#
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 1 June and, following a minor correction, relaid on 8 June. They set out the arrangements for a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions in England and a maximum limit on the number of members who may sit on planning committees. They are necessary to improve the effectiveness of planning committees and the quality and speed of decision-making in local planning authorities. If Parliament approves them, the regulations will come into effect on 31 October 2026.
Before I get into the detail of the regulations, I will respond to the Motion before us. I start by making it very clear that what we are doing is not an attack on local democracy. We know how vital local planning committees are. They know their communities and what development is needed in their area. We are trying to support them so that they can be as effective as possible. The regulations will allow them to focus on the applications which really matter to their communities, so that the housing and growth that they want and need can be delivered as quickly as possible. We also do not want to put further pressure on officers. They are skilled professionals. We want to ensure that they are trusted and empowered to make decisions on more applications, and more quickly, to ensure that much-needed development is brought forward in the right places at the right time.
These measures will mean that less time and resource will be spent on preparing for committee meetings for those smaller applications in Schedule 1, speeding up the decision-making process more broadly and freeing up important officer time to focus on those larger applications. These regulations do not change in any way the right of people to submit representations on planning applications, nor do they alter the existing requirements to consult on planning applications.
We have published statutory guidance to help local authorities implement these new measures and we have asked the Planning Advisory Service to provide support and training.
I will briefly explain how the national scheme of delegation will work. It places planning applications into two categories. In Schedule 1 are those applications which must always be delegated to a planning officer. The types of application we are talking about here are for minor residential development of up to nine dwellings, minor commercial and householder development. Schedule 2 sets out those applications which may, subject to meeting a gateway test, be referred to a planning committee for decision, including larger applications for planning permission not in Schedule 1. The presumption is that Schedule 2 applications will continue to be delegated to officers. However, we recognise that there may be cases where committee scrutiny would be appropriate and that is where the gateway test comes in.
Local planning authorities will need to identify a nominated officer, usually the chief planner or equivalent, and a nominated member, normally the chair of the committee, to determine whether an application meets the criteria of the gateway test. The nominated officer and member will have to agree that a Schedule 2 application meets at least one of the following criteria before it can be referred to committee: where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area; or where the application raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. It is only where the nominated officer and member agree that at least one of those criteria is met that the application can be referred to committee. Otherwise, it will be determined by a planning officer.
We recognise that in the interests of transparency and propriety, regardless of whether the gateway criteria are engaged, it may sometimes be appropriate to refer applications where there is local authority involvement to the planning committee. We have therefore made specific provision for this in the regulations. The regulations also set a limit of 13 on the number of members on a planning committee to allow for focused and quality debates.
We have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders on these measures—from an initial working paper in 2024, through debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, two public consultations and many round tables and other events. We have listened to the differing views expressed and considered them carefully as we developed the final measures. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
Amendment to the Motion
#
My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. These regulations may appear to be a relatively straightforward implementation of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, but they represent something much more significant. They change one of the fundamental democratic safeguards of our planning system.
Nobody on these Benches disputes that our planning system needs to work better. We need more homes. We need faster commercial developments and we need better infrastructure. We need a planning system that is efficient, proportionate and gives certainty to communities and developers alike. But we fear the Government are pursuing speed at the expense of democratic oversight, and I am afraid that, on this, I must disagree with the Minister.
Planning is not an exact science; it is an exercise in judgment. Planning officers, planning committees and inspectors are all required to weigh competing material planning considerations: the need for housing, economic growth, environmental protection, heritage, highways, design and the impact on neighbouring communities. The legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework provide the framework against which those decisions are made, but they cannot prescribe the weight and view for every one of those considerations. Ultimately, that is a matter of judgment.
In many cases, that judgment is relatively straightforward. That is why around 90% to 95% of planning applications are already determined by planning officers under delegated powers, with only a small proportion ever coming before elected planning committees. Of those that go to committees, the vast majority go in line with the planning officer’s recommendation. I cannot find national statistics, but for Central Bedfordshire, in the last 12 months, only one of the 56 applications that have gone to committee where the officer disagreed has been overturned on appeal. That is a very small number.
The applications that reach committee are often those where the balance of decision-making is finer: where they have a significant impact on a community, where residents have genuine concerns, where there are competing planning considerations to be weighed, or where substantial developments will have a lasting consequence on the character of an area. Those are precisely the cases where we need democratic accountability. People will not always agree with the outcome of a planning decision, but they are far more likely to accept the decision if they have seen the arguments tested in public by elected representatives who are accountable to the communities they serve. That is democracy in action.
