The Constitution Working Party of Stockport Council met on Monday 24 August 2026 to discuss and approve proposed amendments to the council's constitution and Statement of Community Involvement. These changes are necessary to align with the government's national planning reforms and the introduction of a national scheme of delegation for planning applications.

Planning Committee Reforms and National Scheme of Delegation Implementation

The primary focus of the meeting was to consider and support proposed changes to the council's constitution to reflect the introduction of the National Scheme of Delegation, a key component of the government's wider planning reforms. These reforms, stemming from the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, aim to ensure planning committees focus on complex or contentious developments requiring local democratic oversight, while delegating more routine applications to officers.

Suzanne Broomhead, Head of Development Management, explained that any planning decisions made after 31 October 2026 must comply with these new reforms. The report detailed proposed amendments to the Scheme of Delegation and related sections of the constitution. Appendix 3 of the report identified that approximately half of the applications considered by area committees or the planning and highways committee over the past two years would now be subject to Schedule 1 delegation, meaning they would be determined by officers and would not come before a committee. Changes to the constitution were also proposed regarding public speaking arrangements, aligning with the national reforms.

Councillor Mark Roberts, Leader of the Council, acknowledged that the reforms were a consequence of national government policy and did not necessarily align with his own political beliefs, which favoured decisions being taken at the most local level. However, he stressed the legal necessity for the council to comply. He also highlighted that the reforms presented opportunities to improve existing processes within the new framework.

Councillor David White expressed his dissatisfaction with the changes but recognised their legal imperative. He suggested exploring mechanisms to allow more officer decisions to be made with member input, ensuring public concerns could be fed in and that members maintained confidence in the decisions made.

Councillor John Byrne welcomed the clarity on what applications would and would not be presented to committees, seeing it as a benefit for local councillors to engage earlier in the process. He also noted the potential benefit of national consistency in planning processes. He questioned how many decisions would no longer be made locally under the new system.

Councillor Mark Jones observed that significant would become a key factor in decision-making and suggested a mechanism to track decisions made on the basis of officer recommendations where there was no agreement between nominated officers and members. He also proposed increasing public speaking time from three to five minutes, acknowledging the challenge of selecting speakers.

Emma Curle, Assistant Director for Placemaking and Planning, and Suzanne Broomhead provided further clarification. They explained that the weekly list of applications would still be available for members to see, and that members could still make representations. They confirmed that where members made specific comments, these would be referenced in delegated reports. Regarding the number of decisions no longer made locally, it was noted that out of 65 applications that went to committee over two years, 27 would have been made at area committee level, with the remainder being planning and highways committee decisions. The officers also confirmed that transparency would be maintained through the publication of gateway assessment processes and any disagreements between nominated officers and members.

The discussion also touched upon the potential for increased public speaking time, the process for selecting speakers, and the need to formalise the inclusion of member comments in delegated reports. The officers confirmed that the Statement of Community Involvement would require a radical rewrite but that the current focus was on decision-making aspects.

Councillor Jilly Julian, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources & Innovation, raised the point about speakers disagreeing and suggested that ensuring those for and against received equal speaking time, rather than limiting the number of speakers, could be a way forward. She also hoped for continued close working relationships between ward members and planning officers.

Councillor Brian Battle sought clarification on the interaction between the new constitution changes and the Local Development Plan, and how existing applications would be handled before the 31 October deadline. Emma Curle clarified that development plan referred to the current development plan and that existing applications not determined by 31 October would be subject to the new rules. Suzanne Broomhead added that in cases of disagreement between a nominated officer and member regarding referral to committee, the chief planning officer would make the final decision.

The Chair, Councillor Mark Roberts, concluded that while the council was constrained by national government directives, the discussion had been productive. He noted that the proposed changes would proceed through scrutiny and area committees, with further opportunities for member input. The Working Party was asked to support the proposed changes to the constitution to reflect the introduction of the National Scheme of Delegation, with the understanding that finer details were still being worked through. The report was recommended to move forward to full council for a decision.

The meeting also included the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting held on 15 April 2026 and the confirmation that no declarations of interest were made by councillors or officers.