Reforming the Statutory Consultee System: What It Means for Planning Delivery
Reforming the Statutory Consultee System: What It Means for Planning Delivery
The statutory consultee system is again under scrutiny, with the government, developers and local authorities broadly aligned on one point: the system is not functioning as efficiently as it should. For Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), however, the challenge is not simply one of speed, but of structure, accountability, and risk.
For those operating within the planning system, whether developers promoting schemes or Local Planning Authorities as decision-makers the implications can be significant. At its heart, the statutory consultee system was designed to be a safeguard: specialist bodies providing expert advice to ensure development does not trample over flood risk, heritage, highways safety, or environmental protection.
System Overload
Statutory consultees play a vital role in ensuring that development proposals appropriately address matters such as flood risk, highways safety, heritage, and environmental protection. Their technical expertise supports good decision-making and remains essential, however, increasing workloads and limited resources across the public sector have placed significant strain on the system.
LPAs are required to determine applications within statutory timescales, yet consultees are often not bound by equivalent deadlines. Delays in responses can therefore stall decision-making, introduce uncertainty, and increase costs for applicants. From a consultancy perspective, this unpredictability has become a material factor in programme planning and risk management.
Overall, it would be unfair to lay all blame at the consultee door. Many statutory bodies are themselves under-resourced, managing rising workloads with shrinking teams.
The balance of influence
In theory, consultee responses are advisory, however, objections from statutory bodies are frequently treated as determinative. Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s)are understandably cautious about departing from specialist advice, particularly given the risk of legal challenge or appeal.
In effect this creates a shift in decision-making influence away from local planning judgement and towards external bodies, sometimes with limited engagement with site-specific context or adopted local policy. For applicants, this can mean protracted negotiations focused on satisfying consultee positions rather than achieving balanced, policy-compliant outcomes.
Local policy versus national thresholds
A recurring tension arises where consultees apply standardised criteria or national guidance in areas where LPAs have robust, up-to-date Local Plans and technical evidence. While consistency is important, rigid application of national thresholds can undermine locally tailored approaches to growth, infrastructure and placemaking.
This can translate into additional technical work, revised schemes and extended determination periods, and greater costs that are ultimately borne by the applicant.
It is important to recognise that statutory consultees face many of the same resourcing challenges as LPAs. Reduced capacity can lead to more risk-averse responses, late-stage objections or requests for further information that could have been resolved earlier in the process.
The result is a system that appears to encourages delay rather than collaboration, at odds with the shared objective of delivering sustainable development without significant delays.
What reform could look like:
Meaningful reform does not require the removal of statutory consultees, but a recalibration of how the system operates. Potential improvements could include:
Greater weight afforded to adopted local policy and evidence bases
More consistent and enforceable response times
Earlier engagement at pre-application stage to resolve issues proactively
For LPAs, this would support more confident and timely decision-making. For applicants and their advisors, it would provide greater certainty and allow resources to be focused on quality and delivery rather than process management.
Final Thoughts:
While the statutory consultee system remains an essential component of planning, its current operation presents challenges for all involved. A more balanced, responsive, and collaborative approach would benefit not only LPAs, but the wider development sector and the communities it serves.
Until reforms are implemented, the onus remains on applicants and their consultants to manage consultee risk strategically, through early engagement, robust technical submissions, and close liaison with LPAs throughout the determination process. In the short term however, LPAs will remain trapped between ambition and caution, tasked with delivering growth through a system that too often feels designed to slow it down.