Month: July 2026

We’re Getting There?

This government’s manifesto commitment to build 1.5m homes over this Parliament in England becomes more implausible by the day. 

Publication finally, by last week before the Parliamentary summer recess, of the final version of a significantly re-structured, more directional NPPF as per the 16 December 2025 draft was meant to be part of that push – setting out the approach to be taken in new style local plans and spatial development strategies (to be in place by this Parliament) and putting in place sharpened pro-development presumptions in favour of planning permission in specified circumstances. 

However, nothing came down the track despite much last minute speculation. 

It was all not happening as I was heading off on holiday, by train as it happens. 

OK we will have a new prime minister on Monday. But why should that have caused any delay? Why was the current version not published, if necessary with a health warning that it would be reviewed further in due course? Why was it not possible to achieve Burnham sign-off last week?

Because, now there are two possibilities: (1) Andy Burnham and his new ministerial line-up read it and publish it in September in its intended form (in which case we have lost another two months for zilch) or (2) they set about reshaping it, although in what direction is a mystery given that there is no hint of any change on direction which would impact on the document itself as opposed to routes to delivery of, for instance, affordable housing (in which case surely we are not looking at September but more likely December, once the redrafting has been done, read-outs taken, particular sounding boards sounded etc). 

There was the usual end of term splurge of other announcements but no NPPF. And in London we of course had the publication of the draft London Plan for which surely there will be trouble down the line.

If this were my “out of office” email, in my absence… 

I would finally note that Parliament returns from summer recess on 1 September, but then there is the further recess for the party conferences between 15 September and 12 October. Christmas recess starts on 17 December. The draft NPPF was published on 16 December 2025. My prediction is that the final version will be on its first birthday, although please do prove me wrong MHCLG (or whatever your acronym may be by then, given the likelihood of deckchair rearrangements in the meantime). 

Happy holidays.

Simon Ricketts, 19 July 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Draft Planning Committee Reports: Sharing Is Caring

This is an issue which comes up all the time in practice. The appellant is keen to have sight of a draft of the officer’s proposed report to planning committee in relation to its application but the officer is nervous whether to do so, particularly where the matter is contentious, in case to do so would found a potential ground of challenge for an objector on grounds of breach of natural justice.

Ironically, the more contentious the proposal, the more anxious the applicant’s team will be to see the report in draft before it is issued. In my experience, this is not to influence the judgments reached in the draft report (no officer would accept that), but rather to ensure that there are no material inaccuracies and no misstatements of the relevant legal and policy tests, any of which if uncorrected could lead to a successful judicial review of any planning permission subsequently issued. The trip hazards for councils (and therefore indirectly for applicants) are innumerable and growing. The data in relation to any large scheme can be complex and nuanced. And if there is a mistake, a potential claimant for judicial review currently (ridiculously) has the luxury of being able to stay quiet, deliberately, until the permission is issued, perhaps months later after the section 106 agreement has been completed, before then popping up with his or her grounds of challenge once it is too late for the council or applicant to do anything about them (the obvious solution would be for the High Court’s pre-action protocol in relation to judicial review in the Planning Court to set out an expectation that a potential claimant should usually send its pre-action letter promptly once it ascertains that grounds for potential challenge have first arisen rather than being able to wait until the permission has issued but I’ve said that too many times to no effect).

Of course, if the report to committee is published, as it has to be, at least a week before the meeting, there is nothing to prevent any party, including the applicant, from identifying errors and seeking for them to be remedied by publication of an addendum report, or by oral comments at the meeting itself, but surely it’s a big enough ask to expect committee members to read and understand the main report itself in time for the meeting, without them having to address the subsequent inevitable flow of addendum reports and miscellaneous late representations (each of which legally has to be taken into account). It’s surely become a fiction that any but the most diligent of committee members has indeed actually read and understood all of the available material? The main report should surely be the document of record.

It’s helpful then that Deputy High Court Judge Tim Smith has now handed down judgment in R (Davis) v Isle of Wight Council (Tim Smith sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, 8 July 2026), where the ground of challenge by the claimant (an objector to a proposed renewable energy scheme) to a local planning authority’s grant of permission was that the sharing with the applicant by the authority’s officer of her draft report, giving the applicant the exclusive opportunity to influence the final version, was a breach of natural justice that caused prejudice to the claimant.

