The government has announced a significant package of updates to Biodiversity Net Gain, following its 2025 consultation. The direction of travel for BNG is a simpler system, with fewer burdens on smaller sites, and off-site delivery becoming a more practical and accepted route.

Overall, the changes are positive, particularly for those with interests in smaller sites.

What’s changing? 

At a high level, the reforms seek to expand exemptions for smaller and low-impact development, to make it easier to deliver BNG off-site, and to streamline parts of the metric.

The headline change is a new area-based exemption for sites of 0.2 hectares or less. This is expected to remove around half of previously eligible residential schemes from BNG requirements. Importantly, this isn’t just an extension of the existing de minimis rules; it’s a separate exemption. 

Alongside this, the self-build and custom-build exemption will be removed, meaning most of these smaller schemes will now fall within the new 0.2ha threshold.

The de minimis exemption remains unchanged for now. However, the government has signalled that further adjustments may follow, including a potential low-impact exemption for certain larger sites with limited biodiversity effects. 

The intention is to reduce the disproportionate costs and administrative burden on small sites, while allowing LPAs to focus resources on larger schemes where greater biodiversity gains can be achieved.

Additional exemptions coming forward 

Additional targeted exemptions will be introduced, including for temporary permissions (<5 years), biodiversity-led development, and improvements to parks, playing fields and public gardens where no priority habitats are affected.

A shift in how BNG is delivered

Significantly, the biodiversity gain hierarchy will be amended so that off-site biodiversity gains sit on an equal footing with on-site delivery, rather than a fallback option. Statutory credits will continue to sit firmly as the last resort.

In practical terms, this should make it easier to rely on off-site solutions where on-site delivery is constrained or inefficient, and reduce the need for complex negotiations over marginal on-site gains.

To support this shift, the government is also changing how the spatial risk multiplier works. Instead of being based on local planning authority boundaries, it will now operate at the level of Local Nature Recovery Strategy areas. This expands the geography for sourcing off-site units, improving flexibility while still keeping delivery broadly local.

Changes to the metric 

Alongside policy changes, there is a clear push to simplify the technical operation of BNG.

This includes moving towards a digital metric tool, simplifying certain assessment processes, and making river condition assessments more proportionate. Work is also ongoing to improve how brownfield sites and open mosaic habitats are treated, including clearer definitions and the potential introduction of a new urban habitat category.

When will this happen?

For now, nothing has changed. The government is taking a phased approach, with the first reforms expected to come through relatively soon. 

Defra has said it plans to introduce secondary legislation before the summer recess in 2026, with the aim of bringing the initial changes into force before 31 July 2026.

These first changes will include the new 0.2-hectare exemption, removal of the self and custom build exemption, exemptions for temporary permissions, and updates to the biodiversity gain hierarchy for minor development.

A second wave is expected later in 2026. This is likely to cover the additional exemptions discussed above, and possibly further changes, such as tweaks to the de minimis threshold or a targeted exemption for residential brownfield schemes, depending on how the consultation lands.

Updated guidance, forms and templates will follow, along with advice on how to deal with schemes caught in the transition.

Taken together, these changes point to a more flexible and proportionate BNG regime. For developers, that should mean fewer constraints on smaller sites and more realistic delivery options where on-site provision is limited.

That said, much will depend on how the detail is implemented, particularly around exemptions and the evolving role of off-site delivery.

For further advice on Biodiversity Net Gain, please contact tor&co.
enquiries@torandco.com

Emily Comber MRTPI
Senior Planner

Last week, we were delighted to host our latest tor&conversation in Bristol with Sir Michael Lyons, Chair of the New Towns Taskforce. Sir Michael also chairs the English Cities Fund and SQW, drawing on a distinguished public service career including 17 years leading major local authorities and serving as Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council (1994–2001). He was awarded a knighthood in 2001 for services to local government.

Below is a summary of the key insights:

Strong government commitment

• The government’s detailed response to the Taskforce’s 44 recommendations is still awaited
• Of the 12 potential locations identified for new towns, seven are progressing to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) consultation
• The remaining five locations have not been ruled out but may be explored through alternative approaches
  

New towns are long-term programmes

• New towns are 30-year development programmes, not short-term solutions
• Successful delivery requires careful planning, sustained infrastructure investment, and strong long-term stewardship arrangements
  

Lessons from previous new towns

• Earlier new towns had notable shortcomings, including:
• Poor location choices
• Car-dependent urban design
• Weak community planning
• Limited long-term stewardship

Despite these shortcomings, the 32 post-war new towns now house around 2.8 million people, representing a major contribution to Britain’s housing supply. Examples include Milton Keynes, now the third-fastest growing city in the UK, with a population of around 300,000, exceeding its original projections.

