Guide

Streamlining Planning: Balancing Efficiency and Accountability

UK planning reforms aim to boost housing via faster approvals. Success hinges on balancing efficiency, accountability & local context.

Investment

Project management

Living and multifamily

Government

Authors

Tom Procter

Senior Town Planner

Your browser doesn't support speech synthesis.

Listen to article •

Read time: 1 sec

Another round of consultations has begun, with respect to simplifying planning requirements for:

The smallest housing sites;
Creating an expanded, tiered site threshold system that includes medium site thresholds; and
The introduction of planning committee reforms.

These are part of the Government’s plans to speed up the planning system and deliver 1.5 million homes during the current Parliament.

Proposed site thresholds

The consultation paper on reforming site thresholds introduces a potentially positive, more nuanced approach to development management.

The key proposals include:

Minor development (under 10 Homes/0.5 ha): Maintaining the existing threshold, with a focus on streamlining through potential exemptions or reduced requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). The reaffirmation that affordable housing contributions should generally not be required is a pragmatic step for these smaller sites, with the exception of designated rural areas. The paper's focus on improving the 8-week statutory determination period and reducing validation requirements is also welcomed.
Medium development (10-49 Homes/Up to 1.0 ha): This is the most significant new element. Introducing a "medium" threshold could offer tangible benefits by reducing regulatory burdens and accelerating the delivery of smaller housing schemes. Simplifying BNG requirements and exploring exemptions from the Building Safety Levy and build-out transparency measures could unlock stalled developments. Furthermore, specifically tracking the 13-week statutory determination period for these applications and uplifting Permission in Principle (PiP) are positive steps.
Major development (50+ Homes/1+ ha): The consultation seeks views on applying a threshold for mixed-tenure requirements on larger sites.
Section 106 agreements: The paper acknowledges that protracted s106 negotiations disproportionately impact SMEs. Standardising s106 templates and exploring off-site contributions offer a chance to streamline the process and unlock developments. For local authorities, this could free up resources, allowing them to focus on strategic planning and complex negotiations.

However, several challenges need to be addressed

BNG simplification: The simplified BNG metric for medium sites must be genuinely simpler and less costly, while still delivering meaningful biodiversity improvements. Clear guidance and transparent calculations are essential.
Delegation to officers: While delegation of schemes to officers could expedite decisions, clear guidance and a robust framework for delegation will be essential to maintain public trust and accountability. Crucially, this framework needs to form part of the proposed National Scheme of Delegation, which will provide consistent oversight. A well-defined delegation scheme can also empower planning officers, allowing them to manage caseloads more efficiently and freeing up committee time for more strategic considerations.
Section 106 standardisation: A standardised s106 template for medium sites could be helpful, but it must retain sufficient flexibility to address site-specific circumstances and local policy requirements.
Very small sites: The proposals for very small sites, while potentially beneficial, lack detail. The "rules-based approach" and template design codes need careful consideration to ensure they don't stifle innovation or lead to generic, poor-quality design.
Impact on local authority resources: To alleviate workload for planning departments, the streamlining measures need to reduce complexity effectively and this will require a period of adjustment and training. Overall, this is positive as effective streamlining should free up local authority resources, allowing them to focus on strategic planning and complex applications.

The preceding analysis has addressed the first two discussion points. The focus now shifts to the final area of discussion: reforms to planning committees.

Planning committee reforms

The consultation on reforming planning committees focuses on improving their effectiveness and ensuring they focus on important applications. The proposals include a two-tiered delegation scheme, a maximum committee size of 11 members, and a national training and certification scheme.

The potential benefits are clear

Streamlined decision-making: Tiered delegation could lead to faster decisions on routine applications, reducing delays and costs for developers and freeing up committee time.
Focus on important issues: By delegating straightforward cases, committees can concentrate on complex or contentious applications, allowing for more in-depth consideration of major developments.
Improved decision quality: A national training and certification scheme could raise the standard of planning committee decision-making, leading to better-quality decisions and potentially reducing the risk of legal challenges. This could also enhance the credibility of the planning system in the eyes of the public.

However, key questions remain

Defining "important": The success hinges on a clear and consistent definition of what constitutes an "important" application that warrants committee review. Ambiguity could lead to disputes and undermine the changes.
Local context: A one-size-fits-all approach to committee size might not be appropriate. Some areas with high development pressure or complex planning issues may require larger committees to ensure adequate representation and expertise. For local authorities, maintaining flexibility in committee size allows them to respond to unique local needs and circumstances.
Resource implications: Implementing a national training scheme will require significant resources. Funding must be available and training accessible to all committee members, especially those in smaller or rural authorities.
Democratic accountability: Reducing committee size could raise concerns about democratic accountability. Ensuring that all communities are adequately represented and that decisions are transparent and open to scrutiny is essential.

Navigating planning reforms for a sustainable future

The proposed reforms have the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the UK planning system. By streamlining processes, reducing burdens on SMEs, and empowering planning officers, the government aims to accelerate housing delivery and support sustainable development. However, the success of these reforms will depend on careful implementation, clear guidance, and ongoing monitoring. Balancing efficiency with accountability, local context, and democratic representation will be crucial to ensuring that the planning system serves the needs of all stakeholders.

To discuss any of the matters discussed above or any other planning matter, please contact the team.