Take 5: Tier B or Not To Be?

The Government has published its thoughts on its proposed controversial national scheme of delegation of planning decisions. The plan is to accelerate decision-making and provide more certainty for applicants by increasing the number of decisions determined by professional planning officers, rather than politically-elected councillors. 

It's a bold move and one which has divided opinion. Supporters praise Labour's courageous attempt to deal with the infamous NIMBY committees who have exacerbated the housing crisis, whilst others  fear the proposals threaten the very democratic foundations on which our world-renowned planning system is built.  So what exactly is planned and is it as bad as some have suggested? We've picked our 5 key points to bring you up to speed:

1. Tier A and Tier B

The new scheme would comprise two tiers: 

• Tier A: These applications would be decided by a planning officer and are likely to include minor development (such as schemes with fewer than 10 homes); reserved matters, non-material amendments and approval of conditions.
• Tier B: All other applications would fall under Tier B and would also be decided by the planning officer unless the Chief Planner (or equivalent) and the Chair of Committee agree that the application should go to committee, based on the "gateway test".

2. Welcome to Triage

The gateway test is yet to be defined, but two options are proposed:

• Does the application raise an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area?
• Does the application raise a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan?

There's plenty of room for subjectivity, and we can see this being a hothouse for objector challenges to the courts. What happens if the Chief Planner and Chair of Committee disagree?  The application stays with the planning officer. 

3. A new medium

The Government is also considering a new category of "medium development". This could cover schemes of 10 to 49 new homes. Views are sought on whether some planning applications for medium development (such as those in London) could be categorised under Tier A, meaning that they would definitely not go to committee for determination. 

This proposal has already set the cat amongst the pigeons as London has been home to some of the hardest-fought planning applications in the history of the planning system. 

4. Other consents and planning obligations

Listed building consents and other special control applications could also fall under the new tiered system. Planning enforcement functions (such as breaches of Section 106 obligations) are in practice largely dealt with by planning officers, but opinion is canvassed on whether high profile or contentious enforcement cases should be referred to the planning committee for approval for additional "democratic oversight". 

Unless there is evidence to suggest that councils who delegate this function to officers are not taking enforcement action when they should, this appears to be overkill and contradicts the aim of freeing up committee members to determine large, controversial planning applications.

5. Capping committee size 

The consultation asks for views on limiting the number of members of a planning committee to 11 in order to improve the quality of debate whilst maintaining political balance.

There are also plans to introduce a national training certification scheme for planning committee members, so that they can only vote on an application if they have undertaken the training.

No time to procrastinate

There's a lot to think about, but the consultation closes on 23 July 2025. The positives are better training for committee members; national consistency in terms of process; and for many who already have similar schemes of delegation at their authority, business as usual. However, the concerns are not unfounded. Numerous planning officers are worried about harassment and persecution if their name is on the line, and then of course there's the increased workload. Planning application fees are going up, but will authorities be able to recruit the extra staff needed to implement this new system? As ever, reforming the system is no mean feat.