Housing shortages and economic impact

• The UK’s failure to build enough homes has a significant economic
  and social consequences:
• Businesses struggle to recruit due to housing shortages
  and affordability pressures
• Housing constraints affect educational attainment and
  skills development
• Poor housing availability contributes to worse health outcomes and increased pressure on the NHS
• Delayed household formation is increasingly common

Research cited from Brunel University’s economic audit of the West of England highlights that the region is a potential economic powerhouse but is significantly constrained by housing shortages and inequality in housing access across income groups.

A broader response to the housing crisis

New towns alone cannot solve the housing crisis

“We need the whole orchestra playing if we’re going to solve housing pressures in this country.” – Sir Michael Lyons

• A wider variety of development scales 
• A more diverse development sector
• Expanding rented housing and a wider mix of tenures
• Effective partnerships between local authorities, landowners
  and developers
  

New towns beyond greenfield development

New towns should not be interpreted narrowly as greenfield settlements. Regeneration-led approaches and urban extensions also have a place.

Place-making and long-term stewardship

The Taskforce has developed place-making principles through national consultation, with particular emphasis on long-term stewardship. 

The King’s Cross redevelopment was highlighted as a leading example, where stewardship structures were embedded from the outset to ensure enduring community benefit.

The value of new town designation

• Designation as a new town brings substantial benefits, including:
• Accelerated infrastructure delivery
• Greater cross-government coordination
• Increased investor confidence
• The designation should not be awarded lightly and should require strong commitments from landowners and developers.
  

The role of development corporations

• Act as dedicated delivery vehicles for new towns,
  providing governance, oversight, and expertise to coordinate complex projects
• Enable long-term planning and stewardship, maintaining community vision and standards over decades
• Facilitate risk-sharing between public and private partners, helping unlock challenging sites and support diverse housing delivery
• Provide the scale and authority to implement innovative funding and development approaches, ensuring new towns are delivered efficiently and sustainably
  

Regional perspective: West of England

Our tor&conversation concluded with reflections from John Wilkinson, Director of Place at the West of England Combined Authority, who highlighted major progress across the region:

The West Innovation Arc included among the final seven locations under consideration for new towns

• Appointment of Muse as development partner for the Bristol Temple Quarter regeneration programme
• Planning permission granted for Temple Island, enabling a new community development
• Government allocation of £45 million through the region’s first Brownfield Land Fund
• Inclusion of the region in the Office for Investment’s regional investment framework

The region is preparing a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) aligned with the long-term nature of new town and major development programmes.

John Wilkinson closed with a reminder of how dramatically conditions can shift: average house prices in Bristol were around £44,000 thirty years ago.

Harvey Wingfield MRTPI
Associate Director (Planning)

Earlier this month, we hosted our latest tor&conversation in London. With the next London Plan expected to be published this summer, the discussion explored the significant shifts now influencing strategic decision-making for sites, schemes, and portfolios.

Several clear themes emerged that will shape the year ahead:

Good Growth – Quality, Character and Stewardship
The emphasis is increasingly on quality, character, and long-term stewardship.

• High-quality urban design is becoming a baseline expectation, not an optional ambition. Schemes will need to demonstrate strong place identity, local connectivity, and integration with surrounding neighbourhoods.
• Transport-led development remains central. Proximity to stations, bus priority corridors, and active travel networks will play a bigger role in determining the acceptability and density of proposals.
• Civic and social infrastructure must be front-loaded. Schools, health facilities, community spaces, and early-stage mobility solutions will be considered essential components rather than later-phase additions.
• For new towns and major settlements, governance is now a critical consideration. The expectation is for developers and public bodies to outline credible stewardship models, long-term revenue plans, and clear partnerships that support delivery over multiple decades.

Viability, Delivery, and Emerging Funding Tools
With London experiencing viability pressures across many typologies, the conversation highlighted the GLA’s growing interest in mechanisms that can help unblock delivery.

• Innovative public-private funding frameworks are being explored to support infrastructure and de-risk early phases.
• The emergency measures introduced in October 2025 signalled recognition by the GLA that the policy system needs to adapt to unblock housing delivery.
• There is a focus on supporting schemes with clear implementation pathways. Proposals that demonstrate practical deliverability, transparent phasing, and committed partnerships may fare better in discussions with the GLA and boroughs.
• Mixed-use and strategic housing sites continue to be a priority, particularly where evidence of market realism and deliverable infrastructure strategies is clear.

