Consultation outcome

Reforms to the statutory consultee system: government response

Updated 17 August 2026

Ministerial foreword

Statutory consultees play an important role in the planning system, providing expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to ensure good decision-making and support high-quality development. However, few would argue that the statutory consultee system is currently working effectively.

In far too many instances, statutory consultee engagement with planning applications is not proactive or proportionate, and advice and information provided is not timely or commensurate with what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. In turn, local planning authorities (LPAs) and developers too frequently provide inadequate or poor-quality information or make blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees.

This government committed itself to improving the functioning of the statutory consultee system to facilitate confident and timely decision making; ensuring statutory consultees are focused on providing practical, pragmatic and timely advice and expertise in respect of what is necessary to make development acceptable, and that local planning authorities are not engaging with statutory consultees where it is not necessary to do so.

To that end, we announced a moratorium on the creation of new statutory consultees in January 2025 and consulted between 18 November 2025 and 13 January 2026 on an ambitious package of reforms to improve the sub-optimal status quo. I am incredibly grateful to all those who took the time to respond to that consultation and share their views on how the system might operate more effectively.

Having carefully considered the extensive feedback received, the government has decided to proceed with removing statutory consultee status from The Gardens Trust and Theatres Trust, supported by the mitigations set out in this response. However, we have determined to retain Sport England as a statutory consultee, while narrowing the scope of applications on which it must be consulted so that its expertise is focused on the most significant cases.

This approach will preserve statutory oversight where we consider it is most needed, while reducing the regulatory burden where policy outcomes can be secured through other mechanisms, including national planning policy, guidance, plan-making and public consultation. The government will also take forward changes to reduce the scope of advice provided by some of the largest statutory consultees. Taken together, these reforms will help improve the performance, efficiency and proportionality of the statutory consultee system. 

Regulations will follow in due course to bring these reforms into force and support will be available from the Planning Advisory Service to help LPAs implement relevant requirements effectively. 

The reforms to the statutory consultee system set out in this response form part of our wider programme to modernise the planning system and support housing and infrastructure delivery, but they are not the final step. We will soon consult on how new powers for a surcharge on planning application fees to support key statutory consultees will be implemented and we will continue to work closely with statutory consultees and LPAs to drive sustained improvements in performance so that we can deliver more high-quality development, more quickly.

Matthew Pennycook MP,
Minister of State for Housing and Planning

Introduction

The consultation on reforms to the statutory consultee system was open for 8 weeks, from 18 November 2025 to 13 January 2026. Responses were submitted via online survey, email and written correspondence.

A total of 1,606 responses were received, including campaign responses. Campaign responses, prepared by campaign groups on specific issues, have been counted once in the statistical summaries to avoid disproportionate weighting. Petition responses have been considered separately. Tables 1 and 2 provide a breakdown of respondents by type and campaign response respectively.

Respondents selected their own organisation type, such as “amenity society” or “statutory consultee”. These labels therefore reflect respondents’ self-identification and do not necessarily indicate official status within the planning system. For example, national amenity societies are formally prescribed in the Arrangements for handling heritage applications: notification to Historic England and National Amenity Societies and the Secretary of State (England) Direction 2021, but some respondents used the term more broadly, reflecting their aim to deliver amenity value through a more informal relationship with the planning system. Where multiple entries were submitted under the same organisation name by different respondents, or by local branches of national organisations, these have been counted separately.

Table 1: Types of consultation respondent

Types of respondents	Number of responses
Local planning authority	101
Parish or Town Council	28
Developer/landowner	34
Business	51
Planning professional	55
Professional association/industry rep	86
Statutory consultee	36
Amenity society	39
Community/residents organisations	80
Voluntary/charitable sector	198
Member of the public	811
Other	87
Total	1606

Table 2: Campaign and petition responses

Campaigns/petitions	Number of responses
Do not remove Sport England as a statutory consultee for planning applications - petition	34,281
Save our playing fields - campaign	221[footnote 1]
Total	34,502

This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received. It explains the government’s response to the main issues raised.   

Statistical summaries are provided for each question, where appropriate. Responses have also been grouped where themes overlap to avoid repetition. To ensure accuracy, statistical summaries exclude respondents who did not answer the question. Where yes/no questions allowed additional comments, qualitative responses have been considered. Not all respondents answered every question, with some choosing to respond only to those of specific interest to them. As a result, the number of responses varied by question. However, all responses to the public consultation have been recorded and analysed, with key themes and points presented in this document.

Ensuring the statutory consultation system supports economic growth

Question 1

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

Question 2

In exploring the 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 smaller scale and local statutory consultees?

Questions 1 and 2: response

A total of 812 respondents answered Question 1, and 626 respondents answered Question 2.

Key points raised by respondents to Question 1

Performance is constrained by resourcing, and that assessments should consider the quality of advice as well as speed.

The statutory 21-day response timeframe was seen as too inflexible for complex cases. However, respondents also raised concerns about holding responses and considered that their use should be limited.

Developers and professional bodies were particularly supportive of clearer accountability and escalation where performance is poor. Early engagement at pre-application stage was seen as important to resolving issues and improving efficiency.

Some called for a more proportionate, standardised approach to consultation, supported by clearer frameworks, data sharing and digitisation.

Key points raised by respondents to Question 2 

A strong theme was that local, small-scale and specialist consultees provide place-specific expertise that cannot be replicated nationally. Respondents raised concerns that reducing or changing these roles could increase risk, reduce consistency and expose LPAs to legal challenge, although some also noted delays or disproportionate responses. Parish and town councils, and community and voluntary groups, were particularly concerned about being marginalised despite their local insight. Professional associations, statutory consultees and amenity societies argued that the category of “minor consultees” is poorly defined, and that piecemeal reform risks creating gaps in heritage, environmental and community protections.

There was broad support for clearer standing advice, nationally consistent thresholds and improved alignment across consultees to avoid duplication.

Government response for Questions 1 and 2

We recognise the wide range of views on performance in response to Question 1. We will consider statutory consultee resourcing and capacity concerns as we develop proposals for a planning fee surcharge. Other issues raised, including delays in responses and better use of performance data, will be considered as we develop a new performance framework for statutory consultees, as committed to in the 2025 written ministerial statement. Further details, including alignment with wider digital planning reforms, are outlined in our responses to Questions 26, 36 and 37.

We are grateful for responses received to Question 2, particularly the concerns raised about changes to the role of smaller, specialised statutory consultees. We do not currently propose further changes to statutory consultee roles beyond those set out in the consultation. However, we will consider the concerns raised about the performance of these organisations as we develop the new performance framework.

Reviewing the scope of statutory consultation in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) regime

Sport England

Question 3

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

Question 4

In relation to notification requirements, should substantial loss of an existing playing field be defined as: 20%; a figure below 20%; a figure above 20%; an alternative approach?

Question 5

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?

Questions 3, 4 and 5: response

A total of 1,294 respondents answered Question 3.  94 (7%) supported the proposal to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee, 1,035 (80%) were opposed, and 165 (13%) were neutral.

