INTO THE BEARPIT | Are planning committees fit for purpose?

Rowdy objectors, ineffectual chairing, and member intransigence over Grey Belt changes are just some of the frustrations applications can face once they reach the debating chamber. Place North West asked the market: what’s wrong with planning committees and how do we fix them?

With the exception of shimmering skyscraper CGIs, few things fire up the Place comments section like a controversial planning committee session.

It’s an article of faith that any major planning application should be heard in the chamber, with the arguments for and against given a fair hearing. But… is the system actually working?

For all that a back-and-forth planning wrangle makes great copy, and fiery exhortations in the chamber adds a bit of spice to the mix, committees can be a frustrating watch. They can be an uncomfortable watch too, when speakers are shouted over and belittled. They can take forever, often without even reaching a verdict.

There’s a wide variance too. Councils with heaving political majorities and sewn-up strategic regeneration frameworks can see a 500-flat tower waved through in minutes, while those elected to represent a leafy borough previously off-limits to hungry developers can feel themselves besieged, and defend accordingly.

It’s here where most often planners throw their hands up, as debate over projects they’ve helped shape over years takes completely unexpected turns.

This is a system that at the very least looks like it needs sharpening up. So Place asked a range of planning consultants how the region’s local planning authorities might tweak things for the better. Answers have been edited for clarity and brevity.

If you had to pick one, what is the biggest fault with the committee system?

Doug Hann, director, planning consultancy, WSP: There’s often very limited time for applicants to speak and often no ability to answer any questions. This creates a one‑sided debate and occasionally inaccurate comments are raised, which could easily be answered. Members get lengthy agenda reports and it is expecting a lot for them to digest all the detail. More engagement would allow matters to be properly considered.

Caroline Payne, director, Emery Planning: An application is presented to committee at the very end of what is often years of negotiating with officers and other consultees to achieve a positive recommendation – yet some members seem to mistrust and challenge the advice of their appointed professionals, which can result in new issues being raised, often falling outside of the remit of planning. Others refuse to accept changes in national policy that are not yet reflected in the development plan, the prime example being Grey Belt. After all that work, the ultimate decision often feels down to chance.

Christie McDonald, director, MWT: Politics! In an ideal world, planning decisions would be made by professional planners, not by members with limited knowledge of the planning system, who might not have read the reports in detail and can be motivated more by winning votes. Far too many applications are determined by planning committees – the government has recently opened a consultation on the National Scheme of Delegation in England so they clearly realise this is an issue.

Max Kidd-Rossiter, associate director, Marrons: Member discussions can drift without redirection, pulling the debate away from material planning considerations, and focusing on matters not directly relevant – local issues such as traffic – and attribute those problems to a proposal that hasn’t even been built.

Darren Muir, planning director, Pegasus Group: 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. Decisions should be about lasting community benefits, not optics, and there needs to be more accountability for elected members.

Andrew Bickerdike, head of planning North, Turley: There is often a lack of respect for the professional and qualified opinion of the advisors to committee – particularly frustrating when members take issue with technical, objective issues around things such as flood risk, highway operation and capacity, noise and air quality standards. Often we see members willing to ignore or disagree with this technical expertise without proper qualification. Some responsibility here rests with officers lacking conviction in their reports, and the politicisation of the planning system may be blamed for this.

What has been your worst experience at a planning committee meeting?

Payne: Being escorted out of a Town Hall back door by security, who saw me safely to my car! Residents had hired a coach to travel to the meeting and were waiting for me at the front entrance….

McDonald: Four new houses, now Grey Belt, an LPA with no five-year supply, called-in by a local councillor. Immediately after the officers’ positive report was read out, it was thrown to members. “I move for a refusal,” came a voice, immediately seconded. At no point did the senior officer step in to explain the Grey Belt argument, or explain what it is. Refusal was unanimous, although the reasons weren’t agreed on the night.

Muir: 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. Deferrals for a site visit are not uncommon, but that should really be easy to sort in advance.

Do you ever walk into a committee session feeling refusal is certain, in spite of officer recommendation? How do we tackle that?

Hann: Sometimes, you sense that regardless of recommendation, members are applying a different judgement. There is often significant local opposition, but when the appropriate planning weight is applied, such as lack of a five‑year housing land supply, consent ought to be granted. It does sometimes feel like members would rather refuse and lose at appeal so they can be seen to have presented the public’s case. This could be combatted by having chair or committee briefings by officers to explain the planning judgements underpinning a recommendation, allowing members to ask questions outside of a pressured public committee environment.

