National Scheme of Delegation – A Real Shift in Planning Power
The Government has now published the guidance and draft regulations for the new National Scheme of Delegation, with implementation due on 31 October 2026.
At first glance, this looks like a tidying-up exercise: more delegation to officers, the end of councillor call-ins and objection triggers, and a cap of 13 members on planning committees.
But the more I look at it, the more significant it appears.
The key change is not simply that some applications must be delegated. It is that even for larger and more complex applications, committee referral will become a controlled gateway decision, not a political default. Where the nominated senior planning officer and nominated senior councillor do not agree that an application should go to committee, it must be determined by officers.
That could materially change the balance of power.
Schedule 1
Schedule 1 applications must be determined by officers.
This includes householder applications, minor commercial applications, and minor residential applications. For housing, that means applications of between one and nine homes on sites smaller than 0.5 hectares (Note: both criteria must be met, not one or the other).
Schedule 1 also includes permission in principle, discharge of conditions, non-material amendments, certificates of lawfulness, biodiversity gain plans, prior approval applications under permitted development rights, and some reserved matters applications.
Reserved matters applications will generally be Schedule 1, unless they relate to a large outline permission: 500 or more homes, or 50,000 square metres or more of floorspace.
Section 73 applications also follow the status of the original permission. If the original permission was Schedule 1, the section 73 application will be Schedule 1. If the original permission was Schedule 2, the section 73 application will be Schedule 2.
Schedule 2
Schedule 2 captures larger or more complex applications. In simple terms, this means applications for planning permission that are not householder, minor commercial or minor residential applications.
It also includes section 73 applications where the original permission was Schedule 2, retrospective applications under section 73A, reserved matters applications linked to large outline permissions, listed building consent, advertisement consent, Tree Preservation Order consent, and certain section 106 modification or discharge applications connected to Schedule 2 approvals.
But Schedule 2 does not automatically mean committee.
The guidance says the overriding presumption is still delegation to officers. A Schedule 2 application can be referred to committee only where the nominated officer and nominated member agree that it raises either:
an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area; or
a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and other material considerations.
That is a meaningful test. It should require councillors to engage with the planning merits of an application much earlier in the process, rather than only once an application is already heading to committee.
Where the Scheme has real bite
It also flips the usual officer-member dynamic. In practice, councillors will no longer be able simply to insist that a case goes to committee. They will need to persuade the nominated officer that the test is met. If agreement is not reached, the application stays with officers.
That puts officers on the hook in a way they have not been before. A decision to refer an application to committee will need to be defensible in terms of compliance with the statutory guidance. Officers will not want their professional judgement challenged by the Planning Inspectorate or in the High Court because a case was sent to committee without a sound material planning reason, or because of a significant economic, social or environmental issue.
Paragraph 24 of the guidance is particularly important. It says significant planning matters are unlikely to arisewhere an application broadly complies with a detailed site allocation and relevant local, neighbourhood and national planning policies, unless new material considerations are raised.
That could be highly significant for allocated sites. If a site is allocated in an up-to-date local plan and the application broadly complies with the relevant policy framework, the bar for committee referral should be high.
This is where the scheme may have more bite than I first thought.
There will still be political pressure. Councillors will want to show residents that they are responsive, and officers will often want to avoid unnecessary conflict with members. Controversial applications, particularly speculative proposals on unallocated sites, are still likely to find their way to committee where a credible planning basis for doing so can be argued.
But allocated sites are different. If the regulations and guidance work as intended, more of those applications should be determined by officers, even where they are politically contentious.
There are several positives here.
Ending traditional call-ins and objection triggers is a real improvement. Standardising practice across the country should reduce some of the eccentricities of local constitutions and bring more predictability to the process. Delegating reserved matters applications on schemes below 500 homes or 50,000 square metres of floorspace is also significant. So too is the support this should provide for SME housebuilders working on smaller sites, where delay and committee risk can be disproportionately damaging.
Yes, the scheme could have gone further. There is little in Schedule 1 that is not already delegated to officers in many authorities. Why stop at nine homes? Why not 20 or 30, which could have provided a more meaningful boost for SME builders?
The scheme also does not remove discretion from the process. It creates a new discretionary stage: the gateway decision on whether a Schedule 2 application should go to committee. That will put real pressure on planning committee chairs and particularly senior officers. It is likely to become a new flashpoint where early engagement will be crucial.
Taken as a whole, however, the National Scheme of Delegation is a bigger step towards radical reform than it may first appear. Taken alongside changes to appeals, local plan coverage and wider planning reform, it should meaningfully change how decisions are made.
Planning committees will continue to play an important role, but within a more limited scope. Controversial speculative applications on unallocated sites may still be likely to come to committee, but allocated sites that broadly comply with the plan should be much harder to refer.
My final thought is political rather than procedural: if residents feel their voices are being shut out of the process, where will that frustration go? The reality is, at a local level, planning is political, and no scheme of delegation can change that. You can narrow the route to committee, but you cannot regulate opposition away.