Month: May 2026

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