The development sector was generally cheered by the publication of a new NPPF last month. The Government is continuing its planning reform agenda by implementing a faster system, more up-to-date local plans, with clearer national policy and fewer delays in decision-making. Additionally, the new local plan-making system, which came into force on 25 March, is intended to support a more disciplined process, with local planning authorities expected to prepare and adopt plans within a 30-month timetable.
For developers, landowners and planning consultants, this is welcome news: a system that is faster, more rules-based and less vulnerable to local delay should, in theory, make planning less uncertain.
But while centralising parts of the planning system may reduce some forms of local discretion. It will not remove local concern - it may intensify it.
Local politics remains powerful
When residents believe that decisions are being made further away from them, they may become more concerned that their voice will count for less.
So both the pace and the direction of reform creates a new challenge for applicants. If more applications are determined by officers, if more local plan decisions are shaped by national requirements, if government intervenes more readily where plans are delayed and if policy becomes more prescriptive, technically local influence will lessen; but the emotional and political room for local opposition does not, it simply moves earlier in the process.
This means consultation cannot be treated as a discretionary exercise or as a defensive layer added after the planning case has been assembled. Increasingly, it is where the credibility of the planning case begins.
Faster decisions need better explanations
There is a tendency to think of consultation and speed as opposing forces — that running a consultation will slow the process down.
But while poor or late consultation may slow the process down, good consultation is invariably proven to do the opposite. It helps identify the real pressure points early: traffic, school places, GP capacity, landscape, drainage, affordable housing, density, design, construction impact or distrust of the applicant. It also helps distinguish between objections that can be addressed through the scheme and objections that are, in reality, objections to development in principle.
Ultimately good consultation can reduce the need for re-submission or appeal of a planning application.
Engagement as evidence
The role of consultation is changing because the evidential value of engagement is becoming more important and because online consultation is able to deliver evidence to increasingly high standards.
If decisions are to be made faster, decision-makers need clear, credible information, including on what was proposed, who was consulted, what concerns were raised, how the applicant responded and what, if anything, changed as a result.
A consultation report is not just a record of process but part of the planning narrative. It shows whether an applicant has listened, whether the material was accessible, whether the proposal was explained clearly and whether the benefits were understood.
The power of online consultation
This is one reason I believe the consultation website is becoming more important by the day. A good consultation platform should act as a single source of truth. It should explain the proposal clearly, host plans and supporting documents, answer common questions, show the timeline, describe the benefits and provide a transparent route for feedback.
For many schemes, it can also do something that traditional consultation boards and newsletters struggle to do: keep the conversation open. Residents, councillors, officers and local stakeholders can return to the material, check what has been said and understand how the proposal fits into the wider planning context.
As the planning system becomes faster, more centralised and more rules-based, it is important to remember that development still happens in real places, affecting real communities.