Keeping Up: JR Changes, Deadlines

Aside from the hot weather, what may well keep you awake at night (if you’re like me) is the fear of getting something wrong and that is particularly the case when there is the prospect of litigation. For a potential defendant or interested party, have we left some stone unturned (on a whole beach of small, sharp, often buried, stones) that may give rise to the opportunity for judicial review? For a potential claimant, have we missed a deadline such that any claim may be closed out?

(For ease I’m using the term “judicial review” in this post as a broad term covering statutory challenges as well but even that distinction isn’t a pedantic one in this rocky place: different rules apply to different forms of planning litigation).

Ignorance of the law is no defence, least of all for a lawyer, but the challenge of being on top of it all, and the consequences if not, only seem to increase. It’s not even straight-forward for my firm of 40 or so planning lawyers with constant knowledge sharing and a regular throughput of contentious matters. How much more difficult can it be for smaller teams, or local authority legal departments, or lay claimants seeking advice from non-specialists? (Oh and to state what should still be obvious: AI systems are a false friend: Cork v Smith (ICC Judge Mullen, 22 May 2026) – “legal professionals bear ultimate responsibility for their work and cannot outsource the process of legal research or of legal reasoning to an AI. It is a tool to be used with caution. AI has the potential to be wholly unreliable. AI may of course provide a jumping off point for research and legal reasoning but it does not, at least at present, do away with the need for proper research and thought on the part of a legal professional, even a very junior legal professional”).

I suspect that even many specialist planning lawyers read recent planning law cases like the following two with somewhat of a sense of “there but for the grace of God”:

R (Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) v Secretary of State for Transport (Court of Appeal, 21 May 2025)

From October 2025, the Civil Procedure Rules had been changed, reducing the time limit from 21 days to seven days for applying to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against a High Court’s judgment in relation to a challenge to a nationally significant infrastructure project decision. The claimant group, presumably unaware of this change, sought permission within the old 21 day deadline but not within seven days. The change had been one detailed element of  a wider package of reforms which had first been announced in January 2025 (see my 25 January 2025 blog post – at which stage that specific change hadn’t been included), in response to Lord Charlie Banner KC’s review into legal challenges of NSIPs (see my 28 October 2024 blog post).

The Court of Appeal considered the context of the change to the deadline, namely Parliament’s objective of reducing the timescales for processing DCO judicial reviews, and refused the extension of time and thus the application for permission to appeal.

Arun District Council v Secretary of State (HHJ Karen Walden-Smith sitting as a High Court Judge, 15 May 2026)

With section 288 challenges to inspectors’ appeal decision letters, within six weeks of the decision the claim not only needs to have been filed with the Court but a sealed version of the claim (and sealing by the court can take a few days, which is another story) has to have been served (in accordance with specific legal requirements) on the defendant (in practice the Government Legal Department) and on any interested parties. Here the claimant council purported to serve the interested party by emailing its planning consultant (without including all of the relevant documents and indeed relying on a “onedrive” link). The planning consultant did not confirm that he was authorised to accept service on behalf of his client. Correct service was finally effected, 32 days late.  Again, the judge refused an extension and the claim was dismissed.

More changes ahead

On 20 May 2026 HM Treasury announced further restrictions on legal challenges to infrastructure project decisions in a policy paper, Getting Britain Building: Reforming judicial review for infrastructure as part of the government’s attempts to reduce delays to the delivery of nationally important infrastructure, not just continuing the direction of travel recommended in the Banner review but also in the light of the Fingleton review (Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025: enabling nuclear delivery through regulatory reform).

The paper states that in “response to the Fingleton Review, the Government has committed to two further areas of reform: developing a government-backed indemnification scheme to give developers greater financial certainty when facing legal challenge; and extending NSIP judicial review reforms to other major planning regimes, including those under the Town and Country Planning Act.”

There are also two radical proposals outlined in relation to judicial review:

“We are … proposing to introduce two optional mechanisms to the current process for consenting NSIPs – subject to detailed design and the passage of underpinning legislation – which would allow for proportionate protection from judicial review: 

a. a parliamentary authorisation mechanism, which would be intended to provide the greatest degree of legal certainty for a narrow category of the most critical energy projects identified on a case-by-case basis by the Energy Secretary, and where Members of Parliament then judged this appropriate; and

b. a challenge window mechanism, which would allow Secretaries of State to respond in a more agile fashion to potential issues before finalising a planning consent, and limit the ability to raise other issues after the final consent was published.”

Under that first proposal, the House of Commons would be able to confirm the Energy Secretary’s determination that a particular energy project be designated as of “Critical National Importance”. “The normal process for submission and examination of the Development Consent Order (DCO) would then continue – but with the final decision put before the House of Commons again at the end of the process, and a further vote held. If approved, the DCO would be afforded a distinct statutory status specified in the underpinning legislation, akin to an Act of Parliament. As a result, the DCO would be protected from judicial review on issues other than human rights grounds.”

Under that second proposal, the “relevant Secretary of State would publish their draft decision, and as now a fixed window would then open during which any judicial reviews must be lodged. The Secretary of State would then have a period in which they could consider and address these issues before amending a final DCO. As a consequence, where any judicial reviews on the same grounds were subsequently pursued, the courts would have a clearer basis to refuse permission or relief – making use of the provisions already introduced via the Planning and Infrastructure Act on meritless claims. The law would also be changed such that the courts would refuse permission for a judicial review to proceed on any issues not brought up during the consent process or challenge window.“

These changes will not be quick: “The Government recognises these are significant reforms raising important legal, constitutional and practical questions, and will be engaging openly with the judiciary, developers, investors, legal practitioners, local authorities, and affected communities as the policy is developed and implemented.

