Planning is always a sensitive issue. We need more houses, and economic growth calls for more industrial and commercial development. And we need these things quickly, but most of us hope it will all happen somewhere else. And the objections of the people who live in the affected areas will always be louder than the voices of the, as yet unidentified, people who will live in new houses or work in new businesses.
Ministers know that anything which relaxes planning restrictions will be unpopular, but so far, they seem determined to grasp the nettle. They believe that the current system allows local decision- making to complicate and delay major strategic developments, and allows local decisions to be taken without consideration of the implications for neighbouring areas. The result is a slow, incoherent and expensive planning process. To tackle this, they have passed two major planning Acts, revised the national Strategic Planning Framework, and are reorganising local government, with the creation of directly elected mayors.
This is a major, and complex, set of changes. So, what is happening?
Planning and Infrastructure Act
The Planning and Infrastructure Act was passed in December 2025, and is now being phased in. It:
- restricts legal challenges to government decisions on major infrastructure projects.
- modernises planning committees to focus on the most significant developments.
- creates a new Nature Restoration Fund to allow developers to move faster on housing and infrastructure projects, while giving Natural England more resources to restore natural habitats and wildlife.
- creates powers for development corporations to speed up delivery of large-scale projects, including the next generation of new towns, with more affordable homes and public transport.
- simplifies the approval process for new EV chargers on public roads.
- enables electricity bill discounts for communities hosting new pylons and transmission infrastructure.
- makes it easier to acquire land for new homes, GP surgeries, and schools.
- streamlines approvals for reservoirs and transport schemes
Creating Strategic Planning Authorities
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, passed in April 2026, creates a new set of sub-regional Strategic Planning Authorities (SPA), which will cover all of England by 2028. Each Strategic Authority must produce:
- the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS), laying down a vision for the future of its area,
- a Local Growth Plan, aligning housing, employment, infrastructure and environmental objectives.
The Act provides for the creation of directly elected mayors, who will have planning powers over major issues in SPA areas. The table shows the SPAs in the Eastern Region, and who will exercise these powers.
| Area | Strategic Planning Authority | Strategic planning powers |
| Cambridgeshire & Peterborough | Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority | Mayor already in place |
| Norfolk & Suffolk | Norfolk & Suffolk Combined County Authority | Mayor to be elected in 2028 |
| Greater Essex | Greater Essex Combined County Authority | Mayor to be elected in 2028 |
| Hertfordshire | Hertfordshire County Council | to be confirmed |
| Bedford, Central Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes | Bedford Borough Council; Central Bedfordshire Council; Luton Borough Council; Milton Keynes City Council | Joint Planning Boad |
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework sets the rules which local planning authorities must follow when preparing plans and deciding applications for development. This was revised in August, to:
- take a more positive approach to proposals which deliver more homes and economic development. This presumes approval, rather than the reverse.
- make it easier to approve large scale housing and employment schemes where they align with strategic priorities. This amends guidance on green belt and brownfield land, and infrastructure led growth.
- emphasise that planning should support national and regional growth objectives, including transport, skills, and net-zero targets.
What this means
The effect of these changes will be that:
- Major decisions will be made or influenced at a sub-regional (SPA) level. Although local councils will continue to decide most applications, major, cross boundary, or strategically sensitive schemes will increasingly be shaped by the SDS and mayors.
- Consistency and strategic alignment will matter more. The aim of these changes is to create a more coherent approach to housing, employment, and infrastructure across the East.
- Developers will face a more complex but potentially clearer strategic landscape. There are more layers (NPPF, SDS, mayoral policies, and perhaps Infrastructure Levies), but also clearer routes for strategic schemes to be prioritised and fast tracked where they align with growth and infrastructure plans.
Questions
There is no doubt that there are problems with our planning system, but there are questions about the government strategy.
First, is the diagnosis of the reasons for delay correct? The Local Government Information Unit has argued that local councils are not the only problem. They argue that:
“Our own research, on both decarbonisation and large infrastructure projects, has identified many other blockers that are preventing local ambitions …. from being fully realised. The economic environment, changing national policies, internal skills shortages, political change and the prospect of local government reorganisation, are all slowing down the pace of development, often ending infrastructure projects before they can start. Some of these are within government’s gift to change, all will be equally problematic for mayors.”
If they are right, the government’s changes may not produce the desired speeding up of planning processes, and house building.
Second, will the new model work better than the old one? The government’s Rewiring the State report argues for a devolution of power from central to local government. The Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, has said:
“At the end of the day, it’s local leaders who know best how to realise the full economic potential of their areas. These new powers will help them to do that.”
But the changes outlined here take powers away from local councils, and transfer them to directly elected mayors. Both are democratic, and this model has, perhaps, worked in metropolitan areas like Manchester. Will it also work for Norfolk and Suffolk, or for Greater Essex? The model relies on the ability of mayors to work effectively with leaders of unitary authorities. What will happen if there are real political disagreements, and will central government really be willing to allow mayors to adopt policies which are inconsistent with government policy. The government’s decision to pause the reorganisation of local government means that, in 2028 we may have an elected mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk Strategic Authority working with as many as 14 local councils. That may not be an easy task.
There is still detail to be clarified, and the government has launched a consultation on mayoral powers and how they can be implemented.
Fundamentally, the intention is to make it more difficult for objectors to block development. Sometimes that will be a good thing, sometimes less so. Whether the diagnosis of the problem, and the proposed remedy are right, there is no doubt that we are seeing a major transformation of how planning and local government are to work in future. Whether they are right remains to be seen.
