhere; Burnham’s is consulting on how it should operate.

Under the proposals, mayors could begin calling in schemes of more than 150 homes, alongside major commercial and tall-building projects, from early 2027 – while spatial development strategies (SDSs) are still being prepared.

That creates an awkward interim period, and the consultation more or less admits it. Applications will still be tested against the adopted development plan and material considerations. At the same time, mayors will be asking whether schemes fit the emerging shape of growth. Developers may have to argue in two policy periods at once.

But the call-in power is the headline. The SDS is the real battleground. By the time an application reaches the mayor, choices about growth geography, infrastructure and political priority may already have been made.

Mayors will not just comment from the sidelines. They will shape the SDS, influence the consent route through call-in and mayoral development orders, and may help decide what gets funded through a mayoral community infrastructure levy.

Why this attempt is different

County structure plans once set the broad distribution of growth, leaving local plans to identify sites. Regional spatial strategies followed, before their abolition left England dependent on voluntary cross-boundary cooperation.

“Strategic planning struggles when local support falls away, or when the spatial case has not been properly made”

The record is mixed. Greater Manchester’s original framework lost Stockport in 2020  before the other nine authorities progressed Places for Everyone. The West of England Joint Spatial Plan collapsed after inspectors found no overarching spatial strategy  guiding its 12 growth locations. Both examples show the same weakness: strategic planning struggles when local support falls away, or when the spatial case has not been properly made.

This time, preparing an SDS is a legal duty. Strategies can be agreed by majority vote, with mayors holding a casting vote , so an individual council cannot veto one alone. Local plans must be in general conformity with the SDS.

It has the look of the old structure-plan model, but not the same politics. A directly elected mayor, with an economic growth mandate and development management and funding powers, will sit above the local planning conversation.

Expect frogspawn, not red lines

SDSs cannot allocate individual sites, but can identify broad locations for growth: expect frogspawn on the map, with boundaries resolved through local plans.

The position and size of each blob can leave sites favoured or fighting against the current. Because exact allocations are deferred, politically sensitive choices may also be held until late in the process.

“The SDS may also become an infrastructure investment plan. London’s MCIL helped finance the Elizabeth line”

The SDS may also become an infrastructure investment plan. London’s MCIL helped finance the Elizabeth line . The Government proposes greater flexibility elsewhere to support infrastructure that benefits more than one council area. It is even consulting on whether SDS and MCIL charging schedule examinations should normally take place together. Land use strategy and cumulative viability could therefore be examined side by side.

Three planning moves developers should make now

First, make the spatial case – not just the case for the blob. Test the assumptions that drive growth: transport accessibility, employment geography, infrastructure capacity, housing need and environmental constraints. Build a case that can survive examination. A glossy site promotion will not be enough. Find out which officers, advisers and evidence commissions are shaping the strategy before the geography hardens.

Second, keep the evidence straight across the SDS, local plan and application. A proposal may have to pass through the SDS, the local plan and development management, potentially including mayoral call-in. The arguments need to hold at each scale. Before SDS adoption, mayoral support does not replace the statutory test against the adopted development plan and material considerations. Afterwards, general conformity and call-in change the weight.

Third, be clear about what the scheme delivers – and what it costs. Link homes or employment to strategic transport, infrastructure and investment priorities. Allow for the combined effect of MCIL, local CIL and section 106 contributions, and identify the infrastructure mayoral funding might unlock. The proposition has to work for the mayor and for the host authority. Trying to get the mayor to override the council is not a strategy; it is a risk.

The government wants mayors to push through a system that too often says no. Developers need to plan from SDS to application, or they may arrive at call-in after the real choices have already been made.

Simon Prescott Chairman of tor&co

At a glance

From 31^st October 2026, the National Scheme of Delegation (NSD) will establish a statutory framework for deciding which planning application must be determined by officers i.e. be delegated and which applications can be referred to planning committee. The aim is to provide greater clarity and consistency about the role of committees, allowing them to focus on proposals of genuine significance to the local area.

For applicants, the key change is that local practices such as automatic committee referral following a set number of objections or a ward councillor call-in will no longer be possible. Public consultation and representations will continue, but they will not, of themselves, determine whether an application goes to committee.

How does the NSD operate?

The key distinction in how the NSD will operate is between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 applications:

Schedule 1 applications must be delegated to officers, unless it is an own interest application. They include householder and minor commercial development; minor residential development (generally up to nine dwellings on a site of less than 0.5 hectares, development of a block of flats subject to the regulatory definition and other incidental development); discharge of conditions; prior approvals; permission in principle; S96A (non-material) applications; certificates of lawfulness; biodiversity gain plans; certificates of appropriate alternative development; relevant section 106 functions; and certain section 73 and certain reserved matters applications.

Schedule 2 applications includes most other planning applications including  applications which are not householder, minor commercial or minor residential, section 73 applications where the previous permission was a Schedule 2 permission, section 73A applications, reserved matters for large outline permissions (involving at least 500 dwellings or a building or buildings with 50,000 sqm or more of floorspace), relevant section 106 functions related to Schedule 2 permissions, listed building consents including discharge/variation of conditions, advertisement consents, and tree preservation order consents.

When can an application go to committee?

Schedule 2 does not automatically mean an application is a committee determination. Officer determination remains the presumption. Referral can only occur where at least one of the following criteria is met and the nominated officer (likely to be the chief planning officer/or their substitute) and nominated member (likely to be the chair of planning committee or their substitute) agree:

1. the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area; or
2. the application raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and other material considerations.

Where the nominated officer and member do not agree, the decision remains a delegated one. The guidance states that referral should be exceptional. For the purposes of criterion B, the guidance states that the following are unlikely to raise a significant planning matter:

• Where an application broadly complies with a detailed site allocation and relevant policies
• Where a statutory consultee concern has been resolved through amendments to the proposal

Where an authority has more than one planning committee, more than one nominated officer and nominated member can be nominated.

What does this mean for clients?

The principal benefit should be greater certainty over the decision-making route, particularly for schemes that might previously have reached committee because of objection thresholds or councillor call-ins. Schedule 2 will remain relevant, however, for most major applications and other locally significant schemes.

For policy-compliant development, the emphasis shifts towards building a strong officer-level case. Policy, design and technical issues should be resolved as early as possible so that the application, consultation responses and supporting evidence present a coherent and defensible case at determination.

For large, phased or strategic schemes, the NSD should be considered at outline stage. Reserved matters relating to large outline permissions are within Schedule 2, so individual phases may still be referred where the gateway is met. For renewable energy, infrastructure and other complex proposals, significant landscape, heritage, environmental or local issues may likewise engage the gateway.

Community and stakeholder engagement remains important, but its role changes: it will be less about creating a route to committee and more about understanding, addressing and evidencing how local issues have been dealt with.

Local Implementation and live applications

The NSD substantive categories are nationally prescribed, but authorities will still differ in how they operate the referral process. They may decide which Schedule 2 cases need to be considered for referral and may use triage arrangements. Authorities will need to amend their constitutions, removing incompatible call-in and objection triggers, identify nominated officers and members, and comply with the maximum committee size of 13 members. The guidance warns that non-compliance may expose an improperly determined committee decision to judicial review and possible quashing.

