On 9th December 2024 the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) published the second in a series of working papers, on the topic of planning committees*.
The paper invites views on how the government could reform planning committees to support a plan-led system and ensure appropriate democratic oversight.
The paper outlines three options for the faster delivery of quality new homes to achieve the government’s target of 1.5 m new homes this Parliament – something that Keir Starmer has already identified as an ‘almighty challenge’.
The purpose of the change is to achieve greater standardisation, and in turn, greater certainty for all involved.
The working paper is not a formal consultation but is intended to inform discussions within the sector, to determine whether and how to take these proposals forward. With the Planning & Infrastructure Bill due to be published next year, it would seem prudent to get those responses in soon rather than later.
Currently a disproportionately large number of planning applications are required to go before planning committee. This introduces considerable additional uncertainly as to whether proposed development schemes will materialise – despite the fact that the principle of development going ahead is technically secured through the Local Plan process. Delays, resubmission of planning application and potentially appeals can introduce significant costs and delays. Greater certainty is required to encourage developers to bring forward proposals (especially when viability might be impact by affordable housing and other requirements) and to speed up the process of development.
Another benefit of planning committee reform may be to bring back some respect and prestige for officers, whose professional option that an application should be granted, are too often rejected at committee. This is particularly important at a time when local planning authority (LPA) resources are stretched and the industry is trying to attract new professionals into the sector.
Three options are discussed in the planning committees working paper:
Option 1: Delegation where an application complies with development plan
Under this proposal, the planning application would be determined by officers, assuming that the planning proposal complies with development plan (conversely, if an application is a departure from the local plan, the LPA would determine it at committee, as is done currently).
The complexity of this option which is common across all alternatives, is that it requires judgement on what complies, or does not comply, with the development plan. Applying this judgement isn’t new for officers but now, more than ever, consensus needs to be reached between LPA and applicant. Careful consideration of whether policy is outdated and whether the local plan is up to date will be critical. Failure to do so correctly could lead to delays and potentially challenges.
Option 2: Delegation as default with exceptions for departures from the development plan
The second option involves a national scheme of delegation requiring all planning decisions to be determined through delegated powers unless specific circumstances apply. This would enable committees to focus only on those applications which depart from the development plan and are recommended for approval by officers. It would also ensure, for propriety reasons, that decisions involving the LPA are made transparently.
This option could mean that high numbers of planning applications are determined by officers, rather than planning committees.
My concern is that this approach would be impacted by the fact that only about 35-40% of LPAs have up to date local plans. For those LPAs without a current local plan (the majority), 100% planning applications would be determined by committee – adding a considerable additional burden to those LPAs which are already considerably stretched.
Additionally, in circumstances where the majority of planning applications are determined by officers, members will not have a role in determining applications for locally sensitive or controversial small-scale development. In these cases, planning merits are finely balanced in terms of the development plan, and historically officers have looked to the committee to make the final decision. An easy win would be to ensure all reserved matters application are delegated following granting of the outline planning consent.
Option 3: Delegation as default with a prescriptive list of exceptions
The third option takes delegation a step further, requiring all applications to be delegated to officers. However, under this model, the national scheme of delegation would set out a prescriptive list of application types to be determined by committee, to provide certainty to applicants from the start. Such examples may include major residential or commercial development not on an allocated site; land on the green belt which triggers the exceptional circumstances test in the national planning policy framework, and development that would cause substantial harm to a designated heritage asset.
Instead of focussing on whether a specific planning application complies or generally departs from the development plan, this option links to key common tests in national policy and development plans, with the intention of providing greater clarity and consistency to applicants. However, these common tests have yet to be agreed – who will set them, will they be consulted upon and can this be achieved without loopholes emerging in the system? Can such a radical departure really introduce clarity, and quickly?
A hybrid approach
A further option is that the three options outlined above are not mutually exclusive, offering the opportunity for a blended approach.
Dedicated committees for strategic development
It has also been proposed that dedicated committees could address strategic development issues – that proposals which will impact on the long-term future of a location will always be considered by elected members and not subject to the national scheme of delegation.
Committees would operate in addition to the main planning committee and would focus only on those developments that are critical to supporting local economic development and local housing need.
These committees could deal directly with, and have detailed knowledge of, specified strategic development opportunities. They could consider complex issues such as Section 106 agreements, and subsequent post-permission matters such as approval of design codes or reserved matters for key later phases.
Such strategic development requires longer term engagement by committee members and can involve consideration of many technical planning matters.
This approach is very complex and requires detailed working knowledge of the issues. Examples of such committees already exist but tend to cover a wide range of planning applications. I would suggest this option requires clear demarcation of roles/powers and an independent expert panel members or better still the committees could be part-staffed by professional commissioners on highly technical matters such as heritage.
Given the potential far reaching implications of such strategic applications, should this rest with councillors only?
Also, how would the selection criteria work? Surely all medium/large scale planning applications impact on the long-term future of a location?
Finally, the working paper proposes mandatory training for planning committees. Something I believe all parties would welcome.
Consultation on these very significant changes should be welcomed. The proposals are far reaching and the industry has a chance to influence real change. However, with so many variations on the theme of additional delegation, we are potentially spoilt for choice and may fail to unite behind the best option.
Whichever route is chosen, it needs to be transparent and ensure that there is no room for ambiguity or local interpretation.
Furthermore, a clear set of definitions will be critical. Careful consideration needs to be given to defining what is an up-to-date development plan, what is compliant with a development plan, what is a departure, what is a strategic development area and when it comes to strategic issues, what is the scope. Unless the emerging legislation is finely drafted by accomplished lawyers, I foresee considerable scope for appeal.
That said, there is a clear need for change and these proposals are a step in the right direction.
Reform would require primary legislation, which would be implemented through the Planning & Infrastructure Bill.
* The Planning Committees document is available at www.gov.uk
About the author: Nick Diment is a director in Boyer Planning’s London office. He has more than 25 years’ experience in the property industry advising investors, occupiers, developers and the public sector across all asset classes including: residential/mixed use redevelopment; town centre regeneration; retail repurposing; and industrial and logistics.
