The Audit and Governance Committee of Newham Council met on Wednesday 14 October 2026 to discuss proposed reforms to the council's constitution and planning processes, driven by new national legislation. The committee indicated a preference for officers to develop a proposal based on Option A for consideration at the next meeting.

Constitution Review and Planning Reforms

The primary focus of the meeting was the proposed changes to the council's constitution and planning committee arrangements, necessitated by the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, which came into effect on 31 October 2026. These regulations introduce a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions, meaning that fewer applications will be determined by elected members and more will be decided by officers.

Key Discussions and Proposals:

• Option A: Strategic Development Committee as the Sole Planning Committee: The committee discussed Option A, which involves decommissioning the Local Development Committee (LDC) and retaining the Strategic Development Committee (SDC) as the council's sole planning committee. The SDC's membership would be increased from its current nine members to up to 13, aligning with the new legislation. This option was favoured by officers for its efficiency and for retaining an established committee structure.
• Constitutional Amendments: The committee discussed proposed amendments to the council's constitution, including revising Article 8 (Regulatory and Other Committees) to reflect a single planning committee structure, amending Part 3 (Responsibility for Functions) and the Scheme of Delegation to align with the national regulations, and removing or amending provisions inconsistent with the new legislation.
• Gateway Process: A Gateway Referral Protocol was discussed as part of the proposed changes. This protocol outlines the process for determining whether planning applications meet the statutory significance tests that would warrant referral to the Strategic Development Committee. The presumption is that applications will be determined by officers unless they raise significant economic, social, environmental, or planning issues.
• Nominated Officer and Member: The potential designation of the Assistant Director of Development Management and Environment as the Nominated Officer, and the Chair of the Strategic Development Committee as the Nominated Member for the Gateway process was discussed.
• Member Training: The potential for amending the constitution to introduce mandatory training for members involved in the planning and Gateway processes was discussed.
• Delegated Authority: The potential for the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Director of Placemaking, to be given delegated authority to make consequential amendments to the constitution and associated protocols was discussed.

Discussion and Concerns Raised:

• Transparency: Several councillors raised concerns about transparency, particularly regarding the Gateway process and the potential for reduced public scrutiny of planning decisions. Councillor Rachel Tripp highlighted the need for better online accessibility of planning information and suggested improvements to how residents and ward councillors are notified of applications. Councillor Nate Higgins expressed discomfort with approving the changes without clearer information on which decisions were locally determined versus mandated by national legislation.
• Clarity of Documents: Concerns were raised about the clarity of the documents presented, particularly regarding track changes and the absence of full commentary on proposed amendments. Councillor Higgins noted that the committee was being asked to approve changes without full transparency.
• Committee Structure: The debate around retaining one or two planning committees was extensive. While Option A was favoured by officers, Councillor John Morris expressed a preference for Option B (creating a new single planning committee), citing concerns about the process and the potential for a bloated committee. Councillor Adjoa Kwarteng also raised questions about the size of the committee and the implications for political proportionality.
• Ward Councillor Involvement: Councillor Obaid Khan questioned whether ward councillors would have a say in decisions made through the Gateway process, particularly if an application impacted their ward. Officers assured the committee that the planning process would remain open and transparent, with continued opportunities for public and ward councillor engagement.
• Urgency and Process: Councillor Kelly Drake expressed concerns about the compressed timeline for making such significant decisions and suggested that pre-meetings could have been more beneficial. The Chair, Daniel Mark Carr, explained the urgency stemmed from the statutory deadline of 31 October for implementing the new legislation.
• Executive Member Involvement: Councillor Rachel Tripp raised a point about whether the Chair of the Strategic Development Committee, who would be involved in delegated decisions, should be a member of the executive. It was noted that this would be addressed within the protocol regarding conflicts of interest.
• Renaming the Committee: Councillor Tripp suggested that the Strategic Development Committee could be renamed at a later date to better reflect its future role, which was noted as a potential technical amendment.

Outcome of the Discussion:

The committee indicated a preference for officers to develop a proposal based on Option A (dissolving the Local Development Committee and retaining the Strategic Development Committee as the sole planning committee) for consideration at the next meeting. The committee also agreed to explore the implications of committee size (9 or 13 members) within Option A.

Year Ahead Forward Plan

The committee's attention was drawn to the draft Year Ahead Forward Plan. Councillor John Morris raised concerns about the length and substance of future meeting agendas, which the Chair agreed to address in the November meeting. Councillor Morris also expressed reservations about the committee's ability to fulfil its duties with a potentially packed agenda in November.

Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for 4 November 2026 at Newham Town Hall.

The meeting was live-streamed, and members of the public could watch online or on catch-up. The meeting was extended beyond its scheduled time to allow for the full discussion of the agenda items.