EORs: Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off

I stress this is a personal view. Others may differ.

As Ella Fitzgerald said in that song:

“For you like this and the other

While I go for this and that

Goodness knows what the end will be

…

Let’s call the whole thing off””

And more recently Ashe:

“This isn’t cold feet, these aren’t fireworks

The sky is menacing and that’s an iceberg

…

Stop the wedding!”

My personal view:

It’s never too late to abandon the longstanding, not yet delivered, still vague, still without proof of concept, idea of replacing environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment with “environmental outcomes reports”.

One of the benefits arising from that 2016 Brexit vote – more innocent times perhaps – was said to be that departure would allow us to construct a more proportionate, effective and efficient version of environmental assessment.

Ten years on, can we perhaps be honest with ourselves? It’s not going to happen, folks! Has there been any evidence over the last ten years of this country replacing any process with one that is simpler and more effective? We’re at least as good at inventing unnecessary complexity as any EU bureaucrat or judge. And wouldn’t it be ironic if we finally chose to depart from that EU assessment structure just at the time that the government is contemplating greater regulatory alignment with the EU in certain areas? Whilst much depends on the form that any “realignment” (what a nothing word) takes, the government should surely not at this point be introducing new divergences without good reason. And I see no clamour at all for EORs.

The legislative framework for environmental outcomes reports was first introduced in May 2022 by way of Part 6 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, with no detail at that stage as to the form that EORs would actually take. It seemed to me to be an expression or desire, in search of a methodology. The previous government consulted on the possible principles in March 2023 – see my 25 March 2023 blog post Join The Club/Environmental Outcomes Reports for my commentary at the time.

The Bill then became an Act in October 2023, with regulation-making powers for Part 6 in force from December 2023.

Then nothing until the July 2024 general election and in December 2024 Matthew Pennycook’s Commons statement Development and the Environment which confirmed that the government’s new approach in relation to these matters “ would be supported by the new framework of Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs) that will replace the current systems of environmental assessment with a more effective and outcome-focused tool for managing the effects of development on the natural environment.”

Roll forward to 13 March 2026 and the Government finally publishes its response to the previous government’s March 2023 consultation process, together with Environmental Outcomes Reports: Roadmap to reform (no not that reform). The roadmap sets out the phases of work now to be carried out and you will see that there is much to be done. The document promises:

“We will bring forward Environmental Outcomes Reports by the end of 2027 to replace Environmental Impact Assessment regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning Act 2008 (for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects). Alongside this, we will introduce Environmental Outcomes Reports to replace the current system of Strategic Environmental Assessment. We will consider the most effective, and least disruptive, approach to transitioning from Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment to Environmental Outcomes Reports, which may include parallel running of systems for a time limited period.”

Do any of us (1) believe this timetable or (2) believe that it will result in an improved system? I know what is most likely! EIA and SEA will continue unamended, with all of the current failings of those processes, with the additional requirement for EORs sitting over them… For the foreseeable future all those emerging new style local plans will have to grapple with old style SEA as well as whatever further requirements EORs might bring. That wasn’t meant to happen.

I don’t think there is an international example out there of what the government is seeking to achieve. The logical approach to environmental assessment is surely the well-trodden EIA/SEA methodology. To throw out the whole methodology because there are currently problematic aspects of how it is being carried out is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Might I suggest that now might be the time for ministers to channel their inner Ella/Ashe and ask themselves: why not call the whole thing off, stop work on EORs and instead focus on real, achievable, improvements to EIA and SEA processes?

After all, don’t we know the main issues?

Here’s two for a start.

First, there is insufficient discipline imposed, via government guidance, to standardise and streamline their structure or constrain their scale (e.g. indicative word limits, advice against replicating other assessment processes, discouraging lengthy quotations from national local policy documents and so on).

Secondly, the scale of the documentation is often blamed on the need to cover off the risk of legal challenge. Yes, more can be done to restrict further the bringing of opportunist legal challenges on the basis of asserted flaws in assessment work (e.g. by imposing procedural deadlines on the ability to JR the outcome of screening or scoping opinions or directions), but, even in advance of that, more can be done to bring across to potential claimants that most of these challenges fail in any event! I looked back at what I said in my 27 January 2024 blog post EIA Should Not Be A (Duller) Version Of Gladiators:

“It needs to be borne in mind that the EIA process is intended to be an aid to efficient and inclusive decision making in special cases, not an obstacle-race” (Carnwath LJ as he then was, in R (Jones) v Mansfield District Council (Court of Appeal, 16 October 2003).

The courts continually tell us this, despite so many professionals, politicians and objectors still treating the process of environmental impact assessment as some duller version of Gladiators.

Perhaps if we heeded this message the Government wouldn’t need to tie itself up in knots trying to replace environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment with this still vague idea of environmental outcomes reports (reported by Planning Resource this week as now not likely to progress until 2025!).”

The naivety of my words in brackets there…

NB To end more positively: full credit to the Planning Inspectorate for the sensible changes made on 12 November 2026 to its Planning appeals: procedural guide – for appeals relating to applications dated on or after 1 April 2026 following last week’s blog post.

Simon Ricketts, 15 November 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Needles & PINS: How Early Should Potential Appellants Prepare Draft Section 106 Planning Obligations?

I don’t think I’m wrong to be needling the Planning Inspectorate over three specific sentences which were introduced on 14 October 2026, without any accompanying announcement, into its Procedural Guide for appeals relating to applications dated on or after 1 April 2026. Whether or not in policy terms it would be a good thing, the new passages in my view will be read by many as imposing new expectations on the part of potential appellants as to steps they should have taken in the planning application process itself to prepare a draft section 106 planning obligation before the application was determined. The Procedural Guide is our main reference point for how all parties should conduct themselves in relation to the planning appeals process and it should not be surprising if words are taken to mean what they say…

Before I get to those three sentences, two preliminary points:

Preliminary point 1: This is not a gripe about deadlines for completion of section 106 planning obligations – the guidance is unchanged in that respect from its 12 February 2026 version and we should all be clear:

  1. Part 1 written representations appeals (that expanded category, where appeals are processed on very much a frontloaded basis with no new evidence at appeal stage, no statements of case, evidence or representations from the local planning authority or third parties – for more detail see my blog post Don’t Be An April Fool: Written Reps Planning Appeals Are About To Get Faster But Also Riskier) and Part 2 written representations appeals: “the appellant must ensure that we receive an executed and certified copy of the planning obligation at the time of making their appeal”.
  1. Hearings and inquiries: “The appellant should make sure that a final draft, agreed by all parties to it, is received by us no later than 10 working days before the hearing or inquiry opens… The planning obligation should normally be executed before the hearing or inquiry closes, without the need for an adjournment. However, if that is not practicable the Inspector will agree the details for the receipt of the executed planning obligation with the appellant and the LPA at the hearing or inquiry.” In practice, in my experience the inspector will be unlikely, without being presented with a very good reason indeed, to give more than 14 days after the hearing or inquiry closes for an executed and certified copy of the completed planning obligation to be received.

Preliminary point 2: I am all in favour of simplifying and frontloading the section 106 planning obligation preparation and negotiation process. Many of you will be aware that my firm Town Legal was appointed by the Planning Advisory Service to prepare the draft standard planning agreement and unilateral undertaking for medium-sized residential sites that was consulted upon by MHCLG in August 2026. The results of the consultation process are awaited. But, before that, my firm was carrying out work off its own bat that led to our November 2025 Simplifying & Standardising Section 106 Agreement Processes: Proposals for Reform that was launched in the Houses of Parliament at an event kindly arranged by the LPDF. Do read our recommendations 1 to 10!

