When people speak of planning, England typically emerges as a global anomaly in two senses. First, it has an unusually restrictive system. The result: among the most expensive housing in the world, but very little invested in the structures of our homes. Much of the value of our housing lies not in the structures themselves but in the planning permission for those structures to exist at all. Second, the English system lacks precise rules and relies on vague ‘policies’ whose application is unpredictable, costly and slow. Of course, many other planning systems have some element of discretion. In the US, it is called ‘discretionary review’, and it is common in unaffordable areas. Many pro-housing Democrats complain about this ‘discretionary review’ as a barrier to building more affordable homes. But the US also has development regulations that explicitly map out permitted and prohibited development—a system known as ‘zoning’. England’s planning system is almost entirely discretionary, because the ‘policies’ that set out what is acceptable are so unclear and often in conflict.
But beneath this familiar narrative lies a forgotten piece of history: England introduced, and occasionally still uses, a distinct form of zoning known as Special Development Orders (SDOs). Originating from the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, these orders provided a clear path for extensive, swift and predictable development once the rules had been decided. In essence, England had pockets of zoning—albeit hidden in plain sight.
Special Development Orders were created as a key part of the modern planning framework established by Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour government. The Act of 1947 is famous for nationalizing development rights and introducing local authority-led planning permissions.
Right-wingers often claim that the system was anti-development from the outset. But this misunderstands the intent. This landmark reform also included provisions allowing the housing minister to accelerate development by granting broad planning permissions directly in specific areas, bypassing local discretion entirely. These government decisions—formalised as Special Development Orders—outlined explicitly what development was automatically allowed, effectively zoning areas for particular uses without further delay.
The immediate post-war years showcased the practical value of these orders. For example, the development of Milton Keynes—one of England’s best-known New Towns—benefited significantly from an SDO issued in 1963. The Special Development Order permitted housing, commercial premises, schools, roads, and public amenities within clearly defined areas. By setting these permissions upfront, the government greatly simplified the subsequent development process. Rather than requiring each building or street to pass through individual planning approval, development in Milton Keynes could proceed swiftly, assured by clear zoning-like rules already established at a ministerial level.
This approach illustrates the potential of SDOs to facilitate quick and predictable development—but only after careful consideration of underlying principles and standards. Such a system does not remove the need for thoughtful deliberation; instead, it frontloads these decisions, enabling speedy delivery once consensus is reached. SDOs could prove invaluable today for initiatives like urban regeneration projects, where local stakeholders and government officials could first agree on development principles, allowing an SDO to subsequently unlock quick, predictable, and coordinated development.
England has continued to use other limited forms of zoning. Permitted Development Rights give automatic permissions for certain kinds of development. The rights are popularly used for limited home extensions such as loft conversions. Local Development Orders are sometimes used by councils to automatically permit specific kinds of building in certain areas. And the Green Belts are also a form of zoning, albeit a most restrictive kind that essentially does not permit new homes at all.
Zoning alone, even in its most effective form, is insufficient to guarantee abundant housing. The critical challenge is not just adopting zoning rules but ensuring that those rules generously permit housebuilding where housing demand is greatest. Simply implementing zoning does not give us abundant or affordable housing if the zoning remains highly restrictive.
US suburban zoning exemplifies this clearly: in huge swathes of the US, the zoning permits no more than detached single family homes, each required to have its own enormous parcel of land. Such overly restrictive zoning, designed to exclude those on low incomes who cannot afford large detached houses, demonstrates vividly how precise rules may restrict rather than encourage more affordable homes. As a result, most homes in the US are built in rural areas with no local government where there are no zoning rules at all.
But England’s historical use of Special Development Orders hints that we have neglected a productive tool. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the Government occasionally deployed SDOs when rapid or large-scale development aligned with national interests. Whether for New Towns or industrial parks in the 1960s or later enterprise zones, SDOs temporarily established a more generous and predictable environment—briefly mirroring international zoning practices, yet generally avoiding the restrictiveness seen in many parts of the US.
Despite their past effectiveness, Special Development Orders have largely faded from modern planning debates. SDOs could be a vital tool in this Labour Government’s mission to build 1.5 million new homes. Previous New Towns such as Milton Keynes successfully used SDOs to enable large-scale, well-planned communities. And the Government intends to use an SDO for the new Universal Studios theme park. But we should go much further than that if we are to build 1.5 million new homes this Parliament.
For all its faults, England’s planning system does have the tools to enable new homes to be clearly planned and quickly delivered. By carefully determining up front where and how growth is most urgently needed, Special Development Orders could become powerful tools for Labour again, particularly in contexts like urban renewal or building new infrastructure. For the Government to deliver quickly, it should use the best tools in our current planning system. Building the new homes that our communities desperately need cannot be delayed further. Attlee and other Labour Prime Ministers knew that delivering results for working people quickly mattered. It is time we renew this spirit of urgency. SDOs could help to transform our economy and build the new homes we need.