simonicity

Why Does Negotiating Section 106 Agreements Have To Be Such A Drag?

The HBF’s May 2025 research piece What is the timeframe for local authorities to agree community investment? shows what a huge drag on planning permission timescales is represented by the process of negotiating a section 106 agreement (which of course needs to have been completed before planning permission can be issued).

Read this:

“To better understand the current state of S106 agreement timelines, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to local planning authorities across England. These results are based on the data from more than 2,500 S106 agreements across over 50 local authorities.

The FOI exercise found that the average S106 approval timeline was:

2022/23: 425 days

2023/24: 459 days

2024/25: 515 days

In just two years, the average time required to finalise an S106 agreement has increased by 90 days – a 20% increase.

The responses also highlight the extremities that developers in some local authorities are facing. The maximum recorded timescale was 2,679 days, or more than seven years, for a single S106 agreement to complete the agreement process. The shortest average timescale reported by any of the respondent councils was 192 days.

Additionally, 35% of all S106 agreements took longer than 12 months to finalise. Across all responses, 76% of local authorities reported average timelines that exceeded a year, and over a third of councils had an average timeframe of over 500 days.

In 2024/25, 45% of LPAs had agreements finalised that had taken over 1,000 days to complete.”

The document doesn’t specify the scale threshold of applications considered (I’m assuming by the number of agreements that this is in relation to developments of any scale, not just complex schemes where we know that specific issues requiring bespoke solutions and substantive negotiations may required to unlock solutions). Nor does the document specify when these time periods are measured from: validation of the application, instruction of the LPA’s solicitor or the resolution to grant. Whatever, the statistics are appalling as is the relentlessly worsening trend.

The work is of a piece with the equally depressing Richborough/LPDF research carried out by Lichfields, How long is a piece of string? (16 May 2025). The average determination period for outline planning applications for 10 dwellings or more was 284 days in 2014. In 2024 it was 783 days. Given improvements in the performance of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to planning appeals (particularly appeals determined by way of public inquiry), it is now substantially quicker to secure a decision by way of appeal than by waiting for a final decision from the local planning authority.

This reflects our own anecdotal experience; we are seeing far more appeals on the basis of non-determination within the statutory period, and (tying back into that HBF work) one factor for clients is that with an appeal there is an external discipline upon the parties to agree and complete the section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking within a specific, externally set, timescale.

Stepping back, this is all crazy and contrary to the efficient operation of the public sector. It’s equivalent to the use of A&E departments by those who find it faster, easier or more effective than going to their GP. Something is massively wrong with the operation of the planning system and it’s nothing that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill or indeed in the government’s December 2024 changes to the NPPF will fix. MHCLG’s proposed alterations to the system in relation to “minor” and “medium” residential development (summarised in my 31 May 2025 blog post Small Changes). Indeed I referenced in that post what was said in relation to section 106 agreements for “medium” residential development (less than 50 dwellings – although why stop at that size cap?):

“We … welcome views and evidence on:

1. the specific barriers facing SMEs in agreeing s.106 obligations – including availability of willing and suitable Registered Providers

2. what role national government should play in improving the process – including the merits of a standardised s.106 template for medium sites

3. how the rules relating to suitable off-site provision and/or appropriate financial payment on sites below the medium site threshold might be reformed to more effectively support affordable housing delivery, where there is sufficient evidence that onsite delivery will not take place within a suitable timeframe and noting the government’s views that commuted sums should be a last resort given they push affordable housing delivery timescales into the future.”

The lack of a standardised template is one issue. We end up having frustrating arguments over what should be uncontentious and standard wording, for instance to protect mortgagees in a way which is institutionally acceptable, or simply over our attempts to make a particular LPA’s “standard” drafting operate as the parties intend. The failure of the Law Society to update its June 2010 template (which never really achieved sufficient support and was not well used) is disappointing. Without drama we need a national template on the MHCLG website asap for smaller schemes, expressly supported by local government, the development industry and professional bodies (including those representing banks), with specific guidance as to the circumstances in which there can be departures.

But the problems go much wider than that:

Many LPA legal teams are woefully under-resourced, without a lawyer with the necessary experience, project management focus or internal clout to do more than act as a post-box with those instructing them, adding pressure and unfair responsibility on planning case officers or allowing other internal or external consultees to drive their particular agendas. There is often a reluctance on the part of the in-house legal team to outsource to an external law firm (even though the applicant pays and is usually eager to pay more if that results in faster delivery of the completed agreement) because of internal pressures not to de-skill further the in-house team or lose the ability to recoup costs.

I suspect that LPA lawyers (some of whom are true unsung heroes) would equally point the finger at some applicants’ solicitors – and indeed some applicants – who may be unprepared to back down from unreasonable negotiating positions or may introduce new points post committee resolution – or who may start ghosting them when something commercially is happening in the background.

Negotiations often start way too late. The government’s planning practice guidance on planning obligations (1 September 2019) says this:

“When should discussions on planning obligations take place?

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

So often though, this isn’t happening.

There also no easy answer if negotiations genuinely hit a brick wall – for instance as to whether a particular contribution is justified or as to the precise drafting of a particular clause. Section 158 of Housing and Planning Act 2016 specifically inserted section 106ZA and Schedule 9A (“resolution of disputes about planning obligations”) into the 1990 Act, to provide for a system where an independent expert could be called upon where there are sticking points in section 106 negotiations, but it was never brought into force. It’s sitting there just waiting to be fleshed out by an SI and switched on! Whether the third party were to make a binding determination or, more practically, gave non-binding guidance that would still carry some weight if an appeal were subsequently required, in my view this needs to be dusted off!

Section 106 agreements are also of course lumbering beasts of burden, the legal mechanism for delivering so many strands of public policy – affordable housing, affordable workspace, carbon reduction measures, social infrastructure (eg education, health), transport infrastructure, local employment and training, affordable workspace, air quality, the complexities of viability review processes. What can we deal with by way of other mechanisms (eg conditions), or standardise? What should be left to other legislation? The financial weight of the obligations in a section 106 agreement in relation to any large scheme is huge – in some ways, it is no surprise that the agreement may take as long or longer to negotiate than it took for the application to get from validation to committee resolution, but what can we simplify, speed up, twin-track?

The Planning Inspectorate also has its Planning obligations: good practice advice (updated 5 February 2025), which is more specific than the government’s planning practice guidance and has its more prescriptive timing requirements (completed planning obligation at the time the written representations appeal is lodged is a tough one…). This is the sort of thing (with suitable adjustments) we need for the application stage, with real consequences for those who do not follow it.

Going back to the HBF work, several suggestions for improvements were made, various of them overlapping with what I have been saying:

“Increase resourcing for planning departments: Local planning authorities are currently under significant resource constraints, which affect their capacity to process planning obligations in a timely manner. To alleviate these challenges, government should allocate targeted funding to increase staffing levels within planning departments. By investing in dedicated S106 teams and offering professional development opportunities, councils can improve both the speed and quality of agreement processes.
Develop national standard templates and best practices: A lack of standardisation in the drafting of S106 agreements often leads to protracted negotiations and inconsistencies across councils. The government, in collaboration with planning authorities and the development sector, should produce standardised procedural guidelines and clauses to minimise the need to draft agreements from scratch. In lieu of official standardisation, there could be clearer guidance and expectations on good practice.
Encourage a more flexible use of cascade agreements where necessary to ensure homes can be built and give reassurance to the developer that if an RP cannot be found, that the Affordable Homes can be changed to an alternative tenure or as last resort, a payment made to the LPA in lieu of the Affordable Housing.
Introduce statutory timelines for S106 agreements: Consideration should be given to implementing statutory or guideline-based timescales into the application and pre-application process for handling Section 106 negotiations and the drafting and signing of agreements.
Monitor, benchmark, and report performance: Introducing monitoring and reporting of S106 performance metrics could drive improvements. Local authorities should publish data on average timescales, agreement outcomes, and compliance rates as part of the general reporting on S106 agreements through Infrastructure Funding Statements. This information could be used to benchmark performance across regions, highlight best practices, and identify areas needing intervention. Increased transparency can also build trust among stakeholders and help developers better plan and budget projects.”

I’m sure this can be cracked, easily. Look what Bridget Rosewell’s recommendations on the planning appeal process achieved. If in a couple of years colleagues are still spending much of their time chasing for progress on draft agreements and having to explain to frustrated clients why there is no progress, I’ll be pointing you back to this blog post.

I know most of us have all grown up with this section 106 run-around – indeed some of us are in fact part of Generation Section 52 – hard-copy travelling drafts sent by post, marked up in a sequential series of colours, by pen – yes it was, despite all that, a faster process than present – but, in the words of the Blow Monkeys from that period: it doesn’t have to be this way.

Simon Ricketts, 14 June 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Not Sure Why The Media Was So Focused On Musk v Trump This Week Given What Has Been Happening In Sussex

The gloves are off in Haywards Heath.

Let’s start with a 2 June 2025 press statement: Mid Sussex District Council to Challenge Secretary of State:

“Mid Sussex District Council has launched a legal challenge against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government after being advised by the Planning Inspectorate that it is considering failing the area’s District Plan.

After examination of the Plan in November, the Council has waited five months to hear from the Inspector.

