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.