The RTPI’s response to MHCLG’s consultation on reforms to the statutory consultee system

Ensuring the system of statutory consultation supports economic growth

Are there other key areas we should be considering in relation to improving the performance of statutory consultees?

While we broadly agree with the focus on key areas set out in the consultation, the RTPI considers that these key areas need to be framed by the following principles:

Be based on good outcomes and focus on the quality of decision making
Require statutory consultees to engage at the plan-making stage
Ensure that statutory consultee engagement is targeted and specific
Empower planners to be effective decision makers
Create a digital framework that facilitates ongoing monitoring of the statutory consultee system
Properly resourcing statutory consultees and local authorities to enable all the above

Outcomes driven change that improves decision making

The RTPI agrees with the aim to reduce the amount of statutory consultation and follow up requests in instances where the consultation is unnecessary. We also agree that ‘appropriate mitigations’ are required in situations where statutory status is removed from consultee bodies, or where their level of input is reduced.

Planners rely on the expert advice of consultees to help inform and evaluate the acceptability of development proposals, and need relevant, useful information in appropriate timeframes. A focus on speed without consideration of the quality of decision making would undermine the purpose of the planning system.

Requirement for statutory consultees to engage at plan-making stage

To improve the efficiency of statutory consultees input into development proposals, it is critical for them to be involved upstream in the planning process at the local plan preparation stage. For many statutory consultees, their early involvement in the planning process would also reduce the input burden required by them at consenting stage.

To achieve this, we are strongly in favour of a mandatory requirement for statutory consultees to input early on at the plan making stage. Early engagement would allow statutory consultees and local planning authorities (LPAs) or combined authorities to work together more effectivity, ensuring that local plans and spatial development strategies are drafted with appropriate consideration for matters that might otherwise arise later at the planning application stage.

If implemented properly, this approach would improve the quality of spatial plans, reduce risk and uncertainty for developers, and speed up and improve the quality of decision making, as well as potentially reducing the number of holding objections that block development in certain areas.

This input into local plans needs to be considered as part of the government’s wider work to move towards full coverage of local plans and spatial development strategies. Having fuller plan coverage will provide a greater benefit to key stakeholders who get involved early in the process. The government is currently consulting on new plan making policies in the NPPF, alongside the release of new plan making guidance. The RTPI would encourage them to continue looking into the best way to support plan making in LPAs where the capacity to produce plans has been hollowed out by historic under-investment in the system.

As part of the institute’s submission for the Autumn Budget, we asked government to support plan-making by re-investing in local authority planning policy up to and above 2010 levels, as well as providing sufficient funding for strategic authorities to produce spatial development strategies (SDSs), in line with requirements set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Impact Assessment. This support remains necessary to achieve comprehensive spatial plan coverage.

The government should also consider what transitionary arrangements should be put in place to support planning authorities before full local plan and spatial development strategy coverage is achieved. This would ensure sufficient statutory consultee input into the planning system is maintained throughout the move towards full plan coverage.

We eagerly await further detail about how statutory consultees can engage with the creation of SDSs, as well as how local plans and these SDSs will align and inform each other.

Ensuring that statutory consultee engagement is targeted and specific

These changes would not negate the need for statutory consultees to engage with specific development proposals. When input is required, the timeframes for comment should be clear, proportionate to the scale of the development, and statutory consultees should have sufficient resourcing to respond within these timeframes.

When consulting, the relevant planning authority should direct consultees to the specific part(s) of the proposal that require their input. In return, consultee comments need to be targeted, clear, and must help the planning authority to make an informed decision.

Helping planners be effective decision makers

We note the introduction of policy DM3 within the proposed new National Planning Policy Framework that “encourages timely decisions… where statutory consultee advice is delayed”. The RTPI welcomes steps to help empower planners to make decisions with confidence but notes that it can be challenging for them to do so when statutory consultee input is absent, or where standing advice is complex to work through and difficult to incorporate. A comprehensive training and resourcing programme would help planners a) better apply existing standing advice and b) have enough capacity to make informed decisions on complex applications, where they need to feed in detailed consultee input.