We will set out further detail ahead of the necessary underpinning legislation being introduced.”

I suspect that what most of us are particularly interested to see is the extent to which recent and proposed changes may herald changes to judicial procedure in relation to planning decision-making more generally, outside the rarefied area of NSIPs. I have thought for a long time that in the case of decisions in relation to large development projects (where the actual permission may in practice only be issued months after resolution to grant), the system could be improved by treating the resolution to grant as triggering an initial deadline either for judicial review, or at least for service of a full pre-action letter, such that potential claimants would no longer have the ability to keep their powder dry until the planning permission has been finally issued and it is too late for the decision maker to remedy any potential issues of contention.

What is the appropriate balance to be arrived at as between, on the one hand, appropriate restraints on public bodies from acting unlawfully and, on the other hand, minimising unnecessary delays to administrative processes (whatever they may be) through ultimately unmeritorious legal arguments? Many of us could stay up all night arguing about that, for sure.

Simon Ricketts, 31 May 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Carry That Weight

“Boy, you’re gonna carry that weight

Carry that weight a long time

Boy, you’re gonna carry that weight

Carry that weight a long time”

(Lennon & McCartney, 1969)

Three interesting decision letters have been issued in the last ten days by the Planning Inspectorate in relation to large residential development projects in London:

  • Decision letter dated 14 May 2026, dismissing an appeal in relation to a proposed part 10 storey, part 28 storey building at 1 Battersea Bridge Road, including 110 new dwellings
  • Decision letter dated 18 May 2026, dismissing an appeal in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Aylesham Centre Peckham, including 867 new dwellings
  • Decision letter dated 18 May 2026, allowing an appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 for an amended version of an existing planning permission for the Camden Goods Yard development in Camden so as to be able to implement fire safety requirements, reducing the number of dwellings from 644 to 636 and reducing the affordable housing provision from 38% to 15%.

There has been much commentary, aimed at taking from those decisions pointers for other projects. But in my view the messaging from them is inevitably as mixed as the weather last week in Leeds.

Because, however much we all try to, and indeed often are paid to, forecast the outcome of particular applications and appeals, there are two particular aspects which make it in reality almost impossible (particularly in relation to larger, complex, projects):

  • What largely subjective assessment will the decision-maker reach on aspects such as the degree of harm caused to e.g. heritage and townscape and the significance of that harm?
  • What weight will the decision maker give to particular competing factors before arriving at an assessment of the overall planning balance?

Bear in mind those two questions as you read these extracts from the inspectors’ conclusions in these three appeals:

1 Battersea Bridge Road:

“187. Having regard to NPPF paragraph 215 and London Plan Policy D9, I must weigh the moderate, low and negligible levels of less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, against the public benefits. All the aforementioned benefits should be regarded as public benefits. 188. The benefits of market and affordable housing delivery are substantial. These alone outweigh the harm to significance notwithstanding the considerable importance and weight I give to that harm. While NPPF paragraph 212 indicates that great weight should be afforded to the assets’ conservation, there is clear and convincing justification for the harm to these designated heritage assets as required by NPPF paragraph 213.

189. Accordingly, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the setting and the significance of designated heritage assets. Despite the identified conflict with London Plan Policies D9 and HC1 and WLP Policies LP3 and LP4, the proposal would accord with NPPF paragraphs 212, 213 and 215.

190. Regarding the moderate indirect adverse effect on the significance of 10 – 14 and 24 – 52 Westbridge Road, 52 – 68 Battersea Bridge Road, and 11 – 35 and 61 – 71 Battersea Church Road as non-designated heritage assets and the conflict with London Plan Policies D9 and HC1 and WLP Policies LP3 and LP4, this would be significantly outweighed by the proposal’s benefits, having had regard to NPPF paragraph 216.

191. Although the heritage balance has been passed, the harms to the aforementioned heritage assets are included in the overall planning balance below.

192. While I have had regard to the appellant’s and the Council’s views on full or partial compliance with London Plan Policy D9 or with WLP Policy LP4, I do not pursue this debate further as the proposal clearly fails to comply with several of the elements of London Plan Policy D9 Part C [“visual, functional, environmental, and cumulative impacts… requires consideration of long, mid-range and immediate views; the local and wider context’s spatial hierarchy; wayfinding; architectural quality and materials; and protection and enhancement of the river’s open quality, public realm, and views”] and WLP Policy LP4 [“proposals for tall buildings will only be appropriate in tall building zones identified in WLP Appendix 2, where there would not be any resulting adverse visual, functional, environmental, or cumulative impacts”].

193. The proposal would provide the benefits of market and affordable housing, both of which individually carry substantial weight. There would be other benefits to which I have afforded significant and moderate weight and these are outlined above. However, I have afforded very substantial weight to the adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area. There are moderate, low and negligible levels of less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets which carries considerable weight and moderate indirect adverse effects on non-designated heritage assets which carry moderate weight.

194. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate that planning permission should otherwise be granted.”

Aylesham Centre:

“98. Contrary to the appellant’s primary contentions, I have found that there is only partial compliance with the adopted development plan for the area, taken as a whole, bearing in mind all disputes made by LBSC and the Rule 6 party combined. Specifically, I find conflict with: SP Policy NSP74 in respect of CLT homes, design, heritage, tall buildings, and retention of retail; and LP Policies HC1, D1, D4 and D9, and SP Policies P13, P17, P20 and P21 and Area Vision AV.14 regarding harmful heritage and townscape impacts.

