HMO decisions to move behind closed doors under planning reforms

Portsmouth councillors said planning reforms would “inevitably reduce public confidence in the planning process” as they voted to oppose changes to decision making.

Planning reforms that will see smaller applications, such as HMOs, decided behind closed doors rather than by a committee have been condemned by Portsmouth councillors.

Under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which received Royal Assent last December, the Labour government is introducing a National Scheme of Delegation (NSD) that splits planning applications into two categories.

Minor applications, including Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), will be decided by planning officers, while major schemes, such as listed building consent, regeneration projects and blocks of flats, may still go before planning committees.

The government says the reforms will allow committees to focus on the most significant proposals while improving consistency in decision making.

Introducing his notice of motion, a statement voted on by the council, Cllr Hugh Mason said the proposals go against principles “which have been integral to the planning system from the earliest legislation”.

On the argument that the reforms would promote “uniformity of practice”, he said: “given the wide diversity of environments and local situations across this country I remain to be convinced this is desirable.”

Another argument in favour is that councillors lack knowledge of planning law and practice, a point Cllr Mason said was akin to the argument of “doing away with jury trials because jurors lack legal education and training”.

He lamented that Schedule One applications will be blocked from committee regardless of “public interest and concern”.

“This will inevitably reduce public confidence in the planning process and in the effectiveness of local councils.”

He said that while the council cannot prevent or reverse the changes being mandated by government, Portsmouth City Council can send a “clear unequivocal statement” on its position.

Cllr Suzy Horton, who chairs the planning committee, said she has had many “challenging conversations with residents explaining to them that it’s not the council who is allowing or stopping said development but national policy guidance sitting alongside our local plan.”

She said the most “frustrating” aspect of the planning process is “trying to prove a negative before it’s actually happening”, where concerns over amenity or damage to the streetscene are disregarded as speculative.

“That public scrutiny and open decision making is so important in a democracy even if the outcome upsets some and is misunderstood by others.”

Cllr Simon Bosher, leader of the Conservative group, shared a planning letter his 91-year-old father received about a neighbouring development.

The letter advised him to familiarise himself with the plans and contact ward councillors with any concerns.

“Let’s roll this forward six months he wouldn’t get this letter, he would be absolutely none the wiser until they start building,” Cllr Bosher said.

Cllr Joe Standen, Reform UK member, said the majority of letters and emails he has received from residents since being elected have been about planning objections.

He said Portsmouth’s planning committee is “very good” and is chaired “brilliantly” by Cllr Horton.

He said councillors “are elected into this chamber to be the voice of the public” and that the proposals represent an “affront to democracy”.

Councillor Russell Simpson said local landlords he had spoken to did not welcome the changes either, arguing they could open the floodgates to “rogue developers”, damaging the reputation of responsible landlords by being “painted with the same brush”.

Labour councillor Graham Heaney defended the reforms, saying the council has strong local planning policies.

“We have one of the strongest HMO policies of any local authority in the country.”

He added that Schedule Two applications can still go to committee if there are “economic, social and environmental issues significant to the local area”, which he described as a “broad definition and I would hope that we would look to include as many opportunities for having application to go to the committee as possible.”

He added there had been a level of “exaggeration” and “scaremongering” in the chamber but that there is “discretion available if we are prepared to use it”.

Independent councillor Cal Corkery said the logic behind the reforms is likely the government’s attempt to increase housebuilding, a “notable and worthwhile objective”.

However, he doubted planning is the real barrier to delivering more homes, arguing the problem is the “overreliance on the private sector”.

He pointed out there are many sites across the country where planning permission has already been granted and “they’re not being built out”.

He argued that developers “on a commercial scale land bank sites and they buy up the planning permission” and build only when it is “profitable to do so”.

He agreed with other members that the council “should retain local control over planning” and called for more “public ownership of land and social housing grant availability”.

Planning permission usually expires if work does not begin within three years. Once development lawfully starts, the permission is generally preserved.

Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson recalled a site in Southsea that was “empty for many years” until the developer asked the “council to go down to watch them commence development”.

“What they did is they went down and they dug a hole with a spade and that meant their planning permission was live forever.”

Cllr Mason’s motion passed with 35 votes in favour and three abstentions.

The reforms are due to come into effect on October 31.