What’s been going wrong?

The planning system has had its fair share of problems. The nation isn’t building enough houses and that is, in part, because the planning process takes too long.

It’s not all about housing, though. Nor is it simply down to“too much red tape”. Decision makers are under resourced and statutory consultees are also struggling, delaying the determination of even the simplest applications.

Too often decisions are made by appeal, delaying progress. That’s why every change proposed should be designed to free up officers’ time, not add to their workload.

So let’s think creatively about the opportunities surrounding planning reform, to make the right adjustments that will have the impact we all hope for.

What changes have already been implemented?

The updated NPPF introduced perhaps the most significant strategic policy change since I’ve been in practice: the grey belt. Three months on and we’re already seeing some interesting outcomes.

Change never runs smoothly but we expect these issues can be ironed out through refinement of the policy’s wording.

What changes are around the corner?

Three changes in particular have the potential to help unlock sites and are ones we’ll be keeping a close eye on.

Increased flexibility to amend planning permissions

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduced a new Section 73B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, expanding the scope to amend not only planning conditions but also the description of development.

We welcome the new changes but note that while legislation and case law interpretations should provide clarity, in practice determining whether a proposed amendment “material” or not is still at the discretion of the local planning authority.

Greater powers of delegation for local planning departments

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes a national scheme of delegation to standardise decision making across local planning authorities.

But let’s play devil’s advocate for just a moment. We have a plan-led system which invites the opinion of the electorate at every stage of a plan’s preparation. Decisions on proposals are made in accordance with these local plans, and departures are evaluated by a professional. We could question why any application needs to be determined by elected members.

However, there’s no doubt that committees ensure the electorate’s views are heard, something that is particularly important with contentious proposals.

But delegation procedures across the country vary hugely so while standardising delegation sounds like a real positive, in some cases it might result in an increase in the number of applications heard at committee.

Ring fencing planning application fees

This proposal to keep application fees within the department has been long been called for and will be welcomed across the development sector. More than that, local planning authorities will have the power to set their own fees.

It’s a move that reflects the government’s wider objectives to devolve power from central government and should help address the chronic under resourcing that all local planning authorities have struggled with over recent years.

What is still on our wish list?

Ok, here’s the fun part. What would we like to see the government do?

This is where we see the biggest potential for genuine planning reform that would ease burdens and unblock the planning system.

(1) Accelerated appeal route for decisions made against officer recommendation

This would help unlock sites that are stuck in an appeal system that is overloaded by unsound decisions taken against the advice of the planning officer.

The threats of costs awards and mandatory reporting on planning performance were introduced to focus minds, but what we really need is a way to fast track decisions which went against an expert’s (that’s the planning officer) advice, to unlock sites.

(2) Shaking up the make up of planning committee membership

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will control the size of planning committees and mandatory training for members which, in theory, is areal positive.

But what if we went a step further?

There are many differences between the English planning system and the process in Western Australia, where I live. When it comes to the composition of planning panels, I think there is something we can learn.

Panels in Perth are diverse, typically comprising:

• local elected members
• local planning officers
• state planners (equivalent to our Planning Inspectorate) and
• a selection of industry experts like architects, landscape architects or planning consultants.

This approach means there is still a political voice but panel members also assess the scheme from a more objective perspective informed by their expertise.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is making moves in the right direction, but at a time when planning committee decisions are so often criticised, the Australian approach could help rebuild trust, and credibility in the planning committee process.