Consultation outcome

Planning committee reform: statutory consultation on draft regulations and guidance – government response

Updated 1 June 2026

Introduction

1. Planning committees play a critical role in maintaining public trust and ensuring local democratic oversight within the English planning system. Planning committees remain central to transparent, consistent, and high-quality decision making.

2. Following the introduction of measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to ensure planning committees can operate more effectively, as required by the Act, the government consulted on the draft regulations and associated guidance needed to implement the national scheme of delegation and limit of the size of planning committees. The consultation, which ran from 26 March to 23 April 2026, sought views on the technical detail and drafting of the regulations and guidance.

3. Overall, a total of 611 responses were received from a range of interested parties from across the public and private sectors, as well as from the general public. The table below provides a breakdown of the overall number of responses to the consultation by category of respondent.

Table 1: Overall number of consultation responses

Category of respondent	Number of responses
Individual (personal view)	333
Local authority	156
Neighbourhood planning body, parish or town council	49
Developer	22
Other private sector organisation	11
Professional body	7
Interest group or voluntary organisation	21
Other	12
Total	611

4. This document provides a summary of the views received in response to the consultation proposals and sets out the government’s next steps.

Draft regulations

Question 1

Do you have any comments on the draft regulations?

Summary of responses

5. A total of 593 responses were received to Question 1 on the draft regulations. Of those about half were from individuals and over a quarter from local authorities. The remaining responses came from developers, neighbourhood planning bodies and parish and town councils, professional bodies, interest and voluntary groups, other private sector organisations and others.

6. Within the category of individuals many of the responses did not engage with the content of the draft regulations. Instead individuals expressed strong opposition to the principle of having a national scheme of delegation at all, largely on the grounds of perceived loss of local democratic oversight. This was also the case with some of the responses across other categories of respondent.

7. Across all categories of respondent the same key themes were raised. These were around:

• implementation: many respondents felt that an implementation date of 30 September did not allow sufficient time for local authorities to amend their constitutions and make the necessary administrative arrangements
• treatment of different application types: differing views were expressed on whether certain types of application should be in Schedule 1 or 2 (for example, special consent applications, medium sized development). However, there was no consensus that certain types of application were clearly in the wrong Schedule. There were also calls for additional types of application to be specifically identified in the Schedules (for example, change of use applications)
• member call in: many respondents felt that there should be some scope for members, given their local knowledge, to request applications be referred to committee or at least be involved in referral decisions
• ‘linked person’ applications: differing views were expressed about the scope of the ‘linked person’ definition with some considering it should be widened (for example, to include family members of officers/members) and others considering it should be narrowed (for example, to include only senior officers or those involved in planning functions)
• gateway criteria: a variety of views were expressed about the criteria for referral of applications to committee. Many respondents felt they were too broad and open to interpretation and should be more precisely expressed. There were calls for clear definitions of the terms used (for example, what constituted ‘significance’ and ‘significant’)
• gateway process: many respondents considered that there needed to be greater detail around the process for consideration of referral to committee (for example, around timing of decisions, whether all Schedule 2 applications needed to be considered, resolution of disagreements, scope for challenging decisions)
• committee size: many respondents agreed with the proposed limit of 13 members on a committee. However, some felt this was too prescriptive and might reduce the breadth of representation on planning committees, particularly in large or politically diverse authorities or in context of larger councils being formed through local government reorganisation

Government response

8. The government recognises the variety of views expressed on the draft regulations. We have considered them carefully and intend to make the following key changes to the regulations as a result:

• we have pushed back the implementation date to 31 October 2026 to allow local authorities further time to make the necessary arrangements
• we have changed the treatment of section 73 applications – they will now be in the same category as the ‘original’ application
• we have clarified the definition of ‘linked person applications’ (now referred to as ‘own-interest applications’)

9. The regulations also now include a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the regulations by 31 October 2028. This will provide an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the national scheme of delegation and propose any improvements to the regulations. There have also been several technical drafting changes to the regulations.

10. In relation to other points raised, for example, around greater clarity on the gateway criteria and process, we consider that these are best addressed through guidance. We intend therefore, to expand on the statutory guidance which will accompany the regulations, for example, to clarify that local authorities are not required to consider all Schedule 2 applications for referral to committee. On other points, such as provided greater clarity on how the gateway process should operate or in providing further advice on interpreting the gateway criteria, we will work with the Planning Advisory Service to see how these might be incorporated into the good practice advice it is developing to support local authorities.

Approach to reserved matters applications

Question 2

Do you agree with our proposed approach to phased reserved matters applications? If not, do you think we should return to the original position of reserved matters on phased development being delegated in all circumstances or should we instead consider delegating certain types of phased reserved matters applications?

