Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

From numbers to neighbourhoods: why the household projections still play an important role in planning
In days gone by[1], the biennial issue of official population and household projections was an inescapable ‘event’ for those involved in planning. Was housing need up or down? Which areas were projected to grow faster? Which local areas might be arguing for a cut in their housing target? Under localism, a whole industry of objectively assessed housing need specialists[2] formed around the dark art of local demography. 
But if housing targets in England are now set with reference to the stock and affordability-based standard method, surely these projections are no longer relevant?
Not so fast. All the signs are that planners do still need to grapple with them when considering housing, employment, retail, infrastructure and other needs.
Although the decoupling of housing targets and household projections is generally welcome,[3] it does raise questions on how one aligns these housing targets with other elements of plan-making that are inherently linked to projections of demographic change. In this blog, we explore these elements and discuss some of the questions that plan-makers will need to address, in light of ONS’s 2022-based Household Projections published today.[4]
Our interactive maps below show these projections at local authority level, including how they compare with past housing delivery, plan requirements and the current standard method. Headlines by potential Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) areas are set out in this blog.
Our key findings in this blog are:
 
  1. The latest ONS projections indicate higher national growth than any projections in over a decade, largely attributable to higher underlying population growth;
     
  2. The projections continue to ‘bake-in’ trends of declining household formation meaning they are still likely to under-estimate true housing need and demand;
     
  3. Ageing remains the key driver of growth in the number of households, but changing demographic trends (including declining birth rates and higher international migration) will affect demand from other groups, like single people, couples and families;
     
  4. Across potential Spatial Development Strategy areas, plan-makers will need to grapple with the demographic outputs of standard-method-based housing targets; and
     
  5. Household projections remain an important part of the evidence for plan-making: for housing but also employment, community infrastructure, retail and other topics. Strategies for housing (the amount, location and mix) will need to factor in ‘real world’ considerations like the need for affordable housing, the need to improve affordability, changing demand due to live-work patterns (working from home) and the need for flexibility in the labour market.
 

Housing headlines

Whilst household projections no longer form the starting point for setting housing requirements, it is still interesting to consider how the 2022-based projections compare with earlier iterations, and what this tells us about demographic trends across the country as a whole. 
Projections of population and household growth have been progressively declining over the last decade (Figure 1) owing to both declining population projections and household formation rates.
The 2022-based household projections show a reversal of these trends, largely because the underlying population growth is significantly higher than previously estimated. They represent the highest overall household projections in well over a decade, at 219,000-242,000 additional households per year, broadly the same as past levels of net housing additions. 
 
Figure 1 Projected 10-year household growth (England) and Past Housing Delivery

Source: MHCLG and ONS Projections, MHCLG Live Table 122

This increase is largely attributable to the change in underlying population (with more people overall, including more younger people as a result of international migration). But the figures also show that ONS’s latest projections continue to ‘bake-in’ past trends of worsening household formation, particularly amongst younger groups. This has always been a point of contention between the projections and planning, with ONS itself caveating its latest release by saying:
“Household projections are not a prediction or forecast of how many houses should be built in the future. Instead, they show how many additional households would form if assumptions based on previous demographic trends in population growth and household formation were to be realised. At the local level, household change is influenced by economic development and housing policies, factors that are not included in these projections.”
If we applied the earlier – 2018-based - set of household formation rates by age and sex (i.e. the proportion in a given group who form a household) to the 2022-based projection of those living in households, then projected annual growth over the 2025-35 period would be just under 224,000 (Table 1). The actual projected household growth in the 2022-based projections is 218,000; in other words, on a like-for-like basis, the latest projections project a continued deterioration in headship rates such that 6,000 households per year are effectively ‘lost’. When using headship rates from the 2014-based projections – the difference is even greater, at nearly 16,000.
 
Table 1 Comparison of projected annual household growth for England 2025-25 when using alternative headship rate projections

 

Household Formation Rates Applied

 

2022-based
2018-based
2014-based
2022-based Household Population
218,000
224,000
234,000
Difference
~
+6,000
+16,000
  

Metrics to mix

The changing demography impacts not only levels of household growth, but also its composition, with consequential implications for planning.
 
