Local government reorganisation and devolution provide an opportunity for a more joined-up approach to infrastructure, writes Michael Hardware.

This article was published in PlacemakingResource, part of Planning magazine, on 16 July 2025. It is behind a paywall

All development sites need infrastructure, both soft and hard: it is the string that pulls a project together, that allows the ‘place’ to happen.

Efficient infrastructure planning and delivery is vital for the success of large urban extensions and new settlements. These developments demand extensive infrastructure, often outlined in an infrastructure delivery plan, yet the implementation of such plans frequently faces delays. The responsibility for delivery typically rests with councils and agencies whose bureaucratic processes can be slow-moving, glacial even. Developers, focused on building homes, often struggle to get answers, and they themselves are slow to push forward the community amenities such as parks, neighbourhood centres, and sports facilities.

Dan Sames, a senior lecturer in the built environment at Oxford Brookes University and a former councillor and planning portfolio holder at Cherwell Council, highlighted the fragmented nature of the current system: “There has to be a better way of doing this so that the right infrastructure is determined early in both the plan making and the master planning process. Developers and local authorities need to work together to ensure infrastructure is then delivered at the right time during the project, ensuring the cohesion of the new community. What does not help is speculative development that is not planned for and fundamentally alters the infrastructure requirements.” Communities should be consulted early to help identify infrastructure requirements they think important and mitigate concerns that often become apparent when it is too late.

A more comprehensive approach is needed to address diverse infrastructure needs. These can often encompass new roads, primary and secondary schools, SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) provisions, libraries, health centres, retail spaces, community halls, leisure centres, parks, play areas, allotments, community gardens, and sustainable urban drainage systems. Such a wide-ranging list means developers must coordinate with multiple organisations – from highways and education authorities to county councils and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) – all while navigating stewardship and legacy issues.

Ian Ward, who served as strategic planning portfolio holder at Rochford Council for over a decade, underscores the developers’ perspective: “They just want the infrastructure sorted and delivered, and the stewardship and legacy issues resolved, so they can get on and build the homes,” he explained.

Education

Education provision presents one of the clearest examples of systemic fragmentation. County councils or unitary authorities are tasked with forecasting population trends to determine requirements for schools, which are then incorporated into local plans and specific projects by the planning authority. However, the process of appointing academies and constructing schools is cumbersome and often results in schools being built late in the development timeline.

Vic Goddard, chief executive of PCLC, a multi-academy trust, stresses the importance of schools in community cohesion. “Schools are the centre of the local community and they must have a voice, make a contribution, when the new community is being designed and created,” he said.

Health

Healthcare infrastructure faces similar challenges. Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) are responsible for forecasting population trends and planning health facilities, but their capacity to deliver timely guidance is limited. Many lack dedicated forward-planning estates teams, leading to delays that leave developers uncertain about whether to include health provision in their plans. Even when included, ICBs rely on local health practices to deliver services, adding further layers of complexity.

Transport

The modelling, evaluation and procurement lead time for road and rail improvements, for mass transit and sustainable transport corridors take a considerable time. Where such infrastructure is required to facilitate development then it can delay significantly, or only allow limited development until the road, rail or other infrastructure has been completed.

A dysfunctional system

The current system is undoubtedly dysfunctional. “The complexity, fragmentation and lack of timeliness all lead to politicians and residents not having much faith, often becoming frustrated as planning proposals come forward and no one has answers,” said Chris White, former leader of St Albans Council and councillor for over 30 years. “There must be a better approach to this.

Perhaps forthcoming local government reorganisation presents an opportunity to align the new unitary councils to have a more joined-up approach to engaging with developers, and perhaps provides an opportunity for developers to adopt a more expansive and creative approach to infrastructure.

The government’s ambitious push to build 370,000 new homes per year for the duration of this parliament – a total of 1.5 million new homes – is a huge undertaking and investment. So many homes means that the government needs to get this right.

Kevin Bentley, leader of Essex County Council, said: “Local government reorganisation offers a fantastic opportunity to address the fragmentation of infrastructure delivery. Under the strategic lead of the new mayors, the new unitary authorities could be specifically tasked to ensure a uniform approach with single points of delivery to specific developments.

“The new mayor will have spatial planning responsibility, and planning call-in powers – they may well assume the role of encouraging a more joined-up approach. Ensuring cross department and cross-agency collaboration, and at an earlier stage in the planning process, will help.”

Joined-up infrastructure

If this can be achieved, it will be a huge step forward, but the next logical step would be to encourage joined-up thinking in the delivery of infrastructure.

For example, where there is a school involved, the academy trust will strive to be the focus of the community. It is always seeking alternative income streams: it would already be letting sports facilities and halls to the community, so why can’t it take on the community hall, a new library, health centre and even the retail units? This would mean all facilities management, energy, water, security, health and safety, maintenance, venue booking, administration, etc, would all be under one organisation, from one source. Being all part of the same complex, it would save initial capital costs and running costs, and it would solve several stewardship and legacy issues.

Goddard said: “We already provide all these services centrally across six schools, so why not extend that to other facilities and buildings? It would make sense and ensure we are the centre of the community, and at the same time providing the academy with additional sources of income.”

It does not have to be a school, it could be a parish council or the local health practice taking on the other assets, to join them up. Parish councils can take on parks and open spaces, play areas and community centres. They also see themselves as the centre of the community and there is no reason why they cannot take on the wider role.

“Anything that simplifies the system and brings forward answers earlier is certainly to be encouraged,” said Jamie MacArthur, regional planning director for housebuilder Bellway Homes.“Developers have their part to play: they need to consider all infrastructure and engage earlier in the planning process”.

Simplification and earlier engagement will certainly help, but joining-up infrastructure would be a game changer – it is actually obvious, but challenging to deliver under the current system.

Perhaps local government reorganisation does provide the opportunity to re-align the new unitaries to simplify infrastructure and enable joined-up thinking and joined-up delivery.

Michael Hardware is director of planning and property at political consultant Chelgate Local. He has been a county and district councillor and is currently cabinet member for local government reorganisation and devolution at Harlow District Council.