Consultation outcome

Reform of planning committees: technical consultation - government response

Updated 26 March 2026

Introduction

1. Planning is principally a local activity because decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. That is why the government is determined to ensure every area has an up-to-date local plan developed through significant resident engagement, and it is why the government believes that planning committees have an integral role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. It is, however, vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications which require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

2. Our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 has introduced measures to modernise committees through the control of the size and composition of planning committees, to introduce a scheme of delegation to control which applications go to committees and which to officers, and to mandate training for committee members. Our technical consultation which ran from May to July 2025 sought views on the proposals to implement these measures.

3. Overall, a total of 579 responses to this consultation 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)	157
Local authority	182
Neighbourhood planning body, parish or town council	64
Developer	49
Other private sector organisation	26
Professional body	26
Interest group or voluntary organisation	53
Other	22
Total	579

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

5. Not all respondents answered every question in the consultation and in some cases respondents provided only a qualitative response. For the purposes of the statistical summary of responses to each question below, we have excluded those respondents who either did not answer the question at all or provided only a qualitative response. However, where respondents provided only a qualitative response, their comments have been considered alongside the other responses.

Delegation of planning functions

Question 1

Do you agree with the principle of having a two tier structure for the national scheme of delegation?

Summary of responses

6. 513 respondents answered ‘agree/disagree’ to Question 1. Of those, more than half supported the principle of having a two tier structure for the national scheme of delegation. While there was overwhelming support from developers, there was also strong support from professional bodies, other private sector organisations and others and considerable support from local authorities. The remaining categories of respondent – individuals, neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils and interest groups/voluntary organisations - showed considerable opposition to the proposal.

7. Key points raised in the responses included:

• Those who supported the proposal considered that the two tier structure would provide clarity and consistency and allow committees to focus on the right developments in a timely and cost-effective way. Many commented that it largely reflected existing common practice so the principle was familiar.
• Many of those who disagreed with the proposed approach did not support a national scheme of delegation at all. Concerns about the two tier approach included that it was not nuanced enough to reflect local context and governance arrangements and that it risked imposing unnecessary changes on well-functioning authorities.
• Some respondents suggested that a three tier structure would be preferable –applications which are always delegated to officers, those subject to a gateway test and those which should always be determined by Committee. Other respondents considered that it might be simpler to have a tier of applications which are always delegated to officers with the remainder either being delegated or taken to committee in accordance with new local schemes of delegation.

Government response

8. The government’s intention in bringing forward a national scheme of delegation is to ensure that planning committees can work as effectively as possible and focus on those applications for complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required. The proposed two tier structure is intended to give greater clarity and consistency about who in a local planning authority will make planning decisions.

9. We recognise that there are differing opinions on the best approach and that there are some who simply do not support a national scheme of delegation at all. However, having reviewed all the consultation responses, the government considers that a two tier structure is the right one and will allow local planning authorities sufficient flexibility to bring those applications which are of most significance to their local communities to committee for a decision. We will therefore, take forward a two tier structure for the national scheme of delegation as proposed in the consultation.

Question 2

Do you agree the following application types should fall within Tier A?

• applications for planning permission for:
  • householder development
  • minor commercial development
  • minor residential development
• applications for reserved matter approvals
• applications for non-material amendments to planning permissions
• applications for the approval of conditions including Schedule 5 mineral planning conditions
• applications for approval of the BNG Plan
• applications for approval of prior approval (for permitted development rights)
• applications for lawful development certificates
• applications for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development

Summary of responses

10. 490 respondents answered ‘agree/disagree’ to Question 2. Overall, responses were fairly evenly split with about half agreeing with the proposed application types to be included in Tier A and half disagreeing. There was overwhelming support from developers for the proposal. Professional bodies and other private sector organisations showed strong support and others showed considerable support. Interest groups/voluntary organisations were strongly opposed and individuals, neighbourhood planning/parish and town councils showed considerable opposition. The response from local authorities was evenly split.

11. Key points raised in the responses included:

• In supporting the proposal, some respondents commented that these were routine, small scale, technical application types which are well-defined in national and local policy. As such they considered they were better dealt with by officers. They cited the main benefits of such an approach as more cost-effective and timely decisions which would reduce administrative burdens.
• Reasons given by those opposed to the proposal included that it is not the size of the development but the impact that it could have depending on local context that is important. Some respondents felt it was too rigid an approach.
• A range of other views were expressed on what type of applications should not fall within Tier A. In particular, many thought reserved matters applications should not be in Tier A as, while the principle of development was agreed at outline stage, the detailed proposals can generate significant public interest. Other types of application which respondents felt should not fall in Tier A were applications for householder development, minor commercial development and minor residential development as they felt they can often have a significant impact on the locality.
• A number of respondents cited the need for clear definitions of application types which fall within Tier A, for example, what constitutes major and minor development in different settings (e.g. urban, rural, sensitive locations).

Question 3

Do you think, further to the working paper on revising development thresholds, we should consider including some applications for medium residential development (10-50 dwellings) within Tier A? If so, what types of application?