On the facts he found that it wasn’t but more interestingly he ventured to set out some factors to note “for determining when it will be fair or unfair to share a draft report to Committee selectively”:

“106. As I see it, relevant considerations include at least the following:

  1. Firstly, and most importantly, it should be non-negotiable that the officer responsible for the report has exercised some independent judgement in relation to any input received. Plainly, an officer who allows the applicant to draft the report to Committee and then accepts it without review would be abdicating their professional responsibility entirely. One would hope that no case before the court ever asks for a ruling on behaviour as deficient as this. But it is much more likely that, as here, the officer is asked to consider comments made on a pre-existing draft report. Whatever the fact pattern, some active engagement with the suggestions must be demonstrated by the author. Mere passive or unthinking acceptance of the comments will not be sufficient;
  2. An officer’s exercise of discretion might be revealed in how he or she receives and acts upon comments. That may be clear on the face of the evidence, for example if suggestions have been made but have demonstrably been rejected. It may also be explained in a witness statement from the officer in question, applying the requisite degree of scrutiny over such ex post facto evidence (see Ermakov v Westminster City Council [1995] EWCA Civ 42 and R (United Trade Action Group) v Transport for London [2021] EWCA Civ 1197 (“UTAG”));
  3. At a more granular level, whether the officer’s view was arrived at unprompted by any comments may also be a relevant factor. To illustrate the shades of grey involved in such an exercise, in oral argument I posited with Counsel two hypothetical scenarios that are closely linked but different. In the first scenario the officer shares a draft report with the applicant, noting about one aspect of it “This is a relevant issue. I propose to tackle it like this. What do you think?”. In the second scenario the request from the officer is “This is a relevant issue. How do you think I should tackle it?”. I do not suggest that one approach is always permissible and the other not, but equally one can see that the former is preferable to the latter in evidencing unprompted thought on the part of the officer;
  4. The substance of the comments accepted will also be a relevant factor. Some may be inconsequential, some may be pivotal. Although not an exhaustive list, comments might be offered on the following aspects of a report (in ascending order of significance): (i) correcting typographical errors, (ii) correcting internal inconsistencies clear on the face of the report, (iii) correcting factual inaccuracies which are readily ascertainable from the application documents themselves, (iv) introducing additional material not found amongst the application documents but which is readily ascertainable from public sources – for example ONS data, (v) evaluative comments on particular issues (having regard also to how significant the issue is in the determination of the application), (vi) comments on how the officer conducts the planning balance required by section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and (vii) comments on the substantive recommendation being made to members of the Planning Committee; and
  5. The greater the degree of transparency around the assistance obtained, the less arguably unfair its use will be. Revealing that the draft report was shared for comments will go so far, but revealing the comments actually received and showing how many of them were accepted will be better.

107. Having considered the effect (both individually and cumulatively) of comments on a draft report, there is also – as Mr Parkinson rightly submitted – a need to take a step back and look at the fairness of the decision-making process as a whole. This will entail a number of additional considerations, a non-exhaustive list of which includes:

a) Whether third parties had their own opportunity to comment on the report prior to it being considered by the decision-maker, and

b) Whether third parties had additional opportunities to influence the decision-maker on the decision to be taken (for example, were they afforded the opportunity to make a presentation at the Planning Committee meeting?)”

To my mind, this is all good advice, largely representing current good practice in those situations where authorities are already willing to share drafts. I hope it will encourage those authorities which have to date been reluctant to take an equivalent approach. Their concern as to risk of legal challenge is not just misplaced but outweighed by the greater risk of legal challenge arising from uncorrected errors in the published report, and by the desirability of reducing the need for lengthy addendum reports and errata lists.

Final thought: we do need to think through how to ensure that grounds for legal challenge do not unnecessarily arise by way of mistakes in officers’ reports where decisions are taken by way of delegated authority, which is likely to be more frequently the case given the imminent changes covered in my 13 June 2026 blog post Delegation Nation – where there is not the required discipline of publishing the report a week ahead of the decision. This in my view increases the need for drafts to be checked by applicant teams, particularly in potentially contentious situations.

Simon Ricketts, 12 July 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Londonism

I’m not sure what Manchesterism is but Londonism surely isn’t working.

The 2024 Places for Everyone joint development plan for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan leaves it to local authorities “through local plans” to set “targets for the provision of affordable housing for sale and rent as part of market-led developments based on evidence relating to need and viability”.

In contrast, the London Plan has traditionally set London-wide targets. The 2021 plan sets a strategic target of 50% (policy H4) and thresholds within H5 of 35% and 50% for different categories of land which, if not met, require viability appraisal and a late stage viability review process to secure affordable housing where possible due to future improvements in viability.

Five years on from the London Plan, the effect of those thresholds is surely obvious to all: see my 18 October 2025 blog post London Stalling .

The Government and the Mayor of London finally reacted to the obvious need for stimuli by way of an initial policy note on 23 October 2025 (see my blog post 4 Key Asks For The London Housebuilding Support Package Consultation).

