Hugh Ellis, Director of Policy.
The government has published the details of how it intends to implement the new national scheme of delegation which will force local authorities to delegate specific planning applications to officers rather than to democratic planning committees.
The origins of this idea came from both the development sector and some planning professionals frustrated by the democratic process. There were undoubtedly some examples of local councillors behaving badly, just as there are in any democratic system, but there was no systematic evidence that local authorities’ current arrangements for delegating planning applications needed radical reform. Most local authorities had already adopted schemes which meant that the vast majority of minor applications was successfully delegated to officers. Crucially, local authorities retained the flexibility to respond to those issues that demanded democratic oversight.
There was no systematic evidence that local authorities’ current arrangements for delegating planning applications needed radical reform.
But things are about to change radically. The powers that government took in section 54 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to create a national scheme of delegation are draconian. The primary legislation allows this, or any future government, to impose a mandatory scheme of delegation which could, perfectly lawfully, force all planning applications to be decided by officers. We might wish to feel relieved that the scheme being consulted on currently stops short of that outcome.
The feedback on the previous consultation on this measure was interestingly polarised with developers, and some professional planners in general support and communities strongly opposed.
Two tiers
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the government is taking forward the scheme by drafting regulations which will create two tiers of applications. The first, which must always be delegated, includes things like residential development up to nine homes. Government has refrained from including larger housing schemes, although for rural communities, where the vast majority of new housing is on small sites, this risks planning committees becoming largely irrelevant.
The second tier includes everything else from data centres, landfill sites and incinerators to reserve matters applications. It is in this second tier that the real difficulties begin. The government has made absolutely clear that there is an ‘overriding presumption’ that Tier 2 applications should be delegated. However, a senior officer and elected member may decide based on national guidance, that an application should go to full planning committee.
These two individuals will soon find themselves under intense pressure because without any clear democratic mandate they will be the arbiters of whether communities get any kind of say at planning committee over some of the largest and most controversial planning applications.
Silencing community voice
We should make no mistake that the effect of these new regulations is to silence community voices in decisions. Delegation to officers robs the community of its minimal rights to raise issues at the planning committee and removes of any meaningful way for councillors to exercise their fundamental constitutional role of offering democratic oversight in decision making. All of this sends precisely the wrong political message to communities about the stake they have in the regeneration and development of their own neighbourhoods. Rather than seeking to invest in rebuilding public trust this risks reinforcing a perception that central government imposes without any attempt to understand legitimate local concerns.
Delegation to officers robs the community of its minimal rights to raise issues at the planning committee and removes any meaningful way for councillors to provide democratic oversight in decision making.
One cannot escape the sense that this is overreach on behalf of central government in seeking to interfere in the detailed workings of local government. It compounds the other ‘reform’ measures which have made it harder for the public to have voice from major infrastructure projects to defunding neighbourhood planning.
Neither, as Colin Ward’s work brilliantly illustrates, is it for professionals to assume that they know best about the future development needs of communities. That knowledge and trust requires an investment in real public participation based on mutual respect.
Building those bridges with communities will be made much harder when a chief planning officer and chair of the planning committee are charged with deciding whether democratic planning committees will be excluded from decisions or not. That runs the risk of further undermining the credibility of professional judgement by asking it to be the arbiter of what are intensely controversial decisions.
So, while all of this is sold as making the life of the planner and developer easier, we as a profession need to be clear that stripping away democratic oversight won’t depoliticise decisions. It simply shifts the political responsibility from elected members to officers and that is both undemocratic and unfair to both the public and planners.
Eroding public trust
The government expects the national scheme of delegation to be in place in the summer. Ironically it is likely to make decision making on the ground more complex and more controversial as the public adjust to their elected representatives being excluded from decision making. And while all this effort is being dedicated to curbing democratic oversight the urgent task of rebuilding the trust and goodwill so important to the future resilience of our communities remains undone. Central government needs to start thinking differently if it wants to avoid the bitter resistance of communities who have no trust in the planning system.
