Planning group vs independent planner: what’s the cost difference

If you have spent any time working in planning, you have probably been asked this question more than once. Should a client engage a planning group or work with an independent town planner? The short answer is that it depends on the project. The longer answer is where cost, risk and time really start to matter.

This comparison comes up most often on small to medium projects where the planning issues are relatively contained. Think single dwellings, dual occupancies, small commercial fit-outs or straightforward change of use applications. These are generally low-risk proposals, yet they are often treated with the same process and price structure as far more complex developments.

Understanding the real cost difference helps planners, designers and clients choose the right approach from the start.

What you are paying for with a planning group

A planning group usually operates with a full-service model. They employ multiple town planners, urban planners, project managers and administrative staff. This structure works well for large or complex developments that require coordination across multiple disciplines or ongoing strategic input.

The cost reflects that structure. Fees often include internal project management time, senior planner review layers and higher overheads that come with running a large consultancy. For rezonings, major commercial developments or multi-stage approvals, this level of support can be appropriate.

For lower-risk applications, the same structure can become inefficient. A simple planning report may still move through multiple internal processes. Turnaround times can stretch out, not because the planning issues are complex, but because the workflow is.

From a client perspective, they are often paying for scale rather than necessity.

What an independent town planner typically offers

An independent town planner usually operates with fewer layers and a more direct workflow. The person providing advice is often the same person preparing the planning report and responding to council.

For straightforward projects, this can be a major advantage. Decisions are made quickly. Site constraints are assessed early. Communication is clearer because it is coming from one source rather than multiple internal teams.

Costs are generally lower because there is less overhead. The fee more closely reflects the actual planning work required rather than a broader business structure. For many homeowners, small developers and small businesses, this approach is often a better fit.

The trade-off is capacity. An independent planner may not be the right choice for large or highly complex projects where multiple specialists and long-term management are needed.

Where cost differences really show up

The real cost difference is not just the fee on the invoice. It is the time spent getting to an answer and the risk of delays caused by missing or unclear information.

On low-risk projects, delays often happen because basic planning checks were not done early. Zoning permissibility, development standards, overlays and documentation requirements can usually be confirmed quickly. When they are not, projects stall later during assessment.

Planning groups may approach even simple projects with a cautious and conservative process. Independent planners may rely more on experience and judgement. Both approaches have value, but neither is immune to inefficiency.

This is where technology is starting to shift the balance.

How Planna fits between both models

Planna is designed to support exactly these low-risk planning scenarios. It sits between a large planning group and an independent planner by automating the early planning work that slows both down.

For projects like dual occupancies, change of use or small developments, Planna can quickly assess zoning, overlays, development standards and documentation requirements. This happens early, before time is spent drafting reports or coordinating consultants.

Planning reports are delivered faster because the groundwork is already done. Councils receive clearer, more complete submissions. Planners and designers spend less time chasing basic answers and more time focusing on judgment and design quality.

From a cost perspective, this matters. Clients are not paying for unnecessary layers of process. Planners are not absorbing time on repetitive checks. Delays are prevented before they occur.

Why this matters for low-risk projects

Low-risk projects should not feel hard. They become hard when planning uncertainty drags on or when documentation gaps are only identified after lodgement.

Whether a planner works independently or within a planning group, the same fundamentals apply. Early clarity reduces risk. Faster checks prevent delays. Clear alignment with council requirements saves everyone time.

Planna supports this by providing consistent, council-aligned planning intelligence early in the process. It does not replace planners. It supports better decision-making and helps the planning system move more efficiently where it can.

Choosing the right approach

There is no single right answer. Large planning groups are valuable for complex projects. Independent planners bring efficiency and flexibility. For low-risk applications, the best outcomes often come from combining professional judgement with better early planning tools.

That is where Planna adds real value. It helps keep simple projects simple, reduces avoidable delays, and improves affordability without compromising planning quality.

For planners, that means less time spent on manual checks. For clients, it means clearer answers sooner. And for councils, it means better prepared applications from day one.