Almost two months on, the incident on 24 November 2025 which affected an IT system shared by Westminster City Council, the Royal Borough of Kensington and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is still causing delays in the processing of planning applications.
Westminster City Council confirmed on 14 January 2026 that many of its functions continue to be impeded. As to its planning functions, it is currently relying on manual processes and is only “making decisions on those [planning applications] that don’t require public or external consultation”(so, not many at all I assume!). It states in a series of FAQs that section 106 agreements are not being completed and CIL liability notices are unable to be issued. I’m sure that this is stressful for those working within the organisation but imagine the knock-on implications for development and for those of us advising those developers affected!
Similarly, RBKC has confirmed that it is unable to start processing planning applications that are submitted. Some data has apparently been copied and taken – and one can only assume that this may include personal information that would be redacted from that which would otherwise be publicly available. I hope this doesn’t impede people’s willingness in the future to engage in sensitive planning issues.
I can’t see equivalent advice on Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s website as to any current implications for its service, but Planning magazine reported on 13 January 2026 that the council has said that while it shares “some legacy systems” with the affected authorities, it had been able to “successfully isolate and safeguard our network.”
This is of course not the first time that local government IT systems have been compromised like this. That Planning magazine piece references attacks on Tewkesbury Borough Council and Gloucestershire City Council in 2022. People may also remember a disruptive attack on Hackney Council’s system in 2020 and there was also one on Redcar and Cleveland Council that year which is reported to have cost the council over £10m.
I’m sure this is all front of mind both for existing councils’ IT teams and for those planning for the move to unitary authorities. I just wonder if the associated business risk is being fully factored in by developers and investors. Does their insurance cover losses caused by resultant delays in receiving planning decisions? And what if a similar incident were to affect the Planning Inspectorate for instance? What back-up plans do organisations have?
And, finally, a point not directly related to any of this but relating to local government IT systems. Are the resources being made available to make sure that local government reorganisation includes full integration of authorities’ digital services? Search for a planning application on Buckinghamshire Council’s planning portal for instance and almost six years on you still undertake a memory test as to the geographic boundaries of its three former constituent authorities…
This is the 500th Simonicity post. Subscription is still free and, once we finalise the planning, subscribers should be receiving an email before too long now with details of a special event that is being planned to mark the blog’s tenth anniversary in June.
The RTPI has already published its response which makes some sensible points.
The current statutory consultees list is a long one. However, I hope the government won’t just focus on reducing the number of applications where input from statutory consultees is required, and on the timeliness of initial responses from statutory consultees. To my mind it’s as much about the quality of those responses (constructive, informed by an understanding of the application in question, with the potential for swift dialogue to address issues raised), about those statutory consultees having stable, clear, positively-minded guidance to manage potential applicants’ expectations) and about those statutory consultees being well-resourced with experienced, accessible, people.
Some quick and random thoughts:
The actions of Natural England in giving advice that has led in recent years to immediate vetoes on development in relation to e.g. the impact of nutrients or recreational pressure or indeed water abstraction issues on protected areas: why was advance notice not given, an “amber” warning, before such disruption was caused? Could solutions have been found faster? Is there going to be any sort of Parliamentary inquiry into how this was all allowed to happen? Will the impending work on environmental delivery plans mark any sort of turning point? We shall see.
As a former trustee of Theatres Trust I was disappointed to see the proposal that the trust should have its statutory consultee status removed. I can’t see what will be gained by this and indeed I see risks arising of unacceptable, or ill-advised, development slipping through the net. Theatres have high community value. TT always responds within the statutory deadline and in recent years (in 345 responses between 2022 and 2024) has only objected to one residential scheme (and that was only for seven homes!). Conversely TT’s responses have secured necessary changes to schemes to protect the operation of theatres. Isn’t this how the system is meant to work?
Conversely, I’ve heard depressing stories about the approach of, for instance, the Environment Agency on flood risk issues – objecting to applications for approval of reserved matters or the discharge of conditions on the back of changes in its flood maps. Memories perhaps of the nutrient neutrality vetoes affecting consented schemes that led to C G Fry & Son Limited v Secretary of State (Supreme Court, 22 October 2025) – issues of principle really should have been resolved by the time planning permission has been granted, rather than being re-opened by the backdoor.
Where are these thoughts leading? Maybe just to a conclusion that there is no “one size fits all” approach to this. With powers should come responsibility and so, as is indeed proposed in the consultation paper, the performance of every statutory consultee should regularly be scrutinised, including as to how constructively it is engaging with the application process – that is what will make the difference. And to have experienced planners within each local planning authority who can weigh consultee responses in the balance, pushing back and questioning where necessary.
Finally, it’s worth bearing in mind the potential impact of the draft NPPF once it is finalised. Paragraph DM3(d) of the draft:
“Consult statutory or internal consultees only where it is necessary to do so. Decisions on development proposals should not be delayed in order to secure advice from a statutory or internal consultee beyond their statutory deadlines unless there is insufficient information to make the decision or more detailed advice may enable an approval rather than a refusal.”
This is about a vehicle for consenting major projects fast.
I don’t know if you have caught up yet with Sam Stafford’s and Zack Simons KC’s end of year chat: the #Planoraks Awards 2025 50 Shades of Planning podcast episode? In their analysis of the year just past, our small corner of it anyway, Zack awarded “Consent of the Year” to the Special Development Order laid before Parliament on 16 December 2025, due to come into force on 12 January 2026, which will authorise the construction of Universal’s proposed theme park and associated works at Kempston Hardwick, Bedford.
The relevant documents are worth reading, not just in case the same procedure may one day be appropriate for another mega-development, but to understand the structure adopted, in case elements can read across to other consenting processes.
Let’s start with the basics.
The Secretary of State has the power to make a special development order (“SDO”) under existing powers in section 59(3)(b) of the TCPA 1990. SDOs have been used to grant permission for various specified developments over the years. Recently, SDOs have been used, for instance, to grant temporary permission for inland border facilities and for providing facilities for the accommodation of asylum seekers. An SDO may only apply to the development of the land specified in the SDO. An SDO may (a) grant planning permission for a specified development or class of development or (b) provide for the local planning authority to grant planning permission in accordance with the provisions of the SDO. An SDO is made by statutory instrument which is subject to the negative resolution process i.e. it becomes law on the day the Secretary of State signs it and automatically remains law unless a motion – or ‘prayer’ – to reject it is agreed by either House of Parliament within 40 sitting days.