For decades the ageing population has been a significant contributor to growth;[5] older people are more likely to occupy homes as couples or singles whereas those of family age are more likely to have adults and children in a single dwelling with consequential implications for the number of homes required for a given size of population (e.g. four single older people who outlived their partner = four homes; a family unit of two adults and two children = one home). In the 2018-based projections 65+ households made up virtually all projected growth (Figure 2). This not only highlighted the importance of planning effectively for the ageing population (both for general housing and specialist housing, as well as infrastructure such as healthcare) but also raised questions on how to effectively plan for demand from other groups (for example to reflect changing working patterns in the post-pandemic world).
The 2022-based projections show older age groups still comprise the majority of growth. But changes to underlying birth rates show the number of families is now projected to decline by nearly 1m over 10 years; previously the decline was only marginal[6]. However, there is a reversal in trends amongst other household types: the number of single person households is projected to increase by nearly 750,000 and the number of adult only (couples, multiple adult households or families with non-dependent children) households increases by nearly 900,000.  The latter groups have a wide range of needs, and housing across a mix of sizes and types will be required. 
Figure 2 Projected Change by Household Type – England – 2025-35 – 2018-based and 2022-based

Source: Lichfields based on ONS

 

Informing strategic planning

With the intended move towards larger spatial planning areas (through Spatial Development Strategies[7]) it’s important to consider what these latest projections are showing at larger geographies, both in overall terms and for housing mix.
In line with the national picture, all but one potential SDS area (the West Midlands) has higher projected household growth in the 2022-based projections than in the previous (2018-based) projections, with the most significant increases in growth seen in parts of the north of England, along with Buckinghamshire and Surrey, as shown in Figure 3. 
 
Figure 3 Change in projected household growth between 2018-based and 2022-based projections by potential SDS area

Source: Lichfields based on ONS

Looking at projected household growth over the next 10 years, there remains a broad north-south pattern, albeit with some outliers. The South West and parts of the Midlands are expected to see the fastest rates of household growth, exceeding 11% over 10 year (1.1% per year), as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Rate of projected household growth – 2025-35 in 2022-based projections by potential SDS area

Source: Lichfields based on ONS

With the household projections being lower than the standard method across all the 36 potential SDS areas in England, plan-makers will need to consider how local demographics will respond to the extra supply that is delivered by virtue of the stock-plus-affordability method used to set local housing need.
Depending on the assumptions made, there could be different implications for planning for housing, infrastructure, employment and other needs. For example:
 
  1. If ‘additional’ housing (over the projections, up to the standard method) is assumed to generate additional in-migration or higher family formation (e.g. births), this might generate higher population growth in the area than the underlying projections suggest. Consideration needs to be given as to whether this is realistic and what impacts could this have on neighbouring areas; in doing so plan-makers could consider the use of ONS’s variant projections. There could be consequential implications for education, employment and community infrastructure;
     
  2. ‘Additional’ housing might also induce additional household growth, for example by improving affordability of accommodation[8] and facilitating adult children to move out of the family home and form their own household, or allowing adults to live alone rather than in shared housing.[9] Thus the result might not be additional population increases (c.f. the ONS projections) but simply more households in that area. Plan-makers will need to consider what impacts this might have on the mix of housing needed, depending on where this additional household growth comes from; and/or
     
  3.  A combination of the above, along with the potential for slight increases in housing vacancy rates as a result of there being more choice in the market. In some places (e.g. London or coastal/tourist areas), additional supply might lead to an increase in the number of properties that are occupied as second homes or short-term lets. More generally, a higher number of vacant homes can help support functioning of the housing market and investment in improving stock. England has some of the lowest vacancy/second home rates in the world.[10] 
Comparing the projections and standard method helps give an idea of the potential types of impact future supply might have, including where supply per the levels in the Standard Method might have the greatest impact on affordability. Of the 36 potential SDS areas in England:
  • There are 13 SDS areas where the household projections equate to 75% or more of the standard method, i.e. where the projections are most closely aligned with local housing need. These are all in the Midlands and North. The closest match is seen in Shropshire where the 2022-based projections expect household growth of just under 2,900 per year between 2025 and 2035, which is only 1% lower than the standard method (of 2,906). The figures are also close in Lancashire, with a difference of only 6% (4,700 compared with just under 5,000);
     
  • There are 19 SDS areas where the household projections are between 50% and 75% of the standard method – these have a broad geographic spread across most regions; and
     
  • There are 4 SDS areas where the projections are 50% or less than the standard method – Greater Essex (50%), Hertfordshire (38%), Surrey (37%) and Greater London (33%). This is perhaps unsurprising given these areas represent some of the most constrained parts of the country where housebuilding has failed to keep pace with demand historically; this has led to poor affordability (and thus a high standard method figure) whilst also supressing household growth (and thus low household projections, since these are based on past demographic trends). In these areas, new supply could have the greatest benefit to affordability, but will also require greatest consideration for how housing growth will relate to the resulting local population.
A comparison of context (past completions, standard method and plan requirement) and the new projections by potential SDS area is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Housing Context and Projections by SDS

Source: Lichfields based on MHCLG, ONS and Lichfields research

 

Projections to places – what next?