99. Although there would be some conflict with LP Policies NSP74, SD6 and E9, and SP Policies P32 and P35 I do not find that the appeal development would be deleterious to town centre vitality and viability, or to local business interests overall. Equally, the appellant’s underlying viability position is material. Accordingly, I find no harm from the reduced affordable housing provision as a result.

100. Consequently, linked to the appellant’s other contentions when applying paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework the policies which are most important for determining the application are not out-of-date. And in other respects, the site is already allocated for housing development.”

“103. Factoring significance evidence there would be less than substantial heritage asset harm to a range of relevant designated and non-designated heritage assets. I give great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets. And substantial weight to the non-designated asset harm and overall townscape harm interlaced in the arguments made.

104. The collective public benefits on offer carry substantial overarching weight. They include: the delivery of the SP site allocation developed over a 10 year horizon with the aim of rejuvenating the area; more efficient use of previously developed land in a highly sustainable location; increased pedestrian permeability and connectivity; the facilitation of air quality improvements owing to greater reliance on sustainable modes of transport and with the promotion of cycling; increasing housing supply for Londoners as well as Peckham’s residents via 867 new homes, allowing for family provision as well as wheelchair accessibility needs; increasing much needed affordable housing provision (albeit at 12%); some urban greening betterment as well as ecological and notable BNG improvements; new external play space; plus the overall linked social and economic benefits from large scale town centre investment supporting its primary retail function and infrastructure which would provide and sustain employment in the process.

105. However, in this case such benefits do not outweigh the harm to the relevant designated heritage assets important to the area. Having regard to the Framework, there is no reason for me to conclude a design better responding to those heritage assets could not be achieved.”

“107. In undertaking the balancing exercise, I am cognisant there is a critical need to provide new homes of all tenures for Londoners urgently and at scale coordinated by SP allocation policies and the strategic policies of the LP. Moreover, there is acute affordable housing need in Peckham which some of the new home provision would alleviate. I accept that the totality of benefits would be considerable in this context.

108. Nonetheless, the direct benefits arising from the development comparative to harm to the RLPCA including designated and non-designated asset harm and to the townscape give me insufficient reasons to allow the appeal. From a Framework application perspective, the proposal would not be a sustainable form of development in light of such harms.

109. The circumstances of the case do not lead me to accept new housing and other associated betterments at all costs. Furthermore, SP Policy NSP74 entails a generational opportunity for Peckham which should be carefully managed to ensure a more optimally designed scheme for future generations.

110. For clarity, even with 35% affordable housing as initially proposed in the planning application process and accepting a worsening housing land supply position of less than 5 years purported by the appellant, I would still have found that the level of harm in this case would not be overridden.

111. Although the appeal scheme does have some positive design attributes and high order benefits, the elements of harm identified are not outweighed. There are no other material considerations for me to conclude otherwise.”

Camden Goods Yard:

[Also procedurally interesting given that it is another example of section 106 agreement renegotiation by the section 73 back door – see for more background my 1 March 2026 blog post And Another Thing….Another Misconception About Amending Section 106 Agreements]

“80. With regards the heritage balance, I have found a modest level of less than substantial harm to various heritage assets, to which I have afforded considerable importance and weight. The Framework requires any harm to designated heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

81. In this regard I have considered the economic, social and environmental benefits of the appeal scheme, the uppermost being the delivery of housing and affordable housing. While the quantum of housing and affordable housing is reduced from the earlier consented scheme, I am nonetheless satisfied that this public benefit in itself, which I afford great weight, does outweigh the harm to the heritage assets. As such the appeal scheme is not contrary to CLP Policy D2 and London Plan HC1 that seeks to protect designated heritage assets.

82. Turning to the overall planning balance, the appeal scheme would not provide the full quantum of affordable housing usually required by the Development Plan and would be at a lower level than that previously granted consent. 83. However, I am satisfied that the appellant has demonstrated, with regards the viability evidence submitted, that the appeal scheme makes appropriate provision for affordable housing and is therefore in accordance with the provisions of policy H4 of the Camden Local Plan and policy H5 of the London Plan and National Planning Guidance.

84. As such, in the context of an absence of a 5-year housing land supply and a continued high demand for affordable housing I afford the provision of housing and affordable housing, even at a reduced quantum, great weight.

85. Therefore, it is readily apparent that any adverse impacts of varying the conditions would not, by some considerable margin, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole and other material considerations.

86. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed.”

Could any of you have accurately predicted ahead of these decisions what these outcomes would be? Is that uncertainty inevitable? Could national and/or local policy provide even more direction? Or indeed do parties sometimes need that lack of policy certainty given the inevitability that policies will never be wholly up to date and appropriate for all circumstances?

Whilst in my view it is encouraging that the draft revised NPPF will herald a simpler, more prescriptive, national policy approach (and encouraging indeed that ministers committed last week that the final version will be published by the summer – which I interpret to be by summer recess on 16 July), unless we are going to see some detailed calibration in policy as to, for instance, how specific levels of heritage harm are to be assessed against specific levels of housing undersupply (for which the present “tilted balance” has been, I would say, ultimately ineffective), those two aspects I referred to above are going to dampen down any hope of predictability.

