Planning Reform Working Paper: Planning Committees

Planning Reform Working Paper – Local Planning Committee Reform Takes Shape

On the 9^th December, the Secretary of State for MHCLG, The Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, published a Planning Reform Working Paper on Planning Committees , part of the UK Government’s pre-election promise in their Plan for Change to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the lifetime of the current 5-year Parliament. Under these plans, councils will be told they must ‘play their part to meet housing need’ by reaching ‘a new ambitious combined target of 370,000 homes a year’. New mandatory housing targets have also been introduced for councils in order to ramp up housebuilding across the country, with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also being reformed to include a new approach to the greenbelt. The Working Paper proposals can be seen as part of this overall reform agenda.

Firstly, as outlined earlier in the ‘Key Issues’ section, the UK Government wants to introduce a model for a national scheme of delegation for planning applications. In the Working Paper, the MHCLG outlines how ‘The government…wants to make sure that skilled planning officers in local authorities are given the appropriate amount of trust and empowerment’, referencing the trend over the last 25 years of ‘an increased focus on delegating decisions to officers, with committees now usually focusing on the largest or most controversial applications’. Indeed, 96% of decisions were made by planning officers in Q2 2024 compared with 75% in 2000. With housebuilders in mind, the MHCLG also wants to ‘fast track’ planning applications that comply with the local plan and which have outstanding issues that can be satisfactorily resolved by officers, ‘allowing them to resolve more applications more quickly, in service of residents and businesses’, by-passing scrutiny by planning committees. It is hoped that by introducing a national scheme of delegation, instances where planning committee decisions are made not in accordance with material planning considerations will be reduced, with applications rejected against officer advice and then overturned on appeal also minimised. These remain major concerns for the UK Government and are perceived to be major barriers to the house building growth in England it wants to see.

It is a common perception in the town planning community that too much time is spent considering planning applications which are compliant with the local plan or for applications on post-permission ‘condition’ matters. As many housebuilders will acknowledge, this unnecessary debate can lead to costly and frustrating delays, sometimes on development which has already been considered through the local plan process, so this focus on reform should be broadly welcomed. Also, it is widely acknowledged that training for planning committee members is taken more seriously by some councils than others, leading to some committees having an insufficient overall understanding of general planning principles and the law. The proposed introduction of mandatory training therefore should also be welcomed by house builders and developers, as should the introduction of dedicated planning committees for strategic development, which would also further professionalise the planning system in England.

As some readers will know, the decision to delegate a planning application is currently taken at the local level, in accordance with local authority schemes of delegation made under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. Given the localised, sometimes unpredictable, approach to delegation within Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), the Government’s intention to create a standardised, consistent approach could potentially limit the role of planning committees to only the most contentious development which is not aligned to the local plan. The three options for delegation include; a), where an application complies with the development plan; b), delegation as default with exceptions for departures from the development plan; c), delegation as default with a prescriptive list of exceptions. A hybrid approach, combining elements of options a), b) and c) is also an option for the UK Government.

An interesting part of the Working Paper is the evidence base that the UK Government uses as the basis for the reform proposals. A mixed-use development (for residential and educational use) at a vacant brownfield in London consisting of approximately 120 residential apartments and a special school for 90 pupils was recommended for approval by planning officers, only to be refused by planning committee, the Working Paper outlines. This is despite the site being allocated in the local plan and the principle of development not being in question. The developer won an appeal on the application in early 2024. Also, in the East of England, a site allocated in the local plan for residential use of 500 plus dwellings (with an eventual application for 660 dwellings) was also recommended for approval by officers in the Summer of 2021, only for the planning committee to then refuse it. In Spring 2022 there was a successful appeal. These examples show how much needed residential development is being unnecessarily hindered at the committee stage when the principle of development has already been established.

As I say, the implications of the Working Paper reforms for housing and planning are potentially significant, with any changes expected to help accelerate the delivery of the 1.5 million new homes that the current government has committed to building. They should be seen in conjunction with proposed changes to local councils set out in the English Devolution White Paper, published at the end of last year, such as the requirement for newly elected Mayors to produce a Spatial Development Strategy for their combined authority area. What does this all mean for developers and site promoters? With the English Devolution White Paper reforms, there should be increased opportunities for developers and site promoters to put forward locations for housing as part of the local plan development process, and, should their sites be allocated and are compliant with the local plan, they would then be ‘fast tracked’ under the Working Paper proposals outlined in this article. This would encourage developers to submit good quality applications which are compliant with local plan policies, which should then make their way through the planning system more rapidly. This can only be good news for house builders and developers. However, imposing a mandatory scheme of delegation to take some of the decision making away from planning committees could add, rather than remove, complication. Local community stakeholders may also feel less engaged in the process. The next steps are for the MHCLG to evaluate the responses to the questions posed at the end of the Working Paper, which will then inform the discussions with the housing sector before the MHCLG determines whether any of the proposals are taken forward. As outlined at the start of the article, each of the three main proposals would require primary legislation through a Planning and Infrastructure Bill in the UK Parliament, as well as further detailed consultation with developers, so watch this space.