Ben Standing, partner in planning at UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson, and Jack Boyce, Head of Midlands and North at political and stakeholder engagement consultancy DevComms, explore what impact the rise of Reform UK is having on developers and planners
The UK’s political environment is changing and, regardless of how each of us see the world, this brings practical day-to-day implications for how private sector planners and developers interact with the public sector.
In May 2026, Reform UK gained just under 1,500 seats, strengthening its stake in the English local government landscape, while the Green Party also had a successful set of local elections.
As these parties disrupt the hegemony enjoyed by the Labour and Conservative parties for decades, they bring significant consequences for the make-up of council planning committees, introducing different ideas and priorities.
It means the traditional forms of engagement from planners may no longer be as effective, requiring a revised approach.
Getting to know the new councillor cohorts
In the 2026 local elections, challenger parties collectively won 2,041 councillor seats, 50.6% of the total, compared with 1,869 for the Labour and Conservative parties combined, 46.3%. Reform alone gained 1,452 seats in a single cycle, while Labour lost 1,498 seats.
For context, over the past 100 years, the two traditional parties commanded about 70% of the vote between them, but this figure has recently dropped to as low as half that.
Geographically, Reform’s gains were greatest in the North, Midlands, Essex and non-metropolitan areas, while the Greens made headway in metropolitan centres.
What is often overlooked in the commentary about these results is that it is not simply a matter of counting seats. When political control changes hands, the individuals who have overseen the planning system are also replaced: People with institutional memory, established relationships with officers, and formed views on local planning policy.
A common assumption is that local government members mirror their parliamentary counterparts. In Reform’s case, this is emphatically not true. Three-quarters of Reform MPs previously represented the Conservatives, but this is not mirrored at council level. Anecdotally, roughly equal numbers of Reform councillors previously supported Labour and the Conservatives. A significant proportion had never served as councillors.
The result is a historic exodus of institutional experience from local government. Councillor candidates from traditional parties typically spent 12 months before an election becoming embedded in local structures, organising petitions, attending community events, and campaigning on local planning issues. Reform candidates largely did not follow this path, focusing instead on national issues in their campaign materials.
DevComms analysis found that only 55% of Reform councillors have any experience of community planning involvement, compared with 70% to 80% in Labour and Conservative ranks. Central party structures offer substantially less guidance, and there are very few established policy positions to fall back on.
The proportion of councils under no overall control increased from a third to half following the latest local elections. Previously, many local authorities would flip between two parties but still produce similar-looking cabinets, meaning consensus could be reached on key issues; now that is less certain.
Future electoral cycles also need consideration. In councils that elect in thirds, Labour councillors whose seats are at risk next year and the year after may create a cohort with little appetite for bold or controversial planning decisions.
For planners, this creates obvious challenges, but also genuine opportunities, which we will return to.
Reform councillors and planning perspectives
DevComms has surveyed Reform members at party conferences to understand their views on planning and environment policies. Private sector planners should pay close attention because the data challenge several comfortable assumptions.
On local control versus national targets: 73% of Reform members believe planning decisions should be made locally, with zero support for nationally imposed targets. The reluctance to accept direction from Whitehall is a defining characteristic of the movement. This has practical implications for how projects engaging with emerging spatial development strategies or nationally driven housing requirements are framed.
On the speed of the planning process: 26% of Reform members believe the planning process is fast enough or should be slower – a larger number than many in the industry might predict. However, the data also shows this position can shift when members engage in person and are walked through the evidence. There is an educational function here that the private sector can play.
On green belt: 59% of Reform members strongly support green belt protections – significant but perhaps lower than many expected – while 29% would allow limited development in the green belt where required. The picture becomes more nuanced still when members are engaged directly on what green belt land actually looks like and what purpose it serves, with many more willing to release lower-quality green belt when they understand it is not productive agricultural land. By contrast, 63% say farmland should always be protected, indicating that language matters enormously. About a quarter of Reform members are unfamiliar with the term “grey belt”, but this admission provides an honest starting point for education.
