Research Report: Reforming the United Kingdom’s Planning System for Accelerated Development and Reduced Project Costs

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

The United Kingdom’s planning system has frequently been characterised as an intricate ‘labyrinth of bureaucracy’, widely perceived as a significant impediment to timely and efficient development across various sectors, from housing to critical national infrastructure. This extensive research report undertakes a comprehensive investigation into the specific systemic inefficiencies and persistent bottlenecks that afflict the UK’s current planning framework. It delves into the historical evolution and foundational principles of the system, analysing the multifaceted causes of its perceived stagnation. Furthermore, this report critically compares the UK’s approach to international best practices in urban planning and development control, drawing insights from diverse global models. Based on this thorough analysis, detailed and actionable recommendations for reform are proposed, specifically aimed at streamlining processes, accelerating development timelines, enhancing certainty for investors, and substantially reducing overall project costs, thereby fostering a more dynamic and responsive built environment. (pbctoday.co.uk)

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

Urban and spatial planning plays an indispensable and foundational role in orchestrating the development and sustainable growth of cities, towns, and rural areas. It serves as the crucial mechanism for balancing the often-competing needs of economic expansion, environmental protection and enhancement, and the achievement of social equity. In the United Kingdom, the planning system, a legacy of post-war reconstruction and evolving socio-economic pressures, has increasingly become a subject of intense scrutiny and extensive critique. Critics consistently highlight its inherent complexity, protracted timelines, and a perceived obstructionist tendency that often frustrates developers, infrastructure providers, and communities alike. This report aims to meticulously dissect these criticisms, uncover the underlying systemic and operational causes, and critically explore comparative international approaches to urban planning that may offer valuable insights and transferable lessons for a much-needed comprehensive reform agenda in the UK. The goal is to move beyond mere incremental adjustments towards a more fundamental re-evaluation of how the UK plans for its future built environment.

The historical trajectory of the UK planning system, particularly since the landmark Town and Country Planning Act 1947, reveals a consistent tension between central government direction and local autonomy, as well as between economic imperatives and environmental protection. While designed to ensure orderly development and prevent unchecked sprawl, the discretionary nature of the system, coupled with subsequent policy shifts and resource constraints, has inadvertently cultivated an environment ripe for delays and uncertainties. The repercussions of these inefficiencies are far-reaching, contributing significantly to a persistent national housing crisis, hindering essential infrastructure projects, and potentially undermining the UK’s economic competitiveness. This report contends that a robust, efficient, and transparent planning system is not merely an administrative necessity but a strategic national asset crucial for future prosperity and well-being.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

2. The UK’s Planning System: A Detailed Analysis

2.1. Foundational Principles and Historical Evolution

The UK’s planning system is fundamentally characterised by a ‘discretionary’ approach, wherein almost any significant change of land use or material operation requires explicit planning permission from the relevant Local Planning Authority (LPA). This stands in stark contrast to the predominantly ‘rule-based’ or ‘zoning-based’ systems prevalent in many other developed nations, such as Germany, France, or the United States, where predefined land-use zones and development parameters offer greater upfront certainty. The discretionary system in the UK emerged primarily from the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, a radical piece of legislation born from the exigencies of post-war reconstruction. Its core tenets were to bring all development under public control, ‘bettering the present, creating the future’ through comprehensive plans. Subsequent legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which consolidated previous acts), the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the Localism Act 2011, have sought to refine and adapt this framework. The introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012 (and its subsequent revisions in 2019 and 2023) aimed to simplify national policy, yet the inherent discretionary nature at the local level persists. This system is often perceived as inherently geared towards containing development and managing change, rather than proactively facilitating it, a distinction that underpins many of its current challenges. (pbctoday.co.uk, blogs.lse.ac.uk)

The balance between national policy objectives, typically set out in the NPPF and other ministerial statements, and the specific local determination by LPAs, is a continuous point of friction. While national policy provides a framework, the interpretation and application of these policies can vary significantly between different authorities, leading to inconsistencies, uncertainty for developers, and protracted negotiations. Local Plans, prepared by LPAs, are intended to provide a robust, evidence-based framework for local development, yet their preparation is often delayed, out-of-date, or subject to political pressure, leaving a policy vacuum that further exacerbates discretionary decision-making.

