Agenda item

(Members are reminded this is a debate, not a question and answer session)

To consider the following recommendations to Council:

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

Cabinet 13^th October 2026

CAB57: National Planning Scheme of Delegation

The Monitoring Officer provided clarification on the proposals before Council. It was explained that Council was not being asked to approve or adopt the National Scheme of Delegation. Recommendations 1 and 2 sought only that Council note the revised scheme and the consequential amendments to the Constitution, as these changes were required to give effect to national legislation coming into force on 31 October.

The Monitoring Officer advised that, whilst Members were able to express views on the Government’s policy, Council could not disapply national legislation through a local resolution. It was further explained that, should the recommendations not be approved, the legislation would nevertheless come into effect and any provisions of the Council’s existing arrangements that were incompatible with the new statutory requirements would not provide a lawful basis for planning decisions.

Members were informed that Recommendations 3 and 4 sought to provide the operational authority required by the Assistant Director for Environment and Planning and the Monitoring Officer to implement the statutory scheme and make any necessary consequential amendments.

The Monitoring Officer concluded by reiterating that the report had been presented to Council in order to formally record the statutory position, ensure that the Constitution remained accurate and up to date, and provide the authority necessary for the lawful implementation of the new arrangements. It was emphasised that the report did not represent a local policy choice as to whether the National Scheme of Delegation should apply, but related solely to the Council’s obligations in implementing the statutory requirements

Councillor Moriarty proposed the Cabinet Recommendation and reminded Council of the Government Consultation process and the wider programme of Government Planning reforms.  He outlined the proposed arrangements for determining planning applications, including the circumstances in which applications would be considered by the Planning Committee and the criteria that would need to be satisfied where a Member sought to call in an application for Committee consideration.  It was noted that the majority of planning applications would be determined under delegated powers by officers unless exceptional circumstances applied and the gateway test had been met.  Councillor Moriarty also provided detail of the proposed triage system that would be introduced as part of the new arrangements.

Councillor Moriarty referred to the recommendations put forward to Cabinet by the Regeneration and Development Panel and it was confirmed that a six month review of the new arrangements would take place.

Councillor Beales seconded the proposal and reserved his right to speak.

The Mayor reminded Council that the Regeneration and Development Panel had extensively debated the proposal prior to submission to Cabinet and Council.

Councillor Osborne stated that he supported the principles underpinning the Government's proposals, which were intended to support economic growth and encourage development, thereby reducing reliance on temporary and affordable accommodation. He commented that approximately 96% of planning applications were already determined under delegated powers and that the proposed changes would increase this to around 98-99%; therefore, he considered some of the criticism of the proposals to have been overstated.

Councillor Osborne also outlined the economic benefits that he considered the proposals would deliver, including advantages for businesses and developers through a more streamlined decision-making process, which he felt would also generate efficiencies for the Council. He expressed the view that the gateway process had been designed to be as simple and workable as possible, while still enabling Members to fulfil their role effectively. He further noted that parish councils and affected residents would continue to have opportunities to make representations, which would need to be taken into account. Councillor Osborne confirmed that he would support the proposals.

Councillor Long stated that he was not content with simply noting the proposed resolution, as he considered that it removed his democratic right to call planning applications before the Planning Committee. He spoke in support of the Planning Committee's strong reputation and record of decision-making and expressed the view that the legislation would diminish this role while introducing additional bureaucracy. He stated that he believed the rights of elected Members were being eroded and confirmed that he would not support the proposals.

Councillor Joyce endorsed the comments made by Councillor Long and stated that the existing arrangements ensured that all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard. He expressed dissatisfaction with the requirement for Council to note the introduction of the legislation and also referred to the planning appeals process.

Councillor Blunt commented that he regarded the proposals as an attack on local democracy. He stated that local ward councillors were best placed to contribute to planning decisions, given their knowledge of local areas and their close working relationships with parish councils and residents. He expressed the view that the proposals would undermine the decision-making process and would neither improve efficiency nor deliver additional benefits. He further stated that councillors did not act as obstacles within the current system, but worked constructively with officers and gave careful consideration to officer recommendations. Councillor Blunt confirmed that he would vote against the proposals.