The Regulations come into force on 31 October 2026. For applications approaching determination around that date, applicants should confirm the likely Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 classification and the authority’s revised arrangements. Consideration should be given as to whether to seek determination under the existing or new procedures.

Recommended Approach

tor&co recommend the following approach to all clients preparing applications for determination:

• establish the likely NSD classification at the outset;
• understand the authority’s revised constitution and referral process;
• for Schedule 2 proposals, consider whether either gateway criterion could realistically apply;
• use pre-application and post-submission engagement to resolve policy, design and technical issues early; and
• for major or phased schemes, consider the decision-making route for future reserved matters as part of the outline strategy.

The practical shift is moving from relying on committee consideration at the point of decision to building a robust, well-evidenced planning case from the outset. This reinforces the value of an integrated planning, technical, environmental, design and stakeholder strategy.

Sources

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Planning Committees and the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions: Guidance for local planning authorities in England (1 June 2026).

Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/854).

*This note is provided for general information only and does not constitute planning or legal advice. tor&co accepts no liability for actions taken in reliance on it.

Author: Finn Blundell
Senior Planner.

The planning policy lacuna is being filled – just not by planning policy alone; the words of Tim Partridge, Technical Director (Planning) at tor&co, who has penned the following article…

A few years ago, I wrote about what I described as the planning policy lacuna. The phrase came from an appeal decision in Stockport, but it captured a wider feeling across the profession. National policy set broad objectives while leaving important questions unanswered. That gap has not disappeared entirely. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that it still exists.

The more interesting question nowadays is not whether planning policy has changed (it plainly has) but where planners, developers and decision-makers can now seek to find clarification on national policy.

Successive revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have strengthened support for economic growth. The introduction of grey belt policy, stronger recognition of employment uses such as data centres and gigafactories and the Government’s industrial strategy all point in the same direction. Alongside this sits Invest 2035: the UK’s modern industrial strategy, which places growth and resilience at the heart of Government policy. When paired, these documents paint a much clearer picture of Government priorities than the NPPF alone.

Appeal decisions are reinforcing that picture. Recent decisions on major employment schemes have attached significant weight to wider economic benefits, while others have begun to demonstrate how newer policies, including grey belt, should be applied in practice. While the NPPF says that significant weight should be attached to economic benefits, in respect of policy guidance through appeal, decisions since December 2024 regarding large employment uses – including some by Matthew Pennycook – have additionally referred to ‘very significant’ weight for employment and social needs, and ‘very substantial’ weight to economic benefits.

For practitioners, these decisions are doing more than resolving individual appeals. They are increasingly showing how inspectors and ministers expect national policy to be interpreted.

In that sense, planning policy is no longer contained within a single document. It is emerging through the combined effect of the NPPF, industrial strategy, ministerial priorities and appeal decisions.

What this means for the next two years

This shift is likely to have practical consequences for everyone involved in planning.

Developers promoting employment-led schemes will need to build planning cases that do more than demonstrate compliance with policy wording. Increasingly, successful applications are likely to explain how proposals support national priorities around productivity, investment, supply chains and economic resilience.

Equally, planning authorities and inspectors are likely to continue giving considerable weight to these wider policy signals. The strategic context for decision-making is becoming more coherent, even if it is spread across several documents. That being said, clearer national priorities do not automatically mean easier development.

Clarity does not guarantee delivery

The planning system still faces familiar constraints: local authority capacity, infrastructure delivery, competing land uses and political uncertainty. National policy may now speak more consistently about growth, but local implementation will remain uneven. Faster policy evolution cannot, by itself, remove these practical barriers.

That is perhaps the biggest caveat. Greater policy clarity should improve consistency in decision-making, but it will not eliminate the challenges of delivering development on the ground.

A return to a more familiar model?

Having entered the profession in the late 1980s, I remember a planning system in which appeal decisions often provided much of the practical guidance practitioners relied upon. There is a sense that we may be returning to that status quo.

This feels like more than the normal evolution of planning policy. Government is increasingly expressing planning priorities across a combination of documents, speeches, strategies and decisions, which, together, are filling the planning policy lacuna and shaping the emerging planning framework. Whether that proves to be a strength or a weakness is open to debate, but it does require us as planners to cast our nets wider when interpreting national policy.

What should developers do?

As this broader planning framework continues to evolve, there are several practical steps worth taking:

• Look beyond the NPPF when preparing planning strategies and statements.
• Demonstrate how proposals support wider Government objectives on economic growth and productivity where possible.
• Monitor emerging appeal decisions, particularly where they clarify the application of newer policies.
• Keep evidence and planning narratives under review as Government strategy continues to develop.

For developers, planners and planning authorities alike, understanding national policy increasingly means understanding that wider picture. Those who do will be better placed to navigate the planning system in the years to come.

For those with planning applications in the system, particularly going to committee or opening at appeal, it will have been a hectic, but hopefully positive, week. The new NPPF, of “critical importance”, was intended to make a difference, further supporting the achievement of sustainable development. 7 days later, with the decision-making policies taking immediate effect and to be read alongside the development plan, it certainly has. 

Recently it’s been a battle. We’ve seen many councils, sometimes those in special measures, sometimes failing the HDT, and almost always with an HLS shortfall, still turning against their officer recommendations, refusing to acknowledge the need for, and benefits of, development. Refusing applications for what can only be described as sustainable, and much needed, development. But already the NPPF has helped to stop such nonsense. We experienced its full force.

tor&co had two unallocated sites for residential development at committee last week, both had their complexities and not unusually local political opposition, despite efforts of engagement. Both were approved. Over a week ago the decisions may well have been different, but this week members actually supported their officer recommendations, sensing they had little option as a direct consequence of the new NPPF alongside other measures now in place to support more positive decision-making.

We observed officers emboldened in their views, with old, inconsistent development management policies being given very limited weight, and clear messaging around the strength of the tilted planning balance and weight of benefits. No longer can members, in their judgement, give less weight to certain benefits, such as providing homes to meet a need. This, and others, carry substantial weight. The outcome, in the absence of technical constraints, was members had ‘no option’ (their words) but to approve. Indeed, a rare referencing in the new NPPF (now policy numbered), paragraph 7 is clear that there are limited circumstances in which permission should be refused, whilst Policy DM3 confirms what should have always been the case, essentially LPAs should:

“Not refuse applications for development which should clearly be approved, having regard to their accordance with the development plan, the policies in this Framework and any other material considerations.”