2.2. Structure and Governance

At the apex of the planning hierarchy, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) sets national planning policy for England. Below this, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) – comprising district, borough, unitary, and national park authorities – are responsible for preparing Local Plans, determining planning applications, and enforcing planning control. The Planning Inspectorate operates as an independent body responsible for examining Local Plans and determining planning appeals, providing a quasi-judicial function. Various types of planning applications exist, including outline (for general principles), full (detailed proposals), reserved matters (details following outline), and prior approval (for permitted development rights). The complexity escalates with the scale and nature of development, often requiring Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) or Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRAs).

2.3. Key Inefficiencies and Bottlenecks: A Deeper Dive

Several systemic issues collectively contribute to the pervasive inefficiencies within the UK’s planning system, impacting its speed, predictability, and efficacy.

2.3.1. Chronic Under-resourcing of Planning Departments

Years of successive budget cuts across local government have severely impacted planning departments nationwide. Research indicates that funding for planning services in England has seen significant real-terms reductions over the past decade. This translates directly into critical staff shortages, with experienced planners often leaving for the private sector or feeling overwhelmed by unmanageable caseloads. The consequences are profound: prolonged processing times for applications, reduced capacity for proactive masterplanning and policy development, and a decline in the quality of pre-application advice. LPAs are increasingly reliant on external consultants, adding to project costs for developers and further straining internal resources. This chronic underfunding undermines the very function of effective planning and contributes to the perception of a system that is slow and unresponsive. (dmhstallard.com, e-architect.com referencing the detrimental impact on industrial development capacity).

2.3.2. Complexity of Consultation Processes and Stakeholder Engagement

The UK planning system mandates extensive consultation, a democratic safeguard that, paradoxically, can become a significant source of delay and cost. Multiple statutory consultees, such as the Environment Agency, Historic England, Natural England, highways authorities, and local amenity groups, are involved in reviewing applications. Each body has its own statutory response times, expertise, and often, specific concerns. The sequential nature of these consultations means that objections from one consultee can necessitate costly redesigns or further technical studies, leading to significant delays. The ‘sports safety fences’ example, cited in the abstract, whilst seemingly minor, illustrates a broader issue where detailed concerns, even if seemingly disproportionate to the overall project, can trigger formal processes that halt or significantly slow progress. Furthermore, local community engagement, while vital for democratic legitimacy, can sometimes devolve into ‘NIMBYism’ (Not In My Backyard) where local opposition, regardless of wider public benefit or policy compliance, can lead to applications being refused or extensively delayed. Balancing legitimate public input with the need for timely decisions is a perennial challenge. (reuters.com)

2.3.3. Vulnerability to Legal Challenges and Appeals

The planning system’s susceptibility to legal challenges, particularly Judicial Reviews (JRs), represents a significant bottleneck. A JR examines the legality of a decision, not its merits, but even unmeritorious challenges can impose substantial delays and legal costs on projects. The concept of ‘Totally Without Merit’ (TWM) challenges, while intended to filter out frivolous cases, highlights the ongoing vulnerability of the system to tactical litigation. These challenges can be brought by individuals or groups and can halt major infrastructure projects for months or even years, even if ultimately unsuccessful. The Planning Inspectorate, responsible for determining appeals against LPA decisions, also faces increasing workloads, leading to backlogs and extended appeal inquiry durations. The cumulative effect of these legal avenues is increased risk and uncertainty for developers, which can deter investment, particularly for complex or large-scale schemes. (reuters.com)

2.3.4. Policy Instability and Shifting Political Agendas

Frequent changes to national planning policy, evidenced by revisions to the NPPF and a stream of ministerial statements, create an unstable environment for long-term planning. Each policy shift introduces a period of uncertainty as LPAs and developers adapt to new rules, often leading to delays in Local Plan adoption and increased appeals. This policy flux makes it challenging for councils to plan strategically and for developers to invest with confidence, especially for projects with multi-year planning horizons. Furthermore, planning decisions at the local level are often heavily politicised, with local councillors sometimes making decisions that contradict officer recommendations or national policy, particularly on contentious housing developments, leading to increased rates of appeal and further delays. This politicalisation can undermine the objective, evidence-based approach that planning is meant to embody.

