LGA response to MHCLG’s technical consultation on reform of planning committees

The Local Government Association (LGA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) Reform of Planning Committees Technical Consultation. While we support the Government’s aim to improve the efficiency and consistency of the planning system, we have significant concerns about the limited flexibility within the proposed reforms. A standardised approach does not account for the diversity across local planning authorities, and it is essential that councils retain the ability to tailor decision-making processes to reflect the specific needs of their communities. 

The LGA broadly supports the Government’s intentions to streamline and speed-up the planning system so that local authorities can plan for and deliver the places and environments our communities want and need. We urge the Government to rapidly come forward with their proposals for National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) and the approach to a new-style of plan-making so that councils have the certainty they need to make Local Plans.

• Flexibility is needed in the national two-tier scheme of delegation to accommodate for differences across local planning authorities, as what works for one local authority’s planning committee does not reflect what is suitable or workable for another’s.
• The impact of these proposals on local democracy must be considered. The involvement of elected councillors in planning decisions is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded.
• We have concerns regarding the gateway test proposed to determine which Tier B applications are taken to committee, particularly surrounding the legal implications, the level of public transparency, and the added pressure on the Chief Planning Officer and Committee Chair. Further guidance around the practicalities of this process is needed.
• We do not support legislation to impose a maximum of 11 members on planning committees. The size of a committee does not always equate to its effectiveness, and we are concerned that this mandate could impact the political and geographical proportionality of existing committees. Instead, we recommend that Government issue best practice guidance on committee size and composition, allowing councils the flexibility to structure their committees in a way that reflects local needs and governance arrangements.
• We support the introduction of mandatory training for planning committee members. Certification for this training should be administered at a local level to ensure that training and assessment includes a blend of national and local content. Government should co-produce the design of this training with local authorities and consider the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) as a training provider.
• We ask Government not to reduce the threshold for assessing quality decision-making from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. This change would disproportionately affect smaller planning authorities, where a small number of appeal overturns can significantly skew performance metrics. Lowering the threshold risks a substantial increase in the number of authorities subject to designation, undermining confidence and capacity in the planning system without delivering meaningful improvements in decision quality.

Two-Tier Scheme of Delegation

We have concerns regarding the national two-tier scheme of delegation, which categorises planning applications as Tier A (automatically delegated to officers) or Tier B (delegated to officers unless the Chief Planning Officer and Committee Chair agree to refer the application to committee). We understand Government’s ambitions to improve the efficiency and consistency of the planning process through this national scheme of delegation, however, this approach does not account for the differences across local planning authorities. Local flexibility is needed to allow planning committees to retain the discretion to determine applications that are important to their communities, and what is considered important does not look the same across all local planning authorities.

A key example of where local flexibility is needed is the consideration of including medium residential developments (10-50 dwellings) in Tier A, meaning they would be automatically delegated to officers. In smaller rural districts, medium residential developments are some of the largest developments that take place. If medium sized applications are classed as Tier A, planning committees would not be given the chance to review applications that could be significantly place shaping and important to local communities. However, in larger areas, it could be sensible for these applications to fall into Tier A. This emphasises the need for flexibility, as there is not a single approach that would meet the needs of all local planning authorities.

Another example of applications that should not be automatically delegated to officers is reserved matters applications, which are currently proposed to fall under Tier A. These applications often involve significant design, layout, and infrastructure details that can be just as contentious and impactful as outline applications - particularly on large, complex, or sensitive sites. Local authorities should retain the flexibility to determine whether such applications are referred to committee, based on their scale, complexity, local significance, and the extent to which they differ from the original outline permission. This discretion is essential to ensure that developments receive appropriate political oversight and reflect the expectations of local communities.

We recommend that Government include a mechanism to allow Tier A applications to be referred to planning committees in circumstances where a particular case has significant local impact, raises complex planning issues, or generates substantial public interest that warrants democratic oversight. If flexibility is not granted here, there is a serious threat to the democratic role that councillors play in planning committees. Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. As a result, it is essential that some contentious Tier A applications can still be considered by planning committees in appropriate circumstances.

