Rocking around the Modernised Planning Committee

It was hard to escape the MHCLG press blitz over the weekend. 

It was so intense that, for a brief and slightly panicked moment, I thought that the revised NPPF had been launched whilst I was two glasses of wine into an epic Sunday lunch!

However, that particular treat is still to come*. Instead, we are beginning our week with a policy paper on modernising planning committees. A subject which, according to my LinkedIn feed, is far more controversial than one might think….

So, what is actually being proposed:

A National Scheme of Delegation

The policy paper proposes moving away from each LPA setting its own rules about which planning applications are determined by committee to one, consistent, national scheme of delegation that would apply to all of England.

There are four options being mooted:

1. Delegation where an application complies with development plan.

This would delegate decisions to planning officers in situations where the application was wholly policy compliant. I.e. decisions on allocated sites or reserved matters approvals which fully comply with local plan proposals.

LPAs would be allowed to set their own rules for when applications which do not comply with the local plan should be taken to committee.

Views are sought on how ‘the tricky applications’ should be dealt with - i.e. when a local plan is out of date or an application complies with some, but not all, of the relevant policies. This last category could include a lot of applications, so needs careful thought.

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

This option would see all applications delegated to officers unless specific circumstances apply. Possible exceptions cited include:

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

Again, views are sought on how this might work in practice. Areas of specific concern include whether this isn't sensitive enough to allow for small applications that may, for example, impact heritage buildings and (ironically) if it would result in too many applications being determined at committee.

3. Delegation as default with a prescriptive list of exceptions

This option would require the national scheme of delegation to set out a prescriptive list of application types to be determined by committees.

The example given for how this might look is set out below:

"All applications for planning permission must be delegated to officers unless the application is:

1. for major residential or commercial development not on an     allocated site;
2.  for an allocated site and the proposals depart from the policy in the local or neighbourhood plan for that site;
3. for land on the Green Belt which engages the exceptional circumstances test in the NPPF;
4. for development subject to Environmental Impact Assessment or which is likely to have a significant impact on a habitats site;
5. for development that would cause substantial harm to a designated heritage asset and there could be exceptional reasons for its approval;
6. submitted by a local planning authority, its members or officers; or
7. subject to over a specified number of objections.

All applications for other planning consents and approvals must be delegated to officers unless, for applications for listed building consent, the application was for works which would cause substantial harm to a listed building and there could be exceptional reasons for its approval."

4. All of the above (the Hybrid Model).

and last but not least, the policy paper suggests trying a combination of all of the above.

One potential hybrid option put forward for consideration would look a bit like this:

1. first, applications which comply with development plan would be delegated, as per option one;
2. second, all reserved matters applications would be delegated, reflecting the fact that the principle of permission had been achieved and so giving greater certainty for post-permission matters; and
3. third, all applications for residential development below a certain size would be delegated, for instance using the non-major development threshold of ten units for residential development and 1,000 square meters for non-residential – recognising that consideration would need to be given to the operation of a threshold that works for all areas across the country.

Dedicated committees for strategic development

The second major policy proposal in the working paper is to require every LPA to have a separate “smaller” planning committee dedicated solely to considering strategic development within the authority area. 

It is anticipated that these committees could provide for a clearer and more direct decision-making process for long-term developments of strategic significance for the authority in question.

The working paper is seeking views on:

1. The size of the committee - in particular whether three to five members would give adequate scope for careful consideration of all matters relevant to the specific application.
2. The definition of strategic development in an area - namely whether the local planning authority should be able decide what is a strategic development; or whether there should be a nationally set definition set in secondary legislation based on development thresholds. 
3. Whether these committees should include both elected members and independent expert members who have professional expertise in, for example, regeneration, planning and design. 

Mandatory Training for Councillors

The policy paper also explores introducing mandatory training for all planning committee members. This would also mean preventing any councillors who have not completed the training from sitting on a planning committee. 

The training is likely to cover:

• planning legislation
• the role of the development plan and national planning policy, the planning application process
• enforcement; and 
• the code of conduct for planning committees.

Although views are sought on whether more in-depth training would be worthwhile. 

It is anticipated that mandatory training and certification would be principally provided online, with the training being designed and procured centrally by MHCLG. 

The policy paper is also seeking evidence from local planning authorities on how they currently provide training for their members and also in views on other ways in which planning committees could be further professionalised, including, for example, the production of a professional code of practice.

Responses and Next Steps

Taken together, the proposals are less radical than the weekend papers would have you believe.  If anything, they primarily strike me as an attempt to replicate the “best practice” adopted by some local planning authorities across the whole of England. The aim seems to be the creation of a more consistent, and navigable, system which focusses committee resources on the applications that most need the attention and reduces the number of allocated sites being refused against officer recommendation.  

Nonetheless, a great deal will depend on which of the various iterations of the policies set out in the working paper are taken forward. Even the most conservative of them would represent a significant change to how planning committees are organised in a large number of LPAs and the number, and scale, of applications being taken to them. 

Enacting the proposals will require primary legislation. As such, the chosen options will likely form part of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill** and will be subject to detailed consultation in due course. 

The policy paper is, therefore, not a formal consultation and there is no deadline for responses. MHCLG is, however, inviting us to submit our thoughts and comments on the proposals via Citizen Space.

In particular, they are seeking responses to the following questions:

1. Do you think this package of reforms would help to improve decision making by planning committees?
2. Do you have views on which of the options we have set out in regards to national schemes of delegation would be most effective? Are there any aspects which could be improved?
3. We could take a hybrid approach to any of the options listed. Do you think, for instance, we should introduce a size threshold for applications to go to committees, or delegate all reserved matters applications?
4. Are there advantages in giving further consideration to a model based on objections?
5. Do you agree that targeted planning committees for strategic development could facilitate better decision making?
6. Do you have a view on the size of these targeted committees?
7. How should we define strategic developments?
8. Do you think the approach to mandatory training is the right one?

I would recommend getting involved, if you can find the time. Whilst they may not be as radical as initially thought, these proposals, if taken forward, would impact everyone even tangentially involved in planning and development.

In addition, well, there is nothing like responding to policy papers to get you in the Holiday Spirit.  Nothing says “Christmas” like responding to policy papers, reviewing the festive-edition of the NPPF and singing planning-themed Christmas songs.

Speaking of which: All together now….

Rockin' around the Modernised Planning Committee
At the Christmas policy launch
A National Scheme of Delegation for all you see
Refusals of allocated sites to stop
Rockin' around the Modernised Planning Committee
Let the Christmas spirit ring
Later we'll have a revised NPPF 
And we'll do some caroling

*hopefully during standard working hours…..

** currently due next year