National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to take part in this debate about the national scheme of delegation. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. I know that my right hon. Friend always fights to protect the green belt in her constituency.

I was sitting here reflecting on what Members have said, and I do not think that there is much that I disagree with. I know that a number of Members from across the Chamber were on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, and it took me back to some of the arguments we thrashed out during those debates.

When I speak to constituents right across Broxbourne, planning is one of the biggest issues that comes up, door after door, election after election. We know from hearing the accounts from Members from across the House today that that is also the case elsewhere across the United Kingdom—right from Aldridge-Brownhills to Hamble Valley, to name a few. The Government would love for everyone to think that local councillors are the main barrier to house building. They want to move to a system where new applications all over the green belt are rubber-stamped by officials instead. The truth of the matter, as has already been said, is that the vast majority of planning decisions are already made by officers—as many as 96%, according to the Government’s own figures.

The national scheme of delegation will not magically fix the Secretary of State’s failure to build the 1.5 million new homes that she promised. What these measures will do is undermine local government and expand the state even more. Unfortunately, we see it time and time again. The same developer comes along with a plan that is entirely inappropriate for the local area. Perhaps there are vague promises for a school or a park that we know will never get built. The local community then makes its view very clear that it does not want to see the plans happen. Even when the council’s planning committee votes against them, it gets overruled by the Planning Inspectorate as it decides that some bit of land is grey rather than green belt—often, as has already been said, without even visiting the site. That is just not right.

The Labour Government are forcing massive new housing developments on areas such as Goffs Oak in my constituency, while reducing targets in London to cover up Sadiq Khan’s failings. This is at the same time that we have a Prime Minister going on and on about devolution and how local leaders are the ones best placed to make local decisions. That is so inconsistent.

[Wendy Morton]

On that point about local leaders making decisions and showing leadership, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we actually see that? In areas such as Walsall, what we do not see from the new leadership there—the Reform council—is strong leadership on this. One area that needs more pushback is the duty to co-operate with other areas. In our area, Birmingham’s housing target has gone down and ours has gone up. There are some towns and cities in neighbouring counties that actually want more housing and have more brownfield sites.

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. She is right to mention the duty to co-operate. Local leaders must step up to the plate. That is what they are elected to do, and that is what their residents expect.

Residents expect their local councillors to represent them, not to hide behind the duty to co-operate. They must co-operate across borders. They do not need powers taken away from them and given to unaccountable bureaucrats in distant council headquarters. Under the national scheme of delegation, proposals for under 10 properties will only be looked at by planning officers. This means that only in very limited circumstances will there be a way for local councillors to bring those decisions before a planning committee. Planning officers are not elected and are not accountable to voters.

Everyone knows that sometimes planning officers get things wrong and the decisions need to be overturned. I have seen it. I have served on a planning committee and the trouble is that, once a planning application gets approval and gets built, it is there for a very long time. It is very difficult to rectify it once it goes wrong. Do the Government really think that unelected officials are better placed to make decisions on local issues than elected councillors? People vote for their councillors to represent them on planning issues and can hold their councillors accountable at the ballot box. However, it is not just planning that is at stake, but trust in politics as a whole. Removing powers from elected representatives is an attack on British democracy, and the British people can see right through it.

Local action groups such as Goffs Oak Community Association are already fighting tooth and nail to stop their towns and villages being wrecked by inappropriate developments, which are often proposed without any sort of adequate infrastructure. The Government clearly do not care about their views, otherwise they would not be bringing in this national scheme of delegation. These changes also ignore the fact that planning committees are not just there to approve or deny applications. Councillors talk with local people and can address their concerns by putting conditions on development.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Another concern of mine is that, when looking at infrastructure such as healthcare facilities or larger-scale road networks, local councillors and MPs quite often work together to secure the funding from central Government and maybe a county council. Does he share my concern that in some of the larger schemes that will be decided by planning officers, the ability to get that multi-layered approach to funding will not be there, because there will not be the political will to do it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If local people—including local councillors with input from the local community and MPs—do not have a say over planning applications, development will not come forward with the appropriate infrastructure. That is what our constituents right across the country expect. I am pleased to say that my party has firmly stood against these proposals from the start. If the Minister really wants to deliver on the Government’s promise to devolve power to every postcode across the United Kingdom, she will stop this attack on local democracy and bin this scheme once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson]

I do not agree with that. Extensive consultation was done around this policy before it was brought in—in fact, I believe there were three rounds of consultation.

