This site uses cookies, as explained in our cookie policy. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Privacy Policy

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Planning for hotel development in London

Planning for hotel development in London

Clare Catherall 05 Nov 2026
London’s visitor and business economy relies on having the right hotel accommodation in the right places. National and strategic policy broadly supports hotel growth, but the position at borough level across London is more nuanced: our review found that 24 of the 34 London planning authorities assessed (71%) have a bespoke hotel or visitor accommodation policy. 
We reveal growing policy support for hotel developments in the CAZ under the emerging draft London Plan, and at the local level, a varied policy landscape in which location, competing land uses and the quality of the proposed scheme can determine whether a planning application for a hotel is likely to succeed. 
 

National and regional context

 
National policy supports hotel development as an important part of the visitor economy and a driver of economic growth. The Government’s ambition to attract 50 million international visitors a year by 2030 underlines the need for sufficient infrastructure and accommodation capacity. This direction is reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which recognises tourism’s contribution to economic growth and encourages planning authorities to support sustainable visitor accommodation in appropriate locations. The NPPF classifies hotels and other visitor accommodation as main town-centre uses and promotes a town-centre-first approach, directing development towards town-centre and edge-of-centre locations where possible.
At a strategic level in the capital, the emerging London Plan places greater emphasis on supporting the capital’s visitor economy by providing additional hotel accommodation in well-connected, sustainable locations. The draft policy approach recognises tourism as a major contributor to London’s economy and seeks to secure sufficient hotel capacity while balancing impacts on housing delivery and local communities. It gives particular support to locations within the CAZ, town centres, high streets and locations with good public transport links (see box below); reflecting the wider objective of accommodating economic growth in a sustainable manner.
 
 
 
 
The next London Plan – Draft Policy GLE6 Visitor infrastructure
 

… “Development of serviced visitor accommodation should be supported in the CAZ, town centres and high streets. Elsewhere in London, serviced visitor accommodation development should only be supported in locations that are well-connected by public transport and in line with the national sequential test for town centre uses”…
 

  

 

Central London - growing support for larger hotels within all areas of the CAZ
 

Under adopted London Plan policy, ‘strategically significant’ hotels over 20,000sqm in the CAZ (Central Activity Zone) are directed to Opportunity Areas, with the intensification of hotels of all sizes resisted where it would harm amenity or upset land-use balance. In comparison the draft London Plan moves away from this tightly controlled CAZ and size-based approach, supporting the development of serviced visitor accommodation (of all sizes) across all areas of the CAZ. 
Figure 1 illustrates the Opportunity Areas within the CAZ where current London Plan policy directs significant hotel development (grey) and the expanded wider areas of the CAZ where the principle of hotel development is afforded greater support under the draft London Plan (green).

 

Figure 1: Central Activities Zone (CAZ)

 
London boroughs and the local policy picture

 

The demand for, and delivery of, new hotels in London is not just limited to Central London and the CAZ. Outside of the CAZ we are seeing increased interest in the delivery of new hotels across Inner and Outer London boroughs. It is important to understand how Local Plans seek to control proposals for new hotels and the specific policy nuances that apply in each borough. As such, we have undertaken a detailed review of each borough’s local policy regarding hotels and visitor accommodation.
Of the 34 London planning authorities reviewed (32 London boroughs, the City of London and the OPDC), 24 (71%) have a bespoke hotel or visitor accommodation policy. A further six (18%) address hotels through overarching town-centre, tourism or employment policies. Bespoke policy coverage is therefore established and widespread: hotels are rarely treated simply as an ordinary commercial use.

 

Figure 2: Local Plan approaches to hotel policy


As is illustrated by figure 2, the boroughs without a separate hotel policy (or where hotel development is addressed through wider town-centre, employment or cultural policies) are all located in outer London (Barnet, Ealing, Hillingdon, Merton, Sutton, Croydon, Greenwich, Bexley, Havering and Waltham Forest). All inner London boroughs and the remaining outer London boroughs have bespoke hotel policies. This includes areas containing major visitor attractions or significant transport hubs, which may generate particular development pressures requiring a dedicated policy response.
 

Principle of hotel development and locational requirements 

 

Our research found that, at the borough level, hotel development is generally supported in Local Plans where it is appropriately located. Policies frequently direct hotel development towards:
  • Town centres
  • Areas with high PTAL or strong public transport accessibility
  • Opportunity Areas
  • In some cases, the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) or locations close to specific visitor attractions or transport hubs
  
Hover over the authority name in the map below for additional locational criteria.

 

Figure 3: Local Plan variations in locational criteria for hotel development


As can be seen from Figure 3, locational requirements vary significantly between boroughs. Some Local Plans identify specific growth areas, attractions or venues where hotel development will be supported. Other boroughs direct hotels towards town centres but still allow proposals in specified (or, in some cases, more general) locations outside of town centres where defined criteria are met.
We anticipate that the wider locational support for hotel development suggested by the draft London Plan will begin to be applied to individual boroughs with greater standardisation of policy by borough as local plans conform with the London Plan. In the meantime, the picture remains mixed and Local Plan specific. 
 