The Inspector’s findings are that the Council has failed in its Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring Councils, simply because it did not say specifically which neighbouring Councils would benefit from the 1,000 additional houses Mid Sussex will build to help them meet their housing needs.

The Council considers this to be an extraordinary response to a technical matter that could easily be remedied another way.

Mid Sussex is the only council in West Sussex to meet its housing targets, whilst also agreeing to build extra houses to help its neighbours, Horsham and Crawley.

The Council has also delivered an unprecedented number of new houses in recent years – over 1,000 per year.

The effect of the Inspector’s findings could be to leave Mid Sussex unprotected from speculative development. This is because, if the Council followed the Inspector’s findings, it would need to start its plan making from scratch. This would take at least 30 months and over £1m. Mid Sussex is due to be dissolved, under the Government’s plans for reorganisation, in 2028.

It is for these reasons that the Council feels it must legally challenge the Inspector’s views.”

Bring on strategic planning! Bring on simpler local plan processes!

By her letter dated 4 April 2025 the inspector examining the Mid-Sussex District Plan, Louise Nurser, concluded that the council had not met the duty to co-operate – fatal to the progression of the plan.

78. In sum, MSDC is surrounded by local authorities who either have an undefined or defined quantum of unmet housing needs and these needs are significant.

79. Crawley, [Brighton and Hove] and other neighbouring authorities have long acknowledged significant and extensive unmet housing needs. Indeed, these were recognised by the previous Inspector. Moreover, other neighbouring local authorities such as Horsham have grappled with issues of water neutrality and potential impacts on their ability to meet their own and other’s needs.

80. The review of the adopted Plan envisaged under Policy DP5 was to ensure that additional sites could come forward in sufficient time to contribute to the sub-region’s unmet housing need. This process was to be planned effectively and strategically. Clearly, it would have been an easier task for the Council if one of the wider sub-regional organisations actively took the lead in addressing unmet needs. However, this was not the case during the preparation of the plan.

81. Nonetheless, your officers will have been aware of this considerable unmet need and the Council’s legal obligations, well before the significant milestones in the preparation of the Plan. Consequently, in practical terms the lack of active engagement by the two sub-regional groups has meant that in practice, MSDC needed to co-operate with its neighbours directly to ensure that it addressed its legal obligations in relation to the DtC. These obligations are not discretionary.

82. The Council has an obligation to maximise the effectiveness of plan preparation in a wider sub region where there are significant unmet needs. It has not provided the evidence to demonstrate that it has engaged constructively, in an active and on-going way to do so.

83. In considering this obligation, I am aware that Mid Sussex has its own constraints, such as the North Downs National Landscape, the setting of the South Downs National Park and the limitations to development relating to the Ashdown Forest SPA/SAC and that the water neutrality issue affects a relatively small strip of land on the western edge of Mid Sussex. Nevertheless, the presence of constraints does not obviate the necessity for MSDC to explore the possibilities of doing more to help address the unmet needs of the wider sub- region. The failure here is that the Council has not adequately considered the requests of its neighbours – namely Crawley, Horsham and Brighton and Hove, in a constructive, active and ongoing way. The Council has, consequently, not maximised the effectiveness of plan preparation

This might be seen as harsh given that, for instance, the adjoining authorities had not in fact objected to the position taken by Mid-Sussex.

And, incidentally, bring on a solution to that water neutrality issue! See my 9 October 2021 blog post Development Embargos: Nitrate, Phosphate & Now Water – it’s been almost four years!!

MSDC sent a letter of complaint to the Planning Inspectorate dated 17 April 2025 alleging that decisions by the inspector had been fettered by pre-determined views; alleging that she had not behaved at the examination with courtesy, patience and understanding (e.g. “the Inspector frequently cut-off participants mid-sentence, displayed negative body language when listening to responses, and at one point admitted she had “switched off” whilst the Council’s Counsel was responding to a question. The Inspector made remarks such as being tetchy because she “needs some food” and that she is “not a morning person”” – there is in fact a 22 page appendix to the letter setting out extracts from the inspector’s interactions at the examination, cross-referenced to a YouTube video), and alleging that she had delayed unreasonably in reaching a decision about the plan following the conclusion of the stage 1 hearing sessions. At the same time, MSDC sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Government Legal Department (“The purpose of this letter is to seek to avoid the unnecessary expense and delay to which such action would give rise by asking the Secretary of State (a) to agree that the Inspector’s reasoning is legally erroneous, (b) to remove her from the role of examining the Plan and (c) to appoint a new Inspector to re-start the examination of the Plan in her stead.”). The letter included a request for all communications between the inspector/PINS and the Secretary of State/MHCLG in relation to drafts of the inspector’s 4 April 2025 letter.

The Planning Inspectorate (via its local plans professional lead Simon Berkeley) and the Government Legal Department separately responded to the correspondence on 15 May 2025 but what is perhaps most interesting for those of us who like to see what goes on behind the curtain in these situations is to see the detailed file of correspondence that was released in response to the information request: have a look at the scrutiny given to some draft inspectors’ letters and the editing process that took place (which, subject of additional complaint by MSDC, includes input from Simon Berkeley).

MSDC has now separately responded to the Government Legal Department and to the Planning Inspectorate in letters dated 2 June 2025.

From the letter to the Government Legal Department:

“For the reasons set out above, the Council remains of the view that the Inspector’s reasoning is legally flawed, and that if it requests her to issue a final report which (as she has said is likely to be the case) is similarly reasoned, it would have good grounds for seeking judicial review. However, it is possible to avoid that, and to the keep the Plan “on track” so as to help the Government meet its commitments. Consequently, in order to inform its decision on how it should respond to the Inspector’s letter, the Council seeks your response within 14 days.”

From the letter to Simon Berkeley at the Planning Inspectorate:

“Given the multiple concerns the Council has regarding how our complaint has been addressed, we request that it is provided to an alternative, suitably qualified individual within the Planning Inspectorate, who should be tasked with undertaking a full, independent review of our original complaint.”

“The correspondence provided to us, extracts of which is included at Appendix A, demonstrates that you took a leading role in the quality assurance of the Inspector’s letter. You provided over 40 comments on a draft of the letter as well as making substantial textual amendments. In addition, you supported the Inspector in the conclusions that she was drawing; namely that the Council had failed the DtC. In your email dated 17 February 2025 to the Inspector you say: “I think you’re right to follow the path you have – from what you’ve said, it does appear to me that they have failed the DtC.” and that “it’s [the letter] all about remaining as safe as possible from challenge”.

Given your involvement in the quality assurance of the Inspector’s letter, the Council is at a loss to understand how it could be deemed appropriate for you to respond to our complaint.”

“…the language and tone used by the Inspector did not, in our opinion, create ease at the hearings or bring levity to the proceedings. Indeed, her behaviour had the contrary impact. Following the comments around who should read the Council’s opening statement and the Inspector’s reference in her opening comments to the need for ‘legal eagles’ to remember that they were “mere mortals”, our own Counsel, and Counsel instructed by other parties were reluctant to take the lead making representations on behalf of their clients because of the Inspector’s evident hostility to barristers.”

[NB (and, gulp, this is really going to kick things off) I endorse that “mere mortals” comment and indeed the recommendation in the Strategic Planning Group’s May 2025 report on planning positively for the future, that for examination processes for the new spatial development plans “Whilst from time-to-time participants may choose to have legal representation, the clear expectation should be that those attending will be giving their views directly and not via advocates.”]

Not to personalise this post too much but others in Sussex may remember the same inspector concluding in 2020 that the Wealden local plan be withdrawn due to failure of the duty to cooperate, together with other soundness issues. The authority is only back at regulation 18 draft stage with its revised plan.

Is PINS or the Government Legal Department going to yield in response to all of this? We shall see. Of course, in local plan making everything connects. Adjoining authority Horsham District Council, with its unmet housing needs partly down to its long-standing water neutrality issue, has been the recipient of a preliminary findings letter dated 22 April 2025 from its local plan inspector Luke Fleming, also concluding that there had been a failure of the duty to cooperate as well as issue over soundness:

“In my assessment, at the very least, for engagement to be constructive, active and ongoing between February 2024 and July 2024 on the strategic matters of housing and water supply, the ability to deliver any water neutral development without needing to rely on [the Sussex North Offsetting Water Scheme] or a strategic resolution to water neutrality should have been considered in some detail by all the relevant [North West Sussex Housing Market Area] local authorities before the Plan was submitted.”

“93. The Council’s affected by water neutrality should be commended for their efforts in trying to develop a local authority led water supply offsetting scheme. However, this has clearly proved more challenging and resource demanding than originally anticipated.

94. It is also my view, that the supply of water as a constraint to much needed new homes for people to live in the area, should have been addressed by bodies other than the Council long before now, especially given CC08 was issued in 2021. Because, it hasn’t, the circumstances upon which the Council has had to prepare the Plan have been extremely challenging, with significant Council time and resources needing to be directed at assessing and understanding issues associated with the supply of water to new homes. This is not usually an issue that local plan’s need to be concerned with in any extensive detail given the responsibilities of statutory water undertakers.

