search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
39


in reorganising local government, this continuity is disrupted. This is of particular concern because  may be the local plan. Newly formed authorities may opt to abandon adopted or emerging plans in favour of developing a new, overarching strategy. This is understandable as no authority wants to proceed with a plan  responsibilities or political priorities, but it will invariably cause delay. Currently, according to government  planning authorities have an up-to-date local plan. A further round of abandoned or postponed plan-making only extends the policy vacuum, contributing to delay and uncertainty in the system. Without up-to-date plans, speculative applications increase, and not necessarily in locations where Councils are planning for growth. Ultimately, even if planning applications are refused locally, more decision-making will take place at appeal, resulting in communities feeling increasingly disconnected from the process. Beyond the strategic level,


 challenges for development management. New authorities may inherit multiple planning committees, with procedures, interpretations of policy and thresholds for referral. This creates two problems. First,


consistency in decision-making  already sceptical of opaque planning  It’s hard to argue that a streamlined process is in play when committee


 themselves are unsure of their new roles, geographies and demographics. I have no doubt that, in theory,


reorganisation could support faster housebuilding in the long term. Larger  pooled resources, greater technical capacity, and the ability to think strategically across wider geographies. Additionally the use of shared digital platforms, standardised local validation requirements, and integrated back-  in both plan-making and application processing.


Indeed, technology presents real


opportunities. AI-powered tools for site appraisal, automated validation processes, and digital twins that model growth scenarios in real time are no  trialled and implemented now. In the right governance environment, these innovations could shave months off development timelines. But while digital transformation  answers, it cannot substitute for local knowledge and democratic accountability. The danger lies in viewing streamlining as synonymous with centralisation. A move toward   Planning must be responsive to local need, which is why maintaining consultation, evidence-gathering and deliberation is essential, even if it takes time. 


local government and increase housing supply? First, transitional arrangements


for plan-making should be strengthened. Where reorganisations are proposed, authorities should be required to maintain a “holding” policy framework  staff must be protected from the worst effects of transition. Dedicated resources should be allocated to ensure plan teams remain intact and development management functions are adequately staffed. The government’s ambition for an additional 300  country feels like it barely scratches the surface. Third, regional and sub-regional  strong links with localities. The answer to slow planning is not to remove it further from the local context, but to reinforce its legitimacy through better engagement, faster consultation cycles, and clearer, simpler policies. Finally, any move towards digital


transformation must be supported by investment in skills, infrastructure, and leadership. There is enormous potential in new technology, but only if it is implemented within a stable planning  Clearly there’s a paradox at the heart


of this debate. To achieve more homes, faster, we need a well-resourced,    has the potential to throw the planning system into disarray. Unless change is managed with precision and foresight, it will delay the homes that the country so urgently needs.


 WC256





Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44