My practical concern is that there is not yet a standard template section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking, whether for medium-sized residential development (pending the outcome of that consultation) or for any other scale or type of development. Many local planning authorities, if they have their own template, do not make it readily available. Many LPA legal teams will insist on preparing the first draft of a planning obligation and are unlikely to receive instructions from their officers to consider a draft prepared by the applicant at an early stage in the process (almost never, for instance, pre-submission). As a specialist planning law firm, we have our own internal template but there is never any certainty that LPA legal teams will accept our version of even the most supposedly standard (“boiler-plate” in the jargon) provisions. And when it comes to the question of the substantive contents of the document, some may be predictable at time of application submission but much will depend on the outcome of negotiation and issues which may arise from consultee responses. And when we look at MHCLG’s planning practice guidance on planning obligations we only see generalised advice along the following lines as to process and as to how early the work on a planning obligation should begin:

“Discussions about planning obligations should take place as early as possible in the planning process. Plans should set out policies for the contributions expected from development to enable fair and open testing of the policies at examination. Local communities, landowners, developers, local (and national where appropriate) infrastructure and affordable housing providers and operators should be involved in the setting of policies for the contributions expected from development. Pre-application discussions can prevent delays in finalising those planning applications which are granted subject to the completion of planning obligation agreements.

Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 23b-013-20190315”

“Local planning authorities are encouraged to use and publish standard forms and templates to assist with the process of agreeing planning obligations. These could include model agreements and clauses (including those already published by other bodies), that could be made publicly available to help with the planning application process. Any further information required by the local planning authority, or issues raised by the applicant regarding planning obligations, should be addressed at an early stage of the planning application process. Use of model agreements does not remove the requirement for local planning authorities to consider on a case by case basis whether a planning obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 23b-016-20190901”

“Planning obligations should be negotiated to enable decisions on planning applications to be made within the statutory time limits or a longer period where agreed in writing between the local planning authority and the applicant.

Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 23b-017-20190315”

OK so what are these three sentences in the updated Procedural Guidance that I’m concerned about?

Let’s start with the first two sentences of paragraph 18.2.1 below, which I have emboldened, both new:

“Planning obligations should be submitted as part of the application to the LPA. If in exceptional circumstances, a planning obligation is completed after the LPA’s decision, the Planning Inspectorate must receive a copy of the completed agreement within the following deadlines, together with an explanation for why it is being submitted at appeal stage. Planning obligations received after the deadlines will be taken into account only at the Inspector’s discretion. The Inspector will not delay the issue of a decision to wait for an obligation to be executed unless there are very exceptional circumstances.”

That first sentence: “Planning obligations should be submitted as part of the application to the LPA.”

Surely the literal interpretation of that sentence is that the Planning Inspectorate expects, when an appeal is made (under whatever procedure: written representations, hearing or inquiry), that the appellant will be able to show that a draft section 106 planning obligation (i.e. draft section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking) had been submitted by the appellant to the local planning authority as part of the application package, i.e. at the time the application was submitted.

I am increasingly confident that the Planning Inspectorate does not intend that literal interpretation. If it did, the encouragement would surely have been flagged equivalently by MHCLG in its planning practice guidance, there would have been consultation to make sure that this was practical and sensible given current practice, given where we are with standardisation, templating and (dare I say it) LPA legal team preparedness to accept and deal with applicant-prepared drafts, and the change to the Procedural Guidance in this respect would also have been signposted, if consequences were to flow for potential appellants. However, I hope people can understand why potential appellants and their advisors have been somewhat spooked…

That second sentence: “If in exceptional circumstances, a planning obligation is completed after the LPA’s decision, the Planning Inspectorate must receive a copy of the completed agreement within the following deadlines, together with an explanation for why it is being submitted at appeal stage.”

Maybe again I am being too literal, but I don’t understand this sentence. If an application has been refused and an appeal is needed, the planning obligation will never have been completed before the LPA’s decision. If the application is resolved to be approved, any necessary planning obligation will always be completed before the decision to approve, i.e. the planning permission, is issued.

I think the words “If in exceptional circumstances, a planning obligation is completed after the LPA’s decision…” are surplus to requirements. Perhaps instead there should be a more general exhortation that it is helpful to the Planning Inspectorate if as much progress as possible has been made in negotiating any necessary planning obligation (and at least all substantive heads of terms) during the application determination process so as to narrow the outstanding issues and to refer to paragraph 013 of the planning practice guidance?

The third sentence in the Procedural Guidance that I am concerned about is the final bullet point of paragraph 7.3.4. This is in the section which sets out what the inspector takes into account in relation to Part 1 written representations appeals. Paragraph 7.3.4 sets out the only categories of new evidence that the Planning Inspectorate will usually accept and the final bullet point is “A requirement to submit an executed planning obligation where the need for one was not identified at the application stage or where an unsigned version was before the LPA and it has been executed for the appeal.”

Again, the literal meaning of this phrase is surely that an executed planning obligation may only be submitted with a Part 1 written representations appeal if either “the need for one was not identified at the application stage” (rare) or “where an unsigned version was before the LPA [at application stage] and it has been executed for the appeal” (Eek! The risk of a Part 1 written representations appeal being turned away if a draft planning obligation had not already been before the LPA before the application was determined! The usual position at present, like it or loathe it, is that the first draft of the planning obligation is not prepared until the application has been resolved to be approved. With an accommodating LPA sometimes you can make progress with a draft ahead of that point, but very often not. And if the application is heading for refusal, well usually you have no chance…).

Again, I don’t believe the Planning Inspectorate was intending to bring up the drawbridge like this but rather signal again that it is unhelpful for there to be surprises post determination of the application and instead that it is helpful for Inspectors if as much progress as possible has been made in negotiating any necessary planning obligation (and at least all substantive heads of terms) during the application determination process so as to narrow the outstanding issues and to echo paragraph 013 of the planning practice guidance.

But, bottom line, the buck stops with us advisors in helping potential appellants navigate through an appeal process increasingly beset with icebergs. So that we don’t all overcompensate with premature and ultimately wasteful unnegotiated draft unilateral undertakings, please might PINS review these three sentences in what is otherwise a clear, necessary and helpful iceberg-avoidance document?

One quick final planning obligations related point: Thank you Shoosmiths for hosting this week the launch of the Fabian Society’s paper Community Gains: How Developer Contributions Can Be Used More Quickly and Effectively. It did spark for me some wider thoughts about the whole business of unspent section 106 contributions, unspent CIL contributions, double-dipping and the like, but I think this is enough needling from me for today….

Simon Ricketts, 7 November 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Data Centres & Community Benefits

Alongside the Chancellor’s budget on Wednesday (28 October 2026) were two interesting documents for those involved with data centre proposals.

The first was the long awaited draft national policy statement for data centres that are promoted as nationally significant infrastructure projects (those where the promoter has secured a direction from the Secretary of State that its proposal should proceed as an NSIP, being of national significance and usually at least 100MW in operating capacity). The document was accompanied by a sustainability appraisal and a habitats regulations assessment.

But I want to focus here on the second document: The Data Centre Covenant, published by HM Treasury.

The Covenant sets out five “new tests all data centres are encouraged to meet, and which strategic data centres must meet to qualify for additional government action”.

  • “Lower electricity bills”

“Data centres will … be expected to make credible commitments for the grid capacity they request, support security of supply, investment in clean power and net zero, use resources responsibly and support an efficient, flexible, and resilient energy system.”

  • “Invest in improving local communities”

“Communities that host nationally important infrastructure should share directly in the rewards.  Strategic data centres should agree a Local Benefit Plan that commits to substantial investment, developed with the local community and linked to the development’s size.  This can be spent on local priorities, like transport, parks and town centres.

The construction and maintenance of AI data centres will increase local employment, open opportunities for local suppliers and support investment in skills and training. But communities hosting major developments should also see clear, lasting improvements to their local area. Developers must already meet planning requirements such as Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, which fund local infrastructure needs like transport networks and other community assets. Strategic data centre developers will be required to go further, including working with the local area on a Local Benefit Plan for investment in the local community, linked to the development’s size. Communities should have a meaningful say in how these benefits are designed and allocated.”