The SDO procedure is subject to the potential requirement for environmental impact assessment (with the same criteria applying as for usual planning applications). Unless EIA is required (in which case the environmental statement must be publicised for at least 30 days), there are no formal consultation or publicity requirements in relation to SDOs. It is for the Secretary of State to determine what if any, consultation and public engagement it would be appropriate in the circumstances to carry out. Similarly, there is no prescription as to the minimum level of detail to be provided in supporting documentation before the Secretary of State proceeds to make an SDO. MHCLG’s website just has this page with a brief summary of the background and links to recent Orders.
“The instrument grants planning permission (subject to conditions and limitations) for an Entertainment Resort Complex (ERC) and associated development at the former brickworks and neighbouring land at Kempston Hardwick, Bedford (‘the site’). The site is around 268 hectares, and the proposal includes theme park(s), visitor accommodation, retail, dining, sports and conference facilities and associated landscaping and utility infrastructure. It also provides improvements to the travel network including new entrances and exits from the A421, a bigger train station on the Thameslink / Midland Main Line at Wixams, and upgrades to Manor Road and other local roads.”
“The ERC would accommodate at least 8.5 million visitors a year and serve a domestic and international market. While there are several theme parks in the United Kingdom, there is nothing on the scale of the proposed development. The nearest similar development is Disneyland Paris.”
Universal submitted its formal request to MHCLG for an SDO on 26 June 2025, comprising a cover letter, ownership certificates, a guide to the planning proposal, proposed conditions, parameter plans, a series of proposed operative and controlling documents, a 19 chapter long environmental statement and various other documents including a planning statement, design and access statement etc etc – a package that will be familiar to anyone used to major outline or hybrid planning applications. There is a public engagement report setting out the extent of engagement undertaken to that point with relevant authorities and organisations and the public, starting with Bedford Borough Council (supportive throughout) and “strategically important bodies” from September 2022. Agreement in principle between the government and Universal as to the nature of Universal’s investment was announced in a written ministerial statement on 22 April 2025.
As set out in the explanatory memorandum, following submission of the formal SDO request in June 2025:
“Public consultation took place from 3 July 2025 for 8 weeks. The plans, drawings, Environmental Statement (ES) and other documents that accompanied the request for planning permission were published on Gov.uk and made available at local and national offices for in-person viewing and consideration. Representations were invited from the public as well as specific individuals and organisations notified directly by MHCLG. Those notified included statutory bodies, landowners and occupiers of property on, and next to, the site, railway operators, and interested or affected parties.
Just over 500 representations were received by the close of the consultation period; late representations were received and also considered. Most of the representations (circa 80%) were submitted via an online Citizen Space survey. Of the circa 400 Citizen Space survey responses, around 75% supported the development, around 16% objected, the rest were neutral. Two-thirds of online respondents said they lived locally.”
The Secretary of State has published a statement of reasons for the grant of planning permission. The statement summarises the results of the consultation undertaken and the extent to which measures have been incorporated or issues addressed in the Order, before reaching reasoned conclusions on the project’s likely effects on the environment, conditions, mitigation and monitoring measures. The national and local policy context is considered as well as the main considerations including: transport, highway safety and capacity; ground conditions, land stability and contamination; heritage; ecology and biodiversity; population and human health; flood risk, drainage and water resources; design, parameters and standards; climate change and resilience; economy and employment; landscape and visual effects, and loss of agricultural land.
The Secretary of State then reaches his overall judgement as to the level of benefit/harm, and weight, he applies to each issue, before concluding as follows:
“There are several harms which weighed against the Proposal. These include highway capacity, heritage, landscape and visual effects, loss of BMV land, noise, air quality, effect on services and impacts upon the living conditions for some local residents. Several matters were neutral. A range of conditions and limitations was proposed to mitigate the adverse effects as far as practicable. However, even after mitigation, it is almost inevitable that some harm would result from a development of this scale and nature. These adverse impacts, taken together, attract significant weight.
On the other hand, the Proposal would deliver many benefits, including the delivery of a world class Entertainment Resort Complex to the benefit of the UK tourism industry and to the local and national economies, on an unprecedented scale; provide a substantial number of jobs; re-use previously developed land; and remediate contaminated land. Highway and rail improvements that would enhance local transport infrastructure and, potentially, mitigate constraints on other development have also been committed to as part of the Proposal. Together, these benefits attract very substantial weight.
The Secretary of State concluded that, overall, the benefits would far outweigh the identified harms and that planning permission should be granted subject to the necessary controls set out in the Order.”
Finally, it’s worth looking at the SDO itself, snappily titled The Town and Country Planning (Entertainment Resort Complex, Bedford) Special Development (No. 2) Order 2025, to understand the nature of the various controls in place. There are many definitions! The Order is most akin to a Development Consent Order for a nationally strategic infrastructure project (although functionally only delivers planning permission rather than any other consents and approvals that may be required under other legislation). Schedule 2 sets out the various classes of development permitted by virtue of the SDO. Certain categories of works may only be carried out in connection with defined functionally associated works. The works may only be carried out in accordance with the 90 conditions and limitations set out in Schedule 3. Certain conditions and limitations require the “site controller” (which must initially be designated by Universal City Studios LLC before any authorised development may begin) to submit documents for approval or validation. There are procedures to be followed where the site controller wishes to modify any of the reference documents (set out in Schedule 1), controlling documents or any endorsement condition (i.e. a condition requiring any particular details to be approved or validated) and there are requirements as to publication of documents. The Order legislates for any overlap with General Permitted Development Order rights and with any development potentially to be carried out in connection with East-West Rail within a specified safeguarded area.
Formal approval for a project of this scale and complexity within six months or so of submission. Surely there are lessons to be drawn as to how in this country the consenting process is managed for other projects where significant public benefits arise?
Simon Ricketts, 3 January 2026
Personal views, et cetera
NB By way of explanation for those not of a certain age, REO Speedwagon are a US soft rock band that were formed, crumbs, 60 years ago. Responsible amongst other things for possibly one of the worst album titles ever: You Can Tune a Piano, but You Can’t Tuna Fish.
However, in suitably positive and festive mode, the theme of this blog post is as follows:
🎵 It’s beginning to feel a lot like we are moving towards a coherent, understandable, English planning system 🎵 and for that the relevant ministers and civil servants deserve a couple of weeks’ rest and reflection before the hard work begins again (because it certainly isn’t all finished yet…).
After all, doesn’t the following summary start to make sense to someone fresh to all this? In a way that the system hasn’t since the abolition of the regional strategies in 2010, or indeed long before that in much simpler times?
