Expert Panel Outputs for 2025: Planning Expert Panel

Summary by Expert Panel Chair Craig Tabb, DP9 Limited

Spatial Development Strategies Topic Paper

1.0 Introduction

1.1 For 2025 the Planning Expert Panel decided to focus its work on Spatial Development Strategies. This was considered to be topical and timely against a back-drop of the government increasingly recognising that housing need and economic growth in England cannot be met without planning reform and, in particular, a more effective system for cross-boundary strategic planning.

1.2 The government’s stated ambition is to deliver a system of strategic planning across England during the current Parliament. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (the Act) enables the government to introduce a system of strategic planning across England. The strategic planning tool being introduced is the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS), and this is to be closely modelled on the system that has been in place in London for over 20 years.

1.3 The Act places a duty on combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare an SDS for their area. The Act also enables the government to establish strategic planning boards to prepare SDSs on behalf of specified groupings of these authorities.

1.4 The make-up of the Expert Panel is well placed to consider, taking lessons from strategic planning experience in London, what are important principles or guidelines for future SDSs.

1.5 At an initial meeting the Expert Panel discussed key sub-topics to focus on at roundtable workshops during 2025. This included:

what makes for good spatial policy;
what makes for good density (from spatial plans to good places); and,
what makes for good engagement and consultation at the spatial plan-making stage?

1.6 This topic paper summarises the comments by members of the Expert Panel in relation to the above. On the one hand, it provides an account of the useful and thoughtful contributions of the Panel members. On the other, it provides the NLA with a set of pointers that the Expert Panel recommends are considered by government in any future guidance it might produce to help with the roll-out of future SDSs.

2.0 Context

2.1 In announcements associated with the publication of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (now Act), the government has clearly articulated its desire to utilise greater strategic planning – and the tool of SDSs – to help deliver sustainable growth and address key spatial issues such as meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure, growing the economy and improving climate resilience and nature recovery. Also, the government intends for strategic planning to enable more efficient and timely production of local plans, which will provide the detail and site allocations to support the spatial strategy set out in SDSs.

2.2 In summary, the Act says the following about the contents of SDSs:

An SDS must include policies in relation to the development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area.
An SDS may specify or describe infrastructure of strategic importance to the strategy area for the purposes of:

supporting or facilitating development in that area,
mitigating, or adapting to, climate change, or
promoting or improving the economic, social or environmental well-being of that area.

An SDS may specify or describe an amount or distribution of housing (including affordable housing) the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.
A SDS must contain such diagrams, illustrations or other descriptive or explanatory matter relating to its contents as may be prescribed.
A SDS must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
A SDS must take account of any local nature recovery strategy and identify areas which are, or could become, of particular importance for biodiversity.
A SDS must not specify particular sites where development should take place and must not be inconsistent with or repeat any national development management policy.

3.0 Panel Discussion

3.1 Key summary points from the Panel’s first round-table workshop, focusing on ‘what makes for good spatial policy’:

SDSs should be highly strategic, digitally enabled and user-friendly.
Key priorities and ‘trade-offs’ between planning priorities and benefits must be presented and clearly understood. They should be described up-front within SDSs.
The government must be clear on how documents are to be used and how they relate to other tiers of policy/guidance. Each SDS must make this clear, as relevant, to its own specific geography.
SDSs – and their evidence base – should present an overarching view of need and supply, enabling strategic conversations at the local level, acknowledging that some areas may provide for needs beyond their own local requirements, in recognition of wider regional demands.
Form, structure, nature, look and feel, etc, should be consistent and uniform across England. SDSs should not look radically different in term of their level and nature of policy information.
There is a need for a robust evidence base, including economic strategies that underpin regional growth ambitions.
A clear, strategic approach to setting targets, including for affordable housing delivery, is essential.
SDSs should be able to be monitored and reviewed easily.
SDS policies should not be open-ended or political statements. They must be able to perform from a development management perspective.
Each SDS must have a clearly articulated vision.
A non-technical summary of each SDS would be useful to aid engagement and understanding with the general public and stakeholders.
Strategic diagrams, setting out the spatial plan, are really crucial. SDSs should be highly visual.
To aid with SDS roll-out and consistency of approach, there is a need for a task-force type resource to support and assist.
Need for built-in flexibility within SDSs to respond to changing market conditions, employment demand, housing need, and shifting demographics.
Ultimately, the level of flexibility depends on how high-level or prescriptive the policy is, striking the right balance between certainty and adaptability will be important for each SDS to grapple with.

