Planning reform ahead: new Bill proposes local fee control and fewer committee decisions

The PIB proposes changes that will enable local planning authorities to recover all expenses incurred in processing and determining planning applications; currently they have no say as fees are set nationally.  Local planning authorities may (if enabled by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation) be able to set fees themselves provided they do not exceed cost recovery.  

Submissions on the PIB generally support changes to the fee structure; there is a willingness to pay higher fees provided there is better speed, consistency and quality of the planning service provided.  Some have suggested that there needs to be monitoring of local planning authority performance against the fee charged.  Wider plan making services are not proposed to be covered by these changes and could therefore remain under-funded.

The Secretary of State is empowered to set mandatory and standardised training for planning committee members.  Again, the detail is reserved for secondary legislation, but we do know that planning committee members will not be able to make planning decisions without receiving a training ‘completion certificate’. A centralised and compulsory training system is generally welcomed, however some have suggested that there needs to be some form of examination or testing to ensure a baseline level of competency across local planning authority decision makers. Questions have also been raised about whether there needs to be additional area specific training (e.g. to address the additional layers of complexity in London) and supplementary training when there are changes to legislation/relevant guidance documents.

On 28 May 2025 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (“MHCLG”) released a technical consultation document seeking views on the implementation of three aspects of the PIB reform – the national scheme of delegation, controls on size and composition of planning committees and mandatory member training. On training, and addressing those concerns with ensuring a baseline level of competency for committee members, MHCLG have indicated a preference for a national certification scheme which would involve an online test for certification. Views will be sought on that approach, as opposed to a locally based approach, before MHCLG develop the training package alongside sector members. 

Clause 46 of the PIB empowers the Secretary of State to set a national scheme of delegation for local planning authorities and to make regulations that set out the size and composition of planning committees. Submissions on the PIB explain that the determination of planning applications by committee can be somewhat arbitrary, with some outcomes seeming to be influenced by local politics or inconsistent interpretations of policy (both at a national and local level). Submissions on the PIB broadly support the intent to improve clarity, transparency and consistency of decision making but there is concern about what the scheme will look like; for example the ability for the scheme to deal with local circumstances and whether there could be reduced political oversight of locally important applications.  

The MHGLC consultation document provides additional detail on the national scheme of delegation and the size of planning committees.  A two-tiered approach has been put forward for classifying planning applications:

1. Tier A: Mandatory officer delegation (e.g. applications for householder development, reserved matter approvals, Lawful Development Certificates)
2. Tier B: Optional officer delegation (to be delegated to officers unless the Chief Planner and Chair of Committee agree it should go to Committee based on a gateway test) 

MHCLG are inviting views on the two-tiered approach, the types of applications that should fall into Tier A and what should be considered as part of the Tier B gateway test. The approach does seem to create greater certainty and transparency for applicants in relation to how the decision on their application will be made. Whilst the general thrust of the scheme is welcomed, it is unlikely that all subjectivity on which applications go to committee can be removed.  For example, there will be room for subjectivity on the part of planning officers for some applications which require compliance across the whole of a local development plan.

In relation to the size of committees, MHGLC seeks views on its proposal to cap planning committees at 11 members (allowing smaller committees if appropriate in a particular locality). It is interesting that the composition of committees is not otherwise addressed. For example, should the regulations mandate a certain number of planning officers and local councillors on committees? Though the mandatory training regime is intended to increase the general level of expertise of all members on planning committees, perhaps there would be more trust in decision making if there was input from both technical planning officers and councillors as representatives of the local community. 

Planning laws and regulations, including the PIB, are evolving at a fast pace and will have significant implications for local communities, developers, stakeholders and local planning authorities. The Russell-Cooke planning team monitor legislative change and can help you to understand what it may mean for your property or development aspirations.