At a national level:
a comprehensive set of numbered policies setting out the approach to development plan-making to be taken by plan-making authorities at three levels: strategic (via procedures the framework of which is set out in the 2025 Act); local (via procedures the framework for which is set out in LURA 2023), and neighbourhood;
a comprehensive set of numbered policies to be followed when planning applications and appeals are determined, written in a rules-based style so as to minimise ambiguity – policies which (from the date the draft NPPF is finalised) override any inconsistent policies in any development plan (unless those policies have been examined and adopted against the finalised NPPF).
Planning practice guidance will still have an important “but supporting” role to national planning policy “and its status should be regarded in that light”.
At a strategic level (the boundaries of which in many cases will be determined in due course via the devolution process happening meanwhile in another part of the forest):
a comprehensive set of spatial development strategies focused on providing a clear spatial framework for investment and growth, including new housing, looking forward at least 20 years (to be altered at least every five years to reflect any changes to housing requirements for the local planning authorities in the strategy area and to be replaced at least every ten years). This will include apportioning to local planning authorities in the strategy area the objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses which those authorities should plan for in their local plans and identifying “broad locations for strategic development including new settlements, major urban extensions, major cross-boundary development and key locations with the potential for new homes and jobs” as well as strategic infrastructure requirements. There should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF, unless any policy in the NPPF so directs.
At a local level (the boundaries of which in many cases will be determined in due course via the local government reorganisation process happening meanwhile in yet another part of the forest):
slimmed-down local plans, to be prepared and adopted within 30 months, setting out a vision with a limited number of measurable outcomes, policies for minimum amounts of development to be provided for, land allocations (with a specified amount of detail), broad locations for growth, infrastructure requirements to support delivery of the plan and other policies “only where these support the delivery of specific allocated sites”. There should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF, unless any policy in the NPPF so directs. There must be “general conformity” with the relevant spatial development strategy. Supplementary plans may be used to address specific issues, subject to constraints set out in the NPPF.
At a neighbourhood level (optional):
allocating land to meet the development needs of the neighbourhood (with a prohibition on promoting less development than provided for in other parts of the development plan for the area) and policies to address particular local issues. Neighbourhood plans should accord with the plan-making policies in the NPPF and again there should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF.
At each level (strategic; local; neighbourhood) a specific set of tests is set out against which draft plans will be examined. There are specific requirements for plan-making authorities at each level to engage with infrastructure providers, other relevant plan-making bodies and other relevant bodies and to demonstrate this by way of statements of common ground. Expectations as to developer contributions should be set at the relevant level. Qualitative standards for development should not cover matters already addressed by Building Regulations with limited specific exceptions and should not cover matters relating to the construction or layout of buildings unless they are to implement the nationally described space standard. Plans are to be published in a searchable digital format – no more PDFs!
Aside from there being a more cohesive, tiered, policy basis for decision making, the decision-making process will be made simpler and more predictable by way of simplified procedural requirements for schemes of less than 50 dwellings, by way of increasing the standardisation of section 106 agreements and viability inputs and by way of greater delegation of decision-making to officers.
I’m focusing here more upon the structural framework of the system – the hardware as it were – rather than the substantive direction of the policies – the software as it were. But the software also now works more smoothly. Rather than the previous tilted balance, with its various caveats over time and footnotes, we have, front and centre, policy S4 setting out the principles to be applied to development within settlements and policy S5 setting out the principles of development outside settlements (including the new criteria for housing and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of railway stations which meet a specifically defined level of connectivity to jobs and services (with those criteria also now providing a new category of not inappropriate development in the green belt)) and the drive towards densification, a more diverse mix of homes, focus on particular areas and sectors (e.g. those names in the government’s growth strategy, AI growth zones, logistics, town centres and agricultural and rural development), minerals, a vision-led approach to transport, addressing climate change, a tidying up of heritage policies and finally a more strategic approach to the natural environment (with the read-across to local nature recovery strategies as well as the environmental delivery plans provided for within the 2025 Act).
Complicated? Inevitably. But refreshingly it does all hang together. In fact, the new system is probably more intimidating for all of us who have to get to grips with this quite different approach and unlearn a whole host of previous policy tests and workarounds than for someone coming at this afresh. Any attempt at a straightforward mark-up of changes from the current December 2024 NPPF is doomed to failure but this side-by-side comparison of the paragraphs of the draft revised NPPF as against the relevant paragraphs of the existing 2024 NPPF may help (for which I thank my colleagues Archie Hunter and Adam Choudhury).
What are the challenges ahead?
How to get there from here, i.e. transition. The NPPF’s decision-making policies will have full effect from the day that the final version of the document is published. We are of course going to have to wait longer for spatial development strategies (individual timescales dependent on dependent on individual devolution processes but against the government’s ambition of a full suite of adopted SDSs by 2029) and indeed the next generation of local plans (27 November 2025 written ministerial statement: “Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (Gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027”).
Politics and administrative processes. The planning system is under major reconstruction but of course so is the whole architecture of sub-national government. The worst that could happen would be for any of these reconstruction jobs to be left half-done. Continuity is important and if this is going to work, for the long-term improvement of the whole system, those elected to prepare plans need to proceed in a way which is consistent with the timescales and objectives that have been set out – and to avoid every understandable temptation in a period of transition to wait first for the next jigsaw piece to fall into place.
Have a good Christmas everyone and don’t worry: I shall switch back to Grinch-mode in the new year I feel sure.
I’m picking up that the conclusion is reluctant. Clearly, it is helpful that the drought of new housing activity in London has been recognised. Clearly, it is appreciated that MHCLG and the London Mayor have worked hard at a co-ordinated package as between them which moves significantly, and no doubt with much internal organisational pain, from the previous policy position in terms of affordable housing expectations, in terms of the usual approach to CIL and in terms of some aspects of housing standards. There is also a dilemma on the part of the industry: this is an emergency; measures are needed now; if this set of proposals has to be ditched and replaced with a more effective package, we are just losing more time, unless the industry can point with some unanimity towards practical, easily implemented, improvements to what is on offer.
But the reality is that the current package (1) will not be enough and (2) is too caveated and conditional to provide the crucial reassurance that is needed to those who hold the strings in terms of funding or financing. From what I hear I’m not at all sure that the Mayor’s new time-limited route is even likely to be used, as opposed to continued reliance on viability testing.
Should there be more focus on stalled sites that already have planning permission?
Of course!
