Closed consultation

Reforms to the statutory consultee system

Published 18 November 2025

Applies to England

This consultation seeks views on reforming the role of statutory consultees in the planning system, specifically those that are governed by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

Scope of this consultation

This consultation seeks views on the following proposals: 

• removing statutory consultee status from certain bodies 
• reviewing the scope of what statutory consultees advise on
• improving performance management across existing statutory consultee bodies in the planning system more widely

Geographical scope

These proposals relate to England only. 

Impact assessment

We will use feedback from the consultation to inform our assessment of the impact of the measures. 

Body responsible for the consultation

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Duration

This consultation will last for 8 weeks from 18 November 2025 to 13 January 2026. 

Enquiries

For any enquiries about the consultation, email StatutoryConsulteeReforms@communities.gov.uk.

How to respond

You can respond by completing the online survey.  

We strongly encourage responses via the online survey, particularly from organisations with access to online facilities, such as local authorities, representative bodies, and businesses. 

Consultations on planning matters receive a high level of interest across many sectors. Using the online survey greatly assists our analysis of the responses, enabling more efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised for each question.  

Alternatively, you can email your response to the questions in this consultation to StatutoryConsulteeReforms@communities.gov.uk. 

If you are responding in writing, please make it clear which questions you are responding to. 

Written responses should be sent to: 

Sean O’Byrne,
Planning – Development Management Team,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Third Floor,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF

When you reply, please confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include: 

• your name 
• your position (if applicable)
• the name of organisation (if applicable)
• an address (including postcode)
• an email address
• a contact telephone number

Disclaimer: MHCLG reserves the right to share non-personal data such as responses and thematic analysis derived from the consultation with other government departments and arms’ length bodies.

This does not affect your statutory rights under the government’s Data Sharing Code of Practice.

Ministerial foreword

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 and developers too frequently provide inadequate or poor-quality information or make blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees.

The role of statutory consultees in the planning system is an important one. When statutory consultees engage, and are engaged, effectively in the planning application process, they support good decision-making and high-quality development through the swift provision of expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues.

The government is determined to improve the functioning of the statutory consultee system to facilitate confident and timely decision making. That means ensuring that 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. 

In my Written Ministerial Statement of 10 March, I set out a number of steps the government intended to take to improve the sub-optimal status quo. These included:

• aligning the statutory consultee system with the development and economic growth objectives set out in our Plan for Change
• ensuring the statutory requirement to consult is limited only to those instances where it is essential and that local planning authorities only consult statutory consultees where it is necessary to do so
• removing gold plating where advice and support can be provided through other means
• instituting a new performance framework with greater ministerial oversight
• developing a sustainable funding model supported by the right incentives

We have already taken action to progress a number of these changes, including the introduction of powers through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will allow for a surcharge on planning fees to support the funding of key statutory consultees.

Over recent months, the government has been working closely with key statutory consultees and other stakeholders on those that remain. The result is an ambitious package of reforms designed to ensure the statutory consultee system can operate more effectively. I offer my sincere thanks to all those involved in our statutory consultee working group for their time, expertise, and constructive engagement.

In developing this package of further reforms, we have drawn on the insights gleaned from the New Homes Accelerator’s work in successfully overcoming systemic problems within the planning and development process and the recommendations of the Corry Review of the environmental regulatory landscape in relation to Natural England and the Environment Agency.

I invite you to share your views on our proposals, with suggestions for improvements, and how they can be made. Your responses will help us gauge the impact of the proposed measures (and appropriate mitigations) as well as how wider changes to the system can help statutory consultees, local planning authorities and developers engage in a manner that can facilitate the kind of confident and timely decision making we want to see as standard.

Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister for Housing and Planning

Ensuring the statutory consultation system supports economic growth

The government’s Plan for Change sets out how we intend to kickstart economic growth in order to raise living standards in every part of the United Kingdom. Reforming the planning system so that it is pro-growth and pro-infrastructure is a key pillar of these reforms, and this must be underpinned by an effective and efficient system of statutory consultation. 

We are working with statutory consultees to ensure that they are able to effectively and efficiently contribute to the planning process for growth and infrastructure.

Our approach across the planning system includes the following.

1. Reducing the amount of statutory consultation and follow up requests that are required

This will be achieved through adjustments to referral criteria, removal of some statutory consultees, increased use of standing advice and increased clarity to support better applications from developers.  

2. Ensuring that where statutory consultees are removed appropriate mitigations are in place

This includes through the introduction of requirements to notify these bodies of a subset of cases which have the highest impacts.

3. Reducing blanket and unnecessary referrals from local planning authorities

For many statutory consultees, a large proportion of their casework (for example, circa 30% for Natural England, 38% for the Environment Agency and 15% for Historic England) is not necessary, either because the cases do not meet referral criteria or are already subject to standing guidance.

Reducing unnecessary referrals will free up resources to focus on higher impact casework.  

4. Supporting statutory consultees to engage where their input is most impactful

This includes through local plans and spatial development strategies where appropriate.

This will include consideration of classifying relevant statutory consultees as prescribed bodies in relation to notification about local plans and supporting them to avoid ‘double handling’ – for instance, so that that where strategic mitigations are agreed through local plan making, case by case consideration is not generally required.

The new plan-making system, expected to commence later this year, will support more effective engagement with statutory consultees at an earlier stage.

5. Working with statutory consultees to ensure that they are providing constructive advice to support local authority decision making

For instance, the Environment Agency are updating their internal guidance, such that where a Direction^{[footnote 1]} does not apply, their responses are reframed as advice rather than objections.

National Highways, through New Homes Accelerator funding, has established a task force which is focused on addressing any applications which have been subject to a holding objection of more than 9 months.

MHCLG and the Department for Transport (DfT) are collaborating with National Highways to provide greater clarity on when a transport assessment is required and whether it meets the necessary standards, with the aim of improving guidance and reducing the need for holding responses.

6. Reviewing key policy and guidance

This is to ensure that the framework in which statutory consultees provide advice supports effective decision making.

This includes providing further guidance in relation to areas where we are proposing to remove statutory consultees, on issues such as ‘agent of change’, and reviewing guidance which relates to local and minor statutory consultees. 

7. Ensuring that the system of statutory consultation is effectively resourced

This includes developing a funding solution for the most significant statutory consultees, through a new planning fee surcharge, which we are introducing through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Beyond this, we recognise the importance of early engagement and will continue to support statutory consultees to offer pre-application advice on a cost recovery basis. 

8. Delivering targeted support to unlock the most complex sites

This is through £1 million of funding to key statutory consultees as part of the New Homes Accelerator.

Following its launch in July 2024, the New Homes Accelerator has been working with national and local partners to speed up housing delivery on a series of large sites across the country. The Accelerator has helped to unblock over 48,000 homes through engagement with statutory consultees.

