The Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, introduced in March 2025, is a cornerstone of its housing and growth agenda. Its report stage has recently concluded, with members seeking amendments to some elements.
As this procedure continues, Brookbanks have dived a little deeper into two specific proposals included in the Bill that are especially impactful for industry and our clients. We have also discussed some refinements of each that we consider would have a positive impact for the development industry:
A central aim is to standardise and streamline planning committees, so they play their role without preventing or delaying development. These reforms represent a fundamental shift from the current inconsistent approach where local planning authorities operate individual schemes of delegation pursuant to Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. Currently this results in varied approaches whereby planning applications require member consideration versus officer determination under delegated powers.
The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to establish a standardised national scheme of delegation, creating consistency across all local planning authorities through a framework that categorises applications into two distinct tiers. Tier A applications, subject to officer delegation, will include those demonstrating clear compliance with adopted development plan policies, minor development proposals meeting established criteria, applications without material planning objections, and householder applications along with other permitted development proposals. Conversely, Tier B applications requiring committee determination will encompass major development proposals exceeding prescribed thresholds, applications involving significant departure from development plan policies, proposals generating substantial public interest or objection, and applications with strategic planning implications.
The legislation grants Ministers statutory powers to prescribe committee composition and governance arrangements, including minimum and maximum committee membership parameters, quorum requirements for valid decision-making, and procedural standards for application consideration. All planning committee members will be subject to mandatory certification requirements, ensuring understanding of material planning considerations under Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, knowledge of development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance, awareness of procedural requirements and natural justice principles, and recognition of the distinction between planning and non-planning matters.
These reforms target accelerated determination timeframes whilst maintaining robust assessment standards, enabling local planning authorities to reduce determination periods for routine applications, allocate professional resources more effectively, minimise potential for ultra vires decisions, and strengthen the primacy of adopted development plans. The framework preserves essential democratic oversight through retained public consultation procedures, continued material consideration assessment, member involvement in strategic development proposals, and maintained call-in procedures for allocated site developments.
Industry reaction has been broadly positive. Many commentators note that harmonising delegation should expedite the process and reduce the number of questionable decisions, for example when councillors vote against officers’ recommendations.
However, whilst the proposed reforms represent substantive improvements, certain limitations warrant consideration. The continued ability for committees to call-in developments on allocated sites preserves potential for decisions inconsistent with adopted development plans, potentially undermining plan-led system principles and maintaining the possibility of political override of local plans. Implementation success will depend significantly on consistent application across diverse local planning authority contexts and political environments.
While Brookbanks support the proposed planning committee reforms, we believe the following additional refinements would deliver further system improvements.
Standardised Committee Composition
Member Assessment and Competency Framework
Structured Deferral Mechanism
The current system allowing immediate overturning of officer recommendations should be replaced with a structured deferral process. Committee members would be prevented from rejecting planning applications at first consideration, instead being empowered to defer determination to the subsequent meeting where substantive planning concerns are identified. This deferral mechanism would operate within a maximum four-week timeline, preventing protracted delays that can extend determination periods by several months and require complete resubmission of applicationsDuring the interim period, members could request specific technical clarifications, additional expert reports, or supplementary consultation responses. Members must specify precise planning grounds for their concerns, with officer responses required within fourteen days of the committee meeting. This would eliminate instances where applications are refused on vague grounds, reducing successful appeals and ensuring any eventual refusal is properly reasoned and defensible. Where officers demonstrate through supplementary information that member concerns lack planning merit or have been adequately addressed, the application would proceed to approval at the next committee meeting.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill directly addresses the chronic underfunding of local planning authority development management services through comprehensive fee restructuring mechanisms. Current statutory fee levels fail to achieve full cost recovery for local planning authorities. This structural shortfall undermines service delivery capacity.
