The government is over a year into a five-year Parliament in which it has promised to deliver 1.5m 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.

Initiatives to reform local government as laid out in the English Devolution white paper will ultimately help streamline the planning system; yet as those changes 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 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, streamlining housing delivery?

There’s a concern that reorganisation could act as a handbrake on housebuilding at the precise 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.