  • “Adhere to the highest environmental standards”

“Protect nature, minimise water use and publish annual energy and water consumption reports.  They should also capture the heat they produce for nearby homes, schools, hospitals or businesses wherever practical, rather than letting it go to waste.

They should use energy and water efficiently, with new facilities designed to achieve a Power Usage Effectiveness of 1.3 or better and minimise demand for public water supplies by using technologies such as closed loop water systems.  Additionally, developers should design projects to capture and reuse waste heat where there is a viable local user. Strategic data centres should report annually on their energy and water use, efficiency, emissions, heat reuse and participation in flexibility services, and we will strongly encourage existing operators to do the same.”

  • “Create jobs, apprenticeships, and drive reindustrialisation”

“Create local jobs and invest in paid apprenticeships and training places, supporting young people into the AI, digital and infrastructure jobs of the future. They should also prioritise UK suppliers and technologies and make a meaningful contribution to the development and deployment of British AI hardware.

Developers should create good, well-paid jobs that last beyond construction. They should recruit locally where possible and invest in apprenticeships, colleges and universities.  Where roles cannot currently be filled locally, they should invest in education and training to enable more local people to access these opportunities in the future.

Data centres are expected to help build capability in strategically important supply chains. They should also partner with UK researchers and innovative companies, and provide access to compute where appropriate, to accelerate innovation and strengthen national capability. The most strategically important data centres will be expected to make a meaningful contribution to the development and deployment of British AI hardware in the UK.”

  • “Strengthen Britain’s security”

“Provide secure and reliable access to compute the UK needs, including for our NHS and other public services.  They should work with the relevant national technical authorities, including the National Cyber Security Centre, to enhance resilience against cyber and hybrid threats beyond baseline requirements.

Data centres should provide secure, resilient UK access to compute for critical services and national priorities. As critical national infrastructure, operators should share relevant information with government and technical agencies, meet current and future cyber resilience standards and work with the relevant national technical authorities to strengthen security and resilience further. They should also plan with critical suppliers for foreseeable disruption and participate in government exercises to test arrangements for prioritising essential services.”

Given that all of this is simply by encouragement rather than legal prescription, what is the carrot?

“In return for meeting these tests, the government will establish a new Ministerial Control Centre for considering supportive action for strategic data centres. This will be chaired by the Minister for AI, supported by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and relevant ministers from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and other departments. It will use the power of the state to accelerate time to power and speed up the planning process for the most strategic data centres.”

The document also sets out additional assistance that the government will provide, by way of facilitating access to power capacity, for sites that demonstrate sufficient strategic value (“The government will set out further details in due course on the definition of strategic data centres and the additional criteria such projects will be expected to meet”).

That second test (“invest in improving local communities”) piqued my interest. The question of how to secure community benefits that go beyond what is necessary to mitigate the effects of development raises its head with so many categories of development where local communities may perceive that they will suffer adverse impacts for what policy determines to be the greater wider, public, good. Where is the dividing line between good practice and, in effect, “buying a planning permission”? The lack of clarity is difficult for all concerned. I wrote about this in my 2 June 2018 blog post Community Benefits.

As I noted back then, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 introduced a new section 75ZA into the Town and Country Planning Act that would perhaps assist, if it is ever brought into force. “Financial benefits information” would need to be included in officers’ reports, including “a list of any financial benefits (whether or not material to the application) which are local finance considerations or benefits of a prescribed description, and which appear to the person making the report to be likely to be obtained” by the authority or third parties within a description to be prescribed, as a result of the proposed development, together with “in relation to each listed financial benefit, a statement of the opinion of the person making the report as to whether the benefit is material to the application” as well as any other prescribed information about each listed financial benefit.

10 years on now, section 75ZA still hasn’t been brought into force. Might now be a convenient moment?

Simon Ricketts, 30 October 2026

Personal views, et cetera

What Will Happen If LPAs Miss The 31 Oct NSD Deadline?

In my 13 June 2026 blog post Delegation Nation I summarised the national scheme of delegation which supposedly takes effect from 31 October 2026. I say “supposedly” because at least three local planning authorities have resolved at full council meetings not to make the changes required to their constitutions so as to bring into effect the NSD in relation to their decision-making. The question on many of our lips is: what are the real implications for decision-making in such authorities after that date?

The Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 come into force on 31 October 2026. They were made pursuant to section 319ZZC of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (NB what absurd section-numbering we now have as a result of 36 years now of non-consolidation of legislative changes. 319ZZC was introduced by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025).

Section 319ZZC provides as follows:

  1. The Secretary of State may by regulations require a relevant local planning authority to make arrangements under section 101 of the 1972 Act for such relevant planning functions as are prescribed—
  1. to be discharged by a committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority;
  1. to be discharged by a committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority in prescribed circumstances.
  1. The regulations may —
  1. prescribe the terms of the arrangements (which may include exceptions) and any permitted variations in those terms;
  1. provide for the arrangements to confer a discretion on any person in connection with the delegation of a function.
  1. Where arrangements required by the regulations are in force in relation to a relevant planning function, the function may only be exercised in accordance with the arrangements (and section 101(4) of the 1972 Act does not apply).

Section 101(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 allows local authorities to arrange for the discharge of their functions by a committee, sub-committee, or an officer of the authority.

The 2026 Regulations were made pursuant to this section 319ZZC (as well as other sections) of the 1990 Act. Local planning authorities have a statutory duty from 31 October to make arrangements that are consistent with the Regulations. It seems to me obvious that any local planning authority which fails to comply is in breach of statutory duty and therefore susceptible to judicial review, in relation to which the remedies available to the High Court include making a declaration that it is in breach, quashing any resolution to make arrangements which are in breach and/or a mandatory order to secure compliance. Such proceedings could be brought by any party showing a sufficient interest in the issue.

Such proceedings could also be brought by the Secretary of State and I would envisage a real justification for proceeding on an expedited basis. One might hope that the threat of such proceedings might be sufficient in most instances. I can’t see that any of the Secretary of State’s general powers of intervention in local planning authority decision making are particularly well-suited to the specific task of bring individual authorities’ constitutions into line.

I would also note that the relevant local authority’s monitoring officer will be acutely aware of their personal duty to prepare a report under section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 if it appears to them that any proposal, decision or omission by the authority, by a committee or sub-committee or by an officer in exercising delegated powers, has given rise to, or is likely to give rise to a contravention of any enactment; a contravention of any rule of law, or maladministration.

There is also statutory guidance to which local planning authorities must have regard in making and operating their arrangements under the Regulations. This guidance raises the spectre that planning decisions taken under arrangements which are not consistent with the Regulations may be susceptible to judicial review:

“For the avoidance of doubt, where local planning authorities do not comply with the Regulations from the date they come into force (31 October 2026) and their planning committees make decisions on applications which must be delegated officers [sic], those decisions may be subject to judicial review by anyone aggrieved by the decision. This may lead to the quashing of the decision.”

I can see that at least in theory this is indeed a risk for developers where a committee (operating under unlawful decision-making arrangements) approves an application which should have been determined, under the new arrangements, by delegated powers. However, I do think the circumstances would have to be unusual for such proceedings ultimately to succeed. Where the committee’s decision is in line with the officer’s recommendation, the outcome would have been highly likely to be the same in any event.

Where an application is refused, as I say in my previous blog post: “If the authority does not agree to re-determine the application (at least before the decision is formally issued), yes it could judicially review the decision but its more effective remedy may simply be to appeal (and in so will have to grapple with the dilemma of potentially being in a position where it is submitting an appeal in relation to an unlawful refusal notice).”

Finally, I do think that we need to be alert to the practical risk to transparency and probity of local planning authorities arriving at “behind the scenes” arrangements where councillors informally influence officer decision making, including through informal meetings to determine their stance on particular proposals. Be aware as well of Regulation 2(2): in relation to decisions delegated to officers “the authority must not make arrangements that limit the officer’s discretion as to how to determine that application”.