9. Empowering local planning authorities as decision makers

The written ministerial statement of 10 March 2025 makes clear that statutory consultees should be providing advice, and it is for the decision maker to weigh that advice against other material considerations.

This includes proceeding to a decision in the absence of advice where it has not been provided within the statutory timescales, and a decision to grant permission can reasonably be made in the absence of this advice.

We intend to incorporate this approach into our forthcoming national policies on decision making.

To support this approach, and confident and effective local planning authority decision-making, we recognise that local planning authorities will need the resources and training to build up in-house expertise.  

10. Developing a new performance framework for statutory consultees

This will focus on the largest national statutory consultees. We will co-develop performance metrics with statutory consultees and introduce an annual meeting between statutory consultee chief executives, MHCLG and the Treasury minister to discuss performance.

This meeting will consider both management information statistics, to cover issues such as the proportion of consultations responded to within statutory deadlines, the extent to which holding responses are used, and qualitative feedback from industry, local planning authorities, and relevant government bodies.  

11. Ensuring certain key statutory consultees are able to reform and update their systems, to better prioritise and manage their casework

For instance, the Environment Agency is undertaking a significant review and redesign of its spatial planning service to provide a modern digital service for customers.

This includes replacing legacy IT systems and the delivery of dedicated senior input on key sites to unlock the thorniest issues, as well as a commitment to improve the timeliness of advice, and respond to at least 95% of planning applications within 21 days from September 2025 onwards.

National Highways will develop a new rapid triage service to pre-assess applications more quickly, only referring them onward for full review if necessary. This could reduce their caseload by 10%.

12. Amending consultation requirements for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)

This is through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025. Existing consultation requirements are unique in their scale and specificity and are driving perverse outcomes – encouraging risk-aversion, creating consultation fatigue, creating longer and less accessible documentation and actively disincentivising improvements to applications.

We are replacing existing legislative requirements with statutory guidance to setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement, including with statutory bodies, prior to submitting an application. Any changes to the NSIP regime will be subject to separate consultation. 

13. Cost recovery measures for NSIPs

The Infrastructure Planning (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations which came into force in April 2024, amended the 2010 Fees Regulations to grant eight of the 42 NSIP statutory bodies the power to charge applicants fees for relevant services they provide to applicants at each stage of the development consent order process.

In the government response to the proposed reforms to the NPPF and other changes to the planning system consultation, the government committed to introduce secondary legislation to enable cost recovery for relevant services provided by host local authorities in relation to NSIP applications. The government is continuing to take forward this measure and secondary legislation will be laid when parliamentary time allows.

Consultation questions

Question 1

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

Question 2

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

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

The number of statutory consultees, and the nature of statutory consultation, has evolved over time. New statutory consultees have often been added in response to shifting policy priorities, but without any subsequent review of whether their ongoing involvement remains necessary or proportionate.

As a result, some bodies have remained statutory consultees without systematic reassessment, despite broader changes to policy and context. This has led to an inconsistent and potentially outdated approach to statutory consultation. 

As set out in the written ministerial statement of 10 March 2025, we are consulting on proposals to remove Sport England, The Gardens Trust, and Theatres Trust as statutory consultees, and testing the impact that this would have.

All 3 consultees were introduced in the 1990s or earlier, prior to:

• the requirement for local planning authorities to develop local plans (the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)
• the introduction of the NPPF (2012)
• the reforms through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, the current Planning and Infrastructure Bill and upcoming Devolution Bill

They all also serve valuable functions outside of their statutory consultee role. 

Removing these statutory consultees would help to rationalise the planning system. It would also reduce bureaucracy by removing around 3,000 statutory consultations per year from the planning system. 

The government recognises that there are trade-offs in any change of this type, and that it will be necessary to introduce mitigations. However, we believe that local planning authorities can be empowered to make effective decisions in the absence of certain formal statutory consultation, within a framework of national and local policy and guidance, and of relevant engagement through local plans.

We continue to recognise the importance of the policy areas with which these organisations are engaged and recognise their value to local communities.

Access to culture is an important driver of local growth and access to open green spaces and playing fields is crucial to our ambitions to increase physical activity levels across the nation and deliver on our health mission.

We remain committed to ensuring our playing field capacity is protected and extended. Our NPPF ensures these interests are maintained in the planning system and there is an important, ongoing role for these organisations working with Local Authorities on the development of local and strategic plans, and through the publication of guidance and advice. 

For Sport England, The Gardens Trust and Theatres Trust, we are considering mitigations which could minimise the potential impacts of removing their statutory consultee status, while delivering the benefits of reducing regulatory requirements.

The government recognises the importance of enabling these organisations to comment on the planning applications which have the greatest impact on their policy priorities. It should also be noted that there are public consultation requirements in relation to planning applications, and even if statutory consultee status were removed, any individual or organisation would be able to respond as part of the public consultation. 

We are interested in views on the impact of removing these organisations as statutory consultees, and the potential mitigations we could introduce to support the ongoing delivery of the underlying policy aims.

Sport England

Sport England has been a statutory consultee since 1996. It received 1,164 statutory consultations in 2024 to 2025 and objected in 30% of cases. Two thirds of these objections were removed after amended submissions.

The majority of Sport England’s existing casework (around 60% of cases) relates to school developments. It also comments on other public sector development, such as the impacts on playing fields within prisons. Only 8% of casework relates to housing development on or adjacent to playing fields.  

The nature of Sport England’s caseload means that much of the burden of engagement, including the cost and delay that can occur, falls on the public sector. 

Around 8% of applications on which Sport England is consulted go to a decision carrying an objection. Four fifths of these are decided in favour of the applicant. This includes around 65 school or public sector developments over the last 3 years, and around 55 commercial or residential developments over the same period. 

The government recognises the importance of maintaining and improving the stock of playing fields but considers that statutory consultation on individual cases to a national body is not proportionate. Government policy for the protection of playing fields is clearly set out in the NPPF. In most circumstances, local planning authorities are best placed to assess proposals which impact on playing fields in their area and to apply national and local policy accordingly.

Mitigations

The government recognises that Sport England can play a valuable strategic role in supporting local planning authorities in the development of local planning policy.

Following on from our 2023 consultation on implementation of the plan-making reforms provided by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (the LURA) and subsequent 2025 consultation response , we intend to prescribe Sport England alongside other bodies of a public nature in Regulations under the new ‘requirement to assist with plan-making’ provisions. We also intend to retain Sport England as a specific plan-making consultation body for the new plan-making system provided by the LURA, which we expect to launch later this year.

Under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA), there is a ‘requirement to assist in certain plan-making’, under which a local planning authority can require the assistance of prescribed bodies. Sport England was listed as a proposed prescribed body in the government consultation on implementing the LURA plan-making reforms.

We recently set out that we would:

• review the list to explore whether additional bodies should be added
• confirm a revised list
• share a further list of plan-making specific consultation bodies in due course. 