These regulations, as the Minister highlighted, generate a national framework governing how authorities must discharge planning functions, and they significantly narrow the discretion that authorities have traditionally exercised through their own constitutions and schemes of delegation. As the Minister said, all Schedule 1 applications will include minor residential applications for nine homes or fewer, minor commercial and householder developments, and discharge of planning conditions and reserved matters for applications of up to 500 homes. Schedule 2 applications, which are largely all others, are presumed to be determined by officers unless, at the gateway test, both the nominated officer, who is normally the chief planner, and the nominated councillor, who is normally the chair of committee, agree that it raises
“an issue of economic, social or environmental significance to the … area”
or a significant planning matter
“having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”.
That is a dramatic reduction in the democratic accountability of the planning system.
Let us look at Schedule 1. The Government suggest that these arrangements relate to minor applications, but this needs to be seen in context. An application for nine homes in a small village is significant. If you happen to be a neighbour, that is significant. What happens when a site is agreed with the suggested nine homes but is subsequently brought back with 15 or 20 homes under reserved matters? That is not an unusual situation. For developments of up to 500 homes, all reserved matters, discharge of conditions and Section 106 arrangements would be determined by officers.
When members of the public hear “reserved matters”, they think of the colour of the front door and so forth, and I would be very happy with officers determining that, but that is not the case. Those of us who have dealt with planning applications for a number of years know that reserved matters generally involve the layout, design, density, highways, landscaping, drainage, open space, how many community facilities are there and so forth. These are not trivial decisions. When the Minister was leader of Stevenage Borough Council, would she have been happy with a 500-home development in the centre of Stevenage and not having any influence on the decision being made?
This may be bad, but it gets worse. The threshold for some of those more major applications, which could involve thousands of homes, going to committee requires a “significant” issue. That is a very high planning threshold.
There are other practical considerations. Going to planning committee provides an intermediate step that allows local councillors to have a discussion with planning officers to get those extra things. I can relate examples in my own ward where we successfully worked with the developer to get a few houses moved in a different direction so that they did not overlook and to get some additional funding for recreation.
#
I am aware of the time.
#
The noble Lord is aware, so may he bring his remarks to an end, if he does not mind?
#
I will. I thank the noble Lord very much. This is time limited.
The planning system needs to strike a balance; this system does not. We need to ensure democratic accountability; there is no need to remove it.
#
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am pleased to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Having spent many years in local government, including as chair of the Local Government Association, I want to make one simple point. While councils support the objective of improving the speed and efficiency of the planning system, they are concerned that these regulations risk doing so at the expense of local democratic accountability.
The Government have long argued that power should be devolved from Whitehall to local communities, yet these proposals move in the opposite direction by reducing the role of democratically elected local representatives. If the Government claim to believe in devolution and the northern powerhouse, then decisions about the future of northern towns and villages should remain with those elected by the people who live there.
The Local Government Association made this point clearly during the Government’s consultation. It recognised the case for reform but warned that a highly standardised national scheme of delegation does not reflect the diversity of planning authorities across England. A rural unitary authority, a metropolitan borough and a district council face very different planning challenges, and councils retain the flexibility to organise their planning committees and decision-making processes in ways that reflect the needs of their local communities.
I am particularly concerned by the removal of councillors’ ability to call applications before a planning committee. Call-in powers are not there to delay development. They provide an important democratic safeguard where an application raises significant local concern, complex planning issues or substantial public interest. The LGA recommended that an effective call-in mechanism should remain alongside the new gateway test. I regret that the Government have not accepted that recommendation.
The gateway test itself gives me cause for concern. If the nominated officer and the nominated member cannot agree that an application should come before the committee, it is automatically delegated to an officer. That default position seems the wrong way round. Where there is genuine disagreement, there should surely be a mechanism that allows democratic scrutiny rather than automatically bypassing it.
Finally, I question the decision to prescribe planning committee sizes through legislation. The Local Government Association has rightly pointed out that there is little evidence that committee size determines effectiveness. What it can affect is political balance and geographical representation, particularly as councils may become larger through local government reorganisation. Guidance would provide far greater flexibility than a statutory cap. Our councils are not resisting reform. They simply ask that the reform respects local democracy and recognises that one size does not fit all. For these reasons, I am pleased to support my noble friend’s regret amendment.
#
My Lords,
“the days of Whitehall fighting devolution of power … are over for good”.
Those are not my words; they were the words of the right honourable Member for Makerfield in his speech yesterday morning. I understand that he may soon hold a position of power within the Government, and I wonder what he would make of these regulations that are placed in front of us this evening with their top-down, Whitehall-knows-best approach to local planning.
