The return of strategic planning
A further significant step in the Government’s planning reform journey will come in the form of a return of strategic planning. New Strategic Authorities will be formed and additional powers provided to existing Mayoral Authorities, aimed at providing clear direction for matters such as housing numbers, commercial requirements and infrastructure that need to be considered across larger areas than current local planning authority boundaries. These authorities will be charged with delivering overarching policies to support development, including Spatial Development Strategies (SDS), Local Transport Plans and Get Britain Working Plans.
If undertaken positively, this marks a welcome return to planning at the larger-than-local scale and is the key mechanism for coordinating investment and infrastructure priorities alongside unlocking development sites of scale that will be crucial to providing the jobs and homes needed to drive economic growth. Whilst there is much to be welcomed in this level of plan-making, there are still challenges to be overcome. The varied timings of the transition to a strategic system introduce another hurdle for those hoping to bring forward development opportunities. And in some areas, the new proposed Strategic Authority boundaries do not align with infrastructure planning areas, raising the question of how successful this reform will be at aligning requirements for jobs and homes with investment in infrastructure.
The core proposals
The Government launched a consultation in February 2026 on the proposed areas across England where SDSs should be prepared, with the intention of aligning strategic planning boundaries with emerging devolution geographies. The return to strategic planning comes 16 years after the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies in 2010, albeit operating at a smaller geographical scale that aims to better reflect sub-regional economic geography and provide direct political oversight.
SDSs are expected to identify priority growth locations, providing clear direction and momentum for delivery of residential and employment space. However, they will not make specific site allocations, which will remain the preserve of Local Plans. SDS geographies reflect a range of administrative boundaries: some existing devolution areas, some devolution areas that are yet to be defined, and other devolution areas that are part of the priority programme, as shown in Figure 1 below. Greater London already has an SDS in place, in the form of the London Plan, and this has been carried forward in the emerging Government proposals.
The consultation emphasises that meeting England’s housing, economic and infrastructure requirements cannot be achieved through purely localised planning, and that new, more effective mechanisms for cross-boundary planning will be required to support growth at a larger scale.
Based on this analysis, the proposed SDS vary significantly in size, with the level of annual housing need ranging from around 2,400 in Cumbria up to 19,600 in Greater Manchester, and over 80,000 across Greater London. Single areas with high volumes of housing need are not uncommon, and over half of the c.370,000 homes required under the Standard Method are distributed across just eight proposed strategic planning areas.
It is important to note that the Strategic Authorities with the highest housing targets are not necessarily the first to be created and thus form plans, thereby delaying a planning policy framework that reaches the national target.
Transition timelines and consequences for local plans
The Government was clear in the February 2025 NPPF Reform Consultation Outcome that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) should not interrupt plan-making in existing local authorities without an up-to-date plan. However, we have in the past seen local authorities delay plan-making during times of extensive planning policy and organisational change (for example in Dorset, Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire).
Both the process of LGR and the introduction of SDS put at risk the pace of plan-making, particularly in those parts of the country where the geography of SDS has yet to be defined. The impact on developers will depend on the speed at which different geographic areas progress through the reorganisation process, and the interaction between existing up-to-date plans and new SDS. There is a risk that SDS could set policies contrary to current emerging Local Plans, rapidly rendering them out of date.
This uncertainty is further compounded by the varying timescales for LGR. Surrey is the furthest progressed, with elections for the new councils held in May 2026, shadow authorities now in place, and Vesting Day, when the existing 12 local authorities will dissolve to be replaced by two larger councils, set for 1st April 2027. Six further reorganisation areas are progressing under the Devolution Priority Programme, which covers 40 existing local authorities and will likely result in the creation of 15 new larger local authorities operational by 1st April 2028. Consultation outcomes for the remaining two-tier authorities should be announced this summer.
SDSs will be able to apportion the combined housing need of the new strategic authorities across their constituent members. For those seeking to bring forward sites for development, this could prompt consideration of whether it is a better strategy to try to secure a site allocation or consent within the current parameters, or delay to see the impact of a new SDS. This will be particularly relevant in areas where housing targets are redistributed across the newly combined area, for example, where a local authority that currently has a strong land supply position combines with highly constrained areas with high housing need. Sites could see their land supply context changed significantly through this process. In practice, smaller sites or areas which have reduced infrastructure needs, could still come forward via Local Plans (or applications). Those of the greatest complexity would likely benefit from policy provision in a SDS.