These latest projections are a helpful piece of evidence, being the first set of full household projections produced since the 2021 Census and the first in over five years. They reflect ONS’s most up-to-date picture of projected population growth, which has changed markedly over the last decade. The projections show that the ageing population will remain a key national driver of growth, but also raise important questions about how the planning system supports other groups – particularly single people and couples – in meeting their housing needs. Wider challenges – of addressing decades of housing backlog, improving affordability, allowing flexibility in labour markets and delivering affordable housing– will remain key considerations in considering crucial questions of quantum, location and type of homes and the wider land use questions that arise.
 


Footnotes

 
[1] Before 2018, when the then Government realised its 2016-based household projections ‘broke’ its recently introduced standard method based on the 2014-based projections
[2] Including the authors of this blog  
[3] For reasons explained in this blog here. This includes the potential circularity where household projections are constrained by housing supply (since households cannot form without houses to move into), and the fact that short-term trend based projections do not address long-term issues of undersupply (citing sources which estimated an undersupply of around 2m homes since the 1990s).  
[4] The projections are available from ONS here  
[5] See for example, the 1991 household projections for the period to 2016 which suggested the change in age structure accounted for 21 per cent of the increase in households – 1998 DETR Memorandum to the House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee here  
[6] This likely reflects the consequences of the housing shortage. There is evidence that worsening affordability and uncertainty over housing is a significant factor in delaying or deterring couples from starting families – see here  
[7] Strategic authorities are emerging therefore in some places there are likely to be changes from the geographies assumed for this blog. It is across these wider geographies (however ultimately configured) that the Government intends for strategies to come forward that will, inter alia, set housing requirement figures for which local plans will provide for each LPA.  
[8] There is good evidence that supply of homes over and above levels of household growth impacts on the relative affordability of homes, even after taking account of the contribution of rising incomes and interest rates. The OBR has found that sustained increase in housebuilding of all tenures will help to ensure house price to income ratios remain stable over time (source: OBR, Working Paper No.6: Forecasting House Prices, 2014). A review by the Greater London Authority (GLA), which looked at seven different studies, found that building new housing, even at market rates, improves housing affordability overall, including freeing up other homes as people move. (source: GLA, Housing Research Note 10: The Affordability Impacts of New Housing Supply, 2023)  
[9] In 2023-24, 1.5 million households in England (6% of all households) contained a concealed household (defined as having at least one additional adult present who would like to buy or rent their own accommodation but could not afford to do so) (source: ONS, English Housing Survey 2023 to 2024: Experiences of the Housing Crisis, May 2025). Over 1.3 million households remain on social housing waiting lists (source: MHCLG, Table 600: Households on Local Authority Housing Registers, 2024). At least 326,000 people (most of them families with children) are living in temporary accommodation, with 45% of those families remaining in such conditions for more than two years (source: Shelter, Press Release, December 2024)  
[10] See Figure HM1.1.2 in this OECD analysis here

CONTINUE READING

Emergency measures to unlock housebuilding in The Capital
In recognition of London’s acute housing delivery challenges, MHCLG has today released a Written Ministerial Statement[1] and Policy Note[2] aiming to reinvigorate stagnating housing and affordable housing development in the Capital. The Statement and Policy Note propose a package – much trailed in the media in recent weeks - of targeted measures focused on London Plan policy and guidance covering affordable housing, viability and design, as well as CIL. They also contain powers for the Mayor to recover non-strategic applications above 50 units and proposals in the Green Belt and on Metropolitan Open Land. The aim: to revive the housing sector, unlock affordable housing delivery and get London building homes again.
 
So, why has the Government acted, what is it proposing, and will it have the desired effect?
 