A total of 1,098 respondents answered Question 4.  89 (8%) supported a 20% threshold; 382 (35%) supported a ‘less than 20%’ threshold; 102 (9%) supported a ‘more than 20%’ threshold; and 525 (48%) supported an ‘alternative approach’.

A total of 954 respondents answered Question 5.

Key points raised by respondents to Questions 3 to 5

Support for removing Sport England’s statutory consultee status came mainly from developers, landowners, and a smaller group of planning professionals and LPAs. These respondents argued that Sport England’s approach could be rigid or overly prescriptive, and that its Playing Fields Policy could constrain balanced planning judgements or duplicate protections already provided through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). They considered that national policy provides appropriate safeguards and that a more targeted consultation approach, supported by clearer guidance or thresholds, could improve efficiency.

The majority of respondents, including campaign respondents, emphasised the importance of Sport England’s expertise in protecting playing fields as community assets that support health, wellbeing and participation. Many considered LPAs often lack the specialist capacity to replicate this role. Respondents also challenged the view that Sport England causes delays, citing its generally timely and constructive engagement and its role in improving schemes and securing mitigation, such as replacement facilities or community use agreements, rather than blocking development.

A consistent concern was the potential long-term impact of removing Sport England’s statutory consultee status, including loss of playing fields, reduced access to sport and widening health inequalities, particularly for groups already facing barriers to provision. Respondents warned that playing fields could become more vulnerable to redevelopment despite their long-term social, health and environmental value, and that once lost, such spaces are rarely replaced with equivalent provision.

Public opposition was significant. A GOV.UK petition opposing removal closed with 34,281 signatures, and 221 campaign emails were submitted via the London Playing Fields Foundation.

Sport England proposed an alternative package of reforms, including streamlined objections, standing advice, withdrawing from certain public-sector consultations, transitional support for LPAs, and a stronger focus on strategic planning.

On the proposed notification requirement, respondents emphasised that defining “substantial loss” is central to any alternative approach and should not be based on a simple percentage alone. Many highlighted that even small reductions, such as 5–10%, can remove an entire pitch, breach safety or runoff requirements, or fragment a site so that it can no longer accommodate the sports it was designed for. Conversely, a 20% reduction on a large field could eliminate multiple pitches, demonstrating that the impact of area loss is highly context dependent. There was strong support for assessing impacts in functional terms, including whether a site remains safe, compliant and capable of meeting sporting needs, alongside consideration of cumulative losses over time. Some respondents suggested that any thresholds should be lower than 20% and combined with functional tests. Overall, respondents stressed that any definition should reflect local circumstances, including existing provision, demand, and the wider role of playing fields in supporting health, wellbeing and community outcomes.

Government response for Questions 3, 4 and 5

Having carefully considered the responses received and the strong opposition to removing Sport England’s statutory consultee status, the government has decided to retain Sport England as a statutory consultee. We have decided Sport England will now be a statutory consultee on the most significant cases, including applications involving the physical loss of playing fields for housing or commercial development, and substantial school or sports development on playing fields.

To ensure Sport England’s advice is focused on the planning application cases where it adds most value, we will narrow the scope of applications that must be referred to it. Sport England will no longer be notified on lower-risk categories, including “behind the wire” defence and prison sites, sites with playing pitches below 0.4 hectares, development adjacent to playing fields, ancillary facilities such as pavilions, parking, lighting and storage, and temporary classrooms and other routine school development.

These criteria have been adapted from alternative proposals put forward by Sport England and reflect the types of development which present lower risk.

Sport England is currently consulted on around 1,100 applications per year, around 60% of which relate to school development and around 8% to housing or commercial development on or near playing fields or former playing fields. Under the revised approach, we expect referrals to fall by half or more, with most relating to major sports or school development and a smaller proportion relating to residential development.

The government has separately published its response to the NPPF consultation.

Following consultation feedback, we have amended the policy which was consulted on relating to development affecting existing recreational land and facilities (Policy HC7) to address concerns raised by respondents that our proposals risked weakening protections for playing fields. We had proposed that where development proposals resulted in loss of playing fields, it would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and/or quality. This was to allow some additional flexibility in how replacement space could be provided, while maintaining the position that there should be no net reduction in provision. However, in light of the feedback received, we have amended our final policy so that, for most types of development, a loss of existing recreational land would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of both quantity and quality, in a location which offers comparable or improved accessibility for the community it serves. Where the development is required for  public service infrastructure, the updated NPPF sets out the requirement that the resulting loss would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and/or quality. This approach ensures that where the proposed development would improve public service infrastructure, such as school buildings, there will be more flexibility to offset playing field loss with quality enhancements on remaining playing fields.

In light of responses to Question 4, we do not intend to adopt the proposed approach to “substantial loss”. Respondents highlighted that the impact of development on playing fields is highly context-specific and should be assessed functionally, including whether the site remains safe, compliant and capable of meeting sporting needs. Planning policy remains our key tool for ensuring that playing fields are protected. We will also work with Sport England to update Planning Practice Guidance on Consultation and Pre-Decision matters to ensure that ‘agent of change’ issues are considered where relevant, including where new development may impact negatively on the existing use of playing fields.

Sport England will also be developing guidance for LPAs, to support their consideration of planning applications and playing fields and the application of the reformed scope of their role in practice.

Furthermore, the recently launched new, simpler, faster and more accessible local plan-making system for England will provide better join-up between LPAs and statutory bodies. Under this new system, the government has retained Sport England as a consultation body, so they will be made aware of key plan-making consultations where the plan-making authority consider they have an interest. Government has also prescribed Sport England in ‘Requirement to Assist’ regulations so they will be obliged to assist with plan making, where a plan-making authority reasonably requests it.

The Gardens Trust

Question 6

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

Question 7

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?

Questions 6 and 7: response

A total of 1,392 respondents answered Question 6. 85 (6%) supported the proposal to remove The Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee; 1,077 (77%) were opposed; and 230 (17%) were neutral.

A total of 800 respondents answered Question 7.

Key points by respondents to Questions 6 and 7

Support was concentrated mainly among developers and landowners. Opposition to the proposal was widespread across most other sectors, with particularly strong opposition from amenity societies, members of the public, the voluntary/charitable sector and statutory consultees.

The Gardens Trust provides specialist expertise in assessing impacts on registered parks and gardens and argued that removing its statutory role could weaken protections for nationally important heritage assets and green spaces. They highlighted the wider public value of these spaces, including their contribution to wellbeing, biodiversity and local environmental quality.

Concerns about the capacity of LPAs and Historic England to replace this expertise, citing risks of reduced scrutiny, poorer outcomes and increased reliance on external consultants.

Opposition to replacing statutory consultation with notification, arguing that this would reduce oversight of developments affecting registered parks and gardens.

The Gardens Trust represents good value for money, citing estimates that its annual statutory casework cost is around £44,000, compared with an estimated £3–8 million for local authorities to replicate comparable expertise.

Section 102 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 would introduce a duty to give special regard to certain nationally recognised heritage assets and considered this relevant to the need for robust safeguards.

