On modernising planning committees

If you are involved they are terrible, but if you are just observing they are terrific.

That is how, way back in the day..., I introduced Episode 7 of 50 Shades of Planning.

If you are reading a town planning-based blog then the chances are that you will have participated in a planning committee previously, will know immediately what I mean, and will have your own tales to tell. If you are not a planner though or have not been subject to this unique ‘cauldron of human emotion’ (which is what I called Episode 7) then you should watch Wokingham’s planning committee take over an hour to debate the merits of a proposed communications kiosk in Woodley recently (I only knew about this because I saw somebody last week who had to sit through this discussion whilst waiting for the next application, but you could probably pick any planning committee at any council on any day of the year and see something similar). Yes, of course, not all planning committees are akin to putting the fate of a transformative regeneration scheme or a regionally significant infrastructure project in the hands of a cast of characters better suited to roles in the Vicar of Dibley*, but some are…

The Government’s eyes have rightly then, in this observer’s humble opinion at least, identified that the role of the planning committee is worthy of scrutiny and, in the context of “accelerating housebuilding and infrastructure delivery”, included in the Planning & Infrastructure Bill measures to ‘modernise’ committees in order to ‘improve local planning decision making’.

A working paper, published over a year ago at the time of writing, sought views on a model national scheme of delegation, which I will return to below.

First though I humbly offer some observations as to why this is desirable, and some themes and trends that may have led us to where we are.

The Localism Act 2012 appeared halfway through my career far and, for the purposes of this blog, divides it neatly into two halves. This is just a sense, of course, but before 2012 I would fancy that if an applicant secured the recommendation of an officer then they could be about 70% sure of a positive decision at committee. In the period since 2012 my sense is that even with an officer recommendation an applicant would now sit down at the start of a meeting thinking that the decision could go either way. 50:50. The toss of the coin. Let's see which way the wind is blowing...

Why so? Well the Coalition Government of course put ‘communities in control’ and as the role of the committee became more prominent the need to understand and engage with the committee became more prominent, a corollary of which has been the public affairs consultant taking a more central role with the project team.

There are other factors at play, of course. Applications, as it is well reported (see, for example, this report from Lichfields), are much more complicated now, which means that they are much more expensive, heightening the jeopardy for applicants. The consequence of that is that applications are also much more difficult for officers to transact. Even without the scrutiny afforded by objectors, committee reports can extend to dozens and dozens of pages, and easily into the hundreds in order to bullet-proof them against the prospect of a judicial review. How much more officer time does it take, one wonders, to transact an application that has to go to committee?

Further, it is worth noting that if committee processes and protocols have not kept pace with the complexity of planning law and policy then they certainly have not kept pace with the complexity and contentiousness of the social media landscape, and the fact, when it comes to public opinion, material available on the local Facebook group's page is of much more influence than the material available on the council's web page. 

I wonder too whether the straitjacket on local government has played a role in the politicisation of the planning committee. There are so many statutory obligations on councils and so little financial wiggle room for anything else that it seems almost impossible to imagine many if indeed any councillors inviting people to vote for them so that they can actually make something happen. In that context it is logical and indeed sadly inevitable that councillors invite people to vote for them so that they can stop something happening. On which committee is a councillor more like to make a name for themselves? Overview & Scrutiny or Planning? I generalise, obviously, but you take the point I hope.

Whether or not any or all of that had anything to do with it or not, there was a discernible trend a few years ago for applications on allocated sites to be refused at committee against an officer recommendation and for subsequent appeals to be upheld. On top then of the officer time that it takes to get an application to committee is the time that PINS spend transacting the subsequent appeal. According to Lichfields, when an application is refused in accordance with an officer recommendation, appeals are allowed on 46% of occasions, but when an application is refused against an officer recommendation, appeals are allowed on 79% of occasions.

Atop the additional officer time of getting applications to committee and the time and money that the LPA, PINs and appellants expend in contesting appeals are the cost awards granted by Inspectors where local decisions have been especially egregious. 

This may or may not have had something to do with Michael Gove including within a letter sent to all Council Leaders and Chief Executives in September 2023 (who remembers the ‘Long Term Plan for Housing’..?) an expectation that “development should proceed on sites that are adopted in a local plan with full input from the local community unless there are strong reasons why it cannot”.

So, on the basis that more often than not everybody involved (officers, members, applicants and the general public) leaves a planning committee at best dissatisfied and at worst bewildered, they are evidently ripe for modernising. But how?

Shelly Rouse at PAS has published some of the top characteristics of an effective planning committee, which can be found here, but Shelly’s ‘top tips’, excellent though they are, are largely behavioural and procedural, so what measures, going beyond working to improve behaviours and procedures, might a Planning & Infrastructure Bill include to modernising committees by law.

There are perhaps four areas to consider.

The first was described in last year's working paper as dedicated committees for strategic development such that applications of a certain size and scale should be determined by a smaller group of councillors (speaking to Shelly’s point about planning committees having an important role in delivering the ambitions of a council this group would include the most senior members). Such a committee might even include some non-political, co-opted committee members with a specialism in planning and development, which I believe is akin to the Development Corporation-type model. There is merit in this approach, but my understanding is that the Government does not propose to mandate it.

The second area to consider, again included in last year's working paper, is an old chestnut that is to improving planning committees what PPAs are to cracking the resources nut, which is mandatory training. When thinking about the role of the councillor from a compliance / audit / good governance point of view it does seem somewhat peculiar that anybody is allowed to hold in their hands the fate of a multi-million pound development project without even the barest understanding of the planning process, so this very much represents the ‘low-hanging fruit' option.