Why ignore the lowest hanging fruit? The opportunity has now passed for primary legislation to reintroduce section 106BA (which could have been a late bolt-on to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill). But why not by ministerial direction reduce the minimum period of five years for the purpose of being able to make applications under section 106A, which are capable of appeal, to say two years – and introduce guidance as to MHCLG’s interpretation of “useful purpose” (of course the courts’ legal interpretation ultimately will be what counts but guidance will still be useful!)? And in any event introduce firm guidance to local planning authorities that they should approach requests for deeds of variation on viability grounds positively where the case has been made (and set out in the guidance what will be sufficient to make that case)?
Is late stage (as opposed to early stage) review necessary in relation to the proposed “time-limited planning route”?
No!
The uncertainties caused to funders by the mere existence of any review mechanism the application of which is outside their control has a deadening effect on developers’ ability to fund schemes, utterly disproportionate to the likelihood that any review mechanism will ever deliver any material amount of additional affordable housing, schemes are so underwater. And unnecessary uncertainty has been created because the time-limited route envisages a different set of mechanisms to those which currently exist.
The simple change would be for the Mayor’s LPG to specify that for a time-limited period the fast-track thresholds will be reduced from 35% and 50% to 20% and 35% with the structure remaining exactly the same as to when review mechanisms will be required and how they will operate. A bucketload of uncertainty would be immediately removed.
Are there unnecessary difficulties with introducing a viability test into the proposed CIL relief?
Yes!
In fact, this whole new intended structure for 50 to 80% relief from borough CIL is going to be disproportionately complex given that it will rarely make the difference between a project going ahead or not (and with the prospect of later clawback, funders will always assume the worst in any event so it just won’t help bring them over the line). What I’m being told is that where CIL is a killer is on cash flow. On viability – the overall go/stop on development – it is of only marginal influence.
If there is going to be any tweaking of the Regulations:
Why not allow for payment at a later stage (you recall that when the infrastructure levy was touted by the previous government as replacement for CIL it was to be payable at upon completion of the development so would there be such a problem with it being paid, say, on occupation)? Boroughs don’t spend the monies upon receipt – timing isn’t critical to them! And Mayoral CIL is simply paying down long-term debt in relation to Crossrail.
Require all boroughs to switch on the potential for exceptional circumstances relief and see what can be done to simplify the process.
Ahead of any Regulations, just lean on the boroughs to switch on exceptional circumstances relief (if they refuse that is a warning sign in itself) and introduce advice as to the evidence that should normally be sufficient. Even that would help.
And incidentally this would actually also would help SMEs, currently shut out of the relief proposed in the consultation document by a combination of the £500,000 liability threshold and the proposed £25,000 application fee. And while we’re at it, extend this beyond residential C3 development.
Are the proposed additional powers to be given to the Mayor enough?
Probably, but…
It really would be useful if the Mayor could call in schemes of 50 units or more even before the borough is minded to refuse them, as long as the statutory determination period has passed – thereby reflecting the current arrangements in the Mayor of London Order 2008 for schemes of 150 units or more.
Final thoughts
Of course the proposed additional grant funding for affordable housing is welcome. But inevitably it isn’t enough.
Surely, we all agree that the thrust of all these measures is not good to the extent that, consistent with the operation of the existing system, it assumes that affordable housing, including social housing (for which there is such a desperate need in the capital) is what has to give in order to enable development to proceed. How can we move to a system where the delivery of social housing is not reliant on, effectively, an affordable housing tax imposed on residential development, given that the current model is not working?
To end on a positive note, I was really cheered to hear about Homes For People We Need campaign and to read their report Making Social Rent Homes Viable. Whilst it identifies that £18.83 billion is required to develop 90,000 social rent homes per year, there is a strong investment case for substantial government subsidy, given that temporary accommodation costs of £2.8 billion annually could in theory service index-linked bonds worth circa £160 billion. “In theory an investment by HM Treasury to build c.130,000 Social Rent homes for those families currently in temporary accommodation, assuming £209,000 subsidy per home and thus a total subsidy of £27.2bn, could reduce the current bill for Temporary Accommodation to zero”.
There are a number of strategic recommendations and suggested policy reforms in the report:
“• Social Housing Tax Credits represent a promising approach, enabling private capital deployment now in exchange for future tax relief.
• Section 106 Agreements should fix affordable housing values at the planning stage to improve market efficiency.
• Right to Buy should be further reformed to preserve the affordable housing stock.
• ‘Flex Rent’ approaches linking rents to household income should be considered to optimise revenue generation whilst maintaining affordability.
• The Housing Association sector desperately needs recapitalisation in addition to the recent 10-year rent settlement.”
In summary I hope that what is arrived at is fast, simple, measures to help meet the current housing and affordable housing emergency. But then I hope that there is a proper longer-term solution along the lines promoted by this report to help meet the underlying and remaining (national not just London) housing and affordable housing crisis. The current section 106 model is not working!
I covered Matthew Pennycook’s 30 July 2024 letter to the Planning Inspectorate’s chief executive Paul Morrison in my 11 August 2024 blog post Plan-Making, Or, The Olympic Sport Of Trying To Hit A Slowly Moving Target, which announced a reversal of the previous Government’s “expectation that Inspectors should operate “pragmatically” during local plan examinations to allow deficient plans to be ‘fixed’ at examination. This has gone too far and has perversely led to years of delays to local plan examinations without a guarantee that the plans will ever be found sound, or that the local authorities will take the decisions necessary to get them over the line. This has to end.
[…]
Pragmatism should be used only where it is likely a plan is capable of being found sound with limited additional work to address soundness issues. Any pauses to undertake additional work should usually take no more than six months overall. Pragmatism should not be used to address fundamental issues with the soundness of a plan, which would be likely to require pausing or delaying the examination process for more than six months overall. Local authorities should provide regular progress updates of their work to the Planning Inspector during any agreed pause.”
Muscular stuff in that heady first month. Principles above pragmatism and the delays thereby arising, addressing the problem of submitted plans being allowed to limp on for years through long examinations, through authorities being given time by inspectors to try to fix soundness issues arising.
“In advance of the new plan-making system and mechanisms for cross-boundary cooperation coming into force, the final set of local plans being delivered within the current system remain essential to facilitating the effective delivery of housing, jobs and infrastructure. It is therefore critical that Inspectors approach examinations of current system plans with the appropriate degree of flexibility. The evidencing of expectations to establish whether the legal and soundness tests have been met – including with respect to the Duty to Cooperate – should be proportionate to the context in which plans in the existing system are being prepared. I very much welcome that in some cases Inspectors are already exercising a degree of flexibility to expedite adoption of local plans. For example, I note recent pragmatic decisions to proceed toward adoption in instances where a five-year housing land supply cannot be evidenced at the point of adoption but where the plan significantly boosts supply and still meets housing needs over the plan period or by providing additional opportunities to clarify compliance with the Duty to Cooperate. Relevant Planning Practice Guidance provides advice in respect of both of these matters, and will no doubt be of ongoing assistance in assessing whether proportionate evidence has been provided or considering whether stepped housing requirements may be justified.
