Every council has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances where planning consent decisions are taken by Planning Committee rather than delegated to officers. Councils will make a decision on the matters that are referred to Planning Committee based on a whole range of factors. We have highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches.
At most councils, the percentage of decisions delegated to officers is over 90% with many over 95%. The decision on whether matters are referred to the Planning Committee is usually influenced by the following factors:
- The level of interest from local residents
- Whether the application is contentious and accords with the Council’s own policies
- The impact a development will have on the local community
- Probity issues where the council could be perceived as being biased if the application is delegated to officers
- Where there is a variation in opinion between the council and other key consultees or community organisations
Some councils will publish their scheme of delegation as a separate document on the council’s website, but many will just include it within the body of the council’s constitution and as such it may be difficult to access without help.
Outlined below are some of the most commonly found reasons why a council decides that a decision should be made by the Planning Committee rather than delegated to officers. In each case, we give the pros and cons of the approach and the variations of approach taken by different councils. We have not commented on whether we think you should adopt these approaches as each council is different. An approach that works well for one council may not work well for another.
Advantage of this approach
Major applications are, by definition the largest planning applications and therefore the ones that are likely to have the most impact on a local community
Disadvantage of this approach
Major applications are defined based on size and area (10 or more dwellings or over 1000 sq m floorspace). Therefore, they are not always contentious and the impact on a local community can vary enormously. For example, a commercial use in a business park will be a Major application because of its floorspace, but there are often no significant issues from a planning perspective.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- Increase the size of the threshold for referral to the Planning Committee e.g. based on a higher number of dwellings, greater floorspace or over a certain height
- Do not automatically refer the application to the Planning Committee, but base it on the number of representations received. Also, some councils will only include those representations that are contrary to officer recommendations.
- Exclude S73 applications and reserved matters applications from the referral process and rely on a councillor referral or the Head of Planning (or equivalent) to refer these applications to the Planning Committee if they are contentious.
Advantage of this approach
The number of representations is a good indicator of the amount of local interest there is in an application and therefore the need for a decision to be made through the Planning Committee.
Disadvantage of this approach
It is relatively easy for a small number of local residents to generate a high number of representations and it does not necessarily reflect the strength of local feeling or the weight that should be given to planning considerations.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- Exclude householder applications and other minor applications such as advert consents, prior approvals etc
- Only count representations that are contrary to an officer's recommendation
- Exclude those representations that only include non-material Planning matters
- Place the threshold for referral at a high number (e.g. 20 or more) to ensure there is a strong feeling amongst the local community before a referral is agreed.
Advantage of this approach
This empowers councillors to call in an application where they are aware that there is local interest from residents and it enables them to represent the views of local residents.
Disadvantages of this approach
It relies on the personal motivation of a councillor to refer a matter to the Planning Committee rather than necessarily those applications where the planning matters need to be debated.
Councillor referrals can also unnecessarily delay a decision particularly where councils are struggling to meet performance targets.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- Include a time limit for councillor referrals e.g. within the 21 day statutory consultation period
- Require a councillor to specify a clear planning reason for the referral
- Ask the councillor to specify what outcome that would be required for the application to revert to being delegated
- Require the councillor to discuss their concerns with the Planning Officer in the first instance and the matter only gets referred to the Planning Committee if the matters raised are not resolved through negotiation
- The councillor who wants to refer the application must agree the referral with their Group Leader
- Restrict a councillor’s referral powers to developments within the councillor’s ward or adjacent to the ward if agreed by the Chair
- Make it mandatory that the councillor who has referred the matter to the Planning Committee agrees to speak at the committee to explain their concerns. If they do not agree to speak the matter is referred back to officer delegation
- Include a consultation procedure whereby the senior leader consults the Chair of the Planning Committee on the need for Planning Committee consideration and if there is a difference of opinion advice is sought from the Legal Officer.
Advantage of this approach
Any application that is contrary to the Development Plan or NPPF would not normally be approved, but there are some exceptional circumstances where officers may consider other material planning considerations outweigh the adopted policy. Therefore, the decision is likely to be finely balanced and require Planning Committee consideration.
Disadvantage of this approach
It may, at times, be difficult to clarify that the application is in fact contrary to the Development Plan due to the wording of the Development Plan or the nature of the proposal. Therefore, councils might be unnecessarily cautious in their approach to referral.
Alternative approach taken by councils
This referral reason is consistent for nearly every council that has been looked at, but there are incidences where the council relies on the Head of Planning (or equivalent) to refer such matters to the Planning Committee.
Advantage of this approach
This ensures that probity matters are open and transparent and there is no perception of bias in decision-making.