Payne: This feels particularly pertinent following changes in national policy. The prime example is Grey Belt applications where members don’t like the changes introduced by government. Members should have appropriate training on new policy issues as and when introduced.

Kidd-Rossiter: We’re seeing a particular pattern with the first wave of Grey Belt applications, where some authorities are voting schemes down almost as a matter of principle. In this climate, the timing of committee becomes increasingly strategic, because an appeal adds further costs, delay, and uncertainty for developers. Marrons’ research shows that around 80% of major residential Grey Belt appeals are being allowed, which highlights a disconnect between committee decision‑making and national policy direction. There needs to be consequence or accountability when members go against officer recommendations, and the subsequent appeal is upheld.

Bickerdike: No. Most applications are determined in accordance with the officer recommendation, in my experience.

Objectors are a vital part of the process, but we’ve all seen things get out of hand. How big an issue is this?

Hann: Committee chairs generally handle the public well and fairly, allowing representatives to speak. You do get situations where a large number attend committee and cheer or clap speakers, or shout or boo the applicant, which can disrupt or possibly intimidate. Sometimes, the objectors ‘lose the ear’ of members, although I have witnessed members responding to the mood in the room. While most committees feel genuinely impartial, I and colleagues have been approached by objectors when leaving which, for professionals simply doing their job, can feel intimidating. We often advise colleagues to stay on to allow crowds to disperse.

Payne: I’ve seen meetings get out of hand where objectors interrupt the members’ debate and heckle the agent/applicant speaking in support and are not prevented. Ensuring that only one person can speak against and one in support would help. It is also important that the chair is trained to ensure that any interjections are stopped before they escalate.

McDonald: I have witnessed a planning agent get headbutted by an objector, which is obviously at the extreme end of the scale but, on the whole, the behaviour of objectors at planning committee meetings needs to be controlled by a strong chair. Some LPAs have them, many don’t.

Kidd-Rossiter: The way many committee structures and constitutions are set up often results in objector voices outweighing those of supporters, both in number and time allocated. A simple way to restore balance is to ensure an equivalent opportunity is provided.

Muir: 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. The volume of objections risks being conflated with planning harm. It’s vital to have proper oversight from the council’s planning and legal advisors at committee, alongside a robust chair.

Bickerdike: Vocal opposition groups dominating the meeting room, making their presence felt, and creating a hostile environment can compromise the principle of a scheme being given a fair hearing. No one party should be given a greater platform than another to influence the committee and their decision making. If a toxic atmosphere is allowed to develop it can undermine the integrity of the process.

What sort of training appears to be lacking? Are there specific recurring issues?

Hann: Planning training is important, we must remember members are elected community representatives, not professionals, and planning is complex. I feel that it is often the legal and policy weighting aspects that members could be better trained on, such as the need to give clear reasons for approval or refusal, and the weight that can be afforded to policy in particular circumstances, and how that weight can change over time. There are also more technical aspects, such as visibility and viability.

Payne: A clear understanding of what falls within the remit of planning and what is controlled by other regulatory regimes.  We often see that planning is blamed and expected to solve many of the social, environmental, and economic problems that face a local area.

McDonald: Grey Belt offers a clear example of why training is so essential. Committees are now being presented with schemes that previously would, quite rightly, have been refused as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Although it’s a matter of fact that the policy landscape has changed, some members I’ve seen in action at meetings seemingly can’t understand that.

Kidd-Rossiter: Understanding the scope of the decision in front of them. Too often, committees spend significant time debating the principle of development or highways issues during reserved matters applications, even though those matters have already been determined. This wastes time and can result in deferrals or even refusals based on issues that are simply not up for consideration.

Muir: 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 technical, but when they’ve been assessed by professionals and accepted by officers, there needs to be confidence in that.

Bickerdike: The biggest area of concern I have in this area is around the fundamentals of the planning system and the concept of the planning balance, where competing interests need to be traded to reach the right outcome. The strive for perfection in every aspect of policy compliance is not reflective of how a positive planning system should operate, but I regularly see members falling into this trap.

Do you ever feel that meetings get out of control, or that they are ineffectually chaired? How might LPAs tackle this?

