Back To The Future: New Town Planning

Where are we now on the new towns (the new new towns and some instances new old towns) following the government’s latest 23 March 2026 announcements and further consultation?

We now have MHCLG’s New Towns Draft Programme, with its Annex A: Draft New Towns Planning Policy and accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment (prepared by WSP),  all for consultation until 19 May 2026.

“Following this consultation and completion of the SEA and Habitats Regulation Assessments, the government intends to publish final proposals and confirm the New Town programme locations later in summer 2026.”

You will recall MHCLG’s 28 September 2025 initial government response to the New Towns Taskforce’s report published that day. As at that point the government was welcoming all 12 potential new town locations recommended by the taskforce and started a strategic environmental assessment process to “to understand the environmental implications of new towns development. This will support final decisions on precisely which locations we take forward. No final decisions on locations will be made until that SEA concludes and preferred locations could change as a result of the process.”

At that stage: “We are determined to get spades in the ground on at least three new towns in this Parliament and the government is prepared to progress work on a far larger range of locations if it proves possible.”

The March 2026 draft programme sets out the objectives for the new towns programme under the following headings: scale (to comprise, or form part of, a new place comprising at least 10,000 homes); economic growth; spread (“geographically spread across England”); deliverability; placemaking.

13 locations have been assessed (the additional one to last year being the “urban regeneration of several sites and delivery of over 48,000 new homes at South Barking in East London”).

As a result of the further assessment work, subject to the outcome of consultation, the government is proposing to take forward seven locations:

  • Tempsford
  • Crews Hill and Chase Park, Enfield
  • Leeds South Bank
  • Manchester Victoria North
  • Thamesmead, Greenwich
  • Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc, South Gloucestershire
  • Milton Keynes

The first three are “priority interventions”. Manchester and Thamesmead are “exciting opportunities already in train where the government will provide assistance to maximise development opportunities”. The last two are “scalable schemes of considerable potential where the government will provide support for initial phases while exploring opportunities to further scale up development”.

The six locations not shortlisted “also meet the programme objectives and are propositions that represent credible development opportunities. However, we have had to prioritise central government resources on those sites which have the greatest potential for transformational impact. By meeting our programme objectives, the government has assessed that these 6 locations are strong propositions. Insofar as possible, we are supportive of these sites coming forward as large sites through our established programmes and interventions.”

What does it actually mean to be one of the shortlisted locations? It is intended that there be a “flexible and supportive implementation plan” for each location including: bespoke funding packages; advice and support on delivery vehicle set-up; “programme governance at senior level, with a New Towns Unit (NTU) providing escalation and extra capacity across departments and arm’s‑length bodies, and proactively prioritising resources and innovation for selected locations”; a specific new towns planning policy document which would only apply to the selected new towns, and “establishment of a New Towns Place Review Panel to provide impartial advice to delivery bodies and planning authorities, alongside practical design and placemaking guidance for new town delivery”.

The draft new towns planning policy would take effect once the new towns programme is adopted and would sit alongside the NPPF. Key aspects of the draft policy document:

Development plans should

  • identify New Town locations and their intended scale,  including identifying known boundaries to give clarity on the extent of land for development specifically as a New Town
  • set out the policies that apply specifically to any New Town allocations 
  • identify the infrastructure necessary to support a New Town, both in the early stages of its development and over the longer term, and include measures to support its delivery (such as by allocating land for infrastructure or identifying corridors needed for future infrastructure investment)
  • be consistent with any existing town-wide framework masterplan and town-wide design code prepared to set out the vision for development in each New Town

In decision-making:

  • Substantial weight should be given to the social and economic benefits of New Towns when considering proposals for their development. Where development proposals within a New Town would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it is likely that that such development would constitute the very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 
  • “To support the development of New Towns and prevent development that would have an unacceptable impact on their delivery, development proposals within identified New Town areas should be consistent with” appended New Towns Placemaking Principles at Appendix A to the draft policy and any emerging or adopted framework masterplan and design code for the New Town. The placemaking principles “include a minimum target of 40% affordable housing, of which at least half are to be available for social rent. The government believes that this should be the expectation for all sites within the programme, while recognising some locations will be more able to meet the target than others, according to local conditions such as the volume of development on brownfield land.”
  • Development proposals in identified New Town areas should be refused if they would have a clear adverse effect on the proposed scale, location or phasing of New Town proposals.
  • Development proposals outside of New Town areas should not have an adverse impact on the delivery of New Towns, including in relation to consistency with Appendix A: New Towns Placemaking Principles.

There is long-awaited confirmation in the draft programme that “…the government considers that the delivery of housing in new town proposals should contribute towards meeting the identified housing need of relevant strategic and LPAs in all instances.”

On land assembly:

“The programme sets ambitious expectations for the quality of infrastructure and placemaking in new town developments. As these locations will require substantial new infrastructure, land values are expected to be affected accordingly.

Subject to the relevant legal requirements and environmental assessments, the organisations responsible for delivering new towns will seek to assemble land at the earliest appropriate stage. Their initial approach will be to work with landowners to acquire land through voluntary negotiation. Where negotiations are not successful, the use of compulsory purchase powers may be considered to ensure that land can be planned and delivered comprehensively and that the public value generated through land value capture is maximised.

Any uplift in land value arising from planning decisions and infrastructure investment can then be reinvested to support the provision of affordable housing, community facilities, and other essential public services.”

The next steps:

“Following this consultation and completion of the Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessments, the government intends to publish final proposals and confirm the new towns locations later in the Summer. We will publish a full government response to the recommendations of the New Towns Taskforce, including more detail on how our confirmed locations will be delivered in line with our ambition for the programme.

