Planning under pressure: The story behind the 30-month deadline

When the government announced that from early 2026 all new local plans would need to be produced within thirty months, the reaction across the sector was immediate: urgency mixed with uncertainty. For many local planning authorities (LPAs), the 30-month requirement doesn’t just represent a faster timetable; it’s an added complexity for how planning teams work, collaborate, gather evidence, and engage with their communities.

During a recent webinar, I was joined by two experienced planning professionals, Bethany Edwards, Senior Planning Officer at Winchester City Council, and Tom Lewis, Principal Planning Officer at Stoke-on-Trent City Council. As Objective's Planning Lead, I bring several years of experience supporting LPAs to translate digital ambition into workable processes; Bethany has spent nearly a decade overseeing major projects to reshape the community; and Tom has spent nearly 20 years in the planning space in various roles, translating strategic visions into deliverable plans.

Hundreds of participants tuned in with questions, comments, and concerns, revealing something much larger than a reform deadline. A system in flux, from political pressures to digital disruption, and the growing need for tools that reduce friction rather than add to it.

What follows is a narrative grounded in the voices of planners themselves, their challenges, ideas, and hopes for a planning system that is both faster and better.

The deadline no one feels ready for

Nationally, the push for pace is rooted in a widely shared diagnosis: local plans can take years to produce and often become long, hard-to-navigate documents. The Government’s “digital planning” work explicitly aims to make plan-making simpler, faster and more accessible, using user-centred design and better use of digital tools. 

The 30-month timetable dominated the conversation long before the Q&A box filled with variations of the same questions: Is this achievable? What happens if we miss it? What counts as submission? Will the Inspectorate be ready?

Underneath each question was anxiety, not resistance, but realism.

Authorities shared genuine concern about political cycles, boundary changes, committee calendars, and the logistics of transitioning mid-process. Many pointed out that evidence gathering alone routinely exceeds a year. One attendee summed it up powerfully: “We would love for plans to take thirty months. But in reality, I just don’t think… it’s very ambitious.”

Peter Alexander, Senior Planning Technician at The Highland Council, praised the platform’s impact: “We have become much more efficient in gathering consultation data and GIS data in the same place when we want people to evaluate or critique sites. It really is the holy grail of planning to be able to click on a site and comment directly on it.”

Others wondered why thirty months was chosen at all: “I’d like to also know where thirty months has come from… why is that the key deadline?”

Several noted that past attempts had failed even under ideal conditions. One planner explained they attempted a 30-month plan as a test in 2021 - and they were still working on the plan.

The issue isn’t a lack of will. It’s that no single part of the system today from evidence gathering, governance, consultation, to examinations is currently designed to operate at this speed.

A poll revealed the audience’s biggest concerns around creating a plan in 30 months. ‘Evidence Gathering’ topped the list with over a quarter of attendees selecting it, closely followed by ‘Resourcing’ which accounted for another quarter of responses. Other key concerns included ‘Overall timetable risk’ (14%), ‘Consultation’ (12%) and ‘Local Government Reorganisation’ (11%). 

Resources, costs and organisational constraints

Throughout the session, resourcing concerns surfaced again and again. Planners described teams stretched thin, working across multiple plans at once, or managing high volumes of consultation responses with limited specialist support.

Tom from Stoke-on-Trent City Council captured the pressure vividly: “With regards to thirty months timetable, I don't think there is a way we can get a good quality plan through without it.”

The “it” he refers to is technology and specifically, AI.

Bethany from Winchester City Council aired the same concern:
“We’re not getting anymore resources from the Government. So we are very embracing of the digitalisation, and, obviously, one aspect of that is AI.”

Another poll explored whether AI is currently being used in the planning process. Around 37% of attendees said they were using AI in a limited way, while only 2% reported using it extensively. A further 12% planned to adopt AI within the next 12 months, and 9% had no intention of introducing it at all. Meanwhile, the largest group - 41% - were still assessing its potential. 

Budget pressures also extend to ICT capacity, software procurement, training costs, and the hidden labour of data migration and cleaning. Participants agreed: delivering a 30-month plan without substantial investment in people, systems and templates is not just difficult - it may be impossible.

Evidence base, examinations & PINS resourcing – the slowest gears in the system

Even if LPAs accelerate their internal workflows, the evidence base and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) remain rate-limiting steps.

Audience members repeatedly asked whether evidence requirements would be reduced or streamlined, whether PINS would accept more digital formats, and what counts as “good enough” evidence under the new regime. Without answers, LPAs fear that even the most efficient workflow could grind to a halt during examination.

The biggest worry was PINS capacity itself. If the Inspectorate isn’t resourced for faster examinations, the entire 30-month model collapses.

Sector research has also flagged how capacity and engagement across the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees can contribute to plan delays, so accelerated plan timetables will need a matching system capacity to work in practice

Cross-cutting observations

The sentiment from senior planners to engagement officers and digital leads was clear. The common threads emerged:

  • Deliverability anxiety dominates.
  • Digitalisation is necessary, not optional, but outcomes depend on clear standards, not improvisation.
  • AI offers transformational time savings, but requires governance and transparency.
  • Engagement risks being compressed, unless redesigned for inclusivity and speed.
  • Evidence and examination processes remain the biggest structural risks.
  • The new system is expected to be digital-first, so “going faster” depends on tools, templates and standards, not just effort

 

Everyone agreed: LPAs want to make better plans, faster, but they cannot do it blind and without the support structures in place.

A closing message for Planning Teams

The best teams are those where digital and policy expertise are fully integrated. The councils that will thrive are the ones treating digital as part of their planning DNA, not an add-on. And the good news is the building blocks already exist. It’s about connecting the people, processes, and platforms to make them work together.

If you’re feeling the pressure of delivering a Local Plan within 30 months, please come and talk to us. Whether you just need a sounding board or want to explore how we can genuinely support your team, we’re here to help.

We’ll also be continuing our webinar series in the new year with sessions focused on Call for Sites and Site Assessment. Pre-register here if you haven’t already. You’re not alone in this.