In February 2025, the government committed to review the proposed list. We will be making a further announcement on the list of prescribed bodies in due course.  

Sport England has made representations to government that its role in the planning process acts as a deterrent against speculative applications for housing or commercial development on viable playing fields without the provision of appropriate mitigations (such as suitable alternative playing field space).  

While we consider that planning policy should provide sufficient protection in general, we propose the introduction of a new notification requirement in relation to housing and commercial development on playing fields. Under this approach, local planning authorities would be required to notify Sport England when such applications would result in the wholesale or substantial loss of playing fields.

This role would be somewhat similar to an amenity society and would not come with a corresponding obligation on Sport England to respond but would ensure that it is notified of relevant applications and can respond if it chooses. 

In order to introduce this approach, a definition of ‘substantial loss’ would be required in relation to playing fields. The government welcomes feedback on the approach it should take in doing this.

The government’s aim is to introduce criteria that is simple for local authorities to operationalise, which would empower local authorities to deal with less substantial proposals within the framework of national and local policy, while ensuring notification to Sports England on the proposals which have the highest risk.    

To further mitigate against risks, we will also work with Sport England to develop updates to Planning Practice Guidance on Consultation and Pre-Decision matters to ensure ‘agent of change’ issues are considered where relevant. These occur when new development may impact negatively on the existing use of playing fields. We also consider that there is a role for Sport England in developing guidance for local planning authorities, to support their consideration of planning applications and playing fields.

Consultation questions

Question 3

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

• support 
• oppose 
• neutral 

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 

Please explain your answer/reasoning if possible.

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?

The Gardens Trust

The Gardens Trust is a statutory consultee in relation to development likely to affect any registered park or garden (i.e. Grade 1, Grade II, and Grade II*). It has been a statutory consultee since 1995 and in 2024-25 received 1,849 consultations, making 1,289 responses. 96 of these were objections to the proposals (7.4%).  The Gardens Trust assess that 90% of their responses were given within the 21 day deadline.

We are considering removing The Gardens Trust as a national statutory consultee to streamline treatment of applications impacting registered parks and gardens.

Historic England is also a statutory consultee in relation to Grade 1 and Grade II*  parks and gardens, meaning there is a duplication in roles. The level of statutory consultation for registered parks and gardens exceeds what is in place for listed buildings. There are currently no statutory consultees for Grade II listed buildings, and only one statutory consultee (Historic England) for Grade 1 and Grade II*  listed buildings.

However, there is a parallel regime of notification requirements in relation to listed building consents, which requires that Historic England and national amenity societies such as the Victorian society should be notified about relevant listed building consents. For amenity societies, this is limited to proposals for demolition of a listed building, or alterations which require the demolition of any part of that building. There is no corresponding obligation on the amenity society to respond, as there is under full statutory consultation.

Mitigations 

Fully removing The Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee would place registered parks and gardens on the same footing as listed buildings, in relation to the planning consent regime. However, as registered parks and gardens are not subject to listed building consenting regime, there would be no corresponding amenity society role.

Therefore, in addition to removing The Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee, we propose to introduce a notification requirement that parallels the amenity society role in relation to listed building consents. To deliver this approach, which would parallel the listed building regime, notification would be limited to planning applications for development within registered parks or gardens. 

It is not proposed that The Gardens Trust be formally notified of applications outside the boundary of the park or garden that impact the wider setting. However, as registered parks and gardens are defined as designated heritage assets, they will remain subject to the strong heritage policies protecting these assets in the NPPF.

These policies require local planning authorities to carefully consider the impact of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset, including its setting, and if the development proposal would cause substantial harm, to refuse such applications. Local planning authorities will retain the discretion to consult The Gardens Trust where they consider that this would support them to meet their responsibilities under the NPPF.

Where the local planning authority does not consider this is necessary, The Gardens Trust will retain the ability to respond to public consultation. However, the provision of a response to the public consultation would be at The Gardens Trust’s discretion and would be reliant on its awareness of the development proposal.  

Section 102 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act has not been commenced but is under consideration. This would introduce a statutory obligation on decision makers to give special regard to heritage assets and their settings when making planning decisions, in relation to scheduled monuments, registered parks, gardens and World Heritage Sites. A decision on whether to commence this section will be made in due course. 

Consultation questions

Question 6

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

• support 
• oppose 
• neutral 

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?

Theatres Trust

Theatres Trust is a statutory consultee for development involving any land on which there is a theatre. It has had a longstanding role as a consultee in the planning system, since its establishment in 1976.

It receives around 100 statutory consultations per year, the majority of which relate to theatre development (for example, alterations to an existing theatre, within its existing use, with limited impact on housebuilding). They respond within statutory timeframes. Parallel forms of cultural provision, such music venues, sport stadia and museums do not have specific statutory consultees attached.  

Theatres which are listed buildings are also subject to statutory consultation and notification to relevant heritage bodies. Historic England is a statutory consultee for Grade I and II* listed theatres, and relevant amenity societies are notified in relation to complete or partial demolition of Grade II listed theatres.    

Theatres Trust engages on a non-statutory basis in relevant development, such as new theatre proposals, and has made representations to the government that it would seek to continue engaging in all relevant theatre development on a non-statutory basis, should its status as a statutory consultee be removed. 

Theatres Trust has highlighted the importance of ensuring that, in the small proportion of casework that impacts on housing development, ensuring that ‘agent of change’ issues are appropriately considered. This includes making sure that the developer mitigates development so that, for example, hours of operation and the use of loading bays can continue without detriment once the development is in place. The government intends to update Planning Practice Guidance on Consultation and Pre-Decision matters to ensure that agent of change issues are considered where relevant.

Mitigations 

The government gave consideration to making Theatres Trust an amenity society in relation to listed building consents for theatres. However, a broader notification regime may be more appropriate, given the extremely low volume of referrals and the tightly constrained nature of the types of applications currently referred.

This would mean that Theatres Trust is notified of planning applications in relation to development on land on which there is a theatre. It would receive notification of planning applications, but there would be no corresponding requirement for a response. In essence, its role in the planning system would be closer to an amenity society than a statutory consultee.

The government acknowledges that this is a smaller change than that proposed for Sport England or The Gardens Trust but understands this to be reasonable, given the very low volume of planning applications currently considered by Theatres Trust, and the limited impact on housebuilding. 

As theatres have high community value, we will also review the implementation of planning policy and guidance with Theatres Trust. This way, we can ensure that appropriate protections to the theatre sector are in place, and that agent of change issues are properly considered by decision-makers with access to appropriate guidance. 

Consultation questions

Question 8

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

• support 
• oppose 
• neutral 

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?

Removal of other statutory consultees

In considering which statutory consultees may be removed, we have focused on those that do not have a critical safety impact, and which deliver on relatively narrow policy aims that can be supported through planning policy and guidance. 