Following confirmation of which locations will be taken forward through the New Towns Programme, the government will use every lever at its disposal to prioritise early delivery of homes and infrastructure. This includes establishing clear programme governance through a single front door to government, agreeing delivery vehicles for selected locations, and mobilising funding and business case work with local partners to enable infrastructure-first masterplanning.

Community engagement is a core part of the placemaking approach set out in our programme objectives. The government will continue to engage with communities, local authorities, delivery bodies, and investors throughout this process to ensure that new towns are planned and delivered to the highest standards of design, sustainability, and long-term stewardship. This consultation will be the first of many opportunities for people to shape the design and creation of the next generation of new towns. Tailored to each location, these opportunities will include formal routes such as future place-specific consultations as well in-person engagement and social impact activities to ensure residents and businesses have a key role in shaping their future community throughout the lifetime of the programme.”

Onwards!

(Incidentally, our 1 June “Ten Years’ Time” event is now sold out (thank you all). I’ll be interested to ask our panellists what 2036 holds for the programme. Wouldn’t it be fascinating to have a time machine?).

Simon Ricketts, 12 April 2026

Personal views, et cetera.

“Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads”.

(Image courtesy of Roger Ce, Unsplash)

Further Measures To Discourage LPA Refusals Of Large Housing Schemes…Activated

Once we are the other side of the local elections, there are a couple of procedural changes to be aware of which take effect from 11 May, both flagged in my 8 March 2026 blog post Planning Committees That Refuse Planning Applications Against Officers’ Advice: 5 Impending Procedural Protections for Applicants.

The Government has introduced requirements for local planning authorities to consult the Secretary of State before refusing applications for planning permission for developments of 150 or more homes, and to consult the Mayor of London before refusing applications for planning permission for developments for 50 or more homes in London. The relevant legislation comprises:

The Consultation Direction applies to applications for planning permission which (a) include provision of 150 or more houses and/or flats and (b) which have not been determined by a Local Planning Authority before 11 May 2026 (“Relevant Development”).

It provides that the LPA, where it proposes to refuse a planning application for Relevant Development, must consult the Secretary of State before finally determining the application.

The LPA must send the following as soon as practicable to MHCLG:

– Application documents;

– A copy of the requisite notice;

– A copy of representations made to the authority relating to the application;

– A copy of any report on the application made by an officer of the authority; and

– A statement of the LPA’s proposed reasons for refusal where not contained in a report.

The Mayor of London Order amends the powers under The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 which enable the Mayor of London to direct that he determine applications for certain developments himself.

Developments which fall under Category 3D, which includes development involving the construction of buildings with over 1,000 square metres of floor space or a material change of use of such a building, on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, and of Potential Strategic Importance (within the meaning of the 2008 Order), may now be called in for determination by the Mayor of London.

In addition, a new category of development is inserted into the Schedule to the 2008 Order: Category 3J. Category 3J concerns applications for the development of more than 50 houses and/or flats (“Relevant London Development”).

The Mayor of London Order requires an LPA to notify the Mayor of London when it receives a planning application for Relevant London Development. There is no requirement for the Mayor of London to respond.

The LPA will also be unable to refuse planning permission for Relevant London Development without (a) further notifying the Mayor of London, and (b) waiting for 21 days to pass beginning with the date the Mayor of London is notified in writing and which the relevant documents are received. The relevant documents required to be provided to the Mayor of London are slightly different to that required under the Consultation Direction. These include:

– A copy of representations made to the authority relating to the application;

– A copy of any report on the application made by an officer of the authority;

– A statement setting out the reasons the LPA proposes to refuse the applications, giving full reasons for that proposed refusal; and

– A statement setting out any proposed planning conditions, a draft of any proposed planning obligations, and details of any proposed planning contribution.

For Relevant Development, the appropriate point at which the documents should be sent will be once either the relevant LPA planning committee has resolved to refuse the application, or once an officer has reached that decision in exercise of the officer’s delegated powers.

The Secretary of State will then have an initial period of 21 days within which to decide whether to call-in for his own determination the application. Within that period, he could of course use his existing power under Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 to direct the local planning authority to delay further its decision in order to give himself further time to decide whether to exercise his call-in powers.

For Relevant London Development, notice must be provided to the Mayor of London at two points: (1) when the LPA receives an application for Relevant London Development and (2) when the LPA planning committee resolves to refuse an application for Relevant London Development, or once an officer reaches that decision under his delegated powers. In the latter case, notice of all the relevant documents listed above must be provided to the Mayor of London and he will similarly have a period of 21 days within which to decide whether to call-in the application for Relevant London Development for his own determination.

[Thanks to my colleague Adam Choudhury for allowing me to use for the above an internal summary he prepared this week for the Town Legal team].

So, this is an interesting ratcheting up of the level of scrutiny applied to decisions by local planning authorities to refuse planning permission for major housing development. But, in the timeless words of Morrissey, what difference will it make?

Of course, there may be some gaming of the system, when is there not? Some local planning authorities may choose to defer decisions, leaving applicants in a dilemma as to whether to appeal on the basis of non-determination. There will be even more need for applicants to make sure that application packages are robustly prepared and in a good state to be subject to the scrutiny of the Secretary of State or Mayor as the case may be, both in terms of legal compliance but also in terms of pressing the right political and planning policy buttons. And the Secretary of State and Mayor of London will need to play their part, by exercising those call-in powers appropriately and thereafter proceeding to determine applications without undue delay.