The thrust of the NSD is surely to be welcomed by all. Some applications are minor and should never be determined by anyone other than planning officers – “political” issues do not arise; the tramlines for decision-making are to be set in local and national policies. Other applications should only be determined by elected planning committees where they do genuinely, exceptionally, raise “an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area” and/or “a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”. The massively important and influential role that local councillors have is in ensuring that there are up to date policies in place that provide the blueprint for day to day officer decision-making. The inevitable risk arising from this new system lies in the inevitability of mission creep wherever a statutory test contains words such as “of significance” or “significant”.

As all this beds down, I am sure we will be seeing some power struggles between MHCLG and some local planning authorities, as well as power struggles internally within some authorities as to where that “of significance”/”significant” dividing line is to be drawn.

Final word of warning: There is much legal speculation in all of the above. If you are a lawyer who has been grappling with these issues and take a different view as to the potential procedural consequences, do let me know! (Oh and thank you to my brand-new Town Legal colleague Bob Pritchard who sparked some of the above thoughts).

Simon Ricketts, 17 October 2026

Personal views, et cetera

NRL IRL

I have avoided entering the contested environment which is Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act (dealing with environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy) since my 3 August 2025 blog post Picking Up The Bill: What Are We Now Thinking About Part 3? , but the Natural England’s first draft EDP, covering nutrient pollution affecting the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Yare and Bure), Broadland Ramsar and River Wensum SAC in Norfolk, was published on 17 September 2026 for a 28 day consultation period and the Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026 were made on 10 September 2026, coming into force the following day. So needs must, here goes.

Many thanks to my colleague Adam Choudhury who has contributed the substance of much of what follows (although I have personally introduced any inaccuracies, infelicities and/or personal opinions).

The legislative idea is basically that developers may choose to pay a nature restoration levy (“NRL”) for developments to which an Environmental Delivery Plan (“EDP”) applies, in lieu of site-specific mitigation required for compliance with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“Habitats Regulations”), and compliance with the obligations under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The approach is not without controversy, see Alexa Culver et al.

The Norfolk EDP was published in draft form for a 28-day consultation on 17 September 2026. Whilst the Norfolk EDP is itself focused on nutrient pollution, following the outcome of the consultation, it is likely to form the template for future EDPs, covering a wider range of issues including specific species, for instance great crested newts. This is a short consultation in relation to a complex document, and it will be interesting to see how the responses shape the final version of the plan.

The Norfolk draft EDP allows for up to 15,780 new homes (of any size or type) together with associated infrastructure to be brought forward over its lifespan, which would be 10 years. It sets the NRL rate at £2,675 per home, plus indexation. This will channel investment from developments to a strategic programme of conservation measures, which are to be maintained for 100 years.

Following this consultation it will be for the Secretary of State to make the EDP, if it passes the “Overall Improvement Test”. This test requires that the conservation measures in the EDP will “materially outweigh” the negative impact of the development provided for under the EDP, by the EDP ten years end date, on the conservation status of each environmental feature specified in it.

The Environmental Delivery Plans (Appropriate Prioritisation) Regulations 2026 modify the mitigation hierarchy for EDPs. They provide that: (a) avoidance is to be prioritised over mitigation and compensation and (b) mitigation is to be prioritised over compensation, where Natural England “consider it appropriate to do so”.

This departs from the precautionary standard in the Habitats Regulations, which requires the avoidance of significant harm, beyond all reasonable scientific doubt, to the integrity of the protected site, save where there are “imperative reasons of overriding public interest”.

The rules in relation to using the nature restoration fund can be found in the Nature Restoration Levy Regulations and Part 3 of PIA 2025.

Section 72(5) PIA 2025 provides that an EDP may make payment of the NRL mandatory. In the case of the Norfolk draft EDP, payment of the NRL and opting in to the NRF is to be voluntary. So far as developments within the scope of the Norfolk EDP are concerned, and indeed where payment of the NRL is voluntary under future EDPs, in practice developers will want to work out whether payment of the NRL is more cost-effective and/or confers less risk than the alternative site-specific mitigation required by the Habitats Regulations. The largely frontloaded nature of the timing of payments may well shape uptake.

The process for developers to follow has been designed to be digital and streamlined.

The first stage will involve getting a quote from Natural England by logging onto the Natural England system, inputting their red line boundary and proposed number of dwellings within the relevant EDP area. The system responds automatically. If the developer wishes to proceed, if the development is in scope and within the remaining development capacity of the EDP, Natural England then issues the developer with a commitment certificate.

The commitment certificate may then be submitted with a planning application made for that development within 6 months. Regardless of the length of time it takes for the local planning authority to determine the planning application, or an Inspector to determine the case on appeal, the development capacity in the EDP will be held against the development.

After a planning application is submitted with a commitment certificate, and planning permission is granted, a statutory pre-commencement condition is imposed requiring either payment in full prior to the commencement of development or, where the levy is to be paid in instalments, payment of the first instalment. The draft instalment plan for Norfolk envisages payment in three equal instalments: one within 30 days of commencement, the second in 12 months and the final one in 24 months – no matter how large the scheme.

Once planning permission is granted, one or more persons/legal entities assume liability by completing an online assumption of liability form. Natural England “must impose levy liability” where no one has assumed it. Where liability is assumed by more than one person/legal entity, they become jointly and severally liable to pay.

Natural England then issues a liability notice to each liable person when liability arises in the form of a liability notice. Once liability is assumed, the debt is registered as a local land charge. Natural England is given a wide range of enforcement powers to procure payment where it is not forthcoming.

There will be more guidance. The explanatory notes to the Nature Restoration Levy Regulations say this:

“To support effective implementation, the Secretary of State will publish statutory guidance on the NRF and the levy before the first EDPs are made. The guidance will focus on the practical application of the powers and duties set out in these Regulations. This guidance will build on the processes established in the Regulations and will provide detail on how they should be operationalised in practice, including in relation to setting the levy, managing liability and payments, and administering the system. The aim will be to support Natural England in exercising its functions in compliance with the regulatory framework and to support developers and LPAs navigating this new system. As producing and finalising these Regulations has been the priority, it has not been possible to produce guidance ahead of the Regulations being laid, but work is ongoing at pace to ensure that the guidance will be published in a timely manner ahead of the first EDPs being made.”

My thoughts:

  • Subject ultimately to the robustness of the “overall improvement” test, the EDPs and NRL mechanism should prove in my view to be a coherent and (both economically and environmentally) efficient way of allowing development to be brought forward where harm may be caused to protected sites.
  • It is unfortunate that it has taken successive governments this long. In the meantime, bespoke strategic solutions have of course been developed in various areas, with which this new system will now compete. Will this competition be healthy, or will it in some instances prejudice those solutions by removing their necessary critical mass?
  • The frontloading of payments under this mechanism makes it less attractive for larger projects with long build-out periods. This will need to be addressed for the mechanism to be attractive.
  • What is the risk of subsequent EDPs coming forward on a compulsory basis?
  • If you like the CIL Regulations, you will find much to enjoy in the Nature Restoration Levy Regulations and the various sets of amendment regulations that will surely follow baby duck-like.

Before we rush to criticise, perhaps we should remember how problematic issues such as nutrient neutrality still are in many areas, in terms of leading to either a veto or the need to buy an expensive entry ticket in order to carry out development which has very little to do with the underlying historical causes of the problem at the first place.

Cue a Rory Stewart style hard stare at our farming and water industries.

Simon Ricketts, 4 October 2026

Personal views et cetera

Old Wine In A New Bottle: Heritage Considerations In The New NPPF

Some of the language on heritage in chapter 20 of the new NPPF is different to the previous version: does that matter in practice?  That’s what I’m covering in this post (although, darn it, the title has given away what I think the answer is) as well as briefly referring to an interesting case handed down last week.

