Government has issued a series of working papers on different aspects of planning reform, designed to inform further planning policy development. Chapman Lily Planning will be looking and reporting on each one. Today we consider the Planning Reform Working Paper: Planning Committees. The paper puts forward three possible options of reform, designed it says ‘to facilitate faster delivery of the quality homes and places that our communities need’, by (a) a national scheme of delegation – bringing clarity and consistency to everyone about which applications get decided by officers and which by committees; (b) dedicated committees for strategic development – allowing a dedicated and small group of councillors to dedicate energy to the most significant projects; and (c) training for committee members – requiring that councillors undertake appropriate training before they can form part of a planning committee.
In terms of (a) a national scheme of delegation, the paper puts forward three options – Option 1 – automatic delegation to officers where an application complies with development plan, Option 2 – Delegation as default with exceptions for departures from the development plan so that all applications should be delegated to officers unless specific circumstances apply – for example the application has been submitted by the local planning authority, its members or officers. Option 3 – Delegation as default with a prescriptive list of exceptions this would again require all applications to be delegated to officers. However, under this model, the national scheme of delegation would set out a prescriptive list of application types to be determined by committees to provide certainty to applicants from the start.
Director, Brett Spiller commented; ‘I welcome the series of discussion papers. A national scheme of delegation would, in theory be welcome, so at the very start, applicants know which route and possible time scales the decision-making process will take, however, I foresee much debate as to whether a planning application is totally in accord with the development plan – does this mean every single aspect must be in accord? Is that even possible? If not clarified, then I foresee legal challenges and as much delay and debate as at present. I welcome dedicated committees – this allows for an expertise to be built up by members – which neatly dovetails into the final suggestion, that in order to serve on a planning committee, members must receive appropriate training – I completely support this and would add that this needs to be ongoing training not just ‘one off’ – perhaps, for consistency, the government should be responsible for providing this?’
