LGA submission to MHCLG’s consultation on reforms to statutory consultees evidence

Planning plays a vital role in delivering the Government’s ambitious economic, environmental and social plans. Any reforms will struggle while local authority planning departments are facing incredibly challenging resourcing, capacity and skills shortages – with nearly 60 per cent of councils experiencing difficulties recruiting planners. Over one third of our members face challenges in retention of planning staff or preventing the ‘brain drain’ to the private sector.

As set out in responses throughout this consultation, the focus to help improve the effective and efficient performance of statutory consultees, and the planning system more widely, should be on providing the resources and capacity to LPAs and statutory consultees commensurate to the importance and complexity of the role they are asked to play. 

See response to Question 5. 

A percentage figure is not a helpful way of determining this, as depending on the original size it could materially affect whether or not a sport can be played on the remaining area.

The LGA opposes the removal of Sport England as a statutory consultee. Consultation with our members has not shown that Sport England is a significant blocker or cause of delay with most applications. In contrast, councils have highlighted several examples where Sport England’s support is valued.

Government policy is to reduce pressure on the NHS and to afford better life chances for young people. Being active is a critical component to achieving both objectives. The 2025 Active Lives children and young people survey showed that just 39 per cent of children who say they do not have access to outdoor sports places (such as playing fields) are active, compared to 59 per cent of children who say they have access. This shows the crucial contribution of playing fields to communities. In other Government policies, including the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and the Pride in Place Strategy, Government acknowledges this crucial role.

We know that 10,000 fields were lost between 1979 and 1996 before Sport England’s introduction as a consultee. Their contribution has therefore had a material and positive impact on the provision and protection of playing fields.

The proposal to remove Sport England from the statutory planning system runs counter to these policy announcements and will not be safeguarded by the wording in the National Planning Policy Framework or the ongoing development of Local Plans.

We have held constructive conversations with Sport England as part of developing our response to the consultation. It has enabled us to raise and discuss some areas where Sport England could improve their planning contributions, as well as recognising the overall value of their role. We believe Sport England has developed a compelling and convincing set of propositions to improve their role while maintaining their key role as a statutory planning consultee. Government should welcome and adopt their proposals as an alternative to the removal proposed in this consultation, achieving growth objectives without compromising statutory protection.

Our core concerns with removal are:

• Loss of specialist advice: Without a formal statutory role, Sport England will be able to provide less advice and support to councils in specialist areas, and in challenging contexts. Councils will be unable to source this advice through other routes.
   
• Fees and charges: Sport England may need to charge for advice, as they will no longer have a statutory role to advise. Councils are unable to afford additional costs in the system.
   
• Less weight: Without statutory status, Sport England’s advice will carry less weight with developers, and potentially with planning committees.
   
• Loss of oversight: Without a formal notification process, many applications affecting provision may go unrecorded at the national level, leading to overall erosion of playing field provision, with significant impacts on the nation’s health.
   
• Lost playing fields cannot be replaced: Playing fields are predominantly located in prime urban sites commanding high values. The evidence base shows a clear correlation between proximity between playing fields, the home and levels of activity. Lost playing fields cannot be replaced in a location that continues to keep urban communities active, with significant negative implications for public health.

Overall, the evidence base does not support Sport England’s removal as a statutory consultee and it has clear negative implications for several core policy objectives for Government, as well as posing challenges for councils in securing expert advice and opinion. We believe reform of Sport England’s approach is a more appropriate way to streamline the planning process, and that Sport England have developed a compelling way to do this.

Our engagement with councils and the sector did not result in a view on the Gardens Trust, therefore we do not provide a comment for Questions 6 and 7.

The Theatres Trust employs a proportionate and targeted approach to responding to planning applications. Between 2022 and 2024, Theatres Trust responded to 345 planning applications (0.04 per cent of the total number of applications in England) and only 23 of these responses related to or impacted on housing developments, and there was only one outright objection which impacted  seven prospective residential units. 

Our members report that there are no unreasonable barriers or delays caused by the Theatres Trust. In contrast, they highlighted that their involvement in the planning process is the most efficient and effective way of securing expert advice on valued community institutions, with a key a role to play in the creative and visitor economies. 