And if the truth is that the decision-maker always has the whip-hand due to that black box within which subjective assessments and conclusions as to weighting of competing considerations can be reached, and that accordingly when we say decision-making is quasi-judicial that word “quasi” is doing some heavy lifting, it’s odd that the precise nature of the decision-maker in our system and whether they have any form of democratic mandate is ultimately random:

  • Most applications for planning permission: officers taking the decisions under delegated powers – applying section 38(6), presumably trying to arrive at a “correct” assessment of policy compliance, harms, benefits and arriving at an overall planning balance, presumably without “political” influence.
  • Other applications: elected councillors in planning committee – the same legal duty, so is it right that there be the room for politically-influenced judgment, particularly where there is an up-to-date local development plan and/or a clear and up to date national planning policy framework? Why is their decision “better” than that of trained officers?
  • Most appeals: decisions taken by civil servants, i.e. a single inspector, again applying section 38(6), presumably trying to arrive at a “correct” assessment of policy compliance, harms, benefits and arriving at an overall planning balance, without “political” influence. Again, why is their decision “better” than either that of local councillors or trained officers?
  •  Some recovered appeals, and applications which have been called-in: decisions taken by ministers in line with national “political” objectives, in practice with significant input from civil servants, at least on technical aspects and ensuring that the ministers’ decision, whatever it may be, is legally defensible. Again, why is the minster’s decision “better” than either that of the inspector who has made recommendations or indeed that of local councillors or trained officers?

If our development management system is intended to be predictable and indeed properly quasi-judicial, such that most applications can be determined by officers and such that call-ins and recovered appeals only happen in utterly exceptional cases, wouldn’t we need to move towards (1) even more calibration in policy and (2) a much stronger duty on councillors to have an up to date local development plan in place with well-evidenced policies?

Otherwise, on these sorts of decisions, on complex sites with often conflicting imperatives, isn’t the truth that we are unfairly leaving a huge amount of weight on the shoulders of officers and, even possibly even more unfairly, individual inspectors? I was interested to see from the list of inquiry documents that, after the close of the 1 Battersea Bridge Road inquiry, the appellant sought unsuccessfully to have the appeal recovered by the Secretary of State – presumably in the hope that he would reach a different conclusion as to the relative weight that various considerations carried than the direction in which the inspector may have been thought to be heading..

Simon Ricketts, 25 May 2026

Personal views, et cetera

What’s The Use?

One of my first blog posts ever, on 1 July 2016, was Time To Review The “C” Use Classes? It was definitely time then, ten years ago! Even more so now. In writing this stuff, I do sometimes wonder, what’s the use…?

“What’s the use?” is still such a particularly difficult question when it comes to overnight sleeping accommodation.

One aspect of the issue (the boundaries of use class C1) has of course arisen on several occasions over the last few years in relation to the accommodation of asylum seekers within hotels, but has repeatedly been ducked by the courts (see for instance my 15 November 2025 blog post There Was Some Controversial News In Planning This Week But Instead Let’s Focus On the Latest Ruling In The Epping Forest Asylum Seekers Litigation).

But the blurred boundaries I talked about in the blog post between, for instance use classes C3, sui generis and C4, still exist, with so much now falling into that “sui generis” (“of its own kind”/”in a class of its own”) catch-all.

(Incidentally, I think that the first recorded judicial use of this informal Latin tag for uses that don’t fall within any classes of the Use Classes Order is in a Divisional Court case from 1975, Tessier v Secretary of State, where, to quote from the Planning Encyclopaedia: “a building had been used as a sculptor’s workshop, the sculptor having operated industrial machinery and tools for cutting out huge stone masonry blocks and other sculpting activities. The Divisional Court held that this was not an industrial use, because the primary activity of the sculptor was the artistic work of sculpture and not the making or manufacturing of an article in the course of a trade or business.” Cases back then all seemed so much more, well, innocent…)

I just wanted in today’s brief post to draw attention to a recent High Court judgment which grapples with another of these “use categorisation” questions, in the context of planning enforcement: Empire Communications Limited v Secretary of State  (Deputy High Court Judge Tim Smith, 2 April 2026). This concerned former offices which were converted, purportedly in reliance on permitted development rights. Prior approval was granted for change of use to residential. Following conversion of the buildings, the local planning authority, the London Borough of Camden, issued an enforcement notice alleging that the conversions had in fact been to “serviced apartments for short term lets (Sui Generis)” rather than to residential C3 use.

An inspector dismissed appeals against the notice and in so doing found that the building should be treated as a single planning unit rather than the apartments within them being treated as a series of independent units of occupation. He agreed with the council that the use was sui generis, taking into account a number of factors which “ranged from how the individual apartments were laid out and appointed, the common areas in the Buildings, how the space was advertised, and the services that were offered to guests.”

I have looked back at the inspector’s decision letter and he records the following, by way of example:

“The layout of the buildings and apartments contain many of the features of a C3 residential flat, with full sized domestic-style kitchens and facilities. In this case, spacious apartments are also a feature of the offer in relation to the short term lets.

However, hotel-style key cards to operate the doors and lighting in all units in 254-256 and the ground floor of 258, plus door access on the upper floors of 258, are not common features of residential flats in C3 use, despite Ms Mojzis’ reference to another development where that is the case. There are no individual post boxes and no doorbells on the apartment doors or at the entrance to the buildings. And the third and fourth floors each contain two inter-connecting apartments, designed to facilitate independent or joint use, which is not a typical feature of C3 dwellinghouses and is more commonly found in hotels.

The large reception and sitting area is also consistent with short-term letting and the functional closure of the independent entrance to 254-258 and the linking of the buildings on each floor facilitate more effective management of the apartments as a single operation, even if similar arrangements may feature in some C3 apartment buildings.