It remains important that we do not see the adoption of poor-quality plans, or accept overly long examinations (I am grateful for the action that Inspectors have taken following my letter of 30 July 2024 in that regard). However, within those bounds, where plans are capable of being made adoptable, I want Inspectors to seek to do so in the examination process.”
It was unsurprising to see the pendulum swing back, because we aren’t ever really talking about, or dealing with, the planning system in isolation, are we? The three Ps in our world are planning, pragmatism and politics. Pragmatically, what is a plan-led system without … plans?
And p for pragmatism has been given extra oomph with the 27 November 2025 announcement that the forthcoming regulations that will specify how the new plan-making system is to work will (once made) immediately abolish the statutory duty to co-operate (i.e. affecting plan making under the current system as well). See the minister’s letter of that date to Paul Morrison :
“We intend to shortly lay regulations which will enable Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to initiate formal preparation procedures for new-style plans. These Regulations will also have the effect of abolishing the Duty to Co-operate for the existing plan-making system.
As you know, the Duty to Co-operate (“the Duty”) was inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, through the Localism Act 2011, to help bridge the gap in co-operation resulting from the abolition of regional planning. The Duty requires LPAs to “engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis” with neighbouring authorities whilst preparing their local plan. However, as noted in your letter of 30 October, the Duty as a legal provision has, at times, been difficult to comply with and has led to some notable local plan failures. This is in part because any shortcomings relating to the Duty cannot lawfully be remedied during examination.
The new plan-making system provided by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not include the Duty. Instead, the new system will rely on revised national policy and the new tier of strategic planning to ensure effective co-operation between plan-making authorities. The Regulations for the new system will also ‘save’ the current plan-making system for a period to allow emerging plans to progress to examination by 31 December 2026. Given the above, andto help drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible and progress towards our objective of universal local plan coverage, we have decided not to ‘save’ the Duty, thereby removing this requirement for plans in the current system.
The Duty will therefore cease to apply when the Regulations come into force early next year, including for plans at examination at that point. On the basis of the government’s firm intention to abolish the Duty for the current system, examining Inspectors may wish to begin any necessary dialogue with LPAs in advance of the Regulations coming into effect, with reference to this letter. Of course, LPAs should continue to collaborate across their boundaries, including on unmetdevelopment needs from neighbouring areas and Inspectors should continue to examine plans in line with the policies in the NPPF on ‘maintaining effective co-operation’.”
This is perilously close to retrospective legislation it seems to me but, pragmatically, politically, a potential lifeline has been thrown to, for instance, the Mid-Sussex local plan and the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse joint local plan. For some background on the Mid-Sussex local plan duty to cooperate issue, see my 7 June 2025 blog post Not Sure Why The Media Was So Focused On Musk v Trump This Week Given What Has Been Happening In Sussex since when the inspector, in a letter dated 3 November 2025, had – can we say grudgingly? – agreed to hold a further hearing session in January 2026. The South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse joint local plan inspectors had written to the two authorities on 26 September 2025 indicating that they considered that the duty to cooperate had not been met. Since the minister’s 27 November 2025 announcement they have now written again to the authorities in a letter dated 1 December 2025 seeking their views on the implications of the announcement for the examination and “in particular how the Councils wish to proceed”.
Plan-making deadlines
Two reasons why the notion of a “plan-led” system is increasingly theoretical are surely:
Obviously, the continuing lack of up-to-date local plan coverage across England.
The increasingly impenetrable nature of the local plans system, already with plans proceeding under the previous and current NPPFs and now to overlap with the proposed new system, supposedly to be faster but that was initially designed with the concept of (a) statutory national development management policies (we will see if the non-statutory fudge makes a practical difference in that respect) so as to narrow down their role basically to the allocation of land for development and the designation of land for specific forms of protection and (b) a now abandoned watered-down “soundness” test.
Is a simpler, speedier system on the horizon? Hmm.
In his Q&A session with Sam Stafford at the LPDF conference on 27 November 2025, Matthew Pennycook revealed that timescales for authorities to prepare new style local plans would in some instances be brought forward, rather than the previously proposed phased introduction. That day we then had a press statement (New local plan system launching early 2026: latest update), a written ministerial statement (Reforming Local Plan-Making) and a detailed Plan-making regulations explainer.
From the written ministerial statement:
“Having considered carefully responses to the earlier consultation, I am announcing today that we no longer intend to roll the system out in a series of plan-making ‘waves’. Instead, local planning authorities will be encouraged to bring plans forward as soon as possible following the commencement of the regulations early in the New Year.
Whilst authorities will have discretion over how soon they start their plan, regulations will set out final ‘backstop’ dates for when plan-making must legally have commenced. Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (Gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027. Further information will be set out in the regulations and in guidance.”
From the explainer:
“In general, the regulations will require that local planning authorities publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making within 4 years and 8 months of adopting their existing local plan, or by 31 December 2026, whichever is the latest. They must then begin preparation of a new local plan (publish their gateway 1 self-assessment form) within 5 years of adopting their existing local plan, or by 30 April 2027, whichever is the later.
However local planning authorities who submitted a plan for examination on or before 12 March 2025 with an emerging housing requirement that was meeting less than 80% of local housing need will be required by regulations to publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making by 30 June 2026 and their Gateway 1 self-assessment by 31 October 2026. This will not apply to areas where there is an operative Spatial Development Strategy which provides the housing requirement for the relevant areas.
If an existing system plan is withdrawn from examination prior to adoption, regulations will require local planning authorities to publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making in the new system at the same time as the plan is withdrawn, and to publish their Gateway 1 self-assessment 4 months later.
Further details on the initial rollout of the new plan-making system will be set out on Create or Update a Local Plan.
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) will remain in force until planning authorities adopt a new style local plan or minerals and waste plan. The final adoption date for new SPDs will be 30 June 2026, to ensure any advanced emerging SPD can be adopted.
These Regulations will also have the effect of abolishing the Duty to Co-operate for the existing plan-making system, by not saving this provision for plans progressing to examination in the existing system by 31 December 2026.”
Whilst in theory encouraging an earlier start to plan making sounds positive, in many areas these emerging plans could well get stalled by a combination of local government reorganisation and the incoming spatial development strategies.
