The RTPI champions the power of planning in creating prosperous places and vibrant communities. As learned society, we use our expertise and research to bring evidence and thought leadership to shape planning policies and thinking. As a professional body, we have over 27,000 members across all sectors, and are responsible for setting formal standards for planning practice and education.
Q1: Do you agree with the principle of having a two tier structure for the national scheme of delegation?
Whilst the RTPI agrees in principle with a national scheme of delegation, we have some concerns relating the two-tier structure set out in the consultation. Primarily, given the critical role of the Chief Planner in this proposed delegation model, we believe the role needs to be protected through statutory means, a point we have continually advocated for during the passage of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill.
We support the Government's intention of giving skilled planning officers an appropriate amount of trust and empowerment. However, we wish to see that key decision-making is undertaken by a competent professional who is suitably qualified or experienced to do so. Chartered status as a member of the RTPI, or individuals working toward this, would be the most practicable way of ensuring that decision making is undertaken by a competent professional. This will improve quality of decision making and provide necessary safeguarding through adherence to the Code of Conduct that specifies standards of professional ethics and mandatory continuous professional development.
If planning officers are to determine a greater amount of more significant applications, the Government needs to address a potential increase in abuse and undue pressure from the general public that could result. We note for example, RTPI Cymru’s Big Conversation report which highlighted alarming, increasing levels of abuse officers are experiencing, partly encouraged through social media, reported by those working in planning, as well as intimidation, raising safety issues. The increasing levels of formal and informal complaints were found to be having an impact on workload and time resource[1]. Therefore, we would like to see clear measures set out from Government as to how we can uphold the safety and well-being of our planning workforce.
If under a new proposed national scheme of delegation, a smaller number of more significant planning applications are to go to planning committees, the RTPI wants to see tangible and meaningful steps to better engage the public on those applications which will have a large impact on their area. Recent work by the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) showed that 15% of local councils do not webcast or record Planning Committee meetings. With many councils recognising and noting the range of benefits of providing online availability of meetings, it calls into question why a minority of local councils do not offer the same provisions for engagement to their communities. The RTPI has proposed that the Planning Infrastructure Bill includes provisions for the mandatory online availability of local planning authority committee meetings. We believe this will improve public engagement through increased accessibility, encouraging a diverse range of voices and experiences to engage with the planning process, and increasing accountability and transparency through providing an accurate record of decision-making. With a video record, accurate reporting of discussions and decisions at Planning Committees will no longer rely on detailed minute-taking by corporate support staff who may not have training on planning processes. Instead, minutes only need to be taken of actions arising out of meetings and underpinned by visual and oral record of the discussions taking place in the meeting.
Q2: Do you agree the following application types should fall within Tier A?
- applications for planning permission for:
- Householder development
- Minor commercial development
- Minor residential development
- applications for reserved matter approvals
- applications for non-material amendments to planning permissions
- applications for the approval of conditions including Schedule 5 mineral planning conditions
- applications for approval of the BNG Plan
- applications for approval of prior approval (for permitted development rights)
- applications for lawful development certificates
- applications for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development
Whilst the RTPI broadly agrees with the type of applications set out being suitable for automatic delegation, we have some concerns that the Tier A and Tier B approach make be overly simplistic. For example, certain proposals within application types, such as enforcement cases, may be significant and worthy of discussion at planning committees, but if were to be included in Tier B could constitute a significant volume of applications. This could therefore represent a high workload for the Chief Planner Officer and the Committee Chair if decisions were needed on each application within this type.
Q3: Do you think, further to the working paper on revising development thresholds, we should consider including some applications for medium residential development (10-50 dwellings) within Tier A? If so, what types of application?
Whilst we appreciate that many local authorities, especially in different rural/urban contexts, will wish to apply different approaches, it will counter the ambition of providing a consistent national scheme of delegation. This may prove acceptable with the aim of proposals to move towards improved consistency of delegation, but not total consistency.
It is not entirely clear what types of applications within the new proposed threshold could or could not fall within Tier A, given the proposed thresholds have not been fully defined yet. It is, for example, not clear whether commercial schemes will be included in this new threshold.
Q4: Are there further types of application which should fall within Tier A?
The RTPI would also include tree preservation orders, listed building consents and advertisement controls in Tier A, as these application types tend to be delegated to officers usually anyway.
Q5: Do you think there should be a mechanism to bring a Tier A application to committee in exceptional circumstances? If so, what would those circumstances be and how would the mechanism operate?
The RTPI recommends that provision is made in the legislation for LPAs to bring a Tier A application to Committee in exceptional circumstances where justified and in the public interest.
