Planning committee reform: statutory consultation on draft Regulations and guidance
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
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. The consultation is published 26 March 2026 and runs for 4 weeks.
What follows is a summary of the consultation headlines, with a particular focus on the draft guidance’s steer on what should not be treated as “significant” (and therefore should generally remain delegated).
What the consultation is seeking views on
The consultation is focused on the “technical detail and drafting” of:
A national scheme of delegation (what must be determined by officers vs what can be referred to committee); and
Committee size, including a maximum size threshold.
MHCLG’s stated aim is to have reforms in place by the end of September.
The draft Regulations: a two-tier national scheme of delegation
The draft Regulations translate the earlier “Tier A / Tier B” model into Schedule 1 and Schedule 2:
Schedule 1: must be delegated to officers (the “always delegated” list): Regulation 4 requires decisions on applications listed in Schedule 1 to be delegated to officers. MHCLG summarises this as covering householder, minor residential and minor commercial development, plus a range of technical/supplementary consents such as discharge of conditions, most reserved matters (non-phased), lawful development certificates and non-material amendments.
Schedule 2: presumed delegated, but may be referred (the “gateway” list): Regulation 5 provides that applications in Schedule 2 are presumed delegated unless they pass a gateway and are formally referred to committee. Schedule 2 includes (in broad terms) other planning permission applications not in Schedule 1, plus reserved matters for phased development, variations of permissions, and “special controls” such as listed building and TPO consents.
Crucially, if the authority has not made arrangements to refer, or if the referral conditions are not met, the application must be determined by an officer.
Who decides whether a Schedule 2 case goes to committee?
The draft guidance is clear that referral is intended to be exceptional, not routine. It introduces a practical “gatekeeper” model:
The nominated officer (expected to be the Chief Planning Officer or equivalent) and
the nominated member (expected to be the committee chair or equivalent)
must agree to refer the case. If they cannot agree, the case must be delegated.
The guidance also anticipates LPAs setting up triage arrangements if referral volumes become high, to avoid delays.
The gateway: what counts as a referral-worthy case?
A Schedule 2 case can only be considered for referral where at least one statutory criterion is met:
A: it raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and other material considerations; or
B: it raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area.
The draft guidance then does something important: it gives examples of what is unlikely to meet criterion A.
The key guidance point: what shouldn’t be treated as “significant”
For criterion A (“significant planning matter”), the draft guidance says the following circumstances are unlikely to raise a significant planning matter:
Plan/allocated-site compliance: where the application broadly complies with a detailed site allocation and other relevant local/neighbourhood plan policies and national decision-making policy in the NPPF unless new material considerations are raised by the application.
Resolved statutory consultee issues: where a specific planning matter (e.g. highways or flood risk) was initially raised by a statutory consultee but the proposal has been modified so it is acceptable to that consultee (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 stay delegated, and the “committee route” is framed as an exception rather than the default.
What might still justify committee referral under criterion B?
Where there is no “significant planning matter”, referral can only occur under criterion B if there is a significant economic, social or environmental issue for the local area.
The draft guidance gives examples such as:
outline permission for a large multi-phase residential development (allocated in the local plan)
change of use of a community shop in a rural area
works affecting a notable listed building in a town centre
The practical takeaway is that the “public interest / local significance” argument is intended to be channelled through criterion B, rather than being a general committee catch-all.
Other notable points in the consultation package
Linked-person applications: Regulation 6 deals with applications made by the authority, members/officers, or controlled entities. These can be referred to committee without applying the Regulation 5 gateway, reflecting a transparency/propriety rationale.
Committee size cap: Regulation 7 would cap committees (or sub-committees) discharging Schedule 2 functions at 13 members.
Reserved matters on phased outlines: The consultation material flags a specific policy choice: most reserved matters would be in the “always delegated” list, but reserved matters for large, multi-phase development are proposed for Schedule 2, recognising that individual phases can be substantial in their own right.
What this means in practice for applicants
If these proposals are taken forward broadly as drafted, the practical shift is less about “committee vs officer” as a debate in the abstract, and more about where decision-risk is managed.
The plan-led case (allocation alignment, policy compliance, and addressing material considerations early) becomes even more central, because the guidance is explicitly discouraging “significance” arguments for allocated/plan-compliant schemes.
Technical risk management matters: if consultee objections are resolved through amendments, the guidance implies that should reduce, not increase, the likelihood of committee referral.
For genuinely locally significant proposals, the emphasis shifts to articulating criterion B clearly: the local economic/social/environmental significance, and why committee scrutiny is warranted on that basis.
Comments