While flexibility is needed, the mechanism for referring a Tier A application to a planning committee needs to be clearly defined. Details on the process for initiating and recording these referrals is key to ensure transparency, accountability, and avoid ambiguity in decision-making. The LGA would be happy to work with Government and other stakeholders to determine what this mechanism should look like. Guidance on the mechanism, and the circumstances where it is appropriate to consider taking a Tier A application to committee, should allow local authorities discretion to make decisions on applications that are significant to their local area.

Gateway Test

We have significant concerns regarding the criteria and gateway test Government propose as a mechanism to determine whether a Tier B application should be referred to committee. The criteria suggested, including where the application raises “an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area” or “a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan”, is sensible in principle but further detail is needed to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. A gateway test is proposed to assess Tier B applications against these criteria, whereby the Chief Planning Officer and Committee Chair must mutually agree on whether an application should go to planning committee. We are concerned that the format and process of the gateway test is not clearly defined and creates uncertainty around how decisions will be made, recorded, and scrutinised.

There is also a lack of clarity on how the gateway test will interact with the existing powers of ward councillors to call in applications for committee consideration. The government should consider an effective and proportionate mechanism for call-in powers to operate alongside the gateway test.

Additionally, it is important to consider how this process will reflect the democratic role of town and parish councillors. This, alongside other details on the gateway test, need to be carefully considered. We are particularly concerned about the potential for disagreement between the Chief Planning Officer and the Committee Chair in the gateway test. Without a clearly defined and formalised process, these disagreements could be difficult to resolve and may lead to delays and inconsistent outcomes.

Government must provide detailed guidance on how this process should operate in practice - including the resolution process needed for when disagreements arise, the level of formality required in the discussions, how meetings will be recorded, and how decisions will be published.

Clear documentation and publication of gateway test decisions are needed to ensure compliance with the Local Government Transparency Code 2015, which sets minimum standards for the publication of data by local authorities to enable public scrutiny of decisions that affect local communities. The UK’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention are also relevant here, which places a legal duty on public authorities to ensure that environmental decision-making processes are transparent, inclusive, and fair. A lack of a transparent and consistent process could undermine these standards and increase the risk of judicial review, resulting in planning delays and costs to local authorities. As a result, the gateway test must be designed to ensure that decisions are accessible to local communities to reduce legal risks and uphold the integrity of the planning system.

Another concern surrounding the gateway test is the additional political pressure it places on the Committee Chair and the added layer of responsibility given to the Chief Planning Officer. This shift in decision-making authority must be accompanied by statutory safeguards to protect the independence and professional integrity of the Chief Planning Officer’s role.

In existing local schemes of delegation, some planning authorities use a review panel to determine whether planning applications should be referred to committee. These panels typically include a group of decision-makers such as the Committee Chair, Vice-Chair, Ward Councillor, Chief Planning Officer, and other senior planning officers. This approach works well for many planning authorities, and it might not be appropriate to replace existing effective systems with the proposed gateway test in all cases.

Government should also consider how councils take into consideration other factors that may deem it appropriate for applications to be heard at committee, such as retrospective applications and/or scope of pre-application discussions with the council and communities.

Ultimately there needs to be flexibility to the national two-tier scheme of delegation to account for differences across local planning authorities and ensure that the democratic role of planning committees is preserved. Other practicalities behind this system, including the gateway test, need to be more clearly defined. There also needs to be consideration as to how the two-tier scheme would apply to cross-boundary applications or Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), which were not mentioned in the technical consultation.

We do not support the proposal to set a maximum of 11 members on a planning committee. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the make-up of their planning committee membership and Government should continue to permit individual authorities the discretion to determine the size of their committee. While the Planning Advisory Service’s (PAS) recent analysis of planning committees shows that the majority of committees are made up of nine to 12 members, it does not provide evidence that the size of a committee directly equates to its functionality or effectiveness.

