Legal Director Vicky McDonald comments, as the Government publishes its response to the consultation on the reform of planning committees
| On 1st June 2026 the Government published its response to the consultation on planning committee reform carried out earlier in 2026. This consultation sought views on how planning committees can be used more efficiently and effectively, so as to help reduce delays and unlock development.
The key area of reform is the National Scheme of Delegation (“NSD”) which regulates which planning applications are dealt with by local authority planning officers only, and which are referred to planning committees. The aim will be to reduce the number of applications determined by committees. The reform also limits the size of planning committees (to 13 members) and provides that all planning committee members must complete mandatory training. Under the draft Regulations, which are proposed to come into force on 31 October 2026, there will be 2 Schedules. An application falling within Schedule 1 will be determined by planning officers, whilst those in Schedule 2 may be determined either by committee or an officer. Set out below is a table highlighting some of the key applications and which Schedule they will sit in. Whether or not a Schedule 2 application is determined by Committee will be assessed on meeting certain statutory criteria (being a gateway test). Schedule 1 Applications (Always determined by Officers)
Schedule 2 Applications
The Gateway Test for determining which applications are referred to committee remain somewhat subjective, but the Government is due to provide further advice to local planning authorities on how to use this test. The Gateway Test is intended to provide an opportunity for Local Planning Authorities to ‘triage’ applications and where one of several specific criteria is met, then the application would be referred to a committee. Otherwise, even Schedule 2 applications would then be determined by officers. The criteria to be used in this Gateway test are: (1) Does the application raise an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area; and/or (2) Does the application raise a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. For the purposes of assessing whether (2) applies, an application for development that broadly complies with an allocation and other relevant policies within the local plan (or neighbourhood plan) as well as wider national policies in the NPPF is unlikely to be a ‘significant planning matter’. Commentary It will be interesting to see how this change of delegation works in practice when it comes into force. There are numerous examples of planning officers recommending that consent be granted, where an application meets all relevant design guides and planning policies, but members reject an application for ‘political’ reasons, and this should reduce the number of those that occur. What is perhaps most interesting, is that in the statutory guidance itself, it states that where local planning authorities do not comply with these regulations (once in force) and a committee makes a decision on an application that ought to have been decided by an officer, such a decision could be subject to judicial review (by anyone aggrieved by the decision): if the objector is successful in a judicial review challenge, the decision could then be quashed. With the judicial review process itself being a hurdle most won’t want to tackle, such a scenario is unlikely to arise, but equally councils may be short of funds (or unwilling) to contest what may be an obvious breach of process. Nevertheless, it may serve as a cautionary rejoinder to councillors who might otherwise be tempted to ‘meddle’ for the sake of their own ‘political’ reputations. |