So, out with the paragraphs and in with the policies, here are 25 of the big changes, in no particular order:

• Presumption in Favour of Development – Put away your basket for ‘important policies’, simply the tilted balance applies with an increased threshold, from ‘significantly’ to ‘substantially’, assessed against national policy. There are separate policies for development within and outside settlements, the latter providing particular support for development within a reasonable walk to a well-connected rail station (see glossary below) and development that would address an evidenced unmet need (not limited to a HLS shortfall or <75% HDT result). Development that doesn’t fall within the terms of the policy ‘should only be approved in exceptional circumstances’, and there is separate policy for Green Belt. 
• The Planning Balance – Those scales can be tipped with substantial beneficial weight being given to certain benefits including the economic benefits of commercial development, energy efficiency and drawing energy from renewables, improving resilience to climate change, providing homes to meet needs (including for different groups), supporting town centres and local shops, making better use of developed and vacant land, creating additional homes within settlements (including additional units within residential curtilages – subject to restrictive criteria), as well as new or improved public service infrastructure and community facilities.
• Plan Making (PM) Policies – All 52 of them (17 procedural and 35 topic-based) provide clear expectations and restrictions generally to avoid duplication, provide focus and avoid unnecessary hurdles to achieving sustainable development.
• Strategic Development Strategies – Strategic planning is back. SDSs must be produced by strategic planning authorities and the Mayor of London, covering at least 25 years, reviewed every 7 years (if needing to respond to changed circumstances). They must address sub-regional growth needs (housing, employment and infrastructure), set the scale and distributional strategy (apportionment to LPAs), identify broad locations for both growth and Green Belt alterations, and nature conservation and habitat enhancement. They can address the historic environment. 
• Local Plans – Finally they should get shorter! They must focus on delivering the SDS, and be concise, with no duplication from the NPPF. They must set out a vision, restricted to no more than 10 measurable outcomes, and cover a 10-year period (or longer). Policies on local accessibility, water efficiency and energy efficiency which are more stringent than Building Regs can be adopted
  and quantitative standards can also be set (e.g. affordable, parking, density & design). Otherwise, no covering matters
  already addressed by Building Regs. Preparation on a new plan must be commenced no later than 5 years from adoption, earlier in some circumstances. Look out for the transitional arrangements at Annex A. 
• Minerals and Waste Plans – Brought into line, by broadly following local plan procedural requirements.
• Soundness Test – To clarify the wording, ‘appropriate’ replaces ‘justified’, and both local and minerals and waste plans have an additional test; ‘conformity’ with the SDS.
• Supplementary Plans – With a sigh, these are still allowed, but thankfully, their scope is restricted, and with limited examination they can’t be used to delay the delivery of allocated sites
• Neighbourhood Plans – The Government wasn’t quite bold enough to do away with neighbourhood planning but now the scope is limited to allocating land and addressing particular local issues. Also, plans that have yet to be submitted must comply with the new NPPF. Then, they do still, in unchanged terms, give protection from the presumption.
• Development Plan Policy Weighting – Consistency is key. Weight can be given to old and emerging policies, but only if consistent with the NPPF, otherwise it’s unequivocably ‘very limited’ weight.
• Plan Allocations – Little has changed here but there are more specific requirements around strategic sites, small – medium sized sites, and specialist forms of accommodation.
• Economic Growth – Perhaps unsurprisingly given the economic context, but helpfully, far more support is given to urban and rural development, with greater flexibility. 
• Transport – You’ll need your tech skills with this one. The use of the ‘Connectivity Tool’ is to inform plans and decisions.
• BNG – What a relief, given the challenges, the all-encompassing more than 10% policies are precluded, with additionality saved for specific allocations where justified and deliverable. 
• Connected Places – A sensible acknowledgment that in maintaining cooperation between plan-making authorities, connected places within and across boundaries can determine optimal locations for growth. 
• Green Belt – All the guidance is now in one place, with Annex E covering assessments, including the requirement to identify grey belt. Substantial weight is given to the importance of complying with the Golden Rules, whilst viability testing is allowed in some limited circumstances. 
• Viability – A hot topic, challenging many a scheme at present, elevating the importance of engaging through plan-making. Expectations for developer contributions must be set out in the development plan, including circumstances in which review mechanisms will be used. Opportunities to submit viability assessments with planning applications are now limited, but the use of standardised viability inputs has not made its way into the final document.
• Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation – Unsurprisingly, as almost every council in England has declared an emergency, increased weight is given to energy efficiency, renewables and building resilience, with new wildfire mitigation measures.
• Heritage – The principles remain but there is now improved guidance on the approach to heritage assessments, and the need to identify both effects and degree of harm, whilst development leading to positive effects should be supported. Separate policies cover proposals affecting designated assets, non-designated assets, World Heritage Sites and conservation areas. 
• Engagement – Deep breadth, pre-app should no longer be avoided. It’s important, to resolve issues before submitting an application. Planning statements should be concise and explain changes resulting from the engagement.
• Consultees – This is a relief, decisions should not be delayed to secure advice from a statutory or internal consultee beyond statutory deadlines unless there is insufficient information to make the decision, there are public safety risks from proceeding without advice, or more detailed advice may enable approval.
• Obligations and Conditions – This might speed things up, simply the national model planning should normally be used. 
• Densities – Squeeze in, increases are encouraged. Minimums of 35dpa are expected around rail stations, 45dpa if particularly well-connected (twice the minimum service).
  

Glossary – There’s lots in here, with additional and amended definitions, of particular note:

• a wider definition of affordable housing to include military affordable housing.
• a wider definition of ancient woodland.
• connectivity means the degree to which a location provides access to jobs, services and facilities by sustainable transport modes. The Connectivity Tool (Connectivity Tool – GOV.UK) provides a means of assessing this.
• Examples are given for community facilities and green infrastructure.
• There is a shortened definition of (and test for) grey belt.
• Large-scale shared living accommodation specifically excludes self-contained dwellings (use class C3) as well as HMOs, student accommodation, hotels and other residential institutions.
• Medium development is defined as 10 – 49 homes and a site area of up to 2.5 ha, as a sub-set of major development, and strategic site is defined (e.g. 1500+ homes)
• Net developable area is defined.
• Reasonable walking distance is “around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes’ walk time where topography, route availability, or physical barriers would discourage walking the full distance”.   
• Well-connected stations are “Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction”.

Annexes – Last but certainly not least, there are now six covering: implementation, glossary, information requirements, housing calculations and supply, Green Belt assessments and managing flood risk and coastal change.  

Author:
Jacqueline Mulliner
Managing Director

The day began with almost perfect weather. Clear blue skies, bright sunshine and barely a breath of wind created ideal conditions for the Bristol International Balloon Fiesta. In the setting of the historic Ashton Court, more than 100 hot air balloons inflated across the launch field before lifting gently into the morning sky, heading south in what was a spectacular start to the day.

The Business Breakfast itself was excellent. It has to be one of the most relaxed and enjoyable networking events in the region. There is something quite unique about catching up with colleagues and making new connections while watching over a hundred balloons prepare for take-off. It may require an early alarm; some of our team at tor&co were up at 4.00am to make sure they arrived in time, but it was unquestionably worth it.

Following the mass ascent, we moved into the VIP Sky Lounge for breakfast and two panel discussions. The first focused on how culture, creativity and placemaking can create stronger economies, while the second explored how businesses can harness Bristol’s cultural strengths to generate economic opportunity.

During the first panel, I couldn’t help myself and asked a question that I thought has become increasingly relevant following the Government’s renewed emphasis on devolution and empowering Metro Mayors. My question was along the lines:

‘With a new Prime Minister stressing the importance of devolution and stronger partnerships between business and the public sector, what one request should we be making of Government to make life easier, encourage economic growth and remove unnecessary friction?’

As a Chartered Town Planner, I probably shouldn’t have been surprised that the very first response pointed towards the planning system. However, what struck me most was that, throughout both discussions, many of the panellists’ answers, whether intentionally or otherwise, kept returning to a common theme. They were describing the need for an ambitious, long-term plan for our area as the basis for short-term action to attract investment.

