This research was commissioned by the RTPI and has been carried out by the Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments at the University of the West of England (UWE), together with Catriona Riddell Associates and Richard Wood Associates. The research was funded by contributions from the three Northern regions of the RTPI (North West, North East, Yorkshire.) You can read a summary of the research below or read the report in full here. 

 

Introduction

Strategic planning is widely understood as the co-ordination of activity across wide geographical areas like city-regions, and across multiple sectors including housing, transport, health and the environment (RTPI, 2023)[1].

The potential value of strategic planning practice has been recognised and provided for in institutional form (such as in Structure Plans, Regional Planning Conferences, Regional Planning Guidance, Regional Spatial Strategies) by every UK Government between the late 1960s and 2010 as an essential part of the planning system. In May 2010, the incoming Government (Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition) heralded their intent to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies in England, and with it this longstanding principle of strategic planning at a greater than local planning authority level, and a principle which remains in much of Europe (Berisha et al 2021)[2]. Since then, there has been no mandatory requirement for a nation-wide approach to the production of strategic plans in England.

For some local authorities the new-found autonomy was interpreted, at least initially, as needing to plan only according to needs assessed locally and resulted in immediate retrenchment of their strategic growth plans, and an ambivalence towards cross-boundary collaboration (Boddy and Hickman 2013)[3]. Others responded to this strategic vacuum by voluntarily progressing a variety of types and scales of strategic plans including statutory spatial development strategies, non-statutory strategic frameworks and joint local plans. More recently, some devolution deals at the city-region level, have provided for statutory strategic planning powers, albeit that these powers are not universal across all combined authorities.

This shift in approach has also taken place alongside a significant reduction in planning resources generally and strategic planning capacity specifically (see RTPI 2019)[4]. The result has been a highly variegated approach to strategic planning in practice, including places with little evidence of any meaningful cross-boundary working. As such, strategic spatial planning in England, to that extent that it exists, can best be characterised as a patchwork quilt, with varying approaches in different geographical contexts. It is also clear that in some places the logic of “don’t do anything unless you have to” (Pemberton and Morphet 2021)[5] prevails.

Consequently, several organisations and commentators are now calling for a more comprehensive approach to strategic planning in some form (see, for example, Local Plans Expert Group 2016[6], Royal Town Planning Institute 2019[7], 2021[8], British Property Federation 2023[9], UK2070 Commission 2020[10], Building the Future Commission 2023[11], All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing Supply and Delivery 2023[12]). These are not, however, based on in-depth nationwide research of current practice. In 2023, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) commissioned research to understand the nature of current strategic planning in England and the demand for alternative approaches in the future. The work was funded by contributions from the three northern English Regions of the RTPI.

The specific scope of this research was to:

• articulate a clear rationale for strategic spatial planning;
• provide empirical evidence on current approaches to strategic planning practice, identifying the successes and challenges and any barriers preventing the emergence of more collaborative approaches in the future; and
• to present findings in respect of potential reforms necessary to planning policy and practice to enable more effective strategic spatial planning in the future.

As such, the findings are relevant to a wide range of audiences, across Central and Local Government and the private sector, especially those involved in the delivery of sustainable growth and with a role to play in infrastructure funding and prioritisation.

This research has been carried out by the Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments at the University of the West of England (UWE), together with Catriona Riddell Associates and Richard Wood Associates. The team comprised:

• Hannah Hickman, MRTPI, Associate Professor in Planning Practice, UWE (project lead);
• Dr Stephen Hall, Associate Professor in Urban Planning, UWE;
• Dr Owain Hamner, Research Associate, UWE;
• Catriona Riddell, FRTPI Catriona Riddell Associates; and
• Richard Wood, MRTPI, Richard Wood Associates.

This document provides a summary of the research method and key findings. The full research report can be accessed here.

 

Research method

The research was designed in five phases as illustrated below. Detail on these is provided in the main report in the relevant section as signposted. In total, 420 individuals engaged in the research.

