The Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament is already reshaping the planning landscape. An updated National Planning Policy Framework, a new plan making system and the effective reintroduction of regional tier planning, all signal a decisive shift in how growth will be planned and delivered.
The sector is familiar with these changes. We spoke with Associate Planner Andrew Johnson, who shared his perspective on a shift that is less obvious but could have a greater impact: the deep reorganisation of local government.
Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) sits beneath the headline planning reforms, but its implications for the planning and development sector are profound. Still in the early stages of implementation, LGR represents a structural reset that will redefine how local planning functions operate, how decisions are made, and how promoters and developers engage with the public sector for years to come.
Handled well, LGR presents a significant opportunity. Handled poorly, it risks short term paralysis and prolonged uncertainty at precisely the moment the system is under pressure to deliver more.
What is Local Government Reorganisation – and why now?
In December 2024, the Government published the English Devolution White Paper, setting out plans to “widen and deepen devolution” across England. Central to this was a commitment to universal coverage of Strategic Authorities, often supported by mayors, alongside a programme of Local Government Reorganisation.
In practical terms, this means the merging of existing district and county councils into new unitary authorities, typically serving populations of around 500,000 or more. The stated drivers are improved efficiency, clearer accountability and a response to what Government has characterised as long term decline and underperformance within parts of the local government system.
By February 2025, councils in two tier areas (and some smaller neighbouring unitary authorities) were formally invited to submit proposals. All did so, and the Government has framed this as evidence of a “groundswell consensus” that change is both overdue and necessary.
While statutory consultation and detailed implementation are still ongoing, the direction of travel is clear: new unitary councils are expected to be operational by April 2028.
For the planning sector, that timeline matters.
The opportunity: Fewer plans, bigger thinking
The move from a two-tier system to larger unitary and strategic authorities will fundamentally change how planning, infrastructure and economic development functions interact.
At its best, LGR offers the prospect of genuinely integrated planning across much larger and more coherent geographies. Strategic Development Strategies (SDS) will reintroduce a regional lens, providing a framework within which Local Plans can operate without becoming mired in cross boundary politics.
In theory, this should allow Local Plans to focus on what they are meant to do best: allocating land and enabling delivery, rather than expending years navigating strategic disputes between neighbouring authorities.
There are practical benefits too. Fewer Local Plans, covering wider areas, should mean consolidated evidence bases, reduced duplication of effort and a more efficient use of increasingly scarce local authority resources. In some parts of the country, councils have already tested this approach through aligned or joint plans based on housing market areas, with demonstrable benefits in speed and coverage.
LGR takes this a step further by simplifying the political dimension. With fewer elected members responsible for much broader geographies, there is greater scope to distribute growth more evenly, reducing the sense that individual communities are being disproportionately “done to” by the planning system. That shift in optics should not be underestimated.
For promoters and developers, engagement could also become more streamlined. A single authority, operating at a near sub‑regional scale, opens the potential for more strategic relationships, where multiple sites and delivery trajectories can be considered collectively rather than in isolation.
Similarly, many schemes that were previously “cross boundary” by default will now sit within a single administrative area, simplifying the planning application process for strategic scale development.
The challenge: Transition, uncertainty and capacity
For all its long-term promise, LGR carries very real short to medium term risks.
Local government capacity is already stretched, and reorganisation is resource intensive. The work does not stop at vesting day. Aggregating district functions, disaggregating county responsibilities and harmonising services across new geographies is complex and time consuming, particularly for planning.
During this transition, there is a genuine risk of decision-making paralysis. Officers and elected members may be reluctant to commit to long term programmes under existing structures, while politically sensitive planning decisions could be deferred in the runup to new elections.
Even where up to date Local Plans are in place, LGR introduces a period of policy uncertainty. Reconciling different, and sometimes conflicting, local plan policies into a single unitary framework, while also responding to emerging Strategic Development Strategies, will be challenging. For the development sector, navigating this moving target will require care, patience and proactive engagement.
There is also a human dimension. While LGR should, in time, allow authorities to pool resources and invest in specialist skills, the short term impact may exacerbate already difficult recruitment and retention challenges. In real terms, promoters are likely to be competing for attention from fewer local government planners providing coverage over larger areas, at least initially.
What this means for the sector
The planning system rarely experiences moments of genuine structural change. LGR is one of them.
For those operating in the planning and development sector, the key will be anticipation and adaptation. Longer lead in times, earlier engagement with local planning authorities and a willingness to support evidence base work collaboratively will become increasingly important.
Equally, there will be opportunity. As authorities seek to progress plans ahead of reorganisation, and then to merge them post LGR, demand for strategic planning expertise is likely to increase. The scale may change, but the complexity will not diminish.
Ultimately, Local Government Reorganisation is neither a panacea nor a problem to be endured. It is a reset. If aligned with wider planning reform and resourced appropriately, it has the potential to deliver a more strategic, coherent and deliverable planning system.
The challenge for all of us working within it is to help ensure that the opportunity outweighs the uncertainty.