95. However, even so, under the circumstances I have outlined above, I can only recommend that the Council withdraw the Plan under S22 of the PCPA and focus its resources on rapidly preparing a new Local Plan. In doing so the Council could utilise much of the good and comprehensive work already undertaken before components of the evidence base become out of date.”

[Not a letter that appears to have been subject to quality assurance, if the misuse of apostrophes in paragraphs 93 and 94 is anything to go by].

Horsham District Council has responded, complaining that “it has been treated unfairly with regards [sic] the approach taken to examining its Local Plan due to delays, poor communication and lack of transparency”, alongside publishing an inevitable press statement, Council rejects Inspector’s flawed assessment of Local Plan (22 April 2025).

Look, I’m a mere mortal, but whatever the rights and wrongs of these specific situations, partly exacerbated by continued failures to resolve the water neutrality issue in northern Sussex: can anyone defend such a slow, uncertain, unstrategic and bureaucratic system?

Simon Ricketts, 7 June 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Small Changes

I’ve mainly called this blog post “small changes” because that is the name of a beautiful, calming and rather lush album by Michael Kiwanuka released last year. Perhaps your social media timeline needs that sort of cleanse? Mine does regularly.

But I was also thinking of that old David Brailsford British Cycling philosophy about marginal gains (“The whole principle came from the idea that if you broke down everything you could think of that goes into riding a bike, and then improved it by 1%, you will get a significant increase when you put them all together”) and of the successive incremental changes that the government has been making to the planning system, most recently those measures flagged in the 28 May 2025 MHCLG press release as Government backs SME builders to get Britain building, measures which were the subject of three consultation documents published that day:

Reforming Site Thresholds (consultation closes on 9 July 2025)

Reform of Planning Committees (consultation closes on 23 July 2025)

(from DEFRA) Improving the implementation of biodiversity net gain for minor, medium and brownfield development (consultation closes on 24 July 2025) (and for completeness there is also a further consultation paper Biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects – also with consultation closing on 24 July 2025).

All of this follows last Sunday’s Speeding Up Build Out consultation (consultation closing 7 July 2025), which I summarised that day in my blog post Now Build.

It is an interesting, maybe theoretical, question as to whether system changes are better announced and delivered in one go (soaking up all the political heat at once) or in the current lapping waves. It is also interesting to see the political heat rising from different quarters in relation to different elements.

Concern has been expressed from environmental interest groups and a number of firms providing ecological services, as to Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (nature recovery – see my 11 May 2025 blog post Nature Recovery Position where I tentatively suggest a middle ground).

The Speeding Up Build Out announcement then led to an outcry from many in the development world – how dare the government threaten developers with being blacklisted, fined or having land compulsorily acquired if they delayed unreasonably in building out planning permissions etc etc? I explain in my 25 May 2025 Now Build piece why I don’t think that should be a real concern and why, if only for pragmatic political reasons, the government has to have basic protections along these lines in place. But that was based on me focusing on the working paper and consultation document, not on the government’s PR spin, which I think was unnecessarily overblown, particularly:

That tweet from the prime minister (NB what is the government doing still being on X in any event? Full marks to Matthew Pennycook and others for using Bluesky).

That MHCL press release which took a tone which was inconsistent with the documents: ‘Get on and Build’ Deputy Prime Minister urges housebuilders .

All that developer-demonisation (“Developers who repeatedly fail to build out or use planning permissions to trade land speculatively could face new ‘Delayed Homes Penalty’ or be locked out of future permissions by councils”), whereas I’m not sure anyone would disagree with what is actually said in the working paper itself:

“The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and others have concluded that most homes in England are not built as fast as they can be constructed, once permission is granted, but only as fast as the developer expects to sell them at local second-hand market prices. This leads to a build out rate for large sites which can take decades to complete. While it is commercially rational for developers to operate in this way, the systemic impact is a lower level of housebuilding than we need. The government is therefore committed to taking firm action to ensure housebuilding rates increase to a level that makes housing more affordable for working people.

In the public debate on housebuilding rates, 3 related concepts are often confused.

a. Land banks are, for the most part, a normal part of the development system. Developers hold a pipeline of sites at all stages of the planning process, to avoid stop/starts between schemes. In its 2024 study, the CMA found no evidence of current land banks systemically distorting competition between housebuilders. We do, however, have concerns that certain types of contracts over land prior to its entry into the planning system (which can be part of ‘strategic’ land banks) can be a barrier to entry for SME developers. We are therefore legislating to make Contractual Control Agreements (‘option agreements’) more transparent, to help diversify the industry and reduce barriers to entry for SME builders.

b. Delayed or stuck sites are those at all stages of the planning and building process (including with full planning permission) that are delayed, not building out, or only building out very slowly due to a problem that the developer or landowner is struggling to resolve themselves. Often this is due to the discharge of a planning condition, an issue raised by a statutory consultee, a newly discovered site issue, or the developer running into financial difficulties. We have created the New Homes Accelerator to tackle this sort of blockage … and get stuck sites moving. In wider cases, sites may be stuck in negotiations over suitable S106 contributions, sometimes because the promoter has overpaid for the land not fully factoring in the policy requirements set out in planning policy. In this paper we consider further reforms to the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) process, relevant to stalled sites.

c. Slow build out is where sites have full planning permission, are being built, but the pace of building is slower than it could be under different development models and incentives. Multiple market studies have found that most large housing sites are built at the pace the homes can be sold at current second-hand market prices, rather than the pace at which they could be constructed if pre-sold (i.e. to an institutional landlord). The rate of building consistent with selling at local second-hand market prices is known within the industry as the ‘absorption rate’. The Letwin Review concluded that local absorption rates were a “binding constraint” on build out rates. The CMA observed, that “the private market will not, on its own initiative, produce sufficient housing to meet overall housing need, even if it is highly competitive”.

So that was the furore earlier this week. And then when Wednesday’s announcements were made, environmentalists focused on the potential rolling back of the statutory BNG regime from smaller projects and opposition politicians turned on the (not new, but in my view improved) proposals to ensure that more applications are determined through use of planning officers’ delegated powers rather than Planning Committee.

You can’t please all the people all the time…

What is the thrust of the latest changes?

The starting point is to change the current categorisation of planning applications for residential development from those for “minor” development” and those for “major” development, so as to introduce a “medium” development category.

The categories would be:

Minor Residential Development – fewer than 10 homes /up to 0.5 ha (and within that a sub-category of 1b. Very small sites – under 0.1ha)

Medium Residential Development – between 10-49 homes/up to 1.0 ha

Major Residential Development – 50+ homes / 1+ hectare

In due course, consideration would be given to appropriate categories for non-residential development.

The following would apply to each category:

Minor

streamlining requirements on Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) including the option of a full exemption
retaining the position that affordable housing contributions are not required on minor development
retaining the position that sites of fewer than 10 units are exempt from paying the proposed Building Safety Levy (BSL)
retaining the shorter statutory timeframe for determining minor development at 8 weeks “however we will take steps to improve and monitor performance so SMEs can expect a better service”
reducing validation requirements “through setting clearer expectations in national policy on what is reasonable, which could form part of the forthcoming consultation on national policies for development management”
requiring that all schemes of this size are delegated to officers and not put to planning committees as part of the National Scheme of Delegation.
reviewing requirements for schemes of this size for consultation with statutory consultees “instead making use of proportionate guidance on relevant areas. This forms part of our review of statutory consultees”

On the “very small sites” sub-category:

“The government will consult on a new rules-based approach to planning policy later this year through a set of national policies for development management. This will include setting out how the government intends to take forward relevant aspects of the proposals contained in the previous ‘Brownfield Passport’ working paper.”

“The government is therefore proposing to further support the delivery of very small sites through:

providing template design codes that can be used locally for different site size threshold and typologies – which will take a rules-based approach to design to help identify opportunities and enable faster application processes
using digital tools to support site finding and checking compliance of design requirements on specific sites.”

Medium

simplifying BNG requirements “reducing administrative and financial burdens for SME developers and making it easier for them to deliver BNG to help restore nature on medium sites by consulting on applying a revised simplified metric for medium sites. Further details are set out Defra’s consultation on potential BNG changes offering stakeholders the opportunity to give their views on this issue.”
exploring exempting these sites from the proposed Building Safety Levy “we intend to lay regulations for the Building Safety Levy in Parliament this year (as set out in our response to our technical consultation) and the Levy will come into effect in Autumn 2026. As part of this working paper, we are keen to explore whether, if introduced, medium sites should also be exempt from paying the Levy”
exempting from build out transparency proposals
maintaining a 13-week statutory time period for determination “in line with major development – but specifically tracking performance of these types of developments directly so SMEs can expect a better service”
including the delegation of some of these developments to officers as part of the National Scheme of Delegation
ensuring referrals to statutory consultees are proportionate “and rely on general guidance which is readily available on-line wherever possible. This forms part of our review of statutory consultees”.
uplifting the Permission in Principle threshold “allowing a landowner or developer to test for the principle of development for medium residential development on a particular site without the burden of preparing an application for planning permission. We recognise take up of Permission in Principle by application for minor residential development has been relatively limited since its introduction in 2017, and we would therefore like to gauge the appetite for this reform before exploring further”
minimising validation and statutory information requirements “through setting clearer expectations in national policy which could form part of the forthcoming consultation on national policies for development management”

There is also an important reference to streamlining section 106 agreement negotiations:

“We … welcome views and evidence on:

1. the specific barriers facing SMEs in agreeing s.106 obligations – including availability of willing and suitable Registered Providers

2. what role national government should play in improving the process – including the merits of a standardised s.106 template for medium sites

(I will be doing a separate blog post on that one).

