This site uses cookies, as explained in our cookie policy. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Privacy Policy

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

The local application of the national scheme of delegation

Jennie Baker, Sean Farrissey & Ross Raftery 03 Nov 2026
The national scheme of delegation for planning decisions came into force on 31 October. Application types included in ‘Schedule 1’ can no longer be determined by planning committees[1]. For all applications on ‘Schedule 2’, planning committee determination is possible, but should be exceptional, according to statutory guidance[2].
This blog explores the local procedures being established to encourage a smooth transition and considers whether local triage will lead to determination by committee being the exception. We discuss:
 
 
Background
Our June blog ‘Delegation default: power to the Chief Planner’ explained the statutory context[3] and how the proposals had evolved. We also included this decision making flowchart, discussed below, and the list of applications on either Schedule 1 or 2. Some application types are not included on either schedule and some will be ‘own-interest’ applications. The statutory guidance sets out the ‘gateway test’[4] that an application must pass to  be referred to a Planning Committee for decision by the nominated officer and nominated member (nominated persons):
“At a minimum, at least one of the following statutory criteria must be met for a referral to committee to be considered to meet that threshold:
A. where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area
B. where the application raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”
However, before reaching this statutory test, planning authorities can set local triage arrangements as a mechanism intended to avoid overwhelming decision-makers and delaying decisions. This provides the only scope for local variation and is where we have focused our analysis in this blog.
The Regulations will not apply to development corporations, Homes and Communities Agency, National Park Authorities or the Broads Authority[5], because they are not “relevant planning authorities”[6]. These authorities have not needed to amend their constitutions, committee sizes or decision-making processes.
But what of the relevant planning authorities who have not amended their local schemes of delegation to comply with the new legislation? We discuss this at the end of this blog, as hopefully this will be a short term position and soon clarified.
 
Understanding local constitution and triage arrangements is key
Our decision-making flowchart has, at its centre, some complicated options for how an authority might decide which determination route a Schedule 2 application might follow.
 

This is because the green boxes in the diagram reflect potential, optional, local arrangements. The statutory guidance says:
 
“Where local planning authorities anticipate that there may be a significant number of Schedule 2 or own-interest applications which may need to be considered for referral to committee they may wish to put in place a triage system to ensure that the nominated officer and nominated member of the committee are not overwhelmed and to avoid any unnecessary delays in planning decision making”.
 
Many local planning authorities have established or are in the process of establishing varying approaches to local triage.
Some local triage examples
We have reviewed a few different proposed[7] approaches to triaging applications, which have been presented to a committee or full Council. We cannot say how commonplace different approaches will be, as there can be many different local triage procedures, but the below provides an indication as to what can be expected. In addition to the examples emerging, the Planning Advisory Service has provided some hypothetical worked examples of how to deal with Schedule 2 applications in practice.[8]
We outline below what we consider to be interesting elements of proposed local arrangements[9], rather than summarising the examples in full. A summary of the emerging position follows the examples.
 
     
 
London Borough of Bromley[10]:
A weekly list will identify whether applications are Schedule 1 or Schedule 2. A Councillor (not just the relevant Ward Member or Planning Committee Member) has three weeks to ‘call-in’.
The nominated officer and member will decide which of these goes to committee by applying the gateway test.
Informal guidance to be issued to all members to help with understanding the new restrictions and processes
  
   
London Borough of Merton[11]:
Schedule 2 application should be determined by officers, unless the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer or their authorised substitute agree to refer it to committee under the gateway test within 28 days of the date of the valid registration of the application.
The Gateway Test must be applied to a ‘Residual Schedule 2 Application’[12], to decide whether it needs to be reported to Planning Committee in a list of 15 circumstances including “Where conflict arises between the officer's recommendation and the advice issued by Historic England, the Environment Agency or other body with similar statutory status”
  
 
 
East Suffolk Council[13]:
Two routes for Schedule 2 to be determined by committee – Referral Panel and Call-in
The Referral Panel is comprised of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the relevant Planning Committee as well as two nominated Planning Committee members. Operates where officer recommendation is contrary to material planning consideration comments received from a Town or Parish Council, Ward Member or a statutory consultee. The Planning Referral Panel may conclude that a ‘Relevant Schedule 2 application’[14] should be referred to the Planning Committee, but the final decision on the determination route will be made by the Nominated Officer.
Call-in process is triggered if within the 21-day consultation period Town/Parish Council and Ward Member(s) position is contrary to the officer recommendation – or  Ward Member requests committee determination. Notification is sent to Planning Committee – a member must respond within 5 days saying it should be considered by the Committee and setting out how they consider it meets the gateway test. A call-in request bypasses the Referral Panel.
  