The apartments have been fully furnished to a high standard with similar furnishings and effects and fully fitted kitchens (including full-sized fridge freezer, oven, hob, microwave, kettle, toaster, cooking utensils, crockery and cutlery). Each contains a TV and WiFi, hotel-style safe in a cupboard, a phone to contact reception and bed linen. I have not seen any evidence of significant quantities of personal possessions in any of the units at any time, or of any form of personalisation of the living spaces. The only exception being Ms Mojzis’ statement that in relation to five lets occupiers brought their own furniture.

The photographs show baggage trolleys in the reception area, there is a small lounge area adjacent to the reception, and a concierge desk near the entrance. Cycle stores are provided in each building, but in the photographs in evidence there were very few cycles in them, to the extent that they were largely empty at my site visit and in all the photographs provided in evidence.

The apartments have been advertised on Booking.com, Expedia, siyu.co.uk, Londonservicedapartments.co.uk, and the Sanctum website. With the evidence before me, the Sanctum website appears to have emphasised nightly stays over longer ones, with an option (previously) to stay longer. “Long stay special” offers for stays of 90, 180 or 365 nights, were described as “discounted rates on extended stays, whether you are relocating, studying or having medical treatment”. A small number of Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs) were also arranged through residential lettings agents Silverdoor, Fox Gregory and Ultra Estates.

Users are referred to as guests, and the services offered include weekday maid refresh service, towels and bed linen changed twice a week (the photographs show a hotel style ‘please make up the room’ door handle sign), toiletries on arrival, tea towels, washing up liquid and sponge, 24hr reception and security, and all utility bills. Tea and coffee sachets are also seen in many of the apartments in the photographs in evidence, along with tissues in the bathrooms and hair dryers.

Ms Mojzis advised at the Inquiry that ironing facilities and towels were provided, but not always for longer stays, for which maid services were charged separately. Other chargeable services are also advertised on a daily, nightly or monthly basis including parking, weekend maid service, cots and highchairs and laundry/dry cleaning service. The Sanctum website terms and conditions specify check in and check out times, and offer early check-in and late check-out for an additional fee.

The Sanctum website associates serviced apartments with aparthotels, and describes them as being “similar to hotels but offer a more homely experience”. It states that, “serviced apartments have access to many facilities in a more spacious and comfortable setting than the average hotel room, including a fully equipped kitchen, living area, bathroom, and more”. And that hotel amenities go slightly further than those offered in serviced apartments, with additional services such as breakfast, mini-bar and room service.”

The inspector went onto consider in some detail evidence as to lengths of stay, before concluding:

“Overall, considering all the evidence, the appellant has not demonstrated that the use which has occurred is not a sui generis one. The overall character of the use is distinguishable from a Class C3 use, and the overall number of units in the entire building(s) operating together in a similar manner contribute to that character. Although there have been significant vacant periods, and the number of very short lets has been limited to no more than 90 nights per apartment per year, many more of the lettings have been for 90 nights, or only slightly longer. The housekeeping, services and facilities within the apartments, concierge/security and additional services, and the absence of evidence of personal effects also contribute to that, and bear a number of resemblances to a hotel use.

On the balance of probabilities, with the evidence before me, the use that has occurred is the sui generis use of the property for serviced apartments for short term lets.”

How to determine whether this was in fact correct?  The judge recognised the potential complexity of the issue:

“In forming a judgement about whether the Inspector’s conclusions were correct, a particular complication is that the character of uses involved in this case are, in principle, capable of a number of different classifications. A residential-type use (to employ a neutral term) could be at least use Class C3 (dwellinghouse), or C1 (hotel, boarding house or guest house), or C2 (residential institution), or C4 (house in multiple occupation), or one of at least two types of sui generis use (hostel, or serviced apartments).”


The judge distilled “from the case-law the following propositions: (a) whether a particular use departs from that of a use class C3 dwelling is a question of fact and degree (per Moore); (b) to answer that question one needs to look at the use of the property in the round (per Welwyn Hatfield); and (c) the character of the use, and (as an example) the duration of stay, is a factor in reaching a decision but is not determinative (per Gravesham and Mayflower respectively).”

The judge declined to interfere with the exercise of the inspector’s judgment in carrying out that task. As to the difficulties of complying with an enforcement notice preventing the use of the buildings as “short-term let serviced apartments”, the inspector had “clearly identified and articulated the elements of the operation here which led him to conclude that the use was as serviced apartments”. I should add that in determining whether the use was “short-term” in this case the inspector did not consider that the 90-day rule in sections 25 and 25A of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 was relevant. The end result, given that the office to residential prior approval had been lawfully implemented, was that the only lawful use to which the buildings could return was that of an office.

The judgment does create some real questions as to where the boundary between residential C3 use and sui generis serviced apartment use lies, in a world where some “build to rent” operators do, I suspect, offer many of the services in evidence here?  I understand that the claimants have applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Some additional clarity would be very helpful.

Even more helpful, of course, would be for the Government to review whether the categorisations within the “C”  Use Classes remain fit for purpose and, if not (they don’t, in my view), to embark on updating them!

Simon Ricketts, 17 May 2026

Personal views, et cetera

I Promised You A Miracle

I just looked back over my blog posts over the last two years or so to see if there was some clue as to when and why it all went wrong for Labour.

Early 2024, in my view. All those promises.

Because, for all the hyperbolic statements of intent, for all of the administrative and legislative changes and despite many positive day-to-day decisions, the targeted effects just haven’t been felt, or indeed even achieved.

