"Whatever is popular is wrong", once stated Oscar Wilde. Although it may seem incredibly pretentious to begin a blog on something as dry as the UK Planning system with a quote from one of the country's great wordsmiths, in this week's economic word salad, we are digging our heels in and taking a contrarian stance against the assumption that the current government inherited an essentially "broken" planning system. "Fixing the broken planning system" has been the shared narrative between the media and government for many months now, so we decided to pull apart the raw data from the Gov.uk site and look for trends that may not necessarily align with it. We did the one thing rarely done in popular media: we looked at the data first and wrote the story second.
Planning is one of those topics guaranteed to spark debate. Politicians say it holds back growth, developers argue it slows down delivery, and communities often complain it's both too restrictive and too permissive. It has become fashionable to say the UK's planning system is "broken”. However, when we examine the government's own statistics, the picture becomes far more nuanced and, in many respects, surprisingly positive. Below, we explore trends in the data that show the planning system is performing better than the critics admit.
Over the past decade, the number of planning applications submitted has fallen. In 2015/16, authorities received 474,301 applications. By 2024/25, that figure had dropped to 333,635, a fall of almost 30%. That's not because planners have tightened up; it reflects broader economic and housing market cycles. Developers are simply bringing forward fewer schemes. The real bottleneck, in other words, is demand, not planners. Contrary to popular belief, once an application is submitted, the odds of success are strong. In 2015/16, 88% of decisions were granted. By 2024/25, the figure was still 86%. This stability tells us something important: despite fewer applications being submitted, approval rates have held up. Planners are generally saying "yes" to the vast majority of proposals presented to them. What about Nimbysim? What about the Village Green Preservation Society? Yes, there will be the occasional battle, and yes, there will be the occasional rural turf war so steeped in local bureaucracy that UN negotiators couldn't appease the parties, but this is not the norm. The data suggests quite the opposite; the planners like to say yes.
Critics often point to delays in planning. The raw statistics show that for major applications decided without a performance agreement, only 19% met the statutory 13-week target in 2024/25, down from 40% in 2015/16. For minor applications, the share decided within eight weeks also fell, from 60% in 2015/16 to 41% in 2024/25. On the face of it, that looks like a worsening picture.
However, that's only half the story. When we examine applications with performance agreements, formal timetables agreed upon between developers and councils, the numbers shift dramatically. In 2024/25, 91% of major applications, 87% of minor applications, and 91% of other applications were decided within the agreed time. Taken together, 90% of all applications were resolved promptly once agreements were factored in. This shows the system works effectively when applicants and councils collaborate. Larger applications are naturally slower; the data confirms what common sense suggests: major applications take longer. Complex housing schemes or commercial projects are more complicated to decide within the rigid 13-week limits. However, with performance agreements, these large schemes are still agreed upon efficiently, with over nine in ten being completed on time. Far from dragging on indefinitely, most major projects move forward once a timetable is agreed upon.
Another criticism is that councils don't enforce planning rules. Yet enforcement activity follows development cycles. When building is booming, councils issue more notices and injunctions; when activity slows, so does enforcement. This suggests enforcement isn't absent; it's responsive to demand. The system flexes as pressures change. The data also shows a shift in enforcement tools. Temporary stop notices, which allow councils to act swiftly, are being used more often than traditional stop notices. We can see a system here that is adapting, providing planners with quicker tools to address breaches before they escalate.
Nationally, approval rates and decision speeds are strong. But the dataset reveals wide variation between authorities. Some councils approve almost everything; others are far stricter. Enforcement activity also varies. We have created a "postcode lottery" effect here, and it's one factor that the data doesn't contest. A developer who finds success in one region may struggle elsewhere, leading to frustration and often stories in The Telegraph. But nationally, the picture is more balanced and far, far more permissive than usually claimed.
Taken together, these trends paint a very different picture of UK planning. Yes, there are challenges: departments are under-resourced; however, the planning system is not the main barrier to growth. The real constraints lie elsewhere: in developer pipelines, in the political allocation of land, and in the funding of planning departments. Planners, in short, are saying "yes" far more often than "no" and usually within agreed timescales.
So, you have made it this far through our take, and you're asking yourself, what does this one have to do with our offering? We believe that criticism and critical thinking are vital in making sensible decisions, but sometimes the swell of negative criticism can be almost part of the theatre of modern discourse. It may be fashionable to call the UK planning system "broken", but the numbers tell a different story. With high approval rates, rising use of performance agreements, and resilience through the pandemic, the system is quietly more efficient and permissive than critics acknowledge. The real challenge for our industry, and all elements of the housing industry, is ensuring there are enough viable proposals for planners to say "yes" to, and that's what we support our clients in achieving.
Invest & Fund has returned over £200 million of capital and interest to lenders with zero losses, showing the rigour that governs our business.
To take maximum advantage of this robust and exciting asset class, please visit www.investandfund.com
Don't invest unless you're prepared to lose money. This is a high-risk investment. You may not be able to access your money quickly and are unlikely to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 minutes to learn more.