Is the planning system working for the people it's meant to serve?

Written by Beata Krzystek, Director at Fluid

Credit: Image created by author using AI

I was recently asked to write a short piece for Fluid. As I considered a topic, I opened LinkedIn and was immediately drawn to an article by Mark Best: #MySelfBuildJourney. Mark is an exceptionally experienced professional with whom we often collaborate on some of the most complex planning cases. His post struck a chord with me, echoing a sentiment I’ve been feeling increasingly of late.

Interestingly, Mark wasn’t writing about a complex or technical planning issue. He was sharing his personal experience navigating the self-build process. The response in the comments was striking: people sympathised, related, and shared similar frustrations.

It reminded me of several clients we’ve worked with recently:

• Janet, who built a deck in her garden, a place to enjoy a cup of tea and occasionally pitch a tent in the summer for her grandchildren. The LPA is refusing to accept that the deck lies within her garden, despite our submission of historical maps, aerial photography, and documentation showing the area was previously used as a vegetable patch with greenhouses and sheds, clearly part of the domestic curtilage. Despite this evidence, they insist it falls outside the curtilage and therefore requires a full planning application, which will now cost thousands in flood risk assessments, conservation reports, biodiversity net gain (BNG) assessments, and landscape reports. I’d wager that if we were proposing a new dwelling here, or if the property were listed, the LPA would be arguing the opposite. Janet now faces enforcement action or the cost of unnecessary reports. Is this really a good use of resources, for either the client or the LPA?

  
  

• Nick, who wanted to change the colour of cladding on a renovated elevation. His property lies within a conservation area, and we were asked to demonstrate that changing the colour from white to black would not cause harm. We commissioned a specialist heritage assessment, which concluded there would be no adverse impact. The council, however, chose to ignore the report they had requested, simply because the planning officer disagreed. Officers are not obliged to consider such reports, even though they are a formal requirement. A waste of resources, especially considering that once the building is complete, the client can paint it any colour they like without needing further permission.

  
  

• Roddy and Ann, who have now spent over £130,000 trying to gain consent for a one-for-one replacement in a cul-de-sac of seven properties, five of which have already been redeveloped. We finally managed to crack the nut, but then the application ran into trouble because the LPA claimed the bat report was out of date, as it was approaching its one-year anniversary. This was despite the fact that the application had been validated with that very report. The LPA threatened to refuse or invalidate the application. What’s baffling is that an appeal inspector was able to make a decision using the exact same information, at the same point in time. No listed buildings, no conservation area, no objections, just a pleasant street with no particular sensitivities. How can a like-for-like replacement become so bogged down in bureaucracy?

  
  

These are just a few examples. As an experienced architect and urban planner, I find myself increasingly disheartened by the inconsistencies and inefficiencies within the current planning system. Like Mark, I feel the weight of a process that too often seems to work against, rather than alongside, those striving to build responsibly.

Yes, one can appeal. One can commission further reports. But it is an expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining process, particularly for private individuals and small businesses. It also places a burden on planning officers, as many of these cases return to local authorities through appeals, consuming yet more time and resources.

It is clear that the planning system in England is in need of thoughtful reform. It is a complex, long-term undertaking.

As I sit here on a Friday morning, I find myself asking: is there anything we, architects, consultants, SMEs, and others affected, can do to help improve the current system?

• to make decision-making more consistent across planning officers and local authorities?

  
  

• to ensure that costly pre-application advice and specialist reports are afforded the weight they deserve?

  
  

• to streamline the process so that a straightforward planning application doesn’t take as long as a large-scale development?

  
  

I’m sure many of you could add to this list.

That’s why it’s so important that we keep the conversation going and continue to share our experiences.

This is not a solitary endeavour, it is a collective responsibility, shared by architects, planners, consultants, local authorities, and the communities.

I believe that through open dialogue, mutual respect, a commitment to evidence-based decision-making, constructive engagement, and a shared dedication to challenging inconsistencies and championing quality and sustainability, we can help to improve the current system, and help shape a built environment that future generations will be proud to inherit.