And there are no marks for effort in politics: it’s about achievement, or perhaps even more starkly, the public perception as to achievement.

Planning reform was seen as one of the main levers to be pulled so as to deliver growth. Whether the lever was pulled firmly enough or fast enough doesn’t even matter. Like a car careering down a hill in a silent movie, and the handbrake coming off in the driver’s hands, maybe the lever wasn’t even attached or, more credibly, maybe the growth engine’s more bust than that – in ways that go beyond rules and policies but go to governance, established ways of thinking and of course resources.

As has become plain, there are so many other external factors affecting growth, and housebuilding in particular; many of those factors indeed external even to this country. And the thought that our sprawling and disjointed system could be rebuilt in one Parliamentary term was always for the birds.

The electorate is harsh. And, of course, collectively foolish if it thinks that any other group of politicians will have better answers. I’m sure that many of them will turn out to be utterly stupid. But when you look back at the grand promises, is the backlash at all surprising?

From the foreword by Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner of Labour’s March 2024 Plan to Power-Up Britain document:

“Growth in every corner of the country, so that every town, village and city has a role to play, and can reap the rewards of a decade of national renewal.”

The document promised:

“The biggest boost in affordable homes for a generation – with social and council housing at the core of Labour’s plan for secure homes.

A housing recovery plan, a blitz of planning reform to quickly and materially boost house building , delivered in our first weeks and months in office .

The next generation of new towns , garden cities and large sites, new communities with beautiful homes, green spaces, reliable transport and bustling high streets

New powers to unleash mayors including a package of devolution to mayors, handing them stronger powers over planning and departmental style settlements for housing

‘Planning passports ’ for urban brownfield delivery, a tough package of planning reform to fast track approvals and delivery of high density housing on urban brownfield sites.”

Rachel Reeves as shadow Chancellor at UKREiif two years ago:

“Our local housing recovery plan will reverse the Conservatives’ damaging changes to planning, getting stalled sites moving at speed… Together, we will unleash the biggest wave of affordable and social housing in a generation.”

In September 2024 I was quoting from the prime minister’s party conference speech in Liverpool:

“we are introducing new planning passports that will turbo-charge housebuilding in our inner cities.”

 And Rachel Reeves there: “What you will see in your town, your city, is a sight that we have not seen often enough in our country – shovels in the ground, cranes in the sky, the sounds and the sights of the future arriving. We will make that a reality.”

In October 2024, the government’s draft industrial strategy:

“Eight growth-driving sectors have been identified: Advanced Manufacturing, Clean Energy Industries, Creative Industries, Defence, Digital and Technologies, Financial Services, Life Sciences, and Professional and Business Services.”

“A core objective of the Industrial Strategy is unleashing the full potential of our cities and regions. The Industrial Strategy will concentrate efforts on places with the greatest potential for our growth sectors: city regions, high-potential clusters, and strategic industrial sites.”

In January 2025, that Government goes further and faster on planning reform in bid for growth press statement.

In  December 2025, Royal Assent for the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 was being referred to in the government’s press statement as a “crucial pillar of the government’s growth mission, the Act will make Britain a more attractive place for business, opening the door to more investment opportunities in major infrastructure and housing schemes – while also supporting plans to achieve clean power by 2030, make 150 decisions on major infrastructure, and build 1.5 million homes.”

I’m struggling to see what might come to the government’s assistance at the moment, other than some currently implausible economic good fortune and/or a whole series of political implosions elsewhere. But we shall see.

I know that many of you have purchased tickets for our sell-out Ten Years’ Time charity event for XLP on 1 June (thank you again – particularly to event sponsors Town Legal, Birketts, Lichfields, DHA Planning and Origin Legal). The theme deliberately looks beyond these short-term political issues to take a longer term perspective. What will we be facing in 2036, ten years from now, and will our planning system be up to it? What do we need to do?

I wanted to use this post just to give a shout-out to those who will be giving their time speaking on 1 June, and who continue month after month to produce brilliant free content to help us try to make sense to what is happening around us.

For instance:

Nick Cuff gave his initial reactions yesterday as to London’s local elections. We’re also waiting for the second part of his deep dive into what have been the longer-term implications for the London land market of the 2017 Parkhurst Road High Court judgment on viability. The first part is here. He has shared with me a preview of Part 2, which you will find fascinating.

Philip Barnes published a blog post  on 30 April anticipating the election votes and postulating on the impact on national land and planning policy.

Nicola Gooch’s posts are always so timely. On Friday she blogged on changes made last week to the PPG to take account of the Renters Rights Act, changes which could immediately  affect the drafting of many section 106 agreements.

Jennie Baker is part of the Lichfields team responsible for their authoritative blog series, the latest being a piece by Dominic Bowers, The New Plan-Making System: Zen and the Art of Timetable Maintenance.

Angus Walker blogged on Friday on a potential local authority challenge to a DCO decision, an application proposing Secretary of State requirement sign-off, and the first legislative signs of the application of BNG to NSIPs in Sundowner and BNG on the up .

Catriona Riddell, as part of the Planning After Dark podcast, last week published a timely episode with the outgoing Mayor of Newham Rokhsana Fiaz, Mayors, Mothers and Making It Happen with Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz.

Sam Stafford yesterday published a blog directly referencing the 1 June event, Ten Years’ Time, which is worth a read, looking back 10 years as well as with some thoughts as to what the future might hold. There is also the most recent, 2 May 2026, episode of his 50 Shades of Planning podcast, The West Midlands Problem (plus Grey Belt and some other stuff) .