My thanks to my Town Legal colleague Tom Brooks (previously a heritage consultant before requalifying as a solicitor) who is my first port of call on these issues. Most of the analysis which follows is his, with any errors in transcription being mine. We are focusing just on the development management policies within chapter 20 and specifically the tests for assessing the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset.

The definition of designated heritage assets has not been expanded, comprising world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields and conservation areas.

Policy HE6: Proposals affecting designated heritage assets reads as follows:

1. When considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance.

2. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a designated heritage asset should be supported.

3. Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight, which should be dealt with in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 6 of this policy.

4. Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. Important public benefits can include securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building, and enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed.

5. Where a development proposal would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss, or if all of the following apply:

a. The nature of the heritage asset would otherwise prevent all reasonable uses of the site;

b. No suitable use for the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation;

c. Conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is not possible; and

d. The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the asset back into use.

6. Within this context, development which would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, the significance of grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; while development which would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

The key changes in these policy tests compared to the equivalent tests under paragraphs 212–215 of NPPF 2024 are as follows:

  • The reference in HE6.1 to “substantial weight” is a change from “great weight” in paragraph 212 of NPPF 2024. The Government’s response to the consultation on the draft NPPF 2026 makes clear that this terminology change was not intended to be substantive and “maintains the existing level of protection and that, when following the approach set out in the NPPF decision makers will discharge the statutory regard duties in relation to the protection of designated heritage assets.” To underline this, HE6.3 (which was not in the draft NPPF 2026) states additionally that any harm will be “a matter of considerable importance and weight”. Again, this simply aligns with the statutory duty that already existed alongside NPPF 2024, so is not a substantive change.
  • The potential for development to result in positive effects is expressly recognised in HE6.1 and .2 whereas this was not mentioned at all in NPPF 2024. This follows HE5.2 which helpfully sets out the possible outcomes of effects on heritage assets as follows:
  • a. Have a positive effect, which is where the significance of a heritage asset would be enhanced, or better revealed; or
  • b. Have no effect on the significance of a heritage asset; or
  • c. Result in harm to the significance of a heritage asset, either from work affecting the asset itself or from development within its setting. The degree of harm should be identified: substantial harm would occur where the development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance; or
  • d. Cause the total loss of the significance of a heritage asset.
  • The definition of “substantial harm” above aligns with PPG Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 18a-018-20190723, from which that “seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance” wording is drawn.
  • The express support for proposals with a positive effect in HE6.2 is a change in emphasis from NPPF 2024.
  • The category of “less than substantial harm” has been removed in NPPF 2026 although there remains a need (as per HE5.2(c) reproduced above) to determine whether harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is substantial or not. Therefore, in practice, the removal of less than substantial harm as an express category is inconsequential.
  • The test in HE6.4 for weighing harm against public benefits is essentially unchanged from paragraph 215 of NPPF 2024. This exercise remains a matter of planning judgment for the decision maker to be carried out alongside their statutory duties. In terms of specific public benefits to be taken into account in the balancing exercise under HE6.4, the concept of “optimum viable use” as a potential public benefit in NPPF 2024 has been removed. Instead HE6.4 refers to “important” public benefits, including more generally “long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building”, which is likely to be easier to satisfy than demonstrating optimum viable use. There is also now express reference to “enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures”; again, this is likely to be helpful in building the public benefits case to outweigh harm where such improvements are provided. As these benefits are described as “important” they should be given increased weight in the balancing exercise. For guidance as to the scope of other potential public benefits, the broad definition in the PPG remains relevant. The test for substantial harm under HE6.5 is substantively unchanged from paragraph 214 of NPPF 2024. Similarly, HE6.6 reflects the second sentence of paragraph 213 of NPPF 2024.
  • As an aside, there is a question as to whether, where substantial harm arises, it should be assessed against HE6.4 as well as HE6.5 and .6. Technically it is also still “harm” under HE6(4) (this is a consequence of the removal of “less than substantial harm”) but it seems unlikely that this was the intention because HE6.5 provides a different test for substantial harm.

So, in summary, we do not see NPPF 2026 changes as substantively changing the tests for assessing the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset. In particular, the core policy tests for considering harm to designated heritage assets are fundamentally unchanged.

There are nonetheless some changes that are potentially helpful to developers of designated heritage assets, in particular that proposals with a positive effect should be actively supported, and that where proposals cause some (not substantial) harm, reuse and energy efficiency improvements to listed buildings should be considered by decision makers as important public benefits – potentially increasing their weight in the balancing exercise.

Thank you Tom!

I mentioned a case handed down last week. King Media Limited v Secretary of State (Lieven J, 25 September 2026). The case concerned a legal challenge to an inspector’s decision to dismiss an appeal against a discontinuance notice under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.  (This was in the context of the old NPPF).

Discontinuance notices may be served against lawfully displayed advertisements where “substantial injury to the amenity of the locality” has been caused. The principal controversial issue in this case was the scale of harm that a particular advertisement caused to the South Shoreditch conservation area.

The inspector had found that “the advertisement presents as a dominant and intrusive feature in the street scene, considerably at odds with the appearance of built development in the area. For these reasons, the display of the advertisement causes harm to the character and appearance of the [conservation area] and substantial injury to the amenity of the locality.” One of the grounds of challenge was that the inspector failed to reach conclusions of the specific level of harm caused (e.g. less than substantial ham/substantial harm/where on the spectrum of less than substantial harm).

After considering the parties’ submissions, Lieven J stated:

“There is no obligation on a decision maker to set out precisely where on a scale of harm to heritage assets a particular development lies”.

Given that my firm acted for the claimant, I won’t go beyond this brief pointer to the judgment (and you will see that the case raised other interesting issues too, in relation to the application of the Human Rights Act in particular) but I look forward to reading commentaries in due course.

Simon Ricketts, 27 September 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Evidenced Unmet Need

Before we get stuck into this further post on the NPPF, I do need to allay possible misapprehensions of Daily Mail readers this morning:  the PF in NPPF does not stand for Pergola Framework.

Right, here we go. As a follow-on to my 31 August 2026 blog post Push The Button: The Pro-Development Presumptions, “Substantial Weight” & “Support” Policies In The New NPPF I wanted to zoom in on policy S5.1 j.

For development outside settlements, there is this seesaw/fulcrum policy S5.

If your development does not fall within one of the ten categories listed, a to j, the national policy is that planning permission should only be granted “in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement”.

However, if it falls within one or more of categories a to j, planning permission should be granted “unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework”. “Substantially outweighing” includes where the development trips one of 15 specific “refusal” policies in the document. This pro-development presumption even applies to green belt development, which is not “inappropriate development “ under policy GB7 so includes e.g. grey belt development.

I said I wanted to focus on category j within policy S5.1. Category j is:

“Development which would address an evidenced unmet need (including, but not limited to, development proposals involving the provision of housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test), and where the development would:

i. Be physically well-related to an existing settlement (unless the nature of the development would make this inappropriate) and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; or

ii Comprise major development for freight and logistics purposes which accords with policy E3.”

It is crucial to know what amounts to an “evidenced unmet need” and indeed the extent of need which has to be shown in order to trigger this strong (as strong as the old NPPF “tilted balance”) S5 pro-development presumption. Rather than a seesaw, or fulcrum, maybe knife-edge would be more appropriate.

It’s clear that category j does not just relate to housing proposals. When we are dealing with evidencing a need for business land and premises, we have policy E2.2 to help us:

“Where a development proposal is required to demonstrate whether an unmet need exists (including under policy S5) consideration should be given to whether:

a. Market signals indicate an undersupply of specific types of business land or premises, taking into account the anticipated catchment area for the type of development proposed, the changing needs of different sectors and the availability of suitable existing land and buildings; or

b. The specific locational requirements of the proposal are met by existing allocations in the development plan. This includes, but is not limited to, situations where:

  1. Existing businesses plan to expand or improve their premises, or clusters or networks of businesses need to grow (such as clusters of knowledge and data driven, creative or high technology industries and associated facilities and infrastructure); or
  2. The availability of infrastructure (such as electricity network infrastructure to provide adequate grid connections, or water and wastewater capacity) makes certain locations particularly important, including opportunities to co-locate large scale generators and users of power (such as data centres); or
  3. Proposals would meet a local, regional or national need for the provision of new, expanded or upgraded facilities that would result in more efficient, reliable or sustainable handling of goods (whether for their receipt, storage, processing, interchange or distribution).”

