National scheme of delegation could see “erosion of local democracy”, LGA warns

The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) confirmed plans in March to introduce a standardised national scheme of delegation to control which planning applications go to committees and which to officers, alongside rules on the size and composition of planning committees.

It claimed the reforms would ensure planning committees work as "effectively as possible and focus on those applications for complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required".

Writing in response to the Government's consultation on the draft regulations and guidance for the reform of planning committees, the LGA said it supported efforts to streamline and speed up the planning system, but warned of the "potential erosion of local democracy and the limited flexibility created by a highly standardised national scheme of delegation".

It also said it does not support the Government's plans to introduce legislation capping the number of members on a planning committee, arguing that committee size "does not determine effectiveness".

The association added that a strict cap could adversely affect political and geographical proportionality, particularly for authorities undergoing local government reorganisation and transitioning into larger unitary authorities covering expanded geographic areas.

Instead of a cap, the LGA recommended that Government issue best practice guidance on committee size and composition.

Elsewhere, the LGA said it remained concerned over the lack of a mechanism to allow Schedule 1 applications - defined as minor residential development of up to nine dwellings - to be referred to committee in exceptional circumstances.

It recommended that the Government include a "clearly defined mechanism" to allow such applications to be referred where they may have a significant local impact, raise complex planning issues, or generate substantial public interest.

The response added: "The gateway test (Regulation 5) assigning the decision to a nominated officer and nominated member places additional political pressure on these individuals.

"The draft regulations specify that where agreement cannot be reached, the application must be delegated to an officer.

"This default position risks bypassing democratic oversight and lacks a formalised dispute resolution process."

The LGA also said local authorities "should retain the flexibility to use existing review panels, which often include vice-chairs and ward councillors, rather than being required to rely solely on a rigid two-person Gateway Test".

On reserved matters applications, the association welcomed the Government’s revised approach to place phased applications in Schedule 2, allowing them to be referred to committee subject to the Gateway Test. It said this was a "positive step" that better reflects the complexity and public interest often associated with large-scale developments.

However, it urged the Government to recognise that non-phased reserved matters applications on complex or sensitive sites can also raise significant planning issues, and said councils should retain discretion over whether such applications require committee scrutiny.

The LGA also raised concerns over the proposed removal of councillor call-in powers, warning that this would prevent elected members from effectively representing residents’ concerns and remove a "vital democratic safeguard".

While it supported proposals to improve transparency through minimum standards for recording and publishing Gateway Test decisions, the association said further clarity would be needed in the final guidance, particularly on how meetings will be recorded and made publicly available.

It also called for any mandatory training for planning committee members to be co-produced with local authorities and delivered through the Planning Advisory Service (PAS), with a mix of national and local content and certification administered locally.

Finally, the LGA reiterated its opposition to reducing planning thresholds, warning that doing so could disproportionately affect smaller authorities and place additional strain on the Planning Inspectorate. It said a more effective approach would be to ensure PAS is properly resourced to support planning teams.

Adam Carey