But, overall, surely, this is all positive…

[For more discussion on this subject I recommend yesterday’s 50 Shades of Planning podcast Some Things Just Take Time].

Since my 8 March 2026 blog post we also now of course MHCLG’s 26 March 2026 Planning committee reform: statutory consultation on draft Regulations and guidance, together with MHCLG’s response in relation to its earlier consultation process, as well as the draft Regulations which are due to come into force on 30 September 2026. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook made a written ministerial statement  the same day. In basic summary, Schedule 1 of the draft Regulations lists those applications which must be determined by an officer. Schedule 2 lists those applications which may be determined by an officer unless the authority’s nominated officer and nominated member agree that the proposal raises:

  • one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area
  • one or more significant planning matters having regard to the development plan and any other material consideration

When taken with the new procedures for written representations appeals now in effect for applications submitted from 1 April (see my 15 April 2026 blog post Don’t Be An April Fool: Written Reps Planning Appeals Are About To Get Faster But Also Riskier), Mr Pennycook is soon going to be in a position to say to developers (again in the words of Morrissey):

You’ve got everything now.

Simon Ricketts, 5 April 2026

Personal views, et cetera

NB Thank you to subscribers who have already bought tickets for our 1 June event. In fact, we have been blown away with the interest. If it’s not already sold out it soon will be, so I don’t yet know whether any tickets will be left for general sale on Tuesday. Well I wonder.

Pre-Sale Now Open Until 7 April: Tickets to 1 June Event “Ten Years’ Time”

There aren’t many perks to subscribing to this blog but here’s one: I described this forthcoming unique event, featuring a range of well known planning and planning law bloggers, podcasters and writers, in my 15 March blog post. We hope to raise a good amount of money for London youth charity XLP.

There are only 120 tickets available and you have the opportunity, before they go on general sale on 7 April 2026, to secure places for yourself and colleagues at this link. First come first served.

Many thanks indeed to the generous sponsors of this event without which et cetera: Town Legal; Lichfields; Birketts; DHA; Origin Legal.

Simon Ricketts

“The Government And The Mayor Now Expect Boroughs, Developers And Delivery Partners To Make Full Use Of These Measures To Approve And Build The Homes That Londoners Urgently Need”

The government’s and Mayor of London’s final package of support for housebuilding in the capital  (25 March 2026) (published alongside the London Mayor’s Support for Housebuilding London Plan Guidance and the government’s consultation outcome document) has been substantially enhanced since my 13 December 2025 blog post on the initial draft and my earlier 1 November 2025 blog post where I set out certain key asks.

The final package goes some way to addressing my three main asks:

The requirement for a late stage (as opposed to an early stage) review mechanism has been removed from the time-limited planning route – and the qualifying timescale has been extended:

“Certain elements of the proposed planning route have been adjusted. The route will now be open to applications submitted and validated by 31 March 2028 [the draft package proposed that schemes had to be consented by that date], by which time the new London Plan is expected to have been adopted. The Late Stage gain-share mechanism has also been replaced by an Early Stage Review – aligning directly with the GLA’s current Fast Track Route – with no further reviews required beyond this. The Early Stage Review will be triggered where an agreed build out milestone is not met within a stipulated time period – with a default position comprising of a build out milestone of a first-floor slab to be achieved within 30 months starting from the grant of planning permission. Flexibility will also be allowed for boroughs and housebuilders to agree differently defined build out milestones and time periods for achieving this milestone – appropriate to the circumstances of the site and reflecting the imperative to incentivise starting construction and housing delivery.”

“Any Early Stage Review should be carried out in accordance with Mayoral Guidance and where a surplus is identified, 100 per cent of this should be provided to the LPA. Where this surplus is sufficient to support on site social and affordable housing provision, the additional social and affordable homes should be provided within the development prior to the occupation of a specified proportion of market units. Where the surplus identified is insufficient to support on site provision, the surplus should be paid to the LPA as a financial contribution prior to the occupation of a specified proportion of the market units”.

The viability test within the CIL relief that is available has been simplified and the qualifying timescale has been extended:

“This emergency relief will now apply to eligible schemes commencing before 31 March 2030,  with further simplified requirements and processes to access the relief and get schemes moving.” (The previously proposed deadline was 31 December 2028).

“We now propose to:

  1. require viability evidence, but: (i) it will be sufficient for developments to demonstrate through a residual appraisal that they are unviable currently – rather than evidence that the CIL relief is demonstrably necessary to make the development viable; and (ii) clarify that the statutory declarations which must accompany viability evidence should confirm that any inputs and assumptions are fair and reasonable at the point of the application (recognising that these can change over time)
  2. amend the commencement deadline to 31 March 2030 (reflecting the changes made to the time limited planning route timescales) and set a default expectation of 5 years from commencement to completion (with the ability to deviate from this on a case-by-case basis through agreement between boroughs and developers), with relief being clawed back where this is not met.
  3. to restrict access to CIL relief to residential floorspace, but clarify that relief will not be limited to entirely residential developments (i.e. residential units within mixed use developments will be able to qualify, provided they also meet all other relevant criteria).
  4. focus relief on developments which do not predominantly take place on “excluded land”, but clarify that, where developments straddle multiple types of land with a limited portion on “excluded land”, these will be in scope of relief.
  5. limit relief to developments delivering a minimum of 20 per cent social and affordable housing (the first 10 per cent nil grant), with a higher level of relief available for schemes delivering up to 35 per cent social and affordable housing, but: (i) require a higher minimum of 35 per cent social and affordable housing on public sector and industrial land (where industrial floorspace capacity has not been re-provided) to align with the time limited route; (ii) clarify that at least 60 per cent social rent must be provided, but where social and affordable homes are provided above 35 per cent, their tenure is flexible (noting CIL relief is only available up to 35 per cent); and (iii) allow Build-to-Rent developments to meet a different test to the social rent requirement, aligning with the requirements of the time limited route to better reflect the nature of their delivery model.
  6. limit relief to developments attracting a whole-scheme borough-level CIL liability of over £500,000 on eligible residential floorspace, and clarify that, for multi-phased developments where the CIL on later phases is not yet certain, an estimate of overall liability may be provided.” [my emboldening]

