Last week, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published a consultation on reforming planning committees in England. These reforms are part of the government's drive to modernise committee operations "to best deliver for communities and support much-needed development." They also form part of its broader ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes while making the planning system more efficient and fit for purpose.

Key proposals

Two – tier delegation system

A central proposal is the introduction of a national two-tier delegation system, which would categorise planning applications into:

• Tier A: Routine matters such as minor developments or technical approvals, which must always be delegated to officers.
• Tier B: More complex cases, which may go to committee if the Chief Planner and Committee Chair agree they meet a "gateway test." Examples include applications to vary planning conditions, applications by the local authority or an officer, and those raising "an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area" or a "significant planning matter having regard to the development plan."

What exactly constitutes "an issue of significance to the local area" or a "significant planning matter" is yet to be clarified, and further guidance will be essential if this proposal moves forward.  The government has also asked whether there should be "exceptional circumstances" criteria what would allow Tier A applications to be taken to committee.  

Greater consistency in how planning applications are handled would be welcome, but the "gateway test", and the application of an exceptional circumstances test, could become a focus of disagreement and challenge with applicants and affected parties making submissions about whether or not the application should go to committee.  The decision by the Chief Planner and Committee Chair could be subject to a judicial review and what happens if they disagree?   It would be unfortunate if a process designed to speed up planning, instead slowed it down. Clear criteria as to which developments fall in each Tier would be preferable.     

Mandatory Training

Another significant proposal is the introduction of mandatory training—and potentially a certification scheme—for committee members. The government proposes that only trained members should be allowed to make decisions.

A recent Planning Advisory Service survey revealed that 45% of respondents did not have a good understanding of planning processes—an alarming statistic for those tasked with making critical development decisions in England. This has driven strong industry support for mandatory training.

The consultation seeks views on whether certification should be developed nationally or locally, with the government favouring a national scheme to reduce the burden on local planning authorities.

A national scheme seems sensible, given the resource constraints already faced by local authorities. However, it is crucial that any training includes sufficient focus on local contexts to ensure decisions are well-informed.

Committees Size

The government has dropped the idea of targeted committees for strategic development, following industry criticism. Instead, it proposes capping committee sizes at 11 members, with flexibility for smaller committees where appropriate.

The industry generally supports smaller committees, which are seen to facilitate sharper debate and more effective decision-making. Whether this change will have a significant practical impact remains to be seen.

Other Proposals

Alongside key proposals listed above, the government has also put forward several additional measures aiming to improve consistency and effectiveness in delegated decision-making:

• Simplifying and updating local plans to make them more user-friendly.
• Introducing national decision-making policies to standardise the framework for planning decisions. 
• Reviewing the performance thresholds for planning authorities, with the potential to lower the appeals overturn rate from the current 10% to 5%.
• Empowering councils to set their own planning fees to better fund high-quality services.

The emphasis on simplicity and user-friendliness is a positive trend in planning reform. However, allowing local authorities to set their own fees raises questions about consistency. It is unclear why a national approach to fee-setting is not being considered, and whether mechanisms will be in place to challenge fees set by individual authorities.