Housing, planning and local plans

← all policy areas

Of the eleven Reform-led councils in scope, only Derbyshire turned opposition to the government's revised National Planning Policy Framework into a formal vote, carrying a Notice of Motion on 26 March 2025 that objected to Whitehall setting a mandatory annual housing target for the county and resolved to write to the Prime Minister for an urgent review.[1] The others engaged the standard method without objecting to it: Nottinghamshire's Full Council accepted the national targets as given and pressed only for fairer developer contributions towards local highways, while Lincolnshire's Combined County Authority called the targets unrealistic and then endorsed its housing strategy regardless.[2][3] Leicestershire treated the standard-method figure as the baseline, requiring a district authority to justify to the Planning Inspectorate why it could not meet the housing need the method calculates, and Staffordshire's criticism of imposed targets stayed at scrutiny-committee level, referred up to Cabinet rather than adopted as an objection.[4][5]

Key figures

3 Reform-led councils paused, withdrew or delayed a Local Plan since May 2025
North Northamptonshire Council
On 20 January 2026 North Northamptonshire's Executive agreed to move the Local Plan (2024 to 2045) onto the new plan-making system (Option B) rather than aim for adoption by December 2026 under the current system, a choice the minutes record as delaying adoption by 11 months. Independent advice from the Planning Advisory Service and a Planning Inspector had highlighted significant risks with continuing under the current system, and officers confirmed interim policy guidance on housing delivery would be prepared to manage speculative development while the new plan is prepared.
“Members noted that Option B would delay adoption by 11 months, but that Option A carried a high risk of failure.” source ↗
Lincolnshire County Council
Lincolnshire County Council, the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, delayed the timetable for its Minerals and Waste Local Plan: a consultation timetable approved in 2024 was held up by staffing matters, and on 3 February 2026 the Executive approved a revised Minerals and Waste Development Scheme timetable running from March 2025 to December 2027.
“That the revised Minerals and Waste Local Plan timetable (as outlined in the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (attached as Appendix A to the report)) covering the period from March 2025 to December 2027 be approved.” source ↗
Staffordshire County Council
On 18 March 2026 Staffordshire County Council's Cabinet endorsed a County Farms Policy Statement (2026-2040), resolving that the council will not promote any County Farms land holdings through the statutory land use planning process and that the farmland will be protected for farming; the Acting Leader had separately explained that the previous administration had put County Farms sites into the Stafford, South Staffordshire and Newcastle Local Plans, which he paused on taking office.
“the previous administration had put County Farms into local plans in Stafford, South Staffordshire and Newcastle, which could have easily lead to the sale of our farms so I have paused that work” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “Local Plan (paused / withdrawn / delayed), Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-08.

Local Plans

Where a Local Plan was paused, withdrawn or delayed, the common driver was the government's new plan-making system, but the rationale differed each time: independent advice from the Planning Advisory Service and a Planning Inspector that continuing under the old system risked failure; a plan timetable already held up by staffing; and a determination to stop County Farms land being promoted into district plans where it could be sold.[6][7][8] Two of the unitary authorities went the other way and kept their plans moving: County Durham reaffirmed political support for a new County Durham Plan after the May 2025 elections and gave formal notice to prepare it, targeting adoption in 2029.[9] West Northamptonshire likewise issued its draft Local Plan for Regulation 18 public consultation, with a call for sites, keeping to its timetable.[10] For most of the Reform-led counties a housing-plan pause does not arise at all: as upper-tier authorities Kent, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire hold only minerals and waste plans, with housing plans and their timetables resting on the district and borough councils.[11][12][13][14] On the minerals and waste plans they do control, those counties were adopting or advancing rather than pausing: Kent adopted its Minerals and Waste Local Plan in March 2025, Nottinghamshire adopted its Waste Local Plan that September, and Leicestershire approved starting a new joint plan with neighbouring authorities.[11][13][14]

Green belt

Votes bearing on the green belt were scarce and indirect: the same Derbyshire motion folded green-belt protection into its wider case against the NPPF, noting that the new 'grey belt' designation removed protections and committing the council to pursue further planning protections for its countryside.[15] Nottinghamshire's Planning Committee refused a minerals application on green-belt land on a recorded vote, but its stated reasons were unconvincing need, uncertain hydrology, ecological harm and visual impact rather than green-belt harm itself.[16] In Kent the only green-belt intervention on the record was a speech by the Green group leader criticising the government's grey-belt policy, which was never put to a vote.[17]

Coverage and scope

The findings here concentrate on the upper-tier and unitary authorities whose own decisions this corpus captures. Lancashire and Warwickshire returned no citable findings on any of the three questions. For Lancashire this reflects structure rather than silence: it is a two-tier county whose Local Plans, green-belt allocations and standard-method responses are held by its district councils, which sit outside this corpus. Both absences should be read as coverage gaps, not as negative findings.

