Planning Reform – Government Publishes Policy Paper on Modernising Planning Committees

The first big announcement, in what looks likely to be a busy Christmas of planning reform, has been the publication of a policy paper on modernising planning committees by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Having placed planning reform at the centre of its economic strategy, the Government is no doubt keen to start delivering on the pre-election promise to change the question at the heart of the planning process in England to ‘How’, not ‘If’ housing is built.

Streamlining approvals through centralised changes to planning committees appears to have been identified as an important early step in this process.

To this end, the policy paper seeks views on three proposals:

1. The introduction of a national scheme of delegation to standardise the operation of committees and introduce greater certainty for applicants
2. The creation of smaller dedicated planning committees, which could potentially include independent development experts, specifically for strategic development; and
3. The introduction of mandatory training for planning committee members.

We’ve looked at each of these proposals in a little more detail below.

National Scheme of Delegation

The policy paper acknowledges that, over the past couple of decades, there has been a gradual increase in the number of decisions which are delegated to officers from planning committees in England.

However, the fact that the decision to delegate 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 – is identified as a source of uncertainty for developers.

Proposing the introduction of a national scheme of delegation for planning committees, the policy paper sets out the Government’s intention to create a standardised, consistent approach which could limit the role of planning committees to only the most contentious development which is not aligned with the development plan.

Three non-exclusive options have been proposed for the national scheme of delegation, as detailed in the table below:

Having outlined these options, the policy paper goes on to clarify that they are not mutually exclusive –  noting that a hybrid approach, combining elements of each, may be the best way to achieve the policy’s objectives.

From a practical perspective, we admire the Government’s intention to bring certainty and consistency to the delegation of planning decisions to Officers.  In some cases and circumstances, inconsistencies between planning authorities as to whether a scheme is to be delegated or considered at full planning committee causes disparity in terms of cost and delay between similar projects in different areas.

We are particularly interested in how the policy approaches the (somewhat vexed) issue of defining whether a development is “in accordance with the development plan”.

As acknowledged in the policy paper,  this term is already established in planning law (LPAs are often required to consider it pursuant to section 38(6) of the PCPA 2004) but is not always a straightforward issue, particularly when there is tension between policy support for a proposal and policy conflict.

As the Court of Appeal held in Corbett v Cornwall Council [2020], the conformity question will often be a matter of planning judgment.

As such, a national scheme of delegation which relies on a pre-determination as to whether a scheme is policy compliant may introduce an additional, front-loaded, layer of decision-making on policy compliance, as envisaged in paragraph 14 of the policy paper.

In addition to creating potential delays at a different stage in the process, this option could have an impact on how applications then go on to be determined as – if the LPA has already decided that an application is not policy compliant as part of its decision on delegating – any subsequent decision, by the planning committee, to approve the scheme could be vulnerable to judicial review or appeal.  A hybrid approach would need to be mindful of these potential consequences.

Dedicated Committee for Strategic Development

The second reform in the policy paper proposes the establishment of smaller dedicated planning committees, focussed only on strategic development, in areas where strategic development has been planned.

The policy paper envisages these committees operating in addition to the main planning committee to focus on developments of local economic importance, providing consistency of decision-making for different elements of wider strategic developments and continuity in post-permission matters.

The government has asked for views on the appropriate size for the proposed committees and the definition of what constitutes strategic development in an area. On the latter of these issues, the policy paper moots both a centralised definition (through the making of regulations to define strategic development) or allowing local planning authorities to decide, having regard to Secretary of State guidance.

Interestingly, the policy paper also suggests that there could be a role for some independent expert members with professional expertise to sit on strategic planning committees alongside elected members.

Each of these proposals demonstrates the difficult balance the government is trying to strike between local democratic oversight and professional efficiency in the planning sector.

Mandatory training for planning committee members

The final reform proposed in the policy paper – mandatory training for planning committee members – is aimed at solving problems caused by some decisions being made with weak planning justification, leading to appeals, delays, and uncertainty.

Having delivered training to local authority planning committees in the past, we agree that bolstering the support already available online through organisations such as the Planning Advisory Service would go a long way to  upskilling planning committee members and ensuring that justified, legally compliant decisions are reached.

To make training mandatory for elected members (including by prohibiting them from attending committee without having completed the training) would be a bold step, but it’s one we think could pay dividends by reducing the costs associated with appealed and judicially reviewed decisions, as well as providing greater certainty and consistency for applicants.

With the Government seemingly committed on some fundamental reforms in the coming years, everyone in the industry should be considering their training and professional development needs as the planning landscape shifts.

How we can help

Sharpe Pritchard’s planning team can help planning authorities and developers keep abreast of new developments and can provide training at a range of levels for both committee members and officers.

Please contact a member of our team if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article.

The Government has asked for comments on its policy paper via Citizen Space which can be accessed at the link below:

https://consult.communities.gov.uk/planning/planning-committees/

Emily Knowles is a Managing Associate and James Goldthorpe is a Trainee Solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

This video is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk