Government must be mindful of balancing interests of national growth with the role of local councils and councillors, as well as trust and democracy in the planning system.
Introduction
Councils are committed to supporting the delivery of new homes, economic growth, energy security and national infrastructure. Local planning authorities (LPAs) already make balanced decisions within a national policy framework and are accountable to their communities through democratic decision‑making. Any proposed changes to Secretary of State consultation or call‑in arrangements for planning decisions must therefore be targeted, proportionate, based on a clear rationale that can be held to account and demonstrably effective, and must not undermine local democratic accountability or delay decision‑making.
This is because the involvement of democratically accountable councillors in planning decisions is the backbone of the English planning system - councils and their elected representatives know their areas and communities best and should remain at the heart of the planning process.
These proposals, alongside the recently issued direction requiring consultation with the Secretary of State in respect of an application for 150 or more homes which an LPA is minded to refuse, as well as reforms to planning committees and changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, constitute a significant shift and significant reform to local decision-making.
Government must be mindful of balancing interests of national growth with the role of local councils and councillors, as well as trust and democracy in the planning system.
Before addressing the individual proposals, we wish to highlight the following cross‑cutting issues:
Local democratic accountability
Planning decisions are best made locally, informed by local plans, national policy, and community engagement. Expanding requirements to consult the Secretary of State risks weakening the principle of plan‑led, locally accountable decision‑making, particularly where LPAs are acting in accordance with an adopted local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The proposed extension of call-in power also goes against the principle of devolution, as it is the re-centralisation of decision-making power back to Government. (This sentence is cleared with a majority approval.)
Any further intervention powers should be used exceptionally, not routinely.
Impact on timeliness and capacity
LPAs already face severe resource pressures following more than a decade of real‑terms funding reductions and ongoing workforce challenges in planning departments. Additional consultation or call-in requirements may add friction and delay into the system, increase the administrative burden, and risk slowing down decision‑making for applicants and communities.
Section 1: Proposals for new consultation requirements where LPAs are minded to refuse planning permission for commercial development with a floorspace of 15,000 square metres or more
The LGA recognises the importance of major commercial development to national and local economic growth. However, we have concerns about the proposed approach.
Many large commercial schemes raise significant local impacts, including transport capacity, environmental effects, town centre vitality, and infrastructure pressure. LPAs must retain the ability to refuse schemes that are unsustainable or conflict with adopted plans and policies.
The proposed 15,000 square metres threshold risks capturing a wide range of developments that are locally significant but not nationally strategic. The threshold should therefore be more clearly linked to genuine national or regional strategic importance, not solely floorspace, and clear criteria should be published setting out the circumstances in which call‑in is likely, to improve certainty and avoid defensive decision‑making. The Direction should explicitly confirm that LPAs acting in line with an adopted local plan are not discouraged from refusal where justified.
Section 2: Proposal for new consultation requirements where LPAs are minded to refuse certain applications relating to nuclear facilities
The LGA accepts that some nuclear‑related development raises national strategic and safety considerations that may justify possible intervention by the Secretary of State.
Nuclear‑related development that falls outside Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime often involves complex local considerations that are best addressed through local expertise including transport, housing, labour markets, environmental effects and emergency planning.
We therefore recommend that associated guidance must clearly define the types of development in scope, to avoid uncertainty.
Section 3: Detailed Emergency Planning Zones (DEPZs) for AWE Aldermaston and AWE Burghfield (‘Defence DEPZs’)
The LGA recognises the importance of national security and public safety considerations in Defence Detailed Emergency Planning Zones (DEPZs).
We will not comment on the specific geographies of the consultation’s proposals however Government must give consideration to the unique position and concern this may introduce for LPAs when balancing expert objections with housing need and local plan delivery.
Conclusion
The LGA supports the Government’s objectives around inclusive growth, infrastructure delivery and national safety. However, we urge the Government to ensure that councils remain at the heart of the planning process, with the funding, powers, and capacity to ensure that decisions are made transparently and in the best interests of the people they represent.