Timeline

References

1. On 26 March 2025 Derbyshire County Council carried a Notice of Motion (minute 35/25), moved by Councillor Moss and duly seconded, formally objecting to the government's revised National Planning Policy Framework, which the motion said gave Whitehall power to set a mandatory annual housing delivery target for Derbyshire of at least 79,920 new homes over 20 years. The council resolved to write to the Prime Minister requesting an urgent review of the impact of the government's planning changes on Derbyshire.
“Councillor Moss proposed a motion that was duly seconded, in the following terms” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“Give central Government the powers to set arbitrary, top-down housing delivery numbers for each local authority and set a mandatory annual housing delivery target for Derbyshire of at least 79,920 new homes over the next 20 years - a 58% increase from the advisory method” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“A vote was taken on the motion and was declared to be CARRIED, it was therefore:-” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
2. Nottinghamshire County Council has not formally objected to the government's mandatory standard-method housing targets; the only Full Council motion touching national housing targets, moved on 14 May 2026, accepted the targets as given and instead sought fairer developer contributions towards highways. Councillor Neil Clarke MBE moved the motion 'Protecting Local Highways from the Impact of National Housing Targets', seconded by Councillor Roger Upton, calling for the government to close loopholes in developer contribution rules; an amendment from Councillor Mike Robertson (seconded Councillor Russell Dodd) was accepted by the mover and the altered substantive motion was carried on a show of hands.
“The amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and became the altered substantive motion. Following a debate, the Chairman put the substantive motion (as altered) to the meeting and after a show of hands the Chairman declared it was carried” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
“MOTION ONE – PROTECTING L OCAL HIGHWAYS FROM THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL HOUSING TARGETS A motion as set out below was moved by Councillor Neil Clarke MBE and seconded by Councillor Roger Upton” Minutes, 9 July 2026 ↗
3. The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority did not resolve a formal objection to the government's mandatory standard-method housing targets: during its 29 April 2026 consideration of the GLCCA Housing Strategy, members recorded concerns that national housing targets were unrealistic, but the Authority went on to endorse the strategy, with only Councillor A Baxter voting against.
“Concerns were raised regarding national housing targets, which were viewed as unrealistic and potentially leading to inappropriate development.” Minutes, 29 April 2026 ↗
“For: 10 Those voting for: Councillor T Catton, Councillor D East, Councillor P Jackson, Councillor D Nannestad, Councillor N Poole, Councillor S Shreeve, Councillor I Sheard, Councillor R Waltham MBE, Councillor N Worth, Councillor R Wright. Against: 1 Those against: Councillor A Baxter” Minutes, 29 April 2026 ↗
4. Leicestershire County Council has not recorded a motion or resolution formally objecting to the government's mandatory standard-method housing targets. The only substantive engagement with the standard method in its minutes is Cabinet's response of 26 May 2026 to Oadby and Wigston Borough Council's own Regulation 19 Local Plan consultation and its declared unmet housing need, in which the County Council required OWBC to justify to the Planning Inspectorate why it could not meet its housing need figure as calculated by the national standard method, treating that figure as the baseline rather than objecting to it.
“the OWBC will need to demonstrate that there is a substantive evidence base to justify its conclusion that OWBC is unable to meet its LHN as calculated by the national standard method, based solely on highway reasons” Minutes, 26 May 2026 ↗
“regarding Oadby and Wigston Borough Council’s Local Plan and setting out the proposed responses to the Borough Council’s Regulation 19 consultation and its declared unmet housing need” Minutes, 26 May 2026 ↗
5. On 20 November 2025 the Economy, Infrastructure and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee discussed a petition against over-development in Eccleshall, and the Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills criticised central government for imposing housing targets without regard to local circumstances, saying that lobbying central government might be needed to ensure housing is allocated appropriately. The committee's own resolution only referred the matter to Cabinet, with recommendations to liaise with Stafford Borough Council, rather than adopting a formal objection motion.
“lobbying central government may be necessary to ensure housing is allocated appropriately” Minutes, 29 January 2026 ↗
“criticised central government for imposing housing targets without considering local circumstances” Minutes, 20 November 2025 ↗
6. On 20 January 2026 North Northamptonshire's Executive agreed to move the Local Plan (2024 to 2045) onto the new plan-making system (Option B) rather than aim for adoption by December 2026 under the current system, a choice the minutes record as delaying adoption by 11 months. Independent advice from the Planning Advisory Service and a Planning Inspector had highlighted significant risks with continuing under the current system, and officers confirmed interim policy guidance on housing delivery would be prepared to manage speculative development while the new plan is prepared.