I chaired a planning committee for four years. I did five terms as a local councillor, and I know many of my noble friends and indeed noble Lords on all sides of the House—including the Minister—did good service in local government. I have a degree of déjà vu in talking about this again because I addressed this issue at Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last year when we first discussed this matter. One of the points that I made at the time was that relatively small planning applications can create precedents, which then mean that other buildings nearby can be developed in the same way; other pieces of land can be developed in the same way. A relatively small precedent can very quickly change the nature of a whole area of town or a whole borough; in particular, it can change the nature of our small villages and towns.
It is right that there is democratic input to that decision from people who are elected, rather than the decision being taken just by planning officers, who are there to provide guidance on the law and planning rules rather than direction to the committee. Furthermore, those of us who have been in local government know that quite often during campaigning we are asked about relatively small planning applications and controversial planning decisions, and what we are going to be doing about them.
Quite often, candidates campaign on those decisions. Of course, having campaigned, you have to recuse yourself from a planning committee decision; you cannot vote on it. At the moment, however, there is nothing to stop a person who has been elected appearing before a planning committee and making that case on behalf of their constituents. It is a very important role for elected members. Under these proposals, not only would a councillor not be able to do that, but there very often would not even be a committee for them to appear before.
When I chaired the planning committee at Havering, I was always very careful about keeping the public involved in what was happening. I knew that, for quite a lot of people, that committee was the only contact they had with the democratic elements of our local council. So the way that committee was conducted and the results that it produced reflected more widely on the whole organisation—not just on the elected councillors, but on the nature of the body itself and the way that it was seen by the public.
I was clear that the committee was basically a shop window for the council. What these proposals do, sadly, is take a shop window and turn it into an opaque window through which things are seen happening inside, but no one is quite sure what they are, and we leave the public to draw their own conclusions about it. In the current political atmosphere, that is quite a dangerous thing to do. The conclusions that people draw may not always be logical, and they may not always be fair to the people involved. This puts a lot of weight on our council officers as well, which quite often they do not want to have to take on.
My noble friends have dealt in detail with a lot of the inadequacies in the legislation. I had a fair bit I wanted to say, but I am mindful of the time and I promise the Whip that I will not run over. Still, I wonder—perhaps the Minister can explain it to us—how this set of regulations will pass the Makerfield test.
#
My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Jamieson; in doing so, I remind Members of my interest as vice-president of London Councils.
Most councillors will tell you the value of being able to refer planning decisions to a planning committee for consideration in public. As has just been said, it can mean that local residents can participate in the debate. They can draw issues to the attention of those making the decision as well as witness the decision-making process as it happens. It is therefore disappointing that this statutory instrument appears to reduce that opportunity by allowing an even higher number of applications to be delegated to officers. Written submissions, I am afraid, are not the same thing.
Indeed, there was a debate in the other place last week when Labour Members of Parliament were referencing the value of Article 4 directives to ensure that planning applications for houses of multiple occupation would be required. Fortunately, the Conservative council in the London Borough of Bexley, of which I have knowledge, did indeed seek an Article 4 directive to ensure that this was the case, as we believed it would ensure that the impact of those individual requests on our residents and infrastructure could be considered.
It is difficult to square seeking democracy in the planning process one week and reducing it the next. The planning process needs to be open and transparent, allowing planning applications to be referred to the democratically elected committee if members choose to do so. This can also add value, as it means that any potential issues or benefits can be aired, considered and possibly addressed. That quite often results in impacting the decision or applying conditions that might resolve some of the potential issues. It needs to be taken seriously.
This could be particularly relevant for reserve matters, as was said earlier, or the use of Section 106 money on larger developments, as the impact on the local community will be even greater. Residents are rightly interested in what is happening in their area, and while it is often difficult to explain that applications must be considered on planning grounds, referral to a committee allows that to happen. It also protects council officers. I am sure we have all heard the rumours about alleged brown envelopes over the years. What better way to ensure residents see the decision-making process in action than at a planning committee?
The suggestion is that referral could be by the gateway test, but that would be through an agreement between the head of development control or the named person and the planning committee chairman. They need to agree on the rationale and, as my noble friend Lady Eaton has just said, when that does not happen, the decision should remain with members. We live in a democratic society. We all know that the majority of applications are not contentious and are determined by officers. But when there is a reason for transparency, surely there should be a mechanism to allow for determination by committee. Planning applications can greatly impact residents’ lives, so surely they should be able to witness and participate in the process. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that this SI does not water down the system.