Disadvantages of this approach
It could result in a large number of applications being referred to the Planning Committee that are uncontentious or where officers, in particular, have no actual or perceived ability to influence the decision.
It is often difficult to define a close relative and very difficult to monitor whether the applicant is related. An applicant may unknowingly fail to declare a close relationship because they are unaware of the requirement to do so.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- Limit the officer referrals to those officers who might reasonably be perceived to be able to influence a decision e.g. officers working in Planning or senior leadership team
- More closely define a close relative e.g. immediate family or living in the same household
- Limit referrals for those officers where there is a pecuniary interest
- Include an additional requirement where a referral is required if an officer or councillor is deemed to be able to influence a decision that will impact them e.g. because an application is close to where they live
- Only refer the application if the recommendation is to approve
Advantage of this approach
Interests outside the council may consider that the Planning Authority would not be objective in considering its own applications and therefore making a decision in public through the Planning Committee will demonstrate that all relevant planning matters have been discussed fairly and objectively.
Disadvantage of this approach
An application submitted by the council may be minor and uncontentious. Therefore, in such cases, it could unnecessarily take up Planning Committee time and delay the planning decision.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- It is left to the Head of Planning (or equivalent) to decide whether such applications warrant Planning Committee referral
- The application is only referred if there are representations that are contrary to the officer recommendation
- The referral is based on the size of the application e.g. only Major applications.
Advantage of this approach
The views of the statutory consultees should be given considerable weight by the council and if the council does not properly consider a statutory consultee’s opinion then the council is potentially subject to legal challenge, call-in procedures or having their decision delayed through statutory processes. Therefore, if the officer's recommendation is contrary to a statutory consultee’s advice it should receive additional scrutiny through the Planning Committee
Disadvantage of this approach
The relevance of a statutory consultee’s advice varies depending on the significance of the matter and the weight the consultee itself places on its response. Therefore, it is difficult for a generalisation to be made about the need for a Planning Committee decision. If the Head of Planning (or equivalent) has the power to refer any application to Planning Committee then a judgement call can be made.
Alternative approach taken by councils
Include a consultation procedure whereby the senior leader consults the Chair of the Planning Committee on the need for Planning Committee consideration and if there is a difference of opinion advice is sought from the Legal Officer.
Advantage of this approach
These types of applications are likely to be significant and will impact the local environment and infrastructure. Therefore, it is a useful benchmark to trigger the need for Planning Committee consideration. In the case of a S106 agreement, there will often be competing infrastructure needs that might need to be balanced against viability.
Disadvantage of this approach
Not all EIA and S106 development is necessarily controversial and so may not warrant Planning Committee consideration. There are other possible triggers for Planning Committee consideration such as the size of the application, number of representations and Member referral that should be able to capture the issues that might require such applications to be referred to the Planning Committee.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- Restrict the referrals only to when the officer recommendation is to approve
- Include a consultation procedure whereby the senior leader consults the Chair of the Planning Committee on the need for Planning Committee consideration and if there is a difference of opinion advice is sought from the Legal Officer.
Advantage of this approach
If the original outline application was a Planning Committee decision then it is reasonable to assume that there is likely to be an interest from the public in the reserved matters and therefore should also be a Planning Committee decision.
Disadvantages of this approach
Reserved matter applications are often not controversial as it is the principle of the development, determined through the Outline application, that is the contentious issue. Reserved matters, particularly for large housing schemes, often involve the rollout of parcels of housing that involve a level of detail that does not interest the public.
For some very large Outline applications, there will be many reserved matters applications submitted that could take a considerable amount of Planning Committee time to consider.
Alternative approach taken by councils
Treat each reserved matters application in the same way as any Major or Minor application using the same trigger points for referral to the Planning Committee.
Advantage of this approach
Waste and Mineral applications are very often significant and contentious and will normally impact the local community. They will very often generate a significant number of representations.
Disadvantage of this approach
Not all waste and mineral applications are significant and contentious. However, they will normally involve complex information that will be difficult for the Planning Committee to understand. Therefore, referring all of these applications could take up a significant amount of Planning Committee time including additional training to enable the members of the committee to understand all the issues.
Alternative approach taken by councils
Provide trigger points for these types of applications either in line with the Major / Minor triggers or having separate trigger points. Normally this will be based on the number of representations received or councillor referrals.
Advantage of this approach
It ensures that key local organisations have a voice in the planning process and that local issues are properly debated in a public forum.
Disadvantages of this approach
It can create unmanageably long committee agendas and is reliant on how active a local organisation is on planning matters rather than the relevance of the planning issue.
