How many planners are chartered?

As I wrote a few weeks ago, when two property professionals meet, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, their first talk is of the planning system.

When two planners meet their first talk might not be of the RTPI, but very often, I find, conversations ultimately lead in that direction.

For example, as you might have heard, during podcast episode 159 the point was made that, if the Masters required for chartered status burdens graduates with a year's more debt, and employers, certainly consultancies, do not in a tight labour market require such status, why would they stay at University for that final year or take on two years of part-time study?

As another example, you might have seen recently that planners at Basildon were subjected to some pretty unpleasant behaviour by some councillors on the planning committee. Discussions with people about that led me to wonder how many planners within LPAs are chartered and so might expect to be able to rely on the RTPI for support were they to launch a complaint about this kind of thing.

My strong sense, and I may be wrong (it has been known...) is that when you speak to public sector planners they tend to say that 'the RTPI only speaks for the private sector' and when you speak to private sector planners they tend to say that 'the RTPI only speaks for the public sector'.

Is that right and, if so, how has that happened?

The RTPI's 'State of the Profession' reports include some interesting findings, such as approximately 75% of planners being chartered, but what proportion of planners working in the public and private sectors are actually members of the RTPI and if they aren't why aren't they? If they are, but their employers pay their fees, would they themselves if their employers stopped so doing?

These seemed like interesting questions to be asking and so I did, and I am grateful to the 186 private sector planners and the 141 public sector planners that responded.

This post includes the responses to those surveys, which I am posting without comment. I may in time perhaps include a discussion about them within a future 50 Shades episode, but in the meantime I thought it more useful just to publish the everything for those that might be interested.

I have tidied up some typos, but, by and large, everything has just been copied and pasted.

In anticipation that the responses would allude to the role and value of RTPI membership amongst the consultancy and legal community, at the same time as launching the surveys, I also asked some questions of the top ten largest planning consultancies and the top ten-ranked planning barristers. The responses that I received are also all included in an unedited form.

In the spirit of 'taking the profession's temperature, I hope that this exercise, relatively crude and unsophisticated though it is, serves at least a moderately helpful purpose.

Private Sector RTPI Survey

Are you a member of the RTPI? (186 responses)

• Yes – 170 (91.4%)
• No – 16 (8.6%)

If you are a member, is it an essential requirement of your job description? (174 responses)

• Yes – 107 (61.5%)
• No – 67 (38.5%)

If you are a member does your employer pay for your fees? (175 responses)

• Yes – 154 (88%)
• No – 21 (12%)

If your employer does pay your fees, but stopped, would you pay them yourself? (173 responses)

• Yes – 115 (66.5%)
• No – 58 (33.5%)

If you answered Yes to Question 3, please offer some reasons why. (108 comments)

It is the standard for the industry, and being honest it offers a certain level of pride and gravitas. People can trust you to give sound and balanced advice knowing you have that chartership.

I do a lot of expert witness work and have seen how Barristers seek to explore your capabilities if you are not chartered. It is also beneficial to show clients you have met a certain level of competency.

I would pay but immediately look for an exit from the business as it is standard practice for firms to cover professional staff fees whether surveyor, planner or otherwise. Failure to pay professional subs would be indicative of workforce down-skilling or financial issues at the firm and a genuine cause for concern. I would view a business that mandates RTPI membership (or other relevant membership, e.g. RICS) as positive. The more junior the mandate, the better (i.e. requiring membership below director level).

Private consultancies have always paid my fees but moving to a developer a few years ago didn't. They do now but I did pay them for a few years. I took the view that I received a big pay rise for going to a developer, so was still better off paying the fees. In all honesty I don't see any value from the RTPI, the training courses are ridiculously expensive and they don't give you anything you can't get elsewhere for free / cheaper. I kept it up as private planning consultancies require it for most roles and in case I want to go back to consultancy.

Professional credibility

CPD, chartered status is important, networking.

Because I think it’s worth it to be chartered to show that you have met that standard and to support the RTPI.

For many jobs, being MRTPI is a prerequisite and a demonstration that the RTPI is happy with your competency as a practicing town planner.

Being a member is associated with a level of credibility and professional standard.

Support and comprehensive voice.

I would (reluctantly) as I feel it would be necessary if looking for a new role.

Ability to appear at Inquiry and general status after a lot of hard work to become chartered.

I see chartership as an important part of my role.

I value membership in terms of the professional recognition that it carries, and I wouldn't want to lose that.

Student Member currently whilst progressing through the APC - so free membership but would pay if work didn't as belonging to an institute provides a clear level of professionalism and working standards for future and current clients.

I am an employee of a company where I am a Director. Not sure if this is a 5 or 6 answer.

Chartership is an indicator of a level of professionalism.

Important accreditation.

Expert witness gives additional credibility.

I value my chartered status and the assurance of level of professional competency that come with MRTPI. I have also found the RTPI to be an essential resource for professional development in my career to date.

Essential to have MRTPI to do the work I do.

I see chartership as a qualification and I think it helps demonstrate that you have the skills to work at a high level. I also think it would help me should I look for employment elsewhere as lots of private sector employers require it. I don't really value it otherwise.

Hi Sam, glad to see someone asking the right questions, ones that run through my mind almost every time I look up opportunities to attend RTPI events and make the most of my Licentiate membership. I’ll give you some context to better explain my thoughts on this. I work at a co-op as a team leader, graduated with RTPI accredited masters in 2024 Dec, and over the past year I’ve been gaining work experience by collaborating with a developer, contributing to architectural and planning related matters on high street development projects — where I’m only paid if I’m working on a project for an external client, not if it’s a developer owned property (which is fair because I have been given an opportunity to learn while I look for a job within a planning team). So, my membership is not mandatory for the developer (mainly because I’m not employed by them) — but the membership is important for me, to be able to stay in touch with planners within the industry. It gives me the opportunity to join discussions, learn and build my understanding via planners perspective on different aspects (typically something a graduate would get working within a planning team under the guidance of professional planners on a day to day basis, that I miss out on — so the exposure I get via RTPI events because of the membership I pay for becomes extremely important for me). I must mention, while I pay for my own membership, and for the events I attend for the reason stated, some of which are often quite costly — I have to sometimes choose whether to pass on an event only because the event and travel costs together sum up to amounts that make it impossible to even consider attending them. As much as I’d like to think RTPI is inclusive and fair, there would be instances where I’d wonder if it’s realised that there are people like me on minimum wage, trying to get a foot in the door. However, having a membership without an employer who actually cares about it, there is the question of whether it’s even worth having it — considering that after paying for the membership, events don’t really matter at times when I can’t attend some of the most important ones due to high costs. There are a lot of factors to consider why one would or wouldn’t pay for the membership. I still think I’d pay for it, like I am doing now, only because I at least have the option of finding opportunities to attend CPD webinars and sometimes events, which offer a very important space for my growth as a professional while looking for a job in the industry. Hope this wasn’t too complicated.