Additional policy tests

 

Although Local Plan policies generally support hotel uses, a significant number of boroughs apply one or more additional tests that hotel developments must satisfy. These tests are intended to ensure that proposals are fully justified, do not displace priority land uses (most commonly C3 housing) and they do not contribute to an overconcentration of hotels:
  • 41% prioritise and protect other uses, such as housing or office space before hotel uses are accepted;
  • 15% require applicants to demonstrate evidenced need for hotel development;
  • 12% seek to limit an overconcentration of hotels; and
  • 62% detail specific additional design considerations for hotel developments, including accessibility requirements, amenity standards, servicing strategies and/or active frontages.
 The distribution of these considerations across different boroughs is illustrated in the plans below.  

 

The protection of housing and other uses is a common issue in local hotel policy. Many boroughs require applicants either to demonstrate that there will be no net loss of homes or to show that hotel development will not compromise land needed for new housing, including on allocated sites and sites with residential planning permission. Given the GLA’s and boroughs’ focus on housing delivery, this can be a significant barrier where a site is also suitable for residential use, particularly when that potential is identified in the Local Plan.
Employment uses receive less explicit protection in bespoke hotel policies, but they are often protected through other employment Local Plan policies covering employment land. Where a proposal would convert an office or other commercial site to a hotel, a key hurdle can be demonstrating that there is insufficient demand for the existing office use (typically through marketing evidence) and clearly explaining the hotel’s local employment benefits.
Presenting clear evidence of the need for hotel accommodation is cited in local plan policy by a number of authorities, including the inner London Boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Lewisham, which are often attractive locations for operators. In such locations, Lichfields' newly launched ‘Accommodate’ toolkit can be used to help demonstrate the need and demand for new hotels, support investment in existing assets, or assess the loss of existing stock.
 

Design & operational considerations

 

Finally, our analysis identified several recurring design themes within hotel policies. As identified above, 62% of boroughs expect hotel schemes to address one or more of these matters, identifying them as the key design considerations for hotel development:
 
  1. Access and servicing – provide safe, convenient access for guests, staff, deliveries and servicing, with clear arrangements for vehicles (sometimes coaches), taxis, cycles, waste collection and loading that minimise impacts on surrounding streets and neighbouring uses.

  2. Amenity standards – protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and provide a good environment for guests by managing noise, privacy, overlooking, lighting, hours of operation and the effects of plant and equipment.

  3.  Accessibility – embed inclusive design throughout the building and its approaches, including step-free access, accessible shared facilities and the often-stated requirement for 10% wheelchair-adaptable accommodation.

  4. Active frontage – create an attractive and welcoming street presence through well-designed entrances, transparent and animated ground-floor uses, and layouts that contribute to natural surveillance and the vitality of the surrounding area.
     
Five boroughs (15%) also require ancillary amenities and facilities within hotel developments to be available for wider public use. In Southwark, for example, 10% of a hotel development’s floorspace must provide ancillary facilities for public use and employment. Lambeth and Newham similarly expect leisure facilities to be accessible to non-hotel visitors. These requirements can introduce additional operational and management considerations for hotel schemes.
 

What does this mean for your hotel development?

 

For developers, the key message is that London remains supportive of hotel growth, but the prospect of a successful planning outcome is heavily dependent on identifying the right site and understanding and addressing borough-specific policy requirements from the outset. Proposals are most likely to succeed in town centres, the CAZ, Opportunity Areas and other locations with strong public transport accessibility.
Our key takeaway messages are:
 
  1. Test the location early: confirm whether the borough directs hotels to particular local centres, growth areas or transport-accessible locations, and establish whether a sequential assessment is needed and, if so, whether that assessment will present compelling evidence.
     
  2. Address competing land uses: demonstrate that the scheme will not displace existing or planned housing, undermine employment land or conflict with other protected uses. A period of marketing evidence or an assessment of local demand may be required where an existing commercial use would be lost.
     
  3. Build the evidence base: where relevant, provide a robust assessment of hotel need, ensure the hotel scheme is differentiated from other existing/emerging hotels, and explain why the proposal would not result in overconcentration of visitor accommodation.
     
  4. Design for operation as well as appearance: resolve access, servicing, deliveries, waste, noise, lighting, inclusive access and active frontage requirements at an early stage. Public access to ancillary facilities may also be expected in some boroughs.

 

Conclusion

 
London’s policy framework is positive about the development of new hotels and visitor accommodation, but support is neither uniform nor unconditional. The strongest prospects are in accessible, well-connected locations where a proposal complements and strengthens town-centre activity or a recognised growth area. Applicants must show that schemes will not undermine housing or employment priorities, and they will not contribute to an overconcentration of hotels or fall short on design and operational matters.
Early policy analysis is essential. Understanding the borough-specific position, and responding clearly to its location, land-use and design requirements, can help identify risks, shape a stronger proposal and build a more persuasive planning case for development.
Please do get in touch if you would like to discuss your hotel and visitor accommodation projects in London with our team. 