Consultation questions

Question 10

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

Reforms to key statutory consultees

The government has worked with 7 key national statutory consultees in terms of government priorities like environmental protection, public safety, safeguarding heritage, and transport and active travel infrastructure.

The 7 national statutory consultees are:

• The Environment Agency
• Natural England
• Historic England
• National Highways
• Health and Safety Executive
• Mining Remediation Authority
• Active Travel England

The government works with them to review opportunities to reduce referrals, and to consider common issues across the statutory consultation process.

We are aware of the need to balance the opportunities for reform and reduction in regulatory burden, with the need to ensure that local planning authorities are supported to make informed decisions about critical issues.

Most statutory consultees recognise that there are opportunities to substantially reduce referrals without impacting on their core mission, while also freeing up resources to focus their efforts into higher impact engagement with the planning system. For example, through supporting the development of local plans and spatial development strategies. 

The proposals put forward below were developed by the statutory consultees in response to a commission from government.

National Highways

The Strategic Road Network is a physical asset of national importance and forms part of the country’s critical national infrastructure. As such, it is vital that the impacts of proposed developments on the operation and safety of the network can be managed effectively.  

National Highways is the custodian of the Strategic Road Network and is consulted on around 3,500 planning applications a year. It is committed to continuous improvement to its spatial planning services and has established a housing applications taskforce to sharpen its focus on housing issues. It is actively engaging with the New Homes Accelerator and is updating its records systems, guidance and website to improve data quality and clarity around its services and role.  

The government is proposing to amend the statutory criteria under which planning applications are referred to National Highways.

Currently, it must be consulted on all residential and non-residential applications, other than minor development^{[footnote 2]}, which are likely to impact on the safety of, or queuing on, a trunk road.

A minority of the applications on which National Highways is consulted exceed the minor development threshold but are of a scale and impact that means a transport assessment is not required.

Under the new referral criteria, the following developments would be subject to statutory consultation:

• development that does not require a transport assessment or that only impacts non-trunk roads would not generally be referred to National Highways 
• applications with potential safety impacts related to trunk roads should continue to be referred 

The following developments, regardless of development size, would also be subject to the statutory consultation where there are:

• alterations to the boundary of a trunk road
• structures in close proximity to a trunk road
• proposals which could impact on the drainage or structural integrity of a trunk road
• proposals which increase the use of existing access or a junction with a trunk road beyond its capacity

National Highways estimates that these changes to referral criteria could reduce the number of planning applications on which they are consulted by 25%. 

It has also proposed to introduce a new triage service to quickly assess which proposals are likely to have a safety impact on trunk roads. This would enable a rapid ‘pre-assessment’ in order to decide which proposals require full assessment. National Highways estimates that this could reduce the number of full assessments required by a further 10%. 

Overall, reducing full assessments by around a third will free up resources, allowing National Highways to focus more effectively on the highest impact cases and on supporting local plan development. 

Consultation questions

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?

Active Travel England

Active Travel England (ATE) was designated as a statutory consultee in 2023. It received 1,602 referrals in 2024 to 2025.

ATE is consulted on developments that: 

• comprise 150 homes or more 
• are more than 7,500 square metres in size 
• have an area of at least 5 hectares 

It provides advice that supports the development of safe and effective active travel, such as walking, wheeling and cycling routes.

The government recognises the importance of this and supports the effective engagement of ATE with development, including an important emerging role in supporting local plan development. 

In order to focus its resources more effectively and minimise currently extensive consultation, we propose to amend referral criteria for statutory consultation to focus ATE on large scale residential development.

By raising the threshold for consultation from 150 to 250 units, we will focus resources on sites which are most likely to be able to benefit from ATE’s advice on enhanced active travel opportunities.  

We recognise that there are certain forms of commercial development where local planning authorities may wish to consult with ATE on a non-statutory basis – for instance, in relation to new sports stadia. We will support this discretionary engagement through guidance but there will be no statutory requirement to consult. 

We also propose to introduce new referral criteria relating to school and highway development. ATE assesses that school or college development with a net increase in floor space of over 750m² may have a significant impact on travel patterns, and that this is one of the highest impact areas in which they can offer advice, while recognising the constraints under which school development operates.

The Department for Education supports this change due to the importance of integrating active travel into school journeys. In addition, while most highway authority works within the highway boundary do not require planning permission, permission is required on many major schemes.

Ensuring that ATE is a statutory consultee on all highway authority planning applications will align the planning system with one of ATE’s central functions, which is to assess active travel scheme designs seeking central funding. 

Therefore, we propose that ATE should also be consulted on highway authority development requiring planning permission, and on school and college development of over 750m². 

Overall, ATE assesses that these changes would reduce the number of planning applications on which they are consulted by 40%. To address the loss of consultations on commercial-only schemes, ATE will develop best practice guidance for developers and local authorities. 

Consultation questions

Question 13

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

Question 14

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

Natural England

Natural England is a statutory consultee on development:

• in or likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
• which is not for agricultural purposes and is not in accordance with the development plan and involves the loss of not less than 20ha of grades 1, 2, or 3a agricultural land used for agricultural purposes
• where the development is likely to lead to the loss of a further 20ha

It is consulted on around 22,500 applications per year. In addition to Natural England’s role as a statutory consultee, under section 4 of Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, it is obliged to respond to requests for advice from public authorities, where these are relevant to its general purpose. 

Strategic engagement 

Natural England has already committed to focusing its resources at the strategic level, where it can make the most significant contribution to nature recovery.

This approach strengthens its ability to support effective plan-making and decision-making, provide consistent guidance across administrative boundaries, and better align its advice with Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs). 

LNRSs are statutory spatial strategies introduced under the Environment Act 2021, aiming to restore nature and provide wider environmental benefits. They are developed collaboratively with local stakeholders, including local planning authorities, and are designed to guide coordinated action for nature recovery. LNRSs will set the context for effective strategic engagement with local planning authorities as part of the plan making process. 

Local plan policies are critical to effectively embedding strategic approaches to address environmental issues and maximise opportunities to enhance and restore nature. Aligning across LNRSs, local plans and statutory consultation advice will make consultation more targeted, evidence-based and consistent with local priorities, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of nature recovery initiatives across England. 

Natural England communicated its approach to casework in a letter to local planning authorities in July 2024 to provide guidance and clarity on its services, including its Discretionary Advice Service, and approach to prioritisation.

The government intends to support this through changes to primary legislation via an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, to enable them to more effectively direct resources towards strategic, high impact mitigations.

The Development Management Procedure Order (DMPO) 2015, which designates Natural England as a statutory consultee, already provides considerable flexibility for engagement on a strategic rather than a case-by-case basis. Permitted approaches include the publication of standing advice and indication of scenarios in which they do not expect to be consulted. Natural England has already developed tools, such as Impact Risk Zone mapping, to make use of these flexibilities. 