I changed employers, and they didn't pay for it. I'm not sure why I then paid for it anyway. I think it was as a planner in the private sector it is seen as important to be chartered. My current employer again pays for it now I've changed roles again.

Whilst I see very little (if any) benefit in being a member, it feels like a pre-requisite of working in the private sector.

Self employed.

Helps win work.

Good for access to events and network.

I can claim them back on my tax return.

Being a member of the RTPI shows a level of professional competence.

Credibility as expert witness.

I value the professional validation of being chartered.

I worked hard to acquire RTPI membership and want to continue as a member.

I would pay for them until I found another job that did! It is an unfortunate reality that, particularly for private clients, the letters at the end of your name make a real difference in convincing them you know what you're talking about. The fees however, are wholly extortionate and I really cannot understand what the cost is going towards.

Because I don’t want to limit my job prospects by losing it.

Worked hard to obtain chartered status and have pride in the profession.

Most companies and LPAs ask for evidence of membership so would be required for employment.

I'm self-employed which you've not really catered foe - lots of sole traders about you know. I also do contract work for LPAs which adds another nuance - it's not all black and white you know! 😉

Professional credibility.

PI insurance requires RTPI for significant discount on cover - or even access to cover. Plus, certain clients require membership in T&C should I go solo.

Benefits including enhanced employability, higher salary potential, and recognition of expertise. Chartered planners are seen as having the necessary skills and ethical standards required in a competitive and evolving industry. To be clear though, if my employer ceased paying for the fees I would most likely look to leave the employer.

I need chartership to gain seniority in private sector consultancies.

I used to have to pay themself when I worked in the public sector so now I just regard it as a benefit.

Professionalism. Also the fact that is Royal Town Planning Institute is important - loose the royal loose me.

Fees are not significant and certain organisations will only instruct planners who are members (largely council contracts). If fees were higher however, I would reconsider this stance as I do not feel the RTPI offers much else nor takes any strong stances as an organisation. The accreditation does not delineate a particular standard of planning expertise.

I’m self-employed and consider professional accreditation important to give assurance to clients and also to attract them to hire my services. I am also a chartered transport planner (MCIHT).

To show professionalism and quality.

The code of conduct is important to me being one of few town planners that advise the charity I work for and having that chartered status supports my credibility inside and outside the organisation when advising my colleagues. I also think that the "free" access to webinars, seminars and The Planner magazine are worth the membership. I don't however feel especially supported by the RTPI and have always seemed to be in the wrong sector as the tide of support has shifted (public sector / private sector / third sector).

Professional standing. Attractive to clients and employers.

I believe it is important to have the professional accreditation.

Erm… so I would probably have ticked another box for all of these (I’m a self-employed consultant, have been since redundancy in 2010, and this is a really interesting question particularly for the self-employed. I’ve actually just been through the process of having my CPD record appraised and it was ‘interesting’ in many ways, especially because I’ve regularly questioned what on Earth I’m playing my hard-earned cash for.

This is my second response to this questionnaire because I have private and public sector planning jobs. There’s a recognition of spatial understanding with the accreditation. This is especially important in my private sector job in digital planning because there’s so much misunderstanding about what digital planning is (especially from private sector planners themselves). Accreditation is essential (and let’s hope the RTPI recognise digital planning as a spatial activity and count it towards the skill base.)

Being chartered makes me more employable and also provides credibility to clients.

I see the value in the research and policy input the RTPI does and contribute to this.

I am now self-employed, so in effect paying my own fees - and needed it/wanted it for the purposes of my PI Insurance. Plus, also in providing professional reassurance to my clients, i.e. being a Chartered Member of our professional body.

I value chartership.

Professional recognition.

I worked hard at university and as part of my APC to become a chartered town planner. I would like to work as an expert witness. I feel it is necessary to pay membership so that the RTPI receives funds to help train others and advocate for the profession.

I spent time getting Chartered and consider it important to belong to a professional body. I also believe it adds credence to the advice being given (at every level) and provides comfort to clients that as a member we are bound by the Professional Code of Conduct.

Chartered status beneficial for future employment etc / professional status.

Because if I wanted to work as a planner elsewhere MRTPI is always a part of the job description. I would not want to lose opportunities because I didn’t have the correct requirements, notwithstanding my experience of some 37 years working as a planner of which the last 33 have been chartered.

It is the only thing that differentiates me from someone calling themselves a planning consultant.

Not sure would be a better answer - but I believe from my work as an Expert Witness it would be difficult to not be Chartered.

I am a planning manager working towards chartered status having undertaken an undergraduate partially accredited degree, then an apprenticeship masters and am still working towards my final submission to achieve chartered status. This process has been completed as quickly as possible but has still taken me circa 6 years and I am still not yet done. I would continue to pay my membership fees as it has taken me too long to achieve chartered status to loose it.

I am conflicted. I actually do not believe the RTPI is necessary and supports the public sector rather than private sector interests. I have been asked once in 2 or 3 years whether I am chartered. Most clients do not. I, also, do not feel being chartered makes you better. However, I do not want to relinquish the status and then find I need it at a later date... If it were taken away from me, I wouldn't have sleepless nights.

Shame to let it lapse although membership is of zero actual benefit to my role. The RTPI rarely seem to act in the interests of private sector planners.

Important for future career options.

Purely as I am required to fulfil my role as a Partner. If it was not for that I do not believe the RTPI provides value for money or represent the profession adequately.

I still value having the RTPI status despite the housebuilding industry not really requiring it!

Professional recognition.

I would pay the fees, but only because it is a necessary requirement of my job. If it wasn't a necessity, I would not pay because I do not feel as though the fees offer good value for money and being chartered does not make me any better or worse at my job.

Personal commitment to the profession.

Ltd Co but in effect it’s just me.

I would worry that my membership would lapse which would mean I would have to reapply if I moved jobs and MRTPI was essential again.

Would limit employment options if I didn't have it.

It appears, for certain private clients the status of a chartered planner holds significant weight similar to that of a director over a principal etc. The status demonstrates professional competency, and I think it is attractive to certain clients.

Being a Chartered member of my profession is badge of competence and authority. Any old architect thinks that they can 'do' planning.

Because it’s the RTPI, it’s the only professional qualification - it’s what separates us from surveyors and anyone else who thinks they can do planning! Personally, I'm gobsmacked about the laissez faire attitude many LPAs/companies have about acquiring chartered planners or pushing their planners to get chartered. About time the RTPI did something about it!

In order to be expert witness at appeals it still feels necessary to have Chartered status. I'm not sure if that is truly the case but I think it gives some added weight to your qualifications. We do not require our more junior staff to be Chartered but it is encouraged as part of their career progression to work towards MRTPI.

