Why removing the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee is a step backwards

Increasing the efficiency of the planning system is a goal anyone who engages with it can support. The CBA have been closely engaged, with other heritage sector organisations, in advocating for successful ways to achieve this without compromising the quality of well informed decision making.

As part of the Government’s reforms to speed up the planning system they are scrutinising the role of statutory consultees. Their function is to support good decision-making in the planning system and high-quality development through the swift provision of expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety & heritage issues.

The system falls apart when their engagement is not proactive or proportionate, when advice takes too long, causing delays to decision making, or consultees seek greater revisions than what is in fact necessary to make development align with planning policy requirements.

There are clear opportunities for improving and streamlining the current statutory consultee process. The CBA support proposals to adjust the referral criteria for when planning authorities need to consult, increasing the use of standing advice by consultees for routine scenarios and an increased clarity for developers around what is required of them, to support better applications in the first instance. Added to this, removing the requirement on LPAs to wait for a response before deciding applications will reduce delays caused by consultees.

However, the CBA are deeply concerned about the Government’s proposal to remove the Garden’s Trust’s statutory consultation role. Below we set out why we see removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee role as an unnecessary step that will weaken the conservation of a much-loved part of our historic environment and heritage, without contributing to the review’s objectives.

We ask our supporters and anyone interested to consider responding to the consultation., via this link: Reforms to the Statutory Consultee System. The consultation is open until 13^th January 2026.

• The move is presented as a means to reduce the administrative burden on planning authorities, who collectively issue over 40,000 consultations to statutory consultees each year. In 2024/25 the Gardens Trust received 1,849 consultations. This size reduction will have a negligible impact on the administrative burden to Local Planning Authorities (LPAs).
• The move is also presented as removing a duplication of effort, noting that Historic England are statutory consultees for planning applications that would impact (directly or through impacts to the setting of) Grade I and Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens (RPGs). However, 64.7% of the 1700 RPGs are designated at Grade II, which Historic England are not consulted on. The Gardens Trust alone provide specialist advice around how best to manage change to 64.7% of RPGs. Removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory role would leave Grade II RPGs with scant expert oversight and engagement.
• A fraction of the Gardens Trust’s responses object to proposals (6.6%). Instead they highlight potential issues and identify mitigation strategies to minimise harm from development in and around the nation’s cherished parks and gardens, which would not otherwise be picked up. The Gardens Trust are not a blocker to growth, they are a facilitator of GOOD planning.
• The consultation proposes upskilling planning officers within LPAs to backfill the loss of Gardens Trust expertise in decision making. Well-resourced planning teams (which not every planning authority has) include conservation officers, archaeologists and ecologists. Designed landscape expertise is highly specialist and too discreet to be found in almost any local authority planning teams. The cost of all 337 local planning authorities having to deliver the service currently provided by the Gardens Trust themselves is estimated at £3,692,846 per annum. (In 2024/25, the Gardens Trust received a grant of just £43,963 from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to help deliver its statutory consultee role.) The Gardens Trust represent extremely good value for tax payers money.
• The consultation proposes placing the Gardens Trust on an equivalent footing to the National Amenity Societies (which include the CBA), as a statutory notifyee within the planning system. The Gardens Trust would be notified by LPAs of any planning applications within all grades of RPG. The duty would not include applications within the setting of RPGs. There are issues here which suggest either fundamental oversight or misunderstanding of how change is managed within the planning system to minimise / justify any harm to the special interest of heritage assets.

1. Setting is a deeply embedded concept in relation to heritage generally, and landscape heritage specifically. Planning policy and legislation establishes the ways in which setting contributes visually, physically and experientially to heritage assets, including parks and gardens. The justification for such a relaxation in consideration of potential setting impacts only in relation to Grade II RPGs is unclear and would make them disproportionately vulnerable.

Around 42% of Gardens Trust consultation advice relates to proposals wholly within the setting of an RPG. The proposals to remove the requirement to consult on applications within the setting of an RPG suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of setting to their significance.

2. The consultation flags that Grade II Listed buildings are not subject to a statutory consultee process, suggesting this move to only notify of applications for Grade II RPGs would achieve parity. In fact, there is a huge oversight here as Listed buildings have their own dedicated consent regime. Listed Building Consent (LBC) is required for all works that would alter the character or ‘special interest’ of a listed building. The national amenity societies are statutory notifyees as part of the Listed Building Consent regime. LBC is additional to Planning Permission. Failure to obtain LBC is a criminal offence. There is also a duty in primary legislation requiring LPAs to have “special regard” for ‘the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting’ in consideration of both Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent. The inclusion of ‘setting’ here is also important.

• Three quarters of public parks on the Register are designated at Grade II. They make a crucial contribution to the daily lives of people who live and work in our towns and cities. They provide important health and wellbeing benefits for local communities, providing access to nature and green spaces for communities to come together and safe places for children to play. Urban parks play a central role in place-shaping and are often focal points in regeneration projects. Removing any statutory consultation around managing development in and around Grade II RPGs would greatly increase their vulnerability from unsympathetic development. Removing any notification to specialist expertise regarding developments in their setting undermines the stated objectives of good planning and directly contradicts the government’s agendas around place shaping, pride in place and the duty set out (though not enacted yet) in section 102 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, 2023 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing registered parks or gardens or their setting.

What will the impact of removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee role be?

• The change would remove external scrutiny of development proposals in the setting of 64.7% of RPGs.
• Without an equivalent consent regime to listed buildings in the planning system, proportionate consideration of proposals to manage change in a way that enhances rather than harms the special interest of parks and gardens would be massively compromised. The loss of expert engagement, when needed would make RPGs excessively vulnerable and inconsistently protected as heritage assets.
• The move to a notification (rather than consultation) process will nullify any administration efficiencies at local authorities from removal of the Gardens Trust’s role as a statutory consultee.
• The cost of upskilling planning teams with specialist staff proficient in historic landscapes would be prohibitively expensive. Where this can / can’t be achieved can be anticipated as reinforcing the inequality between authorities in affluent areas and those with the most pressure on front line services.

The CBA’s position

Since March the government’s review of the statutory consultee process has scrutinised their respective roles and track records. The findings largely justify the well-reasoned recommended revisions to the system, as well as the removal of Sports England and the Theatres Trust from the process.

Findings and recommended mitigations for removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory role are not supported and will not bring proposed efficiency savings. They will be costly in achieving alternative provision of specialist expertise and inconsistent in terms of heritage protection (especially regarding ‘setting’ considerations) within the planning system. The outcome would make two thirds of parks and gardens (Grade II designated) vulnerable to ill-advised changes that harms their special interest, compromising their contribution to the quality of life of communities who cherish them.

The CBA believe that retaining the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee, subject to the same revisions proposed for other statutory consultees, including a move away from blanket referrals and not waiting for a response after the deadline for comments, would achieve the desired efficiencies without the negative consequences of losing valuable expert advice at important stages of development management. The CBA therefore advise that government should work with the Gardens Trust to outline appropriate referral criteria.

We also advise the need to implement the provisions set out in section 102 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, 2023. This would introduce a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing registered parks or gardens or their setting. This move would help achieve parity between the protections for listed buildings and parks and gardens in the planning system.

If you would like to show your support for the Gardens Trust and respond to the consultation, you can do so by following this link: Reforms to the Statutory Consultee System.