However, there remain challenges to Natural England using their resources as effectively as possible. Already, 30% of the consultations it receives from local planning authorities are not necessary under DMPO requirements  Furthermore, of the more complex cases, which are referred to local area teams, Natural England believes up to  two thirds may be more effectively dealt with through strategic advice, including pre-agreed mitigations.

Natural England will make use of its existing flexibilities to direct resource towards high risk, high opportunity casework, including enhanced use of strategic solutions via the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

The government will make changes to further support this. Currently, the constitution of Natural England, as set out in the Natural Environmental and Rural Communities Act 2006, requires that it must provide advice when public authorities make a relevant request^{[footnote 3]}, and there is a potential tension between this approach, and dedicating resources towards strategic solutions.

Our proposed approach in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would be to require Natural England to provide advice in accordance with an agreed operational standard in relation to advice on development. The aim of this would be to enhance Natural England’s ability to marshal its resources towards activities of greatest environmental impact, while also meeting the government’s non-regression commitments. It will also promote stronger alignment with the requirements of the DMPO and the roles of other statutory consultees. This consistency would facilitate monitoring and evaluation across statutory consultees in the planning process.

Impact risk zones and standing advice

In 2024, Natural England launched a simpler version of its Impact Risk Zone tool. It is a geographical information system that highlights whether a development proposal poses a risk to the notified features of SSSI at any given location and, as such, requires consideration by Natural England via their statutory role in the planning system.

The tool now holds an increased level of advice relating to the location selected, including hyperlinks to guidance, which, where relevant, completely removes the need to consult Natural England.

Of the 32% of local planning authorities who responded to the Natural England survey on Impact Risk Zones in early 2024, only 50% were using the tool regularly. The government will work with Natural England and the Planning Advisory Service to support increased use of the tool. 

Natural England is actively working to broaden the scope of its standing advice. Most recently, it has issued guidance on air pollution and development - a significant factor in planning consultations. This initiative aims to streamline the planning process by providing clear, upfront guidance, thereby reducing the need for additional consultations when standard advice is applicable or reducing the level of bespoke advice needed in cases where there are multiple environmental issues.

In 2024 to 2025, Natural England received approximately 1,700 agricultural related applications, 500 industrial schemes, and around 400 consultations relating to new road schemes, all of which would have benefited from standing advice on air quality. Standing advice could also be introduced into other areas, such as in response to consultation requirements on best and most versatile land. 

Consultation questions

Question 15

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

The Environment Agency 

The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee for several types of planning applications. It provides advice in relation to national planning policy on flood risk, protection of land and water quality, water resources, waste regulation and biodiversity.

It currently receives around 25,000 consultations per year. 37% of these referrals are unnecessary, often due to misinterpretation of consultation triggers which set out when they need to be consulted. A further 8% are already covered by standing advice and so could be dealt with by a local planning authority without the need for referral to the Environment Agency. 

Where the Environment Agency is not formally a statutory consultee in planning but will ultimately regulate a development in another regulatory context, it can be more efficient for the applicant to receive advice at the planning stage, so that it can align with regulatory requirements and ensure smooth passage through permitting.

For this reason, on matters such as land affected by contamination, intensive pig, poultry and dairy units or waterbodies identified in river basin management plans, Environment Agency advice will go beyond the formal ‘statutory consultee’ role to cover wider regulatory and permitting issues.  

The Environment Agency recognises the importance of ensuring that the advice it provides is proportionate to the environmental or flood risk, and the opportunities associated with a proposal. It has provided externally published standing advice on flood risk that enables local planning authorities to proceed without consultation in many cases, where standardised mitigations are adopted. 

The Environment Agency has committed to a range of headline reforms to contribute to the government’s growth agenda. This includes: 

• improving its land use planning services 
• making its permitting services more effective and efficient for key growth sectors 
• creating a more transparent data system for regulation 
• supporting government’s approach to strategic spatial planning 
• working with government to reform the regulatory framework

As part of the organisation’s commitment to support growth, it has committed to responding to 95% of planning applications within 21 days from September 2025 onwards.  

To sustain improved performance, it is investing in a replacement for their legacy IT planning system, which currently undermines its capacity to meet statutory deadlines. It is supporting priority infrastructure development, through their newly created National Infrastructure Team, which will provide dedicated senior input to unlock some of the most challenging issues. 

To meet its commitment to deliver 21-day planning response times from September 2025 onwards, the Environment Agency is undertaking a systematic review of its processes. It has discovered that there are currently proposals where it provides bespoke advice, where more standard responses will be sufficient to unlock growth with the right environmental provisions.

This will thereby allow it to focus technical expertise where it is most needed to address complex environmental and spatial issues. The number of applications where the Environment Agency provides bespoke advice should therefore significantly reduce.

Specific actions will include:

• clarifying and streamlining existing processes, including through the provision of templates to ensure, for example, Flood Risk Assessments meet policy requirements
• in line with government policy, shifting focus towards strategic spatial advice and interventions to enable more certainty in planning and have greater impact in enabling sustainable growth, including through engagement in local plan development 
• reviewing and updating all online guidance to ensure it meets the needs of customers 
• looking to work with developers and local planning authorities to better understand how they can more effectively engage with the Environment Agency in its role as a statutory consultee

The Environment Agency will also review response approaches, including the use of standing advice and standard comments in responses. This will include: 

• focusing planning application advice on protection of life, human health and prevention of serious environmental harm 
• moving advice on environmental improvement to more strategic interventions, including where investment is needed in building environmental capacity (for example, water, sewage, flooding) 
• reframing responses, removing use of objections where flood directions^{[footnote 4]} do not apply 
• moving to more standardised comments relating to the protection of groundwater and the clean-up of contaminated land 
• reviewing the way responses on flood risk are provided 
• reducing the use of bespoke advice on biodiversity to focus resource more effectively onto the highest risk areas

When the Environment Agency is consulted on planning applications for developments that will also need an environmental permit from them, they provide advice to aid both faster planning and permitting decision making.

The Environment Agency also undertakes significant work in relation to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). Its internal review will result in a reduction in the number of EIA developments where bespoke advice is necessary by prioritising its focus on those environmental issues where its input can have the greatest impact. This approach to prioritisation will be maintained as we move into the new Environmental Outcome Review system. 

The Environment Agency will report on progress against these measures to government through the new performance management framework for statutory consultees, in which Chief Executives of statutory consultees will meet with an MHCLG and Treasury minister. The Environment Agency has already seen performance improvements and reports that it is on track to meet the 21-day commitment. 

It is also developing a training and support package for local planning authorities. The government will seek to incorporate this into a wider strand of training and support for local planning authorities, as set out above. This will support more effective use of existing standing advice, and a reduction in the number of unnecessary referrals. 

