One of the Government's flagship policies is "planning reform". This is based on the theory that the UK's disappointing economic performance in recent years is partly due to the contraints of what is loosely called "the planning system" (they really mean planning policies). Whether this theory has any objective validity (beyond the whingeing of the development industry) could be the subject of a separate article, but here I just wish to draw attention to one of the Government's misconceived attempts at reform: the reform of planning committees.
Here, in contrast to their professed wish to devolve power and responsibility and refrain from micromanaging local councils, the Government is proposing to legislate to mandate the membership, role and training of planning committees. They have issued a consultation paper on the proposal, but as this deals only with the details and not the principle, I have decided not to respond to the consultation but rather to write directly to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I don't suppose for one moment that she will see my letter herself, but it is possible that one of her senior civil servants may come across it and be prompted to question whether they really know what they are doing.
This is the letter that I have sent to Angela Rayner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 July 2025
Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP
Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Planning
reform – planning committees
I
am writing concerning the current consultation regarding “reform”
of planning committees. I would ask you to withdraw this consultation
and indeed the entire proposal.
My
professional credentials for writing to you are that I am a (retired)
Fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, a former Vice Chair of
the Planning Committee of a major city, and a former Chief Officer of
a different major city. I was also an active member of the Labour
Party for 62 years.
May
I begin by quoting from your recent White Paper “English
Devolution”:
“The controlling hand of
central government is stifling initiative and development throughout
the country……....Ending this cycle means a permanent shift of
power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their
communities best……. We will get councils back on their feet,
by……. ending the destructive ‘Whitehall knows best’ mindset
that micromanages their decisions.”
While
these sentiments and good intentions are commendable, they contrast
with your Department’s intention to legislate to restrict the
freedom of local councils to decide how to consider and determine
local planning applications.
Your
“Planning Reform Working Paper: Planning Committees” notes that
“there has been an increased focus on delegating decisions to officers, with committees now usually focusing on the largest or most controversial applications: 96% of decisions were made by officers in Q2 2024 compared to 75% in 2000………..Most planning committees, which comprise a number of elected councillors, make well considered and fair decisions most of the time.”
Nevertheless,
the paper then quotes three cases where, contrary to officers’
advice, councillors refused planning permission, but a subsequent
appeal was allowed and costs were awarded against the council. From
these examples your paper argues that reform is necessary to prevent
local councillors from making decisions that conflict with officers’
recommendations based on previous policies.
However
I could also quote to you cases from my own experience where
councillors have refused permission contrary to officers’ advice
and the subsequent appeal has been dismissed – i.e. the
intervention of the councillors to overrule their officers was
vindicated.
The conclusion that should be drawn from these examples is that the current system works well in the vast majority of cases, and that the possibility of a planning appeal and award of costs (including potential personal surcharge) are a sufficient deterrent against perverse or irresponsible behaviour by members of planning committees. Local councils are perfectly capable of deciding the types of planning applications that should be delegated to officers and at what level they wish councillors to be involved in planning decisions. Indeed, many have produced codes of practice that deal with this issue.
I
would also ask you to be sceptical of the doctrine that, just as
“Whitehall knows best”, in the same way “officers know best”,
and that therefore planning
committees should always follow the advice of their officers. I
refer you to the comments of the Nolan Committee (the Committee on
Standards in Public Life) in their third report (Cm
3702-1), especially
paragraphs 283 – 286, which I have appended. Although this report
was written many years ago (in
1997 in fact) its
conclusions are just as relevant today – especially their dismissal
of the idea that
planning is a “quasi-judicial”
process or that planning committees should invariable follow the
advice of officers.
In conclusion, therefore and in accordance with your professed wish not to micromanage local decision-making I would ask you to withdraw the proposed “reform” and the accompanying consultation paper. As an alternative, I would suggest that you draft an advisory model code of practice and leave it to the good sense of local councils to adopt or amend it in the light of their own circumstances.
I
am copying this letter to my local MP, Stephen Morgan.
Yours
sincerely
Robin
Paice, FRTPI (Ret’d)
cc. Stephen Morgan, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
(C) Copyright Robin Paice 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment