The committees are not being gutted though; it seems if anything they are going to be better resourced and given a narrower brief. This is not a bad thing per se and should provide some much needed clarity to the process. Far too often Committee meetings are dominated by discussions that are entirely irrelevant or should have been considered much earlier in the planning process. For example, whether a development should be permitted in principle should not be debated by a Committee (regardless of qualification) months or years after the Application was submitted. The planning process is laughably haphazard and disjointed.
I do share your concerns about the reforms being top down by nature, and it’s a worry that it looks like Local Plans could be sidelined in the interests of ‘economic growth’. It is sensible that the definitions of land use type are being tightened and that development on grey belt land should be prioritised, and that LA’s should know and publish what areas within their boundaries come under what use type (particularly for smaller developers and self builders who are usually the people building good quality, low energy homes). There will still be safeguards in conservation areas, aonb’s, around heritage assets and article 4 will no doubt enjoy a revival but, yes, LA’s should be able to ensure any development meets the needs of their area and takes into account local opinion.
Decisions must be based on something though, you can’t just have a committee pronouncing that Margaret at number 49 doesn’t like the design of the bin store so the new school can’t be built over the road. There has to be legislation behind it, whether it’s the NPPF and Local Plan or something else. If it’s the NPPF and LP then technocrats whose job it is to understand and apply the legislation are surely better placed than a 'non-specialist' who for whatever reason is not fully across the legislation.