Stage	Coverage in main report	Details
1.  Background literature and practice review	Section 2	The research began with a review of recently published literature on strategic planning to present existing evidence and research relevant as context to this study. This intentionally covered by academic and wider policy literature. What followed was a desk-based review of current practice to provide an overview of practice in England in terms of geographical coverage, governance arrangements and status in the planning system.
2. National surveys	Section 3	Two national surveys – one of local authorities and one of wider (largely private sector) stakeholders – were conducted to gather information from a wide range of practitioners engaged in strategic planning in some form, to provide both quantitative and qualitative information from across England as a whole about the effectiveness of current practice, and appetite for future arrangements. Across the surveys 352 people participated.
3. Six in-depth case studies	Section 4	Six in-depth case studies were conducted, chosen to reflect a range of geographical locations, governance arrangements, and approach to strategic planning. These were: Leicester and Leicestershire; Liverpool Combined Authority Area; North East Combined Authority Area; South West Hertfordshire; West of England; and, York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull.
4.  Four national focus groups	Section 5 and Appendix 5	Four national online focus groups were held to test the validity of the findings with a wider audience of experts in the field and, critically, discuss options for future forms of strategic planning emerging. The four focus groups comprised: (1) Members of the RTPI’s England Policy Committee; (2) Practitioners with experience of working in the RTPI’s three Northern regions; (3) Practitioners with sector specific experience, such as transport, water, housing or the natural environment; and (4) Practitioners currently working in, or with previous experience in, local and sub-regional government.
5. Evaluation and conclusions	Section 5	The components of the research were drawn together into a series of key findings.

 

 Key findings

Key finding 1 – Strategic planning as currently practised is highly fragmented, resulting in sub-optimal outcomes

“Although they moan about the planning system, private developers actually like certainty. The current semi-randomised land use allocation process can't give them that, but strategic planning could” (Survey Respondent, Private Sector).

Strategic planning, as currently practised in England, is highly fragmented, comprising a range of statutory and non-statutory activities, managed through a wide range of governance and administrative arrangements. Significantly, there remain parts of England with no strategic planning activity; 40% of local authority survey respondents reported no statutory strategic planning activity and 25% reported no non-statutory strategic planning activity either.

The case studies chart the journey back to strategic planning since 2010. This has been a challenging journey everywhere, including examples of stalled processes (see West of England). Prior experience of working collaboratively across administrative boundaries has positively supported this process (See Leicester and Leicestershire and Liverpool City Region). However, the loss of technical knowledge and experience of strategic planning has hampered progress, particularly as there has been no specific model, guidance or prescription.  

Key finding 2 - There is a clear unmet need for a more effective approach to strategic planning between the national and local levels

“Infrastructure or climate impacts do not stop at the boundary. We have to work collaboratively to maximise opportunities, share costs of evidence and have a greater voice than if we worked on our own” (Survey Respondent, London Borough).

The survey demonstrates a strong consensus in favour of strategic planning on the part of public and private sector stakeholders; 96% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed a change to the current approach to strategic planning is needed. Strategic planning is widely regarded as vital for the management of key issues that cannot be addressed properly at the local scale, for building economic, climate and nature resilience, and articulating long term development and infrastructure needs. Effective strategic planning provides a long-term framework that derisks decision-making, providing more stable conditions for building investor confidence and delivering long term government objectives. It also offers an important opportunity to make savings with economies of scale being realised with evidence production and procurement (see Leicester and Leicestershire).

Its current, fragmented form is seen as an ineffective approach to strategic planning. Survey respondents emphasized the predominance of local politics and the avoidance of unpopular decisions and provided evidence of key issues remaining unresolved as result, including large areas where housing needs are not being met (for example in the West Midlands and the South East). The case studies provide much evidence of the costs (and opportunity costs) of the current piecemeal approach. In the North-East the paucity of strategic planning manifested itself in the form of direct competition between Local Authorities for growth; those with plentiful greenfield sites overperform on housing delivery, while site-constrained urban authorities face more challenges. In the West of England, the failure to finalise a strategic plan is perceived as negatively impacting the ability of the sub-region to fulfil its economic potential or tackle housing need. Leicester and Leicestershire and York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull, LPAs have sought to reinstate strategic planning to address the negative effects of piecemeal development, and to consolidate development towards strategic locations or corridors.

Key finding 3 - Strategic planning should be mandated by Government and implemented across England

“Our first-hand experience has seen that when issues get too political on the housing front, authorities have the option to drop out of the strategic planning process and go it alone due to there being no statutory requirement” (Local Authority Survey Respondent, East Midlands).

The lack of a central government mandate for strategic planning was ranked in the survey as the most significant barrier to effective strategic planning under current arrangements, followed closely by political challenges to cross-boundary and collaborative working.