Those supporting the proposal were mainly developers and landowners, who argued that removing The Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee status would reduce duplication with LPAs and Historic England and help streamline planning processes.

Government response to Questions 6 and 7

The government recognises that The Gardens Trust plays an important role in the planning process and believes it can continue to do so without being a statutory consultee. The government has therefore decided to proceed with removing The Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee status in order to streamline the handling of planning applications affecting registered parks and gardens.

However, we will introduce a notification requirement for planning applications involving development within registered parks and gardens, as set out in the consultation. This will ensure The Gardens Trust continues to be made aware of relevant applications, in a similar manner to the notification of amenity societies on listed building consents, while removing the statutory requirement for formal consultation and response within a fixed timeframe. This will ensure The Gardens Trust will continue to provide valued advice to LPAs on planning applications, much as amenity societies are also able to provide valued advice.

In the response to the consultation on a new NPPF, the government confirmed the intention to implement section 102 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, extending the special regard duties for designated heritage assets to assets including registered parks and gardens. The Gardens Trust will not be notified of developments impacting the setting of a registered park and garden. However, registered parks and gardens are designated heritage assets and will continue to be protected through the heritage policies in the NPPF, which include consideration of setting. LPAs will also retain discretion to consult The Gardens Trust where they consider its advice would assist decision-making. Where it is not formally consulted, The Gardens Trust will be able to comment through public consultation, including impacts to the setting of a registered park and garden.

We recognise the concerns raised about specialist capacity and the protection of nationally important heritage assets. We will continue to work with The Gardens Trust, Historic England and LPAs to monitor the impact of these reforms and consider any additional guidance to support LPAs to exercise their duties. Further points on LPA and Historic England capacity are addressed in our response to Questions 17 to 19.

Theatres Trust

Question 8

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

Question 9

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?

Questions 8 and 9: response

A total of 1,098 respondents answered Question 8. 85 (8%) supported the proposal to remove Theatres Trust as a statutory consultee; 595 (54%) were opposed, and 418 (38%) were neutral.

A total of 427 respondents answered Question 9.

Key points by respondents to Questions 8 and 9

Opposition to the proposal was strongest among members of the public, parish and town councils, neighbourhood groups and the voluntary/charitable sector.

Opponents emphasised the importance of theatres as culturally significant assets, which are often also historic or listed buildings, and argued that removing Theatres Trust as a statutory consultee could increase risks to their long-term protection. A key concern was the potential loss of the Trust’s specialist expertise in assessing the impact of development on theatre buildings.

The wider role of theatres as community assets that contribute to wellbeing, community identity, local economies and the UK arts sector. Many questioned the case for reform given the relatively small number of applications involving Theatres Trust and expressed concern that a notification-only approach would be insufficient to safeguard theatre interests.

LPAs, businesses and some professional bodies were more often neutral, commonly citing limited direct experience of the Trust’s role. Developers and landowners were generally supportive of removal, viewing it as a way to streamline processes and reduce unnecessary consultation, while accepting a notification approach as proportionate. A small number of respondents suggested the Trust could instead operate as an amenity body, though this view was not widely held.

Government response to Questions 8 and 9

The government recognises the longstanding role of Theatres Trust in the planning process and the value of theatres as important cultural assets. The government believes the Theatres Trust can continue its key role in the planning application process without being a statutory consultee. We will therefore take forward the proposal to remove Theatres Trust’s statutory consultee status.

To support this change, and to ensure that the agent of change principle is considered where relevant, we intend to update Planning Practice Guidance on Consultation and Pre-decision Matters.

Theatres Trust will continue to be notified of relevant planning applications through a new notification duty on LPAs, including applications relating to development on land containing a theatre, but will not be required to provide a formal statutory response.

Theatres Trust already engages on a non-statutory basis in relevant development, such as new theatre proposals, and has indicated that it will continue to do so.

In recognition of the high community value of theatres and the Trust’s specialist role, we will continue to engage with Theatres Trust and LPAs to monitor the impact of these changes in practice.

Removal of other statutory consultees

Question 10

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

Question 10: response

A total of 354 respondents answered Question 10.

Key points raised by respondents to Question 10

There was strong opposition, particularly from members of the public, voluntary and heritage organisations, and planning professionals, to removing further statutory consultees. Respondents emphasised the value of specialist expertise in supporting robust planning decisions, arguing that removing further consultees could weaken scrutiny, reduce safeguards, and increase risk for LPAs by placing complex technical judgements on already stretched planning teams.

Planning professionals and LPAs emphasised that inefficiencies should instead be addressed through clearer guidance, more proportionate thresholds and improved resourcing.

Support for removal was limited and largely came from developers, who cited duplication, delays in specific cases, and disproportionate requirements for low-risk schemes. However, even among this group, most favoured targeted reforms, such as tighter thresholds or downgrading to advisory status, rather than wholesale removal.

Government response for Question 10

The government notes the wide range of views received in response to this question. At this stage, we are not proposing to remove any additional statutory consultees.

However, the evidence submitted provides a helpful basis for considering whether changes to existing statutory roles, such as revised consultation triggers or, where justified, changes to statutory consultees, may warrant further exploration in the future. Any such consideration would need to follow a transparent, consistent and evidence-led approach, ensuring that appropriate protections for communities, the environment and public safety are maintained.

Reforms to key statutory consultees

National Highways

Question 11

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

Question 12

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

Questions 11 and 12: response

A total of 939 respondents answered Question 11. Of those, 139 (15%) agreed with the proposed changes, 207 (22%) did not agree, and 593 (63%) were unsure.

A total of 224 respondents answered Question 12.

Key points raised by respondents to Questions 11 and 12

General support for reducing unnecessary referrals and improving efficiency. However, a consistent theme was that the proposed criteria need greater clarity, including definitions of “close proximity” and “capacity”, triggers for transport assessments, and wording that could otherwise lead to subjective or inconsistent application. Local authorities and professional bodies questioned whether LPAs have the expertise to assess safety, capacity or structural impacts on the strategic road network, warning of risks including precautionary or late referrals, inconsistent decisions, or missed safety issues.

Concern that reducing the scope of referrals could weaken scrutiny, with potential consequences for safety, strategic network operation and environmental outcomes. They also noted that unclear thresholds could encourage risk-averse behaviour, leading to increased or delayed referrals and leaving National Highways with limited time to respond.

There was broad support for a triage or early-stage assessment process to identify safety‑critical cases. Respondents stressed that this would need clear national guidance on scope, evidence requirements, consistency, training and resourcing to avoid duplication or new bottlenecks.

Concerns about National Highways’ current performance, particularly holding objections and delays, which were seen as affecting plan-making and planning applications. Many called for earlier, more proactive engagement, especially at the plan-making stage, and improvements in responsiveness, consistency, resourcing and accountability.

Government response to Questions 11 and 12

The government welcomes the support from some respondents for changes to National Highways’ role in the planning process, particularly where these could improve efficiency and focus engagement on higher-impact planning applications. We also recognise the concerns raised about clarity, LPA capacity, safety and the need for effective triage.