Background
Most will be familiar with the perfect storm of economic headwinds and regulatory challenges facing the capital’s housing sector, which have in combination led to unprecedented low levels of delivery. The Ministerial Statement and Policy Note come in the context of multiple challenges associated with construction cost inflation; the uncertainty and costs surrounding well-intended but opaque fire regulations; high interest rates; and multi-layered rafts of complex and often-competing policy. The combined effect of these challenges is a subdued housing sector and near-paralysis in affordable housing delivery. The problems have been clear for some time: Back in 2023, City Hall and London Councils had co-convened the London Housing Delivery Task force and the Conservative Government had commissioned the London Plan Review[3] in the face of concerns that its targets would not be met.
In the face of this inauspicious backdrop, the Government has nevertheless pledged to deliver the most significant expansion of affordable housebuilding in a generation as part of its commitment to “get Britain building”. Its national ambition is to deliver 1.5 million new homes in five years, and there is no path to this goal that does not pass through London. Likewise, since re-election in 2024, the Mayor of London has pledged to deliver 40,000 new council homes by the end of the decade, double the previous target.
15 months on from the General Election, political ambition and the commercial realities remain poles apart. Recent figures from Molior make the scale of the problem clear, indicating that just 15-20,000 new private homes (on schemes of 20+ homes) will be actively under construction in London by January 2027, compared with 60-65,000 homes under construction at any given time between 2015 and 2020.[4] London is now on track for fewer than 5,000 private construction starts in 2025. More than a third of boroughs recorded no housing starts at all in Q1 of 2025.
Unsurprisingly, in light of these subdued private housing starts and market headwinds, there is chronic under delivery of affordable housing in all 32 boroughs. According to the latest GLA figures, affordable housing starts in the capital have plummeted by 84% since their 2022 peak – falling from 25,658 (April 2022-March 2023) to just 3,991 (April 2024-March 2025).[5]
The GLA has previously attempted to intervene in the capital’s housing delivery, including through its December 2024 Practice Note[6]. It had introduced some flexibility to the affordable housing threshold where schemes committed to increased proportions of social rent (27% was provided indicatively). However, it received little fanfare and had no noticeable practical effect. We have seen greater pragmatism and flexibility in the application of policy within the GLA and some LPAs but this is not universal and therefore difficult platform for investing in bringing forward schemes. It has been clear for some time, though, that much more needs to be done.
A Government intervention of some sort was inescapable, and the political party alignment of Mayor and Whitehall meant this would necessarily embrace the GLA going further than it had before, bringing us to the package of more radical measures on which the Government and the GLA will be consulting for six weeks from November 2025. 
So, what sits within the package?
 
1. Viability Threshold – A new Time-Limited Planning Route
A core component of the new package of support is the introduction of a new ‘time-limited planning route’ that allows schemes on private land to proceed without a viability assessment, provided they deliver at least 20 per cent affordable housing, with at least 60% for social rent and the remainder intermediate tenures. Grant funding will be available to homes by unit above the first 10 per cent homes on a scheme. A gain-share mechanism will be in place to increase affordable housing delivery on sites where construction continues into the next decade, where market conditions improve. There is no change proposed to the 60:40 split in favour of Boroughs which might continue to make the late stage reviews a barrier to investment in many schemes. 
The route is a temporary measure open to planning permissions granted by 31 March 2028 or until the publication of the revised London Plan. It will sit alongside the existing Fast Track Route, for which the affordable housing threshold is 35 per cent, and the Viability Tested Route.
The new route is available to conventional C3 housing schemes, including Build to Rent, but does not apply to alternative ‘living sector’ products like PBSA and co-living – or schemes where they are the main uses. A lowered 35% threshold will apply to public land and industrial land where capacity is lost.
The Ministerial Statement notes too that Government intends to clarify the use of Section 73 applications so they can no longer be used to reconsider a scheme’s viability or planning obligations, which will be done through an update to Planning Practice Guidance ‘in due course’ and through national decision making policies, which are due to be consulted on by the end of the year.
If eligible housing schemes progress to completion of their first floor level by the end of March 2030, the requirements for a late stage review will be waived. For larger housing schemes 200 units must have been built by that date, unless it is demonstrated that the delay was caused by the Building Safety Regulator. The policy note sets out the late stage review process for schemes that do not meet those deadlines.
 
2. Temporary Relief from Borough CIL
One of the more radical aspects of the measures is the proposed temporary CIL relief in attempt to redirect money that would have gone into CIL payments towards affordable housing via s106 agreements, which might otherwise have been negotiated down. The intention is that qualifying brownfield schemes (other than grey or Green Belt) achieving 20% affordable housing could benefit from targeted relief from borough CIL (note, not Mayoral CIL), which would only be applied at 50%. Additional relief appears to be available for schemes committing to higher levels of affordable housing. 
 
3. Design and Layout Requirements
The Government will also be consulting on the withdrawal of elements of London Plan Guidance that can constrain the density of housing developments. Guidance will be revised (or withdrawn) to allow for greater flexibility in three key areas:
 
  1. Dual aspect units: proposed withdrawal of relevant sections of the Housing Design Standards LPG and provision of updated guidance in relation to discretion in application of London Plan Policy D6, to afford developers flexibility in how they approach the design and mix of single and dual aspect dwellings in order to optimise sites and layouts.
     
  2. Dwellings per core: proposed withdrawal of relevant sections of the Housing Design Standards LPG to remove restrictive current guidance on the requirement for no more than eight dwellings allowed per stair core so that boroughs can consider designs which allow for additional quantum.
     
  3. Cycle Storage: reduced requirements for cycle parking at residential developments and more flexibility in how storage is provided, for example through off-site provision.
The note makes welcome reference to the significant policy layering in London. Saying that the Mayor “is clear” that in the next London Plan “there should be a streamlining of requirements on developers and a reduction in the layering of policy across the London Plan and borough-level local plans” – reflecting the approach in the anticipated national decision making policies.
 