Summary of responses

12. A total of 451 respondents answered ‘yes/no’ to Question 3. Overall, there was considerable opposition to the inclusion of applications for medium residential development within Tier A. Neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils were overwhelmingly opposed, with local authorities, interest groups/voluntary organisations and individuals strongly opposed. Others showed considerable opposition to the proposal. Developers showed strong support, while other private sector organisations and professional bodies showed considerable support.

13. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• The most common theme from those opposed to the inclusion of medium residential development applications in Tier A was that a scheme of 10-50 dwellings would almost always raise significant public interest, even if it is in line with the development plan, and would therefore warrant public scrutiny at committee. They pointed out that such a scheme would almost by definition be a major change in a rural setting, where public infrastructure might not be of a commensurate scale. They also commented that it would also raise substantial amenity issues in a dense urban environment where public infrastructure might already be stressed.
• Respondents also commented that for many local authorities schemes for 10-50 dwellings make up a substantial portion of residential planning applications and therefore, there is a public expectation that these types of applications would be determined in a planning committee.
• Other respondents commented that medium residential developments could be in Tier A if these are allocated in a Local Plan or where there are no objections from key consultees. Other reasons could be if the principle of development has already been established, if the site is subject to an extant outline planning permission or if a local authority has failed to meet its housing targets.
• Some respondents advised that it would be preferable to establish the key functions of Tier A first before attempting to include developments that are potentially controversial in a local context. Others argued for a lower threshold for ‘medium’ development (10-10 or 10-25), in recognition that any development over these thresholds would raise public attention in any setting (urban, sub-urban, coastal, rural, etc).

Question 4

Are there further types of application which should fall within Tier A?

Summary of responses

14. A total of 467 respondents answered ‘yes/no’ to Question 4, with over a third considering that there are further types of application which should fall within Tier A. Developers and professional bodies showed considerable support for the inclusion of other types of application. More than half of other private sector bodies and about half of local authorities also felt there were other types of application which should be included. Only about a third of others answered yes. Individuals showed weak support and neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils and interest groups/voluntary organisations showed minimal support.

15. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• A recurring theme for respondents who replied yes to this question was that the scheme of delegation should follow more closely the government’s plan-led planning system, and that therefore, any application that complies with the development plan should be in Tier A. Other factors include circumstances where an application attracts limited public interest; where there are no objections from statutory consultees; or where the planning officer is minded to approve the application.
• Across all categories, respondents suggested that certain applications would by themselves be minor but are technically classified as major because of their location, for example on council-owned ground or on County land, or because of their use class, for example minerals and waste.
• Several respondents mentioned that Tier A could also include other types of commercial development, which are often less contentious than residential development, as well as different types of utilitarian development.

Government response to Questions 2, 3 and 4

16. The government recognises the range of views about which application types should be included in Tier A. Having considered all the responses to questions 2, 3 and 4 carefully, we remain of the view that, in the main, the proposed list of application types for inclusion in Tier A which were set out in the consultation represents those minor or technical applications which should be delegated to officers.

17. We have, however, reflected further on reserved matters applications in the light of the comments received. We recognise that in some cases these applications may relate to large scale phased development taking place over many years. As such each reserved matters application can represent substantial major development in its own right and may, in some cases, merit committee scrutiny. For this reason, only reserved matter applications relating to non-phased outline planning permissions are included in Tier A in the draft regulations. The consultation document specifically asks for further views about this approach.

18. We recognise that to include all applications for medium residential development in Tier A would mean very few residential development applications in some areas could be scrutinised by committee. Therefore, the consultation did not contain any definite proposals on the inclusion of these types of application in Tier A. Instead, we sought views on whether there might be particular circumstances in which some such applications should be in Tier A.

19. Having considered all the points raised by respondents, on balance, we do not think it would be appropriate to include any applications for medium residential development in Tier A. We recognise that, in any particular circumstances, this type of application might raise issues which would merit scrutiny by a committee. We will therefore, put these types of application in Tier B.

20. The government will therefore, subject to the exceptions listed in paragraphs 17 and 35 of this document, include the application types set out in Question 2 of the consultation in Tier A. We have also decided to include applications for permission in principle in Tier A.

Question 5

Do you think there should be a mechanism to bring a Tier A application to committee in exceptional circumstances? If so, what would those circumstances be and how would the mechanism operate?

Summary of responses

21. 476 respondents answered ‘yes/no’ to Question 5. Overall, there was strong support for having a mechanism to bring Tier A applications to committee in exceptional circumstances. Although, there was considerable opposition to having such a mechanism from developers, all other categories of respondent showed overall support for having a mechanism. Neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils and interest groups/voluntary organisations showed overwhelming support, local authorities strong support and the remaining categories considerable support.

22. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• Many of those who supported the principle of having a referral mechanism considered that it was vital to ensure democratic oversight, especially in the absence of a third party right of appeal. Some respondents considered it was necessary to avoid the increased use of the planning appeal system which would be more costly for applicants and local planning authorities.
• The predominant view expressed by those who were not in favour of having an exceptional circumstances mechanism was that it would undermine the aims of having a two tier system and lead to further confusion. A common view expressed was that exceptional circumstances could be engineered if there was pressure to bring an application to committee.
• A broad range of suggestions were put forward as to what the exceptional circumstances should be. These included where the principle of development was contrary to the development plan, where there was significant local opposition, where the development/location was sensitive, previously undeveloped land or depending on the status of the applicant (for example, a councillor, officer or developer with a poor track record).
• A range of suggestions were proposed as to how such a mechanism could operate. These included at the request of different parties (for example, head of planning, committee chair, parish or town councils, councillors, statutory consultees); provided there are clear planning grounds to justify the request; as proposed for Tier B applications or as decided by some kind of panel/group of persons (for example, the committee chair and monitoring officer or chief planning officer) or all/part of the committee.

Government response

23. The government recognises the strong support overall from many respondents for having a mechanism by which Tier A applications could be brought to committee. After careful consideration of the responses, however, we think that introducing such a mechanism would undermine the aims of these reforms. The application types which we will include in Tier A are generally technical in matter or about minor developments and, as such, are best suited to determination by professional planning officers.

Question 6

Do you think the gateway test which requires agreement between the chief planner and the chair of the planning committee is suitable? If not, what other mechanism would you suggest?

Summary of responses 

24. 448 respondents answered ‘yes/no’ to Question 6, of which, more than half thought the proposed gateway test was not a suitable approach. Individuals, neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils, other private sector bodies, interest groups/voluntary organisations and others showed considerable opposition. Professional bodies showed strong support for the proposed gateway test and local authorities and developers showed considerable support.

25. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• Those opposed to the gateway test raised concerns that it is undemocratic and placed too much power in the hands of two people. Other concerns included that it risked putting both the chief planning officer and committee chair under undue pressure from lobbying, could be detrimental to their wider working relationship, increased the risk of legal challenge and would be an additional administrative burden for local authorities.
• Those supporting the proposed approach felt that it was a positive step, would give greater certainty and allow for democratic examination of proposals when required. Many commented that the approach reflected existing practice.
• Many respondents felt that if a gateway test was introduced, for transparency, there should be a requirement for all discussions and reasons for decisions to be recorded. A number of respondents, both opposed to and in favour of the proposal, called for the role of chief planning officer to be made statutory.
• A recurring theme in the responses was the need for greater clarity and guidance on how the process would operate, for example, what would happen in the event of disagreements, whether there would be a ‘pre-gateway’ stage to reduce the number of applications being triaged, what the timeframe for decisions should be.
• A wide range of alternative mechanisms were proposed by respondents. These included:
  • others such as Ward councillors, elected Members, the Portfolio holder for Planning or other officers should be involved in the triage process
  • all/percentage of committee members should decide
  • there should be separate review panels
  • either the chief planning officer or the chair of committee should be solely responsible for the decision
  • others for example, applicants, members, town and parish councils should have call in rights
• Many respondents felt the criteria suggested in paragraph 26 of the consultation for deciding which applications should be delegated to officers or referred to Committee were too vague and subjective. They considered that very clear and unambiguous criteria should be set out nationally to give greater certainty at the outset. A wide range of other criteria were suggested such as based on local schemes of delegation for Tier B applications, on level of objections, whether the application is in a sensitive area or contrary to the development plan.

Government response

26. The government recognises the diverging views on the proposed gateway test and the criteria for assessing which application types should be considered for referral to committee.

27. Having carefully consider the responses, and in particular the suggestions for alternative mechanisms, the government remains of the view that the gateway test set out in the consultation is the right approach. We also consider that the proposed criteria by which decisions to take applications to committee should be considered which were set out are appropriate. We do, however, recognise the concerns about the subjective nature of the criteria and the need for transparency around decisions on which applications are/are not referred to committee. We will provide further advice on these matters in the statutory guidance to accompany the regulations.

Question 7

Do you agree that the following types of application should fall within Tier B?

a) Applications for planning permission aside from:

• Householder applications
• Minor commercial applications
• Minor residential development applications

b) notwithstanding a), any application for planning permission where the applicant is the local authority, a councillor or officer

c) applications for s73 applications to vary conditions/s73B applications to vary permissions

Summary of responses

28. 443 respondents answered ‘agree/disagree’ to Question 7, of which about half agreed with the types of application to be included in Tier B proposed in the consultation. There was considerable support from developers and others. More than half of professional bodies agreed and about half of neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils and local authorities. Other private sector bodies were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed list of application types and more than half of individuals and interest groups/voluntary organisations were opposed.

29. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• Reasons given for supporting the inclusion of the proposed types of application in Tier B included that they often have wider impacts, require more nuanced judgement, or give rise to more significant local or political interest and it is important, to maintain transparency and public confidence that there is the possibility of consideration by committee.
• Many of those who disagreed with the proposal cited their opposition to the tiered system as the reason for their view. Others thought it would result in more applications potentially going to committee than was the case now.
• Across all categories of respondent, the question of whether section 73/73B applications should be included in Tier B attracted a great many responses. There was no consensus, with opinion divided between those who thought these types of application should all either be in Tier A or in Tier B or that it should be dependent on what tier the original application fell into.
• A range of views were expressed in relation to the inclusion of applications where the local authority, an employee or a councillor is the applicant. Some respondents expressed the view that for transparency and accountability all such applications should be determined by committee. Others felt that there should be a more nuanced approach to avoid too many such applications potentially going to committee. Suggestions included that it should apply only to applications:
  • involving officers at a senior grade or those working in the Planning Department
  • where the applicant is a relative of a councillor or officer
  • only where there is a wider public interest
  • where the local authority is not the applicant but has an interest in the land which is the subject of the application

Question 8

Are there further types of application which should fall within Tier B?