“Two options were therefore presented to the Executive: Option A – continue under the current system and aim for adoption by December 2026; Option B – pivot to preparing a new-style Local Plan under the revised system, with an anticipated 30-month timetable.” Minutes, 17 February 2026 ↗
“That the Executive: a) Agreed that work on the Local Plan for the period 2024-2045 will be progressed under the new development plan system (Option B) when regulations are in force early in 2026.” Minutes, 17 February 2026 ↗
“Members noted that Option B would delay adoption by 11 months, but that Option A carried a high risk of failure.” Minutes, 17 February 2026 ↗
7. Lincolnshire County Council, the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, delayed the timetable for its Minerals and Waste Local Plan: a consultation timetable approved in 2024 was held up by staffing matters, and on 3 February 2026 the Executive approved a revised Minerals and Waste Development Scheme timetable running from March 2025 to December 2027.
“That the revised Minerals and Waste Local Plan timetable (as outlined in the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (attached as Appendix A to the report)) covering the period from March 2025 to December 2027 be approved.” Minutes, 3 March 2026 ↗
“The Policy Manager advised a timetable for consultations was approved in 2024, staffing matters had delayed the implementation.” Minutes, 16 January 2026 ↗
8. On 18 March 2026 Staffordshire County Council's Cabinet endorsed a County Farms Policy Statement (2026-2040), resolving that the council will not promote any County Farms land holdings through the statutory land use planning process and that the farmland will be protected for farming; the Acting Leader had separately explained that the previous administration had put County Farms sites into the Stafford, South Staffordshire and Newcastle Local Plans, which he paused on taking office.
“the previous administration had put County Farms into local plans in Stafford, South Staffordshire and Newcastle, which could have easily lead to the sale of our farms so I have paused that work” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
“That the policy position, that the County Council will not promote any County Farms land holdings through the” Minutes, 18 March 2026 ↗
9. Durham County Council's new County Durham Plan continued to progress under the Reform-led administration. Cabinet approval to start work on a new Plan was given in March 2025, with political support reaffirmed after the May 2025 elections; the council gave formal notice of its intention to prepare the new Plan on 25 March 2026 under the revised plan-making system, and a scoping report went out for public consultation on a timetable targeting submission in May 2028 and adoption in March 2029.
“Cabinet approval was given in March 2025 to start working towards a new CDP, with political support reaffirmed following the May 2025 local elections.” Document, 10 June 2026 ↗
“On 25 March 2026, immediately following the enactment of the new plan-making regulations, the council formally gave notice of its intention to prepare a new CDP.” Document, 10 June 2026 ↗
“The plan will then move to examination, with submission in May 2028 and adoption targeted for March 2029.” Document, 10 June 2026 ↗
10. West Northamptonshire's emerging Local Plan progressed on timetable under the Reform-led administration. On 19 January 2026 Full Council agreed to issue the draft West Northamptonshire Local Plan for Regulation 18 public consultation with a call for sites, on the proposal of Councillor Manning seconded by Councillor Arnull, following the Planning Policy Committee's recommendation of 8 January 2026.
“Councillor Manning proposed and Councillor Arnull seconded the report which sought approval to consult on the Regulation 18 version of the West Northamptonshire Local Plan (WNLP) following the recommendation of the Planning Policy Committee on 8 January 2026.” Minutes, 19 January 2026 ↗
“RESOLVED: Council: a) Agreed that the draft West Northamptonshire Local Plan be issued for public consultation in accordance with the requirements set out in the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. b) Agreed that a call for sites be undertaken as part of the public consultation.” Minutes, 19 January 2026 ↗
11. Kent County Council's own Local Plan, the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2024-2039, was adopted by County Council on 4 March 2025, before the government's mandatory standard method took effect and before May 2025, and no evidence in the published minutes shows it, or any other KCC plan, being paused, withdrawn or delayed since; KCC does not itself hold a housing Local Plan, since that function sits with Kent's district and borough councils.
“Adoption of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2024-2039 (Item 9)” Minutes, 22 July 2025 ↗
“Ms Thompson added that the current local plan was adopted in 2016 with a limited review in 2020 and no longer reflected up to date planning policy and guidance in a number of areas.” Minutes, 22 July 2025 ↗
12. As the upper-tier authority, Derbyshire County Council's own Local Plans function covers only the Minerals Local Plan and Waste Local Plan, not a general housing Local Plan (that sits with the county's district and borough councils). A Regulatory - Planning Committee briefing on 25 February 2026 postponed discussion of the national planning framework update pending the close of a national consultation, but this was a scheduling deferral of an officer briefing, not a decision to pause, withdraw or delay the county's Minerals or Waste Local Plan; no evidence was found in the published minutes of DCC pausing, withdrawing or delaying either plan since May 2025.
“Local Plans Function (which included preparing the Minerals Local Plan and Waste Local Plan)” Minutes, 25 February 2026 ↗