Q6: Do you think the gateway test which requires agreement between the chief planner and the chair of the planning committee is suitable? If not, what other mechanism would you suggest?
Assessing whether planning applications are controversial and understanding their relative complexity is in itself a difficult task and requires the utmost professional capability, engaging a detailed understanding of both planning and local matters. It is vital that communities have confidence that schemes of delegation are being made with input from competent professionals and that this occurs in an open and transparent manner. We therefore do not think the proposal for equivalent officers in LPAs without a Chief Planning Officer to undertake this work would be appropriate.
As set out in response to Q1, the statutory role of a Chief Planning Officer is an essential step towards a functional proposed gateway test. This is particularly relevant when considering the impending programme of devolution and local government reform, which will likely create larger teams, covering larger geographies, therefore creating more responsibility and increased scrutiny of this critical stage.
The RTPI is concerned that tensions may result locally in scenarios where there is continual divergence of views between the Chief Planning Officer and the Committee Chair at the gateway stage. If either individual is minded to delegate the vast majority of Tier B applications, simply achieving disagreement would effectively reach this outcome.
Q7: Do you agree that the following types of application should fall within Tier B?
- a) Applications for planning permission aside from:
- Householder applications
- Minor commercial applications
- Minor residential development applications
Yes, we agree.
- b) notwithstanding a), any application for planning permission where the applicant is the local authority, a councillor or officer
The RTPI is concerned that, as proposed, if all local authority officer related applications were to be included in Tier B, it may create a significant amount of delegation work at the gateway stage. A more focused set of criteria such as only regarding senior local authority officers or those working in the planning department may prove more workable.
- c) applications for s73 applications to vary conditions/s73B applications to vary permissions
Yes, we agree.
Q8: Are there further types of application which should fall within Tier B?
No comment.
Q9: Do you consider that special control applications should be included in:
- Tier A or
- Tier B?
As set out in response to Q4, we believe that special control applications should be included in Tier A.
Q10: Do you think that all section 106 decisions should follow the treatment of the associated planning applications? For section 106 decisions not linked to a planning application should they be in Tier A or Tier B, or treated in some other way?
We believe all s.106 decisions should be dealt with under delegated powers.
Q11: Do you think that enforcement decisions should be in Tier A or Tier B, or treated in some other way?
As set out in response to Q2, the RTPI anticipates a specific issue related to how enforcement decisions are delegated.
Q12: Do you agree that the regulations should set a maximum for planning committees of 11 members?
Yes.
Q13: If you do not agree, what if any alternative size restrictions should be placed on committees?
No comment.
Q14: Do you think the regulations should additionally set a minimum size requirement?
Yes, the RTPI would wish to also see a minimum size of 8 set. This would account for illnesses, holidays and absences, ensuring planning committees can be conducted with an appropriate quorum of attendees. Beyond the size of the committee the RTPI would welcome the exploration of merits of other models regarding the composition of planning committees, such as through appointment of members by the SoS as is currently done in National Parks.
Q15: Do you agree that certification of planning committee members, and of other relevant decisions makers, should be administered at a national level?
Yes. The RTPI agrees that certification of planning committee members, and of other relevant decisions makers, should be administered at a national level and supplemented by local training. The RTPI is also very supportive of the proposed introduction of a test.
The scope of the training needs to reflect the skills necessary for planning committee members to competently discharge their duties. This will include an understanding of the roles of actors in the system, planning process and materiality alongside general analytical skills.
Q16: Do you think we should consider reviewing the thresholds for quality of decision making in the performance regime to ensure the highest standards of decision making are maintained?
Exploring wider reform of the system by which the quality of decision is making is measured may be beneficial. For example, the existing use of percentages instead of numerical minimums might disproportionately penalise LPAs who deal with few major developments annually.
Q17: For quality of decision making the current threshold is 10% for major and non-major applications. We are proposing that in the future the threshold could be lowered to 5% for both. Do you agree?
No. The RTPI understands that if the current threshold were to be lowered, looking at existing performance statistics, it could place a significant number of LPAs in special designation status.
Q18: Do you have any views on the implications of the proposals in this consultation for you, or the group or business you represent, and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how.
No comment.
Q19: Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?
No comment.
Q20: Do you have any views on the implications of these proposals for the considerations of the 5 environmental principles identified in the Environment Act 2021?
No comment.
Other content you might be interested in
RTPI response to consultation on improving the implementation of Biodiversity Net Gain for mino...
RTPI’s response to MHCLG’s Planning Reform Working Paper: Reforming Site Thresholds