CONTINUE READING

The local application of the national scheme of delegation

Jennie Baker, Sean Farrissey & Ross Raftery 03 Nov 2026
The national scheme of delegation for planning decisions came into force on 31 October. Application types included in ‘Schedule 1’ can no longer be determined by planning committees[1]. For all applications on ‘Schedule 2’, planning committee determination is possible, but should be exceptional, according to statutory guidance[2].
This blog explores the local procedures being established to encourage a smooth transition and considers whether local triage will lead to determination by committee being the exception. We discuss:
 
 
Background
Our June blog ‘Delegation default: power to the Chief Planner’ explained the statutory context[3] and how the proposals had evolved. We also included this decision making flowchart, discussed below, and the list of applications on either Schedule 1 or 2. Some application types are not included on either schedule and some will be ‘own-interest’ applications. The statutory guidance sets out the ‘gateway test’[4] that an application must pass to  be referred to a Planning Committee for decision by the nominated officer and nominated member (nominated persons):
“At a minimum, at least one of the following statutory criteria must be met for a referral to committee to be considered to meet that threshold:
A. where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area
B. where the application raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”
However, before reaching this statutory test, planning authorities can set local triage arrangements as a mechanism intended to avoid overwhelming decision-makers and delaying decisions. This provides the only scope for local variation and is where we have focused our analysis in this blog.
The Regulations will not apply to development corporations, Homes and Communities Agency, National Park Authorities or the Broads Authority[5], because they are not “relevant planning authorities”[6]. These authorities have not needed to amend their constitutions, committee sizes or decision-making processes.
But what of the relevant planning authorities who have not amended their local schemes of delegation to comply with the new legislation? We discuss this at the end of this blog, as hopefully this will be a short term position and soon clarified.
 
Understanding local constitution and triage arrangements is key
Our decision-making flowchart has, at its centre, some complicated options for how an authority might decide which determination route a Schedule 2 application might follow.
 

This is because the green boxes in the diagram reflect potential, optional, local arrangements. The statutory guidance says:
 
“Where local planning authorities anticipate that there may be a significant number of Schedule 2 or own-interest applications which may need to be considered for referral to committee they may wish to put in place a triage system to ensure that the nominated officer and nominated member of the committee are not overwhelmed and to avoid any unnecessary delays in planning decision making”.
 
Many local planning authorities have established or are in the process of establishing varying approaches to local triage.
Some local triage examples
We have reviewed a few different proposed[7] approaches to triaging applications, which have been presented to a committee or full Council. We cannot say how commonplace different approaches will be, as there can be many different local triage procedures, but the below provides an indication as to what can be expected. In addition to the examples emerging, the Planning Advisory Service has provided some hypothetical worked examples of how to deal with Schedule 2 applications in practice.[8]
We outline below what we consider to be interesting elements of proposed local arrangements[9], rather than summarising the examples in full. A summary of the emerging position follows the examples.
 
     
 
London Borough of Bromley[10]:
A weekly list will identify whether applications are Schedule 1 or Schedule 2. A Councillor (not just the relevant Ward Member or Planning Committee Member) has three weeks to ‘call-in’.
The nominated officer and member will decide which of these goes to committee by applying the gateway test.
Informal guidance to be issued to all members to help with understanding the new restrictions and processes
  
   
London Borough of Merton[11]:
Schedule 2 application should be determined by officers, unless the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer or their authorised substitute agree to refer it to committee under the gateway test within 28 days of the date of the valid registration of the application.
The Gateway Test must be applied to a ‘Residual Schedule 2 Application’[12], to decide whether it needs to be reported to Planning Committee in a list of 15 circumstances including “Where conflict arises between the officer's recommendation and the advice issued by Historic England, the Environment Agency or other body with similar statutory status”
  
 
 
East Suffolk Council[13]:
Two routes for Schedule 2 to be determined by committee – Referral Panel and Call-in
The Referral Panel is comprised of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the relevant Planning Committee as well as two nominated Planning Committee members. Operates where officer recommendation is contrary to material planning consideration comments received from a Town or Parish Council, Ward Member or a statutory consultee. The Planning Referral Panel may conclude that a ‘Relevant Schedule 2 application’[14] should be referred to the Planning Committee, which is an advisory to the Nominated Member, but the final decision on the determination route will be made by the Nominated Officer.
Call-in process is triggered if within the 21-day consultation period Town/Parish Council and Ward Member(s) position is contrary to the officer recommendation – or  Ward Member requests committee determination. Notification is sent to Planning Committee – a member must respond within 5 days saying it should be considered by the Committee and setting out how they consider it meets the gateway test. A call-in request bypasses the Referral Panel, albeit the advisory position of the call-in is still subject to the application of the gateway test by the nominated persons.
  
 
Wakefield Council[15]
The nominated officer is not authorised to determine a Schedule 2 application where the nominated officer and nominated member agree that the application passes the Gateway Test
  
 
 
North Somerset Council[16] 
The nominated persons will consider whether an application should be referred to the Planning and Regulatory Committee by applying the Gateway Test when either nominated person considers it necessary or a Ward Councillor, in accordance with the Code of Practice, submits a formal written request using the prescribed form.
  
 
 
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council[17]:
A Schedule 2 application will receive a referral assessment where one or more of six circumstances applies, including more than 10 qualifying individual letters or emails express a view contrary to the case officer’s proposed recommendation (except tree applications). And/or the nominated officer considers that the application may pass the Gateway Test.
  
 
  
Sunderland City Council[18]:
The gateway test will always be considered in relation to a list of six applications types, provided they fall within Schedule 2 of the Regulations, including where accompanied by an Environmental Statement and where there is an objection from a Statutory Consultee and the Local Planning Authority are minded to approve the application. In addition, all other Schedule 2 applications (with the exception of own interest applications) will be subject to a triage process to assess whether, based on the identified impacts, there is a requirement to proceed to the gateway test.
  
