Reform of planning committees has been on Labour’s agenda for some time
[1].
The
Planning Reform Working Paper on Modernising Planning Committees set out some of the Government’s thinking in December 2024. It sought views on a ‘national scheme of delegation’ (NSoD), creation of smaller targeted planning committees specifically for strategic development and mandatory training. As expected, the scope to regulate for these is within the proposed changes to primary legislation in the
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (“PinBill”) published on 11 March 2025.
The Government is concerned that
[2]:
-
Local planning authority (LPA) schemes of delegation are not clear;
-
Officer advice is rejected by members who lack planning understanding;
-
Planning committees unnecessarily consider policy-compliant schemes on allocated sites; and
-
The public is not aware of the cost decisions being awarded against LPAs who lose planning appeals.
What does the PinBill actually do on decision-making?
With an objective to standardise the operation of planning committees, the PinBill gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State (SoS) to use regulations to undertake the below:
- Make provision for training of members of LPAs and Mayors (or those decision-making on their behalf) in their exercise of specified planning functions (sitting on planning committees) and those who may exercise relevant mayoral planning functions[3].
- The regulations must provide for satisfactory completion of the training by an accredited trainer, to be evidenced by a ‘certificate of completion’. For those sitting on planning committees, this must be published on LPA websites. Without this certificate, members of the LPA are prohibited from exercising planning functions on behalf of the LPA.
- Require an LPA[4] to make arrangements for planning functions to be discharged by a committee and prescribe the terms of the arrangements which may include exemptions, variations and discretion (setting criteria for what types of application go to planning committees, but seemingly with room for LPA discretion in its application).
- Prescribe the size and composition of a committee or sub-committee which serves planning functions.
It will be for the regulations to provide the detail on training criteria, NSoD or committee composition and size.
On timescales,
Angela Rayner wrote to all local authority Leaders and Metro Mayors in England on 12 March 2025 stating that
“we will consult on a final proposed model in parallel with the Bill’s passage so that the scheme can be in place next year”. While the drafting of the regulations can start before Royal Assent and the relevant provisions coming into force, it will be some time before Councillors are being trained and there is full complement at every LPA. The accreditation process for trainers, having sufficient training capacity for all LPAs, ensuring that more members are trained than just those on the planning committee to allow for substitutions and minimise disruption following elections, will all be needed, unless training under a prototype model is considered acceptable. Some form of transitional arrangements seem likely to be needed.
National scheme of delegation
As evident in the example
[5] included by the Government in its
Factsheet: Planning committees which accompanied PinBill, the determination of applications on local plan allocations by planning committees can lead to delays.
The Government’s thinking on these proposed reforms is driven by the primacy of the local plan which it believes should be the forum for local democracy to have its impact on development: deciding what to build, where, and to what design standards. Get this right, and there’s no need for elected members to ‘double handle’ these choices on individual applications.
The
Planning Reform Working Paper on Modernising Planning Committees set out three options for a standardised, consistent approach to delegation, covering the following factors:
- Whether or not, a scheme complies with the development plan[6] - the working paper postulates that where a plan is out of date, and the presumption applies, there will need to be clarity on how an officer assesses compliance with the development plan[7].
- If there are departures from the development plan (including neighbourhood plan) and is recommended by officers for approval;
- The application has been submitted by the LPA, its members or officers.
- Size - if the scheme is for major residential or commercial development not on an allocated site;
- Technical policy tests or factors to be weighed in the planning balance - Green Belt, EIA or it has a significant impact on a habitats site, substantial harm to a designated heritage asset etc.
- Objections - if the scheme is subject to in excess of a specified number of objections.
What combination of the above might make its way into a NSoD? If the primary issue to be overcome is risk of unnecessary delay to granting planning permissions for schemes on allocated sites and thus avoid them being determined at planning committee, then the NSoD has to be focussed around whether a scheme complies with the development plan or not. This would mean something akin to points 1 and 2 being progressed.
But whether a scheme is in accordance with the development plan is a judgement, one on which a case officer and a ward councillor or planning committee member (and particularly the chair of the planning committee) might disagree. It will be important that the NSoD does not create a further layer of confusion over the route to a decision, with extra avenues for judicial review. The wording of PinBill at Part 2 of proposed section 319ZZC of the TCPA 1990 para 2a) says that while prescribing the terms of the arrangements for the NSoD, it may include exceptions, but it is not yet clear how these would apply and if Councillor call-in is possible.