Whether discussing housing, employment, transport, skills, investment or cultural placemaking, there was a recurring recognition that sustainable economic growth depends upon coordinated long-term planning and genuine collaboration between the public and private sectors.

There was also a clear sense of optimism. Bristol was consistently described as an exceptional place to live, work and invest. Yet there was equal recognition that we do not always champion our successes as confidently as we could. If the city region is to realise its full potential, we need to become better at telling our story, celebrating what we already do well, and working collaboratively across sectors rather than in isolation.

My overriding takeaway from the morning was that Bristol has many of the ingredients needed for continued success. The challenge is not identifying opportunities; it is aligning around a shared long-term vision and providing the confidence, certainty and partnerships that allow those opportunities to be realised.

Final thoughts

Perhaps my biggest takeaway from the morning was just how optimistic the conversations were. There was a genuine sense of confidence, ambition and purpose amongst the panellists and the wider business community. It was refreshing to spend a morning surrounded by people who believe so strongly in the future of Bristol and the West of England.

As always, Peaches Golding, His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant for Bristol, brought her trademark warmth, energy and infectious positivity to the discussion. She remains one of the city’s great ambassadors and didn’t disappoint. Likewise, Business West’s new CEO, Douglas Ure, made a compelling case for why business succeeds when it collaborates, builds networks and works in partnership with the public sector. I may be slightly biased as one of his Non-Executive Board colleagues, but his message resonated throughout the room.

One theme kept emerging from every discussion. Whether the subject was culture, placemaking, housing, skills, transport or economic growth, the answer was remarkably consistent: the West of England needs an ambitious, long-term vision that gives businesses and communities the confidence to invest.

That belief was one of the reasons tor&co opened its Bristol office on College Green just over a year ago. It wasn’t simply about expanding into a new market; it was a response to existing clients who wanted us closer to them, alongside our desire to help new clients navigate the planning challenges that inevitably accompany growth and investment. We opened our doors because we believe in the potential of this city region.

As Chairman of tor&co, I can say with complete transparency that our commitment to the West of England is long term. We’ll continue working alongside businesses, local authorities and our partners to help realise the ambition so clearly articulated throughout the morning: delivering the homes, employment space and infrastructure that will enable the region to fulfil its enormous potential.

As the last of the balloons drifted away across the Bristol skyline, it struck me that they offered a fitting metaphor. They rose because the conditions were right. Our city region has the same opportunity. With ambition, collaboration and a shared long-term vision, the West of England can continue to rise too.

Author: Simon Prescott, Chairman

The Government has introduced a new requirement for local planning authorities in England to consult the Secretary of State before refusing certain large housing schemes. The change is intended to give Ministers the opportunity to consider whether to “call in” applications that could make a significant contribution to housing delivery.

The new rule is contained in the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2026, published on 31^st March 2026. It applies to planning applications for development which includes 150 or more houses, flats, or a mix of houses and flats, where the application had not been determined before 11^th May 2026.

In practical terms, where a Local Planning Authority (LPA) is minded to refuse a qualifying application, it must consult the Secretary of State (SoS) for Housing, Communities and Local Government before issuing the decision. The LPA must send the Planning Casework Unit the application documents, plans, supporting information, representations, Officer Report, and the proposed reasons for refusal.

The authority must then wait at least 21 days before determining the application. This gives Ministers requisite time to decide whether to exercise the Secretary of State’s existing call-in powers.

What the Change Entails

The Direction does not mean that every proposed refusal of a 150+ home scheme will automatically be decided by the Secretary of State. Rather, it introduces a mandatory referral (consultation) stage before an LPA can issue a refusal. Once notified, the Secretary of State will consider the application, any representations submitted, the officer’s report and the LPA’s proposed reasons for refusal if not in the officer’s report, and the Secretary of State’s policy on calling applications to determine whether the application raises issues that justify intervention through the exercise of the call-in power. There is no automatic right to a call-in, and the Secretary of State retains a broad discretion in deciding whether to intervene.

If the Secretary of State decides not to call in the application, the LPA may proceed to determine the application, including by issuing the refusal. If the application is called in, the Secretary of State becomes the decision-maker and appoints a Planning Inspector to examine the proposal.

The rule is not limited to “unreasonable” refusals or to allocated housing sites. The trigger is broad: it applies where an LPA proposes to refuse an application for 150 or more dwellings and the application falls within the scope of the Direction.

Why has the Government Introduced this?

The measure forms part of the Government’s wider programme to increase housing delivery and infrastructure provision. In the Written Ministerial Statement of 23^rd March 2026, the Secretary of State stated that the new Direction would support housebuilding by requiring LPAs to consult the Secretary of State where they intend to refuse schemes of 150 dwellings or more.

The Direction sits alongside wider changes to planning decision-making and call-in arrangements, including separate consultation proposals relating to large commercial development and other categories of development.

Legislative Background

The new referral requirement has three main components: Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, as amended in 2026; and the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2026.

Section 77 is the Secretary of State’s existing call-in power. It allows the Secretary of State to take over determination of a planning application from the local planning authority. The new rules do not create that power, but they do give the Secretary of State an automatic opportunity to consider using it before an LPA refuses certain large housing schemes. Unless the application is called in, the LPA remains the decision-maker.

The 2015 Development Management Procedure Order sets the procedural rules for planning applications, including consultation requirements. Article 18 deals with cases where an LPA must consult another body before making a decision. The 2026 Amendment Order, which came into force on 26^th March 2026, amended article 18(5) so that consultation requirements can apply before an application is determined, rather than only before permission is granted. This enables consultation directions to apply where an LPA is minded to refuse an application.

The new consultation requirement itself is contained in the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2026, published on 31 March 2026. This is the document that requires LPAs to consult the Secretary of State before refusing qualifying applications for 150 or more homes.

London Applications

There is a specific provision for Greater London. Where the Mayor of London’s consultation regime applies, consultation with the Secretary of State is only required where the Mayor’s Order does not prevent, or no longer prevents, the LPA from determining the application, or where the Mayor has directed the authority to refuse it.

Implications for Developers and Landowners

For applicants promoting schemes of 150 homes or more, the Direction creates an additional safeguard before refusal. It may make LPAs more cautious about refusing large housing schemes without robust and defensible reasons, particularly where a proposal would make a meaningful contribution to housing supply.

However, the change should not be viewed as a substitute for a strong planning case. The Secretary of State is not required to call in every referred application, and the LPA may still refuse the application if it is not called in.

Applicants should therefore continue to ensure that applications are supported by robust technical evidence, a clear approach to planning balance, and a strong response to any likely reasons for refusal. The proposed reasons for refusal sent to the Secretary of State may become central to whether call-in is considered appropriate.

A call-in will usually result in a public inquiry. Following the examination, the Inspector prepares a report and recommendation, but the final decision rests with the Secretary of State, who may grant or refuse planning permission.

The Secretary of State has called in a number of planning applications since the direction took effect including:

• 300 homes in the Green Belt in Uttlesford – public inquiry
• 180 homes in the Green Belt in Uttlesford –public inquiry
• 180 homes in Forest of Dean – procedure to be advised
• 234 dwellings in Guildford – public inquiry
• Up to 150 dwellings in Gravesham – public inquiry

Anecdotal evidence from recent committee meetings indicates that when officers have advised members of the need to refer planning applications for 150+ dwellings to the Secretary of State at, further consideration has been given to whether members wished to pursue refusal of the application, with applications then being approved.