We are concerned that limiting the size of planning committees could have negative consequences on the proportionality of existing committees. It is essential that planning committees are made up of members who represent the unique political and geographical make-up of their local authority. This concern is particularly relevant for authorities undergoing local government reorganisation and transitioning into larger unitary authorities. These authorities will need to ensure that their planning committees are representative of both the expanded geographic area they cover and their new political composition. Imposing a maximum of 11 members may not be suitable in such cases and could undermine fair

representation. This again highlights the need for flexibility in these proposals, as whilst 11 members might be a reasonable size for some planning committees, a one-size-fits-all approach across all planning authorities is not appropriate.

Instead of setting regulations on the size of planning committees, local authorities would welcome formal guidance from Government on best practice relating to the size and composition of committees. Evidence-based guidance could help local authorities review the size of their planning committees whilst retaining the flexibility to ensure their committee is balanced and proportional.

We support the implementation of mandatory training for planning committee members and other relevant decision makers. It is vital that councillors receive the training they need to make informed decisions on proposals in their localities and be able to effectively fulfil their roles in the democratic planning process.

Many local authorities already deliver their own forms of training, however, consistent and standardised training are welcomed to ensure that all planning committees are equipped with the skills they need to make effective decisions. We support the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) to be the preferred provider of a training programme, given their long history of providing well-received and thorough training and their in-depth knowledge of planning committees and the planning system.

Training must consist of a blend of national and local content to reflect necessary legal and policy frameworks as well as addressing local plans and priorities. As a result, the certification of this training should be administered at a local level to ensure that local content is assessed. Consideration will need to be given as to how, and how often, this training will be updated to reflect national and local planning policy changes.

Consideration also needs to be given to how frequently members will undertake this training and be assessed, and the legal implications this might have. For example, the consequences of actively sitting on a planning committee with an expired training certificate must be clearly outlined.

The LGA have welcomed recent announcements allowing the use of remote attendance, proxy voting, and substitutes for councillor meetings, including for planning committees. These changes are a positive step toward improving accessibility in decision-making and accommodating councillors who face barriers to in-person attendance, such as illness, disability, or caring responsibilities. Government needs to consider how these changes will work alongside the proposed introduction of mandatory training for planning committee members. For example, it is currently unclear whether councillors casting votes by proxy will be required to have completed the same training as those who regularly sit on planning committees. Clarity is needed here to avoid complex procedural and legal issues that could arise, and to ensure that all decisions are made by appropriately trained and informed members.

We do not agree with the proposal to lower the threshold for quality decision making from 10 per cent to 5 per cent for major and non-major applications.

In smaller authorities who receive a low volume of planning applications, a small number of overturned appeals can disproportionately impact performance metrics. Reducing the threshold of quality decision making could mean that single appeal decisions could place the authority under special measures and give their decision-making powers to the Planning Inspectorate.

Analysis published in Planning Resource using data from MHCLG estimates that 58 local authorities would currently be at risk of losing planning powers to the Planning Inspectorate if the quality decision making threshold was lowered to 5 per cent, which is more than five times the number of authorities that currently breach the designation threshold. If the decision-making threshold is lowered to 5 per cent, Government need to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate has the capacity and resources to adapt to this significant increase to ensure that it does not result in delays to the planning process.

As a result of the disproportionate impact this reduction would have on authorities who receive a lower volume of planning applications, and the large number of authorities who could be negatively affected by this change, we ask that Government retain the current 10 per cent threshold. The existing threshold is a more reasonable measure which maintains a greater balance between accountability and flexibility. Instead of lowering the threshold, Government should focus on delivering meaningful improvements to decision-making quality, such as through resourcing the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) to continue to provide expert guidance and support to local planning authorities on quality decision-making.

It is crucial that Government consider how the proposals in this consultation interact with the principles outlined in the Environmental Act 2021. If more planning decisions are delegated to officers, there must be clear checks and balances to ensure that environmental principles are being adhered to in planning decisions. Officers should be required to demonstrate compliance with the Environment Act’s principles when making delegated decisions. In cases where a decision fails to meet these principles or requires significant mitigation, this should trigger a referral to the planning committee to ensure there is appropriate democratic oversight.