Digital performance framework

The institute welcomes the updating of legacy IT systems to provide a more effective digital service but would encourage the government – as part of their ongoing digital planning programme – to explore the creation of a centralised online resource for statutory consultee standing advice. This would make it easier for planners and applicants to access guidance in one clear location and would allow all standing advice to be reviewed and streamlined, reducing duplication.

Furthermore, we would welcome a new performance framework for statutory consultees but consider that, amid wider efforts to digitise the planning system, annual meetings between statutory consultee chiefs and the government are insufficient to capture the ongoing performance of the system.

If the government is serious about improving the quality of decision making within appropriate timescales (which should be the end point of statutory consultee reforms), then a performance framework should begin with a robust evidence base, be data-led and provide an ongoing insight into key metrics like response timeframes, which could then inform discussions with senior leadership on strategic matters.

Properly resourcing statutory consultees and local authorities

Statutory consultees engage with development proposals alongside their other responsibilities. Without sufficient resourcing, they are not able to provide useful, clear advice in reasonable timeframes, and this has a knock-on effect to local authority decision-making.

The suite of changes outlined above would increase the workloads of LPAs and statutory consultees, and proper resourcing packages for these bodies are needed.

To ensure that any resourcing is as effective as possible, a whole planning system audit is required. This would provide the government with sufficient information to fully understand the resourcing constraints of statutory consultees and LPAs, so that they can assess this against the performance of these bodies and prioritise resourcing and funding to the right places.

In exploring reforms to the system, we have so far focussed more on key national statutory consultees. Is there more that government should do in relation to minor and local statutory consultees?

Whether major and national or minor and local, all consultees serve the same role – providing expert and specialist input into development proposals – and measuring what good outcomes look like should be consistent for all types of consultees.

If certain minor or local statutory consultees fail to meet response timeframes or provide meaningful advice, their performance should be recorded in a digital planning performance framework (see our response to question 1). Used in conjunction with data from an audit of statutory consultee capacity, this would enable the government to assess performance against capacity and take informed, appropriate action to achieve better outcomes.

Reviewing the scope of statutory consultation in the Town and Country Planning Act regime

In light of the proposed mitigations, do you support the removal of Sport England as a statutory consultee?

Support / oppose / neutral (space for comment)

While the cumulative impact of small changes across the planning system should not be ignored, the removal of statutory status from these three consultees will not make a significant difference to the speed of decision making across the system. These three consultees comment on a very small percentage of applications, with Sport England receiving requests for statutory consultation on 0.35% of all planning applications received across England in 2024, The Gardens Trust receiving requests for 0.56% of applications, and the Theatres Trust receiving requests to comment on just 0.03% of all applications across the system.

As mentioned in our response to question 1, reforms should ensure that statutory consultees

Are required to provide proper input at the plan making stage,
Can provide clear, relevant comment at the development management stage within appropriate timeframes
Are sufficiently resourced to achieve the input necessary for the above

We would encourage the government to focus their efforts on the largest, most consulted bodies and those bodies that manage the greatest number of complex applications.

In relation to notification requirements for Sport England, should substantial loss of an existing playing field be defined as:

20% / a figure below 20% / a figure above 20% / an alternative approach

Please explain your answer/reasoning if possible

No comment.

Are there impacts of the removal of Sport England as a statutory consultee, or the proposed mitigations, that you think the government should take into account in making a final decision?

See response to question 3.

In light of the proposed mitigations, do you support the removal of The Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee?

Support / oppose / neutral (space for comment)

See response to question 3.

Are there impacts of the removal of The Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee, or the proposed mitigations, that you think the government should take into account in making a final decision?

See response to question 3.

In light of the proposed mitigations, do you support the removal of Theatres Trust as a statutory consultee?

Support / oppose / neutral (space for comment)

See response to question 3.

Are there impacts of the removal of Theatres Trust as a statutory consultee, or the proposed mitigations, that you think the government should take into account in making a final decision?