 
Wakefield Council[15]
The nominated officer is not authorised to determine a Schedule 2 application where the nominated officer and nominated member agree that the application passes the Gateway Test
  
 
 
North Somerset Council[16] 
The nominated persons will consider whether an application should be referred to the Planning and Regulatory Committee by applying the Gateway Test when either nominated person considers it necessary or a Ward Councillor, in accordance with the Code of Practice, submits a formal written request using the prescribed form.
  
 
 
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council[17]:
A Schedule 2 application will receive a referral assessment where one or more of six circumstances applies, including more than 10 qualifying individual letters or emails express a view contrary to the case officer’s proposed recommendation (except tree applications). And/or the nominated officer considers that the application may pass the Gateway Test.
  
 
  
Sunderland City Council[18]:
The gateway test will always be considered in relation to a list of six applications types, provided they fall within Schedule 2 of the Regulations, including where accompanied by an Environmental Statement and where there is an objection from a Statutory Consultee and the Local Planning Authority are minded to approve the application. In addition, all other Schedule 2 applications (with the exception of own interest applications) will be subject to a triage process to assess whether, based on the identified impacts, there is a requirement to proceed to the gateway test.
  
 
Colchester City Council[19]
Colchester City Council has produced a ‘referral process at a glance’, which includes scope for member referral requests to be considered:
 
  
     
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
Gateway test – local examples of what might ‘pass’
Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the statutory guidance provide examples of what ‘significant’ or ‘significant planning matter’ are in the gateway test. Some Councils are providing their own examples, including Colchester City Council:
“Examples may include:
  • Novel or complex policy interpretation.
  • Significant departures from development plan policy.
  • Development raising substantial heritage, transport, environmental or design considerations.
  • Proposals involving major planning judgement.
Matters are less likely to constitute significant planning matters where:
  • Development broadly complies with adopted allocations and relevant planning policy.
  • Consultees' concerns have been satisfactorily addressed through amendments or conditions.
  • The issues raised are routine development management matters”.
Milton Keynes City Council is to require[20] that all Schedule 2 applications that pass the gateway test are not determined by officers. But the example of what might pass appears to raise the bar higher than in the guidance and requires Member action:
 
“Ward Councillors, Town/Parish Councils and members of the public, when submitting consultation responses, should highlight the following factors for those applications they consider should be referred to Planning Committee: 
  • Application raises one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, for example the application is considered to be controversial due to the:
  • Scale and nature of the proposed development (e.g. an outline application covering a strategic urban extension that has been allocated in the Development Plan); 
  • Planning history of the site (e.g. where there is a significant and complex history of relevant previous applications on the site that includes decisions allowed on appeal);
  • Sensitivity of the site (e.g. where the proposal could result in significant harm to an asset that is designated for its heritage, biodiversity or landscape importance); and/or 
That the application raises significant planning matters, for example there is a material conflict with the Council's approved planning policies”.
Both the Colchester and Milton Keynes examples leave scope for flexibility in application.
  
     
 
 
Emerging local authority triage criteria
From the examples above, early emerging criteria include:
 
Member call-in remains – despite not being anticipated by the statutory guidance,[21] this is a primary feature of the examples above. Indeed, for Bromley this is the triage approach. While a ‘call-in’ will not guarantee referral to committee (still being subject to the gateway test and nominated officer/member agreement), this procedure clearly seeks to keep the local peace by replicating existing political pathways to the planning committee.
 
Gateway test is the triage too – where an officer is not permitted to determine any application that passes the gateway test (as set out in the 'Background' section above).
 
Previous referral criteria become new triage criteria – to provide consistency, some planning authorities are simply recreating existing referral criteria as triage criteria. In Stockton-on-Tees, for example, the number of consultation responses received is not irrelevant.
 
Defining significant – the legislative gateway tests (and accompanying statutory guidance) give broad scope for major applications to be referred to committee where issues of ‘significance’ are raised – some authorities are already trying to narrow this with their own examples of what significant means for their area.
 
Statutory consultee influence – in at least two of the example arrangements a statutory consultee concern is a reason for considering referral.
 
Defining deputies broadly – some LPAs have defined which officers are deputies broadly e.g. “Team leaders” so as to seek to ensure that an officer is always available.
 
Understanding these triage arrangements, particularly in the case of reserved matters approvals, might lead to altering a planning strategy, depending on the decision-maker and their degree of support. However, given that the decision-maker determination route examples all have a political angle, it will take some time and a build-up of consistent decisions on procedural route before such a strategy could be confidently devised.
 
We are also aware of local authorities that, at least in the short term, will be taking applications to planning committee because they fall into Schedule 2 and a gateway test will be applied in all cases, whereas under the superseded local arrangements they would have been determined via delegated authority.
 
