West Lancashire has voted against the new national planning delegation system while confirming that it will change its constitution to comply with the law. Full Council reached that position on 14 October 2026, and the authority explained it publicly on 16 October.
Councillors unanimously opposed the policy itself. Crucially, however, this was not a vote to keep using an unlawful committee system after the regulations take effect on 31 October. West Lancashire says the necessary constitutional amendments will still be made.
I think that distinction deserves attention. Planning committees across England are about to lose some of their familiar routes for calling in applications, but political opposition to the change is not the same thing as a legal power to ignore it.
Why the council objected to planning delegation
The council’s statement issued on 16 October says members considered the required changes at their meeting two days earlier. They voiced concern that a nationally prescribed system would restrict local discretion and reduce the part elected councillors play in determining development proposals.
Council leader David Whittington argued that authorities understand their own communities and should retain a strong democratic voice in development decisions. The concern is not simply about who signs the decision notice. It goes to whether locally elected members can bring contested proposals into a public committee meeting.
But West Lancashire also acknowledged the legal duty to implement the new arrangements. Its stated approach is to register opposition while bringing its constitution into line before 31 October. That is a substantially different outcome from rejecting the constitutional changes themselves.
What changes on 31 October 2026
The planning delegation framework is set out in the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, supported by statutory government guidance published on 1 June. It applies in England, subject to the exceptions specified in the legislation. It is not a reform of planning committee arrangements in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Schedule 1 includes functions that must ordinarily be determined by planning officers. The guidance identifies householder applications, defined minor commercial and minor residential proposals, prior approvals under the General Permitted Development Order, lawful development certificates and several technical approvals. There are specific qualifications, including provisions for an authority’s own-interest applications.
Schedule 2 covers other specified applications, including many larger planning proposals, listed building consents and advertisement consent. It does not guarantee a committee hearing. Instead, officer determination is the starting point, with a tightly defined route to committee where the national criteria are satisfied.
How the planning delegation gateway works
For a Schedule 2 proposal to reach a planning committee, the nominated officer and nominated councillor must agree that referral is appropriate. The case must raise either an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the area, or a significant planning matter assessed against the development plan and other material considerations.
The government’s guidance envisages the chief planning officer, or an equivalent experienced officer, working with the committee chair or an appropriate substitute. Councils may organise their own triage arrangements. They do not have to send every Schedule 2 application through a full gateway discussion.
If the nominated officer and member cannot agree, the guidance says the decision falls to officers. A major residential application is therefore not automatically a committee application simply because it is large or controversial. Its particular planning issues still matter.
Public objections remain relevant
This planning delegation reform does not abolish public consultation. Residents, parish councils, businesses and other interested people can continue making representations. The important change is that the number of objections, or a request from a ward councillor, cannot by itself guarantee a committee hearing under the national scheme.
A strong planning objection should therefore identify matters that carry weight in the determination, such as highway safety, flood risk, residential amenity, design, heritage or conflict with the development plan. Where somebody is asking for a committee referral, the case for significance needs to be explained rather than assumed.
That makes the quality of the evidence more important than the volume of emails. It does not make local views irrelevant, but it changes the route by which they influence the decision.
Why legal compliance matters
The statutory guidance expressly warns that decisions made by committees after 31 October on applications that must be delegated to officers may be vulnerable to judicial review and could be quashed. The risk is not automatically attached to every decision made by a council that has expressed opposition. It depends on how the particular decision is taken under the operative rules.
That is why West Lancashire’s stated intention to amend its constitution is material. The authority can disagree with the policy and still ensure its officers and committee follow the lawful division of functions. Applicants, objectors and councillors alike benefit from knowing which route genuinely applies.
The council’s political vote also does not suspend the national commencement date. Unless the rules are changed, the key operational test for an English planning authority remains compliance from 31 October.
What to watch next in West Lancashire
The immediate point to check is the updated constitution and any published local procedure for the nominated officer and councillor. The public statement says the constitution will be changed, but does not itself provide the final wording of those arrangements.
Applicants should check whether their live applications are within Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, especially where a committee appearance has been discussed under the previous local system. A pending application may face a different decision route once the national scheme begins. Objectors should make sure their planning concerns are clearly evidenced even if an old call-in route disappears.
Planning delegation is ultimately about who decides, not a substitute for the development plan or the merits of an application. A project can be acceptable or unacceptable on planning grounds regardless of whether its decision is issued by an officer or voted on by councillors.
For background on the wider reform, see our coverage of the October committee call-in changes. West Lancashire’s decision gives the national debate a useful, precise local example: clear opposition to the policy, paired with a commitment to comply with it.
0 Comments