What’s changing for planning committees and why it matters

An oddity (or a benefit, depending on your view) of the planning process is that each local authority is given almost complete latitude on its ‘planning protocol’. Each can decide its own Scheme of Delegation (what comes to committee and what is left to officers to decide), and size of committee. The government is well on its way to changing that, opening consultation on draft regulations last Thursday to spell out changes enabled by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.  

Currently, common reasons for an application coming to committee would be the size of a development (units or sqm) and number of objections. A further hurdle might be Chair’s discretion on applications with more than the stated number of objections. I did enjoy that prerogative when I chaired the planning committee in Haringey. Most authorities allow councillors an absolute right to ‘call-in’ applications to force them to committee if they otherwise wouldn’t be. They may have had an objector visit them at their surgery, after all. In all these matters, councils had discretion.  

The principle was probably that what constitutes a major or controversial development is different depending on the area. And people naturally have different ways of doing things. Very true. But this did give rise to some anomalies. Inner London boroughs (no names mentioned!) behaving as if they were quaint English villages, taking hours at committee over a householder extension or a neon sign because there were two objections. While others waved through hundreds of units or nonchalantly denied hundreds of objectors their ‘day at committee’ on smaller schemes. Or committee size, a council might cite a large ‘pool’ composed of most councillors, with an apparent ‘turn up if you feel like it’ attitude. I confess the second example in particular played havoc with a consultant’s powers of behaviour prediction!  

Overall, the result was unnecessary uncertainty and delay, factors that the government wants to reduce towards zero to achieve its target 1.5 million homes this parliament and kickstart the economy.   

So, what are the changes?  

The maximum size of a planning committee is suggested as 13 members. This seems reasonable. It’s a popular size at the moment, and you could argue that beyond that it becomes unwieldy.    

For delegation, the government is settled on a two-tier approach for delegation. Tier 1 applications must be determined by an officer. These are:  

• Householder applications  

• Minor commercial applications  

• Minor residential applications  

• Applications for permission in principle  

• Reserved matters other than reserved matters phase applications  

• Non-material changes  

Tier 2 applications, those which do not fall into the above categories ‘may be determined by a committee or by an officer’. The novel change is that the presumption is for officer decision unless referral to committee is agreed by the Chief Planning Officer and the Chair of the Committee. And the devil is in the guidance, with statutory criteria to be met before referral:   

1. where the application raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations  

2. where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area  

It is for the nominated officer and member to make that assessment, and on the face of it, criteria B offers significant latitude for Chairs to get applications to committee if there is significant interest.  

This reform is quietly revolutionary. There is no reference to objections in the draft. There is no reference to councillors’ rights of ‘call-in’. A presumption for officer decisions means that the challenge is to get things to committee, not to keep them away from committee. Very clearly, if it’s a minor application, it is for officers to decide – there is no way out of that.   

Since the assumption is that officers are more inclined to approve than members, the government thinks the new arrangement will boost development. Much will then hinge on the relationship between Chairs and Chief Planning Officers. Collaboration is key, but ultimately officers are answerable to cabinet members, not other members.  

There is also the possibility of a perverse effect of the policy. Members’ focus could move to persuading officers to ‘create’ refusal reasons or lean towards a different recommendation, when previously both Chair and Chief Planning Officers would have relied on the committee meeting to take its natural course. That was at least all out in the open.