One could go further though and suggest that, given a local plan should be seen as the spatial expression of a LPA’s corporate plan, all councillors should be trained in planning and development.

In regard to the specifics of this proposal, mandatory training does beg the questions as to who provides the training, on what and how frequently, and whether councillors have to pass some kind of test at the end of it. In addition, the need for substantive training without disruption to the committee timetable following a local election arguably precludes new councillors from being on the planning committee, at least for a year, but that is necessarily a bad thing?

Slide 1 in the training PowerPoint? Planning committee members are not there to represent the views of the committee. Planning committee members are there to determine applications in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Thirdly, and not included in the working paper, there has to be a case for moving planning committees online. My sense, albeit backed only by anecdotal evidence, is that online meetings during the pandemic were often better managed and allowed for participation by people other than just those able to make it to the Town Hall on a wet Wednesday morning.

Fourth and finally then, a national scheme of delegation.

At present every council has it’s own scheme of delegation and given the myriad reasons why a council decides that a decision should be made by a committee rather than delegated to officers, as outlined in this PAS blog, it is not unreasonable to assume that every single scheme of delegation across the country is different.

Here are some examples (which I collated a while ago so may not be entirely up-to-date now, but you will get the point).

In Cumberland all applications accompanied by an Environmental Statement; of more than 100 dwellings or exceeding 2ha; and for development that in the opinion of the Head of Planning is of strategic significance will go to committee.

In Durham all major applications go to committee.

In Sheffield applications go to committee if the decision would be in conflict with a substantial number of representations made on planning grounds and where the outcome is not clearly predetermined by approved planning policy.

On the Wirral applications for 200 homes go to committee, as well as any application called in by a councillor (based upon reasonable planning grounds) and any application that has attracted a petition with 25 signatories or 15 individual objections.

In Harborough applications for 25 or more dwellings go to committee, as well as any application called in by a resident’s local councillor (or the councillor for an adjoining ward if a local councillor is unavailable).

In Reading and Portsmouth all major development goes to committee.

In Eastleigh applications go to committee if, in the opinion of service director, they have a significant impact, are controversial or are potentially controversial, or if three members of the local area committee object to it.

In Reigate & Banstead applications with net increases of more than one dwelling go to committee.

So what might a national scheme of delegation look like?

The working paper included three options.

Option 1 – Delegation where an application complies with development plan.

The first option aims to ensure that planning committees do not spend their time considering planning applications which comply with the development plan. It would require the delegation of decisions to officers where an application for planning permission complies with the development plan – for instance, when the application is for development on an allocated site in line with plan policies or in line with a design guide.

The last I saw, June last year I believe, local plan coverage was at 30% and is likely to get worse still before it gets better.

Next.

Option 2 – Delegation as default with exceptions for departures from the development plan.

Our second option is that a national scheme of delegation should operate by exception, specifically that all applications should be delegated to officers unless specific circumstances apply. This could mean all applications must be delegated to officers unless:

• the application is a departure from the development plan and is recommended by officers for approval; or
• the application has been submitted by the local planning authority, its members or officers.

If every LPA can determine it's own 'specific circumstances' how would of a step forward would this be relative to the status quo?

Option 3 – Delegation as default with a prescriptive list of exceptions.

The third option would again require 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 committees to provide certainty to applicants from the start.

This seems much more like it and will surely form the basis of the proposed approach when it finally emerges for consultation.

There are some who might argue that applications of a certain size should not be presented to committee (less than 10, 20, or 40 homes, for example), perhaps linked to whether the site in question is previously-developed or not. The case against such a threshold would though be that it rubs up against the democratic oversight of decisions that, for example, two planners might take different views on or that have attracted legitimate public interest.

Going back to that trend for applications on allocated sites to be refused at committee against an officer recommendation, which was probably the trigger for this round of conversations about how to modernise the process, no scheme of delegation of the examples listed above actually takes into account whether or not the principle of development has already been established. That to my mind is the key guiding principle.

If a site has an outline consent then the details should be left to officers.

If a site has an allocation then the details should be left to officers.

If a LPA has no up-to-date local plan and a proposal is consistent with national development management policies the details should be left to officers. The principle of development might in such instances be established by national rather than local politicians but it has democratic legitimacy nonetheless.

 

In the context of members overturning officers' recommendations, it appears that the Government’s new call-in powers that apply to LPA's intending to refuse proposals of 150 or more homes will apply to applications submitted on or after 26 March 2026.

In a Written Ministerial Statement published last November the Housing Secretary stated that:

"...while planning decisions are principally for local authorities, I hold powers that allow me to take over applications and determine them directly – ensuring the right decisions are taken in the local and national interest. Given the scale of the housing crisis, and the imperative of building the homes we need, I want to use these powers in a more focused and active way. I will require local authorities to notify me where they intend to refuse an application for 150 homes or more – providing me with the opportunity to decide whether to take it over."

Food for planning committee member thought surely, but would it have altered the view of this Reform Councillor (Sam Journet, I believe) at Basildon's Committee last night (a meeting that reportedly went on until after midnight).

Notwithstanding the outrageous language directed towards officers, the tone and scope of Cllr's Journet's views are likely representative of a fair few that will offered by other councillors in planning committee's up and down the country over the next few weeks and months. A wave of Grey Belt applications is being made, some of which are making it to committee already, and the majority, one assumes, will be entirely consistent with the NPPF as drafted. All concerned deserve better than them being determined like this. 

The modernisation of planning committees cannot come soon enough.

 

*Tongue very much in cheek.