England Planning Reforms Reduce Councillors’ Decision Powers

Local councils across England are preparing for a national planning system overhaul that will transfer more decisions on development applications to planning officers from October 31, 2026. The changes aim to speed up decision-making and standardize procedures, but councillors in several authorities have criticized the rules for reducing elected representatives’ influence over developments affecting their communities.

The National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions, introduced under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, establishes categories of applications that officers must determine and those that may go before planning committees. Under the new framework, public objections alone will no longer trigger committee consideration, and ward councillors will lose their existing ability to require certain applications to be reviewed by elected members.

Householder applications, including extensions, and residential developments of one to nine homes on sites smaller than half a hectare will generally be decided by officers. Larger or more complex proposals may qualify for committee review, but the chief planning officer and planning committee chair must agree that an application raises a significant local planning, economic, social or environmental issue.

Kirklees Council’s Corporate Governance and Audit Committee considered constitutional changes ahead of the deadline. Members amended the proposed local thresholds to allow developments involving more than 40 homes or more than 1,500 square meters of gross floor space to be considered for committee review, replacing officers’ proposed thresholds of more than 100 homes or 5,000 square meters. Meeting those thresholds does not automatically guarantee a committee decision because the national test still applies.

Other proposals that may qualify include major Green Belt developments and certain applications involving developer contributions toward affordable housing and local services. Public speaking will remain available for applications that reach a planning committee, and residents can continue submitting objections for consideration.

Kirklees Green Party leader Andrew Cooper opposed the reforms, arguing that they would reduce elected representatives’ control over decisions affecting local neighborhoods.

“We are being invited to sign a surrender document, where we give up our powers to determine planning applications as councillors.”

Cooper said the new system would leave elected members unable to vote on most applications, while transferring greater responsibility to unelected officials. He also highlighted concerns about developments such as drive-through takeaways, which can affect traffic and litter levels.

“The people who are elected will no longer be allowed a vote on the vast majority of planning applications.”

He argued that the reforms conflicted with the government's stated commitment to devolving power and would limit local oversight of development proposals.

“The Labour Government talks about devolving power but in reality our powers are being taken away and handed to unelected officials.”

Cooper said the restrictions could affect applications that residents consider important even when they attract substantial opposition. Under the new rules, the number of objections or signatures on a petition will not independently require committee consideration.

“We won’t be able to refer drive through takeaways to committee for decision. These can have a huge impact on an area with increased traffic and more litter. There will be no local councillor control over this sort of development.”

He said the changes would remove an established route for communities to influence how proposals are assessed.

“It will no longer matter how many people have signed a petition against a development or how many objections have been received by the council. That will no longer be a trigger for a decision to be decided by a planning committee.”

Cooper also questioned whether accelerating approvals was the most effective way to increase housing supply, pointing to homes that already have planning permission but have not been built.

“The answer to achieving Labour’s 1.5 million new houses target is staring us in the face. There are 1.4 million houses that have already been granted planning permission but haven’t been built.”

He argued that developers’ decisions about when to build should receive greater attention and called for more use of previously developed land.

“It is developers themselves who are the problem here. Developers are land banking for future gain and as a result councils will be asked by the Labour Government to surrender valued greenspace for house building.”

Kirklees planning and development head Mathias Franklin told the committee that rejecting constitutional amendments would not prevent the national legislation from taking effect. The council’s amended arrangements are scheduled to go before full council on October 21, ahead of the October 31 implementation deadline.

Tendring District Council in Essex has also expressed opposition to the changes. At a meeting on October 13, councillors approved constitutional amendments because the authority is legally required to comply, while agreeing to review the new arrangements after three months.

Tendring Council leader Mark Stephenson said elected members had strongly opposed the national policy and argued that planning decisions should remain subject to meaningful local scrutiny.

“I want to be clear from the outset that I am deeply opposed to these changes.”

Stephenson said local representatives understand the consequences of development proposals for their communities and should retain a role in ensuring that contentious applications receive appropriate public scrutiny.

“Planning decisions can have a profound effect on our towns, villages and residents. Local councillors understand their communities and should be able to ensure that significant and contentious applications receive proper public scrutiny.”

He said the revised national arrangements would shift authority toward council employees and weaken elected members’ accountability to residents.

“This new national scheme removes the ability of ward councillors to require an application to come before the Planning Committee. It places far more decisions in the hands of officers and reduces the democratic voice of elected members.”