It’s less clear what “evidenced unmet need” amounts to for residential proposals. When you look in the housing chapter for an equivalent policy to the employment chapter’s policy E2.2, policy HO7 is less specific:

“In applying the policies in this Framework, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting the evidenced accommodation needs of the community, as identified through needs assessments prepared for the area of the local planning authority and other relevant evidence. This includes, but is not limited to, homes needed for different groups assessed under policy HO1.”

Are any “evidenced accommodation needs” that fall within policy HO7 an “evidenced unmet need” for the purposes of category j? Unlike with policy E2.2 there isn’t an express cross-reference to policy S5.

The wording of category j itself could put it beyond doubt but hasn’t:

“(including, but not limited to, development proposals involving the provision of housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test)”

Does this phrase mean:

  • “including development proposals involving the provision of housing and in the case of those involving the provision of housing including where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate…” (in which case other unmet accommodation needs might be evidenced, such as for affordable housing in the area?); or
  • “including development proposals involving the provision of housing and in the case of those involving the provision of housing unmet need means where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate…”?

I’ll call these the wider interpretation and the narrow interpretation respectively.

Linguistically, I’m genuinely unsure which is right. In fact I’m getting nervous flashbacks to the litigation over the interpretation of paragraph 49 in the 2012 NPPF: for the purposes of the operation of the “tilted balance”, what did “Relevant policies for the provision of housing” mean? The uncertainty could have been resolved at an earlier stage by a tweak to the NPPF itself but instead it took the Supreme Court in Suffolk Coastal five years later to resolve, in part at least, what seven simple words meant.

If the words in category j itself are not clear, what pointers are there elsewhere in the document?

Well, one of the criteria for development on grey belt land not being “inappropriate development” is that “there is an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed.” . A footnote explains that for housing development this means “lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the Housing Delivery Test result was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; and in the case of traveller sites means the relevant local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites.”

So, for grey belt development to fit within category j, undoubtedly the narrow interpretation applies. But this doesn’t help with non grey belt development because it might be said that the document is deliberately setting a stiffer test for green belt development than for non green belt development. Aaagh!

Perhaps there is another clue in paragraph 3 of Annex A:

“Where a local planning authority can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer) and where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing is more than 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years, for the purposes of policy S5(1)(j), if the most up-to-date local housing need figure (calculated using the standard method set out in Annex D) is greater than the housing requirement set out in adopted development plan policies, this should not be considered as evidence of unmet need, for a period of five years from the date of the plan’s adoption.”

This is a particularly contorted sentence but it seems to be saying that if housing need calculated under the standard method set out in the new NPPF is more than the housing requirement set out in the local plan, for five years from adoption of the plan it cannot be used as evidence of unmet need. Does it exclude unmet need being shown in other ways, e.g. by way of an unmet need for affordable housing?

An inspector, Hollie Nicholls, has already grappled with the S5.1 j narrow interpretation vs wider interpretation question in a decision letter dated 14 September 2026 in relation to a proposal by Nicholas King New Homes Limited in Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor (within Vale of White Horse District). The Council could only just show a five year housing land supply. There was no failure of the housing delivery test. In terms of affordable housing need, “the appellant’s evidence indicates that as of the 31 March 2025, there were 2,904 households on the Council’s Housing Register”. The inspector found that there was an evidenced unmet need:

“The wording in Policy S5(1)(j) referring to evidence of an unmet need specifically uses the words ‘including, but not limited to’, indicating that the absence of a five year deliverable supply and HDT outcomes are not the only means by which an unmet need can be proven to exist. These are key indicators, but the list is not exhaustive.”

“In this case, the very marginal five year housing land supply position and the evidenced significant unmet need for affordable housing combine together to indicate that the scheme complies with 2026 Framework Policy S5(1)(j).”

So the inspector here relied on the wider interpretation of S5.1 j.

What might be the government’s position? Lord Jamieson asked this question this week in the House of Lords:

“under the new National Planning Policy Framework, where an authority has a five-year supply and scores above 75 per cent in its most recent Housing Delivery Test, under what conditions a need for affordable housing would permit a development outside the local plan and settlement envelope; and what the percentage of affordable housing would need to be for such a development to be considered?”

Baroness Taylor responded on 15 September 2026 on behalf of the government:

“The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in August 2026, introduces a revised presumption in favour of sustainable development which, in combination with new policies on development inside and outside of development boundaries, promotes a sustainable pattern of development. It does this by steering proposals to appropriate locations: maximising the use of suitable land within urban areas and taking a more selective approach to the types and locations of development outside settlements.

The Housing Delivery Test (HDT) and five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) policies are important mechanisms within the planning system to ensure homes are delivered in line with needs. Where an authority can demonstrate a 5YHLS and has achieved a HDT result of at least 75%, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not be engaged through those policies.

While failing against either HDT or 5YHLS is a strong indicator of housing need in an area not being sufficiently met, it does not mean that planning permission for housing will be automatically granted, and local planning authorities must consider a range of factors when determining planning applications.

The NPPF also sets out that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing accommodation that will contribute towards meeting the evidenced needs of the local community, including those who require social and affordable housing.”

I have emboldened the key passage. It seems that the government’s stance is that in fact the narrow interpretation applies, which would imply that that decision letter to be in error (although this interpretation question would ultimately be for the courts).

I think we need some clarity, fast! If affordable housing need may in some circumstances be sufficient to trigger the S5 presumption in non green belt cases surely we need to know what is sufficient by way of evidence (Ashley Bowes raised some interesting questions on that in his LinkedIn post this week) and indeed (as Lord Jamieson raised in his question) what percentage of housing in a development would need to be affordable in order for it to count.

I’m thinking back to that sardonic aside by Lord Carnwath in his judgment in Suffolk Coastal, in relation to the 2012 NPPF:

“One purpose, in the words of the foreword, was to “(replace) over a thousand pages of national policy with around 50, written simply and clearly”, thus “allowing people and communities back into planning”.”

Can we at least agree, in relation to S5.1 j, that this crucial policy could easily be made both simpler and clearer?

Simon Ricketts, 20 September 2026

Personal views, et cetera

A Problem With The Draft London Plan?

The 16 July 2026 London Plan consultation draft was published before the publication of the government’s 17 August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework  which sets out the tests which strategic development strategies such as the London Plan should meet. In my view, it does not meet those tests. The current consultation process (mainly closing on 15 October 2026 but with a later closing date of 23 October in relation to corrections announced on 11 September to ten boroughs’ proposed brownfield housing targets) does not have the benefit of any explanation of the Mayor’s position vis a vis compliance with the 2026 NPPF nor either any justification for non-compliance or any stated proposal to prepare a further updated draft.

Why does the 2026 NPPF apply?

See Annex 1:

5. Spatial development strategies should be produced in accordance with this Framework.

7. For all plans that should be produced in accordance with this Framework this means the policies in this version of the Framework will apply from 17 August 2026.

8. Any other plans should be produced in accordance with the version of this Framework published in December 2024, unless any of the transitional arrangements in Annex 1 to that Framework apply (in which case those transitional arrangements continue to apply).

There’s no transitional arrangement for SDSs such as the London Plan which may have reached a particular stage short of publication of the final version. Because paragraph 8 says “any other plans” Annex 1 to the 2024 NPPF doesn’t apply.

What does the 2026 NPPF require?