Consultation questions

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?

Historic England

Historic England is a statutory consultee in relation to applications for planning permission for development that:

• involve the demolition, in whole or in part, or the material alteration of a  Grade I or Grade II* listed building
• are likely to affect Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, or any registered battlefield
• are likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument

Historic England responds to around 7,000 applications per year. They are also notified about development involving the erection of a new building or extension of an existing building and the area of land in respect of which has a footprint of more than 1,000m² in a conservation area.   

Under the listed building consent regime, Historic England is notified of all listed building consent applications for works to Grade I and II* listed buildings, and relevant works to Grade II (unstarred) listed buildings.  

In addition to these general requirements, where listed building consents are sought in London boroughs, Historic England must, when notified of relevant applications which the authority has not determined to refuse, give authorisations or directions to the authority regarding the grant of consent. They must then be forwarded to the Secretary of State for endorsement. The role of Historic England in this regard applies in London only and leads to a doubling up of work on around 1,000 listed building consents. 

The government believes that the greatest opportunities for streamlining Historic England’s work lie in the consultation requirements of development in conservation areas and notification and authorisation requirements in relation to listed building consent applications. 

Currently, Historic England is notified in relation to 2,100 listed building consent applications for Grade II works other than total demolition. It responds without comment to 87% of these applications. Given that local planning authorities must already decide nine tenths of these applications relying on in house expertise, the government believes that this could be extended, and the notification requirement removed. Notification requirements would be retained for total demolition proposals, and for Grade II* and Grade I applications, for which statutory consultation on planning permission is also required.  

In addition, the government believes the threshold for consultation in relation to conservation areas could be raised from development of 1,000m² to development of 2,000m². Again, local planning authorities must already rely on in-house expertise for development under the current threshold, and so this approach would extend local planning authorities existing responsibilities. 

Historic England estimates that the number of unnecessary referrals it receives is equivalent to about 15% of the total number of consultations and notifications on planning permission and listed building consent applications. The government will work with Historic England and local planning authorities to support improved referrals.  

Lastly, the government proposes to align listed building consent processes in London with those in the rest of the country by removing the requirement for Historic England to authorise the local planning authority to consent. This would reduce double handling of listed building consent applications by around 1,000 cases a year.  

Taken together, these changes would reduce the number of consultations received by Historic England by around 20% a year, freeing up resources to focus on more impactful decisions. 

Consultation questions

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?

The Mining Remediation Authority

The Mining Remediation Authority (MRA)^{[footnote 5]} is a statutory consultee in relation to development involving the provision of buildings or pipelines in an area of coal working notified to the local planning authority. It received 6,080 planning applications for consultation in 2024 to 2025. 

The MRA already split coalfield into low and high-risk areas. In low-risk areas, standing advice is in place and consultation is not required. The MRA has also published an exemptions list, setting out the types of application on which it does not expect to be consulted. These are generally developments where little or no groundwork is required, such as shop fronts and cycle racks.  

The MRA is proposing to extend this approach, so that consultation is not required for low-risk development in high-risk areas. This would include small extensions to commercial and warehousing buildings (the scale of which would align with householder permitted development rights), access roads, car parks, agricultural buildings of less than 1,500m², hardstanding and temporary structures. A full list of proposed development types is included in Annex 2.  

As ground conditions are a material planning consideration, and the NPPF puts the onus on developers to demonstrate that the site is safe and suitable for development, the MRA is confident that adequate information could be sought and reviewed by the local planning authority for lower risk proposals. Any groundworks which involve digging through coal seams, coal workings, or interaction with coal mine entries requires a Permit from the MRA where consideration will be given to the risks posed.  

The MRA estimates that instituting new standing guidance in this way would reduce statutory consultation by 10%.  

In addition, the MRA currently provides comments on the discharge of planning conditions, although this work lies outside of its statutory remit. These conditions do not require the submission of any information, other than a Validation report prepared by a competent person to validate any investigatory and remedial works undertaken. The MRA expect the works carried out to address risks posed by coal mining features to be in accordance with authoritative UK guidance on building over abandoned mine workings (CIRIA Abandoned Mine workings Manual (C758D)).        

The MRA does not consider that there would be any risks arising from no longer commenting on discharge of condition applications. The NPPF makes clear that the onus is on the developer to ensure the site is suitable for development and to demonstrate this to the local planning authority, and the guidance for dealing with abandoned mine workings is publicly available and known to competent geotechnical bodies. An MRA permit is also required for works to investigate and remediate mine workings and the adequacy and safety of the works will be considered as part of this.      

The MRA Planning team already offer a discretionary chargeable advice service, at cost recovery rates, and consider that any developers seeking views or comments on information they are considering submitting to the local planning authority to satisfy coal mining related planning conditions could utilise this service. 

This could further reduce MRA casework by around 10%. Making these changes would enable the MRA to better focus resources where it can add most value whilst protecting public safety. This includes more effectively focusing resource on local plan development and site allocation. 

It would also enable the MRA to provide a more streamlined and efficient consultation process for planning submissions which are not supported by adequate information by allowing them to prioritise these for quicker response times. 

Consultation questions

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 MRA as a statutory consultee?

The Health and Safety Executive

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a statutory consultee for certain planning applications (under provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA)) within the vicinity of major hazard sites, major accident hazard pipelines and HSE licensed explosive sites. They are consulted on around 3,000 applications per year. 

The government considers that the current referral criteria for HSE are appropriate, and that seeking to reduce referrals would risk compromising safety. The majority of HSE statutory consultation referrals under TCPA, are dealt with automatically through their Land Use Planning web app and are responded to within the 21-day deadline.  

Other changes to statutory consultees 

In proposing changes to the referral criteria of statutory consultees, we have focused on elements which do not have a critical safety risk.  

Consultation questions

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?

Statutory consultee performance

The government has set out a new approach to performance management of key statutory consultees. An annual meeting will occur with a Treasury and MHCLG Minister and the Chief Executives of key statutory consultees, to discuss issues relating to the performance of statutory consultees. We will work with statutory consultees to develop appropriate and deliverable performance metrics.  

We recognise the importance of understanding developer and local authority perspectives when assessing statutory consultee performance, and will seek to incorporate this into our approach. When considering this feedback, it will be important to distinguish between feedback on policies, where the effective and appropriate implementation of that policy may cause cost or delay for developers, and feedback on statutory consultee performance.  

Approaches may include seeking systematic feedback from industry bodies on common issues, and use of case studies to highlight particular concerns. 

Performance meetings will also be used to test the impact of increased use of standing guidance, and to consider where this approach could be taken further. 

Consultation questions

Question 26

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

Funding statutory consultees

We recognise that an efficient and effective statutory consultee system requires that the statutory consultees have sufficient resources to fulfil their obligations. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will, subject to Parliamentary approval, introduce new powers that enable a surcharge to be imposed on planning fees.