 
Councils not changing their constitutions to reflect the national scheme? 
Planning magazine[22], Local Government Lawyer[23] and local press (there are likely to be others) have covered four councils who have refused to amend their constitution: Central Bedfordshire, Bolton, Tameside and Fenland.
 
Wiltshire[24] has also done so, in favour of an amended resolution “That the Council continues to lobby Government to express its opposition to these changes and restore democracy to the local planning system”. However, according to a local newspaper[25] “Councillors were told that if they rejected the proposal, powers existed allowing council lawyers to make the necessary constitutional changes regardless”. We are aware of other Councils in this position – i.e. officers already had authority to amend the constitution to reflect changes to legislation.
 
There may be authorities who have not yet amended their constitutions, even though officers must seek councillor approval to make amendments.
 
Simon Ricketts has covered this in his Simonicity blog “What Will Happen If LPAs Miss The 31 Oct NSD Deadline?”. This provides a thorough run through of the legislation and discusses potential implications:
 
“Local planning authorities have a statutory duty from 31 October to make arrangements that are consistent with the Regulations. It seems to me obvious that any local planning authority which fails to comply is in breach of statutory duty and therefore susceptible to judicial review, in relation to which the remedies available to the High Court include making a declaration that it is in breach, quashing any resolution to make arrangements which are in breach and/or a mandatory order to secure compliance. Such proceedings could be brought by any party showing a sufficient interest in the issue.”
 
Simon concluded:
“Final word of warning: There is much legal speculation in all of the above”. 
 
Such a conclusion is likely to make us all sit up and question – what is the position?
 
As non-lawyers we cannot solve that, but we have looked at other contributions to the discussion.
 
A 21 October Local Government Lawyer (LGL) article[26] included the following:
“Commenting on the trend, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said that where councils have not adopted the constitutional amendments, planning officers will still be able to take decisions in accordance with the new scheme.
 
The spokesperson said: "These reforms come into force on 31 October and councils will need to comply with the new rules.
 
"Where committees do not comply, decisions can continue to be taken by planning officers in line with the national scheme."”
Notwithstanding, a follow up LGL article said “Bolton Council has warned that it will be unable to lawfully hold planning committee meetings or determine planning applications from the end of this month”.
Whereas a Biggleswade Today[27] article included a quote from an email from the Chief Executive of Central Bedfordshire, suggesting that they do not consider that applications could not be determined at all because the local scheme has not been amended.
 
One hopes that instances of councils refusing to amend their constitutions is a short term and relatively small scale problem, but it serves as a further reminder of the need to understand the local position.
 
In addition, many authorities and/or Councillors are agreeing to the changes to the constitution while voicing their frustration at what they consider to be unacceptable legislation, such as Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire[28] and the chair of Colchester Council[29].
 
 
Settling in period in the short term, but the politics remain
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the most local authorities will have ensured that their constitutions reflect the 2026 Regulations. Whether or not the authorities that have not done so are permitted to determine applications is not clear – albeit the Government has been quoted as saying that they can do. Therefore, we consider this to be the position – and likely to be both the intention and reading of the Regulations.[30]
 
Our straw poll of local arrangements and review of press coverage suggests that, in some areas at least, it is likely to be a few weeks until we see a settled picture and it will take longer for best practice to emerge. The Local Government Association is already calling for an early 2027 review of the new procedures, rather than 2028 as required by the Regulations.[31]
 
 
Implications, including potential changes to committee frequency
Understanding the local constitution and/or triage arrangements will be critical for anyone considering whether an application needs to be determined by Committee and what that might mean for determination timescales. However, there are several examples of the new arrangements for determining who the decision-maker is being made to reflect the old arrangement, as far as possible.
 
From a local authority perspective, applying the new procedures consistently will be very important. This will be a frustrating fresh challenge for the authorities that might find themselves sending more applications to Committee than they do at present (or at least considering sending more), because the new triage arrangements are linked to Member referral requests. Will the typical 3-5% of applications being determined by Committee change?[32]
 
In the coming weeks planning committees and sub-committees may be moved or cancelled, either due to lack of applications or (as in one example we are aware of) having insufficient time to triage Schedule 2 applications. The latter suggesting that there is already some initial overwhelm.
 
A key concern for the future is that where there are fewer applications going to planning committee, those committees will meet less often, meaning delays in sending potentially significant applications to committee, when they would have been heard by a Committee under both the old and new procedures.
 
 
Going forward
One of the last Government’s objectives in bringing forward the national scheme of delegation was to:
“allow planning committees to focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required and a balanced planning judgement is made”.
 
This is not a threshold to be met, which is fortunate given the subjectivity within it.
 
Such “complex or contentious” applications, and others passing the gateway test, will be considered by a planning committee, as before. Some may continue to be led there by a politician. At this stage, it looks more like new local rules will maintain routes to committee, rather than it being the exception.
 
