What will May's local elections mean for strategic development partnerships?

The local elections in May promise to be hotly contested and hard won. They also promise to reshape the pace and priority of housing delivery.

Strategic partnerships between local authorities, registered providers and developers are a commonplace and effective way to deliver large-scale and complex schemes often over 10- or 15-year development windows.

Whilst those partnerships are designed to operate across multiple electoral cycles, housing officers and developers will undoubtedly be thinking about what might happen if control in their local authority changes.

New members may want to make changes that reflect policy and leadership priorities, and it is important that development partners understand where the risk lies and how that risk is best managed

Corporate continuity

Strategic partnerships are bound by well-established legal and contractual frameworks, typically through overarching development agreements or joint venture vehicles. They are entered into by local authorities in their capacity as corporate entities, meaning that a change in administration cannot easily undo those commitments.

Termination provisions are typically structured to protect delivery partners, often requiring compensation for costs incurred and, in some cases, anticipated returns. In practice, this creates a strong incentive for continuity.

Shared governance is designed into partnership agreements to ensure that no single political group can easily halt progress and that decisions are taken by all strategic partnership participants, often requiring unanimity. 

That does not mean, however, that a new administration might, quite legitimately, seek to revisit aspects of a scheme, such as tenure mix, affordable housing provision, phasing, design standards or community benefits. Viability assumptions, value for money and delivery timelines might also come under greater scrutiny and amendments. The challenge lies in managing this recalibration without undermining scheme viability for all parties.

The risk arises where scrutiny tips into disruption. Repeated reconsideration of previously approved decisions can delay delivery, increase costs and, in some cases, expose the authority to challenge. Clear governance structures and decision-making protocols are therefore essential.

Flexibility and the resilience should always be baked into the original structure of the partnership. That flexibility may well allow for variation within defined parameters, meaning they are often better equipped to absorb political change without triggering dispute.

Good governance

Well-designed governance frameworks are one of the most effective tools for maintaining continuity.

Well-structured partnerships typically operate through layered governance frameworks: project boards, operations boards and specialist working groups. Decision-making is shared, and in many cases, requires consensus.

The composition of these boards and specialist working groups is critical. Senior local authority representation – with clear links into Cabinet or Mayoral decision-making – can significantly reduce the risk of delay following an election. Where that alignment is weak, developers may find previously agreed decisions revisited or decision making slow.

For local authorities, ensuring that governance structures are properly embedded and understood by members is critical. This should include clarity on:

• Which decisions are reserved to members and which are delegated.
• The role of officers in advising and implementing decisions.
• The thresholds for revisiting previously agreed matters.

Strategic alignment with adopted policy frameworks provides an additional layer of resilience.

Local Plans, housing strategies and delivery targets are subject to statutory processes and cannot be easily or quickly changed. Partnerships that are demonstrably aligned with these frameworks benefit from a degree of political continuity. For local authorities, this reinforces the importance of ensuring that partnerships are clearly positioned as vehicles for delivering adopted policy rather than as standalone commercial arrangements.

Early engagement with newly elected members should not be underestimated. They can build a shared understanding of the partnership’s objectives, constraints and benefits. This is particularly important for schemes where public visibility and political interest are high.

Demonstrating early delivery - whether through affordable housing, community infrastructure or public realm improvements - can also help to build broader support, reducing the likelihood of challenge

Resilient partnerships

The most resilient partnerships are those where all parties are financially and operationally interdependent. Mechanisms such as revenue sharing, open-book accounting and shared risk structures create alignment. They also make partnerships more difficult to unwind. Joint venture structures further insulate delivery from direct political intervention by creating a degree of separation between the project and the authority itself.

Practical challenges, however, will remain. Local authorities retain significant bargaining power, particularly where land is involved. Procurement processes can be slow, and political oversight can extend timelines further.

Ultimately, the strategic partnerships that weather political change best share common characteristics. They are:

• Robust and legally enforceable contractual frameworks.
• Clear and well-understood governance structures.
• Flexibility to accommodate policy shifts without destabilising viability.
• Alignment with adopted policy and long-term housing need.
• Transparent engagement with elected members and stakeholders.

Local elections will always bring an element of uncertainty. But for local authorities operating within well-designed partnerships, they are more likely to reshape deliver rather than stop it. Strategic partnerships are, after all, just that – a partnership to benefit all parties. 

Shazia Bashir is a Partner in the Social Housing team at Winckworth Sherwood.