I worked very hard to attain my accreditation - and i wouldn’t want to loose it. That said, i’m not sure what the benefit of holding the accreditation any longer…

Not hugely significant membership fee.

To ensure my qualification was recognised and retained. Will still be looked at on a cv as evidence of professional standing.

It would likely be required if i wished to move to another consultancy at my level. I do not believe that the skills i have are any more valuable than colleagues that do not have chartered status but it does provide better career opportunities.

Been chartered since 1996 and proud of the accreditation.

Professional accreditation and status for clients.

So I'm more employable.

Otherwise it would become an ordinary service not a profession that people should aspire to.

Only if it was required for my job. For the cost of the membership, I do not find myself utilising or feeling it is valuable to utilise what is on offer from the RTPI.

A lot of hassle to rejoin if I needed to.

I still see the value in being able to call myself a chartered then planner. Those letter also let others in the industry and wider development industry know what I am and that I (should) know what I'm doing.

No significant benefits to RTPI status/membership.

My employer offers to pay my fees, but I choose to pay them direct myself as I value the value of the profession and RTPI.

Attractiveness to future employers / job prospects. A lot of employers require chartership for senior positions.

I value being part of the organisation.

I haven’t ever been in the position of having to pay for it myself thankfully, so this is very much a first reaction, but I think I would want to maintain my membership to be able to continue to state my chartership on proofs of evidence and for future jobs and to avoid the difficult to reapplying!

Professional credibility. Future employability.

I run my own small consultancy so am unlikely to stop paying these fees through the company. However, the principal reason the fees are paid is to be able to instruct Counsel and to a lesser extend the small amount of additional credibility to those less familiar with my work personally membership of the RTPI provides.

To ensure my future employability at an alternative consultancy. I don't feel there is much value in an RTPI Membership other than when applying for new jobs at a similar or higher level. If my employer stopped paying for RTPI professional fees I would certainly start looking elsewhere as that would be a real-terms pay cut, at the worst possible time of the year after Christmas expenditure (although the RTPI has helpfully offered instalment plans/direct debits to assist now). I really feel for the LPA officers who have to self-fund this increasingly expensive annual fee.

Shame to let it lapse but I can honestly say that RTPI membership has made very little difference to my career trajectory other than to tick boxes when looking for jobs or giving evidence to Inquiries.

I think there is value in the recognition that comes with the RTPI accreditation. I don't believe it is an essential criterion for my job now, given my level of experience, but I believe it remains strongly desirable at the very least, and I also have a bit of personal pride in having achieved the accreditation. That said, it would feel like a reasonable outlay for me to pay personally, but I am fortunate that every employer I've had in my career to date has always covered the cost. Therefore, I would pay it myself, but not without pause for thought.

Chartered Membership demonstrates a recognised level of expertise and professionalism. As a consultant it is an important indicator to both new and existing clients that I will act ethically and with professional integrity while supporting their interests.

I worked hard to gain chartered status and benefit from it professionally.

Keen to keep chartership to add weight to advice given. Important for insurance purposes.

I'm an independent planning consultant and occasionally provide evidence for appeals. I feel the RTPI does not represent the needs of private practice well enough which I resent that when I pay my dues, but chartership confers status which is important to all concerned.

Professional recognition which provides assurances to both colleagues, collaborators and clients that you are competent, accountable and held to ethical standards.

I am a joint partner/owner of a town planning consultancy of some 30 yrs practice, and our Professional Indemnity Insurance would not cover our advice were we and our senior staff not RTPI members, individually. However, I can say that when I have needed the RTPI to 'fight my corner' they were less than keen to do so. Furthermore, when I have previously personally challenged the chief exec of the RTPI to represent private sector consultancies to a greater degree in their work, media and advocacy (for example when private sector membership was in the majority compared to public and third sector) they declined to do so. I have therefore concluded that they are not really interested in representing the private sector contingent of their membership, and as a result I only keep my RTPI subs up to date because I have to for insurance purposes, and for no other reason. Indeed, I have started the process of converting to RICS membership whereupon I will stop my RTPI membership (RICS is equally acceptable for PI insurance purposes).

Financial.

I well understand why many people wouldn’t pay their own fees, but I think if appearing in an official capacity to provide planning advice or advocacy it’s important to demonstrably be a qualified professional. A degree doesn’t confer that of itself. That’s not the same as thinking the RTPI membership is value for money.

Question 4? Because I value my professional membership. I have always been a member whether my fees were paid or not.

6. If you answered No to Question 3, please offer some reasons why. (57 responses)

Doesn't massively benefit the role or myself. RTPI 'benefits' are fairly limited.

Professional institutes are obsessed with brand. They spend too much money of corporate IDs, logos, unnecessary website overhauls -not the recent poor one at the RTPI - then charge members for things like awards programmes to pay for it. Ever been to an RTPI event/seminar/conference? Typically, 90% of seats are empty.

Too expensive and if my employer does not require it then I would not pay. I consider that professional fees should be paid for by the employer who requires them.

If membership is part of employer’s job requirement, it should be covered by them. If they stop paying, I would highlight the potential implications (i.e. counsel instruction).

Former LPA role did not pay fees and couldn’t afford them as they were annual, at Christmas and my pay wasn’t enough to cover the cost. Don’t feel that wha the RTPI offer for the fee paid is sufficient. Apart from giving evidence and instructing counsel, nobody really cares if you are or not.

I don’t really see or feel the benefits of membership. It is a huge amount of money with nothing tangible.

Many jobs require Chartership, if you don't keep renewing it you're at a disadvantage.

I stopped being chartered as a conscious decision around 15 years ago when I missed updating my membership date and they said I had to re do a full submission again, it's probably different now but at the time I thought how ludicrous so turned my back on it, plus I was in the public sector at the time so it wasn't a set requirement. At the time I also didn't feel that it had any advantages, the presence wasn't as it is now. I still find the pros hard to consider, for example I feel there are many CPD sessions offered by others often more informative. Their more recent work at trying to raise awareness of how planners can be treated and highlight it as a great career is noted but again how successful has this been, I personally think more can be done.

I don't feel like I'd get value for my membership fee. It's not a requirement of my job and really offers me no additional benefits. The training is repetitive and too expensive, the regional groups don't interest me. I don't feel like I'd be more protected as a paid member.

Whilst the post-nominals are beneficial to some elements of my job, they are not essential, and given planning is such a varied discipline aren't really a useful marker of competency, and I don't consider the fees represent good value for money.

The RTPI sets the bar for town planners and is a respected organisation. it provides a marker that chartered planners have the relevant expertise and understanding of planning. It also provides a wide range of CPD, networking and other opportunities as well as provide professional support.

Overly expensive and have increased significantly over recent times. Work requires membership from a credibility perspective rather than the benefits of membership justifying the significant cost.