Major

“This working paper primarily considers targeted changes and easements to sites below 50 homes. Sites above 50 will benefit from overall government reforms to the planning system – including those set out in the revised National Planning Policy Framework published in December, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and future reforms to statutory consultees and through emerging national policies for development management.

Nevertheless – the government is interested in views in response to this working paper on:

applying a threshold for mixed tenure requirements on larger sites – as set out in the government’s working paper on speeding up build out, we are considering a range of options to set a threshold whereby mixed tenure development should apply – including at 500 units. We welcome further views on the right threshold – and on whether and how there should be some discretion for Local Planning Authorities – ahead of consulting on the policy as part of a consultation on national policies for development management and a revised National Planning Policy Framework later this year.”

Turning to the paper on reforming planning committees, thankfully the thinking has moved away from taking into account whether or not a proposal is in compliance with the development plan (which would have led to endless arguments and disputes). Instead, the proposal is that a scheme of delegation would be introduced which would have two tiers:

“Tier A which would include types of applications which must be delegated to officers in all cases; and

Tier B which would include types of applications which must be delegated to officers unless the Chief Planner and Chair of Committee agree it should go to Committee based on a gateway test.”

“We propose the following types of applications would be in Tier A. This is in recognition that they are either about technical matters beyond the principle of the development or about minor developments which are best handled by professional planning officers:

applications for planning permission for:
- Householder development
- Minor commercial development
- Minor residential development
applications for reserved matter approvals
applications for s96A non-material amendments to planning permissions
applications for the approval of conditions
applications for approval of the BNG Plan
applications for approval of prior approval (for permitted development rights)
applications for Lawful Development Certificates
applications for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development”

Note: “we are keen for views whether there are certain circumstances where medium residential developments could be included in Tier A. For instance, given the scale and nature of residential development in large conurbations such as London, we could specify medium residential development in these conurbations should be included in Tier A (as well as minor residential development), while in other areas, only minor residential development would fall within Tier A.”

Tier B:

There is also a proposal to limit the number of members of a planning committee to 11 and to introduce a national training certification scheme for planning committee members.

I will do a separate blog post on the BNG changes at some point but in the meantime Annex A to the DEFRA consultation paper is a good summary of the various proposals.

I think that’s enough for now…

Simon Ricketts, 31 May 2025

Personal views, et cetera

“Small changes
Solve the problems
We were revolving in your eyes
Wait for me
All this time, we
Knew there was something in the air“

Extract from album sleeve

Now Build

Another MHCLG planning reform working paper this fine Sunday morning (25 May 2025), Speeding Up Build Out together with accompanying technical consultation (deadline for responses: 7 July 2025).

After the various policy changes and measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill aimed at seeking to encourage local planning authorities to plan for more homes and to encourage decision makers (whether local planning authorities or planning inspectors) to grant planning permission for more homes, this paper turns the spotlight onto developers.

“We know that slow build out is of great frustration to many local planning authorities and communities that rightly expect homes, infrastructure and services that have been promised as part of a planning approval to be delivered as quickly as possible. We also know that developers are responsive to commercial incentives and build out homes at a rate that is beneficial to their business and reflective of the wider economic environment.

This paper therefore invites views on options the government could pursue to ensure the right incentives exist in the housing market, and local planning authorities have the tools they need, to encourage homes to be built out more quickly. In addition to the transparency and accountability measures set out in the technical consultation, this includes incentivising and supporting models of development that build out faster, such as partnership models, greater affordable housing, public sector master-planned sites, and smaller sites. We also invite views on giving local authorities the ability – as a last resort – to charge developers a new ‘Delayed Homes Penalty’ when they fall materially behind pre-agreed build out schedules.”

The paper unpacks the issues; land banks (to the limited extent that option agreements may be a barrier to entry for SME developers); delayed or stuck sites (to which the New Homes Accelerator initiative is aimed, as well as further potential reforms to the CPO process) and slow build out. The paper focuses on how to:

“a) overcome absorption constraints to get more homes built more quickly

b) continue to strengthen the local authority toolkit to unblock stalled and stuck sites.”

The government intends to bring into force various provisions contained in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, namely:

The requirement to submit a build out statement (in LURA a “development progress report” – section 90B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as introduced by section 1154 of LURA) with prescribed categories of planning applications

To notify LPAs before development is commenced through a commencement notice (section 93G of the TCPA as introduced by section 111 of LURA)

To report annually to LPAs on housing delivery via a development progress report (see above)

To give LPAs the power to decline to determine planning applications made by persons who applied for, or who are connected to, an earlier planning permission for the development of land in the LPA’s area which has not been built out at a reasonable rate (section 70D of the TCPA as introduced by section 113 of LURA)

To simplify the process for LPAs to issue completion notices “to require developers to complete their development within a certain period of time if the LPA considers it will not be completed in a reasonable time, otherwise the planning permission will cease – a form of “use it or lose it”.” (section 93H of the TCPA as introduced by section 112 of LURA).

The government is consulting on introducing in policy a “site size threshold above which sites must deliver on a mixed tenure basis”.

On CPO, the government intends to bring forward secondary legislation later this year to implement provisions in LURA “to allow the conditional confirmation of CPOs. This will allow the compelling case for use of CPOs to be established earlier in the land assembly process on sites where alternative proposals have been put forward by landowners.“

“The conditional confirmation of CPOs could be used to ensure landowners progress their alternative proposals within certain timescales, which would be made clear when an individual CPO is conditionally confirmed. Where they fail to do so, CPO powers could then be switched on. We believe the conditional confirmation power will de-risk use of CPOs on stalled sites because the existence of alternative proposals will no longer carry the same weight in the decision-making process.”

So far, the above proposals go no further legislatively than was proposed by the previous government.

However, the government has announced in today’s documents that it is “exploring the possibility of introducing a new tool for local authorities: the “Delayed Homes Penalty”. This would effectively be a last resort measure, which we hope not to have to implement, but may be needed if industry does not sufficiently adapt and fulfil their commitment to deliver homes more quickly.

The Delayed Homes Penalty would be available to local authorities for development which falls materially behind pre-agreed build out schedules, as set out through the transparency measures. While subject to further work, including drawing on responses to this working paper, we are considering the following framework for the Delayed Homes Penalty.

a. The Penalty would apply only to sites over a threshold size and only where there is evidence of a developer falling substantially behind a build out schedule, pre-agreed with the LPA.

b. Agreement and monitoring of build out rates would be aligned to the new transparency measures, which will require developers to pre-agree a build out schedule with the local planning authority before consent, provide a commencement notice before the development begins and then annual development progress reports.

c. If a site falls substantially behind the pre-agreed build out schedule in a given year (to 90% or less of the agreed delivery), then the developer would be required to justify the slower build out rate to the planning authority. If this cannot be shown to have been caused by an external factor – such as unusually severe weather, or an unexpected site issues – the developer could become liable for the Delayed Homes Penalty.

d. The relevant external factors would be nationally set out in guidance and could be informed by those already used in contracts between Homes England and developers under the ‘build lease’ model.

e. If the Delayed Homes Penalty were applied, the relevant party (developer or landowner) would be charged for each home behind the pre-agreed build out schedule. Penalties could be based on a percentage of the house price, or via reference to local Council Tax rates, given the loss of income that a local authority incurs when homes are not built and occupied at the expected rate (although this would not be applied via the Council Tax system itself).

It would be important in the introduction of any Delayed Homes Penalty that industry was confident in when and how this would be applied, to ensure that they did not disincentivise land being brought forward for development. We therefore intend to use all views expressed in response to this working paper to inform further policy development, and if the government decided to take this proposal forward, we would propose to undertake further consultation.”

In my personal view, none of this should be regarded as controversial by the private sector. The quid pro quo for the policies and initiatives introduced to seek to ease the allocation of land for housing, and the approval of development proposals, has to be a recognition on the part of those who promote development or seek planning permission that this is not a one-way street and that participation in the system brings with it certain responsibilities. Of course, we do need to make sure that measures of last resort (compulsory purchase of stalled sites, penalties) do not unnecessarily spook funders and investors so as to ensure that the measures are not counter-productive – which will need for there to be appropriate protections in the legislation and clear communication from ministers as to the limited circumstances in which the government envisages that these sticks should actually be applied.

It was disappointing to read, in the BBC’s online coverage this morning, New rules may take unfinished housing sites off developers (in itself a bit of a tabloid-style headline – not a new rule, just the previous government’s legislation being brought into force), the quoted response from Conservative shadow Secretary of State Kevin Hollinrake. Being charitable, perhaps he hadn’t had time to be briefed or understand the policy context or indeed read his previous government’s legislation) but what about this for dogwhistle politics (and nothing on what is actually proposed)?

“Shadow housing secretary Kevin Hollinrake claimed that “many hardworking Brits will be shut out of the housing market forever” as “Labour’s open door border policy” meant “many of these houses will end up going to migrants”.