On sustainability and net zero: This is perhaps the area with the greatest misconceptions. Reform members strongly support practical sustainable measures, but not when framed as arbitrary targets. 65% strongly support renewable energy, with some caveats, while 59% support prioritising energy-efficient buildings and infrastructure. This is another lesson in language: talk about lower bills, practical benefits for residents, and attracting high-quality occupiers, rather than net-zero commitments or carbon-reduction targets.
On priorities: Reform consistently ranks economic development first in surveys, with jobs as the key currency when engaging these members. Affordable housing ranks second, with 39% citing the lack of affordable housing as their biggest frustration with the planning system. 59% measure success by improvements to infrastructure and public services, schools, transport, amenities, demonstrating that, at the local level, many Reform councillors do not share the national party’s instinct to reduce public expenditure. 40% support the industrial and logistics sector, making the case for employment-generating commercial development relatively straightforward.
Window of opportunity for planners if they can grasp the narrative
The current environment gives councils a new context in which both officers and members navigate unfamiliar territory, often with members who have little working knowledge of how planning operates. That is undoubtedly challenging.
However, the lack of preconceived ideas about planning policy offers an opportunity to shape positions early, while policy development is still in flux.
More than half of Reform members want to see more empowered local communities when it comes to planning. This clearly clashes with the new National Planning Policy Framework, which brings more top-down control over housing delivery.
The construction industry has historically prioritised engagement with national government via APPGs, trade bodies, and sector-level lobbying. It now needs to pivot by devoting more resources and senior attention to local political engagement than in recent years, so it can begin to reshape the conversation around development.
The wider narrative around planning has too often focused on overhauling rules to tackle so-called Nimbyism – but developers, local authorities and national government must question whether they are doing enough to communicate the benefits of development.
Communities hosting new public infrastructure will be negatively affected in some way, at best, short-to-medium-term disruption; at worst, overcapacity in schools, GPs, and transport networks. These problems won’t disappear with tweaks to planning policy. Genuine effort to bring communities on board from the outset changes them.
In a report published in partnership with the think tank New Local, Browne Jacobson called for a shift from an adversarial to an enabling system that gives communities more influence to shape development and ensure it meets local needs.
That might mean incentivising residents near renewable energy projects with cheaper electricity and investment opportunities, or linking housing developments to community funding pots that residents can direct. Meaningful engagement with communities from the outset of any plans, via a public-private partnership of developer and local authority, can help to identify issues that could be positively addressed by new infrastructure. Showcasing benefits as they arise can paint a much more positive picture of development for local people.
Reform councillors, elected on a platform of taking back control for local communities, want us to explain how development translates into something practically beneficial for their areas. The private sector should meet this instinct head-on, not by arguing against it, but by showing that development, done properly, does exactly what those councillors and their voters want.
Practical steps for private sector planners
- Invest in local political intelligence: Understand who your new decision-makers are, where they came from, and what drives them. Don’t assume the engagement approaches that worked with the previous administration will work just as well.
- Lead with economic outcomes: Jobs, local business growth and supply chain opportunities are the language Reform councillors respond to.
- Reframe sustainability: Drop the net zero framing in local conversations and instead talk about lower energy bills, future-proofed buildings, and practical environmental benefits. The substance doesn’t need to change but language must.
- Engage on affordable housing: Be ready to show how your scheme contributes to local housing need in concrete terms.
- Educate without patronising: Many new councillors genuinely want to understand the planning system better. They are more willing to ask questions than established members who feel they ought to already know. Fill that space with clear, honest explanations of process and policy.
- Show the community benefit: Infrastructure improvements, school contributions, local employment, energy savings – these are the tangible outcomes that justify development to a Reform councillor’s voter base. Make them visible and make them early.
- Act now: The window is open. Future election cycles will bring more experience and more embedded positions. The time to influence the narrative is before those positions set.
