By Victoria Yeandle, Associate Planner, Lanpro, critically explores the question, “Is Local Government Reorganisation Compatible with the Government’s Housebuilding Targets?’
The government is almost a year into the first year of a five-year Parliament in which it has promised to deliver 1.5 million homes. And despite some very bold initiatives, especially within the planning system, the fact is the housing figures continue to fall: ONS data shows that 153,900 homes were completed in 2024, down 6% on 2023. Of these, just 38,150 were affordable and social housing.
Furthermore, HBF research reveals that delivery of at least 17,432 affordable housing units with detailed planning permission has ground to a halt due to a reduction in the number of registered providers actively bidding for S106 Affordable Homes. This, it says, is as a result of the economic and policy challenges facing the affordable housing sector.
Initiatives to reform local government as laid out in the English Devolution white paper will ultimately help streamline the planning system; yet as those change come into effect there is every likelihood that they will delay, rather than expedite, the planning process.
Already this year we have seen county councils postponing elections to develop reorganisation proposals while others have delayed progress on local plans.
So how should the government reconcile ambitious targets with the mechanics of local democracy and good planning? Specifically, can local government reorganisation – involving both the dissolution and merging of councils, redistribution of responsibilities, and disruption of existing decision-making structures – realistically support, or even coexist with, the priority to streamline housing delivery?
There’s a concern that reorganisation could act as a handbrake on housebuilding at precisely the moment we need acceleration. Planning, by its nature, requires a degree of local clarity and institutional continuity; in reorganising local government, this continuity is disrupted.
This is of particular concern because one of the first casualties of change 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 that doesn’t reflect its new boundaries, responsibilities or political priorities, but it will invariably cause delay. Currently, according to government figures, fewer than a third of local 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, reorganisation creates significant 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 becomes difficult. Second, the public — already sceptical of opaque planning systems — may lose faith entirely. It’s hard to argue that a streamlined process is in play when committee structures are in flux and councillors 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 planning authorities may benefit from 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-office systems could reduce friction 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 longer futuristic — they are being trialled and implemented now. In the right governance environment, these innovations could shave months off development timelines.
But while digital transformation and efficiency offers some practical answers, it cannot substitute for local knowledge and democratic accountability. The danger lies in viewing streamlining as synonymous with centralisation. A move toward larger planning areas — or even regional planning — risks sidelining local voices. Planning must be responsive to local need, which is why maintaining consultation, evidence-gathering and deliberation is essential, even if it takes time.
So how can government both reform 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 to ensure continuity. Second, planning 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 additional planning officers across the country feels like it barely scratches the surface. Third, regional and sub-regional structures — where used — must retain 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 framework that enjoys public confidence.
Clearly there’s a paradox at the heart of this debate. To achieve more homes, faster, we need a well-resourced, efficient planning system. Yet reorganising local government — while it may promise efficiency gains — 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.
Comments