Government Consults on Reform to Statutory Consultees

Earlier today, MHCLG launched its long-awaited consultation into reforms to how the statutory consultee system works in England.

The consultation runs until 13 January 2026 and can be accessed here.

The key proposals can be summarised as follows:

Removal of Statutory Consultees

The Government is consulting on removing three statutory consultees from the list:

• Sport England,
• The Gardens Trust, and
• Theatres Trust

For each of these, in order to reduce the impacts of the changes, MHCLG is proposing specific “mitigations” to ensure that the relevant body can still provide input into planning decisions.

Sport England

For plan making; MHCLG proposes to include Sport England in the list of public bodies who are required ‘to assist with plan-making’ provisions, both for the current plan-making system and the new one to be introduced under LURA.

For decision-taking; MHCLG intends to introduce a new notification requirement that would require local planning authorities to notify Sport England when a planning application would result in the wholesale or substantial loss of playing fields.

MHCLG has also committed to update Planning Practice Guidance on Consultation and Pre-Decision matters, in consultation with Sport England, to ensure ‘agent of change’ issues are considered where relevant. They will also encourage Sport England to prepare guidance for local planning authorities, to support the consideration of planning applications that could impact on playing fields.

The Gardens Trust

MHCLG also intends to introduce a notification requirement in favour of the Gardens Trust, which would require local planning authorities to notify them of planning applications for development within registered parks or gardens. 

The duty would not apply to planning applications outside the boundary of the registered park or garden that impact its wider setting. 

MHCLG has also confirmed that it is actively considering whether to implement section 102 of LURA, which 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. According to the consultation document “A decision on whether to commence this section will be made in due course”.

Theatres Trust

The proposed notification regime for the Theatres Trust is broader than that proposed for the Gardens Trust. The intention being that the Theatres Trust would be notified of any planning applications relating to development on land that contains a theatre, but would not be required to respond to the notification.

MHCLG has also pledged to review national planning policy and guidance with Theatres Trust, to “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”. 

Changes to Scope of Involvement for Key Statutory Consultees

MHCLG are also proposing to change the consultation requirements for a number of key statutory consultees. These changes have been handily summarised in table form at Annex 1 of the consultation document, so rather than start from scratch* I have reproduced this table below.

Statutory Consultee Performance

In addition to the above, MHCLG intend to develop a performance monitoring regime for Statutory Consultees. The thinking about this seems to be in its very early stages, as the proposed programme seems… light touch… but it currently involves:

• An annual meeting between the Treasury, MHCLG and the Chief Executives of key statutory consultees, to discuss issues relating to the performance of statutory consultees, taking into account developer and local authority feedback; and
• A pledge to work with statutory consultees to develop appropriate and deliverable performance metrics.

Funding Statutory Consultees

The consultation emphasises MHCLG’s commitment to introduce the planning fee surcharge proposed in the Planning & Infrastructure Bill and to use this surcharge to fund Statutory Consultees.

As this is likely to be a key area of concern for many, I have set the relevant paragraphs out in full below, but they aren’t particularly informative.

“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

The consultation contains an entire section on enabling local planning authorities to work more effectively with statutory consultees and reducing the numbers of “unnecessary” referrals.

The key proposals in this section include:

• Working with the Planning Advisory Service, key statutory consultees, and local planning authorities to develop appropriate support and training for local planning authorities to reduce unnecessary referrals. 
• To strengthen national planning guidance (through NDMPS) to make it clear that advice from statutory consultees should be framed as advice, and it is up to the decision maker to weigh this against other material considerations (as stated in the Written Ministerial Statement of 10 March 2025) .
• To use the new 30-Month Local Plan system (set out in LURA) to “support more effective engagement with statutory consultees at an earlier stage ” the intention being that “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.”

Moratorium on new statutory consultees

And finally, the government is considering lifting the moratorium on creating new statutory consultees.

The moratorium would be replaced with the following policy requirements that would need to be met before a new statutory consultee could be created:

“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.”

Other bits and bobs

At various points the consultation paper makes reference to other consultations or bits of legislation which have yet to be introduced.

These include:

• The new LURA local plan system – which it says will begin to be introduced later this year;
• s.102 of LURA, the implementation of which is being considered
• NDMPS which are widely expected to be consulted on before Christmas; and
• The new fee-setting regime, including the planning fee surcharge, which are contained in PIB

All of which suggests that this may just be the first in quite a long run of festive planning consultations.

Indeed, as I was typing this summary, MHCLG has issued a press release promising that “Housebuilding near well-connected train stations will receive a default “yes” in future if they meet certain rules, ensuring more homes are built”

I am not going to get into it in detail,** but it looks to be trailing the following policy changes as part of the NDMP/ revised NPPF consultation I mentioned earlier:

• introducing a policy requirement for councils to approve applications for new homes near train stations, including in the Green Belt, where certain, unspecified, rules are met.
• the introduction of minimum housing density standards for those “train station” adjacent development sites.
• a requirement that councils must ” inform government when they’re inclined to block applications of 150 homes or more so ministers can decide whether to step in and make the decision instead”, which is interesting, as the House of Lords just rejected an attempt to introduce a power to do this via the Planning & Infrastructure Bill; and
• introducing an ability for called-in planning applications to be dealt with via written representations or hearings, where appropriate – which also feels familiar, but I can’t immediately put my finger on why….

Oh well, is it even the run up to Christmas without a flurry of planning consultations to consider?

I may be holding out on putting up the decorations until December, but it looks like it is time to break out the mulled wine and the “family sized” tubs of quality street and gear up for the festive consultation season!

Joy to the World!

*I do have a day job, after all….

**see * above