England’s planning committee system remains fragmented, with each Local Planning Authority (LPA) operating under its own constitution. These frameworks determine when applications are escalated from officers to committee, creating significant variation nationwide. In some LPAs, a single objection can trigger committee review; in others, thresholds are much higher.
Although this structure is intended to support democratic oversight, it introduces inconsistency and delay. Minor applications can be drawn into lengthy committee processes, while many decisions become overly politically driven. The result is a system that is difficult to predict, undermining confidence in delivery timelines and increasing risk.
The UK Government has responded with draft regulations aimed at improving consistency and efficiency. Following consultation in May 2025, two principal measures have been carried forward: a national scheme of delegation and a cap on committee sizes.
A new approach to delegation: Clarity or complexity?
The proposed framework introduces a two-tier system. Schedule 1 (previously ‘Tier A’) applications would always be determined by officers, while Schedule 2 (previously ‘Tier B’) applications could be referred to committee only if they meet a defined “gateway test.” This test allows referral where proposals raise issues of local economic, social, or environmental significance, or involve significant planning considerations.
The relevant application types under each schedule are set out in Table 1 below.
Table 1 - the two tiers of application under the draft regulations.
| Schedule 1 - Delegated | Schedule 2 - Committee Deferral (subject to gateway) |
|---|---|
| Householder applications | Listed Building Consent (LBC) application |
| Minor commercial applications | Variation or discharge of condition of an LBC (s19) |
| Minor residential applications | Application connected to an LBC |
| Permission in Principle (Stage 1 and 2) | Planning application that isn't a householder, minor commercial, or minor residential |
| Non-material amendment applications (s96a) | Variation of Condition (a.k.a Minor Material Amendment) (s73) |
| S106 discharge/modification relating to Schedule 1 approvals | Retrospective applications (s73A) |
| Certificates of Lawfulness (Existing & Proposed) | S106 discharge/modification relating to Schedule 2 approvals |
| Submission of a Biodiversity Gain Plan | Reserved Matters application (phased) |
| Reserved Matters application (non-phased) | Express Consent to display an advertisement |
| Discharge of planning conditions | Tree Preservation Order (TPO) applications |
| Prior Approval applications |
For investors, the objective is to reduce unnecessary committee involvement and create a more predictable route for routine or policy-compliant schemes. However, the gateway test retains a degree of subjectivity, meaning outcomes will depend on how consistently LPAs interpret “significance.”
Revisions since the initial consultation reflect industry feedback. These include the omission of a ‘Medium’ scale of development, between 10-50 homes, from Schedule 1 and the division of Reserved Matters applications across the two schedules. The latter change reflects consultation responses, highlighting that some large multi-phase developments should remain subject to committee consideration.
While these changes refine the approach, they also limit its impact, with many high-value residential and commercial schemes still likely to go before committee. There is also a risk that committees may apply greater scrutiny to fewer applications, offsetting efficiency gains.
Capping planning committee sizes: Still too many seats at the table?
Currently, committees vary greatly in size, with four or five members at the lower end up to as many as fifteen. The Government had initially proposed a limit of 11, but this has been increased to 13 following consultation feedback emphasising political representation.
From an efficiency standpoint, this higher cap may blunt the intended impact. Larger committees often lead to longer debates and slower decisions, particularly on contentious schemes. A smaller cap - closer to 9-11 members - would better support timely decisions.
As proposed, a 13-member limit risks maintaining the status quo, with limited improvement in decision speed.
De-prioritising member training: Does this negate proposed reform?
A notable omission from the draft regulations is mandatory training for committee members. Originally proposed in 2025, this measure has been deferred, with the Government only indicating that it will “continue to consider” this following the implementation of the first two measures.
This creates a potential weak point in the reform package. Planning decisions are often complex, yet committee members are not required to have formal expertise. This can lead to extended debates, deferrals, and inconsistent decision-making.
Mandatory training would likely improve both the speed and quality of decisions, supporting more consistent outcomes. Its exclusion raises questions about the effectiveness of the reforms.
Next steps
The consultation closed on 23 April 2026, with implementation targeted for 30 September 2026.
The reforms signal a positive shift toward greater standardisation and clearer decision-making pathways. However, they are best viewed as incremental rather than transformative. Key risks around committee involvement in major schemes and variability in local interpretation are likely to persist.