A voluntary approach to strategic planning has progressed in some areas (see Leicester and Leicestershire and York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull). However, voluntarism comes with significantly more risks. The absence of strategic planning in many areas has negatively impacted on local plan preparation, which in turn impacts decisions to invest without the certainty that a shared and long term planning strategy provides (focus group 3 and 4). There was thus an exceptionally strong majority in favour of strategic planning being mandated by government with 80% of local authority survey respondents and 88% of non-local authority respondents in favour. This would help address the influence of local political concerns in current models, and to provide more stability in decision-making.

It was also widely considered that strategic planning should take place across England. However, achieving this is likely to be more straightforward in some places than others, due to the extent of existing practice and the maturity of strategic partnerships. There may be a need for flexibility in the transition to strategic planning depending on the circumstances of each area and the role they play nationally (for example, if there are links to national infrastructure or have a key economic role to play). This should also be considered against issues around local plan progress in each area.

Key finding 4 – Strategic planning should be embodied in a statutory document, but not be ‘a big local plan’

“It’s not an easy answer, because of the current patchwork of devolutionary and governance arrangements” (Case Study Participant, Leicester and Leicestershire).

The survey found the majority in favour of strategic planning being a ‘statutory, part of the development plan system’ (69%). The case studies currently pursuing a non-statutory approach (Leicester and Leicestershire and York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull) observed the potential benefits of a statutory approach (greater weight in decision making, likely greater impact on outcomes) and likened a non-statutory plan to “a chocolate fireguard” (South-West Hertfordshire). The research does not provide conclusive evidence on what model of strategic planning is likely to be the most effective (e.g. a Joint Strategic Plan versus a Spatial Development Strategy). The survey findings and case studies reflect the different journeys many places have been on since 2010, and their own experiences. For example, there is a limited number of people currently practising with any experience of pre-2010 approaches to strategic planning. The context in which planners work (austerity, constrained capacity, pragmatism) also sets parameters for the nature and scope of change that they expect, or even aspire to, prompting support for incremental, rather than radical, reform.  

There was consensus, however, about the need for a strategic planning model that derisks the process as much as possible but does not get drawn into detailed matters such as site allocations or detailed boundary changes to Green Belts i.e. a Strategic Plan is not a ‘big local plan’. This was the thinking behind the decision in Liverpool City Region to progress a Spatial Development Strategy and not apply the Greater Manchester model of a joint local plan. A summary of the relative merits of potential future models is provided in the main report (Appendix 6).

Key finding 5 - Strategic planning should focus clearly on long-term vision and key cross-boundary issues. There should be sufficient flexibility to address local needs and allow innovation

“I think it is crucial, that plans or strategies are kept short and sweet - and cover only strategic issues. Both the old Structure Plans and Regional Plans suffered from mission creep resulting in them taking far too long to produce, being more expensive to produce than need be, losing the strategic wood from the detailed tress and getting into local issues that made them unpopular with local councils” (Local Authority Survey Respondent, East Midlands).

The case studies and focus groups identified that to be effective, strategic planning needs to be tightly focussed. Similarly, the importance of a shared vision, setting the ambition that all partners across a given geography can sign up to, was highlighted. A long-term perspective helps avoid parochialism, and to build investor confidence.

Overall, the different research strands point to the critical components of strategic planning being: the long-term vision for the area; a spatial distribution of development requirements between the constituent authorities; key broad location(s) for accommodating strategic growth (e.g. new settlements, major settlement extensions, the regeneration/transformation of existing places, or the expansion of several places for example along a transport corridor - or a combination of any of these); an implementation framework, so that it is clear how the strategic plan is to be put into effect (including the national and sub regional transport, utility, community and blue and green strategic infrastructure required & associated funding responsibilities); and shared metrics, enabling progress and success/failure to be tracked.

However, the key strategic planning issues may vary between different strategic planning areas and therefore local discretion will be needed in determining the scope of the strategic plan. The cases studies, for example as in the Liverpool City Region, demonstrate why there also needs to be some local discretion on what the scope of the strategic plan is, especially to allow policies to drive innovation and support more progressive approaches across the strategic planning area.