He added: “In the same week that Angela Rayner has been caught red-handed plotting to raise everyone’s taxes, it’s clear she doesn’t have the interests of working people at heart.”

(This in a week where net migration was reported to have halved in 2024).

What planning reform needs so desperately is cross-party consensus. This week’s 50 Shades of Planning Shades of Planning podcast episode , Sam Stafford’s recent 45 minutes long interview one-on-one with Lord Michael Gove is a must-listen – not just for Gove’s honest and detailed reflection on what went wrong under his tenure but also for his fair assessment as to the current government’s direction of travel in terms of planning reform. Does every policy proposal really have to be a pawn in a now multi player chess game?

I hope that there is wide engagement with the government’s technical consultation, particularly: “Are there wider options you think worth worthy of consideration that could help speed up build out of housing?”

Until this morning’s announcement I was going to focus on various discussions I had in Leeds this week, which were exactly on the theme as to the nature of some of those “wider options”. Sam Stafford (now as of this week the new LPDF chief executive – congratulations) has been calling for a development management “snagging list”. There are so many incremental improvements to be made – now is the opportunity with that 7 July 2025 response deadline – and wouldn’t it be good if there were as much private/public sector consensus as possible in coming up with that list. Watch this space for some of the items on mine…

Simon Ricketts, 25 May 2025

Personal views, et cetera

The Perfect KISS

I’m preparing to speak at a couple of events at UKREiif this week, I’m trying to finish reading a book, I’m pleased that the Strategic Planning Group’s report Planning Positively for the Future has now been published (16 May 2025) and I’ve been dipping into the Mayor of London’s Towards a New London Plan consultation document (9 May 2025)

And the over-arching theme for me is Keep It Simple, Stupid.

The book is Abundance: How We Build A Better Future by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. A few people have mentioned it but what caused me finally to reach for my wallet was when Strategic Land Group’s Paul Smith recommended it on a 50 Shades of Planning podcast – he’s a good reader is Paul.

You might get the basic ideas from this Guardian review from which I quote the following passages:

Abundance for all of us, via an entirely possible techno-optimistic “future is behind schedule – and Abundance holds late 20th‑century liberalism responsible. (Klein and Thompson critique the right, too – they are themselves liberals – but this book speaks only to their co-partisans, with the downside of artificially telling just half the story). Liberals, Klein and Thompson say, nobly fought to redistribute what we have to those without, while losing sight of the goal of creating more to redistribute in the first place. Meanwhile, they sought to protect the public from the unchecked consequences of growth: the bulldozers of urban renewal and the pollution of industrialisation. They succeeded, but left the state too constrained to solve the challenges of today.”

“For example, they tell how California began studying high-speed rail, a clean and congestion-free alternative to cars and planes, more than 40 years ago. It took a decade for planning to begin in earnest; another decade-and-a-half to get funded; 16 years after that, it still doesn’t exist. High-speed rail has been swallowed by procedures erected to prevent every conceivable harm to every conceivable stakeholder. The environmental reviews needed just to describe the project’s impacts began in 2012; they still aren’t done. All the while, costs keep increasing.”

“In everything from planning regimes that block badly needed housing and solar farms, to the ossified processes for writing federal regulations and hiring civil servants, they see systems attuned to the harms of action and not its benefits, and convincingly argue that the rewards of reform are immense.”

“Klein and Thompson’s story of sclerosis is of a “system so consumed trying to balance its manifold interests that it can no longer perceive what is in the public’s interest.”

The sorry story of the Californian High Speed Rail project reads across precisely to HS2 and the book’s description of the sometimes-unintended sometimes-intended obstacles to housing development and green energy projects in many US states are only too familiar here.

The book makes a telling point about how “a complex society begins to reward those who can best navigate complexity”. Doesn’t that apply to many of us at UKREiif – not really a conference about how to build, but rather a conference about navigating the regulatory and other complexities to be sorted before anyone gets near an actual construction contract?

And, uncomfortable for me and other lawyers (already well rewarded for navigating complexity), there’s much in addition about the dead hand of “adversarial legalism”.

The KISS mantra was certainly front of mind for me when I was participating as the only lawyer member of the Strategic Planning Group. In designing for the reintroduction of strategic planning, via spatial development strategies, how to reduce the scope for mission creep in the documents, how to reduce ambiguity, duplication and delay, and how to arrive at a proportionate evidence base and examination process. Developing the 17 recommendations in the report was a superb, thoughtful but practical project, by way of six half day workshops and much work by chair Catriona Riddell and by the Prior + Partners team between the sessions and in writing it all up. Do let us know what you think.

I hope that once the National Development Management Strategies take shape we have a much more logical and non-duplicative cascade of NDMPs, SDSs, local plans and neighbourhood plans with as little duplication, gold plating and unnecessary text as possible – and that one day soon the whole cascade will be available at the click of a button in relation to any site. Will we get there or, as a “complex society”, is simplicity beyond us?

The London Plan is of course an awkward example of a spatial development strategy. This is not what the new breed of SDSs should look and feel like at all. Indeed, my personal vision is that the key diagram for an SDS should tell the main story, as to broad locations for strategic growth, infrastructure and the scale of housing development required in local plan areas. With previous iterations of the London Plan being so all-encompassing, is it really possible for the next version to be radically stripped back? I doubt it. But if it is not to be, could we at least avoid London Plan policies being duplicated (often in slightly different terms) and gold-plated in boroughs’ local plans? If a trade-off for the scale of the London Plan were to be much shorter borough plans that would be something. It will also be interesting to see what the new regime of NDMPs will mean for the London Plan.

Maybe see you in Leeds, KISS KISS.

Simon Ricketts, 18 May 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Nature Recovery Position

Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is possibly facing the most criticism. Do its provisions with regard to the preparation of environmental delivery plans, enabling a nature restoration levy to be set which is to be paid by developers in lieu of some of the site-specific assessment and mitigation measures they currently have to carry out, go too far and amount to a regression in environmental protection?

First, as a way into the issues, I do recommend my colleague Susannah Herbert’s summary and initial critique of the provisions published the week that the Bill was introduced into Parliament: PI Bill Guest Post – Some Early Thoughts On The Bill’s Nature Recovery Provisions (13 March 2025)

The government has published a fact sheet. It summarises the five key phases of the nature recovery fund as follows:

Framing the EDP – EDPs will define the environmental impacts they cover, such as nutrient pollution or the impact development might have on a protected species. EDPs will be spatially specific with clear maps setting out where development is covered by an EDP and what scale of development the EDP can support.
Designing the measures – EDPs will set out the suite of conservation measures that will be deployed to more than address the impact of development across a given area. For example, an EDP covering nutrient pollution will set out how the combined effect of the conservation measures will go beyond the current expectations of nutrient neutrality and lead to an improvement in water quality.
Setting the levy rate – A simple charging schedule, sufficient to cover the costs of the conservation measures, will be payable by developers to meet the relevant legal obligation associated with the impacts addressed by the EDP.
Consultation and approval – in developing an EDP, Natural England will benefit from views captured through consultation before the EDP is submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. When considering the EDP, the Secretary of State will be bound by a new legal test to ensure that the conservation measures outweigh the negative effect of development.
Delivering on the EDP – once the EDP is in place, Natural England will the necessary powers to use funds collected to implement the conservation measures. They will then monitor the impact of the measures to ensure they are working as expected and make any amendments to the EDP that may be necessary.

The Bill is currently at Committee stage. Marian Spain, chief executive of Natural England, gave evidence on 24 April 2025, supportive of the proposals in the Bill. However, there are many who are expressing concern.

Instructed by NatureSpace Partnership, which delivers strategic licensing in relation to great crested newts and other species, David Elvin KC has provided a masterly and detailed (45 page) opinion dated 23 April 2025. He concludes that the proposals as they currently stand would amount to a weakening or reduction in current levels of environmental protection: the proposed test of “overall improvement” in environmental protection is “lax” and “generalised”.

The Office for Environmental Protection’s advice to the government on the Bill (2 May 2025) echoes this concern: The OEP is “concerned by several aspects of the bill which undermine its potential to deliver intended win-win outcomes. We recognise that the EDP system is intended to be a different approach, not a direct comparator to existing environmental law. There are, though, fewer protections for nature written into the bill than there are under that existing law. Creating new flexibility without sufficient legal safeguards could see environmental outcomes lessened over time. And aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species.

In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife – those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.

We summarise two particular concerns below, and provide further detail on these matters and other aspects of the bill in the annex to this letter.

A principal area of concern lies with the framing of the bill’s ‘overall improvement test’ for adopting EDPs. This test rests on a balancing exercise to decide whether negative environmental effects of development are likely to be outweighed by conservation measures taken under an EDP. As drafted at the moment, that exercise would allow considerably more subjectivity and uncertainty in decision-making than under existing environmental law. We advise that the overall improvement test should be strengthened to address this.

The bill as drafted also allows for conservation measures to be located away from the protected sites affected by development. Currently, this is only permissible in limited circumstances and where the overall coherence of the protected site network is maintained. Such safeguards are absent from the bill. Undermining the network of protected sites could affect the Government’s ability to meet its legally binding biodiversity targets and ‘30 by 30’ objectives. We advise that the lack of safeguards for the overall sites network is rectified, given the role they play in efforts to meet statutory nature targets.”

