Skip to main content

Agenda item

NATIONAL SCHEME OF DELEGATION

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – PLACE

 

This report introduces the statutory National Scheme of Delegation for planning applications that comes into effect on 31 October 2026. It seeks approval for necessary amendments to the Council Constitution to operate the National Scheme of Delegation. It also introduces (i) operational guidance that will be maintained and update as required by officers and (ii) discretionary guidance on the use of member briefings and site visits for applications of significance.

 

 

 

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

(1)   That the amendments to Section 8.4 of the Constitution, attached as Appendix 1, were approved for implementation from 31 October 2026.

 

(2)   That the Planning Scheme of Management, attached as Appendix 2 and guidance in relation to committee briefings and site visits, attached as Appendix 3, were noted.

 

(3)   That the Director: Place be requested to consider any amendments proposed by Members to the Planning Scheme of Management, attached as Appendix 2, relating to the guidance on committee briefings and site visits, attached as Appendix 3, before those documents are finalised and published.

 

(4)   That the Director: Place, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer, be requested to explore whether additional arrangements for Member and public engagement in planning applications determined under delegated authority could lawfully be introduced, having regard to the requirements of the National Scheme of Delegation and associated statutory guidance, with any proposals requiring constitutional amendments brought back to Full Council for consideration.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

(1)   A mandatory, National Scheme of Delegation (NSD) takes effect from 31 October 2026. Statutory Government guidance states that authorities’ Constitutions must be amended to give effect to these new requirements in time.

 

(2)   Alongside the constitutional changes, operational guidance – the Planning Scheme of Management - will also be published. This sets out arrangements by which schemes for potential referral to Planning Control Committee are considered, as well as operational delegations to officers to make decisions in accordance with the NSD.

 

(3)   A report was published for Full Council to consider the committee briefings and site visit guidance at its meeting in April 2026. This item was deferred from consideration.

 

(4)   Subsequent legal advice, as well as good practice guidance published to assist with implementing the NSD, is now that additional and administrative guidance should not be constitutional. This enables it to be updated more efficiently and responsively.

 

(5)   This guidance is presented to provide broader context to the operational implications and procedural changes that are being introduced.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 17 minutes 32 seconds

 

Councillor Daniel Allen, as Executive Member for Governance, presented the report entitled ‘National Scheme of Delegation, and advised that:

 

·         The National Scheme of Delegation was a new requirement introduced by the Government and would come into force on 31 October 2026.

·         The Council was required to amend its Constitution to comply with the new legal framework.

·         Approximately 96% of planning applications were already determined under delegated powers.

·         The new scheme set out which applications must be determined by officers and which may be considered by the Planning Control Committee.

·         Existing councillor call-in arrangements, including those linked to parish council objections, would no longer continue under the new arrangements.

·         Applications would fall into two categories, with some required to be determined by officers and others capable of referral to committee where they raise issues of genuine planning significance.

·         Determination of which applications were referred to committee would be made by the Chair of the Planning Control Committee and the Development and Conservation Manager, with substitute arrangements available where required.

·         Parish and Town Councils would remain statutory consultees and their views would continue to be taken into account.

·         Ward Councillors would continue to support residents and represent local concerns.

·         The report sought approval of the constitutional changes required by law together with the proposed Scheme of Management and supporting guidance.

·         An additional recommendation was proposed requesting the Director of Place to consider amendments proposed by Members to the Planning Scheme of Management and Planning Control Committee Additional Guidance prior to publication.

 

The following members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Matt Barnes

·         Councillor Ruth Brown

 

In response to questions, the Director for Place advised that:

 

·         It was confirmed that Recommendation 2.3 would enable proposed amendments from Members to be considered before the guidance documents were finalised and published.

·         It was confirmed that the appendices did not form part of the constitutional amendments requiring approval and that Member comments would be considered through the proposed additional recommendation.

·         That the Constitution would take precedence in the event of any conflict.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed an amendment, as detailed in the published Supplementary Documents, which sought to establish a Planning Panel that would consider applications and make non-binding recommendations determined under delegated powers. Councillor Steven Patmore seconded the amendment.

 

The following Members took part in the debate on the amendment:

 

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Donna Wright

·         Councillor Ruth Brown

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Sam Collins

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Amy Allen

·         Councillor David Barnard

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Ian Mantle

·         Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham

 

The following points were made as part of the debate on the amendment:

 

·         Supported the principle of a Planning Panel, having experience of similar arrangements in another authority. Such panels could provide residents, parish councils and local businesses with an opportunity to express their views in a forum separate from the formal Planning Committee process.

