Planning committee reform: statutory consultation on draft regulations and guidance

The Local Government Association (LGA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) consultation on the draft regulations and guidance for the reform of planning committees.

While we broadly support the Government’s intention to streamline and speed up the planning system, we remain concerned about the potential erosion of local democracy and the limited flexibility created by a highly standardised national scheme of delegation as set out in our response to the previous technical consultation.

Size of committees (Regulation 7)

While this represents an increase from the previously proposed cap of 11 members, the LGA does not support imposing legislation that sets a maximum size for planning committees. Committee size does not determine effectiveness, and a strict cap could adversely affect political and geographical proportionality, particularly for authorities undergoing local government reorganisation and transitioning into larger unitary authorities that cover expanded geographic areas. We recommend instead that the Government issue best practice guidance on committee size and composition, allowing councils flexibility to structure committees to reflect local needs.

Schedule 1 / Tier A applications (Regulation 4)

We note that Schedule 1 limits automatic delegation for residential development to minor residential development (up to nine dwellings). We welcome this refinement. However, we remain concerned that there is no mechanism to refer a Schedule 1 application to the committee in exceptional circumstances. We recommend that the Government include a clearly defined mechanism to allow Schedule 1 applications to be referred to the committee when a case may have a significant local impact, raise complex planning issues, or generate substantial public interest.

The gateway test (Regulation 5) Assigning the decision to a nominated officer and nominated member places additional political pressure on these individuals. The draft regulations specify that where agreement cannot be reached, the application must be delegated to an officer. This default position risks bypassing democratic oversight and lacks a formalised dispute resolution process. We also believe that local authorities should retain the flexibility to use existing review panels, which often include vice-chairs and ward councillors, rather than being required to rely solely on a rigid two-person Gateway Test.

We welcome the Government’s revised approach to place reserved matters applications for phased development into Schedule 2, allowing them to be referred to the committee subject to the Gateway Test. 

In our previous response, we strongly objected to the original proposal to place all reserved matters applications under automatic officer delegation. Large-scale multi-phase developments take place over many years and involve significant design, layout and infrastructure details that can be highly impactful and often contentious. Moving phased reserved matters to Schedule 2 is a positive step that more accurately reflects community expectations. 

However, we urge the Government to recognise that non‑phased reserved matters applications on complex or sensitive sites can also raise significant planning issues. We believe local authorities should retain the flexibility to determine whether such applications warrant democratic oversight.

We are concerned that the removal of call-in powers prevents councillors from representing residents’ concerns effectively. The involvement of elected councillors is a fundamental component of the planning system. We previously urged the Government to adopt an effective and proportionate mechanism for call-in powers to operate alongside the Gateway Test. Abolishing them removes a vital democratic safeguard.

We note the draft guidance sets out minimum standards for keeping records of cases considered under the Gateway Test and making these available on local authority websites. We support this inclusion and emphasise that clear documentation and timely publication are essential to ensure compliance with the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 and the UK’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention. 

We urge the Government to ensure the final guidance includes robust, detailed instructions on how meetings will be recorded and published. No decision has yet been made on mandatory training for planning committee members. We recommend that the Government co-produce the training design with local authorities and support PAS as the preferred delivery partner, given its long-standing expertise. 

Training should include a blend of national and local content, and we believe certification should be administered locally. No decision was made on delegated decision making.

The LGA reiterates its opposition to reducing thresholds due to the disproportionate impact on smaller planning authorities and the additional strain this would place on the Planning Inspectorate. A more effective route to improvement would be to provide PAS with the resources required to offer expert guidance and support to planning teams.

Simon Jeffrey, Policy Adviser (Transport and Planning)

Email: [email protected]