2.3.5. Lack of Inter-departmental Coordination and Digital Integration

Within local authorities, planning departments often operate in silos, with insufficient coordination with other critical departments such as highways, environmental health, housing, and economic development. This disjointed approach can lead to conflicting requirements, duplication of effort, and delayed responses. Compounding this, many planning departments still rely on outdated legacy IT systems, hindering efficient data sharing, real-time application tracking, and seamless public engagement. The absence of a unified, digitally integrated platform for planning submissions, consultations, and decision-making exacerbates delays, reduces transparency, and impedes the adoption of modern, data-driven approaches to urban planning.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Economic and Social Ramifications of Planning Inefficiencies

The cumulative effect of these planning inefficiencies extends far beyond mere administrative inconvenience, profoundly impacting the UK’s economy and social fabric.

3.1. The Housing Crisis

Perhaps the most visible and acutely felt consequence of the UK’s dysfunctional planning system is its direct contribution to the persistent housing crisis. Delays in planning permissions directly constrain housing supply, especially in areas of high demand. This scarcity drives up house prices and rents, making homeownership an increasingly distant dream for millions and exacerbating rental stress. The inability to deliver sufficient numbers of affordable homes has profound social implications, impacting intergenerational equity, labour mobility, and overall societal well-being. The planning system’s inability to consistently meet housing targets, often due to protracted processes and local opposition, stands as a critical barrier to addressing this national challenge. (benedictcommunityhousing.co.uk, blogs.lse.ac.uk, focusnews.uk)

3.2. Stifled Economic Growth and Investment

Planning delays impose significant costs on developers, which are ultimately passed on to consumers or deter investment altogether. The uncertainty inherent in the system makes the UK less attractive for both domestic and international investors seeking to develop commercial, industrial, or infrastructure projects. Sectors such as manufacturing, which require new facilities or expansions, are particularly impacted by planning inertia, leading to foregone opportunities for job creation and economic output. The ‘UK planning crisis undermining British manufacturing’ highlights how systemic delays can erode industrial competitiveness. Essential infrastructure projects, from transport networks to renewable energy installations, are also frequently caught in planning bottlenecks, delaying the delivery of crucial national assets and hindering progress towards broader economic and environmental goals. (e-architect.com)

3.3. Erosion of Public Trust and Democratic Legitimacy

The protracted nature of planning decisions, coupled with perceived inconsistencies and opaqueness, erodes public trust in the planning system and local government. Both developers and communities express frustration with a system that often feels unresponsive and excessively bureaucratic. This erosion of trust can fuel cynicism, reduce engagement, and exacerbate conflicts between various stakeholders, further complicating the planning process. When the system is seen as failing to deliver on its core promises of orderly development and community benefit, its democratic legitimacy is called into question.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Comparative International Practices: Lessons for the UK

Examining urban planning and development control systems across the globe offers invaluable insights and potential pathways for reform within the UK context. While direct transplantation of entire systems is rarely feasible, the principles and specific mechanisms employed internationally can inform a more effective and responsive UK framework.

4.1. Rule-Based Zoning Systems (e.g., Germany, USA)

Many countries operate under predominantly rule-based zoning systems, where land is pre-designated for specific uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) with clear parameters for density, height, and setbacks. In Germany, for instance, a ‘Bebauungsplan’ (binding land-use plan) legally defines permitted development parameters, offering high certainty once adopted. Similarly, in the United States, zoning ordinances specify what can be built where. The primary advantage of such systems is certainty and speed: if a proposed development complies with the established zoning rules, it can often proceed with minimal discretionary review, significantly reducing processing times and legal challenges. This predictability fosters a more stable investment environment. However, critics argue that purely rule-based systems can lack flexibility, potentially leading to monotonous urban forms or hindering innovative development that falls outside predefined categories. A key lesson for the UK might involve exploring hybrid models, where broad zoning principles are applied to provide certainty in appropriate areas, whilst retaining discretionary control for more complex or sensitive sites.