Evidence-Led Green Belt Review and Land Release
While politically sensitive, the conversation acknowledged that London’s growth will require difficult decisions about land supply.

• The GLA is exploring evidence-led opportunities for Green Belt review or selective release, particularly where the value of land is appropriate, the accessibility is strong, or the environmental impact can be offset or enhanced.
• Any changes will be strictly grounded in data, supported by environmental assessments, infrastructure capacity analysis, and clear evidence of unmet housing need.
• Community engagement is essential. Successful land promotion will increasingly depend on early, meaningful dialogue with local stakeholders and a transparent narrative around benefits for existing communities.
• For developers, this represents an opportunity to align site strategies with the emerging direction of travel—but the bar for evidence, sustainability, and community benefits will be high.

Social Value, Inclusion, and Long-Term Outcomes
Development must deliver equitable and inclusive outcomes.

• Social value is now integral, not supplementary. Planning decisions will increasingly consider how schemes promote opportunity, wellbeing, access to services, and community cohesion.
• Beyond Section 106 obligations, there is an emphasis on genuine commitments to local jobs, training pathways, SME involvement, and accessible public spaces.
• Long-term stewardship and management models are rising on the agenda, reflecting a wider shift towards ensuring schemes remain high-quality and well-maintained in perpetuity.
• Developers will be expected to demonstrate how proposals contribute to inclusive economic growth, aligning with London-wide goals for fairness, affordability, and community resilience.

As these policies evolve, balancing high-quality place-making and project viability will be a key challenge. Whether you are reviewing your current portfolio or identifying new strategic sites, we are here to help align your projects with these emerging GLA priorities.

enquiries@torandco.com

Our latest publication, Elevating Education, showcases how tor&co has been reimagining higher education estates for the future, shaping campuses that inspire and thrive.

Please download the Higher Education Brochure Here

The West of England is a powerhouse of talent, innovation, and export strength. Yet, as recent analysis by the Brunel Centre (The Strategic Audit of the West of England, March 2026) shows, its potential is constrained by structural challenges – housing affordability, congested transport, uneven SME support, and environmental pressures. These are not abstract issues – they are central planning challenges shaping the region’s economic and social future.

For town planners, the implications are clear: delivering inclusive and sustainable growth requires coordinated, place-based interventions. Strategic planning can unlock housing supply in the right locations, integrate transport and digital connectivity to support labour mobility, and create the conditions for SMEs and emerging sectors to thrive across the region.

Key priorities emerge from the analysis:

• Housing and community planning: Address affordability pressures through well-designed, mixed-tenure developments that enhance liveability and long-term resilience.
• Infrastructure and connectivity: Alleviate congestion and improve mobility through integrated transport planning that links homes, jobs, and skills hubs.
• Skills and local employment: Align development with economic opportunities to tackle underemployment and support sustainable workforce pathways.
• Environmental resilience: Embed climate action, biodiversity, and net-zero strategies into planning frameworks to protect the region’s natural assets while supporting growth.

The report highlights a critical truth: economic strength alone does not guarantee inclusive growth. Thoughtful, strategic planning – focused on people, place, and environment – is the key to translating the West of England’s strengths into long-term, resilient prosperity.

At tor&co, we see a development sector ready to work closely with the public sector to realise ambitious investment plans. We are optimistic that the Combined Authority’s forthcoming spatial development plan will provide the strategic framework needed to coordinate growth across local authority boundaries and address Bristol’s pressing development needs. Our Bristol team is committed to supporting these efforts, helping to turn planning strategies into practical, sustainable outcomes for the region.

A new procedure for preparing local development plans

Government believes that the local plan preparation process is taking far too long and is introducing a new local plan making process to come into force this month.

Under transitional arrangements, those draft local plans at an advanced stage can continue to proceed under the old ‘legacy system’, provided they are submitted for examination by 31 December 2026. The new and old systems will operate together until the end of this year.

Those not proceeding under the legacy system, must begin
plan-making under the new system as soon as possible to get
an ambitious and up-to-date plan in place.

Government guidance is underpinned by the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026, that come into force on 25 March 2026. The Government’s expectation is that:

• New style local plans will be adopted within 30 months of starting the process.
• Local planning authorities must begin the formal preparation of a new local plan within 5 years of adopting their previous local plan
• Failure to make progress within the 30-month period, risks direct Government intervention to accelerate the process.
• 39 named planning authorities must start their plan making by
  June 2026.