Key finding 6 - Strategic planning should provide a sustainable growth led framework for prioritising and coordinating investment in infrastructure

“Strategic investment doesn't follow local plans currently. It retrofits itself to it and local politics overrides strategic need and that gets in the way of so much good strategic planning. Strategic planning should provide that hook to link to other infrastructure investment plans”. (Focus Group Participant, Focus Group 3)

The case studies highlighted that strategic planning should, but does not currently, play a key role in prioritising, aligning and realising investment. The opportunity for strategic planning to provide a proactive and strategic approach to investment and infrastructure provision was a particularly recurrent theme in the focus groups. It should be clear how a strategic plan is to be put into effect. An implementation framework should include the main investment and organisational infrastructure required to make the strategic plan happen. This will help to improve the coordination of government agencies and departments. Identified investment priorities should lock in the commitment of relevant delivery agencies and infrastructure providers, secured through their involvement in the preparation and agreement of a strategic plan and its implementation framework (see North East). This role of strategic planning as a spatial investment framework further reinforces the need for a ‘systems’ approach, to ensure alignment with other plans and strategies across sectors and operating at different geographies/spatial levels. Better data sharing between agencies will also help to underpin this approach.

Key Finding 7 - Strategic planning should have a sub-regional focus and seek to validate existing structures and processes where possible

“The question with geography in my mind is working with existing partnership structures. We don't really want to reinvent the wheel, where there are the structures and existing relationships between people and different authorities at both an officer and political level … if we start reinventing the wheel there, we essentially start moving backwards before we can move, move forward. The question comes to the gaps in between”? (Focus Group Participant, Focus Group 1).

There was no consensus about the preference for the spatial scale of strategic planning activity in the future, either from survey respondents or case study participants, reflecting the diversity or current practice. Within the survey, there was a slightly stronger appetite for strategic planning to be based on appropriate functional geographies and at a sub-regional level, rather than a return to regional level planning. Case study participants had a wide variety of views as in the case of Leicester and Leicestershire, where a return to regional frameworks, two county areas, and local autonomy to decide, where expressed by different participants. 

The appropriate geography for strategic planning was thus a key topic for discussion in focus group testing. Here, it was observed that strategic planning is likely to get progressively more challenging the larger the number of LPAs involved and there is therefore no majority of opinion in favour of a return to regional strategic planning. Most recent practice is conducted on a sub-regional geography (county or city region) scale, often based on historic relationships and a degree of pragmatism using existing administrative boundaries, rather than ‘ideal’ functional geographies. Positive working relationships often take a long time to evolve. Given this, it was argued that any new arrangements should, where possible, build on existing structures and processes. This might, for example, involve alignment with the recently established (48) areas for Local Nature Recovery Strategies.

A number of additional issues were flagged that should be considered when establishing the spatial geography for any new arrangements, including: ensuring the democratic legitimacy of the chosen geography; clarifying the role of the Combined Authorities and County Councils, given their extensive competences in spatial development and influencing investment priorities; ensuring the inclusion of those areas that are not neatly covered by any existing partnerships or administrative arrangements; keeping the strategic planning areas relatively small to make it easier to interact and support strategic planning, both in plan preparation and implementation; and building links across wider functional strategic geographies, for example, across some of the larger and/or more complex city regions, across pan-regional partnerships, or along river catchment areas.

Key Finding 8 - Strategic planning should be underpinned by clear and comprehensive governance arrangements within a majority voting structure, with direct organisational or individual accountability

“All authorities needing to sign-off, it’s difficult, bureaucratic and stifling. The Governance has to be right, even with a statutory requirement to do it, otherwise it will fail” (Case Study Participant, West of England).

Survey respondents frequently cited the array of different governance arrangements as ‘baffling’ and saw ‘proper and accountable governance’ as a key facilitator of effective strategic planning, to manage often challenging political and technical issues.  All case study respondents considered the tension of planning within the different, complex and often fragmented governance arrangements. In some cases, these were subject to profound on-going change. Reference in the York North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull and North-East case studies was made to their changing governance arrangements (with the introduction of new and re-configured combined authorities).

One area of consensus was about the impact of unanimous voting (or the power of veto) on statutory strategic planning activity. In the Liverpool City Region, the unanimity required has clearly impacted progress of the Spatial Development Strategy, with building consensus across all partners at every stage a key role of the officers and an impact on resourcing. In the West of England, the power of veto has enabled partners to walk away following a lack of consensus, halting work on the Spatial Development Strategy indefinitely. 

