From 14 April 2026, key parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 switch on in England, reshaping both planning and project finance. The Commencement No. 10 Regulations-made at 2.30 p.m. on 2 March 2026 and published on legislation.gov.uk-activate sections 174 to 179 and Schedule 17. Two lines matter most for investors and developers: development corporations can be made planning authorities, and statutory borrowing limits fall away for new debt.

In planning terms, Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) and New Town Development Corporations (NTDCs) can be designated as the local planning authority for plan-making and neighbourhood planning. They can ask the relevant councils to assist and, where agreed, delegate aspects of development management. The package also allows corporations to handle certain consenting under Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989-useful where grid and energy infrastructure sit inside a wider regeneration scheme.

Mayoral Development Corporations (MDCs) get new flexibility too. A Mayor can decide, case by case, that an MDC becomes the minerals and waste planning authority for plan-making over all or part of the development area. Equally important for political risk, the Mayor retains the power to pare back or remove an MDC’s planning functions later. For boards, the old membership cap goes, opening space to seat local business voices, universities and housing providers alongside council nominees.

Finance is where the step-change lands. Section 179 removes statutory borrowing limits for English UDCs and NTDCs on money borrowed after commencement. Borrowing still requires HM Treasury approval and Secretary of State consent, but headline caps no longer constrain deal size. In practice this could support front‑funding of enabling works, bulk land assembly and longer-dated infrastructure within a single place-based vehicle, provided schemes stack on value and cash generation.

For a mid-sized housebuilder eyeing a stalled brownfield site, the ability for a development corporation to raise larger, approval‑backed debt can bridge viability gaps that grants and piecemeal Section 106 once struggled to fill. If a corporation can fund the spine road and utilities as one package, the developer’s holding costs fall and sales phases start earlier-subject to the project’s fundamentals and market absorption.

The same logic helps industrial operators. Where a Mayor designates an MDC as minerals and waste plan‑maker, plant upgrades for recycling or aggregates could move through a single policy spine rather than multiple strategies across district boundaries. That won’t relax environmental tests or national policy, but it should reduce contradictory signals and make lender diligence cleaner.

Lenders will look for four things before pricing credit. First, the establishing order and any direction letters-what revenues are in scope, how proceeds are ring‑fenced and what security can be granted over land or income. Second, the approvals pathway-Treasury consent timings and conditions. Third, delivery governance-committee structures, delegated authorities and audit. Fourth, exit and refinancing-how asset disposals, land receipts and business rates‑linked income (where applicable) repay term debt. None of this is automatic; each corporation will need to evidence cashflows with conservative assumptions.

Councils shouldn’t read this as a power grab they’re excluded from. The legislation expressly allows development corporations to seek assistance from the relevant councils and to delegate elements of development management. Given local planning capacity constraints, shared teams and service‑level agreements may prove the fastest way to clear caseloads while a corporation’s plan is prepared and examined.

There is a five‑week runway to 14 April. Developers with options or pre‑apps inside prospective corporation footprints should open conversations now with corporation leads and council planners, pressure‑test site viability against an earlier infrastructure timetable, and revisit funding plans where corporation‑level borrowing could remove a critical path dependency. For CFOs, that means updating cashflow waterfalls, covenant headroom and interest cover with cautious rate assumptions.

A final note on impact: the statutory instrument’s own explanatory text signals no separate full impact assessment for this specific regulation, pointing instead to the Act‑level assessment. That puts the burden of proof squarely on early movers. Expect the first six to twelve months to set the tone-strong leadership and clear orders will attract patient capital; weak governance will be priced quickly. Either way, the direction is clear: more planning done where delivery sits, and bigger balance sheets to match.