 
Colchester City Council[19]
Colchester City Council has produced a ‘referral process at a glance’, which includes scope for member referral requests to be considered:
 
  
     
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
Gateway test – local examples of what might ‘pass’
Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the statutory guidance provide examples of what ‘significant’ or ‘significant planning matter’ are in the gateway test. Some Councils are providing their own examples, including Colchester City Council:
“Examples may include:
  • Novel or complex policy interpretation.
  • Significant departures from development plan policy.
  • Development raising substantial heritage, transport, environmental or design considerations.
  • Proposals involving major planning judgement.
Matters are less likely to constitute significant planning matters where:
  • Development broadly complies with adopted allocations and relevant planning policy.
  • Consultees' concerns have been satisfactorily addressed through amendments or conditions.
  • The issues raised are routine development management matters”.
Milton Keynes City Council is to require[20] that all Schedule 2 applications that pass the gateway test are not determined by officers. But the example of what might pass appears to raise the bar higher than in the guidance and requires Member action:
 
“Ward Councillors, Town/Parish Councils and members of the public, when submitting consultation responses, should highlight the following factors for those applications they consider should be referred to Planning Committee: 
  • Application raises one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, for example the application is considered to be controversial due to the:
  • Scale and nature of the proposed development (e.g. an outline application covering a strategic urban extension that has been allocated in the Development Plan); 
  • Planning history of the site (e.g. where there is a significant and complex history of relevant previous applications on the site that includes decisions allowed on appeal);
  • Sensitivity of the site (e.g. where the proposal could result in significant harm to an asset that is designated for its heritage, biodiversity or landscape importance); and/or 
That the application raises significant planning matters, for example there is a material conflict with the Council's approved planning policies”.
Both the Colchester and Milton Keynes examples leave scope for flexibility in application.
  
     
 
 
Emerging local authority triage criteria
From the examples above, early emerging criteria include:
 
Member call-in remains – despite not being anticipated by the statutory guidance,[21] this is a primary feature of the examples above. Indeed, for Bromley this is the triage approach. While a ‘call-in’ will not guarantee referral to committee (still being subject to the gateway test and nominated officer/member agreement), this procedure clearly seeks to keep the local peace by replicating existing political pathways to the planning committee.
 
Gateway test is the triage too – where an officer is not permitted to determine any application that passes the gateway test (as set out in the 'Background' section above).
 
Previous referral criteria become new triage criteria – to provide consistency, some planning authorities are simply recreating existing referral criteria as triage criteria. In Stockton-on-Tees, for example, the number of consultation responses received is not irrelevant.
 
Defining significant – the legislative gateway tests (and accompanying statutory guidance) give broad scope for major applications to be referred to committee where issues of ‘significance’ are raised – some authorities are already trying to narrow this with their own examples of what significant means for their area.
 
Statutory consultee influence – in at least two of the example arrangements a statutory consultee concern is a reason for considering referral.
 
Defining deputies broadly – some LPAs have defined which officers are deputies broadly e.g. “Team leaders” so as to seek to ensure that an officer is always available.
 
Understanding these triage arrangements, particularly in the case of reserved matters approvals, might lead to altering a planning strategy, depending on the decision-maker and their degree of support. However, given that the decision-maker determination route examples all have a political angle, it will take some time and a build-up of consistent decisions on procedural route before such a strategy could be confidently devised.
 
We are also aware of local authorities that, at least in the short term, will be taking applications to planning committee because they fall into Schedule 2 and a gateway test will be applied in all cases, whereas under the superseded local arrangements they would have been determined via delegated authority.
 
 
Councils not changing their constitutions to reflect the national scheme? 
Planning magazine[22], Local Government Lawyer[23] and local press (there are likely to be others) have covered four councils who have refused to amend their constitution: Central Bedfordshire, Bolton, Tameside and Fenland.
 
Wiltshire[24] has also done so, in favour of an amended resolution “That the Council continues to lobby Government to express its opposition to these changes and restore democracy to the local planning system”. However, according to a local newspaper[25] “Councillors were told that if they rejected the proposal, powers existed allowing council lawyers to make the necessary constitutional changes regardless”. We are aware of other Councils in this position – i.e. officers already had authority to amend the constitution to reflect changes to legislation.
 
There may be authorities who have not yet amended their constitutions, even though officers must seek councillor approval to make amendments.
 
Simon Ricketts has covered this in his Simonicity blog “What Will Happen If LPAs Miss The 31 Oct NSD Deadline?”. This provides a thorough run through of the legislation and discusses potential implications:
 
“Local planning authorities have a statutory duty from 31 October to make arrangements that are consistent with the Regulations. It seems to me obvious that any local planning authority which fails to comply is in breach of statutory duty and therefore susceptible to judicial review, in relation to which the remedies available to the High Court include making a declaration that it is in breach, quashing any resolution to make arrangements which are in breach and/or a mandatory order to secure compliance. Such proceedings could be brought by any party showing a sufficient interest in the issue.”
 
Simon concluded:
“Final word of warning: There is much legal speculation in all of the above”. 
 
Such a conclusion is likely to make us all sit up and question – what is the position?
 
As non-lawyers we cannot solve that, but we have looked at other contributions to the discussion.
 
A 21 October Local Government Lawyer (LGL) article[26] included the following:
“Commenting on the trend, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said that where councils have not adopted the constitutional amendments, planning officers will still be able to take decisions in accordance with the new scheme.
 
The spokesperson said: "These reforms come into force on 31 October and councils will need to comply with the new rules.
 