“We intend to liaise with London boroughs, developers and other stakeholders on the implementation of the emergency relief from CIL and we intend to consult on the draft CIL amending regulations as soon as possible in the spring.”

There is now more focus on stalled sites that already have planning permission:

“In some cases, there will be existing consents at higher levels of social and affordable housing than the 20 per cent minimum proposed via the Time Limited Route. Where such schemes are unviable and therefore stalled – in keeping with the stated objectives – immediate steps should be taken to get these schemes moving and accelerate the delivery of homes for Londoners.”

The first step should be to be to seek grant to maximise the level of social and affordable housing. Applicants should also factor in the availability of the time-limited emergency CIL relief. Importantly:

“Having explored the availability of grant and factored in the available CIL relief, it may remain necessary to amend the scheme due to remaining viability challenges. As the Mayor of London Support for Housebuilding LPG makes clear, applicants who seek to amend their schemes in line with the terms of the new time limited route are not required to submit a full viability assessment. In such instances, applicants would need to seek a deed of variation to the Section 106 agreement and submit a Section 73 application where amendments to conditions are required. Again, the Government and Mayor are clear that ensuring schemes progress and housebuilding is accelerated is the priority, and local planning authorities are strongly encouraged to support applications that meet these minimum levels and conform to the eligibility criteria under the time limited route.” (my emboldening).

It’s time to get to work. The final sentence could indeed be read in part as a veiled threat to those who don’t play ball – whether from the private or public sector:

“The Government and the Mayor now expect boroughs, developers and delivery partners to make full use of these measures to approve and build the homes that Londoners urgently need.”

Simon Ricketts, 25 March 2026

Personal views, et cetera

The Law Is An… Assets of Community Value Further Proposed Changes Announced

The current assets of community value regime was introduced by sections 81 to 108 of the Localism Act 2011. If you don’t have the now quite out of date book Localism and Planning gathering dust on your bookshelf, which my Town Legal colleague Duncan Field and I wrote in 2012, with assistance from various colleagues present (Meeta Kaur and Juliet Munn) and past, there is a useful summary in this House of Commons library research briefing.

I commented on some aspects of the regime in my 11 July 2018 blog post 2 ACV Disputes .

Beware, the regime is about to have sharper teeth, by way of provisions in the English Devolution And Community Empowerment Bill  (see my 11 July 2025 blog post A Bluffer’s Guide To The English Devolution And Community Empowerment Bill).

As introduced on 10 July 2025, what was Schedule 27 (now Schedule 29) of the Bill introduces the separate category of “sporting assets of community value”, providing enhanced protection for sports grounds and their supporting facilities. To quote from the explanatory notes to the Bill: “The amendments in this clause provide for the automatic and indefinite listing of sporting assets of community value. This Schedule also broadens the scope of what can be included within a listing, allowing assets that support the functioning of a sports ground, such as car parks, to be indefinitely listed as assets of community value.” In contrast to the five years’ period for listing of a asset of community value under the current legislation, after which the listing is to be reviewed, in some circumstances the listing of a sporting asset of community interest will have permanent effect.

 There are other changes but the most important is to give community groups greater influence where they make a bid to acquire an asset of community value once its intended disposal is publicised (you will recall that there is an initial six weeks’ moratorium period to give groups a chance to make a bid which is extended to six months if any groups indicate that they wish to bid). Rather than, as currently, the landowner being free to decline any bid made, the Bill “introduces a ‘right of first refusal’ for community groups, who will have the first option of purchasing an asset of community value that is put up for sale. This new section also sets out the circumstances in which an asset owner is able to sell an asset that is listed as an asset of community value to a buyer that is not a community buyer.” The Bill provides a process for determining the “price negotiation between the asset owner and  the community group and the role of the local authority in relation to this negotiation process” including a meeting as soon as possible between the asset group and the community buyer and for an independent valuation process if the community buyer and asset owner do not agree on a price for the asset within an eight week negotiation period. Rather than the owner being free to sell the asset on the open market if they wish, the “new provision will mean that, where an owner and the community buyer are not able to agree a purchase price for the asset during the negotiation period, there is an independent valuation process to ensure a fair price is obtained for both parties. This will be based on market value and carried out by an authorised valuation officer from District Valuer Services, unless there are circumstances which mean it is not realistic for the local authority to make this appointment. The community buyer will need to meet this price in order to purchase the asset.”

The six months’ moratorium period is extended to 12 months with “a new provision whereby the owner of the asset can request that the local authority reviews the progress made by the community buyer at the six-month point of the process, with the ability to terminate the process if adequate progress is not demonstrated. This will protect the rights of owners where the community buyer has no realistic prospect of purchasing the asset.”

This clearly gives additional power to community groups in the process and creates additional jeopardy for landowners.

