Councils express concern at extra requirements to consult Secretary of State on planning decisions

This came in the LGA’s response to a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) consultation on three reforms:

1. A new proposal for a requirement to consult the Secretary of State where local planning authorities (LPAs) are minded to refuse planning permission for specified commercial development.
2. A new proposal for a requirement to consult the Secretary of State on certain applications relating to nuclear facilities where LPAs are minded to refuse planning permission; and
3. A new proposal for a requirement to consult the Secretary of State whereby applications for planning permission for residential development within a Defence Detailed Emergency Planning Zone where the Office for Nuclear Regulation and / or a Local Authority’s Emergency Planning Team has made (and not withdrawn) an objection, where the LPA are minded to grant permission. This requirement would have a limited geographical extent (4 LPAs).

In its response, the LGA described the involvement of democratically accountable councillors in planning decisions as “the backbone of the English planning system - councils and their elected representatives know their areas and communities best and should remain at the heart of the planning process”.

The LGA suggested that the proposals under consultation, alongside the recently issued direction requiring consultation with the Secretary of State in respect of an application for 150 or more homes which an LPA is minded to refuse, as well as reforms to planning committees and changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, “constitute a significant shift and significant reform to local decision-making”. 

It urged the Government to be "mindful of balancing interests of national growth with the role of local councils and councillors, as well as trust and democracy in the planning system".

The LGA warned that “expanding requirements to consult the Secretary of State risks weakening the principle of plan‑led, locally accountable decision‑making, particularly where LPAs are acting in accordance with an adopted local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)”.

Warning of the proposals' impact on timeliness and capacity, the response said that LPAs already face severe resource pressures following more than a decade of real‑terms funding reductions and ongoing workforce challenges in planning departments.

“Additional consultation or call-in requirements may add friction and delay into the system, increase the administrative burden, and risk slowing down decision‑making for applicants and communities,” it argued.

The LGA expressed concerns in particular about the first proposal in relation to commercial development.

“Many large commercial schemes raise significant local impacts, including transport capacity, environmental effects, town centre vitality, and infrastructure pressure. LPAs must retain the ability to refuse schemes that are unsustainable or conflict with adopted plans and policies,” it argued.

“The proposed 15,000 square metres threshold risks capturing a wide range of developments that are locally significant but not nationally strategic. The threshold should therefore be more clearly linked to genuine national or regional strategic importance, not solely floorspace, and clear criteria should be published setting out the circumstances in which call‑in is likely, to improve certainty and avoid defensive decision‑making. The Direction should explicitly confirm that LPAs acting in line with an adopted local plan are not discouraged from refusal where justified.”

The response concluded: “The LGA supports the Government’s objectives around inclusive growth, infrastructure delivery and national safety. However, we urge the Government to ensure that councils remain at the heart of the planning process, with the funding, powers, and capacity to ensure that decisions are made transparently and in the best interests of the people they represent.”