4. Changes to the Mayor’s Planning Powers
The measures then include proposals to extend the Mayor’s planning powers to enable Mayoral intervention on smaller housing schemes and developments on the Green Belt and MOL.
 
The 2008 Mayor of London Order requires boroughs to refer to the Mayor any planning application for development of strategic importance - principally defined in terms of quantum (150+ units) and height (30+m above ground). The Mayor’s powers allow him to direct refusal of these strategic applications or, for application for large scale development or major infrastructure, to direct that the Mayor is to act as the LPA.
The proposed changes to the Order are two-fold:
 
  • Boroughs must refer applications of 50 or more homes to the Mayor, where they are minded to refuse them.
     
  • The Mayor will be able to call-in (act as LPA) for proposals relating to buildings of more than 1000sqm on Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land.
It is anticipated that this referral of additional schemes would be a more streamlined process which would sit alongside the existing referrals. 
This change could allow the Mayor to intervene and exert influence on a much higher proportion of applications for housing in London. For example, in the year to date, 44 planning applications for schemes exceeding 150 homes were submitted to London’s LPAs and referred to the Mayor. In the same period, 74 applications were submitted for schemes with more than 50 dwellings, so 30 more applications would have been referrable to the Mayor in the last year[7]. However, the Mayor still only intervenes in a very small proportion of applications, and it remains to be seen whether alongside these expanded powers the Mayor would become more interventionist.
 
5. City Hall Developer Investment Fund
The final component of the measures is confirmation of a £322 million of grant funding to establish a new City Hall Developer Investment Fund, intended to enable the Mayor to take a more direct role in unlocking homes, including through targeted investment. The Government and the Mayor will also work together to develop proposals for the potential New Town locations identified in London.
  
Will it have the desired effect?
The Government’s intervention in the London housing sector through this Ministerial Statement and Policy Note is welcome and not a day too soon. Our project experience and engagement with those across the sector mirrors London's housing and affordable housing statistics, which show a precipitous decline in planning applications for new homes and a sustained period of subdued housing delivery.
Developing conventional housing in large parts of the capital has become impossibly constrained. The London Plan’s threshold approach to affordable housing is not fit for purpose at 35% in the current market and the resultant late stage review imposed on viability tested schemes is widely regarded as making schemes uninvestable. A mechanistic application of policies covering dual aspect units, units per core and cycle storage is also unreasonably inhibiting otherwise acceptable housing schemes. Borough CIL is an additional cost which could be used in challenging markets to unlock development. These have become longstanding challenges and the MHCLG intervention is well overdue.
Of course, the Government could have gone further. It could perhaps have promoted a lower affordable housing threshold than 20% which remains challenging to achieve in many parts of the Capital – many schemes are still only viable at less than the threshold. A more nuanced approach to the threshold approach could have been explored in which developers offered more affordable homes than is strictly viable within viability-tested schemes (accepting a compressed margin) to enable the inherently problematic late stage review to be waived and funding uncertainties circumvented. The interventions could also have been expanded further to facilitate other forms of housing and living sector products which contribute to London’s diversifying housing stock and to housing need. We and our clients who bring forward residential accommodation have many thoughts on the permutations of these and other measures which could be further considered by MHCLG through the consultation.
There is clearly a balance to be struck in how one best unlocks housing delivery and securing reasonable and proportionate public benefits from development. The measures proposed by Government are meaningful and collectively they might be more than might have been anticipated when speculation began in the summer. We can say they will undoubtedly have some positive and immediate effects. The extent and speed of change is, of course, reliant on how quickly they are formally adopted after the consultation and then the response of London’s LPAs: it will be incumbent on the boroughs to embrace the measures in the Ministerial Statement and Policy Note, and to apply them positively in their decision making. Consideration will also need to be given to how these proposed short term measures are reflected in the current review of the London Plan, the first draft of which is due to be published next year, when hopefully the market will already be feeling the positive effects of today’s proposed changes.
The elephant in the room is clearly the challenge of demand and the fact that a factor undermining viability of many schemes is the challenge of selling units in the market since the end of Help to Buy and with no alternative Government support for first time buyers. Absent that demand-side support, it must remain doubtful that the Government’s proposals are sufficient to bring housing delivery back to previous levels, let alone the more ambitious targets for which the next London Plan must aim.  
The next step is a 6 week consultation, from November. It is not clear what form this will take or how detailed it will be, but in the meantime, the Policy Note and Statement act as a soft launch of the proposals and a precursor to an imminent formal consultation process. They are also material considerations from now. This means that there could be further changes to the proposals following the consultation and should not yet be treated as in their final form or formally adopted. The changes will need to be enacted in secondary legislation, but we envisage will begin to be discussed in pre-applications, submissions and determinations, given the clear direction of travel.
We can and should be positive about the measures proposed by MHCLG. They are a tentatively promising basis for new housing development opportunities to emerge in the capital, and for stalled schemes with permission to be revisited through fresh or amended applications to unlock their viability. The consultation provides a mechanism for Government to listen to sector views on how they can go further and, ultimately, achieve the essential reversal in the downward trend of market and affordable housing delivery in the capital. 
 