The local government reorganisation map is still unclear, with authorities in two tier areas outside the devolution priority programme having now submitted their proposals by the 28 November 2025 deadline, apparently proposing more than 50 different potential configurations for ministers to consider (Exclusive: Over 50 LGR proposals sent to MHCLG – Local Government Chronicle, 3 December 2025). Elections for the new authorities are due in May 2027 ahead of going live in April 2028. How many current authorities will push through their plans to a conclusion ahead of, and in the face of, what lies ahead?
The map is also unclear as to what will be the new England-wide strategic tier. The government’s commitment was that the new spatial development strategies, with which in the future local plans should confirm, would be in place by 2029, but this looks increasingly unlikely. Yes it is all complex, but one wonders what role politics will increasingly play. Last week there was the unexpected announcement that Mayoral elections in four areas within the devolution priority programme, Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, and Norfolk and Suffolk have been delayed from May 2026 to May 2028. There is apparently nothing to prevent the new strategic authorities, once created, from making progress with preparing SDSs ahead of their Mayors being elected but how does this work democratically?
Oh and in a couple of weeks we will see the new consultation draft NPPF, incorporating, we assume, more targeted sets of policies for plan making and for decision taking. And the latest set of housing delivery test outcomes. And throughout, p for politics…
Essay question for the festive period: Is our planning system in practice currently plan-led or application–led? And is this likely to change?
Lastly, thank you Paul Morrison for your work as chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate over the last three years. PINS is the main glue holding the current system together and its performance remains impressive. Congratulations to new interim chief executive Graham Stallwood. No pressure Graham!
Simon Ricketts, 6 December 2025
Personal views, et cetera
Sam Stafford and minister Matthew Pennycook MP at LPDF conference 27 November 2025
“Planning reforms to give greater certainty and strength for development around well-connected rail stations, including trains and trams, will be proposed through a new pro-growth and rules-based National Planning Policy Framework, which will be consulted on later this year.”
“The default “yes” will also apply equally across all local authorities, so that these benefits are seized across the country. The proposals will also include minimum housing density standards for these sites, expected to be exceeded in many cases, to make the most of sustainable growth opportunities for local housing, jobs, and businesses.”
This is all rolling the pitch for what will be in the consultation draft NDMPs next month (NB a convenient acronym – now that the NDMPs are to be non-statutory, I suspect that national development management policies may conveniently switch to national decision-making policies, perhaps less of a tongue twister or is that just me?).
What is “well-connected” and how will national minimum density standards be arrived at? We shall have to be patient and wait for the (large) pre-Christmas consultation package.
The announcement also included a separate proposal:
“Measures will also require councils to inform government when they’re inclined to block applications of 150 homes or more so ministers can decide whether to step in and make the decision instead, making sure that good housing projects don’t get lost.
Particular attention will be paid to those applications where a planning committee intends to refuse it contrary to the advice of planning officers.
Applications called in by ministers will also be sped up through the removal of the mandatory requirement for inquiries, with the option to consider matters through written representations before reaching a decision where appropriate.”
This is big and will require legislation. But it could have a significant effect. In my view the biggest effect would be to create a cooling-off period where a planning committee has resolved to refuse a scheme for 150 homes or more against officers’ recommendations. Not only would the risk of call-in arise before the refusal could be issued but that delay would also lead to the opportunity in practice for the application to return to committee, potentially with a different outcome.
Given that almost 80% of appeals determined by inquiry are currently successful (possibly even higher when it comes to major residential appeals), this surely makes huge sense.
See the fascinating statistics published by Appeal Finder from which I have taken these screenshots:
Written representations determination of some call-ins is an interesting idea – a speedier call-in procedure would be so much more effective (see the way that the Mayor of London uses his call-in power for instance) but how many applicants, looking at these statistics will get nervous as to the prospect of their precious scheme being at the mercy of the written representations process?
Also on 18 November 2025, a consultation paper Reforms to the statutory consultee system was published, with responses due by 13 January 2026. Sport England, The Gardens Trust, and Theatres Trust are proposed no longer to be statutory consultees, with replacement “mitigations” put in place. The criteria are proposed to be tightened for consultation with seven national statutory consultees (see Anne1 for details): The Environment Agency, Natural England, Historic England, National Highways, the Health and Safety Executive, the Mining Remediation Authority and Active Travel England.
Lastly in terms of announcements, we at Town Legal seized that old 2010 concept of “open source planning” to publish our discussion document Simplifying & Standardising Section 106 Agreement Processes: Proposals for Reform which we were pleased to launch in the House of Commons this week through the auspices of the LPDF at an event sponsored by Mike Reader MP (and thank you Lord Charlie Banner for your supportive words too). What do you make of it? Do let us know. We are really keen to reduce the time it takes to conclude section 106 agreements, particularly in relation to small and medium sized schemes. I hope that MHCLG’s consultation package will touch on these issues as well. It is the unglamorous elements of the process that gum up the system, after all.
To quote always-glass-half-full Paul McCartney in that song from the Sergeant Pepper album: “It’s getting better all the time”. To quote John Lennon from the same song (maybe having seen MHCLG’ latest housing supply data on net additional dwellings – 6% decline in housing delivery from last year): “It can’t get no worse”.
The Secretary of State finally said it out loud on 11 November 2025: the proposed National Development Management Policies will be non-statutory. There will be more detail in a speech he will give “in a couple of weeks” and consultation as part of consultation on the NPPF (which presumably the NDMPs will either form part of or partly replace) “later this year” (which I take to mean Christmas Eve, again).
So, sections 93 and 94 of The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 will not be brought into force, we assume. What a lot of wasted energy that was. I’m not going to comment in this post on the rights and wrongs of statutory versus non-statutory NDMPs (even I’m getting bored of that one). But simply to note this latest reminder that we can place too much weight on legislation as an agent of change. Rolling forward, I hope people appreciate that it will take years for much of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to come into force and to have any real effect. And that some of it inevitably will either never get that far or will be subsequently repealed. How much of the long running debate over Part 3, environmental delivery plans, will turn out to be time well spent?
Anyway, let’s move quickly on to my main topic, because I never want to be controversial.
One thing that the government has steadfastly declined to address by way either of legislation, policy or guidance is the question of whether the accommodation by the Home Office of asylum seekers in hotels constitutes, in planning law terms, a material change of use. It would have been easy to signpost a position in one direction or the other. The conclusion that must have been reached is that sometimes the best thing to say is to say nothing at all.