But that power/jeopardy is now proposed to be further increased, by way of amendments that the government has made to the Bill, referred to in an MHCLG 18 March 2026 press statement New amendments will create safer streets, champion culture, and strengthen local accountability under the English Devolution Bill:

“Communities will have far longer to save the pubs, parks, libraries and local spaces that matter most to them, with the Community Right to Buy listing period doubling from five to 10 years.”

The Bill completed the Lords Committee Stage on 5 March 2026. The Lords Report Stage runs from 24 March to 13 April 2026.

The changes to the ACV process have had surprisingly little publicity to date. I think we need to catch up. Will this strengthening of the assets of community value process have unanticipated consequences? I suspect that they will. Landowners should be even more aware of uses on their land which may give rise to the future risk of ACV listing and/or they will need to plan for the possible consequences. Might the fear of listing mean that owners are more reluctant to introduce “meanwhile” uses pending redevelopment? Indeed someone suggested to me this week that perhaps there should be a process whereby some form of immunity from listing might be sought in order to enable temporary uses to be introduced without giving rise to the risk that longer term redevelopment plans may be prejudiced?

If nothing else, this regime is going to become significantly more complicated and, from time to time, more adversarial. Is now really the right time to make these changes?

Simon Ricketts, 22 March 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Save The Date: Live Event 1 June 2026

I would have put the title of the event in the header: Ten Years’ Time. However, it may have confused you given that the event will be this year rather than in 2036. To explain:

I had the sobering thought a while ago that this blog is ten years’ old at the beginning of June. I wanted to do something to mark that.

Why not bring together in one room for one time only some other opinionated planning and planning law bloggers, podcasters and writers?

And, in so doing, why not help London youth charity XLP?

So from 4.30pm until 7pm on Monday 1 June (followed by an informal drinks reception), the following people have all kindly agreed to be panellists at what I hope will be a unique, thought/smile/frown provoking, event:

Instead of looking back over the ten years and 508 posts so far of Simonicity, what I want to do is to look forward. We’re now 10 years on from 2016. So much has changed and yet so little. What can we expect in our planning and planning law world for 2036? How can we influence it for the better? What we all do as planners and planning lawyers boils down to trying to predict and influence future outcomes – but for most of us (certainly not the lawyers) not looking ahead so long. We are going to arrange those mentioned into two panels which I will chair. I want some unique and challenging perspectives from them – and from those of you in attendance.

Priority access tickets will be on sale from 2 April to subscribers of any of the blogs and podcasts mentioned – I will be circulating an Eventbrite link that day with details also of the City venue for the event which only has a 120-seat capacity.

Any remaining tickets will go more generally on sale from 7 April.

All proceeds will be in aid of XLP and the amazing work they do for young people in London. Tickets will be priced at £40 with a discounted price of £25 for those in the public sector and students.

Do look out for the notification on 2 April and in the meantime do save the date in your diaries if his is of interest.

Finally, a few sponsorship opportunities are still available. The event’s confirmed sponsors so far are Town Legal and Lichfields. If this is of interest do contact me.

Simon Ricketts, 15 March 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Planning Committees That Refuse Planning Applications Against Officers’ Advice: 5 Impending Procedural Protections for Applicants

Impending procedural protection #1: a greater proportion of applications being determined by planning officers

Section 54 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 enabled the Secretary of State to make arrangements by regulations that would limit the categories of applications that may be determined by planning committee rather than by officers. The power to make those Regulations has been “switched on” since 18 February 2026. MHCLG’s May 2025 technical consultation closed on 23 July 2025. We await the government’s response to that consultation and the regulations themselves.

Impending procedural protection #2: better training for planning committee members

Section 53 of the 2025 Act enabled the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying mandatory training and certification for planning committee members. This was part of that same technical consultation. Again, the power to make regulations was switched on from 18 February 2026. We await the government’s response to that consultation and the regulations themselves.

Impending procedural protection #3: written representations appeals where the local planning authority will not be able to expand upon its case following refusal

This is an important element of the changes I summarised in my 15 February 2026 blog post Don’t Be An April Fool: Written Reps Planning Appeals Are About To Get Faster But Also Riskier and applicable to appeals resulting from applications made from 1 April 2026 onwards.

I was interested to hear the discussion about what this may mean in practice for those submitting planning applications, on yesterday’s 50 Shades of Planning podcast episode Appeal Ready featuring my Town Legal colleague Lisa Tye.

Impending procedural protection #4: greater potential for call-in by the Secretary of State

As well explained by Nicola Gooch in her 6 March 2026 LinkedIn post, the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Order 2026  was made on Friday which paves the way for the government to require local planning authorities to notify the Secretary of State where they intend to refuse a planning application for 150 dwellings or more, so as to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to call in the application for his own determination (confirmed in the explanatory memorandum that accompanied the Order).

Impending procedural protection #5: (in London) greater potential for the London Mayor to call in applications for his own determination

Consultation closed on 26 January 2026 in relation to MHCLG’s Proposed London Emergency Housing Package, which includes a proposal for permanent changes to the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of  London) Order 2008, the effect of which would be to create a new category of applications referable to the Mayor: those for the development of 50 dwellings or more where the local planning authority proposes to refuse the application. Again, we await the response to consultation and the statutory instrument which will give it effect. The government has also tabled an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill which would in due course enable the Mayor to determine by way of written representations rather than a formal hearing applications he calls in – which could free up GLA officer resources for a greater number of call-ins…

Final comment from me: Lichfields published research, Refused for good reason?  in August 2018, examining what happens to applications on appeal when they are refused by members against officers’ advice (finding that 65% of such appeals were successful compared with 40% where officers had recommended refusal).  Has anyone any more up-to-date statistics? Anecdotally I suspect that the delta remains at least that wide, which is why these are all important proposals.