Hann: Committees work best with a strong chair who manages the committee so all have a fair chance to speak, and duplication and non-planning matters kept to a minimum. They should have a strong head of planning, legal adviser, and professional officers attending who proactively provide clear advice to members to clarify technical or legal points and provide advice where members may be straying towards decisions based on inaccurate information, non‑material considerations, or decisions which could leave the council open to challenge at appeal and potential costs. Improvement could come though better chair training and committee management protocols.

McDonald: Ineffectual chairing can be a massive issue. One solution could be to have an independent chair, who is not a councillor and wouldn’t vote, so is free from politics and can focus on running meetings properly.

Muir: Particularly vocal committee members or speakers can raise problems, but an effective chair, supported by strong planning and legal officers can maintain order and stop debates straying from material matters. There is also a responsibility on the LPA’s legal and planning teams to intervene when appropriate – agents cannot contribute to the debate between members, so it is up to the chair and officers to inform members when they need guidance.

Bickerdike: Sometimes – most committees have effective and skilled chairs in post who control and manage the room well and ensure due process is followed. There are exceptions and committee chairs operating under the pressure of a vocal opposition group can of course lose their focus – they are human beings – but usually not intentionally. LPAs need to be alive to this risk and if outside influence poses a threat to the integrity of the process, then LPAs should be willing to restrict access to the meeting room.

On the positive side of the ledger – are there particular practices some LPAs have, which you’d like to see used more widely?

Hann: For complex sites, councils that run member briefings in advance of committee to allow the applicant to present the scheme in a format where members can ask questions without forming a judgement work very effectively. Member site visits before committee can save on deferrals and aid understanding. Others allow five‑minute speeches rather than two- or three-minute ones for applicants to make their points, covering disciplines such as planning and highways. Officer presentations, with plans shown, also help focus members’ attention.

Payne: West Lancashire only allow public speaking the first time an application is presented to committee – so if an item is deferred, no public speaking can take place when it is reported back to committee. This avoids new issues being raised and focuses attention.

McDonald: More transparent reporting to members in relation to how much appeals actually cost the council, in particular where they lose and have costs awarded against them. Too often members don’t seem to have any concept of the actual costs of appeals or the knock-on effect of delaying or stopping development.

Muir: One council we worked with had a process where applicants could present to the committee as part of the pre-application process, so members can input before submission of significant applications. This was an interactive discussion with opportunity for questions that worked well.

Bickerdike: I work with one local authority where the committee, if minded to refuse an application, makes a decision on what they would refuse on during the meeting – but that resolution itself doesn’t generate a refusal, rather it sends the applicant back to ascertain how and whether the reasons for refusal can be addressed. Sometimes, its a point of principle which cannot be resolved, but in other cases this approach narrows down the issues and gives the parties the opportunity to work together to resolve them and enable a positive decision. It removes the inefficiency of refusals and gives officers time and space rather than working on the hoof.

What three realistic changes would you like to see?

Hann:

• Facilitating member briefings for major schemes ahead of committee meetings, led by applicants with officer attendance.
• Where members propose refusal against recommendation, the chair formally seeks the views of the council solicitor and head of planning on the proposed reasons. This would provide scrutiny where weak or poorly evidenced reasons are advanced and, where concerns are raised, allow deferral and an updated officer report.
• Removing minor applications from committee agendas to free up time for meaningful debate on major development proposals.

Payne:

• Ensuring that minor applications are always delegated, this is a positive move proposed by the draft National Scheme of Delegation, as is a clear test for members calling-in an application
• Restricting the number of public speakers to one against and one for
• Keeping a public record of the cost to the LPA associated with defending appeals contrary to officer recommendation (and costs awarded)

McDonald:

• Compulsory regular training for members, and their capabilities being monitored more closely.
• No option of certain applications being taken to committee even after ‘call-ins’ by local councillors.
• Independent chairs to run committee meetings.

Muir

• Reduce the type of schemes going to committee – 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.
• Enhanced and mandatory member training on evidence and legal risk, particularly around viability, technical assessments, and appeal costs.
• Make time limits consistent for presenting schemes to committees. Time limits can be as short as three minutes – not long for a big scheme – while ward members can have unlimited time.

Bickerdike:

• A system where exceptional reasons to deviate from officer advice on technical/objective matters are explicitly set out within the decision notice, a matter of public record that would ensure members fully ‘own’ the position they are taking. A provision could be introduced which directs that the LA need to fund the appellant’s appeal costs in addressing that particular issue.
• A two-thirds vote, rather than majority, needed to go against an officer recommendation. This increases the weight given to officer advice in the decision-making process reflective of their position as technical experts.