Following careful consideration of responses to Questions 11 and 12, the government intends to proceed with changes to National Highways’ referral criteria. This includes replacing the current requirement for consultation on development other than minor development (as defined in the regulations), with a requirement for consultation where a transport assessment is required.

Statutory consultation will also continue to apply to proposals involving alterations to the boundary of a trunk road, structures in close proximity to a trunk road, impacts on the drainage or structural integrity of a trunk road, and proposals that would increase the use of an existing access or junction with a trunk road beyond its capacity, regardless of development size.

Government will retain the current requirement for consultation where there is a safety impact and introduce new categories where there is likely to be a safety or operational impact, for example, works that impact on highway drainage. We will also develop a national triage system to support early identification of safety critical or strategic cases. DfT and National Highways are currently considering how this triage system will be implemented in practice, including how guidance can be strengthened and better processes can be put in place to secure early engagement and an uptake in quality pre-application advice. The government intends to publish updated Planning Practice Guidance for Transport that will provide more clarity on referral criteria including when a Transport Assessment may be required. In parallel, National Highways will review its suite of guidance to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

Through these changes, the government aims to create a more efficient, transparent and proportionate referral process that protects the safe and effective operation of the Strategic Road Network while reducing unnecessary burdens on applicants and decision makers.

We will continue to work closely with National Highways to monitor the impact of these changes and as part of our consideration of next steps on the planning fee surcharge. We will also engage with LPAs through the Planning Advisory Service to understand capacity implications and support effective implementation.

Active Travel England

Question 13

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

Questions 14

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

Questions 13 and 14: response

A total of 934 respondents answered Question 13. 129 (14%) agreed with the above proposal, 233 (25%) did not agree and 572 (61%) were unsure.

A total of 225 answered Question 14.

Key points raised by respondents to Questions 13 and 14

Many were concerned that raising the residential threshold and removing statutory consultation for commercial development could reduce consideration of active travel, particularly in rural areas or where cumulative impacts are significant, with implications for health, environmental and safety outcomes.

The proposed thresholds for schools, colleges and highway authority development were broadly supported, given their potential impact on travel patterns. However, respondents called for more flexible, context-sensitive thresholds, based on factors such as trip generation, transport assessment requirements or local conditions.

Some welcomed a more streamlined approach, arguing that focusing Active Travel England’s statutory role on higher-impact schemes could reduce duplication, improve efficiency and speed up planning processes. Others emphasised that commercial developments can generate substantial travel demand and should remain within scope where appropriate.

The value of Active Travel England’s specialist input was highlighted, particularly at early stages, in securing safe, connected and inclusive active travel infrastructure. However, some developers, professional bodies and LPAs raised concerns about duplication with local transport authorities.

There were consistent calls for clear national guidance, safeguards against threshold manipulation, and clarity on when discretionary or non-statutory consultation should apply. Respondents also raised concerns about resourcing, including active travel capability within LPAs and Active Travel England’s capacity to respond promptly and effectively.

Government response to Questions 13 and 14

The government acknowledges the mixed views on the proposed changes and the importance placed by respondents on ensuring that active travel remains embedded in the planning system.

Having considered responses to Questions 13 and 14, the government will proceed with the proposed changes to Active Travel England’s referral criteria. This includes, removing the requirement to consult on commercial development and raising the threshold for residential consultation from 150 to 250 units. These changes will streamline Active Travel England’s role and better target its statutory input on higher-impact schemes.

The government will also introduce new referral criteria requiring consultation with Active Travel England on highway authority development requiring planning permission, and on school and college development involving a net increase in floorspace of more than 750m², reflecting their potential impact on travel patterns and the importance of active travel for local communities.

To support implementation, we will provide clearer national guidance on discretionary consultation, including where LPAs may wish to engage Active Travel England on a non-statutory basis, particularly for larger commercial schemes, cumulative impacts, or developments with significant local active travel implications.

Active Travel England will develop best practice guidance for developers and local authorities. This will include further details on how to engage Active Travel England on school development proposals where pupil number uplifts may vary. Further details will follow in due course.

We will continue to monitor the effects of these changes in partnership with Active Travel England, including through wider work on the planning fee surcharge.

These changes will be complemented by a wider update to the Planning Practice Guidance for Transport. Active Travel England are also developing its plan-making service during 2026. In some cases, this will serve to reduce the need for Active Travel England’s involvement in planning applications where site allocations and local plan policies have been prepared with their input.

Natural England

Question 15

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

Question 15: response

A total of 324 respondents answered Question 15.

Key points raised by respondents to Question 15

Natural England’s statutory consultee role was widely viewed as essential, but under significant strain. Many emphasised the need for Natural England to be appropriately resourced and able to provide specialist environmental advice effectively. Many respondents attributed delayed responses, generic advice and limited site‑specific advice on complex cases to long-term underfunding, rather than organisational failure. Sustained investment in staffing, ecological expertise and regional knowledge was viewed as essential for Natural England to provide effective scrutiny on planning applications, particularly for protected sites, and when commenting on hydrology, air quality, nutrient impacts and biodiversity net gain considerations.

The pressure on LPAs, respondents noted that increased reliance on Natural England standing advice risks placing additional burdens on councils with limited in-house expertise. Without support, including funding, training, and accessible digital tools, respondents considered this could lead to weaker planning decisions and environmental outcomes.

There was broad support for improving the clarity, accessibility and consistency of Natural England’s advice, including updated standing advice, clearer consultation thresholds and better integration with data systems such as Impact Risk Zones. Many supported improved GIS tools, digital platforms and automated triage to reduce unnecessary referrals and delays.

The value of early engagement at pre‑application and plan‑making stages, particularly for complex cases, alongside strong coordination with other bodies, while maintaining Natural England’s independence and public trust.

Government response to Question 15

The government recognises the value respondents placed on Natural England’s role in supporting environmentally robust planning decisions. We also recognise the concerns raised about capacity, delays, generic advice and the need for more site-specific input in complex cases.

We will continue to work closely with Natural England and LPAs to support the delivery and effective use of high-quality, evidence-based advice in the planning system. This includes considering how the proposed planning fee surcharge could support capacity, alongside wider work to improve digital systems, technical guidance and specialist capability.

We also note the calls for clearer and more accessible standing advice, updated technical guidance, improved data integration and better use of tools such as Impact Risk Zones. These will be important in reducing unnecessary referrals, supporting consistent decision-making and helping LPAs apply Natural England’s advice with confidence. Further points on support for LPA capacity are addressed in our response to Questions 17 to 19.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 amends Section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 to remove the requirement for Natural England to provide advice on any request from LPAs relating to development under the TCPA. This will allow Natural England to prioritise its advice and focus their input on high risk and high opportunity casework.

Natural England’s new approach to giving advice will be set out in an Operational Statement. Natural England will continue to respond where the law requires it, in line with the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure Order and prioritise all other cases according to the prioritisation framework set out in the Operational Statement. Natural England is working with Defra to produce the Operational Statement which is proposed to be in place shortly. Until the Operational Statement is published, Natural England’s existing approach to dealing with planning casework continues to apply.