·         Opposed the amendment as a non-binding panel would have no decision-making powers or accountability. It could slow decision-making, increase bureaucracy and place additional demands on planning officers and Council resources, without changing where the final decision-making responsibility lay.

·         The changes would result in a loss of local decision-making powers under the national scheme but recognised that the Council was required to comply with the law. The proposed amendment had been submitted too late for Members to consider it fully and proposed that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Working Group for further discussion.

·         Expressed concern that an advisory panel could place pressure on planning officers and risk politicising decisions for which officers remained accountable.

·         Considered that residents should have the opportunity to be heard but that the amendment had been submitted in insufficient time to be able to be properly assessed.

·         Expressed concern about the additional workload for planning officers and questioned the practical value of establishing a non-binding panel when the decision-making arrangements would remain unchanged.

·         Noted that Members could already engage directly with residents and discuss their concerns about planning applications without the need to establish a separate committee.

·         Supported the principle of providing residents and parish councils with an opportunity to address a panel, notwithstanding that its recommendations would not be binding.

·         Reiterated that the purpose of the proposal was to ensure that residents felt their views had been heard, rather than to change the formal decision-making process.

·         Residents could continue to make representations directly to Planning Officers.

·         Emphasised the importance of submitting amendments in sufficient time to allow Members to consider them properly and work towards a shared position.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was LOST.

 

Councillor Ruth Brown subsequently proposed a further amendment, which requested that the Director – Place, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer, be asked to explore whether additional arrangements for Member and public engagement in planning applications determined under delegated authority could lawfully be introduced, having regard to the requirements of the National Scheme of Delegation and associated statutory guidance. Any proposals requiring constitutional amendments would be brought back to Full Council for consideration.

 

Councillor Ruth Brown emphasised the importance of providing residents with opportunities to speak in person and to feel that their views had been heard, rather than relying solely on written representations through the planning portal.

 

Councillor Sam Collins seconded the amendment.

 

The following Members took part in the debate on the amendment:

 

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Claire Winchester

·         Councillor Ralph Muncer

·         Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham

 

The following points were made as part of the debate on the amendment:

 

·         Supported the amendment, stating that public engagement was important even where a panel or forum had no formal decision-making powers and considered that residents should have an opportunity to express their views on matters affecting their communities.

·         Supported further consideration of the arrangements, noting that the National Scheme of Delegation represented a significant change.

·         Alternative approaches could be explored to improve public engagement and the planning process, to that proposed in the first amendment.

·         Considered that it provided a useful starting point for further work.

·         Members would participate in any review intended to strengthen the voice of local communities in the planning process.

·         Reiterated the importance of bringing proposals forward in good time so that Members and officers could consider them properly and work collaboratively towards a solution.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was TIED.

 

The Chair exercised their casting vote, and it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)  That the amendments to Section 8.4 of the Constitution, attached as Appendix 1, were approved for implementation from 31 October 2026.

 

(2)  That the Planning Scheme of Management, attached as Appendix 2 and guidance in relation to committee briefings and site visits, attached as Appendix 3, were noted.

 

(3)  That the Director: Place be requested to consider any amendments proposed by Members to the Planning Scheme of Management relating to the guidance on committee briefings and site visits before those documents are finalised and published.

 

(4)  That the Director: Place, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer, be requested to explore whether additional arrangements for Member and public engagement in planning applications determined under delegated authority could lawfully be introduced, having regard to the requirements of the National Scheme of Delegation and associated statutory guidance, with any proposals requiring constitutional amendments brought back to Full Council for consideration.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

(1)  A mandatory, National Scheme of Delegation (NSD) takes effect from 31 October 2026. Statutory Government guidance states that authorities’ Constitutions must be amended to give effect to these new requirements in time.

 

(2)  Alongside the constitutional changes, operational guidance – the Planning Scheme of Management - will also be published. This sets out arrangements by which schemes for potential referral to Planning Control Committee are considered, as well as operational delegations to officers to make decisions in accordance with the NSD.

 

(3)  A report was published for Full Council to consider the committee briefings and site visit guidance at its meeting in April 2026. This item was deferred from consideration.

 

(4)  Subsequent legal advice, as well as good practice guidance published to assist with implementing the NSD, is now that additional and administrative guidance should not be constitutional. This enables it to be updated more efficiently and responsively.

 

(5)  This guidance is presented to provide broader context to the operational implications and procedural changes that are being introduced.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings to resolve IT issues being experienced and the meeting reconvened at 20.36.

Supporting documents: