Delegation default: draft planning committee reform legislation published

Seán Farrissey & Jennie Baker 08 Apr 2026

The Planning and Infrastructure Act (‘the Act’)[1] inserts several provisions into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 aimed at improving the speed and quality of planning decision-taking. While such objectives are not new, legislating for standardising significant elements of the decision-making process is new. Secondary legislation is required to bring the provisions into effect.

This blog focuses on the provisions relating to the proposed ‘national scheme of delegation’ for England, which is out for consultation until 23 April. The Government is consulting on the draft regulations and guidance[2] that allow for and explain the committee reforms provided by the Act. A Government response[3] to the technical consultation (which ran May-July 2025) on the implementation of planning committee reforms has also been published.

The default position will be that planning-related applications will be determined by local planning authority (LPA) officers.

“Committees should focus on the key proposals that matter to an area, enabling other, often more minor and technical, decisions to be made by planning officers”, according to the draft guidance. Committee sizes are to be set to a maximum size of 13.

In this blog, we will set the context and then discuss the proposed delegation schedules.

Why reform planning committees?

Reform of planning committees has been on the Government’s agenda for some time.

The Planning Reform Working Paper on Modernising Planning Committees[4] set out the Government’s initial thinking in December 2024. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill (now ‘the Act’) was published in March 2025. At that time, the policy intent of the proposed legislation reflected the following concerns:

Local planning authority (LPA) schemes of delegation are not clear;
The extent to which officer advice is rejected by members and overturned at appeal;
Planning committees unnecessarily consider policy-compliant schemes on allocated sites;
There can be insufficient understanding among all committee members of planning principles and law; and
There is a lack of transparency around committee decisions and their consequences, and the public is not aware of the cost decisions being awarded against LPAs who lose planning appeals[5].

There is clearly appetite within Government to make planning committees more efficient, to ensure that the focus is on applications that warrant member input rather than schemes that are policy compliant. As set out in its May 2025 consultation, the Government intends to strike a balance by reserving committee input largely for “controversial or complex applications” which would make a “lasting impact on the community”. While the Government has stressed the integral role of planning committees in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions, it is clear that they are unhappy with the status quo.

The intention is for planning committees to be able to focus on applications where local democratic oversight is required and to empower planning professionals to make sound planning decisions on those cases aligned with the development plan.

What does the legislation provide for regarding committee decisions?

As identified in Rachel Clements’s blog Reform and order: What next for planning committees?, the Act gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State (SoS) to use regulations to undertake the below:

Make provision for training of members of LPAs and Mayors (or those decision-making on their behalf) in their exercise of specified planning functions (sitting on planning committees) and those who may exercise relevant mayoral planning functions.
Provide for satisfactory completion of the training by an accredited trainer, to be evidenced by a ‘certificate of completion’. For those sitting on planning committees, this must be published on LPA websites. Without this certificate, members of the LPA would be prohibited from exercising planning functions on behalf of the LPA.
Require an LPA to make arrangements for planning functions to be discharged by a committee and prescribe the terms of the arrangements which may include exemptions, variations and discretion (setting criteria for what types of application go to planning committees, but seemingly with room for LPA discretion in its application).
Prescribe the size and composition of a committee or sub-committee which serves planning functions.

The regulations, now published in draft[6] (The draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026), will address items 3 and 4. On training and certification of committee members (items 1 and 2), the consultation response notes that, while the priority is to implement the national scheme of delegation and committee reforms first, the Government continues to recognise the importance of effective mandatory training for planning committee members and still aims to implement a creditable and cost-effective training system.

Committee size

In its May 2025 consultation, the Government indicated that it would set a maximum committee size of 11 members, with guidance that smaller committees may work better in some local contexts and set out its intention for a national certification scheme for members. The latest proposals, in the March 2026 draft regulations, have set out a maximum of 13 members for committees, which the Government views as “setting the right balance between fair political representation and ensuring resilience in the decision making function whilst achieving the policy aims of creating smaller more professional committees”.

The ‘Draft guidance for Local Planning Authorities in England’[7] (‘draft guidance’) confirms (at paragraph 28) that 13 committee members is a “maximum figure to accommodate local planning authorities where members are from multiple political parties. Local planning authorities should consider whether a smaller number of members would be more appropriate in their area to support effective decision making”.

Default delegation schedules

The Government is sticking with its May 2025 proposals for a two-tiered approach at the foundation of a national scheme of delegation which will provide “greater clarity and consistency about the role of planning committees in planning decision making”, according to the draft guidance.

Two Schedules of delegation are proposed. Schedule 1 includes applications that will always be delegated to officers and will not be considered at planning committee. Schedule 2 includes applications that will be delegated to officers by default, unless the nominated officer (usually the Chief Planner) and nominated Member (usually the Chair of Committee) decide that applications should be determined by Committee. The Government has named this the ‘gateway test’, the operation of which will be described in statutory guidance to accompany the regulations, the draft guidance being discussed further below.

Default delegation Schedules and linked applications

Schedule	Delegated to officers?	Application type
1	Always	Householder application Minor commercial applications Minor residential applications[8] Reserved matters applications (only unphased schemes) Applications for s96A non-material amendments Applications for the approval of conditions Applications for approval of the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Plan Applications for prior approval or a determination as to whether it is required (related to permitted development rights) Lawful Development Certificate applications Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development applications Applications for Permission in Principle Application to modify or discharge a s106 obligation, where it is connected to a Schedule 1 approval
2	By default, unless the Chief Planner and Chair of Committee decide it should go to Committee based on meeting statutory criteria ‘the gateway test’	Application for listed building consent, applications to vary a listed building consent and any planning application connected with these consent types Application for planning permission that is not a householder, Minor Commercial or minor residential[9] application Section 73 application Section 73A (retrospective) application Application to modify or discharge a s106 obligation, where it is connected to a Schedule 2 approval Reserved matters phase application Advertisement consent application Tree preservation order applications Review of mineral planning conditions Any application from the local authority, a councillor, or officer
2 – in due course		Medium residential development Section 73B applications
Linked- person application	Can be determined by officers. Alternatively, the nominated member and nominated officer may refer it to a committee	An application made by or on behalf of an authority, a member or officer an authority or entity owned or controlled by the authority, its members or officers, to the same authority, whether jointly with another person or not.

For applications to be considered at planning committee, they will need to fall within Schedule 2 and there will need to be agreement between the chief planner and the chair of planning committee (or other nominated officer or Member) that consideration of the application at planning committee is required.

Planning applications for a change of use or for a change in the number of units within a building will fall within Schedule 2. Planning applications for changes to Class E buildings that involve change of use, change in the number of units, development above ground floor level and/or that would increase floorspace, will also fall within Schedule 2.

One amendment following the previous consultation is that only reserved matters applications relating to non-phased outline permissions are included in Schedule 1 in the draft regulations. This reflects concerns in the consultation responses that reserved matters applications can relate to large scale phased development taking place over many years and can represent substantial major development which requires a greater level of scrutiny. The consultation document seeks further views on which Schedule reserved matters applications should be designated to.

A consequence of this approach could be that any scheme that comprises a demolition phase and solely one other phase of development may end up being determined at planning committee. It may be that a more nuanced approach is needed to avoid instances of straightforward, policy compliant, phased reserved matters schemes being taken to committee unnecessarily, if politicians seek to push them through the ‘gateway test’ (discussed below).

The draft National Planning Policy Framework (December 2025) proposes to introduce a new ‘medium development’ category for schemes of 10–49 homes on sites of up to 2.5 hectares. The Government has determined that, if this category is taken forward, these applications should go in Schedule 2.

The Government also outlined that they consider any application for listed building consent, advertisement consent and for consent under tree preservation orders that could potentially raise sensitive issues which would benefit from committee scrutiny and thus should be in Schedule 2.

Permission in Principle applications have been added to Schedule 1.

It is not immediately clear in the draft Regulations how applications not listed in either schedule, e.g. Hazardous Substances Consent applications, will be dealt with. However, the guidance explains that, where a planning function is not listed in either Schedule 1 or 2, it is for the local planning authority to decide, with reference to its local constitution, whether the application goes to committee or not. It also notes:

“Under the national scheme of delegation, current practices set out in local authority constitutions, such as the power for ward councillors to require cases to be called in for committee consideration or having trigger points for referral to committee if a certain number of objections is reached, will not be possible. Local authorities will need to amend their constitutions to align with the national scheme of delegation”.