The government is investing £100 million to modernise environmental planning services of Natural England, Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission to improve digital systems and build capacity and capability to support faster and more effective decision-making across these organisations. Furthermore, Defra’s Lead Environmental Regulator model is, currently being piloted on a variety of major infrastructure projects, designating a single lead regulator to coordinate approvals across Defra bodies, reducing duplication and the risk of conflicting advice.

Eight pilots are underway to test the model:

• the Lower Thames Crossing
• Falmouth Docks
• East West Rail
• Sizewell C
• Lighthouse Green Fuels
• Projects in National Grid’s Great Grid Upgrade
• Cornish Lithium
• Port of Tyne

Together, these measures aim to improve performance, strengthen expertise and ensure the statutory consultee system operates more effectively, while continuing to protect and enhance the natural environment.

Environment Agency

Question 16

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

Question 16: response

A total of 287 respondents answered Question 16.

Key points from respondents to Question 16

There was strong cross‑sector consensus that complex environmental risks, including flooding, water quality, hydrology, contaminated land and cumulative ecological impacts, require specialist scrutiny from the Environment Agency.

Many cautioned that reframing objections as “advice” or relying too heavily on standing advice could weaken safeguards, particularly in the context of climate change, pollution and water pressures. While developers and businesses generally supported the Environment Agency’s statutory role, they emphasised the need for greater speed, clarity, proportionality and certainty.

Capacity and resourcing constraints within both the Environment Agency and LPAs were widely identified as a key driver of current performance issues. LPAs highlighted limited in‑house expertise and challenges in applying complex standing advice.

Clearer guidance, more consistent thresholds and better integration between planning and permitting regimes.

Views differed on the balance between efficiency and environmental protection. Developer and business respondents often supported faster, more standardised processes, while others emphasised the need to strengthen safeguards. However, there was broad agreement on the need for clearer national guidance, consistent interpretation of standing advice, improved data and mapping, accessible training and better coordination between agencies.

Government response to Question 16

There was strong support for the Environment Agency’s statutory role in managing flood risk, land contamination and wider environmental outcomes. However, respondents raised concerns about capacity constraints, the need for greater clarity in the Agency’s role in the planning process, and the risk of over-reliance of standing advice where local expertise is limited.  

The Environment Agency is committed to effective triaging to ensure efficiency of responses whilst ensuring environmental protection and sustainable development by focussing resource on more complex casework. This includes recruiting and training staff, improving guidance, developing new case management systems, data standards, alongside utilising Artificial Intelligence (AI) to triage and process casework, and enhanced geospatial tools to support users.

The government’s response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review committed to reforming the environmental permitting system. This includes enabling a speedier and more flexible process for setting exemptions, enabling targeted exemptions for low-risk activities to support construction, alongside wider work to streamline the Environmental Permitting Regulations and provide consistency across areas such as industrial permitting and regulation of water abstraction and impoundment.

The government will continue to work closely with the Environment Agency to address capacity pressures, including through consideration of how the proposed planning fee surcharge could support more effective engagement in the planning process.

Historic England

Question 17

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

Question 18

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

Question 19

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

Questions 17, 18 and 19: response

A total of 952 respondents answered Question 17. 137 (14%) agreed with the proposed notification criteria; 360 (38%) did not agree, and 455 (48%) were unsure.

A total of 897 respondents answered Question 18.  222 (25%) supported the changes to align London’s listed building consent process with the system used elsewhere, 187 (21%) disagreed, and 488 (54%) were unsure.

A total of 193 respondents answered Question 19.

Key points raised by respondents to Questions 17, 18 and 19

Notification criteria (Question 17)

Views on proposed changes to Historic England’s notification criteria were mixed. LPAs and developers were most favourable, viewing the proposals as a proportionate, risk‑based approach that would streamline planning by focusing Historic England’s statutory input on Grade I and II* assets and total demolitions. Many noted that Historic England often provides no comment on most Grade II cases, arguing that removing automatic referrals could reduce delay and duplication. Some supporters emphasised the need to retain flexibility for LPAs to seek advice on complex or sensitive cases.

Amenity societies, community and voluntary organisations, and many members of the public raised concerns that the proposed changes could weaken heritage protection. They argued that significant harm frequently arises from partial, as well as total, demolition, and that reducing Grade II and Conservation Area notifications could reduce effective oversight. Limited conservation capacity within LPAs was a recurring concern, with respondents warning that without Historic England’s statutory involvement, decision‑making could become inconsistent and vulnerable assets could be exposed to cumulative or irreversible harm.

Listed Building Consent (Question 18)

Supporters of the proposal, including some developers, planning professionals and LPAs, considered the London specific authorisation arrangements outdated and duplicative. They argued alignment with the national process could reduce delay, cut unnecessary notifications, and allow Historic England to focus on higher risk cases.

However, many organisations cautioned that changes should not weaken heritage protection, particularly given London’s intense development pressures, high land values, and stretched borough conservation teams. Respondents highlighted a perceived lack of evidence in the consultation on why London’s current system exists, how well it operates, and what safeguards would replace the current independent oversight.

Uncertainty was particularly common among statutory consultees, amenity societies, voluntary and community groups, many of whom were unfamiliar with the existing London arrangements or felt the proposals lacked sufficient operational detail. Conditional support was common, with respondents suggesting alignment could be acceptable if protections were maintained, national standards were consistent, and safeguards such as monitoring, clear guidance and appropriate call-in arrangements were in place.

Role of Historic England as a statutory consultee (Question 19)

There was strong support for Historic England’s statutory role, alongside calls for it to be clarified, modernised and appropriately resourced. Respondents called for clearer national tools, stronger standing advice, and more consistent methodologies for assessing heritage impacts, including guidance on setting harm thresholds and standardised conditions.

Earlier and more meaningful engagement between Historic England, applicants and LPAs, particularly on complex schemes, was widely seen as essential to avoiding delays. Respondents also supported improved digital systems, including triage and case‑tracking tools, to make consultation more proportionate and easier to monitor, alongside clearer signalling of “no comment” responses to avoid misinterpretation as approval.

Capacity constraints were a major concern. Many warned that reform must be supported by adequate resourcing for both Historic England and LPAs. Heritage organisations also stressed the importance of maintaining or strengthening the role of The Gardens Trust and the County and Country Gardens Trusts, particularly for Grade II registered parks and gardens.

Government response to Questions 17, 18 and 19

The government welcomes the wide range of views received to these questions.

In response to Question 17, the government will proceed with the proposed changes to Historic England’s notification criteria as consulted. This includes removing the requirement for Historic England to be notified of Grade II listed building consent applications, except where total demolition is proposed, and raising the conservation area threshold from 1,000m² to 2,000m². These changes are intended to better focus Historic England’s input on higher-impact proposals.

We recognise concerns about the potential impact of reducing the scope of Historic England’s statutory notifications, particularly in relation to Grade II buildings, Conservation Areas and designed landscapes. Statutory notification requirements will therefore be retained for Historic England on all Grade I and II* listed building consents and for total demolitions for Grade II listed building consents.