The national scheme of delegation, which will come into force this Sunday, will allow committees to focus on the larger and more complex development proposals that really require member input. The applications that matter most to communities are those that will deliver the kind of development that local people desperately want to see. We also want to ensure that skilled planning officers in councils are trusted and empowered to make decisions on more applications more quickly to ensure that development is brought forward in the right place at the right time.

The national scheme of delegation will mean that officers will spend less time and resource preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications, speeding up decision-making processes more broadly and freeing up time to focus on larger and more complex applications. It will also provide greater clarity and consistency across the country about who in a local planning authority will determine applications. Irrespective of whether a decision is made by an officer or a planning committee, the important thing is that both are working to serve the interests of their community.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who praised his council’s record on planning, and I hear the concerns he has raised. As I have said, I will make sure that they are fed back.

[Lewis Cocking]

I did not want to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but she said that planning officers are there to serve their community. Could she explain what the community can do if it is not happy with the decisions that the planning officer makes?

[Sally Jameson]

I will come to that later in my speech, but I will canter through, as I am conscious of time. During the many consultations and parliamentary debates on the planning committee reforms, the Government have been clear that they are not in any way intended to be an attack on local democracy. We recognise that councillors and communities are central to deciding what development is right for their area, but the Government believe that the best way for them to do that is at the beginning of the process, when the local plan is being developed.

The national scheme of delegation will support the plan-led system. It will allow planning committees to operate as effectively as possible. For example, they will not need to revisit the same decisions that have already been considered through the local plan process; instead, they will be able to focus on those applications that really require member input. I must also stress that decision makers, whether they are members or officers, must determine applications in accordance with the local plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Having an up-to-date local plan will have the biggest bearing on the outcome of a robust decision.

Importantly, we are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Local residents and elected councillors will still be able to make their views known on individual applications. Regardless of who the decision maker is, where those representations relate to the planning merits of the development, they will continue to be taken into account in reaching decisions.

On transparency and reporting, it is clearly important that local communities know about decisions that are being made on their behalf. That includes decisions on the referral of schedule 2 applications to the committee. We have set out requirements for that in the statutory guidance to which local authorities must have regard. As a minimum, we expect local authorities to keep a record of the cases that the nominated officer and nominated member have considered for referral to committee, the outcome of their consideration and the reasons for their decision. That should be reported to the planning committee on a regular basis and made available on the authority’s website.

A couple of points were made on HMOs. A strong local plan, particularly featuring HMOs, should be able to guide planning officers, but I will ask the Minister for Housing and Planning to write to hon. Members who raised that and provide further information. I will also feed back about websites and the council advertising campaign.

On devolution and powers of strategic authorities, I am, as it happens, the Minister responsible for the devolution strategy and the rewiring the state plan. We will set that out later this year as part of the Government’s 10-year plan. Hon. Members will see that this Government are serious about putting power back in communities. Part of that is having a strengthened local government system. I can give an example: in my own strategic authority, we announced this week that we will reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport, which will have a massive impact on the local community for jobs and growth. That is a prime example of how rewiring the state can bring the power and prosperity mentioned by Members today.

On mandatory training for members, the Government’s priority has been getting the national scheme of delegation in place. Now that that is complete, we will resume work on member training. Further stakeholder engagement is needed on how we will make that a credible and cost-effective system. I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will work with local government and hon. Members to ensure that that is robust.

On the approach to the size of the committees, planning committees need to be the right size to inform decision making. There have been examples of sprawling committees having unruly debates and not getting anywhere. The intention behind introducing the cap was to ensure that they are more focused and of better quality. I think that initially, the planning committees were going to have 11 members, but that has been increased to 13, as a number of political parties are represented in some councils. That changed as a direct feedback from consultation.

On the national scheme of delegation, it is something new. We recognise the need to ensure that it works on the ground as intended. That is why, following the consultation on the draft regulations earlier this year, we inserted a further provision into the regulations to require that they are reviewed within two years of coming into force. That will give an opportunity to monitor the implementation of the regulations. I will feed back the request that that be looked at before the two-year mark to the Minister for Housing and Planning and ask him to come back on that, even if it is with some kind of interim or informal assessment of how that has been going.

Once again, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing this debate and for the contributions from other colleagues on this important issue. I recognise that not all questions may have been answered, but I will ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning comes back to hon. Members where I have not had the time to do so. I close by reiterating that the reforms to planning committees, including the national scheme of delegation, are intended to support, not undermine, committees. We want them to be as effective as they possibly can be, so that they serve the best interests of our communities.