The Government’s proposed National Scheme of Delegation (NSD) has been long awaited in terms of tackling planning delays. Its objective seem pretty simple: reduce the number of applications going before planning committees, increase officer delegation and speed up decision-making.

In principle, few would disagree with that ambition. Delays continue to affect applicants, local authorities and communities alike. If routine applications can be determined more efficiently, committee time can be focused on genuinely strategic or contentious proposals.

However, the reality is likely to be more nuanced than the headlines suggest. I welcome the reforms, but there are several reasons to be cautious about expectations.

Local decision-making is still here

Some critics have framed the reforms as a reduction in local democratic oversight. In practice, local decision-making is not disappearing.

Planning officers already determine the vast majority of applications, and they do so against locally adopted plans, policies and design guidance. The planning framework itself remains rooted in local priorities, even if the route to a decision changes.

When I was a councillor, it was drilled into me that the presumption should be in favour of development and that we should be working collectively to avoid committee referrals but to work with applicants to overcome planning challenges. It is apparent that this does not happen everywhere, but this change should help to support that ethos more broadly.  

How many schemes are truly policy compliant?

A central assumption behind the reforms is that many applications do not raise significant planning issues and can therefore be determined through delegated powers.

For larger commercial, mixed-use and regeneration projects, that assumption deserves closer examination.

Very few significant developments comply with every policy in an adopted plan. Most involve balancing competing objectives around design, heritage, transport, sustainability, amenity and economic growth. Planning permission is often granted because the overall planning balance supports development, even where there are conflicts with individual policies.

This raises an important question: if a scheme departs from policy in one area but delivers wider planning benefits, should it be delegated to officers or considered by committee?

This is a crucial question. While councillors can currently seek committee consideration for schemes that raise concerns around policy compliance, one of the objectives of the NSD is to narrow the range of applications that can be brought before members. The real test will be where authorities draw the line between a significant policy issue and a routine planning judgement.

Will committees disappear?

Despite some of the commentary, planning committees will remain a crucial part of the planning process under these reforms.

The proposed referral tests still rely on professional judgement, with concepts such as “significant” policy departures and wider public interest open to interpretation. Many schemes will continue to sit in the grey area between clear policy compliance and clear policy conflict.

As a result, committee involvement may remain more common than some expect, particularly for larger and more complex developments.

The transitional challenge

The greatest risk may not be the reforms themselves, but the period immediately after implementation.

Local authorities will need to adapt processes and establish clear approaches to delegation The Government has already delayed implementation by a month to give authorities additional time to prepare. As those boundaries are tested, applicants may experience uncertainty around whether proposals should be determined by officers or referred to committee.

For those expecting to have to wait for referrals to the Secretary of State, expect long waits. There will be an initial 21 one days before the decision is even made to call the application into the Secretary of State. If a scheme is called in, applicants could face a significantly longer determination process than would otherwise have been the case. The expectation of dramatically faster decisions from day one may therefore prove optimistic.

What does this mean for applicants?

For developers, occupiers and investors, the fundamentals remain unchanged. A successful planning outcome will still depend on a robust planning strategy, early identification of policy issues and constructive engagement with stakeholders.

Local judgement will remain central to planning decisions, and many of the schemes that shape our towns and cities are likely to continue requiring careful consideration beyond a simple assessment of policy compliance.

The NSD has genuine potential to create greater consistency across authorities and challenge entrenched approaches to delegation where these have contributed to delay. and to challenge established ways of doing things at councils who struggle around delegation. This can only be a positive thing for the sector, but I would argue, also for officers and members.

A local decision should remain the focus for most applications where possible. Not only is this better for councils and the community, applicants can probably expect long waits and further processes for schemes referred upward.