Stephenson maintained that the council’s objection concerned national policy rather than the professionalism of its planning staff.

“I do not support that. I believe it weakens local accountability and takes decision-making further away from the communities affected.”

He warned that failure to comply could expose the authority to legal challenges.

“However, this change has been imposed through national legislation. If we do not comply, the council risks acting unlawfully and planning decisions could be challenged.”

Tendring councillors agreed that the council leader would write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to outline the authority’s objections. The council will also provide training on the new referral criteria and ways to raise ward-level concerns. Cabinet member for housing and planning Andy Baker said the authority had objected during the April consultation.

“It’s wrong and it does take away our democratic right in certain circumstances.”

West Berkshire Council also reluctantly approved the required changes after councillors criticized the impact on local democracy. Green Party councillor David Marsh argued that the reforms risked giving developers greater influence and said planning delays were also linked to insufficient staffing and land-banking practices.

“It is giving more power to developers.”

Marsh disputed the suggestion that public objections were responsible for delays in the planning process.

“It is not the fault of a few people protesting about a development. It is developers who land bank, waiting for the value of the land to go up.”

He said councils needed sufficient planning staff to process applications effectively.

“The Government’s refusal to equip councils to have enough planning officers is to blame for delays.”

Marsh added that staffing shortages remained a significant concern.

“There are not enough of them.”

He stressed that local authorities were implementing a national requirement rather than independently choosing to reduce committee oversight.

“This is not the council’s decision. This is not our fault.”

Marsh warned that the reforms could undermine public confidence in the planning process.

“The credibility of the system will be at risk.”

Liberal Democrat councillor Owen Jeffery said the authority had little practical choice but to implement the national rules.

“The entire council has a similar view about this appalling act by the Government.”

He said the council was required to follow the government's direction despite widespread objections among members.

“The Government is instructing us. We have no meaningful choice. It is an unnecessary disgrace.”

Conservative councillor Richa Somner criticized the approach as one imposed on councils rather than developed with them.

“This is a case of doing to not doing with.”

She also expressed strong dissatisfaction with the national changes.

“This is at the absolute displeasure of this authority. It’s so poor it’s unbelievable.”

Meanwhile, Tameside and Bolton councils in Greater Manchester had voted against adopting the required constitutional changes, creating uncertainty over how their planning systems would operate after October 31. The Manchester Evening News reported that both authorities could face legal challenges if their arrangements remained inconsistent with the national regulations.

In Tameside, Reform leader Allan Hopwood described the proposed changes as excessive and criticized the pressure on councillors to approve them.

Deputy council leader Andrew McLaren warned that decisions made after the deadline could be challenged, potentially costing the council substantial sums. A council spokesperson said planning applications would continue to be processed under existing arrangements until the legislation took effect while the authority considered its next steps.

In Bolton, Labour councillor Nadeem Ayub acknowledged strong objections to the changes while introducing the motion. Conservative, Reform UK and Green councillors voted against adopting the new rules, defeating the motion despite support from Labour and Liberal Democrat members.

Bolton councillor David Grant argued that the reforms would reduce residents’ ability to influence local development decisions.

“This strips local people of their rights and voice over deciding what happens within their communities. Local people should shape their town and villages, not somebody from Westminster.”

Grant said he opposed requiring councillors to remove powers that residents expected them to exercise.

“I did not get elected to remove those rights. We must send a message to government that this is wrong.”

Bolton Council said authorities elsewhere in the country were also working through the implications of the legislation and that it was seeking a resolution that would minimize disruption to planning applications.

Under the national framework, planning committees will be limited to a maximum of 13 members, and all committee members must complete formal training. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government's position, as reported by the Manchester Evening News, is that local planning authorities must determine applications according to the new rules from October 31. Noncompliant arrangements could lead to judicial review and the quashing of decisions.

Councils in Manchester, Salford, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Trafford and Stockport have agreed to amend their procedures. Wigan Council is scheduled to consider the changes at its next full council meeting in November, before any planning committee meeting takes place under the new rules.

Housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook defended the reforms in Parliament in June, saying they would allow committees to concentrate on larger, more complex applications while improving the speed and consistency of decisions. Government guidance maintains that consultation requirements and the duty to consider residents’ and councillors’ comments will remain in place.