In short, governance structures must be capable of making decisions ‘in the interests of the greater good’ with an ability to build consensus around a shared vision.  There should therefore be clear accountability for decisions underpinned by a majority voting structure and with no power of veto.

Strategic plans also need to be prepared within the wider ‘family’ of plans that contribute to sustainable growth, especially in relation to housing delivery, climate change, nature recovery and infrastructure.  There are a wide range of stakeholders involved in both developing these plans and delivering them, especially in relation to investment and funding prioritisation, which includes government agencies and departments.  Stakeholder involvement, particularly where they have a key role in implementing the strategic plan, will be a major factor in the success of any new arrangements, whether through formal governance structures or in an advisory capacity.

There are a variety of existing models of stakeholder participation. These include Growth Boards (e.g. Thames Estuary Growth Board, Hertfordshire Growth Board) and Development Corporations (Ebbsfleet Development Corporations) and the RTPI’s proposed Green Growth Boards. There are also past models of Leaders Boards which combined locally elected representatives with board members from the regional agencies. Further discussion is needed about the role stakeholders should play and specifically whether this should be formalised.

Key finding 9 – There is a role for a national spatial framework within which strategic plans can be prepared

“A National Spatial Plan is needed to properly level up and to help manage an increasingly pressured but finite supply of land in this country” (Case Study Participant, York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull).

A national framework is something that could add value to the planning system, with strategic planning able to give effect to national policy and investment priorities. 84% of local authority respondents and 90% of non-LA survey respondents agreed that a national framework or plan is needed.  There was also a clear appetite for strategic planning to address the current disconnect between planning (both at the national and local level) and planning for infrastructure, particularly nationally significant infrastructure (focus groups 3 and 4). Strategic planning could provide some spatial articulation of National Policy Statements and provide integration for other sector specific spatial plans. Provision of a clearer national spatial context (especially if using the many national data sets already available) would provide a more effective mechanism for integrating national policies and investment priorities with a spatial impact through the strategic and local planning system.

There is also a need for a limited level of national prescription in respect of strategic plan content to ensure that there is a strategic solution to some of the key national priorities. For example, whilst this was not explicitly tested, there was a strong view expressed in the case studies and through focus group discussion that housing targets have historically worked better when set nationally with the distribution (i.e. local plan allocations) tested through the strategic planning process.  Similarly, strategic Green Belt reviews, where relevant, could also be undertaken at this level with the strategic plan setting the ‘general extent’ of Green Belt in each area and identifying where more detailed changes to boundaries are needed through the local plan process.

Key Finding 10 - The testing of strategic plans needs to be reframed to be proportionate and focussed on the long term

“We are working to our legislation which is all about delivering economic growth as a Mayoral authority but actually we will be tested within the framework of the NPPF and that has a much broader scope” (Case Study Participant, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Area).

The examination in public was considered to represent a resource intensive and risk laden stage of the planning process. Concern about the proportionate examination of strategic plans was raised across all case studies, some in retrospect (West of England), and some in future anticipation (Liverpool Combined Authority Area/South West Hertfordshire). There was a strong desire for the testing of a strategic plans to better reflect the remit of strategic planning and its role as a long term integrated spatial strategy. The NPPF as presently drafted, which sets out rules for local plans, is not seen as an appropriate basis for testing strategic plans, particularly with respect to deliverability and viability requirements over the long term. There were clear views that a strategic plan still needs to be robustly tested (focus groups 2 and 4) but with different views expressed on community, business, and stakeholder involvement in achieving adequate scrutiny and wider buy-in. Strategic planning goes beyond land use planning and the testing approach should reflect this broader role. Strategic plans also enable local plans to be more proportionate, with reduced evidence base, preparation and examination costs and time. Addressing strategic matters across a wider area avoids repetition at different local plan examinations. This offers efficiencies to local authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate.

The potential basis on which future strategic plans might be tested, was a key topic for discussion in focus group testing. A set of ‘strategic conditions’ was observed as offering potential as the basis of the examination of a strategic plan, including whether the plan is: founded on an integrated and long-term vision for the area; based on an appropriate and justified spatial planning approach that will bring about the desired spatial change; aligned with national, pan-regional, and regional objectives and priorities and consistent with the spatial strategies for neighbouring areas; clear in its intended impact, providing sufficient clarity for local plans, other plans and strategies, and to secure investor confidence in the area.; capable of being implemented, with the necessary commitment of relevant infrastructure providers and delivery agencies (including government departments / government agencies) demonstrated.