The new process comprises the following steps:

• Publish a local plan timetable to be kept up to date
• Notice of intent to commence local plan preparation giving stakeholders advance notice that plan making is starting
• Scoping consultation as to what the plan should contain and
  how future engagement should be carried out
• Gateway 1: self-assessment of readiness for local plan
  preparation confirming an authority’s ‘readiness’ and starting
  the 30-month period.
• Consultation on the proposed local plan content and evidence with a minimum 6-week consultation period.
• Gateway 2: observations or advice from an appointed person for England the Planning Inspectorate will provide observations and advice on matters of soundness and progress made towards meeting the prescribed regulatory requirements.
• Consultation on the proposed local plan with a minimum 8-week
  consultation period.
• Gateway 3: prescribed requirements assessment by an appointed person with further observations and advice from PINS to determine if the prescribed regulatory requirements are met. If not, this stage must be repeated.
• Examination if gateway 3 is passed to test soundness in context of the NPPF tests.
• Adoption as soon as possible. 

Authorities not submitting under the legacy system, or required to start early must:

• Give notice of their intent to start plan making by 31 December 2026, or by the time an adopted plan is 4 years and 8 months old, whichever is the latest.
• Publish their Gateway 1 self-assessments by 30 April 2027, or by the time the adopted plan is 5 years old, whichever is the latest. These are long stop dates for new plan making.

In summary, whilst there are some similarities with Regulation 18 and 19 stages, the introduction of two new PINS review stages before examination heralds a far more robust approach. 

This may avoid examination time being spent on local plans that have fundamental failings and ultimately must be withdrawn. By identifying local plans that are failing to meet regulatory requirements early, action can be taken to ensure they have a greater chance of being found sound. Whilst examiners can pause an examination for further work to be undertaken, this is limited to 6 months. Examiners will not tolerate significant delay to rectify defective plans, and the earlier PINS reviews are intended to mitigate this risk.

Representations can be made at key stages in the process, but stakeholders must be fully alert to the publication of notices and other local plan documents if they are to avoid missing opportunities to engage with the process and affect their outcomes. 

Many local planning authorities will need to engage with the new system quickly but are they suitably resourced to comply? How will local government reorganisation affect this process? Will this new approach speed up plan making as intended, or conversely slow it down, and how much will the Government intervene to police the new plan making system? Attention will now be focused on how this new system beds down in practice.

tor&co would be happy to speak to you if you have any questions about the new system and how best to engage with it.

enquiries@torandco.com

Following the submission of the Wiltshire Local Plan in November 2024 and a protracted Examination process, the Local Plan Inspectors have written to Wiltshire Council recommending that the Plan be withdrawn. The Inspectors advise that the significant shortcomings identified should instead be addressed through preparation of a new Local Plan, under the new system.​If the Council  request the Inspectors to issue a final report, they advise this would, “inevitably lead to a recommendation that the Plan is not adopted”.  The Council has 10 days to confirm how it intends to proceed.  

tor&co have been involved in the plan process, advising clients from the outset, with both Martin Miller and Lindsay Goodyear attending  the Examination hearings promoting housing and employment sites across Wiltshire.  

What this means for planning in Wiltshire

Wiltshire has been unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for some time, and this position is now likely to persist for the foreseeable future, given the age of the adopted plan and current housing requirement, noting the annual increase from 1,917 to 3,488 (2025 SM LHN). This leaves open a window of opportunity to promote sustainable sites for residential development, through the development management-led process.  In parallel, there will be opportunities to submit sites to the inevitable early Call for Sites and renewed opportunities to promote deliverable sites through the plan-led process in the immediate future. 

If you would like to discuss how this can unlock opportunities for your sites, please contact the tor&co team.

New rules for all planning appeals relating to planning applications submitted on or after 1st April 2026

The planning appeals system is changing. More appeals are to be decided
more quickly.

The Planning Inspectorate’s new Procedural Guide for appeals relating to
applications submitted on or after 1st April 2026 changes the rules, including that:

• Most planning appeals will proceed under a ‘part 1’ written representations procedure, unless the Planning Inspectorate decides otherwise.
• There is no opportunity to submit a statement of case with written reps appeals. Part 1 appeals will generally be determined on the basis of the information submitted to the local planning authority (LPA) when they determined the application.

The Inspector will only consider:

– The application that the LPA determined (including the plans, submitted evidence and third-party comments).

