Comment

Builder or blocker? What role for planning committees under Labour’s proposed reforms?

Striking the right balance between ensuring appropriate local democratic oversight of development whilst guaranteeing the planning system delivers is no easy task. Senior Strategic Communications Consultant, Marley Bennett, shares his thoughts.

As a former member of the planning committee in Bristol and a current communications professional in the development sector, I understand the importance in getting this balance right.

The Government has identified the planning system as a barrier to economic growth and achieving its housing and climate goals. Within this context, I believe Ministers are right to scrutinise the role played by planning committees. Policy-compliant applications recommended for approval are often refused by councillors, leading to costly appeals – 30% of which are overturned – causing delay to the delivery of critical new development and significant costs for councils.  

Applications often face political or community opposition and the pressure to vote against such an application can be intense, regardless of how robust the planning case is.  

In the Government’s Planning Reform Working Paper; Planning Committees, the proposal is to reduce the number of applications that go before planning committees to provide greater certainty for applicants.  

The consultation outlines options for a national scheme of delegation, all of which could significantly reduce the number of applications determined by committees (but wouldn’t necessarily keep the larger and more controversial out of committee).  

I can see a number of benefits for committee members and applicants, including more time to focus on the most significant applications for committee members, as well as much more certainty for applicants who would know at the outset whether they could secure a delegated decision.

One change proposed in the paper that could make a big difference is if the ‘call-in’ mechanism, where a ward councillor can request a planning application is decided by councillors, is reduced or removed. Under the current system, when the call-in mechanism is used it can be particularly tricky to approve an application as a planning committee member – particularly when that objecting ward councillor is someone you’ve worked closely with and is often a party colleague.  

Smaller strategic development committees are proposed to handle critical projects; I remain unconvinced that these would behave any differently to conventional planning committees. Whilst the membership of a strategic committee is intended to last the course of a particular project; with large scale developments often taking longer to complete than a four-year election cycle, this may be difficult to achieve.

One thing is clear to me in all of this: the proposal to make training a mandatory requirement for councillors before they can sit on a planning committee is a no-brainer. Whilst many councils already have a requirement, alarmingly not all do, even now. In my case, I only had to attend a single hour-long course – something my professional planning colleagues who have often spent years studying are shocked to hear! Personally, I would go further and test councillors to ensure they have understood the training.

With the government’s majority and the focus on streamlining the planning system, it’s likely the number of applications decided by committee will reduce. As ever with these reforms, we will only be able to really tell what the impact will be when we have the detail of the preferred option and we’re able to consider it within the wider programme of reform (which is large and growing), but this feels like one of a number of positive steps that are being taken.  

To discuss reforms to planning committees in more detail, please get in touch with Marley Bennett.

6 January 2025