On point 3, it is plausible that an LPA could submit an application on its own land that has a local plan allocation, so oversight by a planning committee as a matter of course might not be unreasonable, or, in due course, it could be determined by the relevant strategic planning authority.
With point 4, allocated sites are usually major in scale and so any criteria for what went to committee based on size would inevitably draw in most allocated sites.
On point 5, whilst we would not expect allocations on adopted local plans to still be Green Belt, they could be EIA development or have any number of technical planning policy tests or a tricky planning balance to undertake to determine them. The Government’s working paper said “It is however vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications which require member input and not revisiting the same decisions” – this is not an exercise in simplifying what goes to planning committees, but rather sending only the most complex proposals on sites and for matters that have not been considered before. Accordingly, committees will continue to consider the more complex planning tests; emphasising the importance of training.
For point 6, under the current system, the number of objections or level of public interest can be the determining factor for whether something is determined by the planning committee. Experience suggests a criterion based on the number of objections would be unlikely on its own to prevent allocated sites going to planning committee. Fundamentally, it is worth remembering that the number of objections is not directly relevant to either a) whether a site is allocated in a local plan; or b) how one applies.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine an application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise
[8].
There is no silver bullet to prevent applications on local plan allocations going to committee, but something aligned to compliance with the development plan would have the most potential for removing a significant quantity of them.
What does this mean on the ground today?
In the short term, diluting the committee role on applications on local plan allocations is not going to leave elected members with nothing to do. This is because the government’s desire for a big upswing in planning applications for housing and economic development coincides with a historically low coverage of up-to date local plans (only 23% of LPAs can be said to have an up to date local plan).
A very significant number of applications are coming down the track
[9] and relatively few of them will be in accordance with the development plan. The entire grey belt agenda is predicated on encouraging applications on land which is not allocated for development in a local plan where there is unmet need
[10]. Even with the late upswing of submitted local plans pursuant to the NPPF transition arrangements, the world of decision taking is one that will be dominated by applications not in accordance with the development plan.
For the next few years at least, elected members should not be concerned that a seat on the planning committee will leave them nothing to do.
Footnotes
[1] The notes accompanying the King’s Speech referred to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill including measures for “improving local planning decision making by modernising planning committees.”[2] MHCLG, Factsheet: Planning committees[3] For local planning authorities, training must have been completed before determining decisions relating to the control of development generally, including planning permissions, listed building consents (and amendments or imposition of conditions relating to them) local development orders, permission in principle, certificates of appropriate alternative development, certain enforcement functions, lawful development certificates, tree preservations orders, advertisements and footpath diversion orders. For mayoral planning functions, training is required for decisions including directing that the Mayor is to be the LPA/directing that planning permission is refused for certain applications of potential strategic importance and making Mayoral development orders. Training is not required for plan-making related decisions.[4] But not development corporations, a National Park Authority, Broads Authority or Homes England[5] An application for approximately 120 residential apartments and a special school for 90 pupils on a site allocated in a local plan for residential and educational use. [6] The question was posed, should there be a different approach depending on whether LPA has an up-to-date local plan or not?[7] Recognising the multiple case law judgments on this topic, for example: City of Edinburgh Council v. Secretary of State for Scotland and Others [1997] UKHL 38; [1998] 1 All ER 174; [1997] 1 WLR 1447 (16th October, 1997); Cummins & Ors, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Camden & Ors [2001] EWHC 1116 (Admin) (21 December 2001); Milne, R (on the application of) v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EWHC 650 (Admin) (31 July 2000); and Dignity Funerals Ltd v Breckland District Council [2017] EWHC 1492 (Admin) (23 June 2017)[8] Whilst the content of objections might be a material planning consideration, the volume of them is not.[9] See this research by LPDF indicating a 160% increase: https://www.lpdf.co.uk/news/data-shows-an-over-160-rise-in-planning-applications[10] And subject to meeting the ‘golden rules’
Image credit: Hansjörg Keller via Unsplash