The historic environment will continue to be protected through national policy. We have a robust framework of protections in place for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, as set out in our NPPF. These policies continue to apply to all development proposals, and decision makers will need to give full consideration to them in determining any applications.  

In relation to Question 18, the government notes the mixed views expressed. Supporters considered London’s current authorisation arrangements to be duplicative and a source of delay, while others emphasised the need to maintain robust heritage protections in London’s particular development context. Having considered the responses, the government intends to proceed with aligning London’s listed building consent process with the arrangements that apply elsewhere. We note that Historic England supports this proposal and does not consider that the current arrangements add value.

We recognise concerns that decision quality could be affected if LPAs do not have sufficient heritage and conservation capacity. The government is committed to ensuring LPAs have the capacity and capability they need, including specialist expertise. We have laid draft regulations that will increase national planning fees and intend to take forward measures enabling LPAs to set their own planning fees to cover their costs. We are also providing a further £48 million in capacity and capability funding over this Spending Review period.

The government will continue to work closely with Historic England to understand the impact of these changes, including concerns raised in response to Question 19 on capacity, guidance, digital systems and early engagement.

The Mining Remediation Authority

Question 20

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

Question 21

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

Question 22

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

Questions 20, 21 and 22: response

A total of 815 respondents answered Question 20. 87 (11%) agreed with the proposed referral criteria, 106 (13%) disagreed and 622 (76%) were unsure.

A total of 791 respondents answered Question 21. 81 (10%) agreed with the proposal, 97 (12%) disagreed and 613 (77%) were unsure.

A total of 41 respondents answered Question 22.

Key points raised by respondents to Questions 20, 21 and 22

Referral criteria

Some supported the proposed changes as a way to release capacity and focus the Mining Remediation Authority’s (MRA) specialist input more effectively. Others raised concerns about limited technical expertise within LPAs, stressing the need for clear and robust standing guidance if responsibilities were to shift away from the MRA.

Removing MRA input could reduce decision quality and increase risks to public safety, particularly in high-risk areas, including for certain types of development such as domestic extensions.

Discharge of conditions

A range of views were received on the proposal to remove the MRA from the discharge of conditions process. Some considered MRA involvement unnecessary, given existing permitting controls and existing policy requirements provide sufficient assurance that sites were suitable for development.

However, others raised concerns about the capacity and expertise of local authorities in former mining areas. They highlighted the value of the MRA’s independent technical input, particularly where it had advised at the planning application stage and stressed the importance of expert scrutiny for conditions to ensure appropriate safeguards are maintained.

The role of the Mining Remediation Authority as a statutory consultee

There was strong support for the MRA’s technical expertise and the value of its input. Some wanted the MRA to retain its current role, while others felt its role should be enhanced.

The need for clearer advice and guidance was highlighted, including standing advice, better access to data, and clearer referral criteria—to ensure LPAs and applicants have the information they need.

Concerns were raised about the capacity and capability of LPAs, noting the need for adequate resources and training to handle specialised issues effectively.

Some suggested that statutory consultees, including the MRA, should engage earlier and more consistently throughout the planning process, from pre-application to post-development monitoring. Others queried whether notification in high-risk areas could be sufficient, or whether overlaps with other bodies should be explored.

Government response to Questions 20, 21 and 22

The intention of these proposals is to ensure that the role of the MRA as a statutory consultee is clear, proportionate and focused on those development proposals where its specialist expertise adds greatest value.

Responses to Questions 20 and 21 showed high levels of uncertainty, alongside both support for a more targeted approach and concerns about public safety, environmental protection, LPA capacity and decision-making quality.

Having considered the responses, the government intends to proceed with the changes consulted on. Strengthened standing advice for lower-risk development, will enable the MRA to focus on higher-risk proposals while supporting LPAs to determine lower-risk applications more efficiently.

Ground conditions will remain a material planning consideration, and national planning policy is clear that it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that a site is safe and suitable for development. Where investigatory or remedial works are required, these will continue to be subject to the MRA’s permitting regime.

We recognise that the effectiveness of this approach depends on LPAs being appropriately supported. We therefore welcome the MRA’s commitment to update and expand its guidance, provide clearer referral criteria, and offer training and confidence building support, to enable LPAs to implement these changes in practice.

In relation to consultation Question 21, we recognise views that the MRA’s continued involvement in discharging planning conditions provides valuable technical expertise and safeguards, particularly given the complexity of coal mining related conditions. However, this function falls outside the MRA’s statutory remit and can duplicate its permitting role. We have agreed with the MRA that they will no longer routinely comment on the discharge of planning conditions, while maintaining safeguards through permitting, validation requirements and national policy.

The MRA will also work with coalfield LPAs to ensure they are comfortable with the information being proposed for submission and to provide additional support as these changes are implemented, including through updated guidance, targeted support and a discretionary, cost recovery advice service for developers where needed.

In response to Question 22, we welcome the strong support for the MRA’s expertise and the calls for clearer guidance and referral criteria. We will work closely with the MRA to implement these reforms and keep their effectiveness under review.

Other changes to statutory consultees

Question 23

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

Question 24

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

Question 25

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?

Questions 23, 24 and 25: response

A total of 157 respondents answered Question 23.

A total of 231 respondents answered Question 24.

A total of 230 respondents answered Question 25.

Key points raised by respondents to Questions 23, 24 and 25

Other statutory referral to consider (Question 23)

Many did not support further changes to referral criteria without clear evidence that they contribute to delays, instead attributing issues to resourcing constraints. Some suggested linking statutory consultee status to performance, including potential penalties for failing to meet the 21‑day deadline.

There were also calls to expand the referral criteria in specific areas, including to water companies due to concerns about flood risk and wastewater capacity. Flood risk featured prominently more broadly, with suggestions for more consistent engagement with Lead Local Flood Authorities or Parish Councils given their detailed local knowledge. Some also advocated for the inclusion of National Landscape Bodies as statutory consultees.

A common theme was the need for clearer, more standardised national remits for statutory consultees and guidance to reduce unnecessary referrals. Triage systems used by highways authorities was cited as good practice that could be applied more widely.

Pre-application engagement (Question 24)

Early, collaborative preapplication engagement with statutory consultees was widely supported and there were calls for a more structured and consistent approach to statutory consultation, supported by clearer guidance and expectations. Early involvement from bodies such as Historic England and Environment Agency were seen as particularly important for complex or sensitive sites.

Greater transparency was also emphasised, with calls for pre-application advice from statutory consultees to be made publicly accessible.  Some respondents argued that pre-application engagement should become a standard requirement across all statutory consultees.

Some, particularly developers, raised concerns about the costs associated with voluntary pre‑application services, alongside frustrations about inconsistent service quality. Many called for clearer performance expectations, and some proposed more formalised approaches, similar to Planning Performance Agreements to provide greater certainty on timelines and key issues.

Post-approval process (Question 25)

Generally, there was agreement that statutory consultee involvement in post approval matters can be highly valuable—and, in some cases, essential—particularly where specialist advice is needed to ensure conditions are appropriately met. Many called for clearer guidance, standard templates and model conditions to improve consistency.