The Theatres Trust role in the planning system is distinct from that of Historic England, and from the amenity societies whose role is put forward as an alternative way for the Trust to engage with the planning system. They also provide a source of expert knowledge that councils are unable to maintain in house. The alternative proposal for safeguarding theatres seems insufficient within that context.

We therefore do not see any value in removing the Theatres Trust from the planning process, but see a small but significant risk from doing so, which runs counter to other Government policies, including the Creative Industries Sector Plan.

Replace this Active Travel England’s role is recommended for review. See answers to Questions 13 and 14 for further details.

National Highways (NH) plays a key role in ensuring the safety and efficiency of the strategic road network. The existing, nationally uniform 10-unit consultation threshold is blunt and thereby sometimes disproportionate, failing to reflect local variations in car dependency or public transport and active travel availability The LGA supports replacing the 10-unit rule with a trigger based on whether a Transport Assessment is required, allowing flexibility for local conditions, while retaining the requirements for consultation where there is a safety or operational impact.

The LGA welcomes the triage system proposal in principle but to avoid creating new delays protocols must be clearly defined and nationally consistent.

As across many areas of planning there is a specialist skills gap in transport. LPAs lack transport planning expertise and urban mobility specialists. Without investment in these skills, shifting responsibility from NH to LPAs will exacerbate delays and risk poor outcomes. Greater sub-regional pooling of transport expertise could provide in-house capacity and capability at better value than current use of consultancies and reduce the burden on NH and complement their advice.

Active Travel England’s role in promoting sustainable transport is acknowledged, carrying out national policy work and supporting plan making. ATE responses were largely seen as prompt and not a barrier to development. The value of the responses, however, is not clear. ATE responses have mirrored the work already provided by local highways officers, even on the biggest sites.

Removing the requirement to consult on commercial development and raising the threshold for residential consultation from 150 to 250 units leave little role for the organisation. In addition to the limited additional value of the responses, the planning system and ATE may be better be served by removing status as a statutory consultee to focus resources and time on the other areas of its work with greater value add to support councils in plan-making and policy.

We propose a review of Active Travel England’s status as statutory consultee.

Natural England (NE) plays a vital role in biodiversity protection and the delivery of Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS). There are strengths and risks in the proposed reforms.

Standing advice is not an adequate substitute for expert input on site-specific ecological and biodiversity issues. Over-reliance on standing advice risks undermining decision quality or leading to additional delays and potentially challenge against decisions. Highly technical standing advice requires specialist skills to make use of.

NE’s collaborative approach to LNRS and strategic plan-making has been extremely welcome. However, there is concern that this strategic focus will not translate into practical support at the application stage.

Severe shortages of NE staff in certain regions create inconsistency and delays. LPAs also lack in-house ecological expertise, making them heavily dependent on NE input. Without investment in specialist recruitment and training, reforms risk leaving LPAs unable to meet biodiversity obligations. Sub-regional pooling can help but government must take action to address the national skills gap in ecologists that limit effective planning in this area.

Replace Environment Agency (EA) delays are a significant bottleneck, particularly for major housing sites and not an uncommon frustration for councils. Poor responsiveness undermines delivery timelines and creates uncertainty for applicants and councils.

The LGA recognises the critical role of the EA in safeguarding communities against flood risk, contamination, and other environmental hazards. In common with our response to the proposals for Natural England, the LGA wishes to make clear that standing advice cannot substitute for site-specific engagement on complex issues such as flood risk and contamination. Generic guidance often assumes specialist knowledge, creating risk for LPAs and potentially adding additional delays rather than speeding up the system. 

LPAs face acute shortages of technical specialists, including flood risk and contamination experts. Increased reliance on standing advice risks shifting technical burdens onto under-resourced planning teams already struggling with recruitment and retention. Many councils report difficulty filling posts in planning, ecology, and environmental assessment, with a growing 'brain drain' to the private sector. Without funding for training, recruitment, and backfill, LPAs cannot compensate for gaps in EA input.

