The RTPI’s response to the MHCLG consultation on planning committee reform: draft regulations and guidance
1) Do you have any comments on the draft Regulations?
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) is broadly supportive of the draft Regulations and welcomes the Government’s intention to introduce a national scheme of delegation. However, there are several matters that the draft Regulations do not cover, and some minor amendments would improve their usability and clarity.
Signposting the draft guidance in regulation 3(1) and 3(2) would help clarify that the nominated officer and member should be the Chief Planning Officer and chair of the planning committee (or equivalent officer/member). Given that regulations 5(4) and 6(4) signpost the guidance, we consider it important that regulation 3 and its subsections do likewise for consistency’s sake.
The intention for the nominated officer to be the Chief Planning Officer where possible reinforces our long-standing view that there is a need for the chief planning officer role to be statutory, especially given that our State of the Profession work published last year found that over a quarter of local planning authorities (LPAs) did not have a Chief Planning Officer in place. We note the Government’s desire to engage with local authorities and the wider planning sector before introducing this proposal into legislation. We also note that in the Government’s response to the planning committee technical consultation, a number of respondents called for the role to be made statutory. The institute would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government and key stakeholders to progress the statutory status of chief planning officers through a working group, or similar appropriate format.
As we stated in our response to last year’s consultation on planning committee reform , we support the intention to empower and trust skilled planning officers to utilise their expertise more consistently in assessing applications, which requires competent professionals with suitable expertise. To support this, chartered status of the RTPI (or working towards chartered status) would be the most appropriate way of ensuring that decision making is undertaken by competent professionals. It is worth noting that planning officers working in LPAs can currently face barriers to becoming chartered including having to pay assessment and membership fees themselves, and a lack of access to resources and mentorship. A chartered requirement should also apply to the Chief Planning Officer or equivalent nominated officer contributing to committee referral decisions.
Additionally, we would appreciate clarity (either within the guidance or the Regulations) around whether there is a mechanism for challenging the decision to refer an application to committee, and if so, how this would work. Given the contentious nature of some development, there will inevitably be instances of tension and occasional divergence of views between the nominated officer and member at the gateway stage. In theory, there could be instances where almost all Schedule 2 applications are delegated because the nominated officer and member cannot reach agreement. Planning committees have an important democratic role to play in determining certain kinds of proposals, and it is important that the gateway test does not become a significant source of friction hampering effective cooperation between elected members and authority officers.
Equally, the guidance should be explicit and clear in stating what would not be considered suitable criteria for referral to committee (for example, numbers of objections or referral by members). This would help to make the purpose of this new national scheme of delegation, the gateway test, and the role of planning committees, as clear as possible to members and local authority officers.
We note the requirement within guidance for the local authority to maintain and publish a record of decisions made by the nominated officer and member. It is important that the reasoning given for referral (or not) or detailed and robust, and that the recording and publishing of these decisions ensures transparency to the public. We would simply advise that the Government be mindful of the increased workload resulting from these requirements, and if these proposals are taken forward, the capacity of nominated officers and members across LPAs should be monitored to ensure they are able to fulfil all the functions of their roles.
Regarding the Tier A/Tier B proposals set out in last year’s planning committee consultation, the RTPI proposed that listed building consents, tree preservation orders and advertisement controls be included within Tier A (i.e. Schedule 1). We appreciate that the gateway test set out in regulation 5(2) is drafted so that only the most complex or significant applications should be referred to committee, but there is the potential for nominated members and officers within each LPA to have a large number of applications referred to them, for them to assess against the gateway test. Given that most listed building consents, tree preservation orders and advertisement controls are delegated anyway, we would encourage the Government to consider including them in Schedule 1 rather than Schedule 2.
Decisions on appeals – how to defend them, or withdraw them, for example – should be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1, to allow planning officers the delegated authority to make decisions where timescales will not allow for the gateway test process.
We would also ask that the Government investigate allowing local authorities to agree a more extensive delegation scheme at their discretion. Those LPAs dealing with a significant number of major applications may find benefit from increasing the range of applications that would be automatically delegated.
The Regulations allow any linked-person application to be referred to committee without needing to meet the requirements of the gateway test. As written, it appears to cover any employee of the authority, and this could apply to a significant number of applications. Although it is likely that most would not be referred to committee, in the event of uncertainty among the nominated officers and members, this could result in a significant increase in applications referred to committee (which could divert their attention and time away from the most complex and significant proposals). The Government should consider amending the Regulations to state that linked-person applications relate to any officer of the authority who works in planning or in a department that works with the planning function.
The draft Regulations make no mention of matters under the Planning Act 2008, and in particular the discharge of development consent order (DCO) requirements, where the LPA is the discharging authority. There is a risk that LPAs (whether officers or committees) may be uncertain as to how to deal with applications to discharge DCO requirements. Clarity within the text would be welcome to provide certainty for decision-makers. The Government should consider including technical and minor requirements for approved DCOs within Schedule 1, given that non-phased reserved matters and biodiversity gain plans are deemed suitable for determination by delegation.
Furthermore, in the interest of maintaining clarity and consistency, the draft regulations and guidance should be explicit and clear about how LPAs deal with those infrastructure projects which are directed out of the Planning Act (2008) regime and into the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) regime. We consider that these applications, given their complexity and importance, would be best dealt with under Schedule 2.
Finally, the RTPI acknowledges that Government has opted for a maximum committee size of 13 members to account for areas with a high mix of political representation across parties, and the ability of the committee to be quorate. Despite this, the RTPI considers a range of 8 to 11 members to be appropriate and sufficient. Additionally, guidance should be clear that LPAs should only have one committee within their authority’s area, to help achieve the government’s aims of having small committees of knowledgeable members who can have informed discussions about the development.
The RTPI would also welcome the exploration of other models of planning committee composition, such as through appointment of members by the Secretary of State (as is currently done in National Parks). There are successful international examples of this approach, like in New South Wales, Australia, where particularly significant development proposals are considered by planning panels which include independent experts.
2. Do you agree with our proposed approach to phased reserved matters applications? If not, do you think we should return to the original position of reserved matters on phased development being delegated in all circumstances or should we instead consider delegating certain types of phased reserved matters applications?
Agree/Disagree, room to comment
We agree with the proposed approach to phased reserved matters and offer no further comment.
3. Do you have any comments on the draft guidance?
Please see our response to question 1.