– The decision notice.

– The LPA’s committee minutes and planning officer report.

– The appeal form, and

– The LPA’s appeal questionnaire.

• With limited exceptions no additional evidence will accepted at appeal.
• The exceptions include material changes in policy.Amendments to the scheme will not usually be considered once an appeal
• has been made following the part 1 procedure.
• Interested people (sometimes called ‘third parties’) are not able to submit comments at the appeal stage in the part 1 procedure.
• Appeals following the part 1 written reps procedure should include an executed and certified copy of a planning obligation (section 106) at the time the appeal is made.

The Planning Inspectorate advises that “Applicants should ensure that all relevant evidence is submitted to the LPA as part of their application”. So, front-loading applications and early engagement with LPAs and consultees is becoming even more important. Appeal strategies should be considered much earlier. 

An appellant can still request an inquiry or hearing, but with a busy Planning Inspectorate case load and the potential for more appeals to be pushed down the written reps route, it’s less certain that these options will be as available as they
have been.

In summary, it is more important than ever that submitted planning applications are complete and robust. There is a need prepare and submit applications with an eye
on being ‘appeal-ready’. 

Appeal stage won’t be an opportunity to further develop planning case arguments, so the planning supporting statement needs to be comprehensive. Has the scheme designer fully explained the design rationale and are all scheme visualisations available? Have all issues raised by third parties been responded to? There may be a need to more frequently involve counsel early before the submission of applications for larger or more controversial schemes.

Dr James Weir argues that more planning officers with the ‘confidence to apply the planning balance pragmatically’ are necessary if hold-ups related to heritage concerns are to be avoided.

When the government talks about ‘heritage blockers’ holding “back build, baby, build”, it gives voice to a frustration many developers and their consultants recognise all too well. Pre-app advice is delayed and vague. Officers and committees beat around the heritage bush. Applications wade through treacle or grind to a halt.

But can this really be fixed by policy tweaks alone? A common alarm is to bemoan the erosion of specialist historic environment expertise inside local planning authorities. Indeed, recent Historic England data shows there are now fewer than 800 full-time equivalent heritage specialists across English councils, with just over 500 focused on conservation roles.

This continues a long-term decline which has seen conservation and archaeology staff drop by around a third since the mid-2000s. Historic England itself reports rising caseloads per officer, even as the government seeks to reduce consultation thresholds. This capacity failure is real – but it does not explain why decision-making is so often defensive even where expertise exists.

“This capacity failure is real – but it does not explain why decision-making is so often defensive even where expertise exists”.

I would suggest it is not. The issue arises from two sides of the same coin.

In my experience, including within a local authority, planning officers too often lack the confidence to apply the planning balance pragmatically. Objections from heritage consultees are treated as something to be overcome, even when they are weakly grounded in policy or can be outweighed by other material considerations, which is how planning is meant to work.

The other side of the coin is the calibre of heritage consultee input. Where consultee input is driven by protectionist instinct rather than dispassionate, policy-based assessment, simply adding more of it will not improve the quality or speed of decision-making. My own experience has led me to conclude that, especially on major schemes, public sector heritage bodies are far more likely to overcook heritage issues than applicants are to undercook it. Too often, ideology trumps calculated assessment.

A functioning system relies on experienced professionals, both inside and outside local planning authorities, being able to say with confidence where the line sits in rational, arguable terms. In a dysfunctional system, where fear of change outweighs rational assessment, heritage becomes a proxy for uncertainty: officers defer decisions, committees react, and reasoning thins.

What next?

Planning reform will not change this picture. New NPPF policies, altered consultation thresholds or changes to statutory consultees, like the Gardens Trust, will not, in themselves, shift how heritage advice is framed or received.

The answer lies not simply in padding out local authorities with more heritage specialists, which may compound the issue, but first and foremost in training case officers to understand and apply the planning balance with confidence; to challenge views of consultees where they diverge significantly from professional submissions, not just vice versa; and to have the wherewithal to argue contrary views to committees in non-deferential terms.

“The answer lies not simply in padding out local authorities with more heritage specialists, which may compound the issue, but first and foremost in training case officers to understand and apply the planning balance with confidence”.

A less rarefied atmosphere for heritage specialists would also help, with training and guidance from professional bodies and Historic England stressing the need for a positive attitude to facilitating change, not to fear it.

How developers should adapt

The mistake is to treat heritage as a last-minute, regulatory hurdle. In reality, it is one based on careful assessment and even more careful argument. The most effective schemes are already adapting in five clear ways.