Desirable but increasingly less essential. Too ineffective in highlighting system problems and generating answers.

My employer would ideally like for me to be chartered, but it is not a requirement, they would also pay for it should I pursue it. However, I do not see the value, nor do I believe it is a particularly representative measure of aptitude in the profession.

Don’t feel I know enough about what the RTPI does for its members.

I have limited (if any) engagement with the RTPI on a day-to-day basis. Clients do not ask for confirmation of being RTPI accredited and many public sector tenders no longer specify that as a requisite. It is unclear what added value being a member of the RTPI brings for the cost.

Seems expensive for very little in return.

Can’t see how this would impact my ability to do the job for the outlay.

Not sure what value I get.

Can I add that many planners in LPAs are given no support to gain chartership. Also, the cost of applying for single parents (£300plus with no discount given) is unaffordable for many of them. I’ve got lots more views to share on this as I’m trying to informally mentor my ex-LPA female colleagues to get cracking with theirs.

Cost does not justify the benefits.

Too expensive and not enough benefit.

I run my own consultancy and am shortly retiring and don't intend to remain as a retired member.

It would be easy to no administrate my membership and pay fees if it wasn’t done for me. Aside from being included in comms from the RTPI and working as a planner. I don’t feel particularly connected. It wouldn’t feel different to continue working as a planner without membership. As an aside, as somebody with ‘just’ a part-accredited planning degree, I have a lot of thoughts about the associate route to chartership!

High cost with little genuine impact on what I do day to day.

Employer could not insist essential if not paying.

Poor value for money.

Because anyone can call themselves a planner and the general public do not appreciate the value of being called Chartered.

No real benefit to being a member of RTPI.

See no real benefit of membership.

Expensive annual membership. I don't use any of the benefits. Increasingly there seems little point / merit being chartered - been a planner for 25 years so experience will count for more than the letters RTPI.

Too expensive.

Not good value for money.

I see very little value in membership, beyond the pride of it. The RTPI is timid in its responses to government, offers little visible support to officers in need of championing, and little in the way of attractive CPD opportunities.

RTPI is a waste of time. Despite all the upheaval around planning recently there's almost no coverage of the Institute in the press. Don't see any benefit or feel any real representation of my sector (private housebuilding) increasingly just feels like a white elephant that only really represents the public sector. The fees are astronomical considering what you get out of it. I'm not convinced chartered status is required to be a planner either. Wish I'd done P&D surveying and got MRICS status. But can't be bothered to jump ship now. A number of former colleagues have given up their membership, particularly if they are dual MRTPI and MRICS.

Too expensive. Question whether it represents value for money. Private sector well represented by HBF/LPDF/BPF and others.

Too much for the level of input / support I need from RTPI.

Too expensive.

Not applicable I pay my fees myself, and these days it feels more like habit rather than necessity.

I feel that the RTPI has lost its value to town planners and has done very little to support the industry over the last decade. Working in development (housing/strat land and now infrastructure (renewables and data centre's) I have found that employers place little emphasis on RTPI membership and a more focused on demonstrable result/projects on your CV.

I obtained MRTPI status originally in consultancy because it was a requirement for the firms PI. Day to day I don’t see much value in terms of the work the RTPI do for the private sector.

I do Inquiry work - and always feel like its important to be chartered. I also feel like having a profession which doesn’t require chartership would simply enforce the position that everyone seems to think that they are a planner. However, I do very much question value for money in terms of service from RTPI.

My membership recently lapsed, and the benefits aren't worth the admin of having to claim the expenses!

Costs too much for not much benefit.

Current licentiate member but subject to full member fees due to being licentiate member for over 4 years. Genuinely unsure what value being a member of the RTPI achieves in practice. No clarity on the support that is offered to the private sector at any level.

It has marketing benefits when we meet landowners - sort of a "quality mark" in their eyes. But that's the only reason. I get no other benefits.

Status: - many companies and/or LPAS do not actively require chartered status - clients value experience and competence over chartered status CPD - minimal CPD offer and often more beneficial and detailed CPD for planners more advanced in their career can be obtained elsewhere - LPDF, law firms, consultancies etc.

I may decide to pay them but am unsure what benefits being a member buys me.

The RTPI does nothing to represent the values of its members beyond those that work within the world of Local Planning Authorities. It's ignorance of the system beyond local authorities is stark, it totally fails to value the role in the system that its members play within private practice, housebuilding and land promotion. There is precious little benefit from any of the members of my team being RTPI accredited but they do it as they feel forced to be Chartered in order to progress their careers.

Too expensive and bar the letters, I don't get any value from being a member.

I don't fully believe the actual fee level offers value for money.

Don't feel there is a lot of value.

Not sure what benefit the RTPI really brings.

The fees are quite a lot (and also due at an expensive time of the year!). I don't feel like we get much for the money, especially in the private sector; the RTPI is (correctly) focused on public sector support and resource etc. I did a RTPI supported Masters degree and went into a graduate job that required this, and you could not be promoted until you had MRTPI. If this wasn't the situation, I'm not sure I would have proceeded with a Masters (which was very theoretically focused) and just 'learnt on the job' instead.

Notwithstanding the above, the range of benefits (e.g., discounted CPD) and support offered by the RTPI could be improved.

Public Sector RTPI Survey

Are you a member of the RTPI? (141 responses)

• Yes – 115 (81.6%)
• No – 26 (18.4%)

If you are a member, is it an essential requirement of your job description? (128 responses)

• Yes – 49 (38.3%)
• No – 79 (61.7%)

If you are a member does your authority pay for your fees? (129 responses)

• Yes – 71 (55%)
• No – 58 (45%)

If your authority does pay your fees, but stopped, would you pay them yourself? (98 responses)

• Yes – 63 (64.3%)
• No – 35 (35.7%)

If you answered Yes to Question 3, please offer some reasons why. (64 comments)

Value us having a professional body to represent us. And I like to support my fellow professionals through volunteering when I can.

To keep up my chartership which I worked so hard to get.

Keeping membership active for future job opportunities.

Having done the hard work to get chartered status, the benefits and professional standing of being a member outweigh the costs. Many jobs in the public sector require you to be a member or be eligible for membership, which means you need the masters either way.

It is only my current employer who has ever paid my fees. I joined in 2024. Prior to this and since 2002 I have been paying them. They have always been an essential requirement in previous roles. The cost was just something planners were expected to ‘suck up’.

I have a well-paid senior role and can afford to - it would might be different if I was a more junior officer.

I’m actually not sure anymore but lean to yes because I’ve been a member since 1993. I do think it’s very expensive and am not sure if it’s value for money now.

I have just stopped working for the public sector and may do some minimal consulting but am thinking that I may drop RTPI at year end.

Credibility in profession, status, training availability.

I already pay my fees myself, no of my public sector employers have ever paid my fees.