Key Practical Points

For clients promoting larger residential schemes, the main points are:

• The rule applies to applications including 150 or more dwellings.
• It applies to qualifying applications not determined before 11^th May 2026.
• An LPA minded to refuse must first consult the Secretary of State.
• The LPA must wait at least 21 days before determining the application.
• Referral does not guarantee call-in or approval. It gives Ministers the opportunity to consider whether to intervene.
• Applicants should be ready to make the case for why any proposed refusal raises issues of more than local importance, particularly where the scheme would materially assist housing delivery.
• Applications should be robust and ensure that all potential issues have been covered, including responding to issues raised by consultees

Conclusion

The new Direction is a significant procedural change for large residential planning applications. It does not remove local decision-making, but introduces a new layer of central government oversight where an LPA is minded to refuse a scheme of 150 homes or more.

For developers, landowners and promoters, this may provide a useful route to further scrutiny before a refusal is issued. It may also influence committee strategy, officer engagement and the preparation of late-stage representations where refusal appears likely.

The key message is that applicants should not wait until committee to address the issue. For any scheme at or above the 150-home threshold, the application should be prepared from the outset on the basis that, if refusal is recommended or members wish to refuse against officer recommendation, the application together with any proposed reasons for refusal may be reviewed by the Secretary of State before a decision is issued.

Suzanne Bangert
Technical Director
BA(Hons) MPhil MRTPI

Britain’s infrastructure debate usually focuses on rail, housing and energy. Yet one of the UK’s biggest delivery challenges is far less visible: how to build the waste infrastructure needed to support growth, regeneration and decarbonisation.

The lesson from Teesside is that infrastructure delivery is often won or lost long before a planning application reaches committee. Too often, major schemes enter the planning system carrying unresolved questions about location, political backing, procurement strategy and long-term purpose. That uncertainty increases delivery risk, slows investment decisions and creates fertile ground for opposition.

The £2bn Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility (TVERF) offers a timely example of a different approach.

The public-private partnership (PPP) between seven north-east councils and Viridor will see a major energy-from-waste facility built on the former British Steel works at Grangetown, within the wider Teesworks regeneration zone. Once operational, the facility is expected to process around 450,000 tonnes of waste each year and generate 49MW of electricity for the national grid.

Yet the significance of TVERF extends beyond waste management. It demonstrates how infrastructure projects can move more effectively from concept to delivery with more certainty from the outset, within the additional context of a PPP process.

Why the site matters

Unusually, the local authorities identified a suitable site and secured outline planning consent in 2020, well before contractor procurement was completed, with financial close announced in 2026 and operations expected to begin in 2030. The result was a clearer delivery pathway and greater confidence for investors and delivery partners.

What makes Teesside particularly noteworthy is the role site selection played in shaping its prospects. The councils put forward previously developed industrial land within an established manufacturing and energy cluster, already benefitting from strategic road access, grid connectivity and a policy context that recognised the role of industrial infrastructure in wider regeneration.

For planners and environmental specialists, TVERF is a reminder that deliverability is not only a technical question. It is shaped by land strategy, environmental evidence, political confidence and the ability to maintain a coherent case for investment over many years.

Planning as a delivery tool

Planning remains one of the UK’s most important infrastructure enablers, yet it is often viewed primarily through a regulatory lens.

TVERF proves the value of a more strategic approach. By securing outline consent early, the discussion could focus on delivery, design and implementation rather than the principle of development itself.

Waste and energy infrastructure remains politically sensitive, with concerns around emissions, visual impact and health requiring careful consideration. This controversiality is unlikely to disappear. However, projects are more likely to progress when communities and decision-makers understand how infrastructure supports wider economic and environmental objectives.

Teesside also highlights the importance of consistency. Major infrastructure projects rarely align neatly with electoral cycles, funding or policy changes. Maintaining a stable strategic direction over time can be just as important as securing planning consent in the first place.

The role of partnership

TVERF reflects the continuing importance of public and private sector collaboration.

Many local authorities no longer have the capacity required to deliver large-scale infrastructure independently. In this case, Viridor brought operational capability and commercial experience, while the public sector provided strategic leadership, democratic accountability and coordination across multiple authorities. Neither side could have delivered the project as effectively on its own.

Lessons for the next generation of infrastructure

The wider lesson for government is not just planning reform. It is that infrastructure delivery works best when planning policy, site strategy and delivery models are considered together.

Three key practical learnings can be used:

• Councils warn of ‘growing gap’ between data centres and infrastructure delivery
• A chief inspector calls

Identify strategic infrastructure sites before procurement begins. Early site selection can reduce delivery risk, improving confidence and engagement.

Align planning policy with regeneration objectives and delivery strategies, especially key for industrial regions pursuing decarbonisation and growth.

Resource local planning authorities to act as delivery partners, as well as regulators. Many councils possess deep local knowledge but face significant capacity constraints when supporting complex infrastructure programmes.

From exception to expectation

If the UK is serious about accelerating infrastructure delivery while meeting net zero and growth ambitions, it cannot rely on projects succeeding without land strategy, procurement, political leadership and environmental evidence being treated as part of the same delivery process.

Planning has a role that extends beyond regulating development once proposals emerge – it can help shape delivery from the beginning.

As government looks to unlock the next generation of industrial infrastructure, that may be the most important lesson of all.

Paul Rogers, Technical Director at tor&co

When IMI announced plans for a new 105,000 square foot facility in Poole, the focus wasn’t really on a building, says Nigel Pugsley. It was on the 240 highly skilled engineering jobs at a company that has been part of the town for more than 60 years.

Without the right planning framework and enough employment land, those jobs would have been lost overseas. Instead, IMI is expanding close to its existing site, keeping investment and expertise local.

Yet too often developments like this are treated as secondary to housing. Employment land is squeezed as councils try to identify more sites for new homes. Industrial space is discussed only after housing allocations have already been made. By then, the debate is framed around what can be sacrificed.

That is a mistake.

Homes do not function in isolation. Communities need jobs, services, supply chains, deliveries and the businesses that keep local economies moving. They need logistics.

With debates on the UK Gigafactory Commission report Britain’s Battery Future and decarbonising data centres having taken place in Parliament recently, if the UK is serious about securing large-scale industrial investment, planning and grid systems must be ready in advance. Without them, those opportunities will simply go elsewhere. Logistics, energy capacity and industrial land are not secondary considerations. They are preconditions of delivery.

A permanent shift

Every new housing development creates its own need for parcel deliveries, construction materials, food distribution, servicing, maintenance and local employment. Britain delivered 4.2 billion parcels in 2024-25, four per cent more than during the pandemic peak of 2020-21. Last-mile van traffic reached 58.5 billion miles across Great Britain in 2024.

“The reality is that homes and logistics are inseparable“

Those figures are not temporary aftershocks from the pandemic. They are evidence of a permanent shift in how people live, work and consume.

The reality is that homes and logistics are inseparable. New communities generate demand. Effective logistics allow the economy to serve it. If local plans continue to approve housing without planning for the logistics facilities that support it, deliveries will simply travel further. That means more congestion, more emissions and more pressure on local roads.