Policy S1 states that SDSs should seek “to meet the development needs of their area, as a minimum” by “providing for objectively assessed needs for housing, business and other uses (including supporting infrastructure), as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:

i. The application of the policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of

particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or

ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would substantially outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

Policy HO1 states that the preparation of SDSs should be based on:

a. A housing need assessment that establishes the overall number of homes needed in the area as a minimum over the plan period, using the standard method in Annex D;

b. An assessment of the permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in the area as a minimum over the plan period; and

c. An understanding of any accommodation needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas.

Under policy HO2, a housing requirement is then established for each local planning authority within the strategy area.

Under policies PM10 and PM11 there needs to be co-operation between plan-making authorities to identify and address cross-boundary measures where, for instance, development  needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere and this must be demonstrated by statements of common ground. “Where it has not been possible to fully address cross-boundary matters, plan-making authorities should demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to address them”.

Under the soundness test for SDSs (policy PM14.2): “Positive – the strategy sets out a positive approach to delivering growth which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, and is based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters. A strategy which does not provide for objectively assessed needs should be considered an exception, and only where it is evidenced that stringent efforts have been taken to meet those needs through cooperation with other strategic planning authorities”.

I have emboldened that last sentence, which indeed has footnote 20 against it: “This also applies to the Mayor of London.”

What is potentially in conflict?

There are wider, more fine-grain, issues as to whether the draft London Plan meets the first three requirements of PM6:

a. Only address matters, and include policies, that are necessary and relevant to the plan being prepared, and that avoid unnecessary duplication of other parts of the development plan; 

b. Only include policies that extend beyond site or location-specific requirements where these are necessary and where plan-makers consider there is a clear and justified reason for inclusion;

c. Not include policies which duplicate, substantively restate or are inconsistent with the content of national decision-making policies, unless directed by other policies in this Framework

But I wanted to focus for the moment just on the overall housing numbers for which the Mayor of London is planning for in the draft. This is proposed to be a 20 year plan. It is noted in the first chapter: “The government has set the housing need in London at 84,884 new homes per year.” (paragraph 1.9). The plan “sets out how we can deliver 558,000 homes over the ten-year period up to 2037” (paragraph 1.12).

“This is based upon an assessment of what could be feasibly deliverable in the coming decade, taking into account viability and build-out rates, while analysing and optimising what more is possible through the lens of the Plan’s new and ambitious policy framework – representing a step change in the approach to planning for housing in London. This includes policies to boost housing delivery through:  

  • optimising brownfield sites, building out Opportunity Areas and evolving town centres
  • closer integration between land use and transport – leveraging all opportunities from existing and planned transport, using new tools & approaches
  • making a step change in the approach to small sites (e.g. London-wide design code) and suburban densification (through the new Optimisation Framework)
  • targeting some industrial land release in accessible locations for housing
  • using the Green Belt to deliver major new settlements and ensure industrial provision, while increasing access to nature and deliver Biodiversity Net Gain.
  • deploying a range of tools such as Local and Mayoral Development Orders to increase certainty in planning system and drive density and delivery in sustainable locations
  • managing car parking to maximise land available for housing and other needs (and avoid unacceptable levels of congestion)
  • tackling viability constraints through consideration of alternative delivery formats, and other development expectations, including quality place-making and more active public sector delivery role.” (paragraph 1.13)

“The Mayor is very conscious that this does not meet the government’s housing need figure for London. More is possible beyond the initial ten-year period, and the Plan identifies opportunities and capacity to deliver homes up to and beyond the 850,000 – but this requires investment, measures and delivery rates that can only realistically and properly be put in place beyond the ten-year timeframe.” (paragraph 1.14).

Surely, factually, this is a draft which does not meet London’s objectively assessed needs? This SDS is going to be an important precedent for all others coming forward across the country. Is it enough to plan to undershoot in the first ten years on the basis of what “could be feasibly deliverable” in the second decade of the plan:

  • without indeed any evidence that I have seen of “stringent efforts…taken to meet those needs through cooperation with other strategic planning authorities”; and
  • without stringent testing as to whether higher numbers might be achieved with reduced development management policy requirements or with other policy choices in relation to, for instance, density? And without interrogating for instance the justification for assuming an upturn in economic conditions such that the current London housing emergency measures package is no longer necessary past its expiration?

Wider considerations

To my mind, strategic planning is only going to work nationally if objectively assessed housing numbers are handed down by government to each strategic authority, for that authority to apportion to the LPAs within its area unless it has reached an accommodation with another strategic authority or can show that it at least has made “stringent efforts” to that end. Otherwise, we all know the outcome: many strategic authorities will succeed with special pleading and under this new system we will still end up with a huge national undershoot.

Before this new system goes much further, I think we do need more clarity as to what wriggle room strategic authorities (including the Mayor of London) have in preparing plans which do not meet their areas’ objectively assessed needs. Otherwise many draft SDS examinations will simply get bogged down in debates over housing numbers.

Who knows, it may be that 558,000 homes is the right number for London up to 2027, but that is going to need a lot more by way of testing and consideration of other policy options, in my very humble opinion.

Simon Ricketts, 13 September 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Developing Near Stations

As a supplement to my 31 August 2026 blog post Push The Button: The Pro-Development Presumptions, “Substantial Weight” & “Support” Policies In The New NPPF, I thought it might be helpful if I simply set out in a post the relevant policies in the new NPPF that articulate the government’s encouragement to certain forms of development near some stations, trumping any “materially inconsistent” development plan policies, which now have “very limited weight” (Annex A, paragraph 2).

We start with the pro-development presumption within policy S5 that kicks in for specific categories of development. Here, category h is relevant:

S5: Principle of development outside settlements

1. Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework:

…

h. Residential and mixed-use development which would:

i. Be within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B);

ii. Be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located;

iii. Be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; and

iv. Not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location.

You look to the glossary to see what “reasonable walking distance” and “well-connected station” mean:

Reasonable walking distance: For the purpose of policies S5, L3, GB7 (relating to land around well-connected stations), this should be considered to be around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes’ walk time if topography, route availability and quality or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres away. […]  Where a reasonable walking distance is required to be calculated when applying policies S5(1)(h), L3(2)(c) and GB7(1)(h), and only part of the site falls within the reasonable walking distance, those sub-paragraphs of policies S5, L3 and GB7 only apply to the area of the site within that reasonable walking distance.

Well-connected station: Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.

Footnote 72 , against “top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA)”, states:  “For the purpose of assessing whether Travel to Work Areas fall within this definition, the 2023 GVA data should continue to be used up to the day after the publication of the 2028 GVA data. For subsequent years, the GVA data used for the purpose of this definition should continue to be regarded as fixed for each five year period. Published in: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossvalueaddedgva/datasets/ukgvaandproductivityestimatesforothergeographies .”

Policy S5 5 makes it clear that the S5 presumption also applies to any development in the green belt which is not “inappropriate”. Category h of policy GB7 replicates category h of S5, but with the additional requirement that the golden rules in policy GB 8 are to be followed.

GB7: Development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt

1. The following categories of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and therefore should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt or be required to demonstrate very special circumstances:

…..

h. Residential or mixed-use development which would:

i. Be within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B);

ii. Be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located;

iii. Be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure;

iv. Not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location; and

v. In the case of proposals for major development, comply with policy GB8.

The golden rules in GB8 are, in summary:

  • Affordable housing “which is 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of a 50%”
  • Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure
  • The provision of new green space, or improvements to existing green space, which is accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their homes, whether through on-site provision or through access to offsite spaces. […]

Finally, when developing within one of these sites (whether in the green belt or not, and whether within a settlement or not) the minimum density requirements in policy L3 kick in:

L3: Achieving appropriate densities

1. Development proposals should make efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for different types of housing and other development, local market conditions, the availability of infrastructure (including that supporting sustainable transport modes) and its scope for improvement, a site’s connectivity and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.

