A national scheme of delegation: Greasing the wheels or standardising the slowdown?

Barney Ray, associate at Nexus Planning, discusses the government’s proposed reform of planning committees and the challenges this proposes

As it stands, there is little consistency across England in planning committees. Each Local Planning Authority (LPA) has its own constitution, which establishes the conditions under which planning applications are to be referred to the planning committee for determination.

A common trigger is the number of objections received from interested parties, which in some LPAs can be as few as 1. For others, this can be much higher. Another trigger might be the scale of a proposed development, with many LPAs requiring all major developments to be decided by a meeting of their planning committee. For many, there is a provision allowing ward members to call in any application they deem worthy of the committee’s determination.

While many may argue that this represents fair democratic decision-making, the reality is that minor and insignificant proposals are regularly subject to unnecessary delays and often politically driven decisions.

In recognition of the “inconsistency, delay, and inefficiencies” that current arrangements can create, the Government has published draft regulations framing the reform of planning committees as a way to deliver its ambitious housing targets.

Following an initial round of consultation in May 2025, the approach covers two key changes: first, establishing a national scheme of delegation with a tiered approach to committee delegation, alongside a limit on the size of planning committees.

A new approach to delegation: Clarity or complexity?

The first strand of the draft regulations tackles the two-tiered approach to the national scheme of delegation, setting out types of application that would always be delegated to officers (Schedule 1, previously Tier A) and those that can be brought to committee subject to a gateway test (Schedule 2, previously Tier B). These are set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – the two tiers of application under the draft regulations.

Under the draft regulations, the so-called ‘gateway test’ is the mechanism by which the Chair of the Committee and the Chief Planning Officer may agree to refer a Schedule 2 application to the committee if it raises:

• One or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, or
• One or more significant planning matters having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations.

Clearly, there is an element of subjectivity in these tests, and it remains to be seen how individual LPAs approach them. The requirement for the Committee Chair and Chief Officer to agree should, in theory, ensure a more robust and joined-up approach, but could shift members’ focus away from persuading officers to refer an application.

Two key changes from the May 2025 consultation include the omission of a ‘Medium’ scale of development, between 10-50 homes, from Schedule 1 (then Tier A), and the division of Reserved Matters applications across the two schedules. Initially proposing to delegate all Reserved Matters applications, this change appears to have arisen from “numerous responses” to the consultation, highlighting that some large multi-phase developments should be subject to committee consideration given their likely significance.

While these changes appear to be a step forward in ‘trimming the fat’ and ensuring that committees continue to deal with the most relevant and impactful applications, certain types of applications could still contribute to ongoing inefficiencies. Consideration should perhaps be given to reclassifying applications for Listed Building Consent, advertisements and TPOs to Schedule 1.

Furthermore, an unintended consequence could be that committees – with their overall remit of control dampened – approach referred applications with a heightened scrutiny. Given that most of the key housing and commercial applications (i.e. those of greatest importance to the Government’s objectives) will still need to go through committee, will this move the needle as much as it may have promised?

Capping planning committee sizes: Still too many seats at the table?

Across the country, planning committees vary greatly in size, with four or five members at the lower end and as many as fifteen. The May 2025 consultation initially proposed capping planning committees at 11 members, but this has now been increased to 13, with feedback citing a need for a wide range of political representation.

While there is no doubt around the need to keep committees open to a representative pool of members to ensure fair and adequate scrutiny, the decision to increase the proposed cap may not go very far towards limiting delay. 13 is towards the higher end of current committee sizes, many of which are prolonged by lengthy open-ended debate. While voices must continue to be heard, there is certainly a case to lower the cap on numbers, enabling focused debates and allowing fuller agendas.

Perhaps the Government should consider lowering this number to 11, or even 9, to adopt a midpoint within the current national spectrum of committee sizes.

De-prioritising member training: Does this negate proposed reform?

Under the May 2025 consultation, it was originally proposed to introduce mandatory training for committee members to ensure consistent professional standards. This has long been sought after in the industry, particularly given the complexities that can arise from planning applications and the fact that elected members are not always from planning backgrounds.

This has now been de-prioritised, with the government electing not to include any provisions within the draft regulations and stating only that it will continue to consider this provision following the implementation of the first two changes.

This will no doubt be disappointing to many across the industry who may feel that the prioritised reforms could be held back without effective implementation. Ultimately, this mandatory training should go a considerable way towards shortening debate by removing unnecessary questioning and, perhaps, deferring committees for the same reasons. Commitment from the Government to progress this will give comfort that these reforms can have the maximum intended effect in the longer term.

Moving towards the reform of planning committees: What next?

The current consultation is open until Thursday, 23 April 2026.

After that, the Government has said it will propose to set a date to bring the regulations into force from 30 September 2026. This intervening period is intended to give authorities the chance to make the necessary arrangements, such as amending their constitutions, so that planning committees can comply with the regulations. In the meantime, planning committees will continue to operate as they do.

We will keep a close eye on responses to the current consultation and on future dates for the final regulations.

The post A national scheme of delegation: Greasing the wheels or standardising the slowdown? appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.