The OEP sets out, in an Annex to the letter, various detailed recommended changes to what is proposed.

More recently, the government has now published its impact assessment in relation to the Bill (6 May 2025). Section 7.2 is relevant for our purposes (NPSV = “Net Present Social Value (NPSV) in 2025 prices with 2026 base year across the 10-year appraisal period 2026-35”), EANDCB = “Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business” and EANDCH = “Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Households”):

Incidentally, some groups and media pieces (eg UK government admits almost no evidence nature protections block development (The Guardian, 7 May 2025)) have misconstrued that reference to “limited data availability”. I agree that the statement is somewhat of a cop-out (and the range given absurdly wide) but the footnote makes it clear that the figure is expected to be a significant underestimate. For the real effects arising from nutrient neutrality alone see eg the work by the HBF and as for water neutrality see the recent failure at examination for instance of the Horsham local plan and many individual stalled schemes.

Is there a middle ground here? Should EDPs and the nature restoration funds, rather than ambitiously seeking to remove the need for developers to assess and address the specific effects likely to arise as a consequence of the species and habitats on their development sites themselves, in fact focus on those off-site issues which have indeed been causing so much delay and uncertainty: nutrient neutrality, water neutrality and issues relating to recreational pressure? After all it is these aspects which the impact assessment focuses on:

“The Nature Restoration Fund is expected to deliver benefits to areas where particular environmental obligations apply, for example, nutrient neutrality catchment areas. While some urban areas are in nutrient neutrality catchments (Southampton, Portsmouth, Norwich and Middlesborough), the majority of land area covered by nutrient neutrality catchments is rural. In some cases entire LPA areas are within nutrient neutrality catchments, where obligations limit ability to deliver those LPAs’ housing targets. The largest nutrient neutrality catchments (by hectare) are Solent, River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Somerset Levels & Moors Ramsar. The location of the interventions secured under the NRF will be determined by the scale of the delivery plan area.” (Paragraph 69)

I can see that in some circumstances nature recovery objectives can be secured more efficiently and effectively on a coordinated basis. The impact assessment says this:

“…the Nature Restoration Fund measures aim to improve environmental outcomes by requiring developers to contribute towards nature recovery. By shifting to a strategic approach to addressing environmental obligations, coordinated by a single delivery body, action will be more efficient and effective – achieving more with the same cost to developers. It is therefore expected that these measures will contribute to meeting the Government’s wider environmental targets and help secure the benefits derived from biodiversity and ecosystem services more effectively. For example: wetlands can effectively regulate flow of water which enhances resilience to flooding; forests, oceans and healthy soils sequester carbon, reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; peatlands act as carbon stores; restored vegetation stabilises soils reducing erosion and improving water quality; and natural landscapes offer spaces for outdoor recreational activities like hiking and birdwatching. These activities promote physical and mental well-being and provide benefits through tourism-related revenue. This policy is also designed to speed up the delivery of net zero infrastructure (alongside other development), and in doing so support decarbonisation.” (paragraph 77)

But should any of this replace on-site assessment and on-site mitigation, save where it can be shown that off-site mitigation will in fact be as effective? And wouldn’t this also be fairer, rather than, presumably, some developers having to over-pay to compensate for others seeking to develop more ecologically sensitive sites?

Simon Ricketts, 11 May 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Bank Holiday Weekend Special: Mayors, Oxford Street, Stag Brewery

The election for the first London Mayor took place 25 years today, 4 May 2000. I learned this via a piece by Nick Bowes in LCA’s latest LDN newsletter.

It is a topical weekend to think back as to the influence of the three very different political figures who have been London Mayor: Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson and Sadiq Khan. Even without the extent of devolved powers available to their counterparts in other world cities, they have been able to exert significant influence over the shape and operation of our capital city, particularly in relation to transportation and in relation to strategic planning, including in relation to individual development projects of “potential significant importance”.

As Labour rolls out its vision for Mayoral strategic authorities across the country, what are going to be the political consequences over time and for the shaping of those areas? My 18 January 2025 blog post Viva La Devolution sought to summarise what lies ahead in terms of devolution and the introduction of strategic planning, modelled (in legislative form at least) on the spatial development strategy (aka London Plan) model, with equivalent intervention powers to the London Mayor in relation to applications of potential strategic importance (the power to direct refusal or to take over as decision maker).

For example, Greater Lincolnshire is now of course a combined county authority, covering the Lincolnshire County Council, North East Lincolnshire Council and North Lincolnshire Council’s areas. On 1 May 2025, Reform party politician Dame Andrea Jenkyns was elected Mayor and will lead the authority, the other members being:

Constituent members: Six members appointed by the constituent councils. Agreed at the first GLCCA meeting on 6 March, these are:

Councillor Martin Hill OBE – Leader of Lincolnshire County Council
Councillor Patricia Bradwell OBE – Lincolnshire County Council Councillor
Philip Jackson – Leader of North East Lincolnshire Council
Councillor Stan Shreeve – North East Lincolnshire Council
Councillor Rob Waltham MBE – Leader of North Lincolnshire Council
Councillor Richard Hannigan – North Lincolnshire Council

Non-constituent members: Four people nominated by the district councils within the area. Agreed at the first GLCCA meeting on 6 March, these are:

Councillor Richard Wright – Leader of North Kesteven District Council
Naomi Tweddle – Leader of City of Lincoln Council
Craig Leyland – Leader of East Lindsey District Council
Nick Worth – Leader of South Holland District Council

Additional non-constituent or associate members: Up to two further members, including one of the police and crime commissioners for the area and another from a business background. Agreed at the first GLCCA meeting on 6 March, these are:

Marc Jones – Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire
Neal Juster- Interim Associate Member

What will all this mean for planning?

I had a brief look at Reform UK’s policy documents:

Aside from a whole page on scrapping the government’s net zero policies, this is all there is on planning, on housing:

“Review the Planning System

Fast-track planning and tax incentives for development of brownfield sites. ‘Loose fit planning’ policy for large residential developments with pre-approved guidelines and developer requirements.

Reform Social Housing Law

Prioritise local people and those who have paid into the system . Foreign nationals must go to the back of the queue. Not the front”.

It will be interesting to see how the new authority engages with the process of preparing a spatial development strategy in due course and the extent to which the process will be used a wider political platform. Social media posts from Reform’s deputy leader and MP for Boston and Skegness (Lincolnshire of course) and from Dame Andrea Jenkyns perhaps give a flavour of what is in store:

Conflict with the government on national policy issues:

Influence in relation to wider political/cultural issues:

Of course it must be said that each of our London Mayors have used their role from time to time in equivalent ways!

Turning back to London, one long-running east-west scar across the centre of the capital has been Oxford Street. I wrote in my 21 September 2024 blog post Street Robbery about the Mayor’s 17 September 2024 announcement that he is to create a Mayoral Development Corporation to “transform Oxford Street, including turning the road into a traffic-free pedestrianised avenue” so that it can “once again become the leading retail destination in the world”. Since then a public consultation process was launched on 28 February 2025 which closed on 2 May 2025. For a detailed, authoritative account of the last hundred years of managing transport on Oxford Street, which puts the current proposals into context, I strongly recommend you read an On London blog post published today, 4 May 2025, by Paul Dimoldenberg, long serving Westminster City Council member. How much progress will be made towards at least partial pedestrianisation before the end in 2028 of Sadiq Khan’s current term? One to watch.

We are also watching and waiting for the Mayor’s high level Towards a London Plan consultation document, initially expected last month but now delayed to May. Adoption is not expected of the final document until 2027, a year from the next Mayoral election. These slow time periods are crazy.

We are also still waiting for the final versions, following consultation in May 2023 (see my 6 May 2023 blog post New Draft London Guidance On Affordable Housing/Viability) of non-statutory London Plan Guidance on affordable housing and on development viability. All we have had so far is a December 2024 “practice note” on accelerating housing delivery (see my 11 January 2025 blog post Is The London Mayor Doing Enough In Practice To Accelerate Housing Delivery?)

As we wait for those documents, the inspector’s decision letter dated 2 May 2025 in relation to the Stag Brewery proposed development in Mortlake, Richmond-on-Thames, makes for interesting reading – and a reminder of how financially challenging it is to bring forward large-scale brownfield development. I need to declare an interest in that my Town Legal colleagues Elizabeth Christie and Aline Hyde acted for the successful appellant, Reselton Properties Limited. The proposals entail the redevelopment of the site for residential and mixed use purposes (including up to 1,075 new homes), together a new secondary school. The decision letter follows a lengthy saga, with a previous scheme on the site having been the subject of refusal by the Mayor in May 2021 following resolution to grant by the London Borough of Richmond-on-Thames in January 2020. The local planning authority had similarly resolved to approve this latest scheme; the main issue, again, was with the Mayor, primarily in relation to viability and the approach to affordable housing.