Summary of responses

30. A total of 422 respondents answered ‘yes/no’ to Question 8, with less than half considering that there were further types of application which should fall within Tier B. About half of neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils, professional bodies and interest groups/voluntary organisations, over a third of local authorities and less than half of individuals and others suggested other application types for inclusion in Tier B. Developers were overwhelmingly of the view that no further application types needed to be added to Tier B and other private sector organisations were strongly of that view.

31. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• Most respondents who said yes viewed Tier A as a narrow list of technical applications and Tier B as not just for complex or large-scale applications but for any application where the principles of democratic accountability and public interest demand greater scrutiny.
• Reserved matters and variations of conditions featured very strongly for these respondents, particularly for outline applications. Other referral conditions mentioned included heritage related applications; significant and material objections from councillors, parish councils, residents or statutory consultees; applications near sensitive uses such as schools or community infrastructure; and changes in land use.

Government response to Questions 7 and 8

32. As with the types of application which should fall into Tier A, a wide range of views were expressed in response to questions 7 and 8. Having considered all the points raised, the government remains of the view that the application types set out in Question 7 of the consultation should fall within Tier B. As indicated at paragraph 17 we also consider that applications for reserved matters in relation to large scale phased development should fall within Tier B.

Question 9

Do you consider that special control applications should be included in Tier A or Tier B?

Summary of responses

33. 364 responses were received to question 9. Overall, more than half of these respondents expressed a view that special control applications should be in Tier A, with strong support from developers, local authorities and professional bodies and considerable support from other private sector organisations. There was considerable support from individuals and interest groups/voluntary organisations for the inclusion of such applications in Tier B. Neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils were evenly split between Tier A and Tier B.

34. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• Views expressed by those in favour of special control applications falling into Tier A included that they were generally non-contentious, specialist technical applications which should be determined by professional officers and that such an approach reflected existing practice in many areas.
• Those in favour of special control applications falling into Tier B felt that they are often highly sensitive, both in planning terms and in terms of local public interest and therefore, should be capable of being referred to committee for public scrutiny and transparency.
• Many of the respondents, across all categories and regardless of whether they opted for either Tier A or Tier B or neither, suggested a more nuanced approach with some special control applications falling into Tier A and others into Tier B. A range of suggestions for such an approach included:
  • ‘standalone’ special control applications should fall into Tier A and those linked to another Tier B application should fall into Tier B
  • special control applications should fall into Tier A but only if there is a mechanism to allow committee referral in exceptional circumstances, otherwise they should be in Tier B
  • which tier should depend on size, scale and specifics of the application
  • applications relating to tree preservation orders, listed building consent and advertisement consent should be included in Tier A, unless there are unresolved objections from a statutory consultee

Government response

35. After careful consideration of the responses, the government considers that any application for listed building consent, advertisement consent and for consent under tree preservation orders could potentially raise sensitive issues which would benefit from committee scrutiny. We therefore, propose to include such special control applications in Tier B.

36. Where there is an application for planning permission which the local planning authority thinks is connected to a listed building consent application, both should fall into Tier B.

Question 10

a) Do you think that all section 106 decisions should follow the treatment of the associated planning applications?

b) For section 106 decisions not linked to a planning application should they be in Tier A or Tier B, or treated in some other way?

Summary of responses

37. 365 respondents answered ‘yes/no’ to Question 10a), with considerable support for all section 106 decisions following the treatment of the associated planning application. There was strong support from neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils and considerable support from local authorities, other private sector organisations, individuals and interest groups/voluntary organisations. More than half of professional bodies supported the proposal with developers and others being evenly split.

38. 198 respondents answered part b) of Question 10 about the treatment of section 106 decisions not linked to an application by either selecting Tier A or Tier B. Over half of those supported the inclusion of these functions in Tier A. Developers and other private sector organisations showed strong support and local authorities considerable support for Tier A. More than half of others also favoured Tier A. Neighbourhood planning bodies/parish and town councils and interest groups/voluntary organisations showed considerable support for Tier B. Individuals and professional bodies were evenly split between Tier A and B.