Simon Ricketts, 8 March 2026

Personal views, et cetera

And Another Thing….Another Misconception About Amending Section 106 Agreements

I really am the person you don’t want to be left sitting next to at the end of an evening in the pub: “and another misconception about amending section 106 agreements…”

This weekend I belatedly set about unpicking that recent Kimblin J judgment in Lancaster City Council v Secretary of State (High Court, 18 February 2026). The case was a legal challenge by the council to an inspector’s decision letter. The inspector had allowed a section 73 appeal that sought to amend a condition attached to a planning permission for the development of 24 homes. The condition required that the housing mix across the site be implemented in accordance with an approved accommodation schedule which was specifically referenced. The proposal was to amend the condition, on grounds of viability, so as to refer to a revised accommodation schedule, which (unlike that which had been previously approved) referred to all of the dwellings for sale in the open market rather than a proportion being affordable. In so doing he had taken into account a deed of variation agreed between the parties which removed from the existing section 106 agreement an obligation that at least 30% of the dwellings be affordable, whilst still requiring the payment of an open space obligation and setting out a mechanism for the provision and ongoing maintenance of certain areas within the proposed development.

Despite having entered into the deed of variation in the course of the appeal, the council’s ground for challenging the inspector’s decision was that somehow in concluding as part of his decision whether it was appropriate for the parties to enter into the deed of variation he should have applied the test in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which is higher than the test to be applied under section 73 as to whether a planning permission condition should be discharged or amended, namely as to whether the original section 106 agreement continued to serve a useful purpose and if so whether it would serve that purpose equally well subject to the modifications in the deed of variation.

The judge sensibly rejected that argument and upheld the permission.

The case possibly does illustrate what we know the government has become vexed about: section 73 applications and appeals being used as a “Trojan horse” to achieve variations to section 106 agreements (albeit there does not appear to me to be anything wrong in law with that approach – equivalent to what happened in the Cuba Street appeal I referred to in my 8 October 2025 blog post London Stalling).

But more directly, it also triggered a different peeve: those local planning authorities that insist that any proposal for a section 106 deed of variation be the subject of a formal application under section 106A, with application form to be completed, notices served etc. This is just yet another example of procedural gold-plating or maybe just a misconception as to how section 106A works.

I think I need to set out relevant parts of the section:

“106A Modification and discharge of planning obligations.

(1 ) A planning obligation may not be modified or discharged except—

  1. by agreement between the authority by whom the obligation is enforceable […] and the person or persons against whom the obligation is enforceable; or
  1. in accordance with

(i) this section and section 106B […]

Site Icon

(2) An agreement falling within subsection (1)(a) shall not be entered into except by an instrument executed as a deed.

(3) A person against whom a planning obligation is enforceable may, at any time after the expiry of the relevant period, apply to the local planning authority by whom the obligation is enforceable […]  for the obligation—

  1. to have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the application; or
  1. to be discharged.

(4) In subsection (3) “ the relevant period ” means—

  1. such period as may be prescribed; or
  1. if no period is prescribed, the period of five years beginning with the date on which the obligation is entered into.

(5) […]

(6) Where an application is made to an authority under subsection (3), the authority may determine—

a. that the planning obligation shall continue to have effect without modification

    b. if the obligation no longer serves a useful purpose, that it shall be discharged; or

    c. if the obligation continues to serve a useful purpose, but would serve that purpose equally well if it had effect subject to the modifications specified in the application, that it shall have effect subject to those modifications.”

      It will be seen that the general position is that a planning obligation (i.e. section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking) may be modified or discharged (i.e. in practice the subject of a deed of variation) simply by agreement between the local planning authority and those bound by the existing document, with no prior procedural requirements and no specific test for the local planning authority to address before so agreeing.

      What section 106A(3) on the other hand enables is a formal application to be made by a party against whom the obligation is enforceable, if the planning obligation is at least five years old (the government could prescribe a different period for the purposes of sub-section (3) but so far hasn’t) . If it does that, there is the specific test in subsection (6) for the authority to apply before determining whether to grant the application. If the authority refuses the application or doesn’t determine it within the statutory period the applicant can appeal to the Secretary of State pursuant to section 106B (for a recent example of a decision in relation to such an appeal see here).

      Not only does this explain for the purposes of the Lancaster case why the subsection (6) test was entirely inappropriate but it also identifies why authorities should not insist upon a formal application process where the person requesting the variation is not proceeding by way of subsection (3).

      Of course, this does mean that, unless there is a specific publicity commitment set out in the relevant authority’s constitution or statement of community involvement, the local community may not have sight of any proposed deed of variation before it is completed. However in my view this is neither required directly by Article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 or as a result of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R (Greenfield (IOW) Limited v Isle of Wight Council (Court of Appeal, 16 April 2025) – a case which in my view has led to further unnecessary delays in the completion of agreements and the issue of planning permission but…

      … I see that last orders have been called and I think you quietly moved away to another table some time ago now.

      Simon Ricketts, 1 March 2026

      Personal views et cetera

      LGR, SDSs, SPBs & Other TLAs

      I’ve written before about the need to Keep It Simple Stupid.

      The restructuring of the English planning system, as described in my 19 December 2025 blog post Framework Good Work, might turn out to be one of the lasting achievements of this government – a coherent tiered structure with the opportunity for faster, simpler, plan-making with all the benefits and efficiencies which flow from that predictability – but that good work may be undone, not least at the ballot box, if it is not widely understood or supported. Or if elected positions are secured primarily for the purposes of pursuing politics, providing a platform, rather than positive planning.