We intend to use this surcharge to support the funding of key statutory consultees, and we will consult on detailed proposals in due course. We recognise that this will impose new costs on developers and will take this impact into account when setting new fees. We also recognise that there are benefits to developers in improving the quality of statutory consultation. 

We will explore with statutory consultees the most effective use of this funding, including supporting ongoing case management work, and funding specific projects which will enable performance gains. Where appropriate, this may include digital tools. 

Many statutory consultees already charge fees for pre-application engagement on a non-statutory basis. We recognise that this kind of early engagement can facilitate a faster and more efficient planning application process, and we will continue to encourage such voluntary pre-engagement where it adds value to the planning process.

We do not intend for the surcharge to cover the costs of voluntary pre-engagement or planning performance agreements, and rates will be set accordingly.  

We will consult on detailed proposals for the planning fee surcharge in due course.

The role of local planning authorities

Effective statutory consultation is a partnership between local planning authorities and statutory consultees. Local planning authorities must have appropriate resources and processes in place that allow them to effectively engage with statutory consultees, including making use of standing guidance where appropriate.

They must also have the competence and expertise to effectively deal with the expert advice that they receive, and to weigh it against other material considerations. 

Evidence suggests that many local authorities do not effectively engage with statutory consultees. 30% of Natural England’s statutory consultee caseload are unnecessary referrals, and in 2024 to 2025 it received more than 1,000 follow-up consultations where no further advice was needed.

It has developed an Impact Risk Zone tool to better guide local planning authorities and developers to determine whether statutory consultation is necessary, but this is used regularly by less than  20% of local planning authorities.

The Environment Agency faces even higher levels of unnecessary referrals and has commissioned research into the effectiveness of the use of existing flood risk standing advice, as it has concerns that local planning authorities may not be using it effectively.  

Where local planning authorities mis-refer applications for statutory consultation, or fail to make use of guidance, it increases the resourcing burden on statutory consultees. This directs their attention away from the types of application where their advice can have greatest impact. 

Furthermore, where local planning authorities correctly refer applications to statutory consultees, it is often not clear to the consultee under what criteria the application has been referred. This creates an additional burden on the statutory consultee, as it must establish from sometimes substantial documentation what the issue on which they are being consulted is.

Clearer referrals specifically made against the criteria for consultation may be beneficial. 

We recognise that local planning authorities have been operating under resourcing constraints for some time, which has limited their capacity and capability. Planning fees do not fully cover the costs of running the development management service, and there is an estimated annual funding shortfall for local planning authorities development management services of £362 million, based on most recent local government spending data for 2023 to 2024.

Additionally, nationally set planning fees do not account for local variations in costs of running development management services across different local planning authorities in England. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill introduces new powers that, subject to Parliamentary approval, will allow LPAs to set their own planning fees at a cost recovery level. Fee income will be retained in the development management service, enabling a better resourced system across the country.  

However, supporting local planning authority funding is not in itself sufficient. The government will work with the Planning Advisory Service, key statutory consultees, and local planning authorities to assess performance bottlenecks in the referral process and develop appropriate support, in relation to both training individual planning officers and developing processes and tools which enable effective referrals.  

Furthermore, it is the government’s intention that local planning authorities should be empowered to confidently make decisions. As set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 10 March 2025, advice from statutory consultees should be framed as advice, and it is up to the decision maker to weigh this against other material considerations (noting that where a direction is in place, decisions may be referred to the Secretary of State if a local planning authority intends to approve an application against the advice of a statutory consultee).

We intend to incorporate this approach into our forthcoming national policies on decision making.  For some local planning authorities, it may be necessary to develop more in-house expertise. 

The new plan-making system, expected to commence later this year, will support more effective engagement with statutory consultees at an earlier stage. Local plans will be simpler and more accessible for all bodies to engage with, including statutory consultees.

New requirements for local plan timetables will give all stakeholders greater certainty about the timing of key engagement periods, and new gateway procedures will help ensure that significant issues relating to water, nature and transport can be identified and addressed effectively during plan preparation. There will likewise be opportunities for expertise to be built at a higher level through Spatial Development Strategies.

There is a role for statutory consultees in developing the training and support that will help to build this knowledge. The government will work with them to develop this approach and support effective engagement with LPAs. 

Consultation questions

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?

Moratorium on new statutory consultees

On 26 January, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor announced a moratorium on the creation of new statutory consultees.

The passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has indicated a clear appetite from some stakeholders for an expansion of the system of statutory consultation, with proposed new statutory consultees including Landscape Partnerships, Internal Drainage Boards, Water Companies, Fire Authorities and more.

The Independent Water Commission has now published its final report setting out recommendations to reform the water sector in England and Wales. We will consider relevant recommendations as part of our wider work on new statutory consultees.

The government recognises that as circumstances change it may be necessary to introduce new statutory consultees: new bodies may take on new responsibilities, and new types of development may emerge, associated with new risks.

However, the government is also clear that there must be a high bar for the introduction of any new statutory consultee. Unnecessary regulation creates a burden on industry, and while any individual body may seem to have a reasonable case for introduction, if statutory consultees are added in an ad hoc and unsystematic way, then the cumulative burden of regulation risks outweighing the individual benefits that are sought.

In considering any potential new statutory consultee we propose that the following criteria should be applied.

Policy first

There should be a clear case that policy and guidance are not adequate to delivering the aim: for instance, highly technical advice is necessary to inform policy understanding in order to support a planning decision, and the local planning authority cannot access that advice internally or through existing statutory consultees 

A case-by-case approach to consultation is essential

If the underlying question is strategic, it should be dealt with through engagement in the local plan, and not on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it should be clearly demonstrated that the aim can only be achieved through case-by-case consideration of a clearly defined category of development. 

There should be no duplication of function

We do not want multiple organisations providing advice on the same risks. Similarly, if the matter is dealt with through an alternative consenting, licencing or other regulatory regime, it is not necessary to deal with it through the planning process.  

There must be a clear case that the benefit of the new statutory consultee will exceed the costs imposed on development and the public

Impacts on public safety would present the clearest case for this where additional consultation requirements can be justified as clearly in the public interest.  

There is a clear pro-development objective for the proposed body

Statutory consultee status will support development rather than deter it. 

Clear evidence that the proposed body must be capable of meeting statutory requirements for consultation responses

This should be without detriment to any core functions it possesses. Statutory consultation comes with obligations to respond within set timeframes. Funding for this may come from the new planning surcharge, from grant in aid, or from an organisation’s own resources.

There must be sufficient funding and organisational capacity available to ensure that the organisation can respond within deadlines in all cases.  

Alternatively, the government could seek to maintain the moratorium on new statutory consultees for the present, and to review this position periodically to ensure that it remains appropriate. 

Consultation questions

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?

Impact

The proposed changes have the potential to substantially reduce the number of referrals to statutory consultees.