The Mayor of London’s finalised package of support for housebuilding in the capital in the form of its 25 March 2026 London Plan Guidance is now subject to a judicial review brought by three London boroughs and “formally supported” by four others. After public consultation which led to amendments from what was initially proposed, the guidance was published, with support from the government,  on 25 March 2026 to respond “to the current challenging macro-economic circumstances and the changing national regulatory landscape which have led to a reduction in housebuilding in the capital” and to create “an additional time-limited emergency route which departs from policy H5 of the London Plan.”

I described the package, together with associated measures by government to provide relief from CIL in specific circumstances (for which we still await the relevant legislation – spell e-m-e-r-g-e-n-c-y for me again), in my 25 March 2026 blog post “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”.

Following widespread concern as to whether the initially proposed measures would be sufficient (see my 13 December 2025 blog post The Proposed London Housing Emergency Measures Package Is Underwhelming), my impression is that the final package has been viewed much more positively by those with stalled residential projects in the capital, with, for instance, the removal of any requirement for a late stage (as opposed to an early stage) review mechanism from the time-limited planning route (which would have killed off much funding) and the extension of the qualifying timescale.

But of course, since the 25 March publication, we have had the 7 May local elections. Which are the boroughs behind the current judicial review? The three claimants are Tower Hamlets (majority control Aspire, previously no overall control), Hackney (majority control Green, previously Labour) and Lewisham (majority control Green, previously Labour). The four boroughs supporting the litigation are Lambeth (no overall control, albeit Green-led, previously Labour), Southwark (now Green/Liberal Democrat joint administration, previously Labour), Waltham Forest (majority control Green, previously Labour) and Haringey (minority control Green, previously Labour). The Mayor no longer has the allyship of these crucial authorities.

For a judicial review brought presumably with the intention of seeking to persuade the Mayor to stick to the 35% affordable housing fast-track threshold within policy H5 of the London Plan, it is interesting (possibly even remarkable) that so little has been revealed by the boroughs as to the detailed basis for the challenge. The existence of a pre-action protocol letter was first revealed by counsel at the Hillingdon local plan examination on 14 May but is still not in the public domain. All we have in the public domain as to the proceedings themselves are press statements from some of the relevant boroughs, the most detailed being Tower Hamlets’ statement on 24 June 2026, Councils launch legal challenge to stop Mayor of London cutting affordable housing.

“The legal challenge, backed by seven local authorities, relates to the Mayor of London’s attempt to reduce the current 35% affordable housing quota in the London Plan without using the proper statutory process for amending that plan. It also relates to the lack of a fair consultation before the policy change was made, including a lack of evidence justifying the blanket reduction to 20% affordable housing in all London boroughs.”

It is right of course that no decision maker should treat the London Plan Guidance as a formal part of the development plan or in any way formally amending London Plan policy H5 (although in any event the supporting text to policy H5 anticipated some flex , albeit upwards: “The 35 per cent threshold level will be monitored and reviewed in 2021 to determine whether this threshold should be increased. Any changes to the threshold will be consulted on as part of an updated Affordable Housing and Viability SPG or through a focused review of the London Plan“). But isn’t it obvious that it is for the decision-maker to consider the requirements of policy H5 in the context of current circumstances and that the London Plan Guidance represents the Mayor of London’s guidance as to the weight that he currently considers should be applied to those 2021 thresholds versus the time-limited measures in the guidance? If that isn’t already abundantly clear, the Mayor could and should make it so. In that context, albeit with appropriate deference given that the authorities have not chosen to share to place their detailed grounds in the public domain, what really is the point of this litigation? What decision maker in the real world is going to misunderstand the position?

The question arises as to what developers should now be doing if they had previously been intending to rely on the London Plan Guidance. Should their strategy change in the light of the litigation? In my view, no. The Guidance is lawful unless and until quashed and, in any event, as mentioned, any decision-maker will surely be careful not to treat the Guidance as part of the development plan as opposed to advice (which they may or may not consider sensible) as to the weight which the Mayor considers should in the current economic climate be given to policy H5.

The judicial review is certainly an early indication as to the potential treatment by at least seven boroughs of applications which are promoted on the basis of the 20% time-limited route, meaning that applicants will need to consider whether to press on with a view to potential call-in by the Mayor (for schemes comprising 50 dwellings or more) or appeal to the Secretary of State or whether to proceed by way of the viability-tested route, accepting the need for a late-stage review mechanism. But I can’t see how those boroughs’ combative approach might conceivably result in more affordable housing being delivered. If you disagree, please explain.

What is Andy going to make of all this I wonder?

Simon Ricketts, 5 July 2026

Personal views, et cetera