The Parliamentary debate in the Commons regarding the draft Regulations[33], where there was strong opposition to them, suggests that adaptation of local committee call-in procedures is accepted by the Government. The Housing and Planning Minister said:
 
“it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them […]. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee”.
 
Referring to the approximately 4% of decisions made by committees, the Minister noted that it represented “a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process” and that in the new system they “might not necessarily” be determined by a committee.
 
In a debate where MPs observed that officers are not always right, the Minister also said that the Regulations were about finding the right level of trust and empowerment for resolving Schedule 1 applications. Schedule 1 is the key area of change from 2 November and the only true area of certainty.
 
However, we recognise that these reforms have been introduced outside of typical committee cycles – could we see more streamlined (or bolder) approaches to local delegation arrangements following future election cycles?
 
While the statutory review is some time away, the Government is very likely to monitor authorities’ interpretation of the legislation and statutory guidance and make contact where it has concerns.
 
On a more positive note, our limited look at emerging triage systems has uncovered innovative local approaches and clear explanations to Members, by officers, of the legal position. This bodes well at the start of a path on which officers are intended to forge the way.
 
 
Footnotes 
[1] Unless it is concluded to be an ‘own-interest’ application.[2] Planning Committees and the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions: Guidance for local planning authorities in England, June 2026[3] Primarily, sections 319ZZC – 319ZZF of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as inserted by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and The Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026. Sections of the Local Government Act 1972 and other non-planning legislation are also relevant.[4] The term ‘gateway test’ is only used once in the statutory guidance. Reference to Regulation 5(3) criteria is used more frequently, but for simplicity and because local authority documents tend to so, we have used ‘gateway test’.[5] Throughout this blog we refer to local planning authorities (LPAs), but this should be read as excluding these authorities.[6] Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Interpretation of sections 319ZZC to 319ZZE[7] We have obtained this information from Committee Reports and not all websites show whether the position has been agreed. In any event, the position could change fairly swiftly and should not be relied upon[8] Worked Examples: Dealing with Schedule 2 Applications in Practice[9] At the time of writing minutes were not available for all meetings, to confirm the Committee decision[10] https://cds.bromley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=133&MId=8315[11] https://democracy.merton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=359&MId=4925&Ver=4[12] A Residual Schedule 2 application is a Schedule 2 application, which is not a ‘Triaged Application’. Advertisement Consent and Tree Preservation Order applications are ‘Triaged Applications’.[13] https://eastsuffolk.cmis.uk.com/eastsuffolk/Decisions/tabid/67/ctl/ViewCMIS_DecisionDetails/mid/391/Id/971c8bea-6f17-4bfd-bb1b-bd10f431e209/Default.aspx[14] does not include listed building consent applications linked to a schedule 1 application, variation to listed building consent or works to listed dwellinghouse[15] Appendix 6 - 3.7 - Officer Delegation Scheme.pdf[16] Committee Report NSC[17] Agenda for Council on Wednesday 23rd September 2026, 6.00 pm - Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council[18] Meetings and Events[19]https://colchester.cmis.uk.com/colchester/MeetingCalendar/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/1503/Committee/13/Default.aspx[20] https://milton-keynes.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s30751/Planning%20Committee%20-%20Constitution%20Changes.pdf[21] This political approach does not appear to have been anticipated by the statutory guidance (which we do not think the authorities are breaching):“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”. [22] (£) Planning: Fourth council refuses to amend constitution to comply with government’s national delegation scheme[23] Four councils refuse to adopt constitutional changes required for national scheme of delegation for planning decision-making[24] Wiltshire Full Council, 20 October 2026 (Morning and Afternoon Session) watch from 3:07:20 to 3:12[25] https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/26657630.wiltshire-defies-government-attack-democracy/[26] Four councils refuse to adopt constitutional changes required for national scheme of delegation for planning decision-making[27] Biggleswade Today, re Central Bedfordshire: Planning decisions could be 'significantly disrupted' as Central Beds Council opposes legal change[28] Councils reluctantly approve constitution changes for new planning process[29] https://www.facebook.com/groups/colchester.community/posts/4740922392901180/[30] It should be noted that we have not fully explored potential interface with other local government legislation, including Local Government Acts, which could place other requirements on authorities.[31] Review planning decision rules a year earlier to assess democratic impact, LGA urges government
[32] The Impact Assessment (see footnote below) refers to 96% of applications being determined by officers. The Planning Applications statistical release for June said “Of the 74,500 decisions made during the quarter, 72,100 (97%) were delegated to officers. This percentage has been stable since 2014, having previously increased from around 75% in 2000” https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/planning-applications-in-england-april-to-june-2026/planning-applications-in-england-april-to-june-2026-statistical-release

Categories

Subscribe

Receive our latest thinking direct to your inbox.

I want to receive…