Shaping the Future of Planning: A Guide to the Consultation Questions on Site Threshold Reform – Blog 2
In our series on the Planning Reform Working Paper: Reforming Site Thresholds this blog looks at some of the questions (1 – 8) included within the Paper and explores some of the key themes that might arise..
On 28 May 2025, the UK Government published its Planning Reform Working Paper: Reforming Site Thresholds. At the heart of this working paper is a public consultation designed to gather views on how planning thresholds are defined and managed across different site sizes. This is a critical moment for planning authorities, developers—especially SMEs—and communities alike.
Here’s a plain-English guide to each consultation question, what it’s asking, and why it matters.
Question 1: Changing the Definition of Minor Development
“Do you agree with the proposal to amend the definition of minor development to include residential schemes of less than 10 homes or less than 1 hectare?”
What it means: This would expand the current site area threshold from 0.5ha to 1ha for “minor” applications.
Supporters might say: It gives SMEs access to simpler, faster planning routes.
Concerns might include: Risk of environmental harm on larger sites and reduced oversight.
Question 2: Creating a New Medium-Sized Site Category
“Do you agree with the proposal to create a new definition of a medium-sized site as a site of between 10 and 49 homes or of less than 1 hectare?”
What it means: Introducing a third tier to better tailor planning obligations by site size.
Supporters might say: It addresses a gap in the current binary system (minor vs. major) and could help mid-sized developers.
Concerns might include: Could add complexity; some argue clarity should come before new categories.
Question 3: Encouraging Use of Permission in Principle (PiP) for Minor and Medium Sites
“Do you support the use of PiP as a tool to support SME builders to deliver more homes on minor and medium-sized sites?”
What it means: PiP is a simpler approval process that focuses on site suitability without needing detailed plans upfront.
Supporters might say: It’s a time- and cost-saver for small developers.
Concerns might include: Might result in less scrutiny or missed site-specific issues.
Question 4: Standardised Planning Conditions
“Do you support the principle of a more standardised set of planning conditions for minor and medium-sized sites?”
What it means: Introducing template conditions to reduce local variation and delays.
Supporters might say: It creates predictability and reduces disputes between councils and developers.
Concerns might include: Standardisation could ignore local context or specific site needs.
Question 5: Use of Delegated Powers
“Should decisions on minor and medium sites be routinely delegated to planning officers rather than planning committees?”
What it means: Planning officers (rather than elected councillors) would make more routine decisions.
Supporters might say: It’s quicker and less political.
Concerns might include: Less transparency and democratic oversight.
Question 6: Reducing Obligations on Smaller Sites
“Do you support proposals to reduce financial and technical burdens (like developer contributions) for smaller sites?”
What it means: Minor/medium schemes might not have to pay full Section 106 or Infrastructure Levy contributions.
Supporters might say: Reduces costs that often stop SMEs from building.
Concerns might include: Potential underfunding for infrastructure and affordable housing.
Question 7: Impacts on Biodiversity Net Gain
“Do you have views on the proposed approach to applying biodiversity net gain requirements to minor and medium sites?”
What it means: The paper suggests making BNG more flexible or simplified for smaller developments.
Supporters might say: BNG shouldn’t be one-size-fits-all and may deter small developers.
Concerns might include: Could weaken environmental protections if not carefully managed.
Question 8: Equality and Community Impacts
“Do you have any views on the potential equalities impacts or implications for local communities?”
What it means: Are the changes likely to help or hurt groups protected under the Equality Act (e.g. age, disability, race)?
Opportunities might include: Could boost housing delivery in underdeveloped areas and promote local SME-led growth.
Risks might include: If safeguards are weakened, some groups may be disproportionately affected by poor design or reduced consultation.
Why Your Voice Matters
This consultation isn’t just for developers—it’s for planners, councillors, environmental groups, and anyone interested in shaping how housing is delivered. Responses are open until 9 July 2025, and could influence the future legislation or planning guidance.
Final Thoughts
The consultation presents an opportunity to rebalance the planning system—making it fairer, faster, and more responsive to different scales of development. But with opportunity comes responsibility. These questions ask whether we can streamline the system without cutting corners, especially on community voice and environmental care.
Take Action
To read the full paper and respond to the consultation:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-reform-working-paper-reforming-site-thresholds/planning-reform-working-paper-reforming-site-thresholds
Share With Friends