“Nigel Atkinson, Assistant Director – Regulatory Services had been invited to attend the meeting and provide an update on the National planning framework in Derbyshire. However, this was currently a draft consultation and the closing date was March 2026. Therefore, it was suggested that this item was postponed until the consultation had ended and the framework had been implemented in its final form.” Minutes, 25 February 2026 ↗
13. As the upper-tier authority, Nottinghamshire County Council does not maintain a housing Local Plan (that role sits with its constituent district and borough councils); its own plan-making role covers minerals and waste. On 18 September 2025 full Council adopted, rather than paused or withdrew, the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan: Councillor Bert Bingham moved the adoption motion, seconded by Councillor Mick Barton, and it was carried on a show of hands.
“NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAM WASTE LOCAL PLAN – ADOPTION Councillor Bert Bingham introduced the report and moved a motion in terms of resolution 2025/032 below. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mick Barton.” Document, 20 November 2025 ↗
“RESOLVED: 2025/032 That full Council approve the adoption of the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan as contained in Appendix 3 of the report.” Document, 20 November 2025 ↗
14. Leicestershire County Council's own statutory Local Plan, the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, has not been paused, withdrawn or delayed since May 2025. On 28 April 2026 Cabinet gave in-principle approval to prepare a new joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan with Leicester City Council and Rutland County Council, moved by Mr Harrison CC and seconded by Mr Crook CC, who flagged concerns about the tight timetable; the reason given was that a new government plan-making system requires the Council to start preparing a new plan before the end of 2026.
“seeking in -principle approval for the Council to work with Leicester City and Rutland County Councils to prepare a joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP) across the three authority areas” Minutes, 28 April 2026 ↗
“In seconding the motion, Mr. Crook CC referred to concerns relating to the three Councils’ different political and strategic priorities and the challenging timetable for production of the M&WLP” Minutes, 28 April 2026 ↗
“The Government has introduced a new plan -making system which requires the County Council to start preparing a new M&WLP before the end of 2026” Minutes, 28 April 2026 ↗
15. In the same 26 March 2025 motion (minute 35/25), Derbyshire County Council noted with significant concern that the revised NPPF removed protections on the Green Belt through the new 'Grey Belt' and other override designations, and the carried motion committed the council to continue pursuing additional planning protections for the county's countryside and treasured landscapes. This is the only Green Belt related council vote found; it addresses Green Belt loss as one strand of a wider anti-NPPF motion rather than a standalone green-belt-release vote.
“Continue to pursue additional planning protections for our countryside and most treasured landscapes in the county” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“A vote was taken on the motion and was declared to be CARRIED, it was therefore:-” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“Removes protections on the Green Belt through the new Grey Belt and other override designations” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
16. On 16 December 2025 Nottinghamshire's Planning and Rights of Way Committee refused a minerals extraction application for Land at Mill Hill and Barton in Fabis, a site within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt, after objectors and the local county councillor argued it failed the NPPF's 'very special circumstances' test for Green Belt development; a recorded vote saw only 4 members support granting permission against 7 against, and the motion to grant fell. The committee's resolution refused the application for reasons of unconvincing need, uncertain hydrological impacts, unavoidable ecological harm and visual impact, rather than citing Green Belt harm specifically as the refusal reason.
“The application failed to demonstrate “very special circumstances” required under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.” Document, 10 March 2026 ↗
“That the application be refused for the following reasons: a) the need for the site was not compelling, the hydrological impacts were uncertain, there would be ecological harm which could not be avoided, and there would be visual impacts which were inherent to the site’s design going up an incline.” Document, 10 March 2026 ↗
“The requisite number of Members requested a recorded vote, and it was ascertained that the following 4 members voted ‘For’ the motion” Document, 10 March 2026 ↗
“The site was within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt.” Document, 10 March 2026 ↗
17. No formal council motion or vote to protect green belt land or resist green belt release appears in Kent County Council's published minutes; the only related record is a response speech by Mr Hood, Leader of the Green Group, to the Leader's report at County Council on 18 December 2025, criticising 'Labour grey belt and housing policies' and calling for greater focus on the green belt, which was not put to any vote.
“Mr Hood emphasised that a successor to ‘Produced in Kent’ should continue supporting farmers and highlighted potential issues regarding the impact of Labour grey belt and housing policies on countryside spaces. He cited risks of further land being sold for development and the war in Ukraine and called for a greater focus on the green belt and food security.” Minutes, 18 December 2025 ↗