It implies to the public that a representation received by a recognised organisation is given greater weight than an individual’s concern and this may not be a message that a council wants to give.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- Include a consultation procedure whereby the senior leader consults the Chair of the Planning Committee on the need for Planning Committee consideration and if there is a difference of opinion advice is sought from the Legal Officer.
- The referral excludes householder and other very minor applications
- Ask the referring organisation to specify what outcome they would require for the application to revert to being delegated to officers
- If the organisation that objects fails to attend to speak at the committee then the matter reverts to being delegated to officers or when in future the organisation objects the application does not automatically get referred to the Planning Committee.
Advantage of this approach
This enables the Planning Committee to give greater scrutiny to a community-based project and helps to ensure that the community benefits are given the right level of weight compared to other material planning considerations.
Disadvantage of this approach
It could result in accusations that there is a bias from the Planning Committee towards applications that are submitted by specific organisations rather than only considering the land use merits of an application.
Alternative approach taken by councils
Treat applications from these organisations in the same way as any other application and rely on councillors to refer an application if they consider that it warrants a Planning Committee decision.
Advantage of this approach
It is likely that the recommendation is contrary to a previous opinion made by the Planning Committee, therefore the Planning Committee is very likely to want to understand why the recommendation is different from a previous decision.
Disadvantage of this approach
If the application is the same or very similar to a previous matter that required a Planning Committee decision it is likely that it would be referred for the same reasons. If the original reason was based on the number of representations or a councillor referral then it is likely that there will be a similar number of representations or councillor interest unless there is less public interest for the second application. If there is less interest, it could be argued, that there is less reason for a Planning Committee decision. If the Head of Planning (or equivalent) referral power operates at the council then this can always be a fallback position taken by the council.
Alternative approach taken by councils
Include a consultation procedure whereby the senior leader consults the Chair of the Planning Committee on the need for Planning Committee consideration and if there is a difference of opinion advice is sought from the Legal Officer.
Advantage of this approach
A petition could be an indication that there is strong and organised interest in an application and therefore should warrant consideration by the Planning Committee.
Disadvantage of this approach
It is not always clear what the context is behind the petition. Sometimes people will sign a petition without really understanding the issues and it may be difficult to validate whether the signatures are genuine.
Alternative approach taken by councils
Petitions will be considered legitimate representations but only count as one (or other specified number) of representation(s). This will encourage those who feel strongly to make their own representation.
Advantage of this approach
It avoids minor consent matters from being referred to the Planning Committee. In some cases, the LPA has a limited time to respond, such as for prior approval matters, and there may be insufficient time to refer the matters to the Planning Committee. In the case of certificates of lawfulness, the decision is based on a legal judgement rather than planning balance. In other cases, such as householders and advert consents, the council may consider that the issues are of a minor nature and should not occupy the Planning Committee's time. Finally, in the case of non-material amendments the council has already agreed with the applicant that the issue is not material to the planning consent and therefore there should be no role for the Planning Committee to be involved in the decision.
Disadvantage of this approach
In some cases, issues that may appear minor in nature are in fact very contentious and have a strong interest from the public. There is often public interest in the discharge matters from a planning condition, particularly if the condition was added by the Planning Committee. S73 applications may significantly change the impact a development has on a local community and will create a new planning permission. Tree applications often create considerable public interest particularly when it involves the removal of a tree. Telecommunication installations are particularly contentious and can create significant public concern.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- Referrals are limited to planning applications and therefore will exclude other consent matters such as prior approvals.
- Limit S73 application referrals to those that raise new planning impacts.
- Limit tree applications to those where there has been an objection that is not overcome through negotiation.
- Create a higher threshold for the number of representations with regard to householder applications to avoid the Planning Committee being used to resolve neighbour disputes.
- Include a consultation procedure whereby the senior leader consults the Chair of the Planning Committee on the need for Planning Committee consideration and if there is a difference of opinion advice is sought from the Legal Officer.
Advantage of this approach
This provides a useful “catch-all” provision for the Head of Planning to refer a matter that is contentious or where there is an important probity issue, but it cannot be categorised into one of the reasons for Planning Committee consideration.
Disadvantage of this approach
Such referrals may be controversial as the applicant is not clear why a matter has been referred to the Planning Committee and may deem it to be unfair as the applicant has not made provision for a Planning Committee decision.
Alternative approaches taken by councils
- Include a requirement that the Head of Planning is required to specify the reason for the referral based on set criteria e.g. probity matter, issues are finely balanced or unusual response to a particular set of issues
- Include a consultation procedure whereby the senior leader consults the Chair of the Planning Committee on the need for Planning Committee consideration and if there is a difference of opinion advice is sought from the Legal Officer.