39. Key points raised in the consultation responses in relation to Question 10a) included:

• Respondents who agreed with the proposal commented that this was a logical approach, provided certainty to applicants and kept decision making consistent and transparent.
• Some respondents felt that all such decisions should be delegated to officers. In many cases this was because they felt that such decisions were of a technical and legal nature and as such did not require committee scrutiny. A number of respondents commented that all that is currently reported to committee are the heads of terms to demonstrate how the legal planning obligation tests are being met; with the detailed drafting of the section106 agreements and their commitment under seal being delegated to officers.
• Other respondents felt that section 106 decisions should either always be decided by committee or at least there should always be the opportunity for committee scrutiny when circumstances warranted it. Reasons for this included that the delivery of relevant planning obligations often affect local residents, engage the principle of development or involve more complex development.
• A range of views were expressed on section 106 decisions not associated with planning applications. These included that the approach should balance the need for efficient processing with transparency and accountability. A recurring view was that the proportion of section 106 decisions not linked to planning applications is so minimal that such matters are most appropriately dealt with by planning committees, and are most unlikely to make an appreciable difference to speed of delivery
• A number of respondents commented on decisions on applications to vary section 106 agreements. Comments included that while the original section 106 agreement may have been non-controversial and policy compliant, a proposed variation could seek to remove benefits the community considered they would receive and should therefore, be open to public scrutiny. Others felt that such applications were highly technical and achieved through negotiation and agreement and therefore, better dealt with by officers.

40. Key points raised in the consultation responses in relation to Question 10b) included:

• There is no value in involving a committee in a legal agreement.
• Given how often the delivery of relevant planning obligations could affect local residents and affect the principle of development, they should always be open to interrogation.
• The need for planning obligations does not in itself indicate that a proposal is strategically or politically sensitive. If the application is otherwise policy compliant and uncontentious, it should still be eligible for officer delegation.
• Standalone decisions often involve sensitive negotiations around viability, infrastructure contributions, or affordable housing delivery, and can have significant implications for both local communities and public trust.
• Where a legal agreement is being varied or discharged independently of an associated planning decision, it is appropriate for this to be brought to committee. This ensures transparency and allows members to understand the planning and policy context in which obligations are being re-evaluated.
• The proportion of section 106 agreements not linked to planning applications is so minimal that such matters are most appropriately dealt with by committee, and are most unlikely to make an appreciable difference to speed of delivery.

Government response

41. After further consideration, we do not think that there is a need to make specific provision for which tier, section 106 agreements themselves should fall into.

42. This is because, most of the time, what section 106 obligations are appropriate will be considered as part of the application process. In other cases, section 106 obligations can be entered into unilaterally by the landowner so there is no real ‘function’ for the local planning authority. We recognise that there may occasionally be section 106 obligations which are agreed outside of the context of a planning application but we consider that, in these cases, the decision on whether it should be delegated to officers or go to committee should be left to the discretion of the local authority.

43. However, we consider that where a section 106 agreement is related to an application falling into either Tier A or Tier B, and agreement is being sought to amend or discharge the planning obligation (under section 106(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), the function of agreeing to amend or discharge the obligation should fall into the same tier as the related application. We think this same approach should apply to applications to modify or discharge an obligation under section 106A(3).

Question 11

Do you think that enforcement decisions should be in Tier A or Tier B, or treated in some other way?

Summary of responses

44. 476 responses were received to Question 11 about the treatment of enforcement decisions. Overall, less than a half of respondents thought these decisions should fall into Tier A. There was minimal support for such decisions falling into Tier B, and about a third of respondents thought they should be treated in another way. Developers showed strong support for Tier A with more than half of local authorities agreeing and about half of professional bodies and others also favouring Tier A. About half of individuals, neighbourhood planning bodies/parish and town councils and interest groups/voluntary organisations favoured Tier B. Other private sectors bodies were evenly split between the 3 options.

45. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• The main reasons given for supporting the inclusion of enforcement decisions in Tier A were that they involved technical and legal judgements which should be dealt with by professional officers. Many respondents also cited the need for confidentiality and timely decision making to avoid harm persisting unnecessarily. Some respondents qualified their responses, for example by saying that such decisions should fall in Tier A provided there was discretion to refer to committee in certain circumstances. A number of respondents commented that this approach was in line with what currently happened.
• Those in favour of such decisions falling into Tier B felt that it ensured transparency and accountability by having the backstop of being decided by committee if necessary. Others commented that enforcement was crucial to the whole planning system and therefore, more scrutiny was warranted.
• A range of suggestions were put forward by those that felt another way for treating these decisions was more appropriate. The following broad categories were suggested:
  • either Tier A or Tier B depending on the nature of the breach and its impact
  • by committee in all cases or in certain cases, for example, on decisions over whether to prosecute
  • by officers with elected members first being informed of prospective action
  • to be decided locally for example, in line with existing practice or local policies or enforcement strategy or on a case by case basis at the discretion of officers and/or members
  • by some kind of separate triage process for example, an independent review panel or by officers and/or councillors
• A recurring theme in responses was the need for committees to be kept informed of enforcement matters to ensure visibility and accountability, for example, through periodic reporting of actions and outcomes or in advance of action being taken/not taken.

Government response

46. As set out in the consultation, the government understands that planning enforcement functions (including enforcement of section 106 obligations) are in practice largely delegated to officers. However, we recognise that there are some large scale, high profile and locally contentious enforcement cases which may warrant additional democratic oversight through the planning committee. We did not set out any definite proposals in the consultation on this matter but invited views on the treatment of enforcement functions.