And then finally Hashi Mohamed and Zack Simons, busy busy. Hashi preparing I know for a UKREiif session and Zack working on a paper for the Oxford Joint Planning Law Conference.

These are no simple minds: if they can’t tell the future, who can?

Simon Ricketts, 10 May 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Biodiversity Net Gain: Less Pain Soon

BNG has become one of those three letter acronym subjects like CIL and ACVs which has become its world of domestic planning law complexity. (EDPs, EORs etc: “Hold my beer…”?)

In many instances, I’ve been left wondering whether the additional bureaucracy and required specialist input (often legal as well as ecological), particularly in relation to the development of smaller sites, was ever anticipated by those preparing the legislation (if not, why not?) and whether (in relation to those smaller sites) the gain has indeed been worth the pain.

In my 31 May 2025 blog post Small Changes I mentioned consultation that the government was undertaking on simplifying BNG requirements.

We now have the government’s response (15 April 2026) to that consultation process.

Helpful changes are on the way, some by the end of July, particularly:

  • A new exemption for sites whether the planning permission area is no more than 0.2 hectares (and in the light of that removal of the current self-build and custom-build exemptions)
  • A new exemption where development is wholly or primarily for conserving or enhancing biodiversity
  • A new exemption for temporary planning permissions of no more than five years
  • A new exemption for development that enhances parks, public gardens or playing fields where no onsite priority habitats are affected and where (in the case of playing fields) development linked to wider schemes or pitches enclosed within a sports stadium is excluded
  • Changes to biodiversity gain hierarchy, spatial risk multiplier and approach to open mosaic habitats.

In terms of transitional arrangements:

“Guidance will also be provided on transitional arrangements for local authorities and developers. This will cover how to treat applications in the interim period while changes are being implemented … Until changes take effect, the current BNG requirement remains in place and developers should continue to follow existing guidance and legislation when delivering BNG. Planning applications that have been granted subject to the biodiversity gain condition will be required to discharge this condition through the submission and approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development can commence.”

Have you noticed that these three letter acronym planning law areas each soon attract their own specialists, devotees even? I’m nodding admiringly here in the direction of my Town Legal colleagues David Mathias and Tanika Zeidler. They jointly wrote a more detailed article The BNG Consultation Response: What the Feedback Shows and Future Changes Inbound last week. Please do read if you need to know more.

One of the areas where BNG rears its head in my practice is how BNG commitments are secured in practice by local planning authorities, whether by condition, in the case of on-site BNG (to the extent to which anything is required, given the statutory condition), sometimes with section 106 agreement obligations as well, and by section 106 agreement or conservation covenant in the case of off-site BNG. The PAS BNG legal agreement and planning condition templates, prepared by Dentons, are helpful but there is still much inconsistency and gold-plating out there.

Tanika drew my attention this week to an inspector’s decision letter dated 14 April 2026 relating to a proposal for a solar fam in Rutland where the main issue was whether the proposal made adequate provision for BNG. The BNG was to be on-site but the local planning authority argued that a section 106 agreement was required, simply to impose a requirement for the appellant to make a financial contribution towards its costs of monitoring compliance. The inspector agreed with the appellant that this was not necessary. The inspector did “not consider that the outlined onsite enhancement would be especially extensive or complex” and noted that in any event under the Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan which would be required by way of condition the appellant would likely have to provide regular monitoring reports over the 30 year period. Welcome common sense. The last thing we need is section 106 agreements simply to secure monitoring contributions where the cost of the paperwork and certainly the cost of the delay thereby arising is likely to exceed the quantum of the contribution!

Simon Ricketts, 26 April 2026

Personal views, et cetera

…And Thanks For The WildFish

Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe poked fun at many of the absurdities of life on our planet. Triggered by another absurdity of our English planning system, a reminder of which is within R (WildFish) v Buckinghamshire Council (13 March 2026) (Court of Appeal, 13 March 2026), I watched again the opening sequence from the movie (Dolphins: So long, and thanks for all the fish / So sad that it should come to this / We tried to warn you all, but, oh, dear / You may not share our intellect / Which might explain your disrespect / For all the natural wonders that grow around you / So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish! The world’s about to be destroyed / There’s no point getting all annoyed / Lie back and let the planet dissolve around you / Despite those nets of tuna fleets / We thought that most of you were sweet …).

The absurdity I’m thinking about today isn’t about the way in which public consultation processes are sometimes carried out, which Adams did cover (tldr: cellar; no lights; no stairs; “beware of the leopard” sign), but about the lack of fit-for-purpose legislation to amend planning permissions. Yes we all know about Hillside case by now (see my 2 November 2022 blog post if you have literally been on another planet). Yes we all know about the constraints on section 73 following Fiske (space traveller, this 11 December 2024 blog post may help). And yes we know that we are still waiting for section 73B to be switched on which may help with the latter (subject to a new “not substantially different” test) but not with the former.

But the system for amending permissions is even more basically kaput than that, as the Wildfish case illustrates.

The issue isn’t one which was central to the litigation but I’ll briefly explain the case first. It was a judicial review by an environmental campaign group of a reserved matters approval for a housing development. Outline planning permission had been granted on 24 March 2022 for a development of up to 170 dwellings. Condition 13 on the permission provided as follows:

“The details to be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Condition (1) above shall include a foul water drainage scheme for the site. The scheme shall include a waste water treatment capacity assessment to identify the need for any infrastructure upgrades and a programme for carrying out the works to inform site delivery. 


