Knights planning experts believe the incoming Planning and Infrastructure Act will only be a success if there’s a big shift in the collective mindset.
The Act, which gained Royal Assent today (18 December), aims to make several legislative changes across the board – with substantial focus on modernising planning processes in England and Wales to improve efficiency and accountability.
Some changes look to introduce flexibility for local planning authorities to set their own planning application fees whilst imposing a surcharge to fund statutory consultees whilst mandatory training requirements will be introduced. These can only have the effect intended if this income is ring-fenced to the benefit of the planning department it is intended to fund.
Environmental and community considerations are set to be addressed with important local facilities receiving added protection with heritage and legal safeguards reinforced.
National professional services business, Knights, boasts a significant planning team – including both legal professionals and town planners.
Partner and Chartered Town Planner, Ben Weatherley, spoke at a roundtable focused on the key challenges within the planning system at the Houses of Parliament this month.
He says any changes need to be paired with a change in thinking:
“The changes put forward as part of the Planning and Infrastructure Act are widely welcomed by town planners.
“There is currently widespread frustration and stress over delays in the planning system, including countless unnecessary appeals which cost a huge amount of money – so it’s vital that legislation is put in place to lessen the impact and cost of those.
“There is also more that needs to be done to prevent poor decision making at committee as we frequently experience first-hand the brunt of questionable decision making born from a reality of stretched resources, increasing delays and widening uncertainty.
“As an example, we are currently acting as planning agent for an application for outline planning permission for housing on a greenfield site on the edge of a large settlement. Submission of the application followed detailed and positive pre-application engagement with the local planning authority, and a robust application package demonstrates it is technically sound.
“However, the combination of the level of local opposition and research into previous decision making by Members of the authority’s planning committee indicate the most likely outcome is a refusal at planning committee contrary to an officer recommendation of approval.
“If that proves to be the case, over 18 months hard work to secure planning officer support for the application could be undone at a single meeting where Members consider the proposal for the first time and may be influenced by the views of a relatively small number of local objectors by comparison to substantial benefits that would flow from a technically sound scheme.
“That outcome would likely generate an appeal against the refusal which would cause further delay and cost, with the potential for particularly high costs for the authority to bear should a costs award be made against them.
“These plans, being introduced as part of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, are a step in the right direction with positive noises being made over a step up in training and resources. However, it’s not a quick fix and will need to be united with a more widespread proactive mindset to development proposals if it is to be implemented efficiently and successfully to enable well considered proposals for sustainable development to come forward without undue delay.”
Planning Lawyer, Stuart Tym adds:
“We have a housing crisis in this country and it’s something that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. The Government’s goal of more than 1.5million homes is a big ask and we need to ensure that reducing committee usage is not viewed as undemocratic.
“We need to ensure people are involved earlier in the process. Those portraying the loss of a committee stage for an allocated site as undemocratic need to be part of obtaining fuller and better buy in at the Local Plan stage, where typically referendum and local consultation get the lowest response.
“Improving training is a step in the right direction. However, completing a course doesn’t necessarily make things automatically right; how is competency to be assessed on a national basis?
“In any event we need to ensure a negative mindset is kicked out and that starts at the top. I once worked inhouse for an LPA Head of Planning who preached “open for business” until the entire team bought in – that did not mean permitting all sites, but where sites are capable of being permitted working proactively with applicants to reach a positive determination as soon as possible. This is reflected in the “proactive statement” LPAs are obliged to print decision notices; however, the unfortunate reality is that most do not have the resources to properly act proactively.
“Given that the detail for the schemes of delegation has already been consulted upon over the summer you would expect the government to act on this relatively swiftly. In my view this can only be a good thing. A national scheme will provide consistency which we have not benefited from before. I also hope it prevents unnecessary matters going to committee for political reasons. Both of which should speed up decision making.
“I have some large sites which should be ready for determination in Spring 2026 but have already been told that if they don’t make the March committee they will be delayed until at least June due to purdah. I would hope the mandatory training would also do away with this. Purdah should not prevent proper decision making in relation to allocated sites and properly trained councillors do not fear it because they make their decisions in accordance with the Local Plan.”