We recently caught up with partner Angela Brooks, in our strategic planning team, to learn more about her view on what the latest political uncertainty could mean for planning reform, housing delivery and strategic land promotion. Drawing on her experience advising landowners, promoters and developers from the earliest stages of site identification through to land promotion, applications and appeals, she explores why stability, clarity and a genuinely joined-up approach will be critical if national ambitions are to translate into deliverable places on the ground.
The resignation of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has added another layer of uncertainty to an already unsettled planning landscape. For those of us working at the sharp end of strategic planning, the question is not simply who comes next, but whether a change in leadership accelerates reform, delays it, or reshapes it entirely.
Speculation around Andy Burnham as a potential successor is inevitably focusing minds. His record in Greater Manchester points towards a planning and housing agenda shaped by devolution, infrastructure-led growth, regeneration, stronger local powers and a greater emphasis on social and affordable housing.
That may sound familiar to many in the sector. We have spent years talking about the need to align housing, transport, infrastructure, funding and local plan-making. The challenge has always been turning that alignment into delivery, at pace, and at scale.
This matters because the pressure on housing numbers is not going away. Targets are being missed, local plans remain under strain, viability continues to bite, infrastructure capacity is often the limiting factor, and communities are increasingly asking what growth will actually deliver for them.
The immediate question is whether the proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) revisions will still land ahead of the parliamentary summer recess, and, if they do, whether they will provide the certainty needed by local authorities, developers, landowners and communities. A revised framework is important, but policy wording alone will not deliver homes if the wider system remains fragmented.
A Burnham-led approach could place greater weight on strategic planning at the city-region and sub-regional level. That could be a real opportunity: better joined-up decisions on where growth should go, how infrastructure is funded, how brownfield land is unlocked, and how affordable housing is delivered as part of genuinely planned places.
But it also raises difficult questions. Would more local control make delivery easier, or simply move the point of political tension? How would national housing ambitions be reconciled with local accountability? And if strategic authorities are to take on more responsibility, will they also receive the funding, powers and capacity needed to make decisions stick?
For me, the biggest planning challenge in any political transition is not the change of personnel. It is the risk of drift. The sector needs clarity on national policy, confidence in the plan-led system, and a credible route from housing targets to actual delivery on the ground.
The opportunity is equally clear: to move beyond treating planning reform as a technical exercise and start treating it as a delivery framework for homes, infrastructure, economic growth and better places.
So, what should the sector be watching most closely: the final shape of the NPPF, the future of housing targets, the role of strategic authorities, or the ability to fund the infrastructure that makes growth possible?
And perhaps the bigger question is this: if housing delivery remains the test of political credibility, are we ready to have a more honest conversation about what it will actually take to meet the numbers?