From 31 October 2026, planning authorities in England will be subject to a new national scheme of delegation under the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026. These changes affect how planning functions can be delegated and, importantly, who determines planning applications.
Prior to 31 October, each of England’s 337 local planning authorities (LPAs) adopted its own scheme of delegation setting out which functions the planning authority could delegate to a planning officer, and which had to be exercised by committee. For developers, the most important function is usually which types of planning application can be determined by a planning officer, and which have to go to committee for determination.
The introduction of a national scheme of delegation, which applies to all LPAs (except for development corporations, Homes and Communities Agency, National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority), is intended to create a more consistent approach to planning decision-making across England by replacing the patchwork of local delegation arrangements that currently exists. More delegated decisions should also reduce decision-making timeframes as it avoids waiting for committee dates before applications can be determined.
Any decisions not made in accordance with the national scheme of delegation could be open to challenge.
Who will decide planning applications?
Under the national scheme, planning applications are broadly divided into two categories.
The first category comprises applications which must generally be decided by officers under delegated powers, including the following types of development / applications (full list is in Schedule 1 to the Regulations):
- householder developments;
- minor commercial or residential (up to 9 dwellings / 0.5ha) developments;
- permissions in principle;
- certificates of lawfulness;
- applications for the discharge of conditions;
- reserved matters (other than those relating to a “large outline planning permission” for 500+ dwellings or 50,000+m2 floorspace); and
- non-material amendments under s96A.
The second category consists of applications for which there is a presumption in favour of delegated decisions, but which can be referred to the planning committee or sub-committee if the planning officer and the committee chair agree that it should be referred and the proposal raises either a significant economic, social or environmental issue for the local area, or a significant planning matter in light of the development plan or other material considerations. This category includes the following types of applications (full list is in Schedule 2 to the Regulations):
- applications that are not householder, minor commercial or minor residential applications;
- listed building consents (and associated planning applications);
- tree preservation order consents; and
- retrospective planning applications under s73A.
The Regulations also provide some flexibility where an application (whether or not listed in Schedule 1 or 2) is made by the LPA itself, or by one of its officers or elected members. In those circumstances, the application may be referred to committee in the interests of transparency, even where the above criteria is not met.
The categories do not change the appeal process following a refusal of permission – all planning appeals go to the Planning Inspectorate, irrespective of who determines the application.
Committee numbers
The national scheme of delegation also introduces a cap on the size of planning committees. Committees and sub-committees will be limited to a maximum of 13 members, although the accompanying guidance makes it clear that smaller committees are encouraged where appropriate.
Comment
These new Regulations represent a major shift in planning administration in England, taking the power to decide who is the most appropriate decision-maker away from LPAs. The desire for consistency across LPAs is well-intentioned, but some LPAs may see it as a loss of control over their own processes. In some respects, there is a conflict of terms arising from the national scheme of delegation: mandatory delegation means that, in reality, there is no longer a power that can be delegated.
What is perhaps of particular note, is that the national scheme of delegation doesn’t allow for the types of referral mechanisms that exist in some current schemes of delegation. For example, some existing local schemes of delegation require applications to be referred to committee where the relevant officer intends to refuse the application, but there are 5 or more sustained supporting representations. In those (pre-31 October 2026) circumstances the delegated officer cannot refuse the application under delegated powers.
There are several reasons why applicants or objectors might prefer an application to be determined by committee members, rather than by a delegated officer (for example, applications involving matters of local or political importance). The ability to get an application before a committee in circumstances where it would otherwise be determined by an officer can therefore be a useful tool in an applicant or objector’s arsenal. Its absence in the national scheme of delegation, therefore, is potentially significant.
However, it must also be said that the absence of such mechanism may favour some developers. Where there is significant public opposition / lobbying against a scheme (e.g. some unpopular housing schemes) it may be preferable for the decision to be delegated to an officer, rather than committee members.
The potential to speed up planning decisions will no doubt be seen as positive by developers.
Thoughts from Scotland
The national scheme of delegation applies only in England. Scotland already adopts a national approach to categorising development through the hierarchy of local, major and national developments. However, unlike England’s new national scheme of delegation, Scotland continues to operate under locally adopted schemes of delegation, with each planning authority determining which applications can be decided by officers and which should go before committee.
Scotland also continues to operate a “dual track” appeal process. Where a delegated application is refused, the decision will generally be reviewed by the planning authority’s local review body, whereas a refusal by committee can usually be appealed to the Scottish Ministers. As a result, getting an application before committee is sometimes particularly important as it opens up the potential to appeal any decision to the Scottish Ministers.
Given Scotland currently only has 34 planning authorities (300 fewer than in England), it could be said that the problem of local variations in schemes of delegation is less noticeable. However, if adopted, recent Scottish proposals for local government reform would change that.
While England is moving towards greater consistency through a national approach to delegation, the Scottish Government has proposed a new local government structure that could include between 120 and 160 community authorities responsible for certain local functions, including some planning decisions.
Whether either approach will ultimately lead to quicker, more robust or more consistent planning decisions remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the planning systems north and south of the border appear to be evolving in different directions.
Contributor
Senior Associate