The appellant and local planning authority agreed that viability testing had demonstrated that the viable position would be zero affordable housing, and that, against this technical position, the offer of 7.5% affordable housing (split 80% social rented, 20% intermediate), with viability review mechanism to capture future uplifts in viability, was a benefit. The Mayor disagreed that this represented the maximum viable provision required by policy, questioning some of the viability inputs, namely on private residential sales values, developer return (appellant’s and council’s position: 17.2%, Mayor’s position 15%) and growth and review potential. However, the inspector accepted the appellant’s and council’s position, indeed rejecting an alternative offer by the appellant of 12% affordable housing if the inspector were to have found against the appellant and council on elements of the viability case. In the context of the council having marginally less than five years’ housing land supply; the additional presumption to be given to brownfield development, and other benefits including the opportunity for delivery of a new secondary school as required by the local plan allocation and wider economic benefits flowing from the development, planning permission was granted.

Simon Ricketts, 4 May 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Fires

Two sad stories, presented without further comment.

Fire 1

Everyone will remember the case of the Crooked House pub in Dudley.

For a summary of the relevant facts, I turn to Mould J, in the opening passages of his judgment in ATE Farms Limited v Secretary of State (Mould J, 5 February 2025):

“The Crooked House used to operate as a public house well known for its tilted appearance both within and outside. The causes of the differential settlement resulting in that appearance and evident in the building are possibly various, including the underlying natural geology and the impact of historic mining activity. The pub closed in July 2023 apparently following a burglary which had caused considerable and costly damage. The appellant purchased the land on 21 July 2023.

On 5 August 2023 the building was seriously damaged by fire, the cause of which, and in particular whether it was caused deliberately by criminal action, are currently the subject of a police investigation. On 7 August 2023 the fire-damaged building was demolished by contractors acting on the instruction of the appellant.”

South Staffordshire Council issued an enforcement notice on 27 February 2024, alleging that without planning permission the Crooked House, an unlisted building, was demolished and that this was unauthorised development constituting a breach of planning control. “The appellant’s case is that those demolition works were initially agreed to by the second respondent, but that they led to an urgent risk of collapse and justified the immediate demolition of the remaining structure.”

“The enforcement notice requires the Crooked House to be rebuilt effectively so as to reinstate it in facsimile.”

“On 27 September 2024 the [council] requested that the appeal inquiry be adjourned until after the police investigation into the fire had been concluded, because the cause of the fire and whether it had occurred through human agency could be a key issue for the inquiry to resolve. On 18 October 2024 the Crown Prosecution Service wrote to the inspector notifying him that their current expectation was that the criminal investigation and any decisions on prosecution would be completed by the end of 2024. That letter included the following:

“As the Appeal touches upon an issue a criminal court may be asked to determine, we request that consideration be given to adjourning the appeal to allow time for the CPS to conclude its review. While we appreciate a decision not to charge a person with any criminal offence will not assist either party to the Appeal, a decision to prosecute may have a bearing on the Appeal and could also impact the criminal proceedings should the appeal be held in tandem.”

“On 15 November 2024 the appellant requested that the inspector postpone the start date for the inquiry on the grounds of fairness and prejudice to the criminal proceedings and pending completion of any criminal process.”

Following further representations by both parties, the inspector issued a note:

“As I am sure you understand, the Inspectorate has a duty to determine appeals in a timely manner, in particular where there is considerable local interest, hence our reluctance to postpone the inquiry. Timescales for the outcome of investigations and any subsequent Court proceedings are uncertain. If there is a court case this could take several years before we even began to consider the planning merits of the demolition of the building. Such a delay also ignores the question, how relevant is the issue of responsibility to the determination of the various grounds of appeal? This is still a matter of dispute between the parties.

In this regard, before I consider who was responsible for the fire, should that become necessary, there are a number of more fundamental questions to answer:

1.Can a fire be an act of demolition for the purposes of the 1990 Act?

2. If it can, does it matter who was responsible for the fire in so far as this may be relevant to the grounds of appeal?

3. Is there a difference between a genuine accident (an act of God) and a deliberate act – regardless of who carried out the deliberate act in so far as it relates to the considerations under appeal?

The three questions above are essentially legal and interpretational issues (and I have already had your outline views on them) which should, I would suggest, be dealt with by way of submissions. Consequently, in order to continue with the current, agreed, timetable, I suggest the following process is followed. Both parties provide submissions on the above questions which will cover grounds (b) [whether the matters have occurred which are alleged to be in breach of planning control] and (c) [whether, if they did occur, they amounted to a breach of planning control] at the same time as proofs are submitted. Proofs of evidence should then be limited to grounds (a) and (g) which will be the only matters examined at the inquiry.

Without prejudice to my determination of the appeal, I consider, at this stage, that there are three likely outcomes of grounds (b) and (c). Firstly, that ground (b) succeeds so there has been no demolition in which case the notice will be quashed. Secondly that ground (b)/(c) succeeds to the extent that the allegation needs to be corrected so that demolition is restricted to the part of the building that remained after the fire; and, thirdly, the grounds fail and it is unnecessary to correct the notice. This last outcome is the main component of ground (a), should planning permission be granted for the demolition of the building?

For the inquiry ground (a) should be considered on the basis of either the second or third outcomes.

Should you consider any additional outcomes may arise from grounds (b) or (c), relevant to ground (a), these should also be addressed in your submissions and proofs of evidence. Having heard the evidence on grounds (a) and (g) [whether a longer period for compliance should be allowed] and discussed conditions I will then discuss how best to proceed.

At present I consider the best way forward would be to adjourn the inquiry to allow me to consider the written and oral evidence. If it turns out that further evidence is required concerning the identity of those responsible for the fire this can either be dealt with by way of further written representations or I can re-open the inquiry. It may be possible to reach a decision without further evidence in which case I could close the inquiry and issue the decision letter. I will ensure both main parties have an opportunity to address me on this before I adjourn the inquiry and before any final decision is issued.”

The appellant argued that the inquiry should be postponed pending the outcome of the criminal investigation but the inspector issued a final ruling, confirming that the inquiry would start on 11 March 2025.

The appellant challenged the inspector’s ruling by way of judicial review and Mould J agreed that it should be quashed and remitted to the inspector for reconsideration:

“Firstly, it is the appellant’s case that the question whether they were responsible for the fire which occurred on 5 August 2023 is central not only to the determination of the enforcement appeal generally, but in particular to the evaluation of, and the determination of, the issue raised under ground (a). Whether the fire was accidental or was caused by human agency, their case is that they are innocent of its occurrence. They therefore, understandably, contend that it would be grossly disproportionate to their rights protected under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights to require them to reinstate the building at very considerable cost, in the event that the answer to that first question was in their favour. The appellant says that would be a powerful material consideration in support of the grant of planning permission retrospectively for the demolition of the building.”

“There is simply no realistic possibility that consideration of the ground (a) appeal at the forthcoming inquiry, let alone its determination, will be able to proceed without the inspector grappling with those questions of fact and causation. In my view, the inspector clearly misdirected himself in proceeding on the basis that he may be able to determine the enforcement appeal on ground (a) or at all, independently of inquiring into and finding facts as to the cause of the fire, on a true understanding of the evidence.”

“I have considerable sympathy for the inspector in his desire to avoid unnecessary delay and postponement of the inquiry. Not only does that objective flow from the Procedure Rules, as I have indicated, but it was in any event an entirely reasonable and understandable objective for him to pursue. The question though is whether he has misdirected himself in seeking to achieve that.

It seems to me, for the reasons that I have given, that the approach that he has followed cannot, in truth, avoid delay in relation to the determination of the ground (a) appeal. In order to determine the ground (a) appeal, it is inevitable that the inspector will have to hear evidence and make findings of fact on the cause of the fire: in particular, as to whether the appellant was responsible for it. He must do so in order to establish the true factual matrix against which to determine whether retrospective planning permission is merited in vindication of the appellant’s Article 1 Protocol 1 rights. On a true analysis of the position, there is no proper basis upon which the inspector can avoid hearing such evidence in the context of the ground (a) appeal.”

And so the appeal remains in abeyance, pending the outcome of the criminal investigations.

Fire 2

Many of you will also have read about the more recent fire that destroyed a grade II* listed World War 1 aircraft hangar, hangar 3, at Old Sarum Airfield, Salisbury, on 17 April 2025. See for instance Protecting airfield is about ‘protecting heritage’ (BBC, 24 April 2025) and Council seeking legal advice after fire rips through Grade II-listed site with permission for hundreds of homes (Inside Housing, 23 April 2025).

The fire coincided with the final outcome of a planning appeal inquiry (appeal decision letter dated 9 April 2025 and costs decision letter dated 17 April 2025).

The appeal was for a mixed use scheme at Old Sarum Airfield including 315 dwellings and was allowed, albeit with the inspector rejecting the appellant’s case that the development could not viably support any affordable housing, instead concluding that the proposed development could viably deliver 25%. Condition 17 imposed a restriction on occupation of more than 160 dwellings until hangar 3 had been restored. There were no awards of costs.

For a more personal narrative (which I am in no position to verify), you may be interested to read Hashi Mohammed’s recent LinkedIn post, Hashi having appeared for Wiltshire Council at the inquiry.

Simon Ricketts, 27 April 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Tripwire In Greenfields

This is the tripwire: Article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 provides that a local planning authority’s planning register must contain, amongst other things, in relation to a planning application “a copy (which may be photographic or in electronic form) of any planning obligation or section 278 agreement proposed or entered into in connection with the application.”