[1] Written Material Statement 

[2] Homes for London: Policy Note

[3] London Plan Review

[4] Residential Development in London Q3 2025, Molior

[5] GLA figures available here

[6] GLA Planning and Housing Practice Note December 2024

[7] Source: Landstack

CONTINUE READING

Safeguarding the cultural legacy of the Millenium Commission
It was in the news recently that The Lowry, a renowned theatre and art gallery in Salford Quays and the North West’s most visited attraction, was applying for around £10m in funding for ‘critical upgrades’ needed to prevent closure[1].  This is indicative of a wider trend, with the chair of Arts Council England telling the Guardian earlier this year that arts and cultural centres across England are at a “tipping point”, with many facing closure or restricted operations without continued public investment[2].
 
The Lowry is a Millenium Commission project which opened in 2000.  Established to celebrate the turn of the millennium, the Commission used National Lottery funding to support investment into buildings such as the Lowry, but also environmental projects, celebrations and community schemes.  It invested over £2 billion into around 200 projects between 1993 and 2006, ranging from community greening initiatives and Village Hall improvements all the way though to flagship projects such as The Millenium Bridge and Dome (since repurposed as the O2 Arena).
Arguably, the Commission’s longest-lasting impact was in enabling the construction of a host of new, cutting-edge cultural and educational projects up and down the Country.  Alongside the Lowry, notable examples include: The Tate Modern, The Eden Project, Science Centres in Glasgow, Dundee and Winchester, The Deep aquarium in Hull, Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium and Centre, and The Glasshouse International Centre for Music in Gateshead (formerly SAGE Gateshead).
Many were also designed to be of architectural as well as cultural significance, with the Lowry mirroring Bilbao’s Guggenheim; The Glasshouse’s acoustics-focussed shell casting an imposing image over the Tyne; and others, such as the Glasgow Science Centre’s titanium-clad buildings, featuring cutting-edge materials.
Overall, the Commission sparked an unprecedented period of investment into the UK’s cultural infrastructure, in full recognition of the enormous impact these types of facilities can have.  However, 25 years on, the challenges of operating and maintaining these state-of-the-art facilities is becoming apparent.
In many cases, their internal infrastructure remains unchanged and in need of an upgrade, whilst bespoke building materials like glass and titanium are expensive to maintain and replace.  Similarly, whilst the buildings can look futuristic, their green credentials are often below today’s standards, meaning huge utilities bills to heat the expansive spaces and an uphill battle to improve sustainability.  Some famous instances of closed millennium projects include the National Centre for Popular Music in Sheffield which closed after just one year in 2000, the Urbis museum in Manchester which closed in 2010, and West Bromwich’s ill-fated arts facility The Public which closed in 2013.
These issues explain why so many of these organisations are now having to strive to demonstrate their ongoing worth - both in financial and cultural terms - at a time when regeneration funding pots are shrinking and pressures on the public finances have arguably never been greater.
Lichfields has recently worked with both The Lowry and The Glasshouse to help them quantify their economic and social contributions.  We found that both organisations and those like them generate very significant levels of economic activity, enrich the UK’s cultural fabric and the lives of their local communities, develop the skills of the next generation of talent, and act as the beating cultural heart of the wider regeneration projects they sit within.  For example, we found that the Lowry delivers around £48 million in GVA annually and attracted 860,000 visitors to the North West in 2023/24, whilst The Glasshouse has delivered over 233,000 learning sessions and supported over 2.8 million attendances to educational programmes since opening.
Importantly, they represent outstanding value for money when it comes to public funding, offering very significant return on investment.  Research by CEBR found that in 2023, the average return on investment of Arts Council England National Portfolio Organisations was £3.12 in direct GVA for every £1 of public funding received[3].  On top of this, Department for Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport [DCMS] research estimates that that for every £1 in direct GVA generated by the sector, £2.17 in GVA is created nationally through supply-chain effects[4].
Whilst the economic contributions of these types of organisations are considerable, it is their wider and harder to quantify impacts which cannot be understated, such as their educational outputs and the support provided to local vulnerable communities and young people.  There is some recognition of this from Government, with departments such as DCMS working to provide new ways for cultural organisations to demonstrate their value.  The Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced that the Government was updating the Green Book business case guidance in January 2025, based on findings of the review published by HM Treasury in June 2025.  The review acknowledges the need to better capture transformational impacts and ensure that decision-makers consider wider, less quantifiable benefits.  A new version of the Green Book is set to be released in early 2026.  (See Lichfields’ recent Insight on business case best practice here).
The Millenium Commission projects were developed as bold visions of the UK’s cultural potential, and like so many other organisations now form part of our rich legacy.  It is vital that their economic, social and cultural value is fully recognised, and sufficient public and financial support provided to ensure this legacy is not lost.

