Local plan making reform: gateways and timetables

Local plan making reform under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 changes the shape of plan preparation rather than its purpose. Plans become shorter and more focused on locally specific matters, generic development management policy moves to a national set, the duty to cooperate goes, and the process is meant to run to a fixed timetable with checkpoints along the way.

Much of that depends on regulations and commencement rather than on the Act alone, and the transition has been staged. Before advising a client on which system their plan sits in, check the commencement position on legislation.gov.uk and the current written ministerial statements, because the answer determines which tests the plan will be examined against.

What the reformed process is meant to look like

The Act amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to create a plan that concentrates on locally specific policies: site allocations, settlement boundaries, design requirements, infrastructure and matters where local circumstances vary.

Generic development management policies are intended to move into National Development Management Policies, a nationally set suite carrying statutory weight. Where a local policy conflicts with a national development management policy, the national one is intended to prevail, which is a departure from the plan-led arrangement most practitioners are used to under section 38(6).

The practical consequence for anyone drafting a Planning Statement is that the policy search changes. Instead of assembling every local policy on amenity, design and flooding, you will be citing the national set for the generic tests and the local plan for the site specific ones.

Until the national policies are made and brought into force, the existing arrangement continues. Do not cite them as operative before they are.

Timetables and the duty to keep plans current

The reform package is built around a fixed preparation period, with the stated ambition of 30 months from start to adoption, supported by a requirement to keep a published timetable and to update plans at defined intervals.

Two mechanisms support that. The local development scheme becomes a document authorities must publish and maintain, so the intended milestones are public. And the requirement to review and update plans at regular intervals is intended to stop authorities relying indefinitely on an ageing plan.

For a consultant, the timetable document is the useful artefact. It tells you when a plan is expected to reach each stage, which in turn tells you when representations can be made and when a site's prospects change.

Treat published timetables with appropriate scepticism. Plan preparation slips for reasons that have nothing to do with the legislation, including examination availability, evidence base gaps and changes in national policy mid-preparation.

Gateway checks during preparation

The reformed system introduces checkpoints during plan preparation, intended to identify problems before an examination rather than at it. The design has been developed through consultation and regulations rather than set out in full in the Act, so the number of checkpoints, their timing and what happens at each is a matter for the current regulations.

The intent is straightforward. An authority that has misunderstood a requirement, or whose evidence base has a hole in it, finds out at an early stage instead of after two years of work. Examination then concentrates on soundness rather than on procedural repair.

Whether that reduces overall timescales is not yet demonstrable, and anyone claiming otherwise is speculating. What it does change for a developer or land promoter is the point at which engagement matters. Representations made before a checkpoint carry more influence than representations made after it, because the authority still has room to move.

What replaces the duty to cooperate

The duty to cooperate under section 33A of the 2004 Act has been a recurring cause of plans failing at examination, usually over unmet housing need crossing authority boundaries.

The Act provides for its repeal, with a replacement policy test on alignment between authorities to be set through national policy and regulations. The replacement is intended to be less procedural and more outcome focused, which in practice means the question moves from whether an authority engaged constructively to whether the plan works alongside its neighbours' plans.

For strategic sites near an administrative boundary, that is the change to watch. The evidence that mattered under the duty, such as records of meetings and statements of common ground, may carry less weight than evidence about whether the plans fit together.

Again, confirm the commencement position before relying on either the repeal or the replacement. Plans at different stages may be examined under different tests.

Transitional arrangements and which system applies

Transitional arrangements determine whether a plan proceeds under the previous regime or the reformed one, normally by reference to the stage the plan had reached by a specified date.

Three questions answer most cases. Had the plan been submitted for examination before the relevant date. Had it reached a specified consultation stage. And has the authority made a decision to restart under the new system.

The answers are usually published in the authority's local development scheme or in a committee report, and they are worth checking directly rather than inferring. An authority that restarts loses time but may gain a simpler plan, and the decision changes the value of representations already made.

Effect on housing land supply arguments

Plan making reform interacts with supply arguments in two ways.

Where a plan is recently adopted or well advanced, the authority's position on supply is stronger and the room for arguing that policies are out of date narrows. Where preparation has stalled, the opposite applies, and the tilted balance arguments familiar from the current Framework remain available subject to the national policy in force.

The Framework has also been revised repeatedly, with the current edition published on 17 August 2026 introducing policy-coded chapters in place of paragraph numbers. Cite the edition you are relying on and verify the coding at the time of writing, because a submission citing superseded paragraph numbers invites a response about currency rather than substance. Terms introduced through recent revisions, such as the grey belt concept, need the same care, as set out in what grey belt means in national policy.

Tracking where a specific plan sits

A short routine covers most of what a client needs to know.

1. Find the authority's local development scheme and note its publication date and the milestones in it.
2. Check the plan's page on the authority's website for the current stage and any examination reference.
3. Where the plan is at examination, check the inspector's correspondence and any interim findings.
4. Check the authority's most recent monitoring report for the position on supply and delivery.
5. Confirm which transitional arrangements apply, and record the date you checked.

Other powers in the same Act remain partly unimplemented, and the position on each has to be checked separately rather than assumed from the Act's passage, which is the point made in street votes and the status of the power in the 2023 Act. Reform news can be followed on the planning law updates timeline, although the position should always be confirmed against the primary source.

Give clients the stage and the date, not the headline. A plan at examination in one district and a plan at issues and options in the next produce entirely different advice on the same site.

This is general guidance, not legal advice, and the commencement position on several of these provisions should be verified before it is relied on. Check with your local planning authority or a qualified professional.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.