Can local authorities tweak planning committee sessions for the better? Anyone who has submitted a large number of planning applications will have inevitably experienced the frustration of unexpected outcomes.
Unfortunately, this can sometimes see important residential or infrastructure schemes dismissed in mere minutes, even after considerable time has been invested in supporting an application.
It’s not that councils don’t have the best intentions for their constituent communities. It’s just that sometimes, a decision is swayed by political pressures. Another decision might interpret planning policy inconsistently with established precedents.
Whatever the reason, the planning committee system must weigh sound evidence and professional judgement against the emotional fervors of the public. Planning expert Darren Muir at Pegasus Group shares his perspective on where the planning committee system works and where it can be improved.
Q&A
1. What would you consider to be the biggest fault with the planning committee system?
“Politics. The committee system works best when decision-making is aligned with the professional recommendations of officers. Unfortunately, we’ve seen well-researched schemes with long-term community benefits meet resistance at committee meetings for politically motivated reasons. If Party A supports a proposal because they want to be seen delivering economic growth, then Party B usually opposes the proposal because they need to be seen opposing Party A. Decisions on schemes should be about lasting community benefits, not optics, and there needs to be more accountability for elected members on this front.”
2. Have you experienced any awkward encounters at a committee meeting?
“We had a scheme in a large rural district town where a committee member admitted to not knowing the detail of the town in question — because he had never been there. It is not uncommon for applications to be deferred so that Members of the Committee can make a visit to the site. This can easily be sorted in advance of committee meetings to avoid unnecessary delays.”
3. Objectors play a key role in the process, but things can escalate – how big of an issue is this?
“Public participation should absolutely be protected. But there is a growing issue around the weight given to unverified or non-material planning concerns. When the process becomes overly democratic, volume and emotion start outweighing evidence, policy, and other material considerations.
That’s why it’s vital to have proper oversight from the council’s planning and legal advisors at committee, alongside a robust committee Chair. It helps distinguish between material planning considerations and issues that should not influence the decision. Otherwise, the volume of objections risks being conflated with planning harm, which isn’t how the system is meant to operate.
For example, a pending HMO application received over 2,000 objections after a social media campaign by candidates running for local elections. It has come to the point where the planning officer asked if we would withdraw the application because they felt the committee decision was predetermined. Naturally, the client declined and was willing to see it through the appeal process, if necessary.”
4. Is there a gap in how planning committee members interpret policy and technical evidence?
“Many planning committee members are experienced, but those new to the committee need initial training. The recurring gap is around applying planning policy in practice, particularly the concept of planning balance and how technical evidence should be weighed.
Areas like viability, daylight, and sunlight, and transport are often understandably technical. But when those matters have been assessed by qualified professionals and accepted by officers, there needs to be confidence in that process.
A recent committee I attended involved members looking to refuse permission due to the daylight/sunlight report showing a 79% pass rate. A member claimed this flouted adopted policy, but no such policy existed. They had conflated supplementary planning documents guidance and development plan policy. They also misunderstood that BRE guidance on daylight and sunlight assessments is not mandatory, and that a 50% pass rate is considered acceptable in urban environments. In other words, the scheme exceeded standards. That’s why it’s important to ensure officers brief members properly.”
5. How important is it for chairs and officers to manage debate and correct misunderstandings during committee meetings?
“An effective Chair, supported by strong planning and legal officers can assist the running of a committee. A Chair needs to maintain order and stop debates straying from material planning matters. There is also a responsibility on the LPA’s legal and planning teams, who tend to sit next to the Chair, to intervene when appropriate.
On one occasion while supporting a brownfield scheme in the Green Belt, some committee members struggled to see how a site could be both brownfield and Green Belt land. The agent cannot contribute to the debate between members, so it is up to the Chair, the head of planning, or the lawyer to inform members otherwise. The application was refused against officer recommendation. The case was won on appeal but was followed by more legal rigmarole involving local campaigners and the High Court that could have been avoided if members had been corrected at that early stage.”
6. Focusing on what works well, which LPA practices should be shared more widely?
“Good reporting is vital. Good practice from LPAs is spending more time explaining the planning balance. The planning system is nuanced, and a lot of attention is given to making sure the officer report accurately captures every comment, issue, or objection raised during assessment. However, they must also tackle how and why the planning balance is considered to overcome the issues and objections.
Robust members briefings are a key part of this, alongside ensuring officer reports aren’t rushed. A great practice is to work on the officer report from the beginning of the assessment, treating it as a ‘live’ document that is continuously updated throughout the determination process.
One Council we worked with had a process where applicants could present to the committee as part of the pre-application process, so the Members can input before submission of significant applications. This was an interactive discussion with opportunity for questions that worked well.”
7. What are three practical changes you’d like to see?
- “Reduce the type of schemes that need to go to committee in the first place. If a scheme complies with the development plan and there are no material considerations that suggest permission should not be granted, the decision should be delegated. This would help address issues such as allocated sites being refused permission against officer recommendations.
- Enhanced and mandatory member training on evidence and legal risk, particularly around viability, technical assessments, and appeal costs. Better understanding here would lead to more robust and defensible decisions.
- Make time limits consistent for presenting schemes to the Committees. Time limits can be as short as 3 minutes, which is not long for a big scheme, but in some cases, Ward members have unlimited time to speak.”
If you’d like to discuss how Pegasus can support your development, get in touch.