Bypassing committees? Govt proposes planning shake-up

Housing applications that comply with local plans could be decided by council planning officers rather than politicised committees according to proposals unveiled by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner yesterday.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer had promised to “modernise” planning committees as part of his Plan for Change. Now, with the release of the Planning Reform Working Paper, we have a better sense of what he meant.

In addition to increasing the decision-making powers of planning officers, government is seeking to create small strategic development committees and to require councillors to be trained prior to joining a planning committee.

National scheme of delegation

Providing housebuilding applications with the ability to bypass committees is part of a proposed “national scheme of delegation”. This would create a standardised approach across England when it comes to what is decided by planning officers and what is decided by planning committees – rather than the current system, where each local authority has its own rules.

A large part of this would centre on local plans. The government is considering allowing projects that comply with development plans to be decided under delegated powers.

Another option Whitehall is weighing is just making planning officers the default decision maker with the exception of when applications deviate from the local plan and are still recommended for approval or when they are submitted by the local authority itself.

The third option would once again see delegation as the default method for approving or rejecting planning applications, but there would be a centrally set, prescriptive list of exceptions that would mean an application would go to committee.

Strategic development committees

The government is flirting with requiring all local authorities to have smaller strategic development committees, like those at Stockport Council and Cheshire East Council. These committees would have members with greater expertise when it comes to how to handle larger applications. They would only be held when there is a strategic development application to be considered.

The working paper has suggested that these committees could be as small as three to five members.

Mandatory training for planning committee members

Certified training would be a requirement for members of planning committees and other key decision-makers, like mayors, as part of the government’s plan. The working paper outlines a curriculum that would include planning legislation, the role of local plans, national planning policy, enforcement, the planning application process, and a code of conduct.

These courses would ideally be held online.

‘About time’

It is not often you get uniformed consensus from the built environment, but on this case every planning professional we reached out to was in favour of the government’s proposals to move towards an increased use of delegated powers for schemes that were compliant with local plans and national planning policy .

Caroline Payne, director at Cheshire-based Emery Planning, welcomed the news. Her group has had a number of projects that were fully plan-compliant, recommended for approval by planning officers, and yet rejected by planning committee.

The government’s proposals could fix that.

“The implications for development in the North West are that this would provide much greater certainty for housebuilders and developers who are looking to obtain permission on an allocated site,” she said.

“Sites could be purchased and/or taken forward with an application in the knowledge that the proposals would not incur the significant costs associated with contesting an appeal against a member overturn,” she continued.

“In turn this should speed up the determination of applications through avoiding the appeal process, reducing costs for the developer and LPA, thus contributing towards the faster delivery of housing and ultimately economic growth.”

Colin Robinson, planning director at Lichfields, has faced similar planning problems to Payne.

“We often face situations in the North of England whereby our client’s planning application has been refused at committee despite being in general accordance with its local plan, with officers declining to defend it at appeal, which can result in costs against the determining authority,” he said.

“Hopefully, Ms Rayner’s proposals will expedite the process and take much of the emotion out of decision making whilst maintaining appropriate professional scrutiny in the best interests of local communities, saving time and money for all involved,” Robinson continued.

He added: “Any government measures that can reduce the uncertainty and inconsistency that sometimes occurs due to inconsistent decision-making by planning committees would be welcome.”

Jeremy Hinds, head of planning for the North at Savills, concurred.

“Planning decisions should be decided on their merits,” he said. “That mantra is frequently stated, but in some cases is lost under a political cloud.

“There is no way of totally escaping the political aspect of the planning process, but either diluting it or creating a new framework by which to understand the political inputs is a good thing,” Hinds continued.

“Once a council has signed up to a development agenda in its local plan it should be bound by those decisions when applications come forward. Having another layer of politically-led decision-making is a cause for frustration and confusion that does not serve the system well.”

Ellie Philcox, director at Euan Kellie Property Solutions, described the government’s proposals as a positive move forward.

For her, one of the most important aspects would be the fact it could give greater certainty around timescales for the delivery of projects. This would help schemes achieve deadlines for planning permissions and starts on site that are often crucial to securing grant funding.

She felt that giving more power to planning officers made sense.

“It is about time that there was greater recognition of the skills of local planning authority officers,” Philcox said. “They’re highly skilled professionals and there should be greater reliance on them in terms of making those important decisions.”

Undemocratic?

Lichfield’s Robinson argued that just because committees would have less say, it did not mean that the public voice would be less heard.

That is because of the fact that local development plans are subject to democratic procedures.

Robinson explained: “This would not avoid democratic accountability, given that the development plan will already have been subjected to considerable scrutiny and public consultation (although ensuring that local residents feel that they have had the opportunity to properly engage with the plan-led system remains a perennial problem).”

Anna Relph, director at Turley, concurred with Robinson.

“If enacted, the proposals will mean that local authorities only have to make the ‘tough’ decisions as to where housing should go once,” she said.

“The local plan process is the right place to make strategic decisions about the location of new development within an area, and to ensure growth is supported by necessary infrastructure provision,” she continued.

“Local plans are subject to extensive consultation and endorsed by elected members. Once a site has been allocated, the approval of detailed matters should be delegated to officers.”

Euan Kellie Property Solutions’ Philcox also contended that bypassing the committee did not mean that the road to planning permission would necessarily be easy for developers.

“Irrespective of if something goes into committee or not, planning is a rigorous process,” she said. “It’s not individuals making decisions – it’s still a very rigorous process of decision making.”

Elaine Field, legal director in Brabners’ property team, said that the government’s proposed changes would mean public consultation is more important than ever.

“Ensuring local people have a voice remains crucial, particularly in areas like the North, where local input is key to protecting and enhancing communities and their identities,” Field said.

“Balancing faster approvals with robust community consultation will be essential to the long-term success of this approach,” she continued.

“To avoid resistance later in the process, the focus on community engagement will need to be enhanced during the development of local plans or at the earliest stages of a specific project. Clear opportunities for public input at these stages will help foster trust and promote a shared sense of ownership over local development.”

There is one possible fatal flaw in the government’s plans, however. The growing emphasis on local plans puts a spotlight on the sheer fact that many councils do not currently have an up-to-date one.

“Even where they do exist, they do not plan for the increased housing figures recently consulted upon by the government (and expected to be finalised in the updated NPPF) to contribute to delivering the 300,000 homes a year nationally,” Relph said.

It will take time and support, she argued, for Northern authorities to get their local plans in order.

Darren Muir, planning director at Pegasus Group, described Labour’s plans as putting things in the right order – but it is not enough to speed up delivery, necessarily.

“It would be fair to say that planning is too democratic,” he argued.

“Allowing applications to be determined by expert planning officers rather than layperson committees is a welcomed change to the system, but the extra time and uncertainty of committee-level decisions is only a small issue to the current planning process,” Muir continued.

“A scheme on an allocated site that aligns with the local plan will generally be approved, even at committee. The difficulty is the several months (or years) it takes to get an application to the decision-making stage. Generally a welcome development, but we remain cautiously optimistic for some more far-reaching reform.”