Chartership is badge of your professional status and likely required if for example i were to change employers.

Previous employers have not paid it but I maintained it as my job description required it and I believe it is the right thing to do however I believe the RTPI could better support planners and have experience where a colleague has raised a complaint to them due to persistent poor behaviour from members but received no reply/support from the RTPI.

In case I needed to look for a new job where it was a requirement.

I personally have a very low opinion of the RTPI but is a badge of professionalism respected by third parties and has an established.

Important to be chartered for long term career opportunities.

For my role.

I would need this to move jobs and would have to consider this in the longer scale for my career.

I've been a member since 2008, with my employer only paying my fees since 2023. I guess I wouldn't like all of those years of membership to 'fall away'. There is no compelling reason apart from that as I don't even use MRTPI on correspondence or my email signature.

There wasn’t any option to add additional detail to the no response at Q1. I’m a licentiate member and have been for 10 years. Employer pays for all fees so that’s not the barrier to becoming chartered. I’m a Team leader but find the application process to become chartered too outdated and not simple enough when I’m already busy in my day-to-day role. I also don’t feel it would add any benefit as it hasn’t prevented my career progression or ever been raised in examinations or appeal hearings to date.

I carried out my role as a strategic spatial planner really efficiently without RTPI accreditation but felt I needed it for future job prospects so applied for Associate and then with LGR looming full Chartered Membership. Surrey County Council don’t pay for what really is a requirement so I’m paying to ensure I have good prospects going forward as local authorities are restructured.

When I started my new job in January at a local authority, I did ask if they would pay my fee of over £300 since my previous employer in the private sector was happy to do so. This was agreed after a discussion but not an option to begin with in the contract. Whilst it is a large amount of money to find in a lump sum - for the amount of years I put in studying whilst working every day and working through my Level 7 Apprenticeship I do not want to lose that hard work if an employer couldn’t cover the costs. I say this too since I am not sure as to how much work would be expected to regain membership (not sure I want to write reflective journals and do my APC assessments again!) I also appreciate that RTPI does help support those with certain circumstances to have reduced fees. This helped me in my previous job when I wasn’t earning as much money and my annual wage fell below the RTPI salary expectation. Every little helps. I must say I probably don’t make the most out of all the resources we get from paying the membership fee and it is a shame Level 7 funding has been stopped. I was one of the first to go through this in 2019 and it helped knowing I didn’t have further debt to add to my student loan!

I’m not English and English is not my first language… the membership assures that I can defend my professional opinions at high level, including at planning inquiries… it also means I would be able to start my own business if I wanted to.

The kudos of membership and being a “professional”.

I worked hard to achieve my APC so I would not want it to lapse. I also feel it is a marker of my experience, my competence and my commitment to continuing professional development. I am also aware that any job I am likely to apply for in the future will require me to be a chartered member of the RTPI, so it is in my interest to keep it up.

I spent many years through university to get my masters and become chartered. I wouldn’t lose my chartered status for a few hundred pounds. I also recognise the support that the RTPI offers me as a member.

Because I believe in the importance of being chartered.

To allow for potential career growth, as consultancies often demand it to show credibility.

To maintain my professional status.

I have paid mine myself at my previous authority, I believe membership is essential for professional credibility and as a good example to my team.

Own professional development and to keep the credentials.

I worked hard to get it but might become put off if my wages are frozen again against inflation!

I feel having the opportunity to retain chartered status is important to show my experience, hopefully more attractive to employers.

I do anyway. I feel it gives gravitas to the profession being part of a formal body but do think the RTPI need to be doing more to reflect the needs of the modern planning system. Does not represent value for money in current form.

I would pay myself (as I have done in the past) reluctantly and through gritted teeth for two reasons. First, I believe the RTPI letters are helpful if I want / need to find another job or secure a promotion. Second, because my job is about delivering economic and housing growth and because planning is - at it’s best - an enabler of this, or (as is often the case) a barrier, having the RTPI letters gives me some additional credibility when dealing with Local Planning Authorities. That said I think the RTPI is a dreadful, hubristic and bloated institution, that is overly London-centric, and the membership subs are poor value for money.

If I ever wanted to return to the private sector, it would be required for any senior role. As such, not having RTPI accreditation would be an impediment. It is not such a problem for senior public sector roles. For the record, my experience is the public sector cannot be choosy about whether staff have RTPI accreditation, particularly as a lot don’t pay fees and wages are significantly lower meaning fees are comparatively expensive and a luxury that isn’t important compared to paying your rent / mortgage etc. It’s a very different dynamic in the private sector where it’s almost a requirement.

The fees are not massive, relatively speaking - although I would have to seriously consider what RTPI membership would offer in terms of its benefits, added value etc. At the moment, I'd consider the value of belonging to a professional body and having some kind of added professional association, or trusted grouping, particularly as planners are essentially 'knowledge workers', is just about worth it. Also, I invested some time in getting my RTPI chartered membership status, which is often a very intensive process (some might say too intensive?) I'd be hesitant to let that lapse...

I want continuity of being a member and I think it will help looking for another job in the future.

Required by my job description so need to be chartered, otherwise I would not pay it myself.

In case I wanted to take a job that required me to be chartered, I would want to keep up the membership.

Credibility and recognition and I want to become chartered. I’m FCIOB and CIOB membership has been excellent for my career.

The RTPI do good work. However, it's far too introspective and inward facing in the way that academia is. It is essentially useless and selling itself and it's marketing is that done within the constraints of a council - safe, bland and risk averse. It really needs to provide a clear resource for all planners across scales, styles and sectors. It also heavily relies on its charitable status but seems to begrudge their existence. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours of voluntary service goes in to making it work which largely goes unseen. The new chief executive seems to be largely absent from communicating with the membership and is certainly not engaged in the work of volunteers. That said, if you list out the RTPIs activities it upholds the standards in the profession quite well. So, I would pay and then campaign for much much more.

I think that as scrutiny of planners has increased, being a member of a professional body such as the Royal Town Planning Institute helps provide a level of trust to the general public. As a Chartered Planner, I am held to a recognised professional standard and can, in that sense, be held to account by the Institute. I also think it is important that there is a strong ‘official’ body to represent a unified planning profession at both the national and international level, helping to promote the value of planning and provide a clear, collective voice for the profession. Of course, I do have some criticisms of the RTPI. There is scope for it to be more present within the profession on a day-to-day basis, and at times it can feel London-centric. That said, this is a challenge that applies to many planning-related organisations, rather than being unique to the Institute. However, I also recognise that there is a fine line to strike, as the RTPI must balance being a strong voice for the profession without being perceived as overly political or taking on a role more akin to a union.

Primary reason is that being a member is on many job requirements. I wouldn't want to miss out on a great job because I was not a member.

Useful at planning inquiries when standing as a witness.

