The problem with planning committee reforms

On the face of it, mandatory, standardised committee training seems like a positive step. Planning decisions often hinge on nuanced policy interpretations and a clear understanding of the planning framework, so ensuring that committee members are objectively deemed well equipped is sensible.

However, it is important to recognise that many local authorities already provide some form of training. The real issue lies not in whether training exists, but in how consistent, thorough, relevant and high quality that training is.

If this mandatory training is well-resourced, centrally developed and robustly delivered, it could lift the standard of decision-making across the board, in turn having a positive ripple effect on housing delivery. Yet, as is so often the case, questions remain about who will provide the training, how it will be funded and whether it will genuinely improve outcomes, given that most are already complying with this.

“Even the best-trained committee members operate within a system that is often undermined by political pressures, a lack of resourcing and conflicting local priorities”

However, training alone might not solve deeper systemic issues. Even the best-trained committee members operate within a system that is often undermined by political pressures, a lack of resourcing and conflicting local priorities.

In my experience, committees at well-performing authorities, where officer recommendations are followed and decision-making is delegated appropriately, function effectively already. It’s not clear how much these reforms will assist those authorities, or whether they will address problematic behaviours meaningfully in others.

Another area of reform under discussion concerns the composition and size of planning committees. There is political energy around re-examining the structure of these bodies to meet the government’s 1.5 million new-homes target, though, in truth, most committees currently operate within reasonable parameters, with typically between nine and 15 members.

This focus risks becoming a red herring, a superficial fix rather than a response to deeper challenges around resourcing, consistency and decision-making culture.

Training, size and composition of committees, however, are only one part of the proposed amendments, with the others looking to regulate whether planning functions are discharged by the committee or officers.

How the national scheme of delegation works is the most important element of this change. This involves the question of compliance with development plans, with three options to streamline delegation requirements being explored through the Planning Reform Working Paper: Planning Committees.

In theory, this should make housing decisions more predictable and prevent committees from derailing applications for allocated sites late in the process. In practice, the definition of what constitutes being ‘compliant’ with a development plan is often far from straightforward. There are grey areas, subjective interpretations and competing material considerations that can complicate matters, particularly at committee stage.

This ambiguity has real-world consequences. Developers that have spent years promoting sites through local plans only to face late-stage rejection by committees find themselves back at square one. The reforms risk overcomplicating the notion of compliance rather than simplifying it.

We must get away from the current system, where it is possible for a council to allocate a site for development and for a planning committee to then refuse the planning application on a matter of principle. Any technical objection should be capable of being resolved by officers, where they are sufficiently resourced to achieve a solution.

No amount of procedural change will overcome the fact that the majority of planning departments across the country are chronically under-resourced. The sector faces a significant skills gap, with experienced officers leaving and insufficient numbers of trained staff coming through to replace them. While the announcement of funding to train 300 new graduate and apprentice planning officers in the 2024 Budget was welcome, nationally, it hardly scratches the surface of bolstering England’s 337 planning authorities.

“No amount of procedural change will overcome the fact that the majority of planning departments across the country are chronically under-resourced”

Crucially, local planning departments often find that the fees they generate disappear into the broader council coffers, rather than being reinvested to increase capacity. I would like to see the ring-fencing of planning fees prioritised so that local teams can fund enough new staff to function fully.

The same funding announcement also intended to upskill current planning officers in relation to amendments to the planning system. This always raises the circular question: if we stopped amending the planning system and let it settle, would we need a funding stream to retrain officers? Is the revolving door of planning policy reform one of the biggest contributors to the housing crisis?

Devolution and Labour’s proposed 100 New Towns will undoubtedly shape the housing landscape over the next few decades. However, these are long-term solutions, often with 15-20 year timelines before homes start being delivered. They won’t address the immediate bottlenecks preventing more homes from being built today.

While the government’s proposed reforms to planning committees have positive elements, they risk being insufficient if treated in isolation.

Training and committee reform are steps in the right direction, but without proper investment and a joined-up national strategy, we’re unlikely to see the scale of change necessary to genuinely accelerate housebuilding.

Stuart Tym, partner, Knights