The statutory consultee system has long been a cornerstone of the planning process in England, but according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it’s a system that is no longer functioning as it should. As the Ministry bluntly put it, “few would argue that the statutory consultee system is currently working effectively…engagement with planning applications is not proactive or proportionate, and advice and information provided is not timely.”
With the government’s consultation window now closed (13 January 2026) and the sector awaiting the official report, this is an ideal moment to explore what’s gone wrong, and what meaningful reform could look like.
Who Are the Statutory Consultees?
Statutory consultees are organisations that local planning authorities (LPAs) must consult on certain types of planning applications. They include national bodies, infrastructure providers, environmental organisations, and heritage groups. A non exhaustive list includes:
- Ancient Monuments Society
- Water Authority
- Coal Authority
- Council for the Protection of Rural England
- Canal & River Trust
- Historic England
- Environment Agency • Health & Safety Executive
- Highways Agency
- Homes and Communities Agency
- National Grid
- Natural England
- Play England
- Forestry Commission
- The National Trust
Local community groups and local authorities also play a role in the wider consultation landscape.
Why the System Is Struggling
Statutory consultees themselves have highlighted several structural issues that hinder their ability to respond effectively and these include:
- Unrecoverable costs associated with responding to applications.
- Chronic under resourcing and under funding across many organisations.
- Late engagement by LPAs, leaving consultees unable to meet deadlines.
- Overly broad remits, meaning some consultees are asked to comment on matters beyond their core expertise.
- Bottlenecks caused by inter dependencies, where one consultee must wait for another’s response before providing their own.
Ideas for Improving the System
The consultation has surfaced a range of potential reforms aimed at making the system more efficient, proportionate, and responsive, including:
- Reducing the number of statutory consultees involved in routine applications.
- Cutting unnecessary or blanket referrals that add little value.
- Ensuring consultees have the expertise needed to respond quickly and accurately.
- Increasing funding for statutory consultees and the system overall.
- Reforming cost recovery, allowing consultees to charge applicants for their time.
- Strengthening statutory response deadlines to improve consistency.
- Pooling expertise at a sub regional level, reducing duplication and improving capacity.
A Perspective on the Path Forward
It’s tempting to assume that increased funding would solve the problem. More staff, more expertise, more capacity – problem solved. But realistically, long term government investment at the scale required is unlikely. Even if funding were increased temporarily, the system would eventually revert to its current state once budgets tightened again.
Charging applicants for consultee responses is another option, but this risks pushing development costs even higher. With viability already a major concern across the sector, adding further financial burdens would likely reduce the number of deliverable sites, directly undermining the government’s ambition to “get Britain building.”
A more sustainable approach may lie in targeted consultation. Not every consultee needs to be involved in every application. A more selective, criteria based system, paired with longer determination periods, could give consultees the breathing room they need to provide meaningful, accurate responses.
Imposing stricter deadlines without additional resources would only worsen the quality of responses. Rushed advice leads to poor quality development, misinformed decisions, and ultimately, communities that feel the consequences.
Final Thoughts
Reforming the statutory consultee system is essential if the planning process is to become more efficient, more predictable, and more capable of supporting sustainable development. While funding challenges limit some options, smarter structuring of the system, particularly around who is consulted and when, could deliver meaningful improvements without placing additional burdens on applicants or consultees.
As we await the government’s official report, one thing is clear: the system cannot continue as it is. Thoughtful reform is not just desirable, it’s necessary for the future of planning and development across the country.