Risk v reward: Challenges in modernising the process of determining planning applications

David Richardson examines the Government's proposed reforms to the process of determining planning applications and in particular the suggested introduction of a national scheme of delegation.

The Government’s pledge to get Britain building again has gathered pace in recent months, with the announcement of a series of measures aimed at delivering its Plan for Change.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework, published in December, unveiled significant changes to help Labour hit its ambitious target of building 1.5 million new homes by 2030. These include introducing mandatory higher housing targets for local authorities, a £100 million cash injection to help councils achieve these as well as the reclassification of parts of the ‘green belt’ to ‘grey belt’ land.

Proposals have also been put forward to streamline the process of determining planning applications, with stakeholders currently being invited to contribute their views to the different options outlined in the Planning Reform Working Paper: Planning Committees. 

Proposed reforms

I act for both private and public sector clients, all with a vested interest in making the system as efficient as possible, and I don’t think any would argue with the mandatory training for planning committee members.

The suggestion of dedicated committees for strategic development is also likely to win broad support, particularly given the Government’s commitment to making 150 decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of Parliament. It is a common complaint of committee members that papers are so voluminous that they do not have time to read around the applications and, given the importance of strategic applications and the often-complex issues involved, they deserve focussed consideration.  

It is the proposed national scheme of delegation, however, which will provoke the most debate. There are three options put forward all of which, with varying exceptions, would see greater decision-making powers handed to planning officers and fewer applications considered by planning committees, which can result in additional uncertainty and delays.

Nationally, more than 350,000 planning applications were received in 2023/24 according to government data. Whilst only around one in 10 are currently referred to committee, that still accounts for tens of thousands of applications.

Risk v reward

Whilst delegating more applications to planning officers is likely to expedite the process for many, it has been described as an attack on local democracy if for example residents are unable to have their say at committee stage, or at least the perception is given that they have less opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Perhaps there is a compromise to be reached whereby an agreed number of objections – set out in a national scheme of delegation - must be received for an application to be directed to committee, to provide some consistency to the multitude of different schemes of delegation currently in play. That doesn’t seem a particularly supported approach in the working paper and of course could be subject to a gaming of the system to hit the relevant trigger in terms of numbers of objections.  However, it is also important that the decisions reflect the opinions of the local community, and a simple measure of ‘how big’ a proposed development is in terms of deciding what goes to committee would be too simplistic.

The front runner in terms of options for determining whether the committee process will be invoked seems to be some form of determination as to whether an application is in accordance with the development plan (DP), and if they are then planning officers would determine those applications under delegated powers.

That has much in its favour, but it could also give rise to more legal challenges, both in the sense of legal opinions seeking to persuade officers that the DP is complied with, or High Court challenges against determinations either way.

Whether an application is in accordance with the DP or not is something that is currently assessed on a case-by-case basis by planning departments, using their planning judgement. However, policy does not require that applications, in order to be successful, must meet fixed criteria or comply with all aspects of the DP. Rather, proposals should accord with the DP as a whole.

I suspect a large majority of applicants believe theirs do comply. For those that are found not to, and which would then go to committee, then depending on when that decision is made they may choose to legally challenge that specific finding (alongside any other grounds considered arguable).

Option two in the working paper proposes delegation as a default unless there is a departure from the DP and officers are recommending approval; or the application is submitted by the local planning authority, its members or officers. In my view, this tips the scales too far and would leave too many applications to be determined by officers.

The third option, which proposes that all applications are delegated under a national scheme of delegation, with only a prescriptive list of applications to go to members, seems to me to be too restrictive with a lack of flexibility to allow for local considerations.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, a hybrid of the three options, something the working paper itself suggests, would be the best way forward.

Transparency  

If the hybrid option is brought forward, there would need to be some careful thinking around how compliance with the DP is proven, decided, and communicated to the applicant. The process might be improved by streamlining DPs and application requirements (it is a common complaint that the planning process has become very document heavy) so that there is greater clarity and transparency around what compliance means, and why decisions have been made.

What might also help is if local authorities were to publish the DP requirements in a more easily digestible format, such as a checklist, so that all parties could more easily see to what extent a development does or doesn’t comply, even if at a high level.

Having this benchmark by which applications are measured could help reassure communities that sound reasoning is being applied and quell fears that decisions are being taken out of theirs and their elected representatives’ hands.

Have your say

The Government is inviting comments on the working paper, which can be submitted either via the Citizen Space platform or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Should any of the proposals be taken forward, they may then also be subject to further consultation before any changes are made, where necessary to primary legislation through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.  

David Richardson is head of the planning and infrastructure consenting team at Ashfords.