3.2 The second round-table workshop was split into two parts. Firstly, a consideration of what makes for good density (within the context of strategic planning) and, secondly, what makes for good engagement and consultation. Key points raised in relation to good density:

The need for SDSs to be clear on strategic objectives and the importance of optimising development output.
SDSs – similar to the London Plan – to describe what is meant by good growth and good density.
Recognising that SDSs may cover areas of different context and character across their respective geographies and ensuring that growth objectives recognise this.
SDSs must give appropriate regard to the importance of nature, the environment, health and sustainability when setting out policies for guiding approaches to density and area / site optimisation.
Policies should be framed in terms of explaining what the characteristics of development are that are successful and acceptable.
SDSs will need to ensure appropriate flexibility and move away from a rigid policy check-list approach to meeting specific standards and guidelines (e.g. see current Mayor of London consultation to relax ‘rules’ in relation to the aspect of residential units).
Policies to be clear on need for different housing typologies and the important contribution to be made by achieving a mix and range of housing types. To include consideration of conditions and locations most suited to particular types.
Must ensure policies can be regularly monitored and pick up / act on any unintended consequences promptly (again, see current Mayor of London consultation on creating more flexibility around application of specific housing design standards).
Ensure that policies relating to density are framed by visions that are rooted in place. Such that, SDSs can guide development and be responsive to context and characteristics of areas.
Policies should clearly articulate an ambition and need to achieve a step-change in density and the benefits this leads to.
Use key diagrams and plans to illustrate the link between density, connectivity, accessibility, infrastructure improvements, etc. Clearly illustrate areas where the density expectation and need is highest.

3.3 Key points raised in relation to good engagement and consultation:

Engagement on SDSs must be underpinned by strong leadership and a ‘champion’. SDSs should be considered as a tool for achieving good growth, building collaboration between stakeholders.
SDSs must be prepared through wide-ranging and meaningful engagement. This must utilise many different consultation formats and methods. Engagement plans and method statements should be created at the outset.
Engagement will need to focus on the strategic issues influencing development, rather than those of a more local / neighbourhood scale. Expectations will need to be carefully managed in this respect.
Must explore the purpose of SDSs upfront in consultation exercises. Must be clear with communities on the parameters.
Avoid overly complex and excessive evidence base that is inaccessible to local communities and stakeholders.
Involve communities early in the formulation of place-shaping visions and the setting of strategic objectives and priorities. Ensure communities understand the trade-offs between different priorities and the basic reasoning / benefits to be gained from development and good density.
Public examination processes to date for SDSs (namely for the London Plan) have been overly resource intensive and stressful. Often the examination part of the process creates disproportionate resource issues and has become overly complex and time-consuming. The process needs to be re-set and normalised, especially if future SDSs are to be realised at pace.
Also, in relation to the public examination stage, a greater balance needs to be struck between those supporting versus those objecting. To date, public examinations are too often focused on those stakeholders raising an objection. More needs to be done to incentivise those in support to take part and to create examinations that comprise a roundtable that is representative.
Recognise the need for a stream-lined preparation, engagement and examination process. Creating a better fit – recognising that SDSs are strategic in nature. Setting strategic frameworks and not detailed site specific policies.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 The Expert Panel has compiled thoughts and observations – against a context of London experience – on SDSs and how these should be approached as rolled out under the Planning and Infrastructure Act. Understandably, the Expert Panel has been limited in the time devoted to the topic, but the contribution from each Panel member has been invaluable and the NLA should utilise this paper in future liaison with government about strategic planning. It is vitally important that the government provides clear guidance – building on the content of the Act – about the approach to preparing SDSs. The NLA could provide a valuable role in assisting the government in this respect. For example, the NLA is well placed – with its wide-ranging expert membership – to prepare a SDS tool-kit or similar. Whilst the success of SDSs will be dependent on a wide range of factors, appropriate resourcing and clarity / consistency of approach will be crucial.