🎯 Objective
To build an oversight ecosystem that makes planning enforcement possible, public performance visible, and trust in the system durable. PGO introduces independent roles, institutional audit tools, and national transparency protocols that turn planning from a paper system into an accountable one.
🕵️ Policy G1 – Planning Integrity Commissioner Role
What it does:
Creates an independent, statutory national role: the Planning Integrity Commissioner. This body is empowered to:
- Investigate suspected misconduct in planning decisions
- Audit local planning authorities (LPAs)
- Refer serious cases of fraud, collusion, or systemic failure to enforcement agencies
The Commissioner operates independently of ministers, LPAs, or developers — ensuring neutrality and public confidence.
Why it’s needed:
Currently, oversight is fragmented. The Local Government Ombudsman is reactive and complaint-based, while PINS (Planning Inspectorate) is technical and case-specific. No entity has the power to investigate patterns of abuse or systemic misconduct.
International Analogy:
- Australia and Canada use national integrity commissioners with powers to audit, investigate, and escalate cross-sector ethical and procedural breaches.
🧩 Policy G2 – Integration of Portfolios into PINS Inspector Protocol
What it does:
Requires that PINS (Planning Inspectorate) formally integrate the following portfolios into its appeals and inspector training protocols:
- VAP (Viability Abuse Prevention)
- CEAP (Coordinated Enterprise Abuse Prevention)
- PMI (Planning Market Integrity)
- EIA (Environmental & Infrastructure Assessment)
This ensures these reforms are not dismissed as “non-material considerations” during appeals.
Why it’s needed:
Planning inspectors sometimes override local decisions because they are not bound by newly introduced policies unless integrated nationally. This allows developers to exploit a backdoor exemption route during appeal.
International Analogy:
In Switzerland, national environmental and housing policy must be factored into every zoning appeal — regardless of local interpretation.
📈 Policy G3 – Enforcement Score Transparency Framework
What it does:
Mandates that every LPA annually publish a Planning Integrity Scorecard, including:
- Section 106 (S106) enforcement rates
- Affordable housing delivery vs approval
- Number and outcome of developer renegotiation requests
- Appeal reversal rate
- Vacancy-to-Delivery Ratios (VDR), where applicable
The scorecard must be:
- Published online in a standardised format
- Audited by the Planning Integrity Commissioner
- Submitted to DLUHC (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
Why it’s needed:
To introduce public benchmarking pressure and performance visibility — creating parity between LPAs and giving citizens the ability to track and challenge underperformance.
International Analogy:
The OECD recommends enforcement benchmarking as essential to credible regulation — and many sectors (e.g. health, finance, education) already publish key performance indicators.
📘 Summary
The Planning Governance & Oversight Portfolio (PGO) creates the legal spine and visibility layer for your entire reform system. It enables policies in VAP, CEAP, PMI, and EIA to be measurable, enforceable, and appeal-proof, while publicly tracking LPA performance. PGO makes planning accountable to outcomes — not just paperwork — and ensures the system is observed from both within and above.