47. We have noted the range of views expressed through the consultation responses and, on balance, we consider that decisions on who should be responsible for enforcement functions are best left to local planning authorities. The government does not intend therefore, to include enforcement functions in either Tier A or Tier B.

Size of planning committees

Question 12

Do you agree that the regulations should set a maximum for planning committees of 11 members?

Summary of responses

48. 476 respondents answered ‘agree/disagree’ to Question 12. Overall, there was considerable support for setting a maximum of 11 members for planning committees. Developers and others showed overwhelming support for the proposal, with other private sector organisations showing strong support and local authorities and professional bodies showing considerable support. More than half of interest groups/voluntary organisations and about half of individuals and neighbourhood planning bodies/parish and town councils supported the proposal.

49. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• Supporters of the proposal viewed a cap of 11 members as promoting more efficient, focused meetings and reducing delays. Smaller committees were seen as easier to manage and less prone to lobbying.
• Those opposed to the proposed cap of 11 members argued that a fixed cap could undermine democratic representation, especially in councils with diverse political structures or large geographical areas. Many called for local flexibility and proportional approaches based on council size and complexity.
• There was broad support for mandatory training, with some suggesting that smaller, well-trained committees could improve decision making. However, others stressed that quality depends more on member expertise than committee size.
• Concerns were raised about maintaining political neutrality and ensuring fair representation. Suggestions included excluding executive members, declaring affiliations, and using substitutes to preserve balance during absences.
• Several respondents proposed ranges (e.g. 8-14 members), percentage-based models, or best practice guidance instead of a legal cap. Some advocated for strategic development committees or professional planners to replace elected members.

Question 13

If you do not agree, what if any alternative size restrictions should be placed on committees?

Summary of responses

50. 249 respondents provided views on what, if any, alternative size restrictions should be placed on committees in response to Question 13.

51. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• Respondents emphasised the need for local authorities to determine committee size based on their own governance structures, geography, population, and political composition.
• Many respondents favoured non-binding government guidance suggesting indicative ranges (commonly 7-15 members) rather than fixed limits. This approach was seen as promoting consistency while preserving local discretion.
• Some respondents proposed formulas or proportional models based on council size.
• A recurring theme was that committee effectiveness depends more on member competence, training, and diversity of expertise than on numerical size. Suggestions included mandatory training, portfolio-based membership, and inclusion of independent advisors.

Question 14

Do you think the regulations should additionally set a minimum size requirement?

Summary of responses

52. A total of 439 respondents answered ‘yes/no’ to Question 14. Overall, there was considerable support for a minimum size requirement, with all categories in overall support. Other private sector organisations and others were overwhelmingly in support. There was strong support from interest groups/voluntary organisations and professional bodies. The remaining categories showed considerable support.

53. Key points raised in consultation responses included:

• Many respondents supported a minimum committee size to ensure diverse viewpoints, prevent dominance by individuals, and enable effective debate. Odd-numbered committees were favoured to avoid tied votes.
• A minimum size was seen as essential to maintain quorum and avoid delays due to absences. Suggested thresholds ranged from 5 to 11 members, with several favouring odd numbers.

Government response to Questions 12, 13 and 14

54. The government recognises that there were mixed views on the proposed cap of 11 members for planning committees. In particular, we note the concerns that this figure could be difficult in areas with a high mix of political representation across different parties, and that having such a low figure may compromise the ability of the committee to be quorate in instances of sickness or other circumstances.

55. Having considered the responses and through discussions with local planning authorities, the government has decided to set a maximum cap for committees of 13 members in the regulations. We consider this strikes the right balance between fair political representation and ensuring resilience in the decision making function whilst achieving the policy aims of creating smaller more professional committees.

Mandatory training for committee members

Question 15

Do you agree that certification of planning committee members, and of other relevant decisions makers, should be administered at a national level?

Summary of responses

56. 498 respondents answered ‘agree/disagree’ to Question 15. Overall, there was strong support for the proposal that certification of planning committee members, and of other relevant decisions makers, should be administered at a national level, with all categories in favour overall. Developers and professional bodies showed overwhelming support and other private sector groups showed strong support. There was considerable support from local authorities, interest groups/voluntary organisations, neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils and others, with more than half of individuals agreeing with the proposal.

57. Key points raised included:

• Most of the respondents in favour mentioned that administering training at a national level will help ensure a consistent standard of knowledge and decision making across all local authorities. It would also not add administrative burden on individual authorities, and it would not force local authorities to decide to certify or not certify councillors, which might lead to tensions.
• The majority of respondents who agreed with this proposal followed up with a comment that this should be complemented by training on the Local Plan, other local policy documents and local development characteristics. Respondents were less outspoken about local certification of that local knowledge. Many pointed to successful training that is already in place (combining national content and local context), which does not include a publishable list of councillors who achieved certifications, or that they did so by passing a test and felt such requirements were unnecessary.
• The most common theme amongst those who made comments against the proposal was a scepticism of the ability of national government to effectively manage the training administration, in particular with regards to the period after local elections, with most councils holding planning committees every four weeks. Instead, opponents favoured an approach where central government would prescribe what the training needs to comprise, which would set a baseline for all local authorities, but the training would be delivered locally.
• Independently of having agreed or not agreed with the question, there was strong support for a hybrid approach to the training, which was already mentioned in the consultation as a way forward, so that the training has both national and local content.
• Several respondents, across different groups, mentioned that a training mandate and national certification would discourage councillors from being on a planning committee.
• Another issue that was mentioned was the issue of how to deal with voting proxies, member substitutes and deputation.

Government response

58. The government has noted the varying views on how we should take forward our powers to implement mandatory member training from the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. We note, in particular, the support for the proposals to have training administered on a national level. The government’s priority is to implement the national scheme of delegation and size of committee reforms first.  However, the government continues to recognise the importance of effective mandatory training for planning committee members, and will embark on further stakeholder engagement to design a creditable and cost-effective system taking account of the views from this consultation.

Delegated decision making

Question 16

Do you think we should consider reviewing the thresholds for quality of decision making in the performance regime to ensure the highest standards of decision making are maintained?

Summary of responses

59. 443 respondents answered ‘yes/no’ to Question 16. Overall, more than half thought the thresholds for quality of decision making in the performance regime should be reviewed. Developers and other private sector groups showed overwhelming support, while there was considerable support from neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils, professional bodies and others. About a third of local authorities were in favour and about half of individuals.

60. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• Of the respondents who were supportive of the proposal, there was a desire for greater transparency and accountability in decision making, which a reduction in the threshold could enable. It was suggested a review should also account for an update to statutory determination timescales, as well as increased auditing, evidenced based reviews and new qualitative measures for performance. Similarly, it was suggested that a more localised threshold tailored to each authority’s capacity would be preferable, along with measuring both officer and committee decisions separately. Developers and other private organisations particularly encouraged a review, citing abuse of extensions of time within the system and a need for stronger sanctions. 

• The respondents who opposed this proposal cited the disproportionate impact tighter performance thresholds could have on smaller authorities who are under resourced and deal with less application volume. This could lead to pressured approvals to avoid the risk of being placed under special measures. There was similarly concern that this could undermine nuanced, locally democratic decision making and consequently overload the Planning Inspectorate.  

• It was also noted among a range of respondents that it would be prudent to maintain current thresholds until the proposed reforms are fully implemented and evaluated before launching a review. This would allow more time to gather evidence and make a more informed decision. 

Question 17

For quality of decision making the current threshold is 10% for major and non-major applications. We are proposing that in the future the threshold could be lowered to 5% for both. Do you agree?

Summary of responses

61. 429 respondents answered ‘agree/disagree’ to Question 17. Overall, there was considerable opposition to the proposal of lowering the threshold. Local authorities were overwhelmingly opposed, with strong opposition from individuals and interest groups/voluntary organisation. Neighbourhood planning bodies/ parish or town councils and professional bodies showed considerable opposition. Developers were overwhelmingly supportive of the proposal and other private sector organisations were strongly supportive. Others were evenly split.

62. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• In opposition to the proposal, respondents routinely expressed concern with how this would implicate smaller councils who face a lower overall application volume. The reduced percentage threshold would not work well in this context as just one overturn could put an authority at risk of designation. It was  also stated that basing quality on appeals is already flawed, as it does not account for complex applications, differing interpretations between officers and members or withheld information which only became available to the inspector at appeal. This may influence authorities’ decision making with finely balanced cases, encouraging approval through fear of appeal. This would also risk overloading the Planning Inspectorate with section 62a applications, as well as undermining local democracy and the plan-led system.
• Of the respondents who agreed with lowering the threshold, a number stated that this would align decisions more closely with development plans and national policy, streamlining the planning process overall. This would need to be paired with stronger accountability and repercussions for underperformance, along with increased officer and member training to achieve maximum effect.
• Some respondents were unsure of committing to lowering the threshold until the new system had been given time to bed in. Similarly, it was noted that the wider concern of adequately resourcing the planning system needed to be addressed ahead of any other changes to see meaningful improvements in performance.

Government response to Questions 16 and 17

63. The government recognises that there is some support for reviewing the thresholds for quality of decision making within the performance regime, reflecting a desire among some respondents for greater transparency, accountability and consistency in decision making. We also note, however, the concerns raised by respondents about the potential impacts of tightening the thresholds and the risk that this could have unintended consequences for decision making and the operation of the wider planning system. In relation to the specific proposal to reduce the quality threshold from 10% to 5%,  we note the considerably greater level of opposition expressed through the consultation responses, about the robustness of appeals-based measures as an indicator of decision quality and the disproportionate effects on authorities with low application volumes.

64. The government will consider these views further as part of a broader review of the performance regime and the designation criteria, which is due to be updated in 2026. In doing so, we are clear that local planning authorities are expected to be high performers and to take responsibility for continuously monitoring and improving their performance. This includes actively identifying opportunities to strengthen the quality and efficiency of decision making, such as through the effective operation of planning committees and ongoing training and support for members and officers. These measures will be central to securing continual improvement in the quality of decision making.

