Over the past ten years, our Planning and Strategic Communications teams have worked closely together to build strong relationships with officers across authorities. We treat the first conversation with an officer as the start of the pre-application process, not a courtesy ahead of it and from 31 October officer engagement will be key to decision making.
That might sound as though it takes the politics out of planning, and to an extent it does. Where reserved matters match the outline, and the outline matches the allocation, there is less to argue about. But ward councillors will still tell their officers and lead member that particular applications matter, and any local authority planner will tell you that you can’t take politics out of planning, however hard you try.
What is the National Scheme of Delegation?
From 31 October, the National Scheme of Delegation sorts applications into two categories. Schedule 1 covers householder, minor commercial and minor residential applications (up to nine homes on sites under 0.5 ha), among others, and these must be decided by officers, with limited exceptions. Everything larger sits in Schedule 2 and is presumed to be decided by officers unless the council’s nominated officer (normally the head of planning) and nominated member (normally the committee chair) agree it should go to committee. For a fuller explanation of the categories, see Freeths’ summary.
Ward councillors can no longer call in applications, and a pile of objections, however large or AI-generated, won’t send a scheme to committee. If the two decision-makers agree it is significant, it goes to committee. If not, an officer decides.
“Significant” will be subjective, and the real test will come at appeal. An application that should never have gone to committee, and ends with costs awarded against the council, could become the cautionary tale that gives the scheme its teeth. The guidance also warns that decisions made outside of the national rules are open to judicial review, even though some councils are slow or unwilling to amend their constitutions.
Where does your site sit?
Allocation doesn’t change which category an application falls into, but it does change how likely a referral is. A scheme that broadly complies with an allocation in an adopted plan is the least likely to be referred, though large multi-phase schemes can still be. The guidance is silent on draft allocations, so put the policy case to officers early. Schemes outside the plan are the most exposed, because they raise plan questions by definition.
What happens to your ward councillors?
Residents will still write to their ward councillors, parish and town councils will still ask for their support, and residents’ groups will still seek their ear. None of this will change, nor should it, as these are all parts of a democratic planning process. However, what will change is the formal lever.
Councillors put their constituents’ concerns to the nominated member, usually the committee chair, to ask for a referral, for changes, or perhaps simply to be briefed. That is intended to be a representation rather than lobbying, and councils are expected to protect officers from inappropriate pressure. Some will put their case in the language of the test itself, arguing that a scheme matters to the area in economic, social or environmental terms. Essentially, this is democracy using a different door.
What does “significant” mean?
The test asks whether a scheme raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area, or a significant planning matter against the development plan. The guidance accepts that significance is contextual, and its examples range from a major housing development to a rural community shop. That breadth leaves room for local interpretation, so expect the test to be applied differently from one authority to the next. The call-in may have gone, but the politics of place is firmly intact.
Significance is a judgement made about a place, by people who know it. Nobody can answer it for you, but you can shape what is in front of them when it is asked. And it will be asked on record: councils are expected to log every case considered for referral, with reasons, and publish the results. Whatever case you make needs to stand up in public, including at appeal, where inspectors’ responses will tell us how far “significant” can stretch.
Back to the two decision makers
Nothing in this system asks anyone to be bypassed. Officers gain a clearer route, councillors keep a voice through the chair and the test, and applicants gain a faster route if the groundwork has been done. Politics hasn’t gone away; it has moved to a different conversation, and the schemes that do best will be those where it was part of the early conversation too.
In the coming weeks, each council’s nominated officer and nominated member, usually the chief planning officer and committee chair, will settle how they work together. By the time your scheme reaches them, they will have formed a view of it: from you, from their officers, from a councillor’s inbox, or from all three.
If you would like to talk through your site, speak to our Strategic Communications team. Fewer committees mean more conversations. Ours have been starting early, alongside our planners, for ten years.
29 October 2026