      Further progress has been made this month, with the consultation until 26 March 2026 on areas for producing spatial development strategies (MHCLG, 12 February 2026), which accompanied the planning and housing minister’s written ministerial statement that day and letter to council leaders. In particular we now have the draft map:

      Secondary legislation is expected to be laid before Parliament breaks for the Parliamentary summer recess in mid July, with the spatial development strategy (SDS) provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 also to be switched on, meaning that the duty to produce an SDS will then immediately become active. The secondary legislation will provide for the setting up (possibly in more than one wave) of strategic planning boards (SPBs) in those areas where the SDS will be prepared by a combination of authorities.

       The big question though is how can this emerging structure be made understandable and relevant to people, particularly alongside the complexities and uncertainties caused in many areas by the separate process of local government reorganisation?

      I would like to see a “plain English” campaign as to the benefits, in terms of devolved powers, of Mayoral strategic authorities; of the power that strategic authorities’ spatial development strategies will have in directing areas for growth, infrastructure and investment; spelling out to people how quickly all of this will be coming down the track; the benefits that will flow from the new larger unified authorities sitting beneath the strategic tier, and public reassurance as to how the local, neighbourhood, voice will not be lost.

      Some great work has been done, including by the Strategic Planning Group led by Prior + Partners and chaired by Catriona Riddell which led to the May 2025 paper Planning Positively For the Future (by coincidence the group, in which I was pleased to be a member of, met again on 12 February, the day of those announcements. Nice forward planning as always Shaun and Catriona…).

      However, uncertainties remain. Would it be useful to have a “dummy” example of how straightforward and visual an SDS might be?  I do worry about mission creep – you planners love words more than even lawyers do.

      And do we need some greater clarity on “nuts and bolts” questions such as:

      •  what will the starting point be for each SDS in terms of housing numbers? For the purpose of apportioning numbers between the local plan-making authorities within the SDS area, will it simply be the overall number for the SDS area derived from the standard method, subject to the opportunity to reach agreements with other strategic authorities? The challenges are well articulated in a Lichfields blog post Spatial Development Strategy Geographies – Will the map change the landscape? (Edward Clarke, Dominic Bowers & Matthew Spry, 16 February 2026):

      “Analysis of recent housing delivery rates shows that for many SDS areas, housing delivery over the last three years is less than 60% of the local housing need (Figure 3) indicating that new strategies will need to demonstrate a real step change in provision, most likely pursuing spatial approaches to land release that the local plans of the last 15 years did not consider. 

      Across the South East those preparing SDSs will face some of the greatest challenges in meeting housing need. London, Hertfordshire, and Surrey will require building at between 120-150% of the current rates (over the last three years). A similarly big task faces much of the South West of England including Cornwall and Plymouth, Devon and Torbay, where the Government says it awaits to “hear proposals for appropriate SDS geographies”.

      “A particular challenge will arise in the more tightly defined SDS areas such as the West Midlands Combined Authority where the SDS has an acute challenge (one with which the wider West Midlands RSS tried and failed to grapple) accommodating its own development needs within its current administrative boundary. Across the WMCA SDS area, recent delivery is around 65% of the aggregate housing need, but three quarters of the land area is either already built-up or subject to national planning restrictions or the green belt.

      In this, and many other SDS areas, reviewing green belts will be critical to achieve sustainable patterns of development. But the big questions remain as to how effective will be the SDS process in engaging with overlapping housing market or functional economic areas without falling into (a larger-scale version of) the local duty to cooperate trap.”

      • Will SDSs have a role in setting targets for levels of affordable housing? And if so, how do we avoid the slippery slope into viability appraisal?

      I know it hasn’t been an easy ride, politically or administratively: on 16 February 2026 under the pressure of litigation from Reform, it was announced that local government elections will be taking place after all in 30 areas this May which had previously been postponed by the government due to imminent reorganisation in those areas. By contrast, in relation to emerging strategic authority areas under the devolution priority programme (DPP),  in December 2025 MHCLG announced that inaugural Mayoral elections which were due to take place in May 2026 would be delayed by a year in some areas, and by two in others – leading to the prospect of incoming Mayors finding that that the SDS is already underway with limited scope to withdraw or influence it.

      How to explain this complicated new system to non-planners? Indeed, what can we call each of these SDSs for a start, as per the London Plan? We need to avoid the democratic deficit that ultimately sunk the regional assemblies, or worst of all the system faltering before it has been embedded across the country and had a chance fully to prove itself.

      Simon Ricketts, 22 February 2026

      Personal views et cetera

      Don’t Be An April Fool: Written Reps Planning Appeals Are About To Get Faster But Also Riskier

      You need to know how the rules are changing from 1 April 2026 for 94.7% of planning appeals: those that proceed by way of written representations. There are traps for the unwary: whether for appellant, local planning authority or third party.

      The changes have been on the cards since last June – see my 28 June 2025 blog post How Do You Solve A Problem Like…Speeding Up Planning Appeals Without Being Unfair Or Counter Productive?

      On 12 February 2026 the Planning Inspectorate published Planning appeals: procedural guide. For appeals relating to applications dated on or after 1 April 2026  alongside the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) (Amendment and Saving Provision) Regulations 2026 which were laid before Parliament that day.

      The main difference is that the “expedited” or “part 1”  written representations procedure, which currently applies in relation to householder and minor commercial appeals, will be extended to most appeals to be determined by way of written representations, resulting from applications made from 1 April onwards.

