Planning decisions are usually made in four ways:
- By authorised officers of the local planning authority, under delegated arrangements;
- By elected Councillors acting in their capacity as the local planning authority;
- By an independent inspector, on appeal to the Secretary of State; or
- By the Secretary of State, on a called-in application or appeal.
Each of these decision makers are duty bound to take the same approach in reaching a decision, but do not have to agree with the recommendation of their officer or inspector.
The role of the planning officer
The planning officer acts on behalf of the Council in performing its function as the LPA. They are expected to form balanced and impartial, professional judgements, and to recommend planning applications for approval or refusal, taking into account:
- the application documents and supporting information;
- the Development Plan;
- the representations made by statutory consultees and interested parties;
- any other relevant material planning considerations;
- procedural requirements in handling the application; and
- the risks and consequences of decisions made.
Normally, subject to the application type being considered, the officer will assess the principle of the development proposed before going further to consider the impacts and benefits it would bring about. Throughout, they will have in mind the scope to use conditions or obligations to make impacts acceptable, as well as whether amendments could overcome the need to otherwise refuse permission. In seeking amendments, this should be recognised as being pro-active, as required by the NPPF and legislation, and not favouring one party over another, and avoiding wastage of resources through subsequent applications or an appeal.
Who makes the decision?
Most decisions will be made under delegated arrangements to authorised officers within the Planning Service. However, triggers and call-in procedures allow for applications to be determined by elected Members.
Both authorised officers and elected Members are not obliged to follow the recommendation before them, but in departing from such a recommendation the decision maker must be cognisant that a right of appeal against a refusal would accrue, and that reasons for refusal must be clear, full and based on conflict with planning policy. To make a decision outside of this requirement could be judged as unreasonable behaviour leading to an award of costs at appeal. Equally, a decision made outside of the legal framework, including one that is irrational, could be quashed by the Courts.
Some types of development, if meeting certain triggers, must be first referred to the Secretary of State to see if they wish to exercise their call-in powers and determine the application themself. These are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021, the Town and Country Planning (Development Affecting Trunk Roads) Direction 2018 and the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002.
What makes a good decision?
Eseentially, one that is logical and well reasoned. It does not have to be one which is agreeable to all interested parties, but it should be evident to any person how the decision maker arrived at the outcome made, and that they took into account all relevant matters in getting there.
The reasons for a planning decision must be sufficient and clear enough to enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the principal important controversial issues. They must explain how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be brief but must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds (South Bucks District Council and Another v.
Porter (No 2) [2004]).
Furthermore, the principles of public law demand consistency in the application of policies by public bodies and in their decision-making unless there are good reasons to the contrary (North Wilts DC v Secretary of State for Environment [1992]). Consistency is a principle of good administration as it derives from the principle of fairness in the treatment of citizens.