4.2. Sweden’s SymbioCity Approach: Integrated Sustainability

Sweden’s SymbioCity concept represents a holistic and inclusive approach to sustainable urban planning, moving beyond conventional sector-specific planning to emphasise the deep integration of economic, environmental, and social dimensions. This model champions participatory methods, ensuring robust citizen involvement, and holistic analysis, aiming not just for environmental targets but for demonstrably improved living conditions, particularly for vulnerable urban populations. At its core, SymbioCity encourages cities to function as integrated metabolic systems, where waste from one process becomes a resource for another (e.g., waste heat from industry used for district heating, wastewater treated and reused). A prime example is Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm, a former industrial area transformed into a sustainable residential district where infrastructure for energy, water, and waste are innovatively integrated to minimise environmental impact and maximise resource efficiency. This approach contrasts sharply with the UK’s often siloed planning processes, advocating for a systemic, cross-sectoral collaboration from the outset of any development project. (en.wikipedia.org)

4.3. Hong Kong’s Smart Green Resilient (SGR) Framework: Planning for Density and Change

Hong Kong, a high-density urban environment facing immense development pressures and climate change risks, has adopted a Smart Green Resilient (SGR) framework. This framework explicitly addresses rapid urbanisation by focusing on balancing pragmatic development concerns with major environmental challenges, structuring long-term resilience into urban planning strategies. SGR integrates cutting-edge technology (e.g., IoT sensors for real-time monitoring of air quality, traffic, and energy consumption) to enhance urban management and inform decision-making. It prioritises green infrastructure, such as vertical gardens and permeable surfaces, to mitigate the urban heat island effect and improve biodiversity. Resilience is built into planning by designing infrastructure and urban systems to withstand the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events and sea-level rise. The SGR approach emphasises not just the physical design of the urban environment but also the intelligent organisation and management of urban systems to create highly sustainable, liveable, and adaptable cities. For the UK, SGR offers lessons in strategic long-term planning, particularly in leveraging technology for smart city development and embedding climate resilience as a core planning principle. (en.wikipedia.org)

4.4. Water-Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD): Integrated Water Management

Water-Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is an interdisciplinary approach that integrates the urban water cycle into urban planning and design to minimise environmental degradation and enhance aesthetic and recreational appeal. Originating in Australia, WSUD addresses challenges related to water scarcity, flood risk, and water quality. Its core principles include: protecting and enhancing natural water systems; integrating stormwater management into the landscape; reusing and recycling water; and promoting water-efficient landscape practices. Techniques range from rain gardens and permeable pavements to green roofs and constructed wetlands. By managing stormwater close to its source, WSUD reduces pressure on conventional drainage systems, mitigates urban flooding, recharges groundwater, and creates attractive public spaces. Given the increasing frequency of extreme weather events and flood risks in the UK, adopting WSUD principles more broadly into national and local planning policy offers a powerful tool for building climate resilience and delivering environmental net gain. It shifts from viewing stormwater as a waste product to a valuable resource and a component of urban amenity. (en.wikipedia.org)

4.5. Digital-First Planning Systems (e.g., Estonia, Singapore)

Countries like Estonia and Singapore have implemented highly advanced digital planning systems that provide transparency, efficiency, and data-driven decision-making. These systems often feature fully digital application submission portals, AI-assisted review processes for initial compliance checks, integrated spatial data platforms that consolidate all relevant planning information (e.g., land ownership, environmental constraints, infrastructure capacity), real-time application tracking for applicants, and online public participation portals that simplify and broaden engagement. The benefits include significantly faster processing times, reduced administrative burden, enhanced transparency, and the ability to leverage big data for strategic planning and predictive analytics. The UK could learn greatly from these models in developing a coherent national digital planning strategy.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Comprehensive Recommendations for Reform

Drawing upon the detailed analysis of systemic inefficiencies within the UK’s planning system and inspired by the efficacy of international best practices, the following comprehensive recommendations are proposed to instigate meaningful reform, aimed at streamlining processes, accelerating development, and reducing project costs.