The result is not less logistics. It is worse logistics.

A false choice

London offers a warning. The Greater London Authority has acknowledged that industrial land supply in the capital fell by 18 per cent between 2001 and 2020, largely to make way for housing. That may have delivered more homes, but it also intensified pressure on the remaining industrial sites and forced logistics activity into more distant locations.

How often is that same trade-off now being repeated elsewhere? Industrial land versus housing. Jobs versus homes. Warehouses versus communities.

It is a false choice.

The most successful places are those that plan for both. They recognise that employment space is not an obstacle to growth but a vital part of it, particularly as the UK seeks to position itself competitively in advanced manufacturing and energy-intensive industries.

Industrial and logistics development is not just about sheds and storage. It is about jobs, investment, resilience and the practical infrastructure that allows communities and the national economy to function.

National policy alone is not enough

The planning system is beginning to catch up. The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) introduces the first freight and logistics-specific national policy, explicitly seeking to reduce the planning risks that have limited confidence and investment in the sector. It also proposes giving greater weight to the economic benefits of commercial and industrial development in planning decisions.

That is welcome, but national policy alone is not enough.

As highlighted in recent parliamentary debate, ambition alone will not secure investment. Gigafactories, advanced manufacturing and supply chain resilience all depend on whether sites are deliverable, whether grid connections, land allocations and planning frameworks are ready when investors need them.

The IMI project succeeded because those conditions existed. The company had the confidence that there was land available, that the planning framework supported expansion and that the site could be delivered in time to support future growth. This is where the role of experienced delivery partners becomes critical, bringing forward the sites, infrastructure and logistics capacity that underpin both housing and industrial growth.

“Ambition alone will not secure investment“

Local plans, spatial strategies and political decision-makers need to stop treating logistics as an afterthought. Too often, industrial land is only discussed once housing allocations have been made and the remaining sites are under pressure. Instead, logistics, along with the infrastructure required for industrial strategy, needs to be recognised at the beginning of the plan-making process.

Author:
Nigel Pugsley
Director
BA(Hons) PGDip MRTPI
nigel.pugsley@torandco.com

There’s been a noticeable shift in how archaeological evaluation is being approached on large-scale solar schemes, and, from both a delivery and technical perspective, it feels like a step in the right direction. From our perspective, this is a much-needed and somewhat overdue corrective and, crucially, has the potential to be relevant in more than just solar schemes.

In a welcome turn of events for practitioners and clients, the recently published CIfA guidance, ‘Archaeology and Solar Farms: Good Practice Guide’, clearly and unambiguously advocates for a more iterative, evidence-based approach to trial trenching. We have experienced a marked increase in county archaeologists requiring pre-determination evaluation over the last few years, and so much of this reflects the challenges we regularly see, particularly around proportionality, programme pressure, and cost.

At its core, the guidance acknowledges something that is often overlooked: the below-ground impact of solar development is not uniform. While elements such as substations, cable routes, and drainage works can have a significant footprint, panel arrays are typically low-impact and relatively dispersed.

So, it raises a simple but important question:
Should we be applying the same level of archaeological investigation across an entire site?

The answer, increasingly, appears to be no.

Instead, this new professional guidance demonstrates a clear push toward targeted, evidence-led evaluation, using non-intrusive techniques like geophysics to guide where (and whether) intrusive works are actually needed. Trial trenching, in this context, becomes a tool to answer specific questions, rather than a blanket requirement.

From a commercial perspective, this is significant. Large-scale, untargeted trenching:

• can introduce unnecessary cost
• create programme risk at a critical stage
• and, in some cases, provide limited additional value

Which leads to a practical consideration:
Are we designing evaluation strategies that genuinely inform decision-making, or simply following a standard process?

There is also increasing recognition that trial trenching itself is not without impact. In some cases, it can result in greater ground disturbance than the development it is assessing.

That brings in a wider point:
How do we balance archaeological investigation with the sustainability objectives that underpin many solar schemes?

If developments are being promoted on environmental grounds, it seems reasonable that the approach to enabling works should reflect that.

One of the more pragmatic aspects of the guidance is its support for post-determination approaches, where appropriate. Securing archaeological work by condition allows for:

• earlier planning decisions
• reduced upfront cost exposure
• and more flexibility to target mitigation once impacts are clearly defined

From our experience, this can be a more efficient route, provided there is early and constructive engagement with the county archaeologist.

That said, it does raise an important question:
How comfortable and confident will stakeholders be in moving away from pre-determination trenching as a default position?

Another area likely to prompt discussion is the suggestion that, in some circumstances, solar arrays could be installed over archaeological remains, particularly where their significance is low and future understanding wouldn’t be compromised.

This challenges a long-standing assumption around preservation in situ and opens up a more nuanced conversation:
Is there scope for a more flexible approach, particularly for lower significance assets?

A practical shift

From our perspective, this guidance does not introduce a radical new methodology – indeed, perhaps it reflects the approach that was always intended by policy – but it does help articulate a more balanced approach that many in the sector are already working towards.

It reinforces the idea that archaeological mitigation should be:

• proportionate
• evidence-led
• and aligned with actual development impact

For clients, this presents an opportunity to:

• reduce unnecessary upfront costs
• improve programme certainty
• and ensure that archaeological work is targeted where it adds genuine value

It will be interesting to see how this guidance is applied in practice by county and local authority archaeologists, now that it has been formally published. It provides a strong framework for a more balanced and commercially realistic approach, and should help support more consistent and effective discussions between developers, consultants and local authority archaeologists. 

As a final thought, as archaeological consultants, we can see the potential value in extending this pragmatic approach to other development sectors where archaeology is affected, and we shall certainly be continuing to advocate for this pragmatism across sectors for our clients.

For further advice on the new CIfA guidance, please contact tor&co.
enquiries@torandco.com

Dervla Rooney BA MCIfA
Associate Director
Heritage

The government has announced a significant package of updates to Biodiversity Net Gain, following its 2025 consultation. The direction of travel for BNG is a simpler system, with fewer burdens on smaller sites, and off-site delivery becoming a more practical and accepted route.

Overall, the changes are positive, particularly for those with interests in smaller sites.

What’s changing? 

At a high level, the reforms seek to expand exemptions for smaller and low-impact development, to make it easier to deliver BNG off-site, and to streamline parts of the metric.

The headline change is a new area-based exemption for sites of 0.2 hectares or less. This is expected to remove around half of previously eligible residential schemes from BNG requirements. Importantly, this isn’t just an extension of the existing de minimis rules; it’s a separate exemption. 

Alongside this, the self-build and custom-build exemption will be removed, meaning most of these smaller schemes will now fall within the new 0.2ha threshold.

The de minimis exemption remains unchanged for now. However, the government has signalled that further adjustments may follow, including a potential low-impact exemption for certain larger sites with limited biodiversity effects. 

The intention is to reduce the disproportionate costs and administrative burden on small sites, while allowing LPAs to focus resources on larger schemes where greater biodiversity gains can be achieved.

Additional exemptions coming forward 

Additional targeted exemptions will be introduced, including for temporary permissions (<5 years), biodiversity-led development, and improvements to parks, playing fields and public gardens where no priority habitats are affected.