The requirement should not be news for any local planning authority but it is often honoured in the breach. Until now it has not formed a basis for the quashing of a planning permission. But that could well be the outcome, subject to the court’s final order, of the Court of Appeal’s judgment yesterday (16 April 2025) in R (Greenfield (IOW) Limited v Isle of Wight Council , which concerned a challenge to Isle of Wight Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development comprising 473 dwellings and related development, in circumstances where the proposed or completed agreement had not been placed on the planning register before planning permission was issued. One can see the problem arising from the particular facts: the planning committee’s resolution to grant planning permission was subject to prior completion of a section 106 agreement, one of the heads of terms of which was to be a financial contribution (amount unspecified although at the time of the committee the developer had indicated that the costs could be in the region of £777,000) but then only when planning permission had been granted did it transpire that the section 106 agreement, subsequently negotiated, provided for a contribution of £406,359.

The court made it clear that the implications of failure to comply with the duty are fact-specific. Here the heads of terms in the committee report were insufficient to inform the reader as to the nature of the contribution (namely its quantum) and the overwhelming evidence was that the claimant and others would have wished to make representations had they known what figure was proposed. Whilst the court found that the claimant had not made any request of the council a copy of the proposed obligation, it was accepted that they had searched the online planning register for sight of it. Lastly, the court could not conclude that even if the duty had been complied with it would have been highly likely that the outcome would have been the same.

At first instance HHJ Jarman KC had found this ground of challenge to be unarguable. Ah the uncertain joys of litigation.

What practically should we take from the judgment? These are just my own personal thoughts:

It is prudent for a local planning authority to place a copy of the draft and/or completed planning obligation (i.e. section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking) on its planning register before the document is completed and permission issued.
This is particularly the case where the substantive contents of the agreement or undertaking are not already summarised in an officer’s report (and, if relevant planning committee resolution) which is in the public domain
The duty is to put the document on the register rather than to undertake further consultation and there is no minimum period specified as between placing the document on the planning register and issuing the permission, although in my view it would be sensible to allow at least a few days (e.g. when the document is probably in any event being engrossed and doing the rounds for execution – complying with this duty should not be an excuse for further delay in the process).
The question often arises as to whether successive drafts of a planning obligation need to be put on the register. What, after all, is the version of the document which is, in the vague words of the statutory duty, “proposed or entered into“? In my view successive drafts certainly do not need to be put on the register and it is sufficient to place on the register the version that the authority intends to enter into or (in the case of a unilateral undertaking intends to rely on) as a basis for granting planning permission.

None of this should be news, but local planning authority practice to date has often been rather more laissez faire, perhaps partly because the courts have previously declined to quash permissions in not dissimilar circumstances (see for instance R (Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire) v Blaby District Council (Foskett J, 27 May 2014) and maybe partly because, well, this is a statutory duty, tucked away in the Development Management Procedure Order, that it can be easy to overlook.

Happy Easter.

Simon Ricketts, 17 April 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Building Safety Levy Latest

You will remember that the Building Safety Act 2022 introduced powers to impose a levy on new residential buildings requiring certain building control approvals in England, to raise revenue to be spent on building safety. The levy is now planned to come into effect in Autumn 2026 and we will see the necessary regulations laid before Parliament later this year. The levy is targeted to raise £3.4 billion.

On 24 March 2025 the Government published an updated version of a response to the technical consultation that had been carried out by the previous government from 22 November 2022 to 7 February 2023 and initially responded to by the previous government and further informed by a further technical consultation that was carried out from 23 January 2024 to 20 February 2024. This has all been a long time coming.

The 2022 Act empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations which will apply to a “relevant building”, payable to the Secretary of State or their nominee and applied in relation to applications or notices filed for building control approval. The Act defines “relevant building” as one, in England, consisting of or containing one or more dwellings or other accommodation (“including temporary accommodation, for example in a hotel or hospital”, although the Government now intends to exclude hotels and hospitals from the levy, as well as, for instance care homes and all types of affordable housing as defined in the NPPF).

To quote from the 24 March 2025 version of the government’s technical response to consultation:

“The levy charge will depend on the floorspace of the development. Rates per square metre will be set per local authority area to capture the geographical variation in house prices, so that levy rates will be highest in those areas with the highest house prices, and lowest in low-house-price areas. This measure is designed to protect the viability of house building across England. There will be a discounted levy rate of 50% for developments built on previously developed land (PDL), also known as ‘brownfield’ land.”

Certain residential buildings which provide important community facilities and certain types of communal accommodation will be exempt from the levy charge, so as not to deter their development. These include affordable housing, non-social homes built by not-for-profit registered providers, NHS hospitals, care homes, supported housing, children’s homes, domestic abuse shelters, accommodation for armed services personnel, criminal justice accommodation, and developments of fewer than 10 units (as a protection for small and medium-sized sites and enterprises).

The sanction for non-payment of the levy will be the withholding of a building control completion certificate, or rejection of a final certificate. As completion certificates are a legal requirement for buildings over 18m in height, and are required by many mortgage lenders, this means that the developer will struggle to sell and occupy that building upon completion if the levy is not paid.”

Annex A to the document sets out the relevant levy rate per square metre of chargeable development for each local authority area, with separate columns for the previously developed land rate and the non-previously developed land rate. The highest I could see was £50.17 and £100.35 respectively for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; the lowest that I could see was for County Durham: £6.35 and £12.70 respectively. Annex A starts with this worked example:

“For example, a building control application is submitted for 20 identical houses in Dover. Each house has a gross internal area of 100m2, so the total chargeable floorspace for the building control application is 2000m2. The houses are being constructed on previously developed land. The levy rate for works on previously developed land in Dover is £15.19. To calculate the total levy liability for the building control application, the total chargeable floorspace (2000m2) is multiplied by the levy rate for works on previously developed land (£15.19). The total levy liability for the building control application is £30, 380.“

There will be no indexation although the rates will be subject to review by the Secretary of State on a three-yearly basis (but it can be more frequent than that).

What about any transitional provisions, you may ask? The November 2022 consultation document indicated that the previous Government was minded to make transitional provisions which apply to the first year of operation of the Levy and will be dependent on the stage within the building regulations processed that the development has reached at the time that the Levy comes into effect. The Government response to that consultation provided that a development which had begun the building control process as at the launch date of the levy would be exempt. Developments which enter the building control process after the levy is launched will be subject to it. There is no mention of any transitional provisions in the more recent consultation, or in the Government’s latest response.

How do you work out whether a site amounts to previously developed land? The NPPF definition of previously developed land is to be used. “Where 75% or more of the land within the planning permission redline boundary falls within the definition of PDL all levy-chargeable development on the site will qualify for the discount rate. We propose a 75% threshold as this will mean that sites which have a clear majority of land that constitutes PDL qualify for the discount. The developer will apply for the discount rate as part of the levy information provided as part of the first commencement notice and will submit supporting evidence to illustrate the site falls within the levy definition of PDL.“

The levy is to be payable to the local authority and passed onto the government. Local authorities’ role as tax collector continues to expand.

The developer will need to file information with their building control application or notice. At the initial notice stage, the developer will need to include reference to the planning permission pursuant to which the development is being carried out and the number of dwellings which will be created as a result of the development. At the stage of filing a commencement notice, the developer will need to confirm:

(a) whether in its view any exemptions from payment apply;

(b) whether the development is on previously developed land; and

Supporting evidence will need to be filed at both stages, but exactly what is required is not yet known. The Government has indicated that it will prepare guidance to assist on this point. If insufficient evidence is provided, the local authority will be empowered to reject the application or notice. The local authority will not verify all information provided to it but will carry out spot checks.

Having received the information from the developer (and subject to a spot check) the local authority will issue a levy liability notice to confirm the amount payable. The amount will then need to be paid before a completion certificate is issued or final certificate is approved. The Government does not intend to provide for phasing of payments.

In the event that an amendment notice is filed, or a further application is made for building control approval, the developer must provide information which reflects any change of consequence for the levy liability calculation – i.e. an increase or decrease in chargeable floorspace. The developer may also file updated information if they believe that the development has become eligible for an exemption from the Levy. Where the levy liability changes:

if the original liability sum has been paid, the payment already made will be credited against the new total; and
where the levy liability decreases as a result of a change, the developer will be entitled to a refund within 2 weeks of the issue of the updated Levy liability notice.

The regulations will provide for a review procedure and subsequent appeal where there is a dispute between the developer and the local authority as to the levy liability amount.

Many thanks to my Town Legal colleague Aline Hyde for much of the above detail. There is a lot here for us all to start to take in, both in terms of the additional regulatory requirements but also, for clients (whilst we should not forget the human tragedies that led to the need for this levy in the first place) the potentially significant financial implications of the levy for current and future development projects.

Simon Ricketts, 5 April 2025

Personal views et cetera

	George Vasdekys on If It’s Not One Thing It…
	simonicity on If It’s Not One Thing It…
	bethharriesd6e20ba84… on If It’s Not One Thing It…
	simonicity on Announcements
	alwaystriumphe964e30… on Announcements