6 Reasons designing for planning success starts with structure
Planning has never been more complex. Between tightening sustainability requirements, growing scrutiny on design quality and increased regulatory pressure, securing consent has become harder, slower and more expensive. For architects and developers, every application can feel like an exercise in risk management.
And yet, one powerful tool for improving planning outcomes is often the least utilised: early structural engineering input.
Schemes taken all the way to planning without structural input behind them can result in designs that can’t be built without compromise, unexpected engineering issues that trigger objections, and avoidable rounds of redesign, resubmission and delay.
The truth is, planning success starts with a fully rounded and considered scheme, with structure at its core. Below, we explore some of the reasons why.
1. The work will have to be done anyway - doing it earlier pays off
For many project types, early structural information isn’t optional. Heritage buildings have long required structural statements to demonstrate that the proposed works respect the existing fabric. Basements in London must be accompanied by construction method statements, proving the geology, groundwater, neighbouring buildings and the temporary works needed are understood in order to build safely.
All of this work has to happen at some point. The real question is when.
Doing it before planning doesn’t just tick a box - it strengthens the application, reassures case officers that this isn’t a speculative submission, and often pre-empts the concerns of neighbours and statutory consultees, signalling: “This scheme is serious, considered and buildable.”
When it comes to planning, that credibility really matters.
2. De-risking neighbour objections before they happen
Most objections fall into clear themes: structural impact, ground movement, vibration, construction disturbance, flooding, overdevelopment.
When structural engineers are involved early, these concerns can be addressed head-on within the application. For example:
Demonstrating negligible impact on neighbouring buildings
Showing how construction will be safely delivered in a constrained site
Setting out how groundwater and drainage have been fully understood
Proving that any basement work has been assessed for ground risk and settlement
Providing realistic construction sequences that show disruption has been minimised
It’s much more effective (and persuasive) to counter objections before they’re made, rather than in the middle of a committee meeting.
3. Avoiding the planning-approved-but-unbuildable scenario
One of the biggest risks in separating planning from structure is obtaining approval for a design and discovering later on that it can’t actually be built. It’s possible for the most beautifully drawn concept to collapse under the weight of real-world engineering; and when this happens after planning, the remaining options are unappealing:
Compromise the design, often affecting light, massing, floor heights or key architectural intent
Go back to planning, triggering more time, process and risk
Early structural design allows the team to submit a scheme that is not only desirable, but deliverable. It protects the architect’s vision, the client’s budget and the programme.
4. Building Safety Act pressures make early design more valuable
Gateway One (planning) doesn’t mandate structural design, but Gateway Two (before construction) absolutely does. Full design, fully coordinated, fully justified.
That means any scheme that makes it through planning without structural thought is at high risk of running into problems later. Early engagement helps ensure alignment with later-stage compliance, keeping the project moving smoothly through safety gateways rather than triggering expensive redesigns.
5. Demonstrating sustainability, carbon reduction and adaptability
Planners increasingly expect meaningful sustainability arguments. Early structural work supports embodied carbon optimisation - showing material savings or low-carbon alternatives; retention and reuse strategies - a major tick for planning; future adaptability and resilience - especially in high-risk or complex buildings.
Structural engineers are critical to these narratives, and when they’re woven into the planning submission, the scheme becomes much more compelling.
6. Managing communication with utilities, transport and infrastructure
For many projects - especially in London - planning isn’t just about the local authority. It also involves bodies such as Transport for London, Network Rail,and utility companies - all of which can support or stall an application. Early structural coordination shows consideration has been given to tunnels, easements, load restrictions, access constraints and protection strategies.
Planning success starts long before submission
In our experience, projects where structural engineering is involved at the pre-planning stage generally have smoother journeys through the system. While planning is never guaranteed - early structural input consistently improves outcomes, reduces objections, and shortens the post-consent redesign loop.
Good buildings rely on good structure. And good planning applications rely on early structure.
Done at the right time, structural input:
Reduces objections
Strengthens design credibility
Improves buildability
Reduces carbon
Streamlines safety compliance
De-risks construction
Saves time, money and frustration
For a smoother path to consent, better buildings and fewer unwelcome surprises, bringing structural engineers in early is one of the smartest investments architects and developers can make.
To find out more about our approach, get in touch.