#
My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council. In my view, this is a developers’ charter. The Government have been hoodwinked into believing that around 5% of all planning applications that currently go to a planning committee for a decision are the basic cause of the lack of housebuilding. There are already over 1 million homes with full planning permission sufficient for the housing needs for at least the next three years. Where are the measures from the Government to stop the delay in building those homes? That is why this is a developers’ charter.
These regulations also fail a devolution test. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, plus the next Prime Minister’s strong support for greater devolution, all point in a direction diametrically opposed to the centralising zeal in these regulations. This is “Whitehall knows best” personified. There will be a national scheme of delegation which treats every part of the country as if it were the same. Planning situations in London are not the same as those in the hills of Yorkshire, but that is what these regulations state and impose on local people. The inadequacies of a centralised diktat are clear when considering Schedule 1 applications, which must be determined by planning officers. These include housing developments of up to nine units, as the Minister has said, but they are often the very applications that can affect neighbouring properties the most. Often these are infill sites, the development of large gardens, or small unallocated sites in the local plan.
That approach has consequences. Officers will be heavily lobbied by both councillors and residents, without there being recourse to an open forum to air the problems and the solutions. Schedule 2 includes all major residential applications and presumably, although it does not say so, big developments like data centres or incinerators. By default, those will be decided by planning officers, as the overriding presumption is that the functions listed in Schedule 2 will be delegated to officers. Public decision-making provides the antidote to allegations of corruption. Currently, the planning committee provides that essential transparency. How will officers’ integrity be protected in this not so very brave new world?
The gateway proposals are a mere sop to democracy. This is the only way to get open and democratic planning decisions made. The gateway consists, as we have heard, of a senior planning officer and a senior councillor deciding—presumably, behind closed doors—whether an application should go to planning committee. They have to consider the strict test in the regulations of whether there are one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area or whether the proposal raises one or more significant planning matters. As we have heard, if the planning officer and senior councillor disagree, by regulation the officer must refuse to take it to committee but decide it instead in the closed confines of the planning office. Further, councillor call-ins of applications are banned. Even though we are in a democracy, “banned” is the word that is used. The weight of residents’ objections is no longer of any consequence as to whether an application is considered in a democratic way.
In a nutshell, these regulations promote secret decision-making and are anti-democratic and centralising in nature. Accusations of nimbyism were thrown at my colleague, Gideon Amos MP, by the Secretary of State. It simply illustrates the paucity of the Government’s proposals when they have to resort to bullying slogans.
Liberal Democrats will support the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, if he decides to call a vote. A fatal Motion to stop these dreadful regulations is the Liberal Democrat preference, but we are aware that the Conservative Benches have a policy of not supporting such Motions, which significantly reduces the chance of success. However, we urge creative thinking by Liberal Democrats on councils to find workable ways within the regulations for transparent and democratic decision-making.
#
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and strongly expressed contributions to this debate. I understand why those points have been made.
I shall pick out some of the issues that have been raised. I think all noble Lords who spoke raised the issue of why the reform of planning committees is necessary. I know that that was done in a way that understands that we could not completely avoid changing planning; I picked up that nuance from noble Lords’ comments. Of course we recognise the important role that planning committees have in ensuring local democratic oversight, and we continue to believe that they will play a crucial role in planning decision-making in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, rightly pointed out, about 4% of applications actually go to committee now.
We have seen across the country an uneven postcode lottery, such that applicants do not get consistency in their decision-making. We have made a raft of changes through our reforms to planning, including introducing a new system to bring forward local plans quicker; we have consulted on a new, more rules-based national planning policy framework; and we are ensuring that councils have the resources they need to run a good planning service. It is vital that, in exercising democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible. They should not revisit the same decisions but focus on those applications that really require member input.
The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Pinnock, both referred to allegations of corruption in the planning process. I know that chairs of planning do get accused of this, but I never saw a brown envelope in 30 years of being in local government. I understand why those accusations are made, usually by people after a decision goes against them. The Government want to make sure that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment, allowing them to resolve more applications more quickly in the service of residents and businesses.
Most noble Lords who spoke also referred to the loss of local democracy. The Government really believe that the best way for councillors and communities to engage in the development proposed for their area is through the local plan process. I know that all those in this Chamber who have been local councillors will understand that that is the real way to influence the planning that goes ahead in your local area.
The changes we are making through the national scheme of delegation will support the plan-led system. They ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, not revisiting decisions already considered through the local plan process and instead focusing on applications that require that vital member input. Where controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors will, of course, still play a key role in representing the voice of their communities. Importantly, we are not changing consultation rules—
#
I am really sorry to interrupt. It was not clear when I read the regulations, but is the Minister suggesting that any allocated site within the local plan will, per se, be an officer’s decision, not in principle but in detail as well?