"Where committees do not comply, decisions can continue to be taken by planning officers in line with the national scheme."”
Notwithstanding, a follow up LGL article said “Bolton Council has warned that it will be unable to lawfully hold planning committee meetings or determine planning applications from the end of this month”.
Whereas a Biggleswade Today[27] article included a quote from an email from the Chief Executive of Central Bedfordshire, suggesting that they do not consider that applications could not be determined at all because the local scheme has not been amended.
 
One hopes that instances of councils refusing to amend their constitutions is a short term and relatively small scale problem, but it serves as a further reminder of the need to understand the local position.
 
In addition, many authorities and/or Councillors are agreeing to the changes to the constitution while voicing their frustration at what they consider to be unacceptable legislation, such as Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire[28] and the chair of Colchester Council[29].
 
 
Settling in period in the short term, but the politics remain
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the most local authorities will have ensured that their constitutions reflect the 2026 Regulations. Whether or not the authorities that have not done so are permitted to determine applications is not clear – albeit the Government has been quoted as saying that they can do. Therefore, we consider this to be the position – and likely to be both the intention and reading of the Regulations.[30]
 
Our straw poll of local arrangements and review of press coverage suggests that, in some areas at least, it is likely to be a few weeks until we see a settled picture and it will take longer for best practice to emerge. The Local Government Association is already calling for an early 2027 review of the new procedures, rather than 2028 as required by the Regulations.[31]
 
 
Implications, including potential changes to committee frequency
Understanding the local constitution and/or triage arrangements will be critical for anyone considering whether an application needs to be determined by Committee and what that might mean for determination timescales. However, there are several examples of the new arrangements for determining who the decision-maker is being made to reflect the old arrangement, as far as possible.
 
From a local authority perspective, applying the new procedures consistently will be very important. This will be a frustrating fresh challenge for the authorities that might find themselves sending more applications to Committee than they do at present (or at least considering sending more), because the new triage arrangements are linked to Member referral requests. Will the typical 3-5% of applications being determined by Committee change?[32]
 
In the coming weeks planning committees and sub-committees may be moved or cancelled, either due to lack of applications or (as in one example we are aware of) having insufficient time to triage Schedule 2 applications. The latter suggesting that there is already some initial overwhelm.
 
A key concern for the future is that where there are fewer applications going to planning committee, those committees will meet less often, meaning delays in sending potentially significant applications to committee, when they would have been heard by a Committee under both the old and new procedures.
 
 
Going forward
One of the last Government’s objectives in bringing forward the national scheme of delegation was to:
“allow planning committees to focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required and a balanced planning judgement is made”.
 
This is not a threshold to be met, which is fortunate given the subjectivity within it.
 
Such “complex or contentious” applications, and others passing the gateway test, will be considered by a planning committee, as before. Some may continue to be led there by a politician. At this stage, it looks more like new local rules will maintain routes to committee, rather than it being the exception.
 
The Parliamentary debate in the Commons regarding the draft Regulations[33], where there was strong opposition to them, suggests that adaptation of local committee call-in procedures is accepted by the Government. The Housing and Planning Minister said:
 
“it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them […]. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee”.
 
Referring to the approximately 4% of decisions made by committees, the Minister noted that it represented “a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process” and that in the new system they “might not necessarily” be determined by a committee.
 
In a debate where MPs observed that officers are not always right, the Minister also said that the Regulations were about finding the right level of trust and empowerment for resolving Schedule 1 applications. Schedule 1 is the key area of change from 2 November and the only true area of certainty.
 
However, we recognise that these reforms have been introduced outside of typical committee cycles – could we see more streamlined (or bolder) approaches to local delegation arrangements following future election cycles?
 
While the statutory review is some time away, the Government is very likely to monitor authorities’ interpretation of the legislation and statutory guidance and make contact where it has concerns.
 
On a more positive note, our limited look at emerging triage systems has uncovered innovative local approaches and clear explanations to Members, by officers, of the legal position. This bodes well at the start of a path on which officers are intended to forge the way.
 