The Government’s response empowers local planning authorities to establish locally determined fee structures under delegated powers from the Secretary of State, subject to statutory cost recovery limitations. Under these provisions, planning application fees must not exceed the actual cost of application determination, including associated development management activities such as pre-application advice, statutory consultation processes, and enforcement functions. Critically, all additional fee income generated through local fee setting must be ringfenced exclusively for planning service delivery, preventing diversion to other local authority functions and ensuring direct investment in development management capacity enhancement.
The fee restructuring framework incorporates safeguarding mechanisms whereby the Secretary of State retains intervention powers to require fee reductions where charges are deemed excessive or inadequately justified through cost analysis. The intended operational model establishes local variation parameters from national baseline fees, enabling authorities to achieve full cost recovery whilst preventing profit generation from development management activities. This approach recognises the varying cost structures across different local planning authority contexts whilst maintaining proportionality principles.
Industry stakeholders have generally accepted fee increases as necessary for system improvement, recognising that enhanced fees represent minimal costs compared to delay-related financial impacts for major development schemes. Professional planning bodies emphasise that local planning authorities currently operate with insufficient capacity due to funding constraints, with research demonstrating that most councils operated development management services at a deficit during 2020-21.
However, enhanced fee structures raise significant equity considerations, particularly regarding impacts on smaller developers and householder applicants who may find increased charges financially burdensome. Excessive fee levels could potentially deter sustainable brownfield regeneration schemes where viability margins are constrained. For major development applications, where determination periods frequently exceed statutory timeframes due to resource constraints and technical complexity, fee increases alone are unlikely to deliver meaningful acceleration unless additional revenue is strategically deployed to address systemic capacity deficits.
The challenge with determination delays particularly affects large-scale residential developments, commercial schemes, and mixed-use developments requiring extensive technical assessment including Transport Assessments, Environmental Impact Assessments, and affordable housing viability appraisals. These applications currently experience determination periods extending beyond the statutory 13-week timeframe, with some complex schemes taking 12-18 months for resolution. Without targeted investment of additional fee income in specialist planning officers, legal support, and technical expertise, enhanced fees risk becoming merely additional development costs rather than catalysts for improved service delivery.
Ensuring strict ringfencing of additional income for planning functions remains crucial to prevent reallocation to other council services, necessitating robust accountability frameworks.
Enhanced Transparency and Accountability Mechanisms
Performance-Linked Fee Structures
Strategic Investment in Major Application Capacity
Brookbanks welcome the proposed changes in the Planning and Infrastructure as a positive development that will ultimately benefit our clients through more consistent and efficient planning processes. The standardised committee procedures and national delegation schemes represent long-overdue reforms that should reduce determination delays and eliminate inconsistent decision-making across local authorities. Our proposed refinements – including smaller committee sizes, structured deferral mechanisms, and mandatory member assessments – would enhance these benefits by preventing unnecessary application rejections and avoiding costly resubmissions that currently burden our clients with extended project timelines
The fee reform provisions, while increasing development costs, offer genuine opportunities for improved service delivery that we believe will provide net benefits to our clients. Enhanced fees that are properly ringfenced and invested in specialist planning capacity should deliver faster determination times for major applications, which currently face 12-18 month delays. Our recommended performance-linked fee structures would ensure our clients receive tangible service improvements in return for higher charges, creating a more professional and predictable development management system that supports successful project delivery and reduces overall development risks.
We look forward to seeing how the Bill progresses in the upcoming stages. If you would like to discuss any of the matters on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Do not hesitate in getting in touch with our planning team.
In this episode of the Brookbanks Podcast hosted by Ben Wakeling, guests Paul Coombs, Senior Civils Engineer and Andrew Wilkinson, Director, share their experience and reflections on the evolving landscape of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
In our latest video, the M&E engineering team share some quick tips from what they have learnt from delivering complex projects.
Brookbanks continues to build momentum in 2025, marking a significant phase of expansion and innovation across the UK. Following our recent announcement celebrating both longstanding colleagues and new starters, we’re excited to spotlight the broader strategic growth that’s driving our success.