MHCLG has opened a statutory consultation on the draft Regulations and guidance that would implement planning committee reforms under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Published on 26 March 2026, the consultation runs for four weeks and focuses on the technical detail and drafting of a national scheme of delegation, including which applications must be determined by officers and which may still be referred to committee, together with proposed limits on planning committee size. MHCLG’s stated aim is to have the reforms in place by the end of September.

​

The draft Regulations translate the earlier Tier A and Tier B model into a two-tier national scheme of delegation. Schedule 1 contains the “always delegated” category, with Regulation 4 requiring decisions on those applications to be made by officers. MHCLG describes this as covering householder development, minor residential and minor commercial development, as well as a range of technical and supplementary consents, including discharge of conditions, most non-phased reserved matters, lawful development certificates and non-material amendments. Schedule 2 contains applications that are presumed to be delegated but may be referred to committee where the relevant gateway is met. In broad terms, this includes other planning permission applications not falling within Schedule 1, reserved matters for phased development, variations of permissions, and special controls such as listed building and TPO consents. Crucially, where an authority has not made referral arrangements, or where the referral conditions are not met, the application must be determined by an officer.

​

The draft guidance is clear that referral to committee is intended to be exceptional rather than routine. It introduces a gatekeeper model under which both a nominated officer, expected to be the Chief Planning Officer or equivalent, and a nominated member, expected to be the committee chair or equivalent, must agree that a Schedule 2 case should be referred. If they do not agree, the application remains delegated. The guidance also anticipates that authorities may need triage arrangements if referral volumes become high, to avoid the reforms creating new sources of delay.

​

A Schedule 2 case can only be considered for referral where at least one statutory criterion is met. The first is that the application raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and other material considerations. The second is that it raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area. The most important practical aspect of the draft guidance is its steer on what is unlikely to amount to a significant planning matter. It says that applications which broadly comply with a detailed site allocation, other relevant local or neighbourhood plan policies, and national decision-making policy in the NPPF are unlikely to meet that threshold unless new material considerations are raised. It also says that where a specific issue, such as highways or flood risk, was initially raised by a statutory consultee but has been resolved through amendments so that the consultee is satisfied, that issue is unlikely to justify committee referral unless the nominated officer has compelling reasons to take a different view.

​

That is a clear direction of travel. Plan-compliant schemes are expected to remain delegated, and the committee route is framed as an exception rather than the default. Where there is no significant planning matter under the first criterion, referral would need to be justified under the second criterion by reference to a significant local economic, social or environmental issue. The draft guidance gives examples such as outline permission for a large multi-phase residential development allocated in the local plan, the change of use of a community shop in a rural area, or works affecting a notable listed building in a town centre. The practical effect is that broader public interest or local significance arguments are intended to be channelled through this second criterion, rather than operating as a general committee catch-all.

​

The consultation package also includes several other notable points. Regulation 6 deals with linked-person applications, including applications made by the authority, members, officers or controlled entities. These may be referred to committee without applying the Regulation 5 gateway, reflecting the transparency and propriety issues that can arise in those cases. Regulation 7 would cap committees or sub-committees discharging Schedule 2 functions at 13 members. The consultation also flags a specific distinction on reserved matters: most reserved matters would fall within the always delegated category, but reserved matters for large, multi-phase developments are proposed to sit within Schedule 2, recognising that individual phases can be substantial in their own right.

​

If taken forward broadly as drafted, the practical shift is less about committee versus officer decision-making in the abstract, and more about where decision risk is managed. For applicants, the plan-led case becomes even more central. Alignment with allocations, clear policy compliance and early resolution of material considerations will all matter, because the guidance explicitly discourages “significance” arguments for allocated or otherwise plan-compliant schemes. Technical risk management will also become more important. Where consultee objections are resolved through amendments, the guidance suggests that this should reduce, rather than increase, the likelihood of committee referral. For genuinely locally significant proposals, the emphasis will shift to articulating the second criterion clearly by explaining the local economic, social or environmental significance of the proposal and why committee scrutiny is warranted on that basis.