I think it's important to be Chartered as a demonstration of professional development and conduct, including ethics/impartiality.

My employer stopped but I continued to pay the fees as I was considering a move to the private sector.

I worked hard to become a chartered town planner and value what it means to be one plus appreciate the benefits it brings.

Access to RTPI resources and support, and credibility of professional status.

Being MRTPI is important to me as a mark of professional accreditation. It might also help should I wish to move employment - some roles (in both the public and private sector) require it.

Cost cutting - I’m in higher education.

Yes, I think I would as a lot of jobs either require it or list it as desirable. It took some serious effort to ascertain my chartered status (and I've been CPD checked which was a lot of work even though I kept a record and up-to-date PDP.)

I think it is important to have professional standards set out and some of the professional protection that gives. In Connor role in LPA it is sometimes important to remind councillors that it is your professional duty to give your professional opinion. However, it was commonplace and sought after to get professional status when I started 40 years ago but does not appear important to many LPA planners starting out today. I suspect this is because not all jobs require it- I think they should.

Because it feels like a good thing to be chartered and remain chartered. It was hard enough to achieve it, around 10 years ago.

This has essentially happened to me through changing job. My fees were paid in my most recent public sector jobs but are not in my current role. I think chartership is important and it would be difficult to rejoin if I ceased being a member. Some of my team are not willing to become chartered as they have to pay, and it does feel like a hard sell to encourage them to consider chartership, especially when it's not really supported in the organisation and our head of planning isn't chartered.

I am a member but my employer does not pay my fees. However, I wanted to keep my chartered status for any future jobs. Also, I am quite heavily involved in RTPI volunteering as I feel things helps me both professionally and socially. That being said, it is a frustration in my team that we do not get our RTPI fees paid. I know that it has put off some more junior planners from accepting roles at the council.

Being a RTPI member is about more than personal benefits. It's about profession and wider society and championing planning.

I historically invested time and money in undertaking a Spatial Planning RTPI accredited masters and then completing the licentiate requirements. I think RTPI membership demonstrates my professional calibre and integrity under scrutiny such as appeals. However, the annual fee is high for an individual to pay for a continuous period based on cost/benefits. The RTPI could do more to meet members' professional needs versus unchartered planners. For example, more significant training discounts. The planning industry overall gives insufficient weight to the robustness of being MRTPI, which is regrettable. Membership should have greater remuneration benefits over a career lifetime rather than just when membership is gained.

It would still be a contractual requirement for the role I will take up in a month or so, and is, in any case, likely to be essential or desirable for any position for which I would want to apply between now and my retirement.

It is an expectation for someone at my level. Furthermore, re-joining at a later date would be a painful process.

Because my degree is not planning-related and I feel Chartered membership gives me credibility. I worked as a planner for 16 years though without it!

I feel I should clarify that I'm a Licentiate Member and have been for a number of years! Whilst I'm lucky that my fees are paid, there isn't scope to change my workload to work on my submission, which leaves it to evenings and weekends. It took an awful lot of work for me to get close to submit but then I got a new job, different role and re-located. As a result the submission I prepared need re-working, I had other pressures on my free time and it's just got more and more out of date. In DM it's also really hard to piece together a solid future job progression when we're dependent on what gets submitted. I know it's down to me and at least there's no exams but both routes are very time consuming. I do value the RTPI though and so would keep paying.

Chartered Membership of the RTPI validates my professional expertise and puts me in a much stronger position to rebut criticisms of my professional judgement. It also provides the security of some support and backup if things go wrong, such as bullying and antagonism from members of the public.

Some authorities pay the fees and some don't. At previous authorities I have been required to be an RTPI and pay my own fees - which didn't feel fair but was an unavoidable cost that I made begrudgingly. The only real benefit of having RTPI after my name is that I can state so at Appeal Hearings/Inquiries and at Local Plan Inquiries. I have attended training and events run by the RTPI and feel that they are quite insular and speak within an echo chamber. I think that they also try and academicise what is really a practical profession and too often they focus on general matters rather than specific things which the profession deals with.

It's valuable to my career prospects and I value being chartered.

Its a bit like being in a union.

6. If you answered No to Question 3, please offer some reasons why. (40 comments)

It is so expensive! Maybe if my salary increased in line with inflation. I know I ought to be more involved in the RTPI but nationally I don’t think the organisation pushes planning as much as it should. And certainly not the work that planners in Councils do.

I am simply wanting to get a Masters to be able to complete a PhD. The chartership is irrelevant to me particularly as my role is limited to development management so I would not have enough evidence to be able to achieve chartership even if I had the funds to. Chartership is not promoted as necessary in my department and I don’t think anyone in development management or policy has their chartership. I am an associate member but not chartered.

It is quite expensive and the benefit is limited beyond the slightly increased credibility.

I am disappointed that there is no opportunity to comment on the reasons why I am not a member of the RTPI. I was not supported at work to become chartered. My employer doesn't pay those fees, many chartered planners I have known are not knowledgeable or skilled and I don't consider being a member of the RTPI is particularly helpful. I can get a job as a planner anywhere and not being chartered is not a problem for most employers.

Limited incentive.

I would have difficulty justifying the fee given that my LPA does not refer to chartered membership much. When you're young it's helpful to prove that you have hit key competencies but the further you go on in your career in local gov the more important element is your experience.

I work in Northern Ireland where planning was previously a function of the central government through the Dept. for the Environment. They paid RTPI fees but my Council does not so many of my team have given up membership since moving to Council.

Very expensive with little return. Employer has downgraded the membership by only ever being desirable not essential.

I graduated as a spatial planner back in 2017 and have worked as a planner for 5 years in various planning roles. It was always a requirement to be chartered or have the possibility to become chartered. My first two employers paid for my membership but there was never dedicated time to help with the process of becoming chartered. My other employer didn’t pay, I was already paying for other memberships so I stopped being a member. It was never signalled from employers that they valued the RTPI in a way that they were willing to contribute to engaging with it and giving time to advance me as a planner. I’m still a great planner and have worked at senior levels.

Personally, I do not feel we get value for money or public representation from the RTPI, conversations are very inward looking and unafraid to be seen to challenge in comparison to other professional bodies.

I was a licentiate member in the early part of my career. I applied for full membership about 4 years into my career which had been focused on strategic planning, master planning and place focused research. I was a graduate planner in a consultancy when I applied. My application was not supported by the RTPI I was informed that some of research and strategic experience was not eligible. I did not reapply as my career path did not seem to support the need for membership. I have worked in planning roles for 20 years.

Nowhere to add this info but offering food for thought; I am not yet a member and it has been an essential requirement of my last two job descriptions to be a member.

I don't consider it value for money. The RTPI are not visible enough and not championing planning to the degree of other organisations.