 
Footnotes 
[1] Unless it is concluded to be an ‘own-interest’ application.[2] Planning Committees and the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions: Guidance for local planning authorities in England, June 2026[3] Primarily, sections 319ZZC – 319ZZF of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as inserted by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and The Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026. Sections of the Local Government Act 1972 and other non-planning legislation are also relevant.[4] The term ‘gateway test’ is only used once in the statutory guidance. Reference to Regulation 5(3) criteria is used more frequently, but for simplicity and because local authority documents tend to so, we have used ‘gateway test’.[5] Throughout this blog we refer to local planning authorities (LPAs), but this should be read as excluding these authorities.[6] Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Interpretation of sections 319ZZC to 319ZZE[7] We have obtained this information from Committee Reports and not all websites show whether the position has been agreed. In any event, the position could change fairly swiftly and should not be relied upon[8] Worked Examples: Dealing with Schedule 2 Applications in Practice[9] At the time of writing minutes were not available for all meetings, to confirm the Committee decision[10] https://cds.bromley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=133&MId=8315[11] https://democracy.merton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=359&MId=4925&Ver=4[12] A Residual Schedule 2 application is a Schedule 2 application, which is not a ‘Triaged Application’. Advertisement Consent and Tree Preservation Order applications are ‘Triaged Applications’.[13] https://eastsuffolk.cmis.uk.com/eastsuffolk/Decisions/tabid/67/ctl/ViewCMIS_DecisionDetails/mid/391/Id/971c8bea-6f17-4bfd-bb1b-bd10f431e209/Default.aspx[14] does not include listed building consent applications linked to a schedule 1 application, variation to listed building consent or works to listed dwellinghouse[15] Appendix 6 - 3.7 - Officer Delegation Scheme.pdf[16] Committee Report NSC[17] Agenda for Council on Wednesday 23rd September 2026, 6.00 pm - Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council[18] Meetings and Events[19]https://colchester.cmis.uk.com/colchester/MeetingCalendar/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/1503/Committee/13/Default.aspx[20] https://milton-keynes.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s30751/Planning%20Committee%20-%20Constitution%20Changes.pdf[21] This political approach does not appear to have been anticipated by the statutory guidance (which we do not think the authorities are breaching):“Under the national scheme of delegation, current practices set out in local authority constitutions, such as the power for ward councillors to require cases to be called in for committee consideration or having trigger points for referral to committee if a certain number of objections is reached, will not be possible”. [22] (£) Planning: Fourth council refuses to amend constitution to comply with government’s national delegation scheme[23] Four councils refuse to adopt constitutional changes required for national scheme of delegation for planning decision-making[24] Wiltshire Full Council, 20 October 2026 (Morning and Afternoon Session) watch from 3:07:20 to 3:12[25] https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/26657630.wiltshire-defies-government-attack-democracy/[26] Four councils refuse to adopt constitutional changes required for national scheme of delegation for planning decision-making[27] Biggleswade Today, re Central Bedfordshire: Planning decisions could be 'significantly disrupted' as Central Beds Council opposes legal change[28] Councils reluctantly approve constitution changes for new planning process[29] https://www.facebook.com/groups/colchester.community/posts/4740922392901180/[30] It should be noted that we have not fully explored potential interface with other local government legislation, including Local Government Acts, which could place other requirements on authorities.[31] Review planning decision rules a year earlier to assess democratic impact, LGA urges government
[32] The Impact Assessment (see footnote below) refers to 96% of applications being determined by officers. The Planning Applications statistical release for June said “Of the 74,500 decisions made during the quarter, 72,100 (97%) were delegated to officers. This percentage has been stable since 2014, having previously increased from around 75% in 2000” https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/planning-applications-in-england-april-to-june-2026/planning-applications-in-england-april-to-june-2026-statistical-release

CONTINUE READING

Illustrating flexible BNG for NSIPs: Interactive graphic, comparison and glossary

Illustrating flexible BNG for NSIPs: Interactive graphic, comparison and glossary

Alice Wibberley & Nancy Stuart 02 Nov 2026
Today marks the formal introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) in England. All applicable applications for Development Consent Orders (DCO) made from today will need to demonstrate how the Biodiversity Objective will be met, with various information required at each stage of the consenting process.
Our previous blog reviewed the Government’s April 2026 response to consultation on how BNG should function for NSIPs. Since then: in June, Biodiversity Gain Statements were published for NSIPs both with and without a relevant national policy statement; and in August, DEFRA also published its guidance on the subject.
There has been some nervousness about how BNG requirements can be effectively brought forward as part of complex major infrastructure projects.  Whilst there will be much to learn as the process embeds, there is now a wealth of guidance to facilitate the integration of BNG into the DCO regime, including important information on how flexibility can be preserved as complex NSIPs are brought forward. To unpack this further, we have produced an interactive graphic, comparison between the TCPA and NSIP processes, and a Glossary of key terms.
 

Addressing BNG in the consenting process
 

Our interactive graphic uses a hypothetical energy development at three key stages of the NSIP consenting process to illustrate how BNG may work in practice. It includes information requirements and where decisions need to be made in relation to BNG; and how the BNG Boundary could change over time with increasing design certainty.
Hover over each point in the graphic for more information, and see the Glossary for key terms.


Illustration by Deirdre van der Bank, interactive graphic by Mark Kilgallon

 

BNG in practice
 

To preserve flexibility, the BNG metric and strategy for delivering BNG is likely to be revised several times as a project is brought forward, but each development will be different. What is common is that the Biodiversity Objective must be met prior to the NSIP becoming operational, and several Updated Biodiversity Gain Plans may be required to verify final impacts and evidence the delivery of BNG.
BNG is only one part of the wider consenting process, but it is one that will require a coordinated and often strategic approach to prepare and submit the necessary information at each stage. There are significant opportunities to make use of the flexibility preserved in the process, but uncertainty regarding ecological impacts will need to be justified, and iterative results will need to be evidenced. Effective BNG will therefore rely on early alignment across the project team, with benefits from strategic oversight to understand interdependencies, manage uncertainty, and identify positive outcomes to support broader project success.
 
 

Comparison between TCPA and NSIPs
 

With the introduction of BNG for NSIPs now live, we have also put together a comparison of the key differences to be aware of from the TCPA BNG process and requirements.
 
