Condition Impossible: Why the Planning Process Needs to Work Better for Homeowners and Developers
Planning permission is often seen as the major hurdle in a building project. But anyone who has worked in architecture or property development knows that getting permission is only part of the journey. The time, cost and uncertainty involved in navigating the planning system can continue long after an application has been submitted.
A new report from the Home Builders Federation (HBF) and Paragon Development Finance, titled Condition Impossible, highlights a significant part of this problem: delays in local authorities approving the information needed to discharge planning conditions.
Having experienced these challenges throughout my career, I found the report particularly relevant. Its findings reflect many of the frustrations I encounter in my day-to-day work at JGJS Architecture.
What does the research tell us?
The report examines how long local planning authorities take to determine applications to discharge planning conditions attached to residential developments.
Planning conditions are requirements attached to a planning permission. They may require further details, technical reports or approvals before construction can begin or progress to a particular stage.
Some conditions are entirely necessary. They help ensure that developments are safe, appropriate and properly considered. The difficulty arises when the process of satisfying those conditions becomes unpredictable or excessively prolonged.
The HBF and Paragon Development Finance research analysed data covering more than 14,000 applications collected through Freedom of Information requests. Its key findings include:
Only 50.8% of applications were determined within the statutory eight-week period across the three-year sample.
In 2023/24, the median determination time was 105 days, almost twice the statutory 56-day period.
In 2024/25, the median was still 95 days.
Performance varied considerably between local authorities, with some determining more than 75% of applications on time and others meeting the deadline in only 18% of cases.
The report also identifies recurring difficulties involving multiple consultees, repeated requests for information, overlapping technical requirements and uncertainty about who is responsible for resolving outstanding issues.
It is important to recognise that the research has limitations. Not all authorities could provide the same level of detail, and the data should be treated as an indicative picture rather than a complete national assessment. Nevertheless, the findings raise important questions about how effectively the system is working.
The real cost of planning delays
As an architect, I see planning delays as more than an administrative inconvenience.
Every additional survey, revised report or extended period of waiting has consequences. Clients may face additional professional fees, builders may need to revise their programmes, and projects can become more expensive before work has even started.
For homeowners planning an extension, these costs can be particularly difficult to absorb. For developers, delays can affect cash flow, borrowing costs, contractor commitments and the point at which a project can begin generating a return.
The uncertainty can also place pressure on the working relationships between clients, architects, builders and planning departments. Everyone is trying to move the project forward, but the longer the process continues, the harder that becomes.
A current example from my own practice
I am currently working with two separate planning departments, one in Buckinghamshire and the other in Surrey Heath. Both applications have experienced delays, with additional costs for my clients and their builders.
One case illustrates how frustrating the process can become.
The original application was refused in 2024 because the proposed development was considered too large and bulky. Th
e scheme has since re-emerged, but further ecological information has been requested as part of the planning process.
A Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) was requested to investigate the potential presence of bats. The assessment found no evidence of bats, yet concerns were subsequently raised about the age of the ecology report, despite it having been submitted in August.
Further ecological investigations were then requested, including checks for badgers and amphibians. These also found no evidence of the species in question.
Ecological surveys are important, and I fully recognise the need to protect wildlife and comply with relevant requirements. The issue is not whether appropriate investigations should take place. It is whether requirements are communicated clearly, proportionately and at the right stage, so that clients can understand what is needed and plan accordingly.
In this case, additional investigations have meant more expense and more waiting. The process has become increasingly difficult to explain to the client, even though I am working hard to address every request thoroughly.
It can also leave the architect appearing as though they do not know what is happening, when the reality is that requirements and expectations are continuing to evolve during the application process.
That is not a good experience for anyone involved.
Why communication matters
One of the biggest changes I have noticed throughout my career is the way architects interact with planning departments.
I have generally had a good opinion of individual planning officers. I understand that they work within policies, procedures and resource constraints, and I do not believe that the problems we face are simply down to the individuals handling applications.
However, I do miss the days when it was possible to visit the duty planning officer and have a meaningful conversation about a proposal.
In the past, I could spend time discussing a project, asking questions and understanding the officer's views before committing to a formal application. Those conversations helped identify potential problems early, manage expectations and establish a clearer route forward.
Today, so much communication takes place by email. Although written correspondence has its place, it cannot always replace a direct conversation in which a question can be explored, an issue clarified and a practical solution discussed.
Better early engagement could prevent misunderstandings, reduce unnecessary revisions and help applicants submit the right information from the outset.
More fees do not automatically mean a better service
Another concern is the cumulative cost of navigating the process.
In one of the cases I am dealing with, submitting additional information to the planning department requires a further fee of £154. When combined with additional reports, ecological surveys and other professional costs, these charges can quickly add up.
I understand that planning departments need sufficient funding and resources to operate effectively. The Condition Impossible report itself recommends adequate resourcing, improved monitoring of performance and greater clarity through standardised planning conditions.
But homeowners and developers also need to see a meaningful improvement in the service they receive. Increased fees should form part of a system that is clearer, more consistent and more efficient, rather than adding cost to a process that is already difficult to navigate.
The report also highlights a significant gap in national performance monitoring for the discharge of planning conditions. Without consistent data, it is harder to identify persistent problems, compare performance and determine whether reforms are delivering results.
The wider problem: a system that feels harder than ever
In my experience, planning has become more complicated, more difficult and more expensive since I qualified as an architect.
Successive governments have promised to simplify the planning process and make it easier to deliver new homes. Yet many homeowners, architects and developers continue to encounter delays, changing requirements and additional costs.
I believe there is a real opportunity to improve the experience for everyone involved.
That means:
Properly resourcing local planning departments so applications can be dealt with in a reasonable timeframe.
Providing clear, consistent guidance about the information required to support an application.
Improving communication and encouraging early discussions between planning officers and applicants.
Coordinating input from ecological, highways and other technical consultees to reduce duplication and avoid repeated requests wherever possible.
Monitoring performance transparently so that delays can be identified and addressed.
Ensuring that planning fees contribute to a more effective service, with better outcomes for applicants and the wider built environment.
None of this means removing necessary safeguards or compromising the quality of development. It means making sure that the process for achieving those safeguards is proportionate, transparent and workable.
My commitment as an architect
At JGJS Architecture, I take my responsibilities seriously. I like to approach projects thoroughly, consider the details carefully and give my clients the best possible chance of achieving a successful outcome.
When a planning application is refused, I take that seriously, too. I want to understand the reasons, address legitimate concerns and find a way forward wherever possible.
But there is a difference between a rigorous planning process and one that becomes increasingly difficult to navigate because of delays, unclear expectations and repeated requests for information.
The Condition Impossible report gives us an opportunity to have a more evidence-based discussion about these challenges. Its findings suggest that the problems extend beyond individual applications or isolated authorities.
Ultimately, planning should help homeowners and developers create good places to live. It should provide a clear, proportionate route from an initial idea to a deliverable project.
I would like to see a planning system that combines necessary scrutiny with better communication, clearer expectations and greater certainty over timescales and costs.
That would benefit clients, architects, builders, planning officers and, ultimately, the communities that new homes are intended to serve.
At JGJS Architecture, I will continue to work thoroughly and constructively with planning departments on behalf of my clients. But I also believe it is time for a more open conversation about how we make the planning process work better for everyone.
Comments