1. Bringing heritage forward: Early, scheme-shaping heritage analysis gives heritage consultants a strategy path, gives officers confidence and reduces delays.

2. Focusing on significance (including contributory setting): Clear, intelligible assessments anchored immovably on impacts to identified aspects of significance strengthen the base for advocacy.

3. Engaging consultants who will advocate: Instead of just a report provider, in this climate, a consultant must be a constant and robust advocate against unreasonable local planning authority/consultee positions.

4. Strengthening the balance with public benefits: Focusing on heritage benefits rather than harms anchors schemes in a solid, arguable position.

5. Planning for appeal resilience: Resilience is not in making every concession to heritage officers or consultees, but in ensuring that the assessment base is dispassionate and clearly evidenced.

A final reframing

Developers who recognise this and respond accordingly will move faster, not slower, regardless of national policy changes. Approached confidently and strategically, the tools to push back on resistance and secure consent are readily at hand.

Dr James Weir is technical director (heritage), tor&co . He was previously a senior conservation officer at Dorset Council.

The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold planning permission for the £180 million Portland Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) in Dorset, UK marks a decisive moment for waste-to-energy delivery in the UK. After six years of process and challenge, the project can finally proceed.

As part of the professional team involved in the Portland project, tor&co saw first-hand how a sound, well-evidenced scheme can still stall in the gaps between policy, perception and process. The lessons are clear: delivery needs advocates, not just compliance writes Paul Rogers, Technical Director, tor&co.

For the Government, it matches a wider policy drive to accelerate infrastructure, tighten the waste hierarchy, and meet net-zero goals through domestic energy resilience. But this case also exposes the structural hurdles that continue to slow delivery.

As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill moves through Parliament and reforms to judicial review are debated, the Portland judgment offers five lessons that policymakers and promoters cannot ignore.

1.           Planning still takes too long to prove the obvious

Even when a proposal’s consistency with policy is clear, the system drags. The Portland ERF was fully consistent with national waste and energy policy, yet consent took six years and survived multiple rounds of litigation. The reforms proposed under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will streamline parts of the consenting process for major schemes, but unless mirrored in Town and Country Planning Act projects, the gains will be uneven. Such drawn-out timeframes undermine the Government’s ambition for an ‘infrastructure decade.’

2.           Public perception remains the biggest unseen constraint

Energy from waste still struggles against outdated perceptions of pollution and health risk. The Portland case saw well-organised local opposition despite Environment Agency oversight and proven emissions controls. The challenge is not just communications; it’s structural. Planning authorities must adjudicate evidence in the face of misinformation, and often with limited resources, and this can be subject to significant local political pressures. If reforms are to restore trust in decision-making, Government must equip local authorities to handle technical scrutiny at speed and with confidence.

3.           Spatial strategy must be read as a whole

A critical finding of the Court was that spatial strategies for waste management should be interpreted holistically. The Court confirmed that decision-makers can weigh the waste hierarchy, self-sufficiency and proximity principles together and form a balanced judgment. This clarification is essential. It signals that future waste infrastructure need not meet all principles equally to be policy-compliant, a pragmatic step for regions short on residual waste capacity. For developers and councils, it provides firmer ground to advance modern facilities that close local treatment gaps rather than export waste across borders.

4.           Judicial review risk is distorting investment

The judgment also reignites the debate over access to judicial review. While challenges are a democratic safeguard, too many cases are being ‘gamed’ to delay infrastructure with little cost or risk to objectors. The government’s proposal to narrow challenge routes for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects is welcome, but Portland shows why this logic must extend further. A predictable and proportionate challenge system is essential if investors are to keep faith in the UK consenting regime.

5.           Delivery culture matters as much as reform

Even best-practice engagement and full technical disclosure did not prevent delay. This underlines that planning reform alone is not enough. The system needs a shared delivery mindset across departments, regulators and local authorities to turn policy ambition into outcomes.

How developers can make reform work for them

With the Portland decision providing legal clarity and Government reform ongoing, developers in the waste-to-energy and wider infrastructure sectors should:

• Audit their pipeline: Identify projects most exposed to procedural delay and challenge risk.
• Use policy language: Demonstrate clear compliance with the waste hierarchy, self-sufficiency and proximity principles, but show balanced reasoning, as endorsed by the Court.
• Invest in early engagement: Build local understanding of emissions control and energy benefit before applications are lodged.
• Monitor reform: Keep close watch on judicial-review and infrastructure-delivery reforms to stay ahead of procedural risk.