 

Footnotes
[3] CEBR (2025): Spillover impacts in the publicly funded arts and culture sector
[4] DCMS Economic Estimates: Output per filled job (2022).

CONTINUE READING

Why the tRESP Consultation Matters for the Future of Energy Investment
The Transitional Regional Energy Strategic Plan (tRESP) consultation, launched in September 2025, marks a pivotal moment in how Great Britain plans, invests in, and delivers the energy transition. For developers, operators and investors, and anyone involved in shaping places, this is not just another technical consultation — it is the foundation of a new way of coordinating infrastructure, aligning investment, and delivering the Government’s ambitious 2030 decarbonised grid and 2050 net zero targets.
 
The tRESP is not the final destination — it is a stepping stone towards full Regional Energy Strategic Plans (RESPs) from 2026. But it is a critical milestone: a unique opportunity for the planning and development sector to help ensure that the energy transition reflects local needs, supports growth, and is achievable on the ground.
 
In this blog, I’ll explain:
  • What the tRESP is and why it matters
  • The four key components of the plan
  • Opportunities for the sector 
  • Potential challenges and watch-points
  • Why your engagement is essential before the consultation closes on 3 November 2025.

 

What is the tRESP?

At its heart, the tRESP is a national energy planning exercise with regional granularity. Led by the National Energy System Operator (NESO) under Ofgem’s direction, the plan provides the first coordinated framework to guide how the electricity distribution networks (and wider energy system) respond to the rapid growth of low-carbon technologies — from heat pumps and EVs to renewables and storage.
 
It will directly feed into the ED3 price control process (2028–2033) — the regulatory framework that sets out what investment Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) can make, and how those costs are recovered. In other words, the tRESP will influence where new capacity is built, when, and at what cost.
  
For energy developers and operators, the outcomes of the consultation could:
  • Shape the availability of grid capacity for housing, commercial development, and infrastructure projects.
     
  • Influence how regions balance growth and decarbonisation.
     
  • Provide new data, maps, and tools that can support local plan-making and infrastructure delivery.
 
The consultation is structured around four interlocking components:
  1. Nations and Regions Contexts – baseline conditions and priorities for each of the 11 RESP areas.
     
  2. Pathways – short and long-term projections for low-carbon technologies out to 2050.
     
  3. Consistent Planning Assumptions (CPAs) – agreed national assumptions for DNOs to use in forecasting.
     
  4. Strategic Investment Need (SI Need) – identifying where targeted network investment could unlock growth and accelerate decarbonisation.
 
1. Nations and Regions Contexts – A New Evidence Base
The tRESP provides initial reports for each nation and region, combining demographics, socio-economics, energy infrastructure, transport, heating, industry, economy, and targets. These are presented through geospatial maps, charts, and narratives on the NESO digital platform.
 
For energy developers and operators, this is significant:
  • It creates a consistent evidence base for energy planning, available at regional scale.
     
  • It highlights differences across places — recognising that the South West, Scotland, or the North East face distinct challenges.
     
  • It links energy infrastructure to broader socio-economic and planning considerations.
Watch point: Local nuance is still limited. For now, nationally validated datasets have been prioritised, with local datasets excluded to ensure consistency. That means local authority, developer, or community-level insights are not fully represented. The full RESP (from 2026) will integrate more place-based engagement — but only if stakeholders feed into this transitional stage.
 
 
2. Pathways – Mapping the Road to 2030 and 2050
The Pathways element models the scale and timing of low-carbon technology deployment.
  • A single short-term pathway to 2035 aligns with Ofgem’s requirements and reflects the Holistic Transition Future Energy Scenario (FES) – high renewables, high consumer engagement 
     
  • From 2035, three long-term pathways to 2050 explore different futures: Holistic Transition, Electric Engagement, and Hydrogen Evolution.
For energy developers and operators, this provides early visibility of:
  • Where and when demand for electricity will grow (e.g. from heat pump uptake or EV charging).
     
  • How much renewable generation and storage is expected to come online in different regions.
     