2. To contribute to making efficient use of land:

…..

c. Where development proposals for residential or mixed-use schemes are within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B), a density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site. Higher densities – of at least 45 dwellings per hectare – should be achieved where the service frequency is at least twice that of the minimum required for a well-connected station. Exceptions to meeting these minimum standards should be made only in the case of:

i. Sites which fall below the threshold for major development where it can be demonstrated that meeting the standard is either inappropriate or not possible; or

ii. Development for traveller sites.

3. The minimum densities in paragraph 2(c) of this policy should be exceeded where possible, especially in areas of high connectivity, to optimise the efficient use of land. The Connectivity Tool (Connectivity Tool – GOV.UK) should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence in assessing the connectivity of particular locations proposed for development.

4. Development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with paragraph 2 of this policy should be refused.

So we all now have the criteria to be met. Of course, a few uncertainties remain, for instance:

  • Any possible wriggle room in that 800m /10 minutes’  walking distance  
  • The lack of a readily available public source interpreting the government’s GVA datasets meaning that many of us are relying on consultancies’ analysis to arrive at that top 80 list.
  • Some nuances in looking at station timetables for service frequency and as to when there may be a reasonable prospect of service improvement.

Well done Lord Banner for tabling a written question to the government in the House of Lords as to “whether they intend to publish a list of the “well-connected stations” within the meaning of Policy S5(1)(h) and Annex B of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework; and, if not, why not.”

Everyone on board?

Simon Ricketts, 5 September 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Push The Button: The Pro-Development Presumptions, “Substantial Weight” & “Support” Policies In The New NPPF

To maximise the prospect of securing planning approval, scheme promoters need to ensure that their schemes press as many of the relevant buttons in the new NPPF as possible.

I have counted 21 of them, which I set out below. Most have detailed qualifying criteria to meet, but hopefully this will allow you to see the wood for the trees in applying the new policy framework. Not triggering the particular policy may in some cases count against you in the planning balance, so this is not quite just the Scrabble approach of always looking to maximise use of those triple word scores.

S3: Presumption in favour of sustainable development

1. Decisions on development proposals should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means:

a. Policy S4 in this Framework should be applied when considering development proposals within settlements;

b. Outside settlements, policy S5 should be applied; and

c. In all locations, development proposals that accord with both an up-to-date development plan and the decision-making policies in this Framework should be approved without delay.

S4: Principle of development within settlements

  1. Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework.

S5: Principle of development outside settlements

  1. Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework.

For developments outside settlements, falling within the a to j list is vital. If your land is green belt the development proposed must not be “inappropriate development” and must therefore fall within one of the a to h criteria in policy GB7 1 – so grey belt development, for instance, also qualifies for this strong pro-development presumption.

CC2: Mitigation of climate change

2. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings and/or drawing energy from district heat networks, renewable and low carbon sources (including through the installation of heat pumps and solar panels where these do not already benefit from permitted development rights) where this would be achieved through proposals for development.

CC3: Adaptation to climate change

2. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the resilience of existing buildings and public spaces to anticipated climate change impacts where this would be achieved through proposals for development.

HO7: Meeting the need for homes

1. In applying the policies in this Framework, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting the evidenced accommodation needs of the community, as identified through needs assessments prepared for the area of the local planning authority and other relevant evidence. This includes, but is not limited to, homes needed for different groups assessed under policy HO1.

E2: Meeting the need for business land and premises

1. To support business growth, substantial weight should be given to:

a. The economic benefits of proposals for commercial development which allow businesses to invest, expand and/or adapt; especially where this would support the economic vision and strategy for the area, the implementation of the Industrial Strategy, support improvements in freight and logistics and/or reflect proposals for Industrial Strategy Zones and AI Growth Zones; and

b. Benefits for domestic food production, animal welfare and/or the environment which can be demonstrated through proposals for development for farm and agricultural modernisation.

TC2: Development in town centres

1. In considering proposals for development in town centres, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of:

a. Supporting the overall vitality and viability of the centre, including where this can be achieved through the diversification of uses, intensification and provision of residential accommodation (provided this would not conflict with policies in the development plan for specific locations); and

b. Improving or retaining access to local shops and other facilities which provide day-to day services for the local community.

CO1: Proposals for telecommunications infrastructure

1. In considering proposals for the expansion or upgrading of electronic telecommunications networks, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of maintaining or improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience, including where significant improvements are required such as along rail corridors. This includes, but is not limited to, providing for next generation wireless technologies (such as standalone 5G), gigabit capable broadband connections and supporting infrastructure such as fibre exchanges.

W3: Renewable and low carbon energy development and electricity network infrastructure

1. In considering proposals for renewable and low-carbon energy development and electricity network infrastructure, substantial weight should be given to:

a. The benefits for improving energy security, supporting economic development and/or the transition to a net zero future;

b. In the case of applications for the re-powering and life-extension of existing sites, the additional benefit of utilising an established site for this purpose; and

c. The contribution that small-scale and community-led renewable and low carbon energy projects can make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, along with their associated economic and social benefits.

W4: Water infrastructure

1. In considering proposals for water supply, drainage and wastewater development, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of: a. Providing the capacity needed to serve proposed development and/or improving the security of supply and capacity for existing users (both residential and commercial, including agricultural users); and

b. Improving water quality and reducing water-borne pollution.

M3: Assessing the benefits of mineral development

1. In assessing proposals for minerals development, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction and processing, including to the economy.

L2: Making effective use of land

1. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a development proposal would achieve one or more of the following:

a. Remediating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land;

b. Making better use of vacant and underutilised land and buildings (such as: by bringing back into residential use empty homes and other suitable buildings; converting space above shops; redeveloping underutilised retail and business sites; and building on or above service yards, lock-ups, car parks and other transport infrastructure which are no longer required);

c. Making effective use of previously developed land and buildings through temporary uses, in situations where alternative development is anticipated within a reasonable period (including as a result of the land being allocated for an alternative purpose in the development plan); or

d. Creating additional homes or floorspace within settlements by using the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises, or through sensitive redevelopment or additional development within existing plots (including, but not limited to, the addition of mansard roofs, proposals to fill gaps in the existing roof line, the introduction of higher buildings at street corners and additional units within residential curtilages).

GB8: The Golden Rules

2. In considering applications for major development involving the provision of housing on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, substantial weight should be given to the importance of complying with the Golden Rules.

DP3: Key principles for well-designed places

5. Substantial weight should also be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or which help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they are consistent with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.

HC4: Proposals for new and improved community facilities, public service infrastructure and development providing public health benefits

1. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits where:

a. New or improved public service infrastructure or community facilities would be provided; and

b. Development proposals would make a demonstrable contribution towards promoting good health, preventing ill-health, reducing health inequalities or supporting social interaction in the local community (such as, but not limited to, the provision of new recreation facilities, meeting places and opportunities to grow or purchase healthier food).

P6: Land and operations for defence and public safety

1. Substantial weight should be attached to the importance of sites, activities, facilities and infrastructure required to maintain and enhance defence capability, or whose primary purpose is public safety (including uses such as coastal protection works, coastguard and lifeboat facilities and emergency services telecommunications infrastructure), when considering:

a. Proposals for such development (whether through modernisation, intensification, redevelopment or expansion for operational and related purposes); and

b. Proposals which could affect their operational activity and capability, including situations where other development should only proceed where it can make alternative or replacement provision for defence or public safety operations which would otherwise be affected, or where noise from operational activities could affect the proposed development (in which case policy P4 should also be applied).

HE6: Proposals affecting designated heritage assets

  1. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a designated heritage asset should be supported.

HE7: Decisions on non-designated heritage assets

  1. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a non-designated heritage asset should be supported.

HE8: World Heritage Sites

  1. Proposals that conserve those elements of a World Heritage Site or its setting, including any buffer zone, that make a positive contribution to it or which better reveal its significance, should be supported.

HE9: Conservation areas

  1. Proposals which conserve those elements of a conservation area that make a positive contribution to the area (or which better reveal its significance) should be supported.

Simon Ricketts, 31 August 2026

Personal views, et cetera