Effective implementation was seen as dependent on adequate resourcing for both consultees and LPAs. Stronger enforcement was also identified as important, alongside clearer evidence requirements to demonstrate compliance with conditions.

Views differed on when statutory consultees should be involved. Some respondents favoured limiting engagement at the post approval stage to exceptional circumstances, such as where the LPA lacks inhouse expertise, where a consultee originally imposed the condition, or where a development poses significant community or flood risk impacts. Others suggested that statutory consultees should be required to engage positively with all post approval matters.

Government response to Questions 23 to 25

Across Questions 23 to 25, respondents consistently highlighted the need for greater clarity, consistency and improved capacity within the statutory consultation system.

At this stage, the government does not intend to amend wider referral criteria or change statutory consultee involvement in voluntary pre-application engagement or post-approval processes. However, we will continue to work closely with statutory consultees and LPAs to consider further evidence in these areas.

In the government response to the NPPF consultation, it was confirmed that the government would be retaining consulted text for Policy DM1, which sets out a proportionate approach to pre-application engagement. It emphasises that pre-application engagement should principally be for major and medium development. Proposals for other, smaller scale development, now require less information and engagement.

In response to consultation feedback around adding referral criteria for organisations, such as water companies, please refer to our response to consultation Questions 32 to 34. Respondent feedback on capacity constraints will also inform our forthcoming consultation on the planning fee surcharge and our work to develop a new performance framework for statutory consultees.

Statutory consultee performance

Question 26

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

Question 26: response

A total of 403 respondents answered Question 26.

Key points raised by respondents to Question 26

LPAs, town and parish councils, and neighbourhood planning bodies most frequently called for clearer and more accessible digital publication of statutory consultee performance data.

Professional associations, industry representatives, amenity societies and others emphasised the need for clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that statutory consultees must meet, enabling more consistent measurement of annual performance.

Businesses, community groups and the public highlighted the value of structured feedback mechanisms, including stakeholder roundtables or forums and online surveys to capture views on response times and quality. Planning professionals and voluntary organisations similarly supported the use of both KPIs and feedback tools.

Using case studies to showcase good practice and the importance of capturing feedback from those who interact most frequently with statutory consultees, particularly LPAs and developers.

Government response to Question 26

The government is grateful for the wide range of views on how statutory consultee performance can be better understood, assessed and supported. We will consider this feedback as we work with statutory consultees to develop a new performance framework, as committed in the 2025 Written Ministerial Statement.

We recognise the importance of capturing both developer and LPA perspectives and will seek to incorporate these into our approach. We will also consider relevant feedback alongside forthcoming work on the planning fee surcharge.

Many respondents highlighted the need to improve the visibility and accessibility of statutory consultee performance information, including through digital tools. As part of developing the new performance framework, we will consider how new data standards for development management could support more consistent collection and publication of statutory consultee performance data.

The role of local planning authorities

Question 27

Do you agree with this approach?

Question 28

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

Question 29

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

Question 30

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

Question 31

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

Questions 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: response

A total of 1,009 respondents answered Question 27.  295 (29%) agreed with the approach, 391 (39%) disagreed, and 323 (32%) were unsure.

A total of 456 respondents answered Question 28.

A total of 301 respondents answered Question 29.

A total of 340 respondents answered Question 30.

A total of 296 respondents answered Question 31.

Key points raised by respondents to Questions 27 to 31

Opposition to the proposals were primarily around losing access to statutory consultee expertise, particularly given capacity and capability pressures within LPAs. Such respondents cautioned against reforms that could weaken protections for heritage, landscapes or communities, and raised concerns about applying standardised approaches to complex or bespoke applications or how “unnecessary referrals” would be defined.

Supporters to the approach emphasised the need for appropriate funding and resourcing of LPAs if their role in assessing applications is to expand. They supported greater standardisation, including clear validation requirements, consistent response formats and defined referral procedures.

A consistent theme was the value of earlier and more effective engagement between LPAs and statutory consultees, with pre-application discussions seen as key to resolving issues upfront. Many respondents also stressed the importance of statutory consultees meeting the 21-day response requirement.

Examples of best practice included clear LPA validation checklists, experienced officers and early collaboration between LPAs, statutory consultees and applicants. Respondents also called for standardised national guidance, alongside greater use of digital tools to help applicants prepare material more efficiently.

Alongside improved resourcing, respondents encouraged more collaborative approaches, such as shared regional specialist teams or secondments between organisations, to help LPAs access specialist knowledge when needed.

Government response to Questions 27 to 31

The government recognises the range of views raised and the importance of ensuring LPAs have the capacity, capability and processes needed to engage effectively with statutory consultees.

We will work with the Planning Advisory Service to convene events with LPAs and statutory consultees to discuss the capacity impacts of these reforms and to support implementation.

The New Homes Accelerator, a partnership between MHCLG, Homes England and the Greater London Authority, provided £1m of funding to statutory consultees to bolster resources and improve feedback to local authorities and industry. As of May 2026, through the NHA’s engagement with statutory consultees and arms-length bodies, the government has unblocked circa 81,900 homes to move forward in the planning process. 

The government is also progressing wider reforms to strengthen LPA capacity. This includes forthcoming proposals to enable local fee setting and consideration of a planning fee surcharge to support both LPAs and statutory consultees, helping to create a more efficient and responsive system.

In the government’s response to the NPPF consultation, we confirmed we would be retaining the consulted text for Policy DM3, which sets out that LPAs should only consult statutory or internal consultees where it is necessary to do so and that decisions on development proposals should not be delayed in order to secure advice from a statutory or internal consultee beyond their statutory deadlines unless there is insufficient information to make the decision, there are public safety risks from proceeding without advice, or more detailed advice may enable an approval rather than a refusal.

The government also recognises that there is a role for statutory consultees in developing the training and support that will help to build knowledge in LPAs, including in the context of the new plan making system. The government will work with statutory consultees to develop this approach and support effective engagement with LPAs.

Moratorium on new statutory consultees

Question 32

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

Question 33

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

Question 34

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

Questions 32, 33 and 34: response

A total of 881 respondents answered Question 32.  191 (22%) supported the criteria; 234 (27%) were opposed; and 456 (52%) were unsure.

A total of 305 respondents answered Question 33.

A total of 166 respondents answered Question 34.

Key points raised by respondents to Questions 32, 33 and 34

Criteria for decisions on future statutory consultees

A recurring concern was the proposed “pro-growth” requirement. Respondents from a range of sectors, otherwise supportive of the framework, stressed that statutory consultees must remain impartial and able to identify risks or harms without being constrained by any presumption in favour of development.

Clearer definitions and greater transparency, particularly on how evidence would be weighed, duplication identified, and the criteria applied to both new and existing statutory consultees. Many considered that ambiguity in these areas could lead to inconsistent decisions and reduced confidence in the framework.

