Planning decision delays are looming in Bolton after the council warned that it could be unable to determine applications when England’s new national delegation rules begin on 31 October 2026. In a statement issued on 28 October, the authority said its refusal to amend its constitution had left an immediate problem for planning decisions and committee meetings.
Bolton’s Full Council rejected the constitutional changes on 7 October. The issue is now scheduled to return on 10 November, ten days after the new rules take effect. The council says applications will continue to be received and assessed, but it expects decision-making to be disrupted in the meantime.
That warning needs an important qualification. I would keep the legislation separate from Bolton’s stated operational risk. The government has separately said planning officers can continue to make decisions under the national scheme where councils have not updated their constitutions. For applicants and other authorities, the key issue is therefore whether lawful officer powers exist, not whether councillors can refuse to bring national legislation into force.
Why planning decision delays are expected
The latest development is a statement published by Bolton Council on 28 October. It confirms the 7 October vote against changing the constitution and the further Full Council meeting on 10 November. It is a warning about the immediate operation of the planning service, not an announcement that the statutory national reforms have been cancelled.
The council says it will not be legally permitted to hold Planning Committee meetings or determine planning applications after 31 October unless its constitution is amended. Its statement says “delays to decisions are inevitable”. That is Bolton’s published assessment of its local position, rather than a judicial ruling on what every authority must do.
Bolton will still accept and assess applications, according to its announcement. Planning decision delays could therefore arise at the final determination stage even where validation, consultation and officer reports continue. The distinction matters to someone awaiting a house extension decision, a certificate of lawfulness or approval of conditions, because administrative progress is not the same as a formal decision notice.
What changes nationally on 31 October
The Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/854, were made on 15 July and come into force on 31 October. They extend to England and Wales but apply only in relation to England. Their legal effect does not depend on a separate council vote approving them.
Regulation 4 requires relevant councils to make arrangements for Schedule 1 applications to be determined by an officer. That category includes ordinary householder applications, permission in principle, qualifying minor residential schemes, prior approvals and several other routine planning functions. It is not simply a new suggestion that councils might choose to follow.
Schedule 2 deals with applications that may reach a planning committee. Under regulation 5, a nominated member and a nominated officer may agree on referral only where the stated significance tests are met. Other Schedule 2 applications must be determined by an officer. The regulations also provide a separate route for applications in which the authority, a member or an officer has an interest.
Our detailed National Scheme of Delegation guide explains the distinction between the two schedules, the referral gateway and what happens to councillor call-ins. It also covers a less obvious point: requiring delegation does not necessarily supply an individual officer with authority that is missing from the council’s existing legal arrangements.
Why the government and Bolton sound different
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson told Local Government Lawyer on 21 October that “decisions can continue to be taken by planning officers in line with the national scheme”. The government’s position is that councils must comply with the new rules, even if elected members oppose the change.
The apparent disagreement is important. Regulation 4 tells an authority what arrangements it must make. It does not expressly say that every council which has not passed a constitutional amendment is automatically forbidden from making every planning decision. Whether a particular officer already has adequate delegated authority is a separate question about that authority’s operative arrangements.
Bolton says its own legal position will prevent determinations until an amendment is agreed. We have not independently established the extent of every existing officer delegation in Bolton’s constitution, and no court has resolved that local question in the material checked for this report. Planning decision delays should therefore be reported as the council’s declared operational risk, not as a universal legal consequence of a failed vote.
What applicants and neighbours should expect
For applications already in the system, the first practical question is whether the council will issue a decision before the new framework begins. For applications still pending on 31 October, the new Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 rules govern the required route. A previous councillor call-in cannot preserve committee determination for a Schedule 1 application that the legislation requires an officer to decide.
A period without determinations could affect householder schemes, certificates, changes of use and larger developments differently depending on their status and the authority’s legal arrangements. An applicant should keep a record of the validation date, statutory or agreed target date, outstanding requests and any written advice from the case officer. The council has not specified that individual applications will all be delayed by the same period.
Planning decision delays do not mean that pending applications have been refused, that permission has automatically been granted or that existing lawful permissions have been cancelled. There may be rights to appeal against non-determination once the relevant time limits and circumstances are met, but an applicant needs to check the applicable procedure and any agreed extensions rather than treat a press announcement as an appeal decision.
Neighbours should also distinguish an application being consulted upon from one that can lawfully be determined. Representations can still be material even if the eventual decision is taken by an officer. Conversely, a committee meeting listed in an online calendar does not establish that the committee has power to determine every case appearing on its historic agenda.
Other councils have rejected the changes
Bolton is not alone. Fenland, Tameside and Central Bedfordshire have also voted against constitutional amendments intended to accommodate the new national scheme. The legal reporting on those decisions highlights concern about local democratic accountability, alongside warnings from officers about lawful decision-making and the referral gateway.
Planning Geek previously covered Fenland’s vote against delegation changes and Tameside’s rejection. Those are distinct council decisions, not evidence that the four authorities have identical constitutional powers or that all will experience the same disruption.
The wider lesson is about implementation. A national planning rule may be mandatory, yet local decision-making still depends on an authorised officer or an appropriate nominated member being able to operate the prescribed process. Planning decision delays become a real risk when a council’s political disagreement leaves those arrangements uncertain at the point when the new law takes effect.
What happens on 10 November
Bolton’s next confirmed step is its Full Council meeting on Tuesday 10 November. It may then resolve the constitutional issue, but the 28 October statement does not promise that all delayed decisions will be issued immediately afterwards. Nor does it provide a revised timetable for individual applications or confirm whether special arrangements can be made before that meeting.
Anyone dealing with a Bolton application should watch the council’s formal notices, published constitution and decision records rather than relying on an assumed reopening date. The position may change if lawful interim powers are identified or if councillors agree an amendment. A meeting proposal, an adopted constitutional change and a legally issued planning determination are three different things.
I would regard this as a test of the new scheme’s implementation rather than proof that its policy objective has failed. The government wants routine cases decided consistently by officers, while some councillors are resisting the loss of committee control. If planning decision delays materialise, the immediate cost will be borne by applicants and communities waiting for certainty, not by the competing arguments in the council chamber.
0 Comments