When I last wrote about the saga in my 29 August 2025 blog post Court of Appeal Cuts Down Epping Forest the Court of Appeal in August overturned the interim injunction that the High Court had imposed earlier that month (see my 20 August 2025 blog post Planning Law Is Being Used For Politicking About Asylum Seekers), that would have required the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping for the accommodation of asylum seekers to cease, pending a full hearing into its claim for a final injunction and a declaration that the use was in breach of planning control.
We now have the High Court’s judgment as to whether a final injunction and/or a declaration should be granted: Epping Forest v Somani Hotels Limited (Mould J, 11 November 2025). And the High Court’s ruling is: no and no.
Mould J set out the position under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which provides that where “a local planning authority consider it necessary or expedient for any actual or apprehended breach of planning control to be restrained by injunction, they may apply to the court for an injunction” and that, whilst “the court must not re-assess for itself the local planning authority’s planning judgment which formed the basis for that authority’s decision to apply for the injunction … the factors which, on the evidence before the court, weighed with the local planning authority in making their planning judgment may properly be considered by the court, in the context of reaching its own judgment as to whether the circumstancesof the case are such as to justify the grant of an injunction. Moreover, where as in the present case, the Defendant questions the validity of the local planning authority’s decision to apply for an injunction on public law grounds, the court may properly consider the points raised in the exercise of its discretion whether or not to grant the injunction.”
Mould J went through the various considerations:
whilst he was prepared to accept that the “local planning authority had at least a reasonable basis for alleging and asserting that the current use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers is in breach of planning control”, this “is not a case in which conventional enforcement measures taken by the local planning authority over a lengthy period of time have failed to secure the effective remediation of a clear breach of planning control, which has resulted in and continues”
there were serious gaps in the record of the decision making which led to the conclusion that an injunction should be sought;
contrary to the council’s assertions, in the light of the actual chain of events and communications the hotel had not “acted in flagrant breach of planning control”
any harm to the green belt and conservation area by way of the security fencing in place was “limited by the fact that it is localised and very likely to be temporary in its duration, with the fencing likely to be removed no later than by April 2026, when the Defendant’s current contract with CTM comes to an end. Moreover, the fencing was installed in response to street protests, rather than being an integral requirement of the use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers”
in terms of retaining existing visitor accommodation “the degree of harm resulting from that can be argued to be limited both by the temporary nature of the current use of the Bell and by virtue of the economic advantage to the Defendant of that current use, which is expected to assist in bringing the hotel back into conventional use in the longer term”
“I have heard no evidence to support the concern that the current use of the Bell is placing local GP, health, social and community services under undue pressure, to the detriment of the settled population of Epping. There is no evidential basis at all for the assertion that asylum seekers as a cohort have a greater propensity than the settled population to engage in criminal or anti-social behaviour”
“I have carefully considered the degree of planning and environmental harm which may reasonably be said to result from the actions or alleged actions of the three individuals accommodated at the Bell who have been convicted or charged with criminal offences since April 2025 … I accept that, in the light of those actions or alleged actions, the fears and concerns of local residents of which I have been made aware in evidence have a reasonable basis. However, the resulting degree of planning and environmental harm is limited, in my view. It has not been established that those fears and concerns are grounded in the use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers. They are properly to be regarded as the understandable reaction of local residents to the well-publicised criminal behaviour, actual and alleged, of three individuals who happen to have been accommodated there”
“Public opposition to the development of land, even if that opposition manifests itself in street protests, is not in itself evidence of planning or environmental harm generated by the development to which there is such strong objection”
“There are countervailing factors in this case which are properly to be weighed in the balance against the planning and environment harm which may reasonably be said to result from the postulated breach of planning control. In particular, the evidence before me clearly establishes that there is a continuing need to source contingency accommodation for asylum seekers from hotels, to enable the Home Secretary to discharge her statutory responsibilities under the 1999 Act. That consideration carries significant weight”
There is “no duty as such placed upon a local planning authority to enforce against unauthorised development simply because it is considered to be in breach of planning control. An informed planning judgment is required of the local planning authority as to whether enforcement action is appropriate; and, if so, as to whether the harm caused by the unauthorised development is of such a degree as to merit restraint by injunction. Proper and effective planning control is not undermined by the normal enforcement regime, which permits a person served with an enforcement notice to appeal against that notice and, unless a stop notice is served, to continue with the alleged breach of planning control at least until that appeal has been determined by the Secretary of State”
Bringing all that together:
“I have reached the clear conclusion that this is not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction. I give due respect to the Claimant’s judgment that the current use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers constitutes a material change in the use of those premises which requires planning permission. Nevertheless, I have not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response to that postulated breach of planning control. The breach is far from being flagrant. Conventional methods of enforcement have not been taken. Taking a broad view, the degree of planning and environmental harm resulting from the current use of the Bell is limited. The continuing need for hotels as an important element of the supply of contingency accommodation to house asylum seekers in order to enable the Home Secretary to discharge her statutory responsibilities is a significant counterbalancing factor. This is decidedly not a case in which there is an abuse of planning control resulting in serious planning or environmental harm which now demands an urgent remedy. In my judgment, it is not appropriate to grant an injunction on the Claimant’s application for the purpose of restraining the use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers.”
“It remains open to the Claimant as local planning authority to consider the expediency of taking enforcement action by issuing an enforcement notice. It is also open to the Defendant to reconsider whether it would be appropriate to apply for retrospective planning permission; or to apply to the Claimant for a certificate of lawfulness of the existing use of the Bell pursuant to section 191 of the 1990 Act. Each of those possible courses of action would enable the planning issues raised by this case to be evaluated by the local planning authority, through the transparent and consultative decision-making processes with public participation which apply under the 1990 Act and its attendant regulations.”
As for the application for a declaration that “the current use of the Bell does not amount to use as a hotel within the meaning of Use Class C1”:
Given the statutory procedures available for this to be determined, either by way of applications for certificates of lawfulness or by way of the making of an enforcement notice (and if necessary the determination of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate) “it will rarely be appropriate for this court to seek to resolve them beforehand through the grant of declaratory relief. In the present case, I consider that there is at least a real possibility that the Claimant and the Secretary of State on an appeal may be called upon, in the context of those statutory procedures, to determine the ongoing dispute as to whether the current use of the Bell constitutes development requiring planning permission. I have found it to be neither necessary nor appropriate to reach my own conclusions on those questions for the purpose of determining the Claimant’s application for an injunction. Instead, I have ultimately deferred to the Claimant’s judgment as local planning authority in alleging and asserting a breach of planning control. I have already addressed the propriety of the Claimant’s conclusion that it was necessary or expedient for that alleged and asserted breach of planning control to be restrained by an injunction.”
