The Cost and Consequences of Over-Verifying Planning Reports

A concerning trend is emerging in the planning system: local authorities increasingly requesting independent verification of specialist reports submitted by applicants whether they relate to daylight and sunlight, transport, or environmental assessments. While diligence and scrutiny are fundamental to sound planning decisions, the growing expectation for verification could set a dangerous precedent.

The Growing Burden on Applicants

At first glance, a request for independent verification may appear reasonable. But the implications for applicants are far-reaching. Every additional review adds to the cost, complexity, and time required to progress planning applications. This is especially problematic when the original reports have been produced by qualified, experienced professionals using established, recognised methodologies.

These reports are not casual opinions; they are technical assessments based on tested principles, prepared by experts with reputations and professional standards to uphold. To suggest these need further verification introduces an unnecessary duplication of effort and creates the impression that professionally produced documents are not being accepted on their merits.

Undermining Professional Confidence

Requiring additional layers of review for every technical input could imply that the original report lacks objectivity or rigour. While this may not be the intent, the effect is a gradual erosion of the culture of professional trust that underpins the planning process. If professional assessments can no longer stand on their own without a second opinion, we risk creating a climate of continual verification where the process itself becomes adversarial rather than collaborative.

This can have a chilling effect on applicants, particularly smaller developers or community-led schemes, who may not have the resources to commission multiple reviews for a single issue. In the worst cases, it may deter investment in challenging or nuanced sites, simply due to the burden of satisfying an open-ended review process.

The Slippery Slope of Verification Culture

Where does it end? If one report needs independent checking, what prevents a third consultant being asked to review the second? The system risks becoming self-referential and inefficient, where the focus drifts from policy compliance and good design toward procedural defensiveness. Over time, this verification culture could result in prolonged delays, higher costs, and decisions made on the weight of paperwork rather than the quality of evidence.

The Way Forward

Instead of defaulting to independent verification, Councils should trust the professional reports produced by applicant, especially where these are prepared by qualified and recognised practitioners. Planning officers should focus on building internal expertise to assess and interpret technical reports, holding applicants to account using clear, consistent standards.

Where genuine disputes arise, the emphasis should be on targeted clarification, not blanket verification. This approach maintains the balance between scrutiny and efficiency, preserving the professional integrity of the process while ensuring fairness for applicants.

Planning should be a process built on mutual respect and shared expertise. Undermining that principle in pursuit of over-caution risks doing more harm than good.

Writer: David Maddox, Founder