Will the National Scheme of Delegation Really Benefit SME Developers?
The latest planning reform landed on 31st October in the form of The National Scheme of Delegation (NSoD). On the surface, it’s a step towards greater efficiency and consistency in planning decisions. However, the wider implications mean that SMEs should not take the benefits at face value.
The NSoD fundamentally changes the way planning decisions are made, introducing a national level threshold. The intention is to remove unnecessary committee involvement and give the majority of decision-making power for smaller schemes to officers under automatic delegated authority.
The aim is to make decisions more efficient, predictable and consistent. For an SME developer, this should be a positive change, but under closer scrutiny, it may not be the silver bullet it is being promoted as.
For most SMEs, planning frustrations can start months, if not years before a committee. Slug-ish pre-application responses, delays to validation, consultee responses and (lack of) officer engagement are often far more significant than the uncertainty of a committee.
Despite successive rounds of planning reform, the latest figures from HBF cite planning consent for just 214;515 homes in England in the year to Q2 2026. This is the lowest figure in 13 years. That won’t be surprising to our SME clients, who continue to experience declining service within LPAs, increased technical requirements and spiralling planning costs.
Our concerns are that the National Scheme of Delegation simply looks at one of the more visible problems in a failing system.
What is the National Scheme of Delegation?
The National Scheme of Delegation establishes a framework for determining which planning applications must be decided by planning officers and which can be considered by planning committee.
Applications are broadly split into two categories.
- Schedule 1 (Mandatory Officer Delegation): Covers minor residential/commercial developments, householder applications, and prior approvals. Committees are removed entirely regardless of local objections..
- Schedule 2 (Committee Eligible): Covers major developments and complex applications where officer determination remains default but can be redirected via a gateway test.
A scheme can go to committee only if both the Chief Planning Officer and Committee Chair agree it meets a strict “gateway test” (a scheme that raises issues of local economic, social or environmental significance; or a significant planning matter). If they disagree, it stays with officers.
For many smaller developments, which still raise significant local issues, the ability for councillors to “call in” an application before committee is restricted.
The objective is to reduce inconsistency, remove unnecessary committee involvement and speed up decision-making. All good intentions. But looking at how the system will operate in practice and some of the assumptions that have been relied on makes the benefits less straightforward.
However, for most SME developers, committee is just one frustration of a much bigger picture. Applications can spend months, just waiting for validation. The process of consultation and officer assessment that follows is often protracted and illogical, all before committee is even a consideration.
Agreement on Borderline Cases
Whether these reforms work in practice may depend less on the legislation and more on how individual councils implement it.
Categorising applications as Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 is relatively formulaic.
The real challenge lies in how local authorities handle Schedule 2 applications. Under the new framework, the critical point will be whether the Chief Planner and the Committee Chair can agree on which of these cases actually need to go before the committee.
There’s a clear irony here: developers could easily find their projects stalled in debate between senior officers and elected members, arguing over the decision-making route, rather than focusing on resolving actual planning issues, eroding any promised consistency and efficiency.
Constitutional Pushback
An even more complex hurdle is already emerging. Some LPAs are outright refusing to update their council constitutions to implement the NSoD framework. This introduces the potentioan for a systemic deadlock. While these councils are fighting to preserve democracy and local accountability, for developers, it creates an entirely new bottleneck.
While a local authority’s refusal to adopt national policy can technically be challenged through a Judicial Review (JR), this is rarely viable for smaller firms. JRs are notoriously expensive, complex, and time-consuming. A developer caught in the crossfire between central and local government could easily see their project sidelined for months.
More Risk-Averse Decision Making
With more decisions resting on officer judgement, there are important questions about how more difficult planning judgements will be resolved in practice, and whether the changes will result in more cautious delegated decision making.
With no committee debate to address more finely judged planning balance there’s a concern that this may lead officers to become more risk-adverse.
We predict an increase in requests for more evidence, wider consultation or simply a greater reluctance to approve schemes. This in turn creates more delays, compounded when officers and applicants fundamentally disagree.
Planning judgement is rarely straightforward. Two experienced planners can look at the same policy wording and reach very different conclusions. If this happens under NSoD, the applicant now has limited opportunities for an open debate. The practical alternative becomes an appeal to the Planning inspectorate. However, for an SME developer, an appeal isn’t simply another stage in the planning process. It can mean months of delay and uncertainty and an increased financial burden.
NSoD only addresses part of the problem.
The conversation to date has focused on the perceived efficiencies of a National Scheme of Delegation. It feels like the expected benefits of the reforms are being taken for granted. It’s time to address the areas where the legislations stops, and LPA implementation starts.
NSoD may well make the planning process better, that remains to be seen. It won’t, by itself, fix the planning system.
Get in Touch
SF Planning provides frank and responsible advice and assistance on a variety of planning matters. Get in touch to see how we can help with your project.
e: info@sfplanning.co.uk
t: Cheltenham: 01242 231575 | Gloucester: 01452 527997 | London: 020 3763 8005
SF Planning – What we do