#
They are subject to the gateway test, as I set out at the beginning of the debate. Local people will still be able to make representations. Regardless of who the decision-maker is, where those representations relate to the planning merits, they must be taken into account. As Members will know, planning officers have to set out their reasons for either approving or not approving a planning recommendation.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked in particular about reserved matters. We recognise that in some cases reserved matters approval applications can relate to large-scale phased development taking place over many years: 20 or 30 years in some cases. While the principle of development will have been agreed at outline planning permission in these cases, each reserved matters application could still represent substantial major development in its own right—I think that is the question the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was asking me—and in some cases that might mean that committee scrutiny is appropriate.
We have therefore categorised reserved matters applications in terms of the size of the related outline permission. Where they relate to a large outline planning permission—over 500 dwellings or 50,000 square metres of floorspace—they will fall into Schedule 2. This means that, where councils think it is necessary, they could be subject to the gateway test and be referred to committee. Where the outline permission does not meet that threshold, the reserved matters application will be in Schedule 1 and always delegated to an officer.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked whether every Schedule 2 application needs to be considered for referral. Regulations do not require every Schedule 2 application to go through the gateway test. It will be open to local planning authorities to triage their Schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them, so that only certain Schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. For example, they may want to provide guidance on what is likely—this was a question the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked—to be considered a significant economic, social or environmental issue in their area. Local authorities can do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked specifically about the size of committees. We consulted initially on setting the cap on the size of a planning committee at 11 members. Having listened to feedback, we have now raised the limit to 13 members, recognising that some councils may be represented by members from multiple political parties. Where that is the case, we want to ensure that committees can accommodate this. However, that is a maximum and we continue to encourage councils to have a smaller number where appropriate. We have seen examples of sprawling committees having unruly debates that do not get anywhere, where decisions get delayed and, in some cases, are not taken at all. The intention behind introducing a cap is to allow for a more focused debate, which I believe will result in quicker and more robust decisions.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady O’Neill and Lady Pinnock, all raised the issue of call-in powers. I understand the concerns about that but, under Schedule 2, local planning authorities can make their own rules on how they triage these applications. This could include, if they deemed it appropriate, a route for ward members to refer Schedule 2 applications to the gateway test. But ultimately, they can be taken to committee only if they pass the gateway test.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred to my right honourable friend the Member for Makerfield, who is indeed a great champion of devolution. I look forward to working with him on that. He is also a great champion of growth and housing, and the infrastructure that supports them. I am sure that in his role in Manchester, he will have felt as frustrated as I did, as a council leader, with unnecessary delays in the planning system, so I am sure he will be working to ensure that we can make our planning system more efficient and speedier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me how much difference these changes will make to the delivery of housing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this as well. Streamlining the planning committee process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications under Schedule 1. It will therefore speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up that important officer time to focus on larger applications, which will have a real impact on our goal to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.
#
I am sorry to interrupt again, but does the Minister accept that, often, delays in planning applications are caused by the developer when they do not provide all the evidence they are required to provide, say on highways? I will give her an example. There was an application where I live for 300 homes on an allocated site, so that was acceptable, but the highways submission referred to a site that the developer was undertaking 50 miles away. It referenced roads and supermarkets that did not exist, so the delay was caused by the developer. That is not unusual in my experience, so when are the Government going to tackle the delays caused by developers’ inadequate applications?
#
I suggest to the noble Baroness that freeing up some of the time of our experienced planners will give them the opportunity to go back to developers and challenge information like that when it is not adequate. The fact that there can be dialogue between the planning officers and the developers will definitely speed the process up.
In conclusion, I remind noble Lords what the regulations are seeking to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision-making, so that the housing and growth which local communities want and need can be delivered more quickly.
#
Before the Minister sits down, may I query a couple of her comments? There was reference to the local plan. What happens with applications that are not in the local plan? Those are quite significant. We talked about reserved matters and the Minister admitted that, for very large applications, it is appropriate for those matters to come to a committee. But as both the Minister and I know, you have at local plan stage and at outline planning stage virtually nothing. It is a little more than a red line and some pretty graphics of what is proposed. There is nothing to tie the developer’s hands, and those changes can be very significant. We can see a 50% increase in the amount of housing, or the amount of affordable housing halving, the Section 106 amount halving—a whole series of things. Those are fundamental, not small changes. I agree with the Minister that the principle may have been agreed, but not the detail. There was also a comment about “significant” being decided locally. I just want to be clear: is the Minister saying that what is significant will be determined locally for level 2?