TCPA
NSIP
Legal Framework
BNG is required in England under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021).
The statutory framework for mandatory BNG for NSIPs is introduced by Schedule 15 to the Environment Act 2021, which inserts Schedule 2A into the Planning Act 2008.
Applicable Guidance
The BNG Planning Practice Guidance, published by MHCLG, covers how BNG is applied through the planning process.
This sits alongside a suite of BNG guidance published by Defra for developers, land managers and authorities.
The Defra BNG Guidance portal has been updated to include links for all NSIP related BNG Guidance. This includes:
The BNG NSIP Guidance;
The applicable Biodiversity Gain Statement for the relevant project/sector, which corresponds to the National Policy Statement of that project/sector; and
Relisting links to guidance that applies to both TCPA and DCO applications. (such as on entering a legal agreement for BNG).
Application of the Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy
For planning applications the applicant must demonstrate how the Hierarchy has been followed, which for major applications prioritises first avoiding/mitigating impacts to onsite habitats; then onsite enhancements; new onsite habitats; offsite gains; and lastly purchase of credits.
For NSIP projects the use of onsite and offsite gains are treated equally, when the offsite gains are in the same LPA, National Character Area (NCA) or Marine Plan Area (MPA) boundary - for intertidal units.
Tools to use
The Statutory Metric or Small Sites Metric is to be used.
The Defra Biodiversity Gain Site Register is used for Biodiversity Gains Sites and any offsite gains allocated to developments.
The same Statutory Metric and Gains Site Register is to be used for NSIPs.
The small site metric will not be applicable.
Information requirements at application stage
Planning applications subject to the BNG condition must submit the following minimum information requirements:
The completed metric for baseline and post-development;
Description of any irreplaceable habitat within the application site boundary;
Plan showing the location of any onsite habitat included in the biodiversity calculations and the location of any irreplaceable habitat.
DCO applicants must additionally submit:
Statement of the ecologist’s role in the BNG strategy and documents;
A BNG boundary plan;
An Outline BGP (containing details stipulated within the relevant Biodiversity Gain Statement);
Draft requirements to secure the BNG objective within the draft DCO;
A draft HMMP for any significant onsite gains, along with a description of maintenance and monitoring of these;
Description of any remaining uncertainty on the detailed design of the proposed development;
Confirmation of the intended use of any excess onsite gains.
The consent and implementation
The Biodiversity Condition is deemed to apply to every planning permission granted for development of land in England (unless exemptions/transitional arrangements apply).
Development cannot begin before a Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. In the case of phased developments, an Overall BGP must first be approved and a Phase BGP must be approved prior to commencement of each phase.
The Secretary of State will not grant an application for development consent unless satisfied that the proposed development meets the biodiversity gain objective.
Requirements must secure either an updated BGP or a phased BGP to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of (each phase of) development.
Discharging Authority
The LPA must state who the planning authority is for the purposes of the BGP within the decision notice.
The relevant discharging authority for the BNG Requirements must be stated in the draft DCO requirements. This could be the host LPA, a Lead LPA (for cross boundary projects), or the SoS.
This should be discussed with PINS and the relevant LPAs prior to submission.
Size considerations
The main considerations of project scale within the TCPA BNG regime relate to small planning applications:
Use of the small sites metric for non-major developments;
The de minimis exemption to BNG;
Exemption for sites with an area of 0.2 hectares or less.
Due to the typical large scale of NSIPs, the Guidance gives consideration to possible implications of scale and uncertainty in the following key ways:
Use of a BNG boundary, which can be different to the Order Limits, and unaffected land can be excluded from the BNG boundary;
Affecting land that is already secured for BNG for other developments;
Considers addressing development that goes above or underneath habitats;
Allows submissions with descriptions of remaining uncertainty.

 

Glossary

Click for our Glossary of key terms.

CONTINUE READING

Data centres: the Government wants more – but what does it want in return?

Data centres: the Government wants more – but what does it want in return?

Kelly Phillips, Hugh Scanlon & Henry Gomm 02 Nov 2026
The Government has made its position clear: the UK needs more data centres. The publication of a draft National Policy Statement and Data Centre Covenant is an important step forward for the sector. But, alongside the opportunities, there are some significant new expectations and unanswered questions for developers, operators and landowners.
The Government’s publication of the draft National Policy Statement (NPS) for Data Centres and the new Data Centre Covenant on 28 October 2026 marks a significant moment for the sector. Combined, these documents recognise the importance of digital infrastructure to economic growth, AI capability and national resilience, and seek to provide greater certainty for investors and accelerate delivery bringing both planning applications and Development Consent Orders (DCOs) forward.
There is plenty to welcome. But there is also quite a lot to unpick.
 
  

A much-needed national policy framework

The dedicated NPS, that will be the primary basis for the examination of data centre DCOs and an important material consideration for planning applications, provides a clearer national case for additional data centre capacity, recognising its importance to the economy, AI capability, national resilience and security.
Significantly, it introduces a presumption of consent for applications determined under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime. Where proposals meet the relevant NPS requirements, apply the mitigation hierarchy and satisfy legal and regulatory requirements, the starting point for the Secretary of State should be support for development.
This is a real policy shift and provides applicants with a stronger platform for making the case for nationally important infrastructure. However, it is not a green light. The presumption is subject to important exceptions, including impacts on protected habitats, risks to human health and public safety, flood risk and where development proposals are forthcoming within the Green Belt.
Confusingly, the draft also says little about Grey Belt sites. Given the potential availability of previously developed or less sensitive land within the Green Belt, the NPS should clarify how the presumption would apply to such development opportunities.
 
  

TCPA or DCO – does the route really matter?

