Mark Dobson was awarded an Early Career Research Grant by the RTPI in 2023 to study the reasons for, and impacts of, the widespread use of Extensions of Time in determining applications for development. In his summary below, Mark considers the implications of his research findings for planners and the planning system as a whole.
Dr Mark Dobson, University of Reading, 2025
Read the full report here.
Why does planning need more time?
The UK planning system is routinely portrayed as too slow and inefficient in determining applications for development, with successive governments claiming this is stalling much-needed housing development and economic growth.
Such criticisms are not entirely unfounded given that the national ‘performance’ targets for planning decision-making often cannot be met in practice, and that planning applications are increasingly being processed using a discretionary tool called an ‘extension of time’ (EoT).
This raises the question how long ‘should’ a planning decision take, and if it takes longer, why does it need more time?’
How long ‘should’ a planning decision take?
The statutory determination (legal decision-making) period for a Local Planning Authority (LPA) to make a decision on what is termed a ‘minor’ planning application, e.g. a household extension, is 8 weeks, while for ‘major’ applications, e.g. larger new housing developments, it is 13 weeks. These are the national performance benchmarks for assessing whether a planning decision is made ‘on time’ – and they provide a formal answer to how long planning decisions ‘should’ take.
Yet planning practice often sees decision-making times for both minor and major planning applications going beyond the statutory deadlines – and they typically use one or more EoT agreements. Using EoTs is favoured by LPAs because they remove the time pressure of the 8- or 13-week statutory deadline, as a decision made on a planning application which is subject to an EoT is still recorded as made ‘on time’ in the government’s performance statistics.
This is not necessarily a problem where the EoT is needed to ensure the quality of the decision, e.g. to allow for supporting evidence or negotiation on an issue. But EoTs do add time to the decision process and therefore jar with government planning reform agendas that seek to speed up the system.
The importance of time (The University of Reading Clock Tower) ©University of Reading
So why then does planning need more time?
Internal pressures - resourcing
Resourcing of the planning system is one major reason planners use EoTs to manage their caseloads in the context of reduced council and planning department funding and less access to internal expertise. To operate swiftly and efficiently, the planning system requires well-trained and experienced local authority planners, with enough resource and capacity to do their job effectively and guide applications through the system.
Yet public sector service cutbacks over the past 15 years have significantly eroded the resourcing and capacity of LPAs, putting increasing strain on case officers. On top of this, a number of more experienced planners have moved to the private sector, adding to retention and recruitment challenges for LPAs and a loss of experience and tacit planning knowledge within their planning teams.
External pressures – consultation, evidence, politics
Many external stakeholders also heavily influence the planning system. It can take considerable time for planning officers to receive comments from statutory consultees or technical evidence from expert surveys and reports, which can hold up decisions.
The increasing complexity and additional requirements placed on the system and planners, along with the charged political environment and public scrutiny over planning decisions, can also make planners more risk averse, and make them more reliant on statutory consultees and supporting evidence and expertise, before deciding an application.
A system-wide approach
The use of EoTs reflects a widespread need for ‘additional’ time in planning. EoTs are symptomatic of a range of system-wide issues which underlie why statutory deadlines often cannot be met, including:
- lack of LPA resource and capacity
- growing system complexity and required evidence and expertise
- the role and timeliness of statutory consultees
- officer experience and confidence in a complex and diverse system
- political and public influence on practice culture
The above can all add time to the decision process.
Recommendations
The findings suggest a need to retain EoTs as a pragmatic and flexible tool for when additional resource, input, scrutiny, expertise and/or negotiation is needed to support decision-making, but counter-balanced with better understanding and oversight of their use to ensure legitimacy where time taken has commercial and social implications.
A system-wide approach to reform is needed, given the many internal and external pressures on the system and on planners.
The report recommends actions across five aspects of planning:
- funding
- scope
- training
- information
- and more research in this area
