As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill goes through Parliament, an architect argues that legislation alone will not fix planning’s real problems
It’s Monday, and my inbox has another two extension of time (EoT) requests waiting for me. This is happening so often that planning departments have stopped typing out the full term.
The planning officers – who still haven’t even picked up the application, 12 weeks after submission – in no way invite dialogue, just a token reply of, ‘Yes, we accept the delay so that you don’t just put it to one side.’ Our local department proudly proclaims that officers meet 90 per cent of their applications on time. What goes unsaid is that if you don’t accept the revised deadline, you may never get a response at all. One client tested this and is still yet to have a response; in the end we resorted to a new application and agreeing the EoT.
Things that could have easily been solved earlier in the process become immovable stumbling blocks which require re-consultation or, worse, resubmission. It’s easy to be sceptical that certain officers have learned that time is a powerful weapon.
By stalling discussions, requesting excessive revisions, or letting applications linger, they can entrench their position to wear down agents and applicants. The prolonged appeal process acts as a further deterrent, making it easier to reject proposals without having to justify decisions via meaningful engagement.
Under-resourced and overwhelmed planning departments
Then the first coffee kicks in, and I remember the deep-rooted struggles of planning departments. Under-resourced and overwhelmed, they face an ever-growing list of responsibilities to ensure compliance, often while having to cope with outdated systems and limited staff.
The sheer volume of applications, policy updates and legal requirements creates a relentless workload, stretching planners to their limits. What should be a structured, efficient process instead becomes a battle against bureaucracy, with professionals forced to balance public interest, developer pressure, and government mandates – all while lacking the necessary support.
On top of these challenges, a significant portion of planning fees now goes to the Planning Portal. Designed as an affordable solution for cash-strapped departments struggling with IT, it has since cemented its position as a majority provider.
At the time of writing, householder applications cost £258 (local authority fee) plus a £70 fee to the Planning Portal – an extra 27 per cent – for an application type that accounts for 50 per cent of all submissions nationally. For some smaller householder applications, the portal adds as much as 70 per cent on top of the local authority fee.
Since the fees were updated on 1st of April 2025 with the standard householder fee at £528 and the service charge at £70.83 + VAT (£85 in total) the service charge is around 13% of the total fee (17% including VAT). This percentage goes up for small household applications of £262, adding 32% on top of the local authority fee (including VAT).
If time pressures are leading to strategic inaction, better communication could ensure that delays do not replace reasoned decision-making
This fee is justified by the Planning Portal’s need to develop its own business. However, even a basic review of the filed accounts for the TerraQuest company which runs the portal (PortalPlanQuest) shows pre-tax profits of £1.7 million.
According to government statistics, annual planning application numbers have fallen by 36 per cent over the last five-years. Rather than a decrease in construction activity, it could be that people are tailoring projects to avoid the need for planning permission or simply choosing not to apply at all – gambling on the likelihood of weak enforcement, which is all too evident in many areas.
Regardless of the commercialisation of a statutory regulatory body, delays in the planning system should not be used as an excuse to avoid engagement. While planning departments are under huge strain, the solution lies in greater transparency and a return to open dialogue.
If time pressures are leading to strategic inaction, better communication could ensure that delays do not replace reasoned decision-making. A planning system that is slow but considered is far preferable to one that is slow and obstructive.
The architect-author of this piece has chosen to remain anonymous