The RTPI offers little value. Indeed, it is archaic. It holds back innovation. It is self-serving. It holds planning professionals in a technical, regulatory framing and mindset. It fails to stand up for public planners. It should be promoting the profession as strategic, place shaping and system shaping. It should champion planners as leaders. It should champion a bold outcome-based agenda. It should drive innovation. It should champion better benefits and reward for public sector planners. If it shifted, I would renew my membership. It for now I cannot fund failure.

I have been a RTPI member when my LPA paid for membership. I moved Councils last year and my new LPA do not pay for membership, unless you are a team leader or above. So unfortunately, I cancelled my membership.

I gain nothing from RTPI membership, other than a magazine, which I rarely read, and could easily do my job without it.

What I would add is that usually they request RTPI eligible and at least happy to work towards it. I have absolutely no intention in joining the RTPI. They stand for pretty much nothing. A senior employee once said to me 'we are a broad church' in relation to them having essentially nothing to say one way or another beyond we need more planning and we need more planners. Being a member of the RTPI is no sign of quality at all however the hoops that new entrants need to go through are inequitable compared to those perhaps 15 years ago.

Actually, my employer would pay my RTPI subs (albeit I'd have to claim as an expense). I'm having to do tax returns at the moment and because I find HMRC forms a nightmare I'm not claiming tax relief for paying the subs myself (when I mentioned on HMRC self-assessment form my employer had paid my RTPI sub this increased the amount of tax due) RTPI membership isn't a requirement of my job but has two benefits helpful to have for when 1) representing your employer, e.g. at an examination in public and 2) applying for jobs.

The cost of the fee doesn’t seem good value when my workplace doesn’t require membership.

It would depend on finances- so it’s not a clear no. I would try to continue to pay as I do believe membership to be useful.

I am of an age where I don’t regard it as essential to do my job. I think the institute has probably become less relevant in recent decades.

I am not RTPI but there is no 'not applicable' option.

I do not feel the RTPI offer anything substantive that is worth paying out of my own pocket.

I don’t get paid enough to justify paying out for membership myself when it could lapse. The requirement in my role is being eligible for chartership - not necessarily MRTPI.

Honestly, I don’t think the chartership offers value for money; and fundamentally I’m not sure it’s fit for purpose in the modern world. It doesn’t make me any better or worse as a planner. I’ve known terrible planners who were chartered; and brilliant planners who aren’t. I only really need it because it’s essential for my role (albeit that could be argued out); and I only use the credentials when I’m in Appeals or dealing with complex cases. I don’t feel I need to wave it in people’s faces. My experience with the RTPI in joining wasn’t the best, I had 10 years experience and that still wasn’t enough. 10 years on the front line in an LPA. Learning the ropes and dealing with complex issues. The RTPI doesn’t defend the industry well (see Basildon); nor does it wade in on Cases in Court; so at times you really do have to question the value.

I didn’t answer no, but up until the new Chief Executive took over, it did feel pointless and out of touch. Seems to be heading in a much more serious direction under the new leadership.

I find that the cost of membership is extortionate for what it actually gives you. Rarely, for instance, are events free - which for something that costs £400+ a year I think is a prerequisite. I get more value from paying £50 a year to the Urban Design Group with all the webinars and yearly conference than I’ve ever seen from the RTPI. I don’t see what value it brings either - it doesn’t make you better planner, you’ve simply been able to jump through some hoops to get MRTPI after your name. I think my qualifications do that just fine. Never mind the fact that as an experienced planner/urban designer working in a LPA, the route to gain charted membership is tortuous, requiring a humongous essay and getting previous employers to sign it off is extreme (or at least it was the last time I looked into it in 2017).

Firstly, this survey should be more nuanced as it does not allow for respondents to describe whether they are some other form of RTPI member, e.g. student or licentiate. I am a licentiate and there is little incentive to pursue the APC - it is something of an onerous process. I work at an LPA and whilst our job descriptions ideally require RTPI membership (or ability to work towards), in reality the shortage of skilled applicants and difficulty in attracting talent means that it is definitely not a requirement. Fortunately, the employer does pay the membership fees, but if they did not I would probably only pay them so long as to secure MRTPI status and would probably then allow it to lapse unless I was actively pursuing a role elsewhere where it was looked upon favourably. Planners - especially at local authorities - are not paid especially well relative to rates of inflation over the years and the idea of spending well over £300 per annum when there are so many other priorities is not appealing - there would need to be far more in the way of tangible benefits.

If my employer doesn't require the status then I don't feel able to pay for the cost myself. Largely because there would be fundamental questions as to the value offered to me.

I struggle to understand what I get for my membership fee. I am hopeful, however, that the new CEO will be looking at this.

I was formerly a member but resigned the membership when my local authority employer confirmed that it would not meet the cost of membership or require membership for senior roles or to serve as an inquiry witness. I find that the cost of RTPI membership is simply too high for the relatively limited benefits that it brings in this context and feel that the RTPI isn’t an effective voice for the profession more widely.

If you want to be paid more it’s is an easier route to getting better pay as a member of a professional institution compared with relying on years of experience. RTPI are becoming very expensive so other bodies are much more appealing though.

If my employer does not consider RTPI membership of sufficient importance to pay for it then it doesn't value membership essential for the job, in which case it's not worth the expense.

I don’t feel the RTPI offers value for money. I use a plethora of other resources. I see others advocating more for planners than the RTPI. I consider the leadership culture as self-serving. Sorry to say this as I truly believe planners are a vital part of local and national success yet the RTPI has overseen our professional decline. This has had a profoundly negative impact on the country and life in our villages, towns and cities.

Too expensive and you get nothing from it.

Technically my employer offers to pay half the fees, but out of the around 10 or so planners (policy & DM) less than half are chartered. The general view around the office is that the RTPI seems private-sector centric and offers little practical value for officers working in LPA roles (other than as 'bragging rights').

I think around 50% of working planners are not RTPI members, and this includes those at the top of the profession. Reasons I have heard for not getting chartered include the expense / debt and non-earning time needed to qualify to Masters level and the difficulty of getting through the APC process whilst working full-time.

I’ve been a licentiate member for about 9 years now. I have very little intention of getting chartered. I’ve had very little support from either my employer or the RTPI to really get me there. It just feels like a lot of work for not a lot. I’m professional, I’m knowledgeable, I’m really busy. If they stopped paying I wouldn’t bother carrying on for what little I get out of it.

It is a big financial commitment when the cost of living is already high. £300ish membership to be paid directly after Christmas or £30-£40 a month is a big ask when many LPA planners live month to month due to stagnating wages. I also don't think the RTPI does enough for LPA planners and is very focused on consultancy.

Not paid by public sector employer (Council), has always been the case as far as I know.

Planning Consultants Survey (5 responses)

Is chartered status is required of all planners joining your business as a matter of course, or, for example, whether it is desirable rather than essential and discretion afforded to the heads of local business units or service lines to take a view?