Around a third of referrals to the key statutory consultees which this consultation focuses on are unnecessary, either because they do not meet the criteria for referral, or because standing guidance is already in place.

We will work with local planning authorities to reduce unnecessary referrals, which will enable statutory consultees to more effectively focus resources on their priorities.

Changes to referral criteria and triage systems, and the removal of some statutory consultees, would allow us to reduce necessary referrals for substantive review by around 13.5%, in relation to the caseload of statutory consultees on which this consultation is focussed. This will be reduced further by more effective engagement in local plan making and the development of strategic solutions. Where referral remains necessary, a substantial proportion of advice will be based on more standardised comments, rather than bespoke case-by-case advice, to increase the timeliness and predictability of advice.

This includes, for instance, the 14% of Natural England’s caseload that will benefit from newly published standing advice on air quality, and much of the Environment Agency’s more complex caseload.

Further referrals to notification criteria from Historic England will be offset by some increase in notifications in relation to the statutory consultees for which we propose removal. 

Introducing a new performance management regime, led by Treasury and MHCLG Ministers, and with the opportunity for developer and local authority feedback, will support a culture of continuous improvement. This will also be supported by new funding arrangements. 

Consultation questions

Question 35

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

Question 36

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

Question 37

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

• strongly agree 
• agree 
• neutral 
• disagree 
• strongly disagree

Annex 1: summary of proposed changes

Statutory consultee	Proposals	Expected impact
Active Travel England	1. Remove requirement to consult on commercial development  2. Raise threshold for residential consultation from 150 to 250 units 3. Create new requirement to consult on major school/college development  4. Create new requirement to consult on highways authority works where planning permission is required	40% reduction in number of consultations overall
National Highways	1. Replace current requirement for consultation on development over 10 units with a requirement for consultation where a transport assessment is required 2. Retain 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) 3. Introduce new triage system	25% reduction in number of consultations resulting from changes to consultation requirements.   A further 10% reduction in consultations requiring substantive engagement, through new triage system.
Historic England	1. HE is a stat con on GI and II* listed buildings and are notified of all GII listed building applications. They propose removing notification requirements for all GII consents except demolition. 2. HE is also notified of conservation area applications of over 1000m2. It proposes raising this threshold to 2000m2. 3. HE must be notified of any listed building consent application in London boroughs, provided it is not for an excluded work (broadly demolition, alteration or extension of grade II listed building). This leads to a doubling up of work, and HE has recommended removing this requirement.	20% reduction in applications received, as a result of dropping GII notification requirement and changing conservation area notification threshold.  Removing London/LBC requirements could reduce application HE needs to see by circa 1000 p/a    Potential to remove up to 15% of casework by tackling unnecessary referrals
Natural England	1. Increased use of standing advice, to cover issues such as air quality, and best and most versatile land.  2. Supporting improved use of Impact Risk Zones from local planning authorities, including exploring options to expand its scope.  3.  Maximising opportunities to embed strategic approaches.  This will involve an increased focus on strategic engagement, including through LNRSs and local plans, supported by a potential change to the primary legislation governing NE, in order to increase its flexibility in choosing where to focus their resources.   4. Proactive working with local planning authorities to support capacity and capability building across the sector, including working with the Planning Advisory Service on issues such as housing, local plan advice and LNRS integration	8% of NE cases are already covered by pre-agreed mitigations, allowing consultation requirements to be streamlined.  14% of NE caseload will benefit from newly published standing air quality advice.  30% of NE caseload reflects unnecessary referrals from local planning authorities.
Environment Agency	1. Investing in replacement for legacy IT system  2. Clarifying and streamlining existing processes  3. Reviewing response approaches, including potential for more standing advice and standardised comments (for example, more standardised advice on biodiversity, land remediation). 4. Shifting focus towards strategic interventions  5. Reviewing all online guidance to ensure it meets needs of customers  6. Working with local planning authorities and developers to support effective engagement	37% of referrals (2024 to 2025) from Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are unnecessary, often due to misinterpretation of consultation triggers.  In addition 8% of referrals are already covered by EA standing advice, indicating a need for better awareness and application of existing guidance.  A further 2–3% could be avoided by revising consultation protocols around land contamination matters
Mining Remediation Authority	MRA proposes to reduce the scope of applications it advises on by developing additional standing advice for low-risk development in high- risk areas.	20% reduction from changes to referral criteria.  Potential for up to 27% reduction in the number of consultations overall (based on measures to tackle unnecessary and inappropriate consultations)
Health and Safety Executive	Current referral criteria should be maintained, reflecting importance of safety focus.	No measurable impacts at this stage.

Annex 2: Mining Remediation Authority criteria 

List of proposals which could be subject to High Risk Standing Advice. This includes:  

• commercial, industrial, warehousing and residential extensions if less than 8m projection and 4m in height (this aligns with prior notification PD rights for householder) 
• access roads 
• car parks 
• agricultural buildings if less than 1,500 square metres (this aligns with farmer PD rights for 5 hectare or above farms) 
• changes of use of land with parking etc 
• areas of hardstanding  
• manège (riding/training arena for horses– including horse walkers) 
• temporary structures 
• storage containers 
• wooden stables 
• plant and equipment – including silos (this aligns with farmer/commercial PD rights)
• fire escapes and stairs 
• net systems for cricket and football clubs  
• multi-use games areas (Muga’s) 
• car wash 
• shipping containers 
• cycle and footpaths 
• change of use (COU) of land to garden and erection of domestic buildings 
• ramps and steps   
• monuments and statues

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.  

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond. 

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation.  In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law. 

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department. 

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below. 

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested. 

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond. 

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles?  If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are  entitled to under UK data protection legislation.  

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.  

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer     

MHCLG is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data    

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters. 

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose. 

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data 

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by MHCLG of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller.  Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a Government department i.e. in this case a consultation. 

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and Government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018. 

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data 

MHCLG may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation.  Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation. 

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period.  

Your personal data will be held for two years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point  

6. Your rights, for example, access, rectification, restriction, objection 

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right: 

a. to see what data we have about you 

b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record 

c. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete 

d. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances 

e. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law.  You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.  

Please contact us if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO. Email dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or write to:

Knowledge and Information Access Team,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas. 

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making.               

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure Government IT system.

1. A Direction is a formal instruction issued by a planning authority or the Secretary of State that modifies or restricts certain planning rights or procedures. ↩

2. Minor development is defined in Schedule 4 of the of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015. ↩

3. Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 ↩

4. Where the LPA intends to approve a major development where the Environment Agency has an unresolved objection on flood risk grounds, The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2024 requires the LPA to refer the case to the Planning Casework Unit for consideration. It would then be called in by the Secretary of State for their determination. ↩

5. The Mining Remediation Authority is the trading name of the Coal Authority. ↩