The NPS is closely linked to the Government’s decision to bring large data centre projects within the NSIP consenting regime through Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008.
Projects with a rated IT load of 100MW or more are likely to be considered nationally significant and may be suitable for a Section 35 direction. However, the DCO route remains optional; it is not compulsory for every project above that threshold.  A DCO may offer a more nationally focused consenting process, supported by the dedicated NPS and presumption of consent. But it also brings its own costs, programme and evidence requirements. The TCPA route will remain appropriate for many schemes.
The right consenting strategy will depend on the scale and complexity of the development, power arrangements, programme, environmental constraints, control over land and local planning context. It is a decision that needs to be considered early.
  

Power remains a big question

Power availability remains one of the sector’s biggest delivery challenges, and the draft NPS places considerable emphasis on securing a grid connection.
The NPS clarifies that a secured connection is not necessarily a prerequisite for submitting a DCO application. However, applicants will need to explain progress with the network operator, demonstrate credible commitments to the capacity sought and address the likelihood of connection within the required timeframe.
The treatment of behind-the-meter (BtM) generation is more challenging. The NPS requires any such energy solution to be both a ‘last resort’ and a temporary solution.  It advertises a “forthcoming framework” to establish the conditions by which projects can make use of BtM. Approval for BtM power will be refused if the data centre project is either not exceptionally strategic or is exceptionally strategic but does not demonstrate sufficient compliance with the framework.  Both the framework and additional guidance on what will comprises ‘exceptionally strategic’ have yet to be published, which seems an omission at this time, given the pivotal nature of these points.
With the limitations around grid availability a very real constraint to data centre developments particularly in the south, BtM offers a practical solution for immediate delivery of data centre capacity. It also offers opportunity to address existing resilience issues in power availability in local catchments, as part of the host community benefits the draft NPS seeks to secure.
The importance of BtM is evident from some of the recent Section 35 submissions, several of which rely on this source of power in the short term. Without a clear framework and associated guidance, these sorts of schemes risk being left in limbo.
We would expect any emerging guidance to recognise the realities of delivering large-scale infrastructure where a combination of power sources may be necessary. We would also like to see acknowledgement that such an energy solution offers up potential benefits to local communities, strengthen resilience of supply.  But for developers today, it is evident that a robust and deliverable power strategy will be fundamental to both site selection and the planning case going forward.
  

The Data Centre Covenant: what is the price of Government support?

Alongside the NPS, a Data Centre Covenant was announced, which appears to be in play immediately.  All data centres are encouraged to meet five new tests, whilst strategic data centres are required to do so where they are seeking enhanced Government support.
The Covenant is intended to establish a reciprocal arrangement: in return for meeting these commitments, strategically important data centres can expect enhanced Government support, including efforts to unlock investment, prioritise access to power and accelerate grid connections and planning. The potential benefits are significant, but the detail of how this support will operate in practice remains to be clarified.
The tests cover:
  • Energy costs: paying a fair share of the costs created and supporting grid resilience and flexibility.

  • Local communities: agreeing a Local Benefit Plan, committing substantial investment linked to the scale of the development and local priorities.
     
  • Environmental performance: protecting nature, minimising water use, reporting energy and water consumption and capturing waste heat wherever practical.
     
  • Jobs and skills: creating local employment, apprenticeships and training opportunities, and supporting UK suppliers and technologies.
     
  • National security: providing secure and reliable compute capacity for critical services and working with national technical authorities to strengthen resilience.
The principles are understandable, and there are clear opportunities for the sector to demonstrate wider benefits. However, the Local Benefit Plan is potentially one of the most significant changes for developers. What constitutes ‘substantial investment’? How will contributions be calculated, who determines what is proportionate, and how will these plans sit alongside existing Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy requirements?
Is it a risk that, without clear parameters, Local Benefit Plans become an additional and potentially open-ended layer of negotiation, extending beyond the mitigation of development impacts and the normal scope of planning obligations?
  

Environmental performance: ambition versus deliverability

The Covenant also raises expectations around energy efficiency, water consumption and waste heat reuse. These are important considerations, but their practical delivery will depend on the location and design of each facility.
Heat reuse is a good example. While there are clear opportunities to supply nearby homes, businesses and public buildings, viability depends on the availability of a suitable heat user, proximity, infrastructure and commercial arrangements. Developers cannot deliver a viable district heating network in isolation where there is no realistic local demand.
Similarly, water efficiency needs to be considered alongside local water availability and the proposed cooling technology.
The NPS expects applicants to consider these opportunities and explain where they are not feasible. 
 
 

What does this mean for landowners and developers?

Overall, the new framework provides a stronger national case for data centre development, but it also raises the bar in terms of what makes a good site.
Power availability remains critical, but water supply, opportunities for heat reuse, environmental constraints, infrastructure and the potential to deliver local benefits will all need to feature much earlier in site assessment and due diligence. The publication of the BtM framework and exceptionally strategic criteria can’t come soon enough.
The consultation provides an opportunity for operators, developers, landowners and the wider industry to influence the final policy. In particular, the treatment of Grey Belt sites, BTM generation, Local Benefit Plans and the definition of strategic infrastructure all warrant further consideration.
The direction of travel is clear: the Government wants more data centres but expects them to deliver wider benefits in return. The opportunity is significant. The challenge is ensuring that the policy translates into projects that are genuinely deliverable.
 
  

CONTINUE READING

Load More

Subscribe

Receive our latest thinking direct to your inbox.

I want to receive…