See response to question 3.

Removal of other statutory consultees

Are there other statutory consultees for which we should consider removal? What evidence would support this approach?

We agree that the removal of any statutory consultees should consider the safety impact of such changes and whether the policy aims can be supported through planning policy and guidance, so long as stakeholders are supported to engage at the plan-making stage.

Statutory consultees should not be removed without considering how their removal would impact on the workloads of planning officers, and whether officers have the skills to interpret guidance and/or standing advice.

Reforms to key statutory consultees

Do you support the proposed changes to National Highways' referral criteria?

Yes / no / unsure (space for comment)

No comment.

Is there anything else we should consider in relation to the role of National Highways as a statutory consultee?

We would welcome clarity on how a ‘safety impact’ is defined in relation to retaining the current consultation requirement.

Do you support the changes to Active Travel England's proposed referral criteria?

Yes / no / unsure (space for comment)

No comment.

Is there anything else we should consider in relation to the role of Active Travel England as a statutory consultee?

No comment.

Are there other actions that the government and/or Natural England should be taking to support their role as a statutory consultee?

No comment.

Are there other actions that the government and/or the Environment Agency should be taking in relation to the Agency's role as a statutory consultee?

No comment.

Do you support the changes to Historic England's proposed notification criteria?

Yes / no / unsure (space for comment)

No comment.

Do you support changes to align Historic England's listed building consent process in London with the process that applies elsewhere?

Yes / no / unsure (space for comment)

No comment.

Is there anything else we should consider in relation to the role of Historic England as a statutory consultee?

No comment.

Do you support the changes to the Mining Remediation Authority's proposed referral criteria?

Yes / no / unsure (space for comment)

No comment.

Do you support the proposed changes in relation to the Mining Remediation Authority commenting on the discharge of conditions?

Yes / no / unsure (space for comment)

No comment.

Is there anything else we should consider in relation to the role of the Mining Remediation Authority as a statutory consultee?

No comment.

Other changes to statutory consultees

Are there other statutory consultee referral criteria we should consider amending? What evidence supports this?

No comment.

Is there anything further that government should consider in relation to voluntary pre-application engagement and for any statutory consultees in particular? What evidence supports this?

The government should continue to encourage voluntary pre-application where appropriate, but this should be an accompaniment to the engagement of statutory consultees with the plan-making process.

Is there anything further government should consider in relation to statutory consultee engagement in post-approval processes, such as agreeing that planning conditions have been fulfilled? What evidence supports this?

No comment.

Statutory consultee performance

Do you have suggestions for how government can effectively incorporate appropriate developer and local authority feedback into consideration of statutory consultee performance?

As mentioned in our response to question 1, we consider that the proposals for statutory consultee performance outlined in this paper are insufficient to facilitate a comprehensive and ongoing assessment of statutory consultee performance.

While bringing sector leaders together and incorporating local authority and developer feedback are positive steps, they should feed into a central data-led performance framework that can be used (alongside a digitised platform for statutory consultee advice) to provide the government with a clear picture of how the system is functioning.

A data-led performance framework should stem from a comprehensive audit of the entire planning system, capturing the performance of planning authorities and statutory consultees, and allowing their performance to be recorded over time, changes to be easily identified, aiding the government in deciding where to prioritise their interventions.

The role of local planning authorities

Do you agree with this approach?

Yes / no / unsure (space for comment)

Yes.

We agree that local authority planners should be empowered to make decisions with confidence, being trusted to act as evaluators and weighing up the pros and cons of proposals. We also agree that effective engagement with statutory consultees early in the plan-making process will help reduce conflict at the application stage, although as mentioned in our response to question 1, this should be mandated rather than optional.

The paper accurately recognises that a multipronged approach is required, supporting LPA funding but also working with the Planning Advisory Service to identify and address specific issues as well as delivering training to officers.

While we agree with the increased use of standing advice in appropriate situations, statutory consultees should ensure that this advice provides clarity and consistency. Training programmes should be mindful that the increased use of standing advice will require a concurrent uplift in officer knowledge and expertise to ensure that they are able to incorporate it into decision making with confidence.

