With revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework complete, and clear parameters for the strategic release of green belt now established, the government is rightly turning its attention to the plight of SME developers which have yet to benefit from planning reform but perhaps have the most significant part to play in helping to deliver the 1.5m homes promised in Labour’s manifesto.
The collapse in SME development in recent decades has been striking, with diminishing diversity and mediocre design and poor construction quality now a prevailing characteristic of the new-build housing market. According to government statistics, by 2022 a quarter of new homes were being delivered by just three plc developers, and nearly half of them by the top ten. In 2020 SME developers were providing just 10% of the nation’s homes, down from 40% in the 1980s. These figures will not have improved in more recent years.
For SME developers, and especially those operating at the small end of the market, planning remains the most significant barrier to growth. Although the risk of refusal remains a constant concern, it is more often than not the inevitable delays to decision-making that can quickly turn a marginal scheme into an unviable one. Delays cost money, as small developers are rarely flush with cash and often borrow money to acquire land at higher rates than plc housebuilders, which means interest on the debt starts accruing immediately. All of this could be planned for and factored into investment decisions were the timescales predicable, but according to research by planning consultancy Lichfields, in 2024, just 36% of major planning applications (those comprising ten or more homes) were determined in less than a year. This figure is a remarkable change from ten years earlier, when 78% of major applications were decided in this time. The statutory timescale for determination is 13 weeks.
The cost of acquiring land is usually, by some margin, the largest financial outlay. Nevertheless, professional services, surveys and application fees can quickly add up. The number of reports and surveys required to accompany planning applications (“validation requirements”) have increased dramatically over time. This has two effects: firstly, the cost of commissioning these documents is significant. Even for a relatively modest application, the cost can run into tens, or hundreds of thousands of pounds. Secondly, by making the validation process more complex and uncertain, the risk of delays between submission and the case officer even looking at an application can be significant. The slightest error in documentation, or omission of a report, can result in additional cost as the statutory eight- or thirteen-week determination period cannot commence until an application has been made “valid” and assigned to a case officer.
The number and type of reports required to accompany a planning application are the responsibility of the local planning authority, although there is a mandatory national requirement which comprises just the application form, Design and Access Statement, location plan, ownership certificates and fee. The LPA can use a “local list” to add a plethora of additional requirements depending on the type of development. For a recent scheme for 21 flats in south London, we were asked to provide an aviation impact assessment, TV and radio reception impact assessment, construction logistics management plan, microclimate wind assessment, agent of change assessment and a public art strategy, among the more than 40 items required to accompany our submission. Each one of these requires a separate consultant to be engaged, managed, and paid.
This is a preposterous amount of work to undertake at pre-planning stage when even the principle of development might remain undetermined. Many of these things should not be required at all – energy performance and safety requirements are set out in the Building Regulations, for example – but even those that could reasonably be the concern of planners should be attached to a planning consent as conditions, rather than required upfront.
The front-loading of the validation checklist might be an unintended consequence of the 2016 Neighbourhood Planning Bill which placed restrictions on the number of conditions that could be attached to a planning consent. To forestall development, too many LPAs have instead shifted these requirements to the beginning of the process, rather than scrapping them altogether.
Fire safety is dealt with Part B of the Building Regulations, compliance with which is mandatory for all development. A building which does not meet these regulations cannot be occupied, so why require a fire statement in addition to this as part of the planning process when it falls outside the scope of the Building Safety Act? While the intention might seem sound, the reality is that a completed building will rarely be assessed by planning compliance officers to ensure that it meets with the approved drawings.
Likewise, environmental performance. Requiring enhancements above the level described within the national Building Regulations is unnecessary. This isn’t to diminish the importance of sustainability initiatives, but their inclusion within a planning application should be up to the applicant to determine and form part of the “on balance” decision made by planning authorities, having weighed up the relative merits of the scheme.
There is no reason why all planning validation requirements should not be set at national level. Radio waves do not behave differently between Bromley and Barnet; the good people of Havering have no less of an appreciation of public art than they do in Hammersmith.
The government’s recognition that the demands on SME developers are far different from those of the volume housebuilders, and that these entities operate within entirely different constraints, is welcome. This presents the opportunity to align validation requirements with these categories of development. Consistent with the alliterative naming convention, a new “micro” development category for sites with an area of less than 100sqm or providing a single dwelling should be introduced, with nationally determined validation list and design parameters and nothing else. This would unleash a wave of creativity and innovation, providing self-builders and small-scale developers with the certainty to bring forward new infill homes in sustainable locations.
Minor applications (those between two and nine dwellings) need not be accompanied by much more than this: plans, elevations, sections, a Design & Access Statement and daylight and sunlight report should be enough to determine whether an application meets the requirements of local policy. A prohibition on locally set affordable housing “levies” should be part of this reform, as these undermines the national threshold intended to encourage small site development. As with proposed changes to Biodiversity Net Gain requirements, statements of community engagement, open space assessments and the like are unnecessary at this scale and place an unreasonable burden on prospective development. In all but exceptional circumstances the provision of new homes far outweighs any negative impact of development.
There is no reason why validation requirements should not be set entirely at national level, and at a level commensurate with the size of the development being proposed. SME developers are desperate to help the government deliver on its housing ambitions. Raising the barriers will help them do it.
This article was published in the Pocket Living publication “The Road to a Proportionate System” in September 2025.