5.1. Strategic Resourcing and Professional Development

5.1.1. Increased and Sustainable Funding for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs): The government must commit to significantly increasing and ring-fencing funding for LPA planning departments. This could be achieved through dedicated central government grants, allowing LPAs to retain a higher proportion of planning application fees (currently capped), or through a new development levy specifically earmarked for planning services. Adequate funding is fundamental to reversing the trend of understaffing and improving service delivery.

5.1.2. Talent Attraction, Retention, and Capacity Building: Implement national graduate schemes, offer competitive salaries, and provide robust continuous professional development (CPD) programmes to attract new talent and retain experienced planners. Foster mentorship programmes and encourage cross-sectoral secondments to broaden expertise. Training should focus not only on policy interpretation but also on negotiation, mediation, and digital proficiency.

5.1.3. Standardised Training and Best Practices: Develop a national framework for planner training and accreditation, ensuring consistent interpretation and application of planning policies across all LPAs. This would reduce variability in decision-making and provide greater certainty for developers.

5.2. Streamlining the Application and Decision-Making Process

5.2.1. Digital Transformation and Data Integration: Mandate the development and adoption of a national digital planning portal, as seen in countries like Estonia. This portal should offer standardised data requirements, AI/ML tools for initial compliance checks, integrated Geographic Information System (GIS) data for early constraint mapping, and real-time application tracking. This would enhance efficiency, transparency, and data-driven decision-making.

5.2.2. Enhanced and Structured Pre-application Engagement: Formalise pre-application advice as a mandatory, binding stage for all major developments. This advice should be comprehensive, time-limited, and chargeable (with fees contributing to LPA resources), providing developers with greater certainty early in the process. Introduce independent design review panels at local and regional levels to provide constructive critical appraisal and raise design quality proactively.

5.2.3. Targeted Permitted Development Rights and Design Codes: Expand permitted development rights in appropriate areas, such as designated growth zones or brownfield sites, particularly for certain types of housing or commercial conversions. Crucially, these expansions must be accompanied by the mandatory application of robust, locally derived design codes and masterplans to ensure high-quality outcomes and avoid poor design. This moves towards a hybrid, ‘form-based code’ approach in specific areas, providing greater certainty while maintaining quality.

5.2.4. Delegation and Empowerment of Planning Officers: Increase the thresholds for decisions that can be delegated to professional planning officers, reducing the number of minor or straightforward applications that require full committee scrutiny. This would free up councillor time for strategic policy matters and expedite approvals, provided there are clear governance frameworks, audit trails, and accountability mechanisms in place to ensure fair and compliant decisions. While acknowledging past concerns regarding ‘undemocratic planning reforms’ (homebuilding.co.uk), robust safeguards can ensure accountability.

5.3. Reforming the Appeals and Legal Challenge Landscape

5.3.1. Early Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Introduce mandatory mediation and conciliation services prior to formal planning appeals or judicial reviews. This would provide an opportunity for parties to resolve disagreements outside of costly and time-consuming formal processes.

5.3.2. Stricter Scrutiny of Judicial Reviews: While protecting legitimate avenues for legal challenge, introduce higher thresholds for granting permission for judicial review, particularly for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This would aim to filter out ‘Totally Without Merit’ or vexatious challenges earlier in the process, reducing speculative litigation that solely aims to delay projects. (reuters.com)

5.3.3. Cost Recovery and Penalties for Frivolous Challenges: Implement a more robust system for awarding costs against parties who bring challenges deemed ‘Totally Without Merit’ or vexatious, thereby deterring tactical and unsubstantiated litigation.

5.3.4. Streamlined Planning Inspectorate: Increase resources and introduce efficiency targets for the Planning Inspectorate to clear backlogs and accelerate the determination of planning appeals, ensuring timely and consistent decisions.

5.4. Policy Clarity and Long-term Vision

5.4.1. Stable National Planning Policy Framework: Reduce the frequency of significant changes to the core NPPF and other national planning guidance. A stable policy environment allows LPAs to develop robust Local Plans and provides developers with the certainty required for long-term investment and project planning.