Where possible, standing advice provided by statutory consultees should be cross-referenced and harmonised to ensure that planning officers are not delayed by duplicated guidance from multiple consultees. This would be best facilitated by a centralised digital resource for consultee guidance, as covered in our response to question 1.

The government needs to carefully consider how LPA planners can be empowered and supported to make good decisions. This involves gathering expert input where necessary but may also involve making decisions with less-than-perfect information and weighing up the impacts of a scheme against the benefits it provides. It is important that external pressures from national government, local communities, and other key stakeholders coupled with high workloads do not encourage a culture of risk aversion. When properly supported, planners do an excellent job of helping to deliver for communities, and the government should continue to support them in this challenging task.

Is there anything else the government should be doing to support local planning authorities in their engagement with statutory consultees?

See our response to question 26.

Are there best practice examples from local authorities that help support statutory consultees and developers, e.g. checklists/proformas for environmental issues?

No comment.

How might best practice be expanded to support statutory consultees, including through reducing the volume of material which developers have to produce?

When contacting statutory consultees, LPAs should be encouraged to be specific about which aspects of the development proposal require consultee input and only sharing those aspects of the proposal that are relevant to this matter. This should form part of any package of officer training delivered to LPAs.

The institute would also encourage the government to consider how best to support cross collaboration between statutory consultees on major developments in a bid to improve performance. Funded project teams can help facilitate higher quality and faster decision making for major proposals, benefitting developers and local authorities.

How best can government and statutory consultees support the increase in capacity and expertise of local and strategic authorities?

See our response to questions 1, 26, and 27.

The government should ensure that local and strategic authorities have the requisite capacity to create and maintain up to date plans and must mandate statutory consultee input. At the development management stage, government should assist planning authorities in ensuring that planners have the capacity to engage consultees and consider their feedback and have the necessary training and leadership to make confident and informed decisions on development proposals.

This will require the government to have clear data on the resourcing and capacity constraints of local and strategic planning authorities, as well as on statutory consultation performance and planning decisions. This is a significant undertaking, and as we have mentioned in previous answers, the government should invest in a digital platform that can serve as a repository for this information, allowing the performance of the planning and statutory consultee systems to be effectively monitored over time.

Moratorium on new statutory consultees

Do you agree that these criteria clearly set a framework for decisions on future statutory consultees?

Yes / no / unsure (space for comment)

Yes, but we would query the requirement for a statutory consultee to have a pro-development objective. It is the primary role of statutory consultees to provide expertise in their given area, and it should be the role of the planning authority to weigh consultee input against presumptions in favour of development that appear in national, strategic, and local planning policy.

It is the role of the planner to weigh the balance of a proposal, and planners should be encouraged and empowered (through adequate training and leadership) to assess the benefits and impacts of development proposals in a holistic manner, rather than expecting statutory consultees to do so.

Should the government maintain the moratorium, subject to periodic review, or adopt criteria for consideration of new statutory consultees?

In our response to question 1 we raised the need for statutory consultees to input into local plans and other spatial plans. A mandatory requirement for these bodies to feed into local plan making would support the alignment of spatial sectoral plans as well as addressing conflicts that might arise from specific development proposals.

We are not advocating for these bodies to become statutory consultees at the development management stage, but there are certain vital infrastructure bodies – including water companies, and power generation and distribution companies – that should be required to input into local plans and forthcoming spatial development strategies.

To this end, we welcome the proposed introduction of policy W1 into the new NPPF, encouraging utility providers and network operators to be engaged at the plan making stage, but the government should consider how to make this involvement mandatory, to ensure that all spatial plans have proper consideration for infrastructure capacities.

Is there anything else the government should consider in relation to the criteria?

No further comment.

Impact

Are there any equality impacts in relation to the proposals in this consultation that the government should consider?

No comment.

The government considers that these measures would have a deregulatory impact. Do you have evidence from engagement with statutory consultees under the current system of the impact this may have?

No comment.