The political landscape across the Midlands and North of England has shifted considerably. Reform UK now controls 12 local authorities across England, including Lincolnshire County Council, with their presence continuing to grow through defections and by-election gains. Yet for all this electoral momentum, something fundamental is missing: clear, written policy. 

Reform did not publish local manifestos ahead of the May elections. While their national manifesto advocates for fast-tracking housing on brownfield sites, the practical translation of these principles into local planning policy remains conspicuously absent. For planning professionals, developers and anyone navigating the development sector in these areas, this creates a genuine challenge. 

When policy meets practice 

Planning applications don’t wait for manifestos. Across Reform-controlled councils, officers are processing applications and committees are making decisions right now. The question everyone is grappling with is straightforward: what does Reform actually want? 

Without published local policy, planning officers continue to follow national planning policy and local plan policies as they always have done. However, elected members may find themselves having to interpret priorities from national scale but must look through a local lens. This isn’t just administrative inconvenience. Policy uncertainty has real implications for project timelines, investment decisions and the strategic direction of developments that could shape communities for decades. 

Consider a developer with a sustainable urban extension already in the system. The national focus emphasises tangible infrastructure delivery. Does that translate into support for well-designed schemes with robust Section 106 contributions? Or resistance to imposed housing targets from Westminster? The answer varies depending on which councillor you ask. 

The legal framework doesn’t bend 

Here’s the practical reality for councils operating without published local manifestos: planning isn’t optional and the legal framework doesn’t pause for policy development. 

All councils must still apply the National Planning Policy Framework. They remain bound by Environmental Impact Assessment regulations where applicable. Conservation area duties remain. Planning decisions can be quashed where committees fail to provide adequate reasons for decisions that depart from officer recommendations, particularly when significant planning policies are engaged. 

For councillors new to local government, many of whom are unfamiliar with the constraints of planning law, this presents an immediate challenge. Campaign commitments meet the reality of statutory obligations like the Housing Delivery Test and the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities. 

Decisions without direction 

When planning committees consider contentious applications, they need a framework. What are the council’s strategic priorities? How does this application align with Reform’s vision for the area? Without written policy to reference, decisions risk becoming inconsistent or appearing arbitrary. 

This inconsistency is fertile ground for legal challenge. While the threshold for judicial review is high, patterns of inconsistent decision-making without clear policy justification get noticed. Developers who’ve been refused permission may compare notes with those who’ve been approved. The absence of clear policy rationale makes Reform decisions vulnerable. 

What residents actually want 

Here’s where the manifesto gap becomes interesting. Reform positions itself as the party of the people, cutting through bureaucracy to deliver what communities actually want. There’s a compelling argument that lengthy policy documents gather dust on shelves while residents care about outcomes: schools that have space for their children and developments that don’t overwhelm existing infrastructure. 

Perhaps written manifestos are overrated. But here’s the tension: without clear policy, how do you demonstrate you’re delivering what residents want rather than what individual councillors prefer? The legal system, for better or worse, expects documented reasoning. “We thought it was the right thing to do” doesn’t survive scrutiny in the High Court. 

Navigating the uncertainty 

For those working in the built environment sector, Reform’s approach to planning may require a different approach. The traditional playbook of demonstrating compliance with local plan policy may not resonate with councillors who view such documents with suspicion. 

Applications need to speak Reform’s language: tangible community benefits, infrastructure delivery and practical improvements. If your scheme delivers a new roundabout that solves a long-standing congestion problem, lead with that. If your Section 106 package guarantees a new primary school before the first homes are occupied, that’s worth emphasising more than your biodiversity net gain calculations. 

This doesn’t mean abandoning legal compliance, it means framing legally compliant schemes in ways that align with local priorities and address the concerns councillors are hearing from residents. 

Pre-application engagement becomes more valuable but also more unpredictable in this environment. Without clear written policy, early feedback from officers may not reflect committee priorities. It’s worth investing time in understanding the local political dynamic and what tangible outcomes councillors are championing in their wards. 

Crucially, meaningful public engagement becomes even more important in this context. Demonstrating genuine community support for a development can be particularly compelling where councillors have been elected on a mandate to listen to local voices. If the emphasis is on representing residents’ priorities, then evidence of public backing – whether through consultation responses, community benefits, or local partnerships – provides a powerful foundation for building consensus around well-designed schemes.