Summary of responses

11. 534 responses were received in relation to Question 2 on the approach to reserved matters applications (i.e. only those applications related to phased outline permissions should be in Schedule 2.) Of these 301 were from individuals and 132 from local planning authorities. The remaining responses came from neighbourhood planning bodies/parish and town councils, developers, other private sector organisations, professional bodies and interest groups/voluntary organisations and others.

12. Overall, there was a mixed response to the proposed approach set out in the consultation. In particular, individuals and developers were strongly opposed. There was strong support from professional bodies for the proposal and local authorities were broadly evenly split in favour and against.

13. Those favouring the proposed approach commented that it was appropriate as phased developments can occur over many years and many important aspects which should be considered by committee can change in that time.

14. Views from those who disagreed ranged from those who wanted to revert to the original proposal in the May 2025 consultation i.e. that all reserved matters should be delegated to officers to others who wanted all reserved matters, regardless of whether they were phased to come before committee for a decision. Comments from those who favoured the former approach included that reserved matters applications were too commonly called in because the principle of the development was being objected to. Views expressed by those favouring the latter approach included that it was necessary to enable public scrutiny and ensure compliance with the outline stage permission.

15. Alternative proposals which were also put forward including having a size limit (various size limits were proposed) to decide which reserved matters were in Schedule 1 and which in Schedule 2 or delegating only those applications that clearly follow approved parameters or design codes and are unlikely to have significant impacts.

Government response

16. The government recognises the differing views on this matter. Having reflected on the responses, we remain of the view that there should still be scope for reserved matters applications relating to outline planning permission for large, multi-phase development to be referred to committees in those cases where local democratic oversight is needed. However, we believe that a clearer and more focused approach to achieving this would be to categorise reserved matters applications in terms of the size of the related outline planning permission.

17. We therefore intend to amend the regulations to place reserved matters approval applications which relate to a large outline planning permission (i.e. over 500 dwellings or 50,000 square metres of floorspace) in Schedule 2. We consider these reserved matters are more likely to raise important matters such as the provision of onsite community infrastructure on a large site which may merit consideration by committees. Reserved matters approval applications relating to smaller outline planning permissions will fall into Schedule 1 and be determined by officers in all cases.

Draft guidance

Question 3

Do you have any comments on the draft guidance?

Summary of responses

18. There were 445 responses to Question 3 on the draft guidance, of which 230 were from individuals and 121 from local authorities. The rest of the responses came from across the different categories of respondent. For individuals, only a small number commented specifically on the regulations with most focusing instead on the general principles of the reforms.

19. The key points raised in responses were:

• gateway test: further guidance should be provided on how the triage process should be undertaken, for example, around the timescale for decisions, whether reconsideration of earlier decisions is allowed and to make clear that not all Schedule 2 applications need to be considered for referral. There were calls for guidance to make clear that ward members could input into referral process or, if this was not allowed, to make that explicit in the guidance
• criteria for referral: there were differing views on whether the examples given in the draft guidance were appropriate and calls for further examples dealing with other circumstances to be given, including examples of what would not meet the criteria for referral. In particular, it was felt across all categories of respondent that the cumulative impact of developments should form part of the consideration for referral to committee. There were views expressed that some of the terminology used is not given clear meaning or weight, for example, significant public interest or local area
• transparency and record keeping: many respondents commented that the guidance should include more detailed on these points, for example, around the timing for publication of decisions. Among local authorities in particular, some respondents considered that the reporting requirements should be less onerous, for example, simply noted in respective reports or left to the discretion of individual authorities, while others felt that there should be a stronger emphasis on transparency. A number of respondents expressed views that the government should actively monitor and review local authorities’ performance in implementing the national scheme of delegation
• nominated officer/member: there were calls for further guidance, for example, around the types of people who might be suitable for the roles, how these persons should be appointed and what should happen if there is a conflict of interest

Government response

20. Many of the points made in responses to Question 3 on the draft guidance were similar to those in relation to Question 1 on the draft regulations. The government’s response to Question 1 as set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 sets out the amendments we intend to make to the regulations.

21. We have updated the guidance to reflect the changes to the regulations. We have also expanded and clarified the guidance, for example, around the consequences of local planning authorities failing to follow the national scheme of delegation and the circumstances in which Schedule 2 applications need to be considered against the gateway criteria.

22. The Planning Advisory Service will also provide best practice advice and support to local planning authorities.

Next steps

23. Alongside this government response, we are laying the draft regulations for Parliamentary scrutiny and publishing the accompanying statutory guidance. The intention is that the final regulations will be made in July and come into force on 31 October 2026.

24. The government continues to recognise the importance of effective training for planning committee members and once the regulations have cleared the final Parliamentary stage, we will resume work to take forward our powers from the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to implement mandatory member training.