A shift in how BNG is delivered

Significantly, the biodiversity gain hierarchy will be amended so that off-site biodiversity gains sit on an equal footing with on-site delivery, rather than a fallback option. Statutory credits will continue to sit firmly as the last resort.

In practical terms, this should make it easier to rely on off-site solutions where on-site delivery is constrained or inefficient, and reduce the need for complex negotiations over marginal on-site gains.

To support this shift, the government is also changing how the spatial risk multiplier works. Instead of being based on local planning authority boundaries, it will now operate at the level of Local Nature Recovery Strategy areas. This expands the geography for sourcing off-site units, improving flexibility while still keeping delivery broadly local.

Changes to the metric 

Alongside policy changes, there is a clear push to simplify the technical operation of BNG.

This includes moving towards a digital metric tool, simplifying certain assessment processes, and making river condition assessments more proportionate. Work is also ongoing to improve how brownfield sites and open mosaic habitats are treated, including clearer definitions and the potential introduction of a new urban habitat category.

When will this happen?

For now, nothing has changed. The government is taking a phased approach, with the first reforms expected to come through relatively soon. 

Defra has said it plans to introduce secondary legislation before the summer recess in 2026, with the aim of bringing the initial changes into force before 31 July 2026.

These first changes will include the new 0.2-hectare exemption, removal of the self and custom build exemption, exemptions for temporary permissions, and updates to the biodiversity gain hierarchy for minor development.

A second wave is expected later in 2026. This is likely to cover the additional exemptions discussed above, and possibly further changes, such as tweaks to the de minimis threshold or a targeted exemption for residential brownfield schemes, depending on how the consultation lands.

Updated guidance, forms and templates will follow, along with advice on how to deal with schemes caught in the transition.

Taken together, these changes point to a more flexible and proportionate BNG regime. For developers, that should mean fewer constraints on smaller sites and more realistic delivery options where on-site provision is limited.

That said, much will depend on how the detail is implemented, particularly around exemptions and the evolving role of off-site delivery.

For further advice on Biodiversity Net Gain, please contact tor&co.
enquiries@torandco.com

Emily Comber MRTPI
Senior Planner

Last week, we were delighted to host our latest tor&conversation in Bristol with Sir Michael Lyons, Chair of the New Towns Taskforce. Sir Michael also chairs the English Cities Fund and SQW, drawing on a distinguished public service career including 17 years leading major local authorities and serving as Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council (1994–2001). He was awarded a knighthood in 2001 for services to local government.

Below is a summary of the key insights:

Strong government commitment

• The government’s detailed response to the Taskforce’s 44 recommendations is still awaited
• Of the 12 potential locations identified for new towns, seven are progressing to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) consultation
• The remaining five locations have not been ruled out but may be explored through alternative approaches
  

New towns are long-term programmes

• New towns are 30-year development programmes, not short-term solutions
• Successful delivery requires careful planning, sustained infrastructure investment, and strong long-term stewardship arrangements
  

Lessons from previous new towns

• Earlier new towns had notable shortcomings, including:
• Poor location choices
• Car-dependent urban design
• Weak community planning
• Limited long-term stewardship

Despite these shortcomings, the 32 post-war new towns now house around 2.8 million people, representing a major contribution to Britain’s housing supply. Examples include Milton Keynes, now the third-fastest growing city in the UK, with a population of around 300,000, exceeding its original projections.

Housing shortages and economic impact

• The UK’s failure to build enough homes has a significant economic
  and social consequences:
• Businesses struggle to recruit due to housing shortages
  and affordability pressures
• Housing constraints affect educational attainment and
  skills development
• Poor housing availability contributes to worse health outcomes and increased pressure on the NHS
• Delayed household formation is increasingly common

Research cited from Brunel University’s economic audit of the West of England highlights that the region is a potential economic powerhouse but is significantly constrained by housing shortages and inequality in housing access across income groups.

A broader response to the housing crisis

New towns alone cannot solve the housing crisis

“We need the whole orchestra playing if we’re going to solve housing pressures in this country.” – Sir Michael Lyons

• A wider variety of development scales 
• A more diverse development sector
• Expanding rented housing and a wider mix of tenures
• Effective partnerships between local authorities, landowners
  and developers
  

New towns beyond greenfield development

New towns should not be interpreted narrowly as greenfield settlements. Regeneration-led approaches and urban extensions also have a place.

Place-making and long-term stewardship

The Taskforce has developed place-making principles through national consultation, with particular emphasis on long-term stewardship. 

The King’s Cross redevelopment was highlighted as a leading example, where stewardship structures were embedded from the outset to ensure enduring community benefit.

The value of new town designation

• Designation as a new town brings substantial benefits, including:
• Accelerated infrastructure delivery
• Greater cross-government coordination
• Increased investor confidence
• The designation should not be awarded lightly and should require strong commitments from landowners and developers.
  

The role of development corporations

• Act as dedicated delivery vehicles for new towns,
  providing governance, oversight, and expertise to coordinate complex projects
• Enable long-term planning and stewardship, maintaining community vision and standards over decades
• Facilitate risk-sharing between public and private partners, helping unlock challenging sites and support diverse housing delivery
• Provide the scale and authority to implement innovative funding and development approaches, ensuring new towns are delivered efficiently and sustainably
  

Regional perspective: West of England

Our tor&conversation concluded with reflections from John Wilkinson, Director of Place at the West of England Combined Authority, who highlighted major progress across the region:

The West Innovation Arc included among the final seven locations under consideration for new towns

• Appointment of Muse as development partner for the Bristol Temple Quarter regeneration programme
• Planning permission granted for Temple Island, enabling a new community development
• Government allocation of £45 million through the region’s first Brownfield Land Fund
• Inclusion of the region in the Office for Investment’s regional investment framework

The region is preparing a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) aligned with the long-term nature of new town and major development programmes.

John Wilkinson closed with a reminder of how dramatically conditions can shift: average house prices in Bristol were around £44,000 thirty years ago.

Harvey Wingfield MRTPI
Associate Director (Planning)

Earlier this month, we hosted our latest tor&conversation in London. With the next London Plan expected to be published this summer, the discussion explored the significant shifts now influencing strategic decision-making for sites, schemes, and portfolios.

Several clear themes emerged that will shape the year ahead:

Good Growth – Quality, Character and Stewardship
The emphasis is increasingly on quality, character, and long-term stewardship.

• High-quality urban design is becoming a baseline expectation, not an optional ambition. Schemes will need to demonstrate strong place identity, local connectivity, and integration with surrounding neighbourhoods.
• Transport-led development remains central. Proximity to stations, bus priority corridors, and active travel networks will play a bigger role in determining the acceptability and density of proposals.
• Civic and social infrastructure must be front-loaded. Schools, health facilities, community spaces, and early-stage mobility solutions will be considered essential components rather than later-phase additions.
• For new towns and major settlements, governance is now a critical consideration. The expectation is for developers and public bodies to outline credible stewardship models, long-term revenue plans, and clear partnerships that support delivery over multiple decades.

Viability, Delivery, and Emerging Funding Tools
With London experiencing viability pressures across many typologies, the conversation highlighted the GLA’s growing interest in mechanisms that can help unblock delivery.