If chartered status is not required of all planners joining your business, is it required to progress from, for example planner to senior planner, or senior planner to associate?

On the accreditation issue, we don’t make it mandatory for joining, but certainly support individuals applying for it. We are fully invested in apprenticeships and the RTPI have been a positive advocate to Government in changing the decision to downgrade the Level 7 apprenticeship funding, which is important, as we want to attract school leavers through to returning to work/change of career adults. Most private sector planners will have their fees paid for by their employer, so they don’t bear the cost for it. Our planners gain a modest pay rise for becoming accredited, regardless of their level of seniority. We apply the same weighting to other institutes (RICS etc). I actually think we need to stand up for the accreditation more with local authority planners than those in the private sector. They probably are paying their own fees, and it is not an insignificant amount. Bearing in mind how many councils now employ contract planners (often as part of a PPA arrangement paid for by developers) we see varying standard of quality. The RTPI accreditation does serve as a form of ‘kite mark’. The risk is that by downgrading this/the RTPI we end up with an even greater variation of quality, and ironically get closer to the position of some elected members, who do not have professional experience in planning, but have huge power to dictate the outcome of projects - and think they have the skills to do so. What I think Basildon shows is that planning officers are being criticised for applying national planning policy to local planning applications, and some elected members either do not like this, do not understand national planning policy - or both. We need local authority planners now - more than ever - to have the competence and resilience to do their job. The RTPI (and accreditation) may not be perfect, but I think they are a much more commercially minded institute now than they have ever been. As a final point, we are politely reminded by the planning chambers we work with that when making a direct instruction, the planner does require RTPI (or equivalent) accreditation.

Chartered status is not required of all planners joining our business. Our approach reflects the range of disciplines within our planning offer and the relevance of different professional routes. For example, colleagues in our HEaT (Historic Environment and Townscape) teams are not expected to be RTPI chartered and often hold alternative, highly appropriate accreditations such as IHBC. Outside of HEaT, chartered status is generally desirable but not essential on entry, with discretion applied by service line and business unit leads based on role, experience and professional background. Where professional accreditation is relevant to an individual’s role and progression, we support colleagues in working towards appropriate chartered status through structured development, experience and professional guidance. Expectations around professional accreditation increase as individuals progress, but there is no single mandated route. For non‑HEaT planners joining at graduate or early career level, progression is typically linked to working towards RTPI chartership. We also recruit through RICS Planning & Development pathways and expect those individuals to qualify via RICS rather than RTPI, without requiring dual accreditation. This reflects our recognition of different professional routes into planning and development, and the value of diverse but equally rigorous professional standards. At senior levels, progression is assessed holistically and we have senior colleagues outside HEaT who are not RTPI chartered, reflecting their experience, role remit and contribution to the business. Advising clients across the planning environment as a whole in this day and age is multi-facetted-ranging from pure development control, through strategic advice, to socio-economic research and specialist retail assessments. As a business, we are always looking for best in class across these areas of expertise to maintain the highest standard of advice to our clients and will look beyond RTPI or other direct property-based accreditations to do this. Expertise sits at the heart of our DNA. While no single professional accreditation perfectly reflects the breadth and complexity of modern planning advice, chartered status remains an important objective benchmark of professional standards, competence and ethical practice. Our approach balances this need for rigour with the reality of a multi-disciplinary planning environment, ensuring we continue to attract and retain best-in-class expertise across all areas of our offer.

Chartered status is definitely not a requirement for all planners joining our business, although it might be desirable. Regarding promotions, we do have a very good career framework that allows staff to see what they need to do to progress. When you get to certain levels, “achieved chartered status or similar professional status” appears but it’s not going to hold anyone back in my part of the team if they don’t have it. I should say that we do a broad range of work and some Directors may be stricter than me on this.

We require Chartership (or as a minimum Associate Charter) prior to moving on to Planner level. We would not insist on someone having Chartership if they were coming to us at a higher status level if they had the obvious level of experience. We recognise that not all employers pay RTPI membership fees and so people may let their chartership lapse due to rising cost of living. We would though expect them to seek Chartership ASAP and we would then pay that expense. We regard membership of the RTPI to be an important recognition of the professional status of our staff. We take a similar view with regard to other professionals within the Planning division obtaining chartership from their relevant body, for example IEMA with regard EIA advisors.

We generally encourage our planners to get their MRTPI (they get a small bonus when they make it) and we have a structured approach to helping our grads through their APC. It is something that is looked at, alongside other things, when considering promotion, but it is not an absolute requirement if, for example, someone has taken the longer route for their APC (i.e. didn’t do accredited Masters course) but is ready to be promoted anyway against our competency criteria. If someone was approaching AD level without MRTPI, we might wonder why they hadn’t organised themselves to do their APC. I wouldn’t say being ‘chartered’ (or whether they did an accredited course) makes much difference in terms of the quality of work that is delivered, but we take the view that, in terms of progressing to giving evidence at inquiry (the ultimate test of professionalism) one would be in a stronger position if one is Chartered.

Planning Barristers Survey (8 responses)

Do you insist as a matter of the course that the author of a proof confirm their chartered status?

As a matter of course do you enquire from witnesses prior to evidence of their chartered status?

If you do not now but did once, when and why might that change have occurred?

I almost always take witnesses qualifications on trust. The only exceptions have been where they don’t work for one of the larger consultancies or where there is a ‘reason to ask’. If a witness declares odd qualifications I will always ask - but where someone works for a LPA or a major consultancy I never do.

I have made a point of asking my clerks to check RTPI status is genuine before accepting direct professional access instructions from a consultant I’ve not worked with before.

I would take a witnesses qualifications on trust if they were from any of the well-established consultancies or unless something looked amiss. On experts at inquiries, I think a reminder by the Inspector of the expert’s duties at the start of the inquiry would be useful.

The testing of qualifications was important when I started. Now in the new world of “gentle testing” it is thought to be slightly harsh or too bullish to emphasise the qualifications or absence of them in a witness. It is much rarer than it used to be. Therefore I do not require such confirmation from a witness. I do not enquire of their chartered status beforehand. I would have strongly wished not to call a non-chartered witness in the old days but would be much more relaxed now.

I don’t recall calling anyone as a planning witness who isn’t chartered, save for some surveyors giving planning evidence. I always find the answer out beforehand and then raise it in XX if the witness is not chartered - an example two years ago was a senior officer who wasn’t. I would always want to know if someone is chartered.

Chartered or not? Depends on the circumstances but hardly ever ask unless directly relevant to an issue.

I don’t require it, but I ask/check if not stated. I don’t check if it is stated.

I think I have virtually always called chartered witnesses unless there is a good reason for not being which I would typically discuss. I would normally take it on trust if the witness said they were chartered.