What planning system overhaul means for farmers
© Tim Scrivener The way many decisions are made in England’s planning system will change on 31 October 2026, with planning officers deciding more applications and fewer going to elected planning committees.
The aim is to deliver faster and more consistent local planning decisions, says Katie Lamb, head of planning at Strutt & Parker.
Faster decisions will come not through changes in the statutory planning decision timetables but through fewer applications having to wait for the cycle of planning committees, says Katie.
See also: What new planning framework means for farmers and rural businesses
These usually meet monthly but can defer decisions until the next meeting, often because they request further information and so adding to the planning timetable.
Under the changes, the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions, part of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, sets out the types of applications which should be decided by planning officers.
However, these can be referred to planning committees under certain circumstances.
The aim is that planning decisions will show greater consistency across England.
At present, each local authority sets its own delegation guidelines and the move to national guidelines is for planning committees to focus on larger and more significant developments.
The new rules will apply across all local planning authorities (LPAs) in England, except for development corporations, National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority.
There are fears the new system will erode local democracy, with the loss of the ability to address a planning committee for many applications.
Responding to an earlier consultation, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England said the proposals would destroy local democracy and were likely to result in unnecessary loss of the countryside.
“Controversial decisions that will shape our countryside for decades to come should not be approved without scrutiny from those who live there,” it said, with local people and groups prevented from speaking at committee, also that elected local councillors would be prevented from speaking at committee, or from “calling in” planning applications to ensure they can be determined by committee.
Schedules – types of application
Two schedules under the new rules set out which types of application will be decided by planning officers and which by committee.
Schedule 1 lists smaller-scale and more straightforward planning proposals, to be decided by planning officers.
Many farm-based applications will fall into those listed on Schedule 1 (see below).
Schedule 1 – applications on which planning officers will decide
- Householder developments
- Discharge of conditions
- Permission in principle (one to nine dwellings)
- Non-material amendments
- Prior approval applications (using permitted development rights)
- Minor commercial development
- Minor residential development (development of up to nine dwellings on sites below 0.5ha)
- Section 73 applications where the related planning permission was a Schedule 1 planning permission
- Reserved matters approval where the outline planning permission is for fewer than 500 dwellings or less than 50,000sq m of floorspace
- Certificates of lawfulness of existing/proposed use or development, and certificates of lawfulness for proposed works to listed buildings
- Section 106A applications where a planning obligation is connected to a Schedule 1 planning permission
- Biodiversity Gain Plans
- Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development
There will be a presumption in favour of planning officers also taking decisions for Schedule 2 applications, which cover large, strategic or sensitive developments.
However, these can be referred to planning committee if the chief planning officer and the planning committee chairman agree and it meets at least one of two criteria:
- The application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area
- It raises a significant planning matter, with respect to the development plan and other material considerations.
The new system may help reduce delays, including by removing some of the criteria in local schemes of delegation (for example, where a certain number of objections can sometimes be sufficient for a committee referral) and ensuring that minor and medium-sized applications are dealt with by officers, says Sadie Pitman, an associate in the planning, infrastructure and environment team at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys.
“Where Schedule 2 applies, there may still be short-term delay where the nominated member and officer agree how the application is to be determined.”
Planning committee changes
A maximum of 13 members will be able to sit on planning committees from 31 October, and members will have to undergo mandatory training.
Local government reorganisation
When local government reorganisation takes place, planning will become more strategic across wider areas, with spatial development strategies for English regions setting levels of growth and infrastructure provision.
Under the reorganisation, local, district and borough councils will be replaced by larger unitary authorities which will draw up new local plans for their areas.
Katie foresees some issues in the transition to the new bodies, including job uncertainty for planning officers and local councillors, potentially leading to some disengagement.
Because the timetable for local plans under the new regime is uncertain, this will affect the timing of the promotion of sites and the ability to seek planning allocations of land.
“However, any delays in this process could mean longer periods of housing shortfall, potentially providing opportunities for speculative planning applications and triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.”
National Planning Policy Framework changes bring new approach
Sweeping reforms to the planning system include changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which will see fast-tracking of suitably located developments.
The government’s target of building 1.5m homes in the current parliamentary session, linked to economic growth, has prompted much of the planning reform introduced over the past two years.
The updated NPPF, which is the rulebook for planning, advising local planning authorities (LPAs) and developers on what they can and cannot do when planning developments, is due to be published before the summer parliamentary recess and will take effect on publication with some elements subject to transitional arrangements.
However, the final contents could change considerably from what was contained in the consultation, which closed in March this year, says Katie Lamb, head of planning at Strutt & Parker.
The aim of the new NPPF is to standardise planning decision making to give consistency across LPA areas.
“From a planning perspective, the current environment is more favourable than we have seen in at least two decades,” says Katie.
“This pro-development approach presents opportunities and risks to rural businesses, depending on your perspective.”
The new NPPF will see new homes near railways stations permitted by a proposed “default yes” for suitable land in existing settlements and well-connected stations outside settlements, including the Green Belt.
It will also promote higher density housing developments and offer additional support for small and medium-sized schemes.
It includes a measure that is being dubbed a “brownfield passport” system, so that development of appropriate urban land and previously used sites is essentially acceptable by default.
Green and Grey Belts
The current NPPF introduced a relaxation of Green Belt policy and a new category of “Grey Belt”.
This is Green Belt land that has either been previously developed or makes a limited contribution to meeting policy objectives of preventing urban sprawl, merging neighbouring towns, or preserving the setting of historic towns.
“This has opened up new opportunities to seek allocation of land for development on the basis that the NPPF now requires local authorities to release land from the Green Belt to meet development needs,” says Katie.
The new policy also widens the definition of development that is not considered “inappropriate” in the Green Belt, particularly where it would utilise Grey Belt land and where there is an identified unmet need for housing.
This means sites previously considered to be “too difficult” because of their location in the green belt are now the subject of planning applications.
Katie warns that this policy could be high on the list for revision or watering down by a future government so landowners wanting to use any opportunities it presents may do well to act sooner rather than later.
While development still needs to take place in suitable locations, there may be opportunities for farmers to make small-scale commercial developments as well as housing provision, says Katie.
For any type of development, she says: “Consider land on the edge of settlements, especially if it is within walking or cycling distance of local facilities, or if there is public transport.”
Local plans regime
All local authorities must draw up a local plan setting out their vision for future development of their area.
These are the starting point for evaluating all planning applications and dictate where new homes, businesses, and infrastructure will be built, at the same time protecting certain environments and green spaces.
These have traditionally taken many years to develop, but a new requirement means they have to be produced within 30 months.
Some LPAs are still drawing up old-style local plans so this presents another time-limited opportunity to promote land now, says Katie, as these local plans must be submitted to the secretary of state by the end of the year, with consultations on them expected this summer.
Planning appeals changes
A new procedure for planning appeals severely limits the ability to introduce new reports or evidence in written appeals. This is in effect for applications submitted since 1 April 2026.
This places greater emphasis on the quality of the initial application, with the aim of speeding up the process, but is likely to maker initial applications more expensive because applicants may feel the need to include additional reports on a “just in case” basis, say advisers.