• Innovative public-private funding frameworks are being explored to support infrastructure and de-risk early phases.
• The emergency measures introduced in October 2025 signalled recognition by the GLA that the policy system needs to adapt to unblock housing delivery.
• There is a focus on supporting schemes with clear implementation pathways. Proposals that demonstrate practical deliverability, transparent phasing, and committed partnerships may fare better in discussions with the GLA and boroughs.
• Mixed-use and strategic housing sites continue to be a priority, particularly where evidence of market realism and deliverable infrastructure strategies is clear.

Evidence-Led Green Belt Review and Land Release
While politically sensitive, the conversation acknowledged that London’s growth will require difficult decisions about land supply.

• The GLA is exploring evidence-led opportunities for Green Belt review or selective release, particularly where the value of land is appropriate, the accessibility is strong, or the environmental impact can be offset or enhanced.
• Any changes will be strictly grounded in data, supported by environmental assessments, infrastructure capacity analysis, and clear evidence of unmet housing need.
• Community engagement is essential. Successful land promotion will increasingly depend on early, meaningful dialogue with local stakeholders and a transparent narrative around benefits for existing communities.
• For developers, this represents an opportunity to align site strategies with the emerging direction of travel—but the bar for evidence, sustainability, and community benefits will be high.

Social Value, Inclusion, and Long-Term Outcomes
Development must deliver equitable and inclusive outcomes.

• Social value is now integral, not supplementary. Planning decisions will increasingly consider how schemes promote opportunity, wellbeing, access to services, and community cohesion.
• Beyond Section 106 obligations, there is an emphasis on genuine commitments to local jobs, training pathways, SME involvement, and accessible public spaces.
• Long-term stewardship and management models are rising on the agenda, reflecting a wider shift towards ensuring schemes remain high-quality and well-maintained in perpetuity.
• Developers will be expected to demonstrate how proposals contribute to inclusive economic growth, aligning with London-wide goals for fairness, affordability, and community resilience.

As these policies evolve, balancing high-quality place-making and project viability will be a key challenge. Whether you are reviewing your current portfolio or identifying new strategic sites, we are here to help align your projects with these emerging GLA priorities.

enquiries@torandco.com

Our latest publication, Elevating Education, showcases how tor&co has been reimagining higher education estates for the future, shaping campuses that inspire and thrive.

Please download the Higher Education Brochure Here

The West of England is a powerhouse of talent, innovation, and export strength. Yet, as recent analysis by the Brunel Centre (The Strategic Audit of the West of England, March 2026) shows, its potential is constrained by structural challenges – housing affordability, congested transport, uneven SME support, and environmental pressures. These are not abstract issues – they are central planning challenges shaping the region’s economic and social future.

For town planners, the implications are clear: delivering inclusive and sustainable growth requires coordinated, place-based interventions. Strategic planning can unlock housing supply in the right locations, integrate transport and digital connectivity to support labour mobility, and create the conditions for SMEs and emerging sectors to thrive across the region.

Key priorities emerge from the analysis:

• Housing and community planning: Address affordability pressures through well-designed, mixed-tenure developments that enhance liveability and long-term resilience.
• Infrastructure and connectivity: Alleviate congestion and improve mobility through integrated transport planning that links homes, jobs, and skills hubs.
• Skills and local employment: Align development with economic opportunities to tackle underemployment and support sustainable workforce pathways.
• Environmental resilience: Embed climate action, biodiversity, and net-zero strategies into planning frameworks to protect the region’s natural assets while supporting growth.

The report highlights a critical truth: economic strength alone does not guarantee inclusive growth. Thoughtful, strategic planning – focused on people, place, and environment – is the key to translating the West of England’s strengths into long-term, resilient prosperity.

At tor&co, we see a development sector ready to work closely with the public sector to realise ambitious investment plans. We are optimistic that the Combined Authority’s forthcoming spatial development plan will provide the strategic framework needed to coordinate growth across local authority boundaries and address Bristol’s pressing development needs. Our Bristol team is committed to supporting these efforts, helping to turn planning strategies into practical, sustainable outcomes for the region.

A new procedure for preparing local development plans

Government believes that the local plan preparation process is taking far too long and is introducing a new local plan making process to come into force this month.

Under transitional arrangements, those draft local plans at an advanced stage can continue to proceed under the old ‘legacy system’, provided they are submitted for examination by 31 December 2026. The new and old systems will operate together until the end of this year.

Those not proceeding under the legacy system, must begin
plan-making under the new system as soon as possible to get
an ambitious and up-to-date plan in place.

Government guidance is underpinned by the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026, that come into force on 25 March 2026. The Government’s expectation is that:

• New style local plans will be adopted within 30 months of starting the process.
• Local planning authorities must begin the formal preparation of a new local plan within 5 years of adopting their previous local plan
• Failure to make progress within the 30-month period, risks direct Government intervention to accelerate the process.
• 39 named planning authorities must start their plan making by
  June 2026.

The new process comprises the following steps:

• Publish a local plan timetable to be kept up to date
• Notice of intent to commence local plan preparation giving stakeholders advance notice that plan making is starting
• Scoping consultation as to what the plan should contain and
  how future engagement should be carried out
• Gateway 1: self-assessment of readiness for local plan
  preparation confirming an authority’s ‘readiness’ and starting
  the 30-month period.
• Consultation on the proposed local plan content and evidence with a minimum 6-week consultation period.
• Gateway 2: observations or advice from an appointed person for England the Planning Inspectorate will provide observations and advice on matters of soundness and progress made towards meeting the prescribed regulatory requirements.
• Consultation on the proposed local plan with a minimum 8-week
  consultation period.
• Gateway 3: prescribed requirements assessment by an appointed person with further observations and advice from PINS to determine if the prescribed regulatory requirements are met. If not, this stage must be repeated.
• Examination if gateway 3 is passed to test soundness in context of the NPPF tests.
• Adoption as soon as possible. 

Authorities not submitting under the legacy system, or required to start early must:

• Give notice of their intent to start plan making by 31 December 2026, or by the time an adopted plan is 4 years and 8 months old, whichever is the latest.
• Publish their Gateway 1 self-assessments by 30 April 2027, or by the time the adopted plan is 5 years old, whichever is the latest. These are long stop dates for new plan making.

In summary, whilst there are some similarities with Regulation 18 and 19 stages, the introduction of two new PINS review stages before examination heralds a far more robust approach. 

This may avoid examination time being spent on local plans that have fundamental failings and ultimately must be withdrawn. By identifying local plans that are failing to meet regulatory requirements early, action can be taken to ensure they have a greater chance of being found sound. Whilst examiners can pause an examination for further work to be undertaken, this is limited to 6 months. Examiners will not tolerate significant delay to rectify defective plans, and the earlier PINS reviews are intended to mitigate this risk.

Representations can be made at key stages in the process, but stakeholders must be fully alert to the publication of notices and other local plan documents if they are to avoid missing opportunities to engage with the process and affect their outcomes. 

Many local planning authorities will need to engage with the new system quickly but are they suitably resourced to comply? How will local government reorganisation affect this process? Will this new approach speed up plan making as intended, or conversely slow it down, and how much will the Government intervene to police the new plan making system? Attention will now be focused on how this new system beds down in practice.

tor&co would be happy to speak to you if you have any questions about the new system and how best to engage with it.

enquiries@torandco.com