Practical outcome: the question remains unanswered by the courts as to whether, and in what circumstances, the accommodation of asylum seekers in a hotel amounts to a material change of use. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that the judgment seeks, by way of its dissection of the issues, to dampen down the moral panic that led to officer and councillor decisions to bring this litigation in the first place instead of relying on the usual statutory planning framework and processes.
Will the legal question ever be determined by the courts? I suppose it might, but most likely by way of a legal challenge to an inspector’s decision following an appeal arising from an enforcement notice or from refusal of a certificate of lawfulness. And even then, that determination will be specific to the facts and to the application of relevant local policies.
Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I do like flags as much as the next person. I flagged these two passages in particular:
“There is no evidential basis at all for the assertion that asylum seekers as a cohort have a greater propensity than the settled population to engage in criminal or anti-social behaviour”
“Public opposition to the development of land, even if that opposition manifests itself in street protests, is not in itself evidence of planning or environmental harm generated by the development to which there is such strong objection”
tl;dr summary: positive direction but concerns about potential complexities, uncertainties and as to whether it will all be in place speedily enough.
We’re all now waiting for the consultation to start “over six weeks from November” (fair play, at least no “by the end of Autumn” fudge).
There are plenty of detailed issues arising, and differing interests will want to re-prioritise the measures in different ways, but I thought I would set out four key asks that I have, which in my view should be specifically addressed in the consultation documents:
Should there be more focus on stalled sites that already have planning permission?
This is the lowest hanging fruit. And yet all we have (in paragraphs 33 and 34) is a reference to the potential for renegotiating previously agreed arrangements by way of deed of variation and discouragement as to the use of section 73.
This isn’t enough. I set out the current procedural constraints in my 18 October 2025 blog post London Stalling.
Procedurally, bar reintroducing section 106BA or, for a temporary period, amending section 106A to reduce the 5 years’ requirement, at the very least we need:
Specific encouragement for local planning authorities to accept developers’ requests to engage with the process of varying existing agreements where specific criteria (consistent with the direction of the policy note) are met, linked to some sort of oversight, monitoring and/or route for complaint where authorities refuse to engage (given that unless your section 106 agreement is at least five years’ old, or unless this is in the context of a section 73 application (of which more in a moment) there is no right of appeal on the part of the developer)
Not the current suggestion that the section 73 process “should no longer be used as an alternative means of reconsidering fundamental questions of scheme viability or planning obligations” but rather a proper recognition of the real challenge of keeping planning permissions, and associated planning obligations packages, up to date as against changing circumstances and the important role that section 73 plays in this. Attempts to make currently unviable schemes viable invariably involve an intertwined mix of scheme changes and changes to planning obligations. Section 73B, introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, is less useful as only the implications of the proposed changes are to be taken into account rather than considering the amended proposal holistically against the current development plan and other material considerations. This all needs to be connected up with the continuing problem that Hillside creates for amendments to projects (I was pleased to see Baroness Taylor confirm this week, on behalf of the government, in response to Lord Banner’s tabled amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, that the government will “explore with the sector” a “statutory role for drop-in permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments”. This is so important!).
Is late stage (as opposed to early stage) review necessary in relation to the proposed “time-limited planning route”?
In basic summary, this route is where a residential scheme can commit to at least 20% affordable housing with a 60/40 social rent/intermediate tenure split with planning permission issued by the end of March 2028. If the first floor of the scheme has not been built by 31 March 2030 (in the case of larger phased schemes, in the case of any phase where the first floor of buildings providing at least 200 dwellings has not been built by that date), “a late review will be undertaken once 75 per cent of homes within the scheme or the final phase are occupied to determine whether a higher contribution for affordable housing can be made”.
Why the late stage review mechanism in these circumstances, rather than the early stage review that is currently the case with fast track schemes that don’t achieve substantial implantation by the specified deadline under London Plan policy H5? Late stage reviews unnecessarily spook funders and lenders, leaving the eventual outcome too late in the process – and also having the public policy disbenefit of being too late to allow for any further affordable housing, that can be unlocked via the review, to be accommodated within the scheme. There is also inconsistency with paragraph 30 which suggests another approach for multi-phase schemes: “For multi-phase schemes, a review of the scheme will apply prior to the start of each phase for which the milestone in paragraph 27 has not been reached, to determine whether additional affordable housing can be provided in subsequent phases.”
Isn’t it better to keep things simple and follow, where possible, the existing mechanisms within policy H5, just with the thresholds temporarily reduced?
Are there unnecessary difficulties with introducing a viability test into the proposed CIL relief?
Permissions which are secured via the new time-limited planning route that commence after the relief is in place and but before December 2028 will qualify for at least 50% relief from borough CIL (NB is this 50% after reliefs and exemptions have been applied and what will be the calibration to work out the higher level of relief where the scheme is delivering more than 20% affordable housing?), but the relief would be “contingent upon meeting proportionate qualifying criteria to ensure relief is targeted at schemes which would otherwise remain stalled or fail to come forwards, with a lower relief applicable where the full available amount is shown not to be warranted.” This sounds complicated. With this hurdle in place, not only would the developer not know whether they will qualify for the relief until planning permission is granted and they receive their liability notice, but it means that the purported advantage with the time-limited planning route of not having to undertake viability assessment is illusory, because the work will be needed in any event to secure the CIL relief – and the requirement will surely be very hard to turn into workable legislative drafting – we know how difficult exceptional circumstances relief is to secure due to the various criteria and requirements built into that particular mechanism.
Are the proposed additional powers to be given to the Mayor enough?
Boroughs would be required to “refer planning schemes of 50 units or more where the borough is minded to refuse the application – this would be a more streamlined process operating alongside the existing referral threshold of 150 units which applies regardless of a borough’s intended decision, and would ensure that the Mayor was able to review whether the right decision had been reached in the context of the housing crisis.”
But there may well be cases where schemes are being held up at borough level, either pre-resolution or post resolution whilst for instance the section 106 agreement is being negotiated, and where securing planning permission by the end of March 2028 will be critical under this package of measures. Here, speedy intervention, or threatened intervention, by the Mayor could really help. So, for this time limited period at least, why not allow the Mayor to intervene at any time after the end of the statutory determination period in relation to any scheme comprising at least 50 dwellings? Otherwise, that absolute cut of the end of March 2028 for grant of planning permission will need to some flex built in to allow for the possibility of appeal etc.
I’ll confine myself to those four although I have others, and I know that you do too…
NB none of this is to be churlish as to the scale of the task that MHCLG and the GLA have before them. It is of course by no means easy to get this package right and to avoid unintended consequences.
SIMONICITY 