Many were concerned that the framework could weaken environmental, heritage, safety, infrastructure and design safeguards by limiting access to specialist expertise. Some cautioned that prioritising speed and efficiency could come at the expense of wider public interest objectives, including nature recovery, local distinctiveness and community protection.

Moratorium

Many supported maintaining stability through a moratorium but emphasised the need for periodic reviews to ensure it remains appropriate as wider reforms progress.

There were repeated called for clear, evidence-based criteria to determine when a new statutory consultee is justified, with some viewing this as preferable to an open-ended moratorium. Others argued that a blanket moratorium could limit the system’s ability to respond to emerging risks or priorities, such as those relating to water or national landscapes.

Overall, respondents favoured a balanced approach that maintains stability while enabling flexibility where specialist advice clearly adds public value.

Government response to Questions 32, 33 and 34

The government is grateful for the wide range of views received in response to Questions 32, 33 and 34.

Having considered the responses, the government has decided to maintain the moratorium on new statutory consultees. We will therefore not roll out the criteria for new statutory consultees set out in the consultation at this time.

This position will only change as part of periodic review and if there are exceptional circumstances in the future, where a new statutory consultee role may be justified. Any decision to add a new statutory consultee at a later stage would be considered carefully, based on evidence and in accordance with the relevant legal and policy processes. The applicability of the consulted criteria for new statutory consultees would also be reconsidered in these circumstances.

The government acknowledges feedback on the pro-growth agenda. The government considers it is reasonable and beneficial for bodies that act as statutory consultees to take account of the importance of economic growth, while also providing impartial advice. This already occurs. For instance, recent Strategic Policy Statements from Natural England and Environment Agency set out how these organisations would account for the importance of economic growth, building on the growth duty in s108 of the Deregulation Act 2015. The government considers that any new statutory consultee should be able to account for the importance of growth in a similar way.

In response to feedback to Question 28 around water companies having statutory consultee referral criteria in the planning application process, whilst these organisations are not statutory consultees on individual planning applications, they are local plan consultation bodies. This is because strategic issues, such as water capacity, drainage, and wastewater management are best dealt with at a strategic level, where it is easier to identify and mitigate capacity issues or damaged infrastructure early, and which can act as a point of reference for planning application decisions.

The recently launched new local plan-making system for England will also ensure better join-up between water and development planning processes, making plans simpler, faster to prepare and more accessible. Under this new system, the government has prescribed water and sewerage companies in ‘Requirement to Assist’ regulations so they will be obliged to assist with plan making, where a plan-making authority reasonably requests it. Water and sewerage companies are also listed as consultation bodies for the new plan-making system, so they will be made aware of key plan-making consultations where the plan-making authority consider they have an interest.

This responds directly to the current system, where fragmented engagement leads to inconsistent decisions, delays and stalled sites. The forthcoming Clean Water Bill will build on this by delivering an enhanced, better joined up regional water system planning function. This will enable a more holistic, coordinated approach to water environment and supply planning, which supports delivery of national strategic objectives such as economic growth, housing building targets and nature recovery, while enabling regional and local priorities to be realised.

Together, these reforms move the system towards infrastructure-led planning, where water availability is planned alongside and in support of housing growth.

Impact

Question 36

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

Question 37

Based on the proposed changes to referral criteria, would statutory consultees expect to see performance improvements? Please explain your reasoning.

Questions 36 and 37: response

A total of 216 respondents answered Question 36.

A total of 703 respondents answered Question 37.  25 (4%) strongly agreed that performance improvements should be expected, 120 (17%) agreed, 324 (46%) were neutral, 112 (16%) disagreed, and 122 (17%) strongly disagreed.

Key points raised by respondents to consultation Questions 36 and 37

LPAs, planning professionals, amenity societies, and community groups, strongly supported retaining statutory consultees such as Sport England, Historic England, The Gardens Trust, and Theatres Trust, citing their role in protecting heritage, health and wellbeing, and providing essential technical expertise.

While some respondents, particularly developers and some business interests, anticipated modest benefits from streamlining consultations, many expected the overall effect would be limited, and highlighted that deregulation could weaken consistency, collaboration, and protections embedded in national planning policy.

LPAs and planning professionals emphasised that LPAs might lack the specialist knowledge to replace consultee expertise, should they be removed as a statutory consultee, particularly given existing resource pressures. Respondents warned this may increase reliance on consultants, higher costs, and inconsistent outcomes.

Many argued that consultees added value rather than delay, with delays more often attributed to resourcing constraints. Respondents warned that reducing specialist expert input could increase long-term risks (such as unadopted roads, flooding and loss of heritage assets) and reduced public confidence in the planning system.

Many agreed that reducing unnecessary referrals could improve efficiency but emphasised that benefits depend on adequate resourcing and capability within both LPAs and statutory consultees.

There was widespread concern that limiting statutory consultee roles could weaken decision quality, particularly where specialist advice is critical—especially in areas such as sport, active travel, ecology, flood risk, and environmental protection.

Standardised advice, proformas, and clearer criteria were seen as useful tools, but respondents cautioned against over-reliance on them. Complex or high-risk cases still required bespoke assessment from qualified technical officers.

Some supported tighter referral criteria where this was accompanied by clearer national guidance and performance monitoring. Many also stressed that performance should not be measured by speed alone, and that reforms should maintain strong safeguards for green spaces, heritage assets, and community interests.

Government response to Questions 36 and 37

The government is grateful for the feedback received in response to Questions 36 and 37. As set out in our responses to Questions 1 and 26, we will consider this feedback as we develop the new performance framework for statutory consultees.

We recognise the concerns raised about capacity, funding and resourcing within both statutory consultees and LPAs. These points will be considered as part of the development of proposals for a planning fee surcharge, on which we intend to consult.

We will continue to work closely with statutory consultees and LPAs, including through planned Planning Advisory Service engagement events, to monitor the impact of this package of reforms and support effective implementation.

Public Sector Equality Duty

Question 35

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

Question 35: response

A total of 218 respondents answered Question 35.

Key points raised by respondents to Question 35

The main points raised focused on the proposed removal of statutory consultee status of Sport England, The Gardens Trust and Theatres Trust.

Concerns that removing Sport England as a statutory consultee could weaken protections for playing fields and sports facilities, potentially disproportionately affecting groups who rely on these spaces for health and wellbeing, including disabled people, low-income communities, children, older people and women.

Similar concerns were raised about the removal of The Gardens Trust, with respondents noting the importance of high‑quality green spaces for groups with more limited access, including older people, disabled users and those without private gardens.

Reduced early engagement on theatres and cultural venues, including through the Theatres Trust, could limit access to specialist advice, with potential impacts on the accessibility, inclusivity and viability of such spaces, including for disabled people, younger audiences, the LGBTQ+ community and lower income groups who may rely most on local cultural infrastructure.

Government response to Question 35  

The government is grateful for the views provided on these issues and recognises the concerns raised regarding potential impacts on access to playing fields, green spaces and cultural venues, particularly for groups with protected characteristics.

These responses have been carefully considered as policy has developed, alongside a full assessment of impacts in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

1. Number of responses as directly submitted to the consultation email account. ↩