Roles for Members in the New Delegated Arrangements for Planning Decisions

From 31^st October 2026 certain planning applications made to councils who are local planning authorities[1] will have to be determined by officers and arrangements have to be made to decide whether other applications are dealt with by officers or a planning committee. What role can elected councillors play in the process?

The draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 divide planning and related applications into two tiers:

• Schedule 1 applications which must be determined by an officer of the authority (reg 4). Schedule 1 applications include householder applications; minor commercial applications; and minor residential applications (between one and nine new dwellings, on a site smaller than 0.5 hectares). Most reserved matters approvals, and various more technical applications, such as lawful development certificates, are also in Schedule 1.
• Schedule 2 applications where a nominated officer and a nominated member may agree that a particular application is determined by a committee of members (reg 5). These are all other planning applications, all listed building consent applications (and planning applications associated with them), retrospective applications for planning permission, reserved matters for large schemes, and advertising and tree works consents.

There are statutory criteria and policy for deciding whether a schedule 2 application goes to committee. The nominated member and nominated officer may agree to the application going to committee if ‘in their view it raises’ (reg 5(3)):

“(a) 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.”

In making a decision whether to refer to committee, regard must be had to the statutory guidance (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 319ZZE(4); reg 5(4)). This was published on 1^st June 2026 as ‘Planning Committees and the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions: Guidance for local planning authorities in England’. The principal addition made by the guidance is that ‘the presumption should be that decisions are delegated to officers and only exceptionally be referred to committee’ (para 22). That is an exception to the presumption of officer determination, without proposing any particular standard of being special or unique.

It is emphasised that ‘significant’ in sub-para (a) will vary depending on the local area (para 23). Examples which might be significant under (a) are given (para 23).  Some circumstances which are unlikely to raise a significant planning matter under (b) are in paragraph (b). These include technical issues where the statutory consultee was concerned but which have now been resolved to their and the nominated officer’s satisfaction (para 24). A reasonable implication is that an outstanding objection from a statutory consultee can be a significant planning matter.

The Government’s aim in paragraph 5 of the guidance is also relevant ‘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.’

Own interest applications

There is a final category of ‘own-interest’ applications where the authority, or one of its members or officers is making the application or has an interest in it (reg 6(1)). The nominated member and nominated officer may agree to refer any such application to committee (reg 6(4)). The schedule 2 application criteria and policy on exceptionality do not apply, but statutory guidance must be considered (reg 6(5)). Transparency and public accountability may be reasons for referral to committee (guidance, para 25).

Deciding whether schedule 2 applications should go to committee

Authorities will first want to decide whether all schedule 2 applications should be considered by the nominated member and nominated officer. The default position is that an application would be determined by officers (reg 5(2)) so a council could decide that only certain categories of schedule 2 applications go to the nominated persons for a decision on the mode of determination (see guidance para 13). Authorities might want to have all schedule 2 applications considered by the nominated member and officer. However a selective approach could be based on size or policy criteria or requests from members or parish and town councils for consideration whether the application goes to committee. It is important to have in mind that this would trigger consideration whether the application goes to committee, not a requirement that it does so.

Other members may be involved if the nominated persons are considering whether an application goes to committee. They can write in with their views whether it should do so. It would also be possible to hold a meeting with other members to consider the question. For example, there could be a members’ briefing panel attended by the chair of the planning committee (as nominated member), the vice chair and a senior opposition member of the committee, with the nominated officer to consider the schedule 2 criteria. Such a system has been used in the London Borough of Camden for many years to advise officers whether applications should be referred to committee.[2] That could be used with the decision now being taken by the nominated member and the nominated officer. The nominated persons must make their decision having regard the comments of the other councillors but should not abdicate their decision to the majority view.

Roles of members in officer delegated decisions

The second aspect is the role of members when officers make delegated decisions. At present members can make written representations which will be taken into account. Comments tend to be from councillors for the ward or wards affected by the application. Planning committee members have usually stayed out of that stage, being able to consider the application if it reaches committee.

There has always been a concern about undue influence on officers behind the scenes. The Lawyers in Local Government’s Members Planning Code of Good Practice says that councillors should not ‘put pressure on officers to put forward a particular recommendation’ and only discuss applications with appropriately senior officers.

The new arrangements will change the dynamic between senior councillors interested in planning and officers since there will now be types of applications which cannot reach a committee. Executive members could seek to address that by firmer policy. Other members may wish to be more involved in individual applications.

The new regulations do say that ‘the authority must not make arrangements that limit the officer’s discretion as to how to determine that application’ (reg 2(2)). That relates to the decision whether to approve the application, not the process leading up to it. For example, the authority may decide who is to be consulted on an application and it would follow that the officer could not decide the application until the end of the consultation period. However the agreement of the planning committee to an application could not be a precondition to an officer approving it.

It would be possible to adopt a form of members briefing panel where senior councillors discuss applications with the decision making officer and advise. Again, that is not without precedent. Some authorities have had arrangements for councillors to be consulted on planning enforcement decisions. There would have to be a clear recognition that the officer will make their own decision on the application. The management and conduct of the meeting would need to avoid pressurising officers and transparency would be worthwhile.

[1] Local planning authorities which are not subject to the Local Government Act are not included (such as development corporations) in this regime and national park authorities and the Broads Authority are also excluded: Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 319ZZF(1).

[2] See R(Vieira) v London Borough of Camden [2012] EWHC 287 (Admin).