Planning reform: Lessons from the High Court

The decision in Rodmersham Parish Council v Swale Borough Council offers an indication of why both reforms matter and how they may operate in practice. While the reforms are a genuine step forward, the case shows that the legislation alone cannot reform planning committees or remove the politics surrounding them.

The national scheme of delegation

The aims of the national scheme of delegation are clear: to make decision-making more predictable, reduce delays and lower the number of appeals.

The government is introducing these reforms against a backdrop in which around one-third of refused planning applications are overturned on appeal, creating significant cost, uncertainty and delay for developers.

The changes will move routine decisions to officers and reserve committee time for applications that genuinely warrant democratic scrutiny. Most applications will be subject to a presumption of officer delegation. Referral to committee will require the planning officer and committee chair to agree that the application raises a significant planning matter or an issue of economic, social or environmental significance.

Authorities will need to amend their constitutions accordingly.

When the scheme comes into force on 31 October, it will mark one of the most significant structural changes to the planning committee system.

Mandatory training

The secretary of state now has the power to make regulations on mandatory training. Once in force, the regulations will require committee members to hold a valid training certificate before participating in planning decisions. Authorities will have to publish details of certificate holders on their websites.

One important caveat is that a decision involving an untrained member will not automatically be unlawful. However, non-compliance carries significant governance and reputational risks, and training records may well be scrutinised in future legal challenges.

Training tested in court

The recent Rodmersham case concerned planning permission for a 65 hectare solar farm. One ground of challenge was that, in his closing remarks before the vote, the committee chair had materially misdirected members by suggesting that they needed a “substantial” reason to refuse permission and warning that those voting for refusal would be expected to defend the decision at any subsequent appeal.

The council’s defence relied partly on all committee members having completed mandatory training, as the chair had confirmed at the start of the meeting. Evidence from the council’s planning manager described the training, including guidance on what constitutes a valid reason for refusal.

The judge accepted that trained members would have understood “substantial” to mean genuine, evidence-based reasons rather than trivial or contrived ones. The challenge failed on all grounds.

For applicants and local authorities, the decision shows that clear: robust, documented training provides a meaningful evidential safeguard when committee conduct is challenged. Once the statutory certificate regime comes into force, that safeguard will become more formal and publicly verifiable.

What this means in practice

For developers and promoters, the scheme of delegation offers faster, more predictable officer decisions across a wider range of applications. However, it will not remove politics entirely.

Referral to committee will require agreement between the planning officer and committee chair, with the officer having the casting vote.

Although rigorous on paper, the process will operate within a culture of pragmatism and relationship management. Routinely rejecting a referral championed by the chair may place a planning officer in a difficult professional position. These pressures are real and legislation cannot eliminate them – although the emerging Public Office (Accountability) Bill will impose new standards of “ethical conduct”.

The Rodmersham case illustrates the point. When the committee chair's pre-vote remarks were challenged as a misdirection, one criticism was that "officers failed to intervene and correct false statements" made during the meeting. Whether officers feel able to resist political pressure, in the committee room or during the referral process, remains a matter of professional courage and institutional culture.