Public Sector Equality Duty and Environmental Principles

Question 18

Do you have any views on the implications of the proposals in this consultation for you, or the group or business you represent, and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how.

Summary of responses

65. 203 respondents provided views in response to Question 18 on the implications of the consultation proposals.

66. Key points raised in the consultation responses included:

• There was recognition across almost all categories of respondent that the proposals would bring benefits by making the process inherently more consistent and speedier, saving time and money and delivering development more quickly.
• However, a strong recurring theme among respondents from most categories of respondent was that the proposals would potentially decrease the ability of local residents and businesses to engage with the planning process, in particular those residents who already face barriers to participation in the planning process. Respondents remarked that live planning applications are virtually the only time local residents get involved with the planning process, and by limiting that opportunity by reducing committee consideration in a public setting those people could become more disenfranchised and lose confidence in the fairness of the planning system.
• Another recurring theme was that the proposals could lead to some unintended consequences. For example respondents stated that the proposals would disproportionately affect small and rural communities because of a lack of trained planners. In addition, planning officers would come under increased pressure to decide on sensitive or contentious development proposals, which would lead to more cautious pre-application discussions, as well as increased focus on probity.
• Respondents across all categories commented that mandatory training would have an adverse effect on groups with protected characteristics unless it is made available in all formats and accessible at different times of day.

Question 19

Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

Summary of responses

67. In response to Question 19, 164 respondents submitted views on potential mitigations.

68. Key points raised included:

• A strong recurring theme to mitigate any impact identified was to ensure that any new policy, plan or planning application was communicated and consulted on effectively. Most respondents understood this to mean that all effort should be made to engage everybody that would potentially be affected, in particular groups with protected characteristics. Suggestions were made that in practice this means that planning portals should be harmonised, that consultation should be in digital form as well as in non-digital form, and that people could raise objections in any way or in any format. Suggestions were also made around requiring equality impact assessments for all planning applications to ensure a cumulative impact would be better understood.
• Another recurring theme was that the mandatory training should include modules on accessibility and equality impact assessments to improve decision making on those issues. In addition, training should be made available in different formats at different times of the day so that people with other responsibilities or other work characteristics can be included.
• A recurring viewpoint, in particular from individuals, was to not go forward with the proposed changes and keep the planning system as it is now. The most common explanation was that the proposals are seen to curtail people’s ability to participate in the planning and development of their area by limiting the number of applications that would be decided by a planning committee.
• A mitigation measure that was put forward across the different categories, and in particular from local authorities, was to devise clear and transparent exception rules to bring planning applications to committee, for example by request of the local member or parish council or if it is deemed to have a significant impact on the environment or on protected groups.
• Some respondents also mentioned that a right to appeal an approval should be introduced, akin to the right of an applicant to appeal a refusal.

Government response to Questions 18 and 19

69. We are grateful for the responses that provided views on any potential implications of the proposed changes on people with protected characteristics and on business. The government acknowledges the responses to this question and has taken them into consideration in considering the impacts of the proposed changes on those who share protected characteristics.

Question 20

Do you have any views on the implications of these proposals for the considerations of the 5 environmental principles identified in the Environment Act 2021?

Summary of responses

70. 168 respondents provided views on the implications of these proposals for the considerations of the 5 environmental principles identified in the Environment Act 2021.

71. The key points raised included:

• A recurring theme was that the principles were already integrated in policy and decision making, as required by law, and that the proposals merely tweak the way in which decisions are made rather than change the actual policies, and that therefore the proposals would have a negligible impact on the principles.
• A strong recurring theme across almost all categories of respondent was that because the five principles should be fully integrated in the planning system through every level of plan-making, planning decisions, and, crucially, implementation and enforcement, any effort to simplify the decision making, as proposed, would likely diminish the extent in which the principles are adhered to.
• Opponents pointed out that because some potential environmental harm can only be perceived in the latter stages of a planning application, through reserved matters or further details, these detailed but crucial matters should trigger a referral to planning committee, whose members have a more immediate connection with the local community than planning officers.
• There was also concern that the proposed streamlined approach to the decision making of planning applications would diminish a full consideration of the cumulative impact of the totality of developments, large and small, for an area.
• A number of respondents have therefore put forward that stronger safeguards and clearer ecological governance mechanisms should be in place at the local authority, and that cases where a decision fails to meet these principles or requires significant mitigation should trigger a referral to the planning committee to ensure there is appropriate democratic oversight. In addition, there was strong support to include environmental literacy in members’ training.

Government response

72. The government has considered the comments received in response to this question. We agree with those respondents who pointed out that the environmental principles are already integrated into policy and decision making and therefore, that the implementation of a national scheme of delegation will not alter this position. We recognise the concerns about the need for referral to committee if an application raises significant environmental issues. We have therefore, included environmental concerns as part of the criteria for referral of Tier B applications to committee.

Next steps

73. The government has prepared draft regulations setting out the detailed arrangements for the national scheme of delegation. Alongside this, we have prepared draft statutory guidance to support local authorities in implementing the regulations. The draft regulations and guidance have been published alongside this government response and are the subject of a public consultation.