The Portland judgment closes one chapter, but the delivery deficit it exposes is far from resolved. If the UK wants to recover energy from waste, it must first recover time, cost, and confidence.

Later living housing is regarded as critical – so why is it given so little attention? Martin Miller makes the case for more robust policies to support housing for people in later life

It’s been a year since the Older People’s Housing Taskforce published Our Future Homes , its landmark independent report – backed by two government-funded research projects but frustratingly published too late to influence the December 2024 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Its message was clear: if the UK is serious about tackling the housing crisis, it must ensure more housing for people in later life and strengthen national and local planning policies required to deliver it.

A year on, the need for reform remains. National planning policy was not bolstered following the Government’s publication of the 2024 NPPF, and local planning authorities have therefore yet to receive the policy clarity required to translate good intentions into meaningful action.

But what is the state of play since the report and how can the sector inject greater urgency into a policy area that by 2038 will be critical to 57 per cent more of us when compared to 2018?

A part of the housing crisis puzzle

Many planning authorities don’t understand the concept of ‘housing with care’ or recognise the societal benefits which integrated retirement communities can provide. In short, they provide ‘right size’ accommodation, can help keep people healthier for longer and provide social infrastructure to reduce isolation and demand on public health services.

The benefits of purpose-built retirement communities for the wider housing market also remain painfully under-appreciated. According to a report by Homes for Later Living, surplus bedrooms are expected to reach more than 20 million in the UK by 2040, with older households contributing 60 per cent of these

It also shows, if all over-65s that wished to could move, one million homes would be directly released for sale, and two million bedrooms would become available. Each new later living home has been shown to free up at least one, often two, family homes, and these developments are able to be brought forward without adding pressure on local school places – often a concern for other types of residential proposals.

A strategic commitment to later living is therefore not a niche policy for an ageing population; it is a mainstream housing policy that will help get Britain building and the market moving again.

Whilst planning authorities and the general public seem to be fixated on the delivery of affordable housing, later living is the only type of housing which national planning practice guidance regards as critical – and this has been the case for the last six years.

A policy vacuum

It has been three years since Professor Les Mayhew called for the government to build 50,000 new homes for older people each year to tackle the UK’s housing and social care crisis. But despite a recognition of the critical need for older persons’ housing, national planning policy only requires local planning authorities to establish the need, size, type and tenure of housing for different groups in the community, and to reflect this in local planning policies.

There is no requirement for development plans to provide a specific quantum of housing for older people or to allocate sites for such accommodation. Consequently, it is no surprise that very few local plans do. This often leaves proponents of well-designed, sustainable and socially beneficial schemes preparing speculative planning applications on unallocated sites and arguing their planning merits in a policy vacuum. This can be a slow, uncertain and costly pathway to securing a planning permission and it will undoubtedly deter many from trying.

Without a truly supportive strategic planning framework, the sector cannot scale, no matter how strong the demographic or policy case may be.

Why spatial planning must step up for later living

If the UK wants to unlock housing for all generations, later living must take its place alongside affordable housing, urban regeneration and infrastructure delivery priorities with clear support from local planning authorities through local plan allocations. And the system needs to recognise that the release of family homes onto the market will be a direct strategic benefit of later-living development.

This argument has long been championed by Lord Best – co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups for Housing and Care for Older People, as well as New Towns – a champion for improved later living development, who argued that 10 per cent of new homes should be allocated by local planning authoroties for later living.

What needs to be done?

One year on from the taskforce report, the message is unchanged, but the stakes are higher: without strengthened planning policy for later living accommodation, the UK is unlikely to solve its housing crisis.

Developers within the retirement sector could do more by promoting land through the development plan process, something which the industry doesn’t tend to do, but which the housebuilding sector does frequently. Local planning authorities can do more by recognising the wider benefits of later living homes and allocating more land for retirement communities in their local plans. And the government can do more by strengthening national policy to require more later living homes to be delivered.

Further amendments to national planning policy are due to be published in the coming weeks, but will the sector get an early Christmas present?

Grid reform and the delivery deficit: Why the planning sector must engage beyond policy

Last week’s House of Lords report into electricity grid infrastructure delivers a blunt verdict: ‘The grid is not ready’ for net zero. Published by the Industry and Regulators Committee, the report points to critical institutional failings that limit delivery of the UK’s clean power ambitions.