The draft guidance notes that the overriding presumption is that the applications listed in Schedule 2 will be delegated to officers and can be referred to a committee or sub-committee only where:

at least one of the criteria in regulation 5(2) is met or it is an application made by or on behalf of a local authority, a member or officer of that local authority or an entity owned or controlled (whether wholly or partly) by that authority or any of its members or officers (regulation 6); and
the nominated officer and nominated member of the planning committee agree to the referral.

Gateway test: criteria which must be met before a case can be considered for referral

Draft Regulation 5(2) sets out the criteria for referral to committee, one of which must be met (our bold):

“The nominated member and nominated officer may agree to refer a proposal to determine a Schedule 2 application to a committee if in their view the proposal raises -

(a) one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, or
(b) one or more significant planning matters having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”.

The draft guidance refers to (a) above as Criteria B and to (b) above as Criteria A.

Accordingly it says, for the purpose of Criteria A, the following circumstances are unlikely to raise a significant planning matter:

Where the application for development broadly complies with a detailed site allocation and other relevant policies set out in a local or neighbourhood plan and national decision making policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Significant planning matters may arise if new material considerations are raised by the application;
Where a specific planning matter (e.g. highways or flood risk) was initially raised by a statutory consultee as a concern, but the development proposal has been modified to make it acceptable in the view of the statutory consultee (unless the nominated officer has compelling reasons to consider otherwise).

For Criteria B, it will also be for the nominated officer and member to assess whether the application raises a significant economic, social or environmental issue for the local area. The guidance gives these examples:

an application for outline planning permission for a large multi-phase residential development allocated in the local plan;
an application for planning permission for change of use of a community shop in a rural area;
an application for planning permission or listed building consent for changes to a notable listed building in a town centre.

The guidance confirms that it is for LPAs to determine how best to consider cases for referral to committee and includes guidelines on how best to organise staff cover in the case of absence of the nominated officer, to avoid delays in the referral process.

Authority ‘Linked-Person’ Applications

When an authority is itself the applicant, or if any members or officers are the applicant, an application can be referred to committee without consideration of the criteria set out in regulation 5(2), because there is to be a Regulation (6) dedicated to these ‘linked-person’ applications. When no referral is made, then the application can still be determined by an officer. The decision on whether or not to make a referral should be made with reference to the statutory guidance.

Summary

The Government is consulting on the draft regulations and guidance[10] that allow for and explain the committee reforms, which is out for consultation until 23 April.

The most notable change since the previous Government consultation is to the national scheme of delegation’ for England and specifically the content of the two Schedules within it. Unphased outline and reserved matters applications continue to be proposed in Schedule 1 delegation, but phased reserved matters applications are now proposed to fall within Schedule 2 - albeit further views are being sought on this categorisation.

The Government’s consultation response notes a concern on how the ‘gateway test’ will operate, given its potential for subjective decision making and the need for transparency on which applications are referred to committee. Whilst the Government has provided guidance on how this test will work, there is still an element of subjective decision making that will undoubtedly unsettle applicants. It may take time for developers and all stakeholders to gain a real sense on what type of applications will be considered at planning committee in the future.

The Government wants to streamline the planning process and improve decision-taking and the reform of planning committees is one mechanism to help achieve this.

Further to this and as detailed in this blog, the Government has taken steps[11] to ensure that, where a LPA intends to refuse planning permission for a housing scheme of 150+ dwellings, they must consult the SoS on that application. The Government has also published a consultation[12] on new requirements to consult the SoS where LPAs are minded to refuse planning permission for commercial development with a floorspace of 15,000m2 or more. The aim of these moves is to ensure that large scale, strategic developments are considered for potential call-in, to help with the Government’s priority of promoting economic growth.

The Government’s priority is to implement the national scheme of delegation and committee size reforms first. We expect details on how planning committee members will be trained and certified to come forward later.

Next steps

The short consultation on the draft planning committee reform legislation concludes on 23 April 2026. The consultation notes that the Government are seeking to lay the regulations in draft for consideration by both Houses of Parliament in the Spring.

The current draft Regulations identify 30 September 2026 as the date the Government intends the regulations to be in force to enact this element of planning committee reform.

Footnotes