Coordinating policy
Alongside delivering housing at scale, strategic planning should be directed at aligning development with investment in transport, energy and other infrastructure, addressing a key weakness of the current system. This would create greater certainty for investment and development by addressing the current risk that development sites will be delayed by a lack of supporting infrastructure, while also improving cross-boundary collaboration and removing conflicting policies.
While this all makes sense in theory, the practice appears much more challenging. In planning for new homes and employment space, each SDS will need to consider the availability of key infrastructure, including energy, transport and water. However, the existing statutory infrastructure planning frameworks for these services do not consistently align with the newly emerging strategic planning boundaries or timescales, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the new system.
Water infrastructure investment, for example, is planned across 128 Water Resource Zones (WRZs), controlled by 20 different water companies, with each one required to deliver a Water Resource Management Plan every five years.
Availability of water is guided by the physical geography of the UK rather than any administrative boundaries. For some areas this works well, with the Cumbria SDS covered almost entirely by United Utilities. Other areas across the country have poorer alignment between areas, with the Surrey SDS covered by four different water companies, and four different Water Resource Management Plans.
Paving the way
Water availability and management is not the only major consideration facing those involved in large-scale development, with projects requiring other key enabling infrastructure in order to progress through planning to delivery.
Two considerations that are key to every large-scale development are the provision of energy and transport connectivity. Like water resource management, both of these key areas are the subject of stand-alone planning processes that set the framework for future investment.
Transport planning in England is delivered through a layered framework. Presently, Local Transport Plans are led by unitary councils or county councils. Outside of this, major schemes are delivered through the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) regime. With major and minor transport schemes operating on different tracks with different decision-makers, there is the distinct risk that the plan-making process for development is not aligned.
The Oxford to Cambridge Arc and associated East West Rail plans are a clear example of this, with the potential for misalignment between the planning process delivering the rail infrastructure and allocations progressing through relevant local plans along the route. The same is true for the Lower Thames Crossing, where land allocated or promoted for development in parts of Thurrock, Gravesham and Dartford now face land safeguarding, reducing their prospects for delivery.
Energy planning has evolved into a similarly tiered and increasingly spatial system. Nationally, Energy National Policy Statements and the emerging Strategic Spatial Energy Plan define system needs and long-term infrastructure requirements. Separately in the hierarchy, there are nine new Regional Energy Strategic Plans (RESPs) in England that will provide a critical regional layer coordinating electricity, gas, heat and wider energy demands. The current timeline for delivery of RESPs is by the end of 2028, thereby creating an overlap with SDS programmes and increased uncertainty.
It remains to be seen how effectively the new strategic planning system can overcome the misalignment in timing and geography of current infrastructure planning. Nevertheless, the new Strategic Authorities and Strategic Development Schemes will at least bring together requirements for development over a larger area, enabling the case to be made for infrastructure investment more effectively. While it is unlikely to provide a short-term fix, in the longer term, strategic planning should underpin a more joined-up approach to delivering jobs, infrastructure and homes.
Case Study: Northstowe, Cambridgeshire
Northstowe is a major new settlement of around 10,000 homes around 10km to the north west of Cambridge. With consent granted in 2012, the first phase of around 1,500 homes is now large built out. The next phase of the site is currently under construction, with Phase 3 anticipated to start over the next two years.
Certain infrastructure considerations were critical to delivering Northstowe. The A14 upgrade between Cambridge and Huntingdon helped generate strong access to local employment centres which were fundamental to the site operating at earlier stages. Alongside this, investment into a planned town centre helped gradually reduce reliance on these wider markets, allowing Northstowe to function as a new town.
Energy and Water availability were much more binding constraints on delivery of the new site. Greater Cambridge is one of the most water-scarce areas in England, and coordination between Anglian Water and Cambridge Water was central to the successful progression on site. Similarly, existing energy networks were insufficient to support the full planned build-out. The site required upgrades to existing utilities alongside phased delivery, and a focus on energy-efficient low-carbon design of homes.
While Northstowe is considered one of the most significant new towns in the UK, delivery has not been without its challenges. Water and environmental constraints and a reliance on wider infrastructure systems have slowed delivery on site below planned build-out rates. While the emergence of strategic planning will be central to delivering the next generation of new towns like Northstowe, coordination across a range of distinct infrastructure planning mechanisms will reduce the overall efficiency of delivery.
To read more of our research, please visit our Housing, Development and Research hub
Read the articles within Spotlight on Planning 2026 below
.jpg)
.jpg)