Councillor Kemp stated that she was unable to support the proposals, as she believed they would reduce the democratic role of councillors and parish councils. She referred to the wider devolution agenda and expressed concern that elected mayors could potentially have greater influence over planning matters in the future. She confirmed that she would vote against the proposals and emphasised the importance of protecting green spaces and ensuring that development occurred in appropriate locations.

Councillor Bone acknowledged that the proposals were not perfect; however, he noted that if the new National Scheme of Delegation was not implemented after 31 October 2026, the Council would not be able to make lawful planning determinations. He stated that Members would continue to have the ability to request that applications be considered by the Planning Committee, although this would operate under a revised process and be subject to specified criteria. He welcomed the proposed six-month review of the arrangements and suggested that, should issues arise, the Council could lobby the Government for further improvements.

Councillor de Whalley expressed concern regarding what he considered to be a further centralisation of powers; however, he recognised that the Council was required to act within the law and ensure that its decisions remained lawful.

Councillor Devulapalli stated that she believed the proposals would remove decision-making powers from local communities and reduce public confidence in politicians and democratic processes. She argued that the issue was not the number of planning permissions being granted, but rather the number of permissions that remained unimplemented. She confirmed that she would not support the proposals.

Councillor Ryves referred to the minute's silence observed by the Planning Committee and stated that he would not support the proposals.

Councillor Storey commented that he had been involved with the Planning Committee for approximately forty years and considered the existing system to be effective and successful. He questioned the need for change and stated that Planning Committee Members carefully considered the views of residents alongside officer advice when determining applications. He expressed the view that the proposed arrangements would undermine this approach and reduce the ability of borough councillors to represent residents effectively. He also noted the important role played by parish councils in the process.

Councillor Storey proposed that a recorded vote be taken on the matter. The proposal was duly supported by the requisite number of Members.

Councillor Ratcliffe referred to the legal challenges and risks that could arise should the Council fail to comply with the new legislative requirements.

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Spikings, commented that the proposals represented a sad day for the Council. She stated that the ability of councillors to call in planning applications had effectively been removed and expressed the view that the proposals were unnecessary. As Chair of the Planning Committee, she confirmed that she would continue to work constructively with officers while providing challenge where appropriate.

Councillor Squire commented that Members would continue to have the ability to request that an application be referred to the Planning Committee, although such requests would need to satisfy the relevant criteria. She also welcomed the proposal to review the operation of the new arrangements after six months.

Councillor Ring noted that smaller developers often operated within tight financial margins and stated that the proposals could assist such developers by speeding up decision-making processes and reducing the financial risks associated with delays.

Councillor Beales, as seconder of the motion, stated that a pragmatic approach was required. He noted that the legislation would come into force on 31 October 2026 and that the Council had a responsibility to comply with the law and avoid exposing itself to legal challenge. Whilst acknowledging the frustrations expressed by Members, he advised that he would be writing to the Secretary of State to convey those concerns.

In summing up, Councillor Moriarty thanked Members for their contributions and also thanked officers and the Leader for agreeing to write to the Secretary of State to express the Council's concerns regarding the proposals. He reminded Members of the consequences of failing to comply with statutory requirements and acknowledged that one of the objectives of the changes may have been to promote consistency and a more uniform national approach. Councillor Moriarty also confirmed his support for a recorded vote on the matter.

It was noted that Councillor Coates arrived at the meeting at 5.54pm and had not been present for the whole debate, so was unable to vote on the proposals.

RESOLVED: That Full Council:

1. Notes the revised Planning Scheme of Delegation attached to the report.

2. Notes the consequential amendments to the Constitution, and the Planning Committee Terms of Reference (attached to the report) and related procedural rules required to implement the National Scheme of Delegation.

3. Authorises the Assistant Director for Environment and Planning to make operational procedural changes to implement the National Scheme of Delegation.

4. Authorises the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Assistant Director for Environment and Planning, to make any necessary consequential amendments arising from the implementation of the National Scheme of Delegation.