Key finding 11 – There is a need to rebuild the culture, capability and capacity of strategic planning 

“Effective strategic planning needs willpower, tangible incentives and adequate resources” (Local Authority Survey Respondents, Combined Authority).

There is a clear need to rebuild the culture, capability and capacity of strategic planning. Dedicated, impartial and independent resource and expertise will be needed to deliver strategic plans, but the research has clearly highlighted the scarcity of experienced strategic planners and the need for the re-establishment of the strategic planning sector. Many planners have only experienced planning under localism and have not practiced in a planning system with a strong strategic tier (focus group 4). Wider organisations have also lost their strategic capacity, struggling to contribute effectively to such a large number of local plans (focus group 3). The cumulative impact of austerity on staff resourcing was thus a key theme across the research, with all case studies noting the challenge of finding staff with the right skills and experience (see Liverpool City Region) and observing the costs associated with the need to buy-in skills to carry out strategic activities where no resource or skills were available amongst the constituent authorities (see York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull).

The realistic situation in the short term is that resource will need to be sourced from the ‘same pool of planners’ to deliver any new requirements in the planning system. More broadly there are opportunities to support and improve planning practice that could be used to support strategic planning and help rebuild capacity and expertise, such as: Planning Advisory Service (PAS) support programmes; an Expert Advisory Panel or a Strategic Planning Taskforce that can be called on (akin to the High Street Taskforce); working with the planning education sector on CPD for professionals as well as in the training of strategic planners of the future; and sharing and avoiding the reinvention of existing practice through the production of advice/practice toolkits (which could form part of the other options). There is also a need to consider what long term options there are for supporting spatial planning capacity more generally. Consideration should therefore be given to joint (multi-functional) teams that have a core role in strategic planning but can also support the LPAs with their local plans in the way structure plan and regional planning teams previously did. This reflects the thinking behind the RTPI model of Planning Agencies, a voluntary shared services model for local planning authorities to bring their planning teams together pooling resources, offering multi-disciplinary support and developing expertise and capacity at a sub-regional level.

References

 

[1] Royal Town Planning Institute. (2023). RTPI commissions research on strategic planning https://www.rtpi.org.uk/news/2023/november/rtpi-commissions-research-on-strategic-planning/

[2] Berisha, E., Cotella, G., Janin Rivolin, U. and Solly, A., 2021. Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology. European planning studies, 29(1), pp.181-200

[3] Boddy, M and Hickman, H (2013) The demise of strategic planning? The impact of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategy in a growth region, Town Planning Review, 84/6, 743-768

[4] Royal Town Planning Institute. (2019) Serving the public interest? The reorganisation of UK planning services in an era of reluctant outsourcing. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/2005/servingthepublicinterest2019.pdf

[5] Pemberton, S & Morphet, J (2013) Libertarian Paternalism as a Tool to Explore Strategic Sub-Regional Planning in England?, European Planning Studies, 21:12, 2020-2036

[6] Local Plan Experts Group (2016). LOCAL PLANS Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81813aed915d74e33fe924/Local-plans-report-to-governement.pdf

[7] Royal Town Planning Institute. (2019). Ambitions for the North. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/greatnorthplan

[8] Royal Town Planning Institute. (2021). Green Growth Boards. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/9799/ggb-full-final.pdf

[9] British Property Federation. (2023). Freight, Logistics and the Planning System: Call for Evidence Response. https://bpf.org.uk/media/6739/bpf-future-of-freight-call-for-evidence-response-oct-2023.pdf

[10] UK 2070 Commission. (2020). Make No Little Plans: Final Report of the UK 2070 Commission. https://uk2070.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UK2070-FINAL-REPORT-Copy.pdf

[11] Building the Future Commission. (2023). Report into the English planning system. https://www.building.co.uk/building-the-future-commission/building-the-future-commission-report-into-the-english-planning-system/5125352.article

[12] All Parliamentary Group for Housing Market and Housing Delivery. (2023). Hacking housing: Nine supply side hacks to fix our housing system error. https://www.appghousing.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/APPG-Housing-report-September-2023-Final-RGB.pdf