The Planning Portal Problem: Convenience, Confusion and the Question of Accountability
For most applicants, the UK Planning Portal appears to be the natural starting point for any development project. It is regularly and prominently linked on local authority websites, described as a trusted national resource, and positioned as the simplest route into the planning system.
But from a professional planning perspective, its role is far more complex and increasingly problematic.
This is not an argument against the Planning Portal’s existence. It is an argument for greater transparency about what it is, what it does, and crucially, what it is not.
A success story on the surface
The Planning Portal was originally established by the UK Government as a digital gateway for submitting planning applications.
In operational terms, it has been highly successful:
Around 90% of planning applications in England and Wales are now submitted via the Portal, which provides a standardised interface between applicants and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs).
It allows councils to streamline validation and administration processes at scale.
For LPAs, operating under severe resource constraints, this centralised model makes sense, offering template wording, logos, and integration into LPA websites (source link)
This has led to a situation where many council websites effectively say:
“Use the Planning Portal for advice and to submit your application.”
But what exactly is the Planning Portal?
This is where the issues begin.
Despite its branding and widespread use, the Planning Portal is not a government body. Instead, it operates through a distinct commercial model:
Private Management: PortalPlanQuest Ltd, a joint venture between the Government and the private company TerraQuest, runs the platform.
Hybrid Structure: This part-privatised model has operated since 2015, creating a platform that functions as part public infrastructure and part private service provider.
Commercial Operations: As a business, the platform generates revenue by charging service fees, offering paid advisory services, and developing products around planning and user data.
The subtle shift from gateway to adviser
Originally, the Portal’s function was clear. It existed to facilitate applications.
Today, it does much more:
- Provides planning guidance and interpretation
- Offers paid “planning advice” consultations
- Promotes access to “experts” via its platform
At face value, this appears helpful. The problem lies in how this advice is positioned and understood.
This advice is not necessarily provided by RTPI-accredited planners and so not governed by the RTPI Code of Professional Conduct.
The accountability gap
In the professional planning world, standards matter.
While chartered planners must follow a Code of Professional Conduct, owe a duty of care to clients and the public, and can be subject to disciplinary action, as far as we can ascertain this is not true of the Planning Portal, which does not operate within this framework.
Its own guidance makes clear that it does not determine applications; it cannot provide definitive, site-specific planning decisions and responsibility ultimately lies with the LPA.
All while users are encouraged to pay for advice. That advice sits somewhere between general guidance and consultancy, so users have little formal protection if it proves inadequate.
This creates a clear imbalance:
| RTPI Planner | Planning Portal |
| Professionally regulated | Not a professional body |
| Code of conduct applies | No equivalent framework |
| Legal accountability | Limited internal recourse |
| Duty of care | Ambiguous |
Yet many users perceive both as part of the same advice ecosystem. If anything, and because of its positioning, the public is more likely to perceive the Portal as a Government or LPA-endorsed ‘go to’ resource for planning advice.
The LPA endorsement problem
This concern is amplified by the role of LPAs.
Local authorities routinely link to the Portal as a primary advice source. They frequently describe it as the preferred or default route and embed it within official planning guidance pages.
This is not accidental. The Portal provides ready-made text and encourages councils to link rather than maintain their own guidance, helping to reduce workload and manage demand.
From a resource perspective, this is logical. From a transparency perspective, it creates risk. It also, perhaps unwittingly, directly promotes planning consultancy services by one commercial provider over all others.
Perception versus reality
For most applicants, the distinction is not obvious.
If a council website directs users to read Planning Portal guidance, pay for Planning Portal advice and submit via the Planning Portal, the natural conclusion is:
“This is official. This is authoritative. This reflects professional advice.”
In reality, as we know from personal experience, that assumption does not always hold true.
The result is a blurring of boundaries between public authority, a commercial platform and professional expertise.
Cost without clarity
Layered costs reinforce this blurred role.
Applicants can face statutory planning fees, Planning Portal service charges and additional costs for advice and guidance.
Users routinely pay a service fee simply to process an application, in addition to the statutory council fee.
If the verbal advice obtained is insufficient (we understand the Portal does not provide their site-specific advice in writing), or even incorrect, applicants may then need to engage a chartered planner anyway, potentially resulting in different advice and a revised strategy.
In effect, applicants can end up paying multiple times for different levels of guidance, without a clear understanding of the differences between them.
A structural issue, not just a platform issue
It would be easy to frame this as a problem with the Portal alone. In reality, it reflects wider pressures in the planning system:
- LPAs have insufficient resources
- The system is complex and technical
- Demand for accessible guidance is high
- Digital standardisation is necessary
The Planning Portal fills that space effectively.
The issue is that it operates as both infrastructure and service provider, without sufficient clarity about where one role ends and the other begins.
What needs to change
The solution is not to remove the Planning Portal. It is to be clearer about what it represents.
Clearer positioning by LPAs
Local authorities should explicitly state:
- The Portal is a third-party platform
- Its guidance is general in nature
- It is not a substitute for professional planning advice
Transparency around paid advice
There should be clear disclosure of:
- Who provides advice
- What qualifications they hold
- Whether they are RTPI-accredited
Reinforcing professional distinction
Where paid advice is offered, there is a strong case for:
- Aligning with professional standards
- Or clearly distinguishing it from regulated consultancy
Final thought
The Planning Portal is now embedded in the planning system. It is (arguably) efficient, widely used, and in many ways essential.
However, its authority is partly derived from how it is presented. It benefits from its origins in government, its integration with LPAs, and its position at the centre of the application process.
With that position comes responsibility.
If applicants are directed towards it as a trusted source, they should be given full clarity about what they are relying on and what protections are in place.
Until then, the Planning Portal remains what it has become, both essential and ambiguous.
Get in Touch
SF Planning provides frank and responsible advice and assistance on a variety of planning matters. Get in touch to see how we can help with your project.
e: info@sfplanning.co.uk
t: Cheltenham: 01242 231575 | Gloucester: 01452 527997 | London: 020 3763 8005
SF Planning – What we do