While digital platforms are welcomed in principle, officers lack the time and capacity to navigate complex systems. Digital integration alone will not resolve underlying resource constraints. 

Due to the scale, complexity and importance of the matters EA consultation covers, these proposals generate substantial concern about their impact on LPAs and the efficiency of the planning system.

Councils have noted regarding the impending removal of certain water regulatory functions from the Environment Agency (EA) and the abolition of Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. This reform must not be allowed to cause confusion or lead to delays from the EA within the planning system.

Furthermore, members have identified a failure by the EA to ensure water companies fulfil their statutory duties to manage wastewater for new housing. Some water companies are raising increasing objections and costs to development, even on allocated sites. The Government should consider whether the EA - given a new growth remit and its role as a statutory consultee alongside Ofwat - should have powers to ensure that Water Resource Management Plans (WRMPs) and Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans (DWMPs) not only align with local and strategic plans but are also effectively delivered.

Yes, the LGA support both.

We believe that the reintroduction of the Better Places Partnership approach for DCMS arms-length bodies, originally introduced to support the Towns Fund, would significantly enhance their ability to support councils in key decisions and investments, including on planning – although this would be an enhancement rather than a replacement for their role as statutory planning consultees.

The LGA do not provide a response to Questions 20, 21 or 22. 

The LGA does not provide a response to Questions 23, 24 or 25.

Performance metrics should be enforceable and include adherence to statutory response deadlines, limits on repeated holding objections, constructive solution-focused advice where Directions do not apply and tracking of objection outcomes at appeal to drive continuous improvement.

Local government is happy to provide greater feedback on policy and statutory consultee performance. In addition, local government should be represented in any annual meeting including Treasury and MHCLG ministers and the Chief Executives of key statutory consultees.

The LGA welcomes sustainable funding and a performance framework for statutory consultees. A lack of resources within LPAs and statutory consultees is at the root of significant delays that the Government is trying resolve. As earlier answers relating to specific statutory consultees - especially the Environment Agency - make clear inadequate funding means that too often, in too many places there is simply a lack of people with the appropriate skills working in the system to manage the workload to the desired standard or speed. This is regardless of whether decision-making is local or referred to statutory consultees.

Additional funding and support to bring expertise and capacity is a priority to make any planning system work effectively. 

The LGA response to the May 2024 consultation into an accelerated planning system highlighted that recruiting and retaining specialist planning skills - such as enforcement, design, viability, heritage, ecology, and legal - remains a major challenge. Councils often rely on applicant evidence or costly consultants. Government initiatives like the planning skills fund, Pathways to Planning, and fee uplifts help, but they are not a quick fix; vacancies and retention issues will persist. These points were repeating many of the issues we raised in our recommendations to the 2016 DLCG technical consultation on implementation of planning changes. 

Any planning fee surcharge must be transparently ring-fenced to: 

• improve consultee service speed, quality and the creation/maintenance of standing advice; and 
   
• build LPA technical capacity through training, recruitment and, where appropriate, sub-regional pooling of expertise.

The LGA conditionally supports the moratorium on the creation of new statutory consultees but this must be matched by resources and action to improve the capacity and expertise of Local Planning Authorities in these areas.

The LGA also represents fire and rescue services. Fire and Rescue Services are statutory consultees currently on some aspects of the planning system including National Significant Infrastructure Projects. This should remain the case. Early engagement with fire and rescue services to ensure that fire risks and needs are able to be highlighted at an early stage in local plans would be welcome, this could be achieved through Government guidance to ensure a consistent approach, supported by training on these issues. It is clear that there are some specific risks that the fire service is best placed to provide advice and guidance on including accessibility for emergency vehicles or the provision of water for firefighting, or access to and installation of hydrants. Government may wish to examine the role of the fire and rescue service in planning on other major infrastructure and utilities projects, such as Battery Energy Storage Sites, as well as major residential developments, e.g. the conversion of high-rise office blocks to residential units. Further funding may allow fire and rescue services to take on a wider role in the planning system. 

The LGA does not provide a response to Questions 35, 36 or 37.