Questioning the Reliability of Planning Data: Why Accuracy and Granularity Matter More Than Appearances

By Brandon Johnson, CEO of Serac Group and Planda

The latest Planning Application Index published by Planning Portal (TerraQuest) offers a quarterly snapshot of application trends across the UK. At first glance, it presents itself as a definitive source for planning activity; drawing attention to submission volumes, sectoral performance, and geographical patterns. However, beneath the surface, there are significant concerns about the accuracy and completeness of this dataset.

As an industry, we must ensure that insights driving decisions, whether in policy, investment, or innovation are built upon data that is both representative and verifiable. Unfortunately, Planning Portal’s figures fall short of this standard.

Submission vs. Decision: Understanding the Gap

Planning Portal’s data derives from submissions processed through its own platform. While it is true that the Portal currently handles approximately 95–99% of application submissions in England and Wales, it is crucial to distinguish between submission data and decision data. The Portal does not hold a commercially viable dataset for decided applications which is a critical shortfall for anyone seeking to understand the actual performance, outcomes, or efficiency of the planning system.

In contrast, our dataset at Planda, covering all local authorities across the UK, captures the full decision journey. This means our analysis reflects not only submissions, but validations, approvals, refusals, and outcomes across every category of application type.

We have also included Scotland in this report to provide the complete UK-wide picture that Planning Portal's England-and-Wales-only coverage cannot deliver

Validation Activity: The Real Picture

Using our decision-level data, the actual number of planning applications validated in Q3 2025 is significantly higher than the trends suggested by Planning Portal’s submission-only analysis:

(DoC: Discharge of Conditions; NMA: Non-Material Amendments - typically excluded as they do not materially impact development volumes. The All Other Applications figures include all other application types e.g. change of use, HMO, lawful development, )

When the same analysis is extended to approvals:

When the same analysis is extended to refusals:

Interestingly, in England, approvals in terms of project sizes were as follows: 

56% Small Residential (1-3 units)
28% Medium Residential (4-10 units)
16% Large Residential  (11+ units)

Mean number of units being 34 and a mode of 1 - unsurprisingly. 

This shows a far more nuanced and complete picture of planning activity than any submission-only dataset can provide.

Understanding the Data 

Planning Portal’s metrics have not taken into account the nuances of the planning system. Not all applications submitted or decided directly materialise into new homes being built. That may sound odd but here is the explanation; Many applications relate to things like outline applications, the release of conditions and material amendments. We can clearly see in their analysis that these have not been taken into account. Our analysis gives an insight into this and our capabilities are far more elaborative - understanding this vastly complex dataset involves extensive data science work and that can only be completed once the data is understood, categorised and cleaned - something we specialise in to make Planda possible.  

Taking application ref: 25/02190/HYBRID at “Heyford Park Camp Road Upper Heyford” for instance. This proposal involves the demolition of 222 buildings (some of which are residential) and the construction of 8,848 new homes. For the tech enthusiasts reading this - you can see how complex of a task it is to analyse over 500k planning applications annually is in order to derive meaningful insights. Many of them at the large end, being of this type of nature. 

A Diminishing Monopoly

Although Planning Portal still facilitates the majority of application submissions, this dominance is increasingly eroding. We are observing a steady rise in applications being processed directly or indirectly through local authority systems and third-party integrations. As these alternative routes expand, the Portal’s coverage will inevitably decline, rendering its aggregated submission data progressively less reliable as a national indicator.

It is therefore concerning to see such data positioned as an authoritative national index when it omits the most meaningful metrics: validation, decision, and approval outcomes.

Government Direction: Fragmentation for the Public Good

Recent government initiatives such as the MHCLG and DSIT’s “AI-Augmented Planning Decisions” tender (October 2025) signal a clear shift in policy direction. The tender’s Statement of Requirements places emphasis on open competition, data-driven planning, and the breaking apart of legacy market positionings like Planning Portal’s which has until now, constrained innovation and inflated costs within the system

The intention is clear: to foster a more open, transparent, and socially valuable digital planning ecosystem - one in which private suppliers are incentivised not by transactional volume, but by measurable outcomes and public benefit.

Building the Future: Automation with Purpose

At Planda, we are committed to this vision. Our automated validation tool, AVA, is designed specifically to reduce the operational burden on local authorities by accelerating validation processes, improving accuracy, and removing repetitive manual work.

In contrast, Planning Portal’s latest “solution” has been to offer councils access to human validation officers for hire - at premium rates. This is a short-term, commercially motivated patch, not a systemic improvement. The future of the UK planning system requires structural innovation, not additional outsourcing.

Looking Ahead

As we move into 2026, we are preparing to launch new products that will extend the capabilities of AVA and further support digital transformation in local planning authorities. Our focus remains on accuracy, automation, and accountability - the pillars required to ensure planning technology delivers genuine value to both authorities and the communities they serve.

Data should empower, not mislead. As the market evolves, it is imperative that stakeholders, government, developers, and suppliers alike look beyond brand recognition and assess data quality at its source. Only then can we build a planning system fit for the future.

We will be analysing future releases of this kind to ensure transparency is provided into what is actually happening. 

Want to see how your local authority's data compares? Contact us for further information into planning activity analysis for your region

Download our WhitePaper