LGA response to MHCLG's Planning Reform Working Paper: Modernising planning committees

The LGA is the national membership body for local authorities and we work on behalf of our member councils to support, promote and improve local government.

We are a politically-led, cross-party organisation that works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems.

Key Messages

• In principle, a national scheme of delegation could be supported to drive clarity and consistency across planning committees and to improve speed and efficiencies in decision-making for local authorities. Our concerns lie in the detail however, and we do have serious reservations about the approaches to a national scheme of delegation set out in the working paper and we do not have a clear consensus on how a national scheme could be achieved. Working with local authorities of different types and geographies will be key.
• We do not consider it is necessary to legislate for the formal introduction of smaller dedicated committees focused only on strategic development. A sensible way forward would be to develop best practice guidance with relevant authorities for those seeking to set up such a committee and make clear that strategic development should have a clearly defined place within a Council’s planning committee system.
• Local government want to work with Government to develop a suitable and high-quality mandatory training programme for all committee members. We support the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) to be the preferred provider of a training programme for planning committee members.

In principle, a national scheme of delegation could be supported to drive clarity and consistency across planning committees and to improve speed and efficiencies in decision-making for local authorities. Our concerns lie in the detail however, and we do have serious reservations about the approaches to a national scheme of delegation set out in the working paper and we do not have a clear consensus on how a national scheme could be achieved. Working with local authorities of different types and geographies will be key.  

As the Government highlight in the working paper, 96 per cent of decisions were delegated and made by officers in Q2 2024 through existing local schemes of delegation. Only 30 local planning authorities delegated 89 per cent or less of application decisions to officers. Consideration could potentially be given to seeking to standardise the most common types of applications which are delegated across the country, though it could be a superfluous activity to legislate this given the overall rate of delegation has remained high for many years. 

Planning committees make decisions on only a small percentage of applications each year – and those applications typically involve either larger or more controversial schemes that require greater scrutiny by those who represent their place and communities. This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded. 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. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself if there is not an official role for the local community and their representatives in decision-making for the schemes that matter most to them. 

The schemes that matter most locally can vary place by place, and therefore it is important that any national scheme of delegation is sufficiently flexible to accommodate for local variation. 

Our reservations regarding Option 1 (‘Delegation where an application complies with development plan’) and Option 2 (‘Delegation as default with exceptions for departures from the development plan’) in the working paper relate to the fact that very rarely are applications 100 per cent compliant with a development plan owing to the competing nature of certain policy objectives. Should there be varying degrees of policy compliance, how would it be determined if applications are taken to Committee and who would make such decisions? There are also concerns relating to compliance with neighbourhood plans, and whether departures of an application from those plans would be sufficient to bring an application to Committee, even if it complied with the local plan.

Option 3 (‘Delegating as default with a prescriptive list of exceptions’) would be challenging to apply at a national scale; as we referenced previously the schemes that matter most locally, and would therefore be required to be considered exceptional, can vary from place by place. This option is too prescriptive in our view. 

Crucially, what works for one local authority’s planning committee does not reflect what is appropriate or workable for another’s, so whilst in principle we could support a national scheme of delegation, it must come with significant room for flexibility on how it is applied sensibly in place by individual authorities. 

We therefore would welcome further conversation with Government about how to ensure any national scheme of delegation is effective and appropriate, whilst also ensuring that the democratic backbone role councillors play in the planning system is not undermined or watered down by these proposals.

This proposal, for smaller dedicated committees focused only on strategic development, is already employed by many councils across England where determined to be required or most effective at the local level. We do not believe it is necessary to legislate for their formal introduction, or to set parameters related to committee size or scale of development that constitutes ‘strategic’. 

A sensible way forward would be to develop best practice guidance with relevant authorities for those seeking to set up such a committee and make clear that strategic development should have a clearly defined place within a Council’s planning committee system. The guidance could contain advice on governance procedures, approaches to committee size and political make-up, and how to engage with independent experts (whom we do not believe should form part of the decision-making body itself).

We support the Government’s proposal for mandatory training for members of planning committees. It is important that councillors receive the training they need to make informed decisions on proposals in their localities and have the tools and understanding to undertake their vital roles in the democratic planning process. 

The majority of councils across the country already undertake some form of training for committee members - however the content, frequency and delivery approach vary. Consistency and standardisation are therefore welcome to ensure robust decisions can be made by all planning committees. 

We agree with the Government proposals that training should cover all basic principles of planning, including “planning legislation, the role of the development plan and national planning policy, the planning application process, enforcement, and the code of conduct for planning committees”. These would set a national baseline of understanding amongst planning committee members. However, Government must give consideration to bespoke training that may be required for certain localities – for example in areas where there are strategic plans like London, or areas where there are environmental factors at play such as nutrient neutrality. 

Further, the Government must consider how, and how quickly, training will be updated to reflect changes to national and local policy and new challenges or considerations in the planning system. 

The format of the training will be critical to its success, rather than it being a tick-box exercise. Government must consider the merits and challenges of whether the training should be delivered in-person, online or via an e-module with regards to speed of roll-out, member engagement, ability to personalise training and answer specific questions and form of assessment.

Assessment of member understanding of the content of training, rather than simply attendance (whether in-person or virtual), is considered necessary for verification that training has been successful. 

With regards to the frequency of training, Government must be mindful of ‘peaks’ of demand for training, in particular following council elections or when new legislation is introduced or enacted. In order to avoid delays in decision-making or potential for challenges on ‘legality’ of decisions made or ability for a committee meeting to take place, training would need to be rolled out to newly elected committee members immediately. This would prove problematic should training be provided in-person, unless there is significant funding provided.

Government must also consider whether training ‘lapses’ or ‘expires’ and how often a planning committee member must re-take their training – and any consequences of not doing so.

It is positive that Government would take steps to allocate new burdens funding to local authorities to secure such training for their committee members. 

Local government want to work with Government as these proposals develop so all committee members can access the same quality of training. We support the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) to be the preferred provider of a training programme for planning committee members, given their long history of providing well-received and thorough training and their in-depth knowledge of planning committees and the planning system.