No part of the development shall be occupied until confirmation has been provided to the local planning authority that the scheme and programming of any wastewater upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been agreed with Anglian Water; and all wastewater upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows have been completed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.”

Condition 2 required reserved matters applications to be submitted within 18 months of the permission. The reserved matters application was submitted in time on 25 May 2023. Whilst it was being determined, the applicant had further discussions with Anglian Water and a section 73 permission was granted on 10 December 2024 for “Variation of Condition 13 of 16/00151/AOP on Land off Walnut Drive and Foscote Road to allow details to be submitted prior to occupation.” The section 73 permission incorporated a version of condition 13 without its original first paragraph, i.e. which no longer required that the details to be submitted for reserved matters approval should include the “waste water treatment capacity assessment to identify the need for any infrastructure upgrades and a programme for carrying out the works to inform site delivery”.

The applicant then revised the reserved matter application to refer to section 73 permission (so as to explain why It wasn’t accompanied by the detail which condition 13 had previously required) and it was granted on 4 March 2025.

The environmental group pursued two grounds of challenge to the reserved matters approval at the Court of Appeal hearing:

“Ground one is the contention that as a result of what occurred in this case there was a substantial alteration to the reserved matters application which meant that the first respondent had no power to approve it. The appellant’s argument is that since condition 13 requires details “to be submitted for approval in writing by the local planning authority in accordance with condition (1) …” the requirements of condition 13, and all of them, are temporally linked to condition 1. The submissions which are required by condition 1 are necessarily linked in the terms of the condition to the time limit in condition 2.”

“Turning to ground two, the appellant contends that it was unlawful, in effect, to switch the reserved matters application from one parent permission, the outline permission, to another, the section 73 permission, in particular when the timescale for submitting reserved matters under the section 73 permission had clearly expired. It was unlawful for the first respondent to consider and determine the reserved matters application “with reference to” the section 73 permission. The section 73 permission was, in accordance with the authorities, an entirely new and separate permission from the outline permission. Had the second respondent wished to discharge reserved matters under the authority of the section 73 permission it would have needed to have applied to do so but in fact the time to do so had passed.”

The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds. On the first ground, details of a foul drainage scheme fell outside the definition of “reserved matters” and so the fact that the details required by condition 13 of the outline planning permission had not been included did not mean that a valid reserved matters application had not been submitted by the 18 months deadline. On the second ground, the amendment of the application to refer to the section 73 permission did not cause the application to be one that had been submitted under the section 73 permission. Dove LJ states: “Firstly, in my view reading all the documents together, the proper conclusion is the one which I have already set out, namely that the reserved matters application, specified in the application to be for the outline planning permission and described thereafter as such subject only to the observation of a “variation” which was at best merely recording the fact of the section 73 permission, the reasonable reader would have concluded the reserved matters were approved under the outline permission.”

However, the important reminder is what immediately follows:

“It is important to re-emphasise what was observed by Sullivan J in Pye, namely that whilst in statutory language and also common usage a section 73 application is described as a “variation” or “amendment” the truth is that it creates an entirely separate permission. That language is capable of being seriously misleading. The mere reference in the amendment to the description of the existence of an entirely separate planning permission was not in my judgment capable of either transferring the reserved matters application to that entirely separate permission or, alternatively, leading to the inference that permission was being granted under both the outline permission and the section 73 permission.”

What is this reminding us? Well, in basic terms, if you secure reserved matters approval pursuant to an outline planning permission but there is a problem with complying with one of the conditions on the outline planning permission and so you apply to “amend” it under section 73, that “amendment” isn’t engaged, and doesn’t help you, in relation to your build-out of the reserved matters approval. Your reserved matters approval was granted pursuant to the initial outline planning permission. The section 73 application, once approved, results in a separate outline planning permission and the “amendment” would only help you in relation to reserved matters approvals secured pursuant to that section 73 permission (and the deadline may well have expired for submitting reserved matters applications, given that of course – another frustration- section 73 applications can’t be used to secure extensions of time limits for submission of reserved matters or for implementation).

So it is really important to follow the family tree in relation to any planning permission where section 73 permissions have been secured. Under what planning permission were the reserved matters approved that are now being relied upon? If reliance is being placed on any amended form of condition to that contained within the original outline planning permission, is the scheme actually being built out pursuant to that planning permission?

This is a wrinkle which arises with use of section 73, as section 73 application of course results in a fresh permission. The same wrinkle will arise with section 73B. It does not arise with non-material amendments approved pursuant to section 96A, as with section 96A, of course, there is no new permission; the existing permission is varied.

As always, there are potential work-arounds. Often indeed I’m sure the issue goes unnoticed, because after all, where is the “planning harm”? But it’s another one to watch out for. NB thank you to Killian Garvey, whose LinkedIn post on the issue got me a-thinking.

Final Douglas Adams quote, for now at least:

“Narrator: There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory mentioned, which states that this has already happened.”

Simon Ricketts., 19 April 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Back To The Future: New Town Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development plans should

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

In decision-making:

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

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

On land assembly:

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

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

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

The next steps:

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

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

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

Onwards!

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

Simon Ricketts, 12 April 2026

Personal views, et cetera.

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

(Image courtesy of Roger Ce, Unsplash)

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Application documents;

– A copy of the requisite notice;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, overall, surely, this is all positive…

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

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

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

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

You’ve got everything now.

Simon Ricketts, 5 April 2026

Personal views, et cetera

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

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

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

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

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

Simon Ricketts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We now propose to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simon Ricketts, 25 March 2026

Personal views, et cetera