Targets, Plans and Legitimacy

In March 2026 we surveyed 25 Carter Jonas planning consultants across five offices (London, Oxford, Cambridge, Leeds and Manchester) about residential plan-making and the return of mandatory housing targets. The aim was to test how policy direction is being experienced in practice; not as a political argument but in terms of delivery.

What has changed

Within its first weeks of being elected in July 2024, the government announced that an overhaul of the planning system would reintroduce mandatory housing targets for councils in England as a central lever to support the government’s 1.5 million homes by 2029 ambition. It set the expectation that local plans should align with a cumulative national requirement of around 370,000 homes per year and embedded the ‘targets-first’ reset through national policy reform, intended to make policy more directive in support of housing delivery.

The government committed to a new plan-making system designed to be faster and simpler, including a 30-month local plan process. It has recently published a local plan-making system roadmap which sets out when guidance, tools and funding will be available to help authorities deliver the new system. The government has also signed into law the regulations to commence the new plan-making system as provided for by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Additionally, as part of its overhaul to speed up and simplify local plans, the government has positioned capacity and resourcing as part of the plan-making fix, including measures aimed at boosting local authority capability.

Targets are supported – with caveats

The strict implementation of mandatory housing targets is a significant change after the previous government’s retreat in the long run-up to the 2024 general election.

When asked for their view on this policy change, 64% of Carter Jonas planning consultants said there is a role for mandatory housing targets and a further 24% agreed but said exceptions should apply.

However, asked whether targets are calculated appropriately, only 16% said ‘yes,’ 20% said ‘mostly,’ 60% were not sure and 4% said ‘no.’

Clearly that tension between support for the principle and uncertainty about the method is the point at which plan-making becomes difficult. The more confidence people have in the fairness and realism of the number, the easier it is to defend allocations and the harder it is for politicians to prevaricate.

Many would agree that a realistic assessment of delivery cannot begin and end with numbers. For example, Paul Cronk (Carter Jonas Cambridge office) said, ‘Regard has to be had to the environmental capacity of sensitive areas’ and Andy Cowan (Carter Jonas Manchester office) noted that ambition was likely to be trumped by realism: ‘We have struggled to deliver a consistent amount of homes to achieve government ‘high level’ targets and this is compounded by economic headwinds, lack of capacity in the planning system and infrastructure constraints.’

Plan-making is too frequently stuck or contentious

Asked whether plan-making is speeding up, slowing down or becoming more contentious, the survey splits in two: 32% said ‘becoming more contentious’ and 16% said ‘slowing down.’ A further 32% said ‘no material change.’ But only 4% said ‘speeding up.’

Clearly, in many places, the timetable is not improving, but the stakes are rising. Targets, land supply and Green Belt judgement bring controversial decisions to the forefront of decision-makers and local residents’ minds, producing sharp reactions and resulting in decisions becoming ‘contentious’ long before they can be resolved ‘faster’.

LPAs need confidence, cover and capacity

When asked which issues most impact on local planning authorities’ ability to progress local plans, ‘political cover’ was selected by 44% of respondents. Specifically, this reflects the willingness of elected members to back a plan’s allocations in public – and to stand behind officers when a recommendation follows policy but attracts local opposition. Where that backing is absent, delay becomes a low-risk default.

Additionally, an absence of necessary skills was selected by 36%, headcount by 32%, and budgets by 28%. Legal confidence was the prime concern for 12%.

Speed without resilience

On the downsides of expedited plan-making, two answers dominate: a poorer evidence base and more ‘box-ticking’ engagement, both of which were reasons selected by 48% of respondents. Reduced democratic legitimacy and legal vulnerability were each selected by 24%.

These results explain why many clients feel caught between urgency and caution. Faster plans are desirable but fragile plans create a different kind of delay through examination turbulence, appeal uncertainty and judicial review risk.

How LPAs are responding

Respondents report a mix of active responses and defensive behaviour. 60% have seen LPAs resisting, delaying or seeking flexibility. Yet 52% have seen councils reviewing the local Green Belt; 44% have seen more land allocations and 24% have seen a push towards increased density. A smaller group (12%) has experienced increased reliance on neighbouring authority cooperation.

According to 40%, the biggest single change since July 2024 is the approach to five-year housing land supply. It is in the context of five-year land supply that targets become immediate. This then shapes how speculative proposals are handled, how appeals are argued and how much weight is given to emerging policy.

Unintended consequences

60% of respondents said that the most common unintended consequence of policy change was more speculative applications and appeals. Furthermore, lower plan quality and rushed evidence were selected by 44%; loss of public trust by 24%; conflict between authorities by 20%, and greater legal challenge risk by 16%.

These figures should be seen as a reflection on the effectiveness of mandatory housing targets: a target can increase delivery, but only if the plan-making process remains credible and decisions remain defensible. Otherwise, the target moves the decision into the appeal arena.

This is already evident in the Planning Inspectorate’s figures, which indicate a clear rise in the number of homes granted planning permission on appeal in the first full year spanning the post-July 2024 period. Across England, 16,684 homes were allowed on appeal in 2023/24, increasing to 21,047 homes in 2024/25: a 26% year-on-year increase, equivalent to 4,363 additional homes approved through the appeals route.

A practical mid-term judgement

So, when further revisions to the NPPF are published this summer, will the government have realistically completed its overhaul of planning policy or does more need to be done? The distinct impression from our survey of planning consultants is that allocating more land for housing is only one part of the solution: the next stage is to raise the quality and certainty of decisions.

That means clear evidence, robust viability discussions and engagement designed to gain cooperation, rather than simply to comply. It also means being realistic about where political cover is needed and building strategies that help decision-makers make allocations and grant planning consent with confidence.