  • The scale of infrastructure investment needed to deliver grid decarbonisation.
Watch point: These pathways are still being refined. Data shared with DNOs in July 2025 will be updated in November and December, with the final version due January 2026. While the consultation is based on a moving picture, feedback now will help ensure it reflects local and project-level realities.
3. Consistent Planning Assumptions (CPAs) – Getting the Numbers Right
Forecasting energy demand is notoriously complex. To ensure consistency across DNOs, the tRESP proposes common assumptions on key drivers of demand growth:
  • Electric vehicles (EVs)
     
  • Residential heat pumps
     
  • Appliance and lighting demand changes
The CPAs define not just the numbers but also the methodology for translating technology adoption into peak demand — the key driver of network reinforcement.
  
For energy developers and operators, CPAs matter because they underpin the scale of network upgrades that may or may not be delivered in each region. If assumptions are too optimistic (or pessimistic), the grid could be over- or under-prepared, with real-world consequences for housing delivery, economic growth, and decarbonisation targets.
 
Watch point: While consistency is welcome, there is a tension between national standardisation and local realities. For example, assumptions about EV adoption or heat pump uptake may not reflect local housing stock, affluence, or rurality. This is where local insight will be vital to ensure the assumptions reflect real-world development patterns. 

4. Strategic Investment Need – Where Big Decisions Will Be Made
Perhaps the most directly relevant component is the identification of Strategic Investment Needs (SI Needs) — the areas where targeted investment could unlock growth and accelerate decarbonisation.
 
NESO has launched a GB-wide request for information (RFI) to capture emerging energy needs not already in the pathways. Over 1,700 submissions have already been received, with consultation maps showing clusters of potential needs.
SI Needs could include:
  • Anticipatory investment for major housing or employment growth areas.
     
  • Upgrades to enable industrial decarbonisation.
     
  • Reinforcement for cross-boundary or whole-system benefits.
For energy developers and operators, this is where local development priorities most directly intersect with the energy system.
 
Watch points:
  • Current outputs are interim and don’t yet include hydrogen infrastructure or motorway service areas
     
  • Inclusion of a need does not guarantee investment — it simply flags areas where coordination may be warranted.
     
  • Active engagement is crucial to ensure local growth priorities are visible and not overlooked in favour of more ‘obvious’ system-wide drivers. 

5. Opportunities for the Sector
From an energy and infrastructure perspective, the tRESP is both a challenge and an opportunity:
  1. Evidence for Local Plans – The Nations and Regions Contexts provide a new dataset to support local plan-making, infrastructure delivery plans, and climate action strategies. 
     
  2. Alignment of Energy and Spatial Planning – For the first time, regional energy scenarios are being tied explicitly to development and socio-economic trends.
     
  3. Influence Over Strategic Investment – By engaging with the consultation, stakeholders can shape which growth areas are recognised as nationally significant.
     
  4. Anticipatory Planning – Early visibility of pathways allows developers and operators to start considering how EV charging, heat pumps, and renewables will reshape demand for land, infrastructure, and buildings.
 
 
Key Watch-Points and Risks
While the tRESP is positive, stakeholders should approach it with a critical eye:
  • Local Data Gaps – Without strong local input, the risk is that national datasets underplay or misrepresent local realities.
     
  • Timing – The consultation closes on 3 November 2025, but final outputs aren’t due until January 2026. That leaves limited time for integration into live plan-making processes.
     
  • Uncertainty Beyond 2035 – With three diverging pathways, long-term clarity is limited. These should be seen as scenarios, not forecasts.
     
  • Delivery Risk – Identifying need is not the same as securing investment. Ofgem’s price control decisions will ultimately determine what is funded.
     
  • Integration with Other Reforms – The tRESP sits alongside the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, planning reform, and wider infrastructure initiatives. The risk is policy overlap or misalignment.

Why Engagement is Essential
NESO has made clear that this consultation is both a test of approach and an invitation to collaborate. For energy developers, operators, and local authorities, this is a rare opportunity to shape national infrastructure priorities before they are locked in.
 
The consultation asks practical questions, including:
  • Do the Nations and Regions Contexts provide a clear and useful reflection of your area’s conditions?
  • Do the Pathways align with your local understanding of future demand and generation?
  • Are the Consistent Planning Assumptions (CPAs) appropriate for your region and sector?
  • Where should Strategic Investment be prioritised to unlock growth or accelerate decarbonisation?
Responses are due by 3 November 2025 via the NESO consultation portal.

Final Thoughts
The tRESP consultation may sound technical, but its implications are deeply practical. For energy developers and operators, it is about ensuring that the future energy system:
  • Unlocks, rather than constrains, growth
  • Reflects the realities of place
  • Delivers on net zero and resilience in a way that supports communities
The message is clear: if we want a system that works for our places, we need to engage now.
This is a chance to help create an energy system that is strategic, equitable, and place-based - and that delivers not just on 2050 net zero, but on the urgent 2030 decarbonised grid.

CONTINUE READING