As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill reaches its Report Stage, these structural issues matter. For those seeking timely grid connections, this scrutiny is only the beginning. The debate has focused on queue reform, but the deeper threat to delivery may now lie in the planning system itself.

Capacity questions that still need answers

While grid connection reform is welcome, its scope is fundamentally redistributive. The new ‘first-ready, first-served’ approach may help advance projects with planning certainty (Gateway 2), but it doesn’t create new capacity. Without urgent investment in physical infrastructure and reinforcement, developers will still be competing for access.

Gateway 1 projects face a real risk of delay or abandonment unless supported by strategic coordination and funding. Their later connection dates could push investment elsewhere or cause delays. Cancelled projects risk millions in lost UK investment. The Committee also warned that too much reliance is being placed on unproven reforms that may not deliver at scale or pace, risking bottlenecks even after reforms.

Meanwhile, Great British Energy’s emerging role introduces uncertainty. If it acts as a generator or investor, it may compete for grid headroom. Without a clear remit, it could crowd out private capital.

These are not theoretical concerns. NESO estimates over 700 GW of projects are stuck in queues, while just 150 GW is needed to meet net zero by 2035. Queue reform may help in the short term, but unresolved capacity will slow delivery.

Planning improvements, but not yet delivery-ready

Recent reforms offer useful changes, but many are targeted at improving the NSIPs regime. Raising the NSIP threshold for solar and wind to 100MW enables more projects to go through local planning. Updated policy now gives greater weight to low-carbon energy. Onshore wind can now re-enter the planning system in England. Under-resourced councils could face delays.

But the Lords Committee is clear: consent reform alone won’t deliver net-zero-scale infrastructure.  Overlaps between Ofgem, DNOs, NESO and the incoming Future System Operator remain unresolved. Developers need confidence that reforms lead to viable projects.

As one witness told the Committee, “planning and delivery need to be joined at the hip”; a principle not yet reflected in how reforms are being implemented. The Committee specifically criticised the absence of a joined-up government plan linking grid investment, planning policy and delivery timelines. A missing framework that continues to undermine project confidence and coordination.

Winners, losers and uncertainties

The shift to ‘first-ready’ will advantage developers with planning consent and clear investment backing. But many early-phase and innovative projects may fall behind and risk losing financing windows. This shift risks a two-speed pipeline, stalling early-phase projects.

Without the kind of central delivery body recommended by the Lords Committee, akin to a Net Zero Delivery Agency, grid strategy remains fragmented, and risks reinforcing outdated infrastructure patterns.

Great British Energy’s role adds further complexity. If it functions as a generator or grid actor, developers need assurance that access remains transparent and not seen as a competitor, especially for SMEs.

What developers should do now?

With political momentum building but delivery questions mounting, developers must approach current reforms with pragmatism and speed. In this shifting landscape:

• Audit your pipeline: Prioritise projects with planning certainty and investment backing. Ready-to-build status is now a competitive advantage.
• Engage regionally: Work with DNOs and councils to ease bottlenecks.
• Make the case beyond emissions: Highlight jobs, resilience and energy security.
• Track institutional reform: Monitor how the Future System Operator and Great British Energy evolve.

The Committee also flagged that Ofgem’s regulatory framework may be constraining DNO investment flexibility. Developers should stay alert to how this could affect local reinforcement and capacity upgrades.

The Lords’ report has rightly re-centred the debate on delivery risk. Developers now need to respond with speed, strategy and strong planning advice. Reform is in motion. Now the connections must follow.

These promotions strengthen our leadership and expertise across key areas, and we’re excited to see the impact they will continue to make in driving excellence for our clients and projects.

Please join us in congratulating them on this achievement!

Nigel joins tor&co’s expanding Bristol office and team of architects. With a deep interest in place making, gained over many years in the industry, Nigel brings a wealth of practice, delivery and regional experience across Bristol and the South West.

“I am delighted to be working with tor&co at this exciting stage in its history, especially as it also involves contributing to the success of projects across all of the offices.”

Making sure that housing projects foster strong, healthy and sustainable places is our priority, so today tor&co is proud to launch its New Communities Credentials. 

For more than 40 years, we have been a leader in planning and designing new communities. We promote and masterplan new settlements, the growth of existing towns and the regeneration of urban neighbourhoods. Around 96% of our planning applications in this sector win approval.

From inception to delivery, from initial site appraisal to environmental statements, landscape and heritage assessments and design codes, we turn constraints into opportunities and local concerns into understanding. Have a closer look at tor&co’s communities work

Please download the New Communities Brochure Here