      Under the procedure, the appellant is not able to submit evidence at appeal not previously considered by the LPA when they determined the application, leaving the appeal to be determined by the inspector solely by reference to:

      • the application that the LPA determined (including all supporting evidence, plans and interested party comments)
      • the LPA’s decision notice (including their reasons for refusal where applicable)
      • The LPA’s committee minutes and planning officer report
      • The appeal form
      • The LPA’s appeal questionnaire

      Third parties are not able to make further representations at the appeal stage so will have to rely on the inspector taking into account any representations that were made during the course of the application.

      As is already the case with all written representations appeals (part 1 or part 2), if a section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking is required, the completed (i.e. executed and dated) version needs to be submitted at the time the appeal is submitted.

      This part 1 procedure will apply to the following types of appeal:

      • Appeals against a refusal of planning permission
      • Appeals against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions that the applicant objects to
      • Appeals against a refusal of prior approval
      • Appeals against a refusal of advertisement consent
      • Appeals against the refusal of an application to approve a reserved matter
      • Appeals against the LPA’s refusal of an application to modify or remove a condition under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
      • Appeals against the LPA’s refusal of an application for planning permission for development already carried out under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
      • Appeals against permission in principle or refusal of technical details consent

      It is open to the Planning Inspectorate to decide that that an appeal which is eligible to follow the part 1 procedure should instead follow a different procedure. For example the guidance says that “appeals against an LPA’s refusal of a biodiversity gain plan, whilst eligible to proceed under part 1, will usually follow the part 2 procedure”.

      This leaves only the following types of written representations appeal as still following the existing part 2 procedure:

      • Appeals against the LPA’s failure to determine an application within their time limit for doing so (‘non-determination’ cases)
      • Appeals in relation to an application for Listed Building Consent
      • Appeals in relation to a discontinuance notice

      Why the changes? The most useful, detailed, justification for the changes is set out in the explanatory memorandum to the Regulations. It states that as at March 2025, appeals following the part 2 procedure took an average of 29 weeks whereas appeals following the part 1 procedure took an average of 18 weeks. (In fact the Planning Inspectorate’s December 2025 figures show improvements on these timescales, the averages now being 21 and 14 weeks respectively – with hearings taking an average of 25 weeks and inquiries an average of 38 weeks).

      The memorandum says this:

      “The number of appeals decided through both written representations procedures will remain the same. Expanding the expedited procedure will allow more appeals to be decided more quickly. It will reduce pressure on local planning authorities by removing the need for them to submit a full statement of case, although they will need to ensure that the decision notice or officer’s report is sufficiently detailed. Additionally, with no further opportunity to comment, it removes the need to process and publish representations from interested parties. It will reduce the burden on appellants by reducing the amount of documentation needed when submitting an appeal. It will reduce the burden on all parties by removing the opportunity for any comments at the appeal stage. By expanding the expedited written representations appeal procedure to a broader range of appeals, larger developments will also benefit from the streamlined process and quicker decisions, helping to unlock economic growth and accelerate the delivery of homes.”

      Taking this at face value, obviously quicker decision times are in everyone’s interests.

      However, certainly there are concerns:

      • Whilst it is said that the number of appeals decided by way of written representations will remain the same, is this the slippery slope and will we see over time a greater overall proportion of appeals going by this route, including a greater proportion where the complexity of issues and level of potential third party interest makes the process appear like an inappropriately summary form of justice?
      • What happens in the frequent case where the appellant requests a hearing or inquiry route but is pushed down the written representations route by the Planning Inspectorate (given that the criteria for which appeals are appropriate for written representations, hearings and inquiries are not objective but rely on the application of judgment in each particular case)? The procedural switch is already problematic but will get more difficult.
      • What about where members refuse an application against officers’ advice? Perhaps helpfully for appellants, in practice the basis for the members’ decision will have to rest on the minutes of the committee meeting. In practice will this mean a greater number of deferrals so that credible potential reasons for refusal can be prepared?
      • Do the changes favour well-advised potential appellants? The strategy is now clear: the applicant needs to make sure that their application package is robust and appeal-ready,  that they have responded to issues raised by third parties and they have resolved or narrowed down any potential difference in relation to any necessary section 106 agreement or undertaking – and to have made good progress on a draft.

      Lastly, perhaps a few words on the statistics as to which procedure is most likely to result in an appeal being allowed. Appeal Finder have done some good statistical analysis.

      Whilst this shows that by comparison of appeal route, inquiries are most likely to succeed, followed by hearings – and with the written representations procedure being least fruitful for appellants, I am always cautious as to the conclusions to be drawn. It is tempting to think that the obvious strategy is to seek an inquiry and, failing that, a hearing – and lawyers like me will usually trot out the benefits of cross-examination and formal exchange of evidence (inquiries), the greater likelihood of a senior inspector being appointed and at the very least the opportunity to tell from the inspector’s body language and line of questioning whether he or she has understood the particular issues. Much of this is true. But to what extent are the statistical differences simply correlation rather than causation? Surely the larger the scheme the better professional advice the applicant is likely to have had and the less likely the applicant is to contemplate taking to appeal a proposal that is doomed to fail? I wonder if there is any housebuilder that has collected statistics on their own projects as to whether there is a material difference in outcomes for projects with an equivalent project team involved?

      In the meantime, if you have an application on the stocks where a written representations appeal may ultimately be required, don’t get caught out come 1 April….

      Simon Ricketts, 15 February 2026

      Personal views, et cetera