Is it too much to hope that the latest round of planning reforms will bring lasting, positive change to development and construction in England?

Yesterday, we saw some new proposals aimed at unblocking planning processes and enabling more timely and confident decision-making—this time focusing on statutory consultations. I’ve deliberately reversed the wording used by the official statement in that last phrase. The real challenge here isn’t just speed; it’s confidence. More on that in a moment.

"Construction" by juanktru is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

At face value, the proposed measures seem practical and long overdue. Each of the five key steps carries different implications:

1.       Putting support for growth at the heart of the system – This seems to echo the early days of the original NPPF and its presumption in favour of sustainable development. That period undeniably led to significant growth but also some extremely poorly planned projects. The balance between encouraging development and ensuring quality remains a crucial issue.

The next two, I believe, are where the real difficulty lies:

2.       Limiting the scope of statutory consultees to where advice is strictly necessary – This sounds reasonable, but defining “strictly necessary” will be key. I’d welcome a shortened, clarified list of ‘strictly necessary consultation’ – but simply removing Sport England, Theatres Trust and Garden Trust isn’t going to cut it! Could this step lead to endless disputes over what information is essential, delaying projects even further?

3.       Reminding local planning authorities (LPAs) that they can proceed with decisions if statutory consultees fail to respond on time, provided they have sufficient information – They can, but will they? It’s going to take more than a reminder. In theory, this should accelerate decision-making. In practice, I think it risks a rise in knee-jerk refusals when consultees fail to respond in time. Or will applicants find themselves trapped in a cycle of additional information requests, with planners hesitant to approve without full backing?

These two steps highlight the core issue: confidence to make decisions. Planning officers already face immense pressure, being asked to understand and balance an unrealistically broad range of specialist topics. Now, we’re asking them to move faster, rely less on expert input, and, above all, be confident in their judgments. That’s a tall order. That underlined phrase - sufficient information – definitely sounds like a loophole, allowing authorities to reject applications rather than take a risk.

Lastly, we have the stick –

(4)     establishing a new performance framework with greater ministerial scrutiny of the actions of statutory consultees;

followed by the carrot –

(5)     and ensuring the system has the right funding with the right incentives.

Of course, these are just one set of measures intended to operate as part of a larger suite of changes. I do think that if we see some of the other promises delivered – such as better funding, access to more resources and (dare I say it) removing some of the political subjectivity surrounding planning decisions – these latest steps stand a much higher chance of success.

Overall I am relatively optimistic for the current round of planning reform. It has been relatively unusual to-date for government rhetoric on fixing the system to match my own practical experiences and observations, and of those around me. It does seem like this time at least reforms are starting from a realistic understanding of the problems which is an excellent first step. Needless to say, the next steps are harder..