5.4.2. Locally Led Design Codes and Masterplans: Empower communities and LPAs to develop clear, legally binding design codes and comprehensive masterplans at a local plan level. These should clearly articulate desired character, form, and quality, reducing subjective disputes at the application stage and ensuring that new development genuinely enhances local areas.

5.4.3. Integration of Cross-sectoral Policies: Ensure that national planning policy is explicitly integrated with other government departmental policies, such as those for energy, transport, health, and environment. This will create a more coherent policy landscape, reducing conflicts and fostering truly holistic planning outcomes.

5.5. Implementing International Best Practices

5.5.1. Holistic Urban Ecosystem Approach (Inspired by SymbioCity): For major urban regeneration projects and strategic growth areas, adopt a SymbioCity-inspired, integrated planning approach. This means planning for energy, waste, water, transport, and green infrastructure as interconnected systems from the outset, involving all relevant agencies and stakeholders in a collaborative, long-term vision.

5.5.2. Technology and Resilience Focus (Inspired by SGR): Incorporate elements of Hong Kong’s Smart Green Resilient framework, particularly for high-density areas and critical infrastructure. This involves leveraging data analytics, IoT, and smart city technologies to monitor urban performance, inform planning decisions, and build robust climate resilience against future shocks and stresses.

5.5.3. Mandatory Water-Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD): Integrate WSUD principles into national planning policy and local design guides, making it a standard requirement for all new developments. This proactive approach to water management will deliver environmental benefits, reduce flood risk, and enhance urban amenity, aligning with broader sustainability goals.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Conclusion

The United Kingdom’s planning system, while underpinned by laudable intentions to ensure sustainable and orderly development, has unequivocally proven itself to be hampered by deep-seated complexities and chronic inefficiencies. These systemic issues contribute significantly to the national housing crisis, stifle economic investment, undermine critical infrastructure delivery, and erode public trust in governance. By meticulously analysing these pervasive challenges and undertaking a comparative review of successful international planning methodologies, this research report has identified numerous critical areas for comprehensive reform.

Implementing the detailed recommendations outlined in this report – encompassing strategic resourcing, digital transformation, process streamlining, and a critical re-evaluation of legal and policy frameworks – is not merely an administrative exercise. Rather, it represents an urgent national imperative. A revitalised, efficient, and transparent planning system has the transformative potential to significantly reduce project timelines and costs, catalyse essential development, and ultimately facilitate the creation of genuinely sustainable, resilient, and equitable urban and rural environments that can meet the pressing needs of the 21st century. The ambition must be to transition from a system widely perceived as an impediment to one that is a proactive enabler of positive, progressive development, fostering a built environment that truly serves the prosperity and well-being of all citizens.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• UK tackles infrastructure ‘blockers’ by cutting legal challenge options. (2025, January 23). Reuters. Retrieved from reuters.com
• UK seeks to scale back reviews that delay new housing projects. (2025, March 9). Reuters. Retrieved from reuters.com
• SymbioCity. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org
• Smart green resilient. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org
• Water-sensitive urban design. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org
• The UK’s Broken Planning System is Failing Millions in Need of Affordable Housing. (2024, February 15). Benedict Community Housing. Retrieved from benedictcommunityhousing.co.uk
• Navigating planning permission in the UK: challenges for 2025. (2024, November 15). DMH Stallard. Retrieved from dmhstallard.com
• The extraordinarily rigid planning system is the main reason homes in England are unaffordable. (2016, October 3). British Politics and Policy at LSE. Retrieved from blogs.lse.ac.uk
• UK planning crisis undermining British manufacturing. (2024, September 10). e-architect. Retrieved from e-architect.com
• Housing Supply in the United Kingdom: Challenges, Policies, and Comparative Perspectives. (2024, August 20). FocusNews. Retrieved from focusnews.uk
• UK planning system fit for purpose? (n.d.). PBC Today. Retrieved from pbctoday.co.uk
• Councils rebel against Labour’s ‘undemocratic’ planning reforms. (n.d.). Homebuilding & Renovating. Retrieved from homebuilding.co.uk