At our recent Bell Cornwell Roundtable, hosted by the Hampshire and Sussex offices, one theme came up time and again: inconsistency.
From biodiversity metrics to validation requirements, developers, consultants and individuals all face a postcode lottery in how planning policy is interpreted and applied. The same proposal could glide through one authority but stall for months in another – not because of policy differences, but because of how those policies are understood and enforced.
A System That’s Become Front-Loaded
In theory, the planning process is designed to balance competing interests – housing need, environmental protection, infrastructure, and place-making. In practice, it’s become a front-loaded exercise in evidence gathering.
Applicants are now expected to produce full ecology reports, drainage strategies, transport assessments and biodiversity metrics before validation, often at huge cost and before the principle of development is even accepted by the authority in question.
This approach, while intended to de-risk decisions, often has the opposite effect. Thousands of pounds are spent upfront without any guarantee of progress, leaving smaller developers, rural schemes and community projects struggling to participate at all.
The Cost of Inconsistency
The inconsistency doesn’t stop at validation. Some councils will accept biodiversity net gain plans via condition; others insist on full details being provided upfront and as part of Section 106 agreements. One local authority ecologist may support a pragmatic mitigation strategy, while another demands full seasonal surveys before registration. The result is a system that rewards persistence, not quality – and one that penalises those without deep pockets or inside knowledge.
Even within the same authority, different officers can take markedly different approaches. For applicants, that unpredictability undermines confidence and delays investment. For local authorities, it adds to already stretched workloads and erodes trust in the process.
Towards a More Proportionate Approach
As we discussed around the table, planning needs consistency and clarity if it’s to support sustainable growth.
National guidance should set clearer validation standards and thresholds, freeing officers to focus on the planning balance – not on paperwork. And for smaller schemes, conditions and phased requirements could provide a fairer, more proportionate route to decision-making.
There’s no question that high-quality evidence and environmental safeguards are essential. But the way the system currently front-loads cost, risk and responsibility is undermining the very outcomes it’s designed to achieve.
The Way Forward
Consistency doesn’t mean uniformity. Local character, context and priorities should always shape decisions – but the rules of engagement need to be transparent, predictable and fair.
At Bell Cornwell, we continue to work collaboratively with local authorities, consultants and clients to find practical, proportionate solutions that balance policy with deliverability.
Because good planning isn’t about box-ticking – it’s about making things happen.
“It’s a total postcode lottery. Every council has its own validation list. One insists on a Section 106; another accepts a condition. There’s no national standard.”
Nick Cobbold, Partner, Bell Cornwell LLP
“We’re spending £50,000 to £100,000 on surveys before even knowing if a site will get permission. It’s wasteful – financially and environmentally.”
Alice Lack, Planning Director, Martin Grant Homes
