Planning matters

On 18 November 2025, the Government issued its consultation on proposed reforms to the statutory consultee system[1]. In the Ministers foreword, he highlights that reform is necessary as the system is neither effective, proactive or proportional – a damning opening statement and a blunt reality check for all statutory players in the planning and development process. Paralleling this need for change, is the Government’s clearly stated demand that the statutory consultation system requires reform, so it more closely aligns with its core Mission focused on development and economic growth objectives[2].  Complementing this focus, the paper highlights the need for ‘the statutory requirement to consult’ in future being limited only to those instances where it is necessary to do so thereby removing much unnecessary, wasteful ‘red tape’.

 

In reviewing the consultation document, the impression is that the Government is seeking to ensure that the statutory consultation system is changed so that it does not hinder development or economic growth.  However, it is my view that the Government’s planned reforms could be bolder. These reforms could reboot the system to actively enable growth and development so that consultation goes with the grain alongside new Local Plan, spatial development strategies and DCO processes. This raises significant implications for National Highways which the Government rightly acknowledges is the custodian of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) which is both a physical asset of ‘national importance’ and forms part of the country’s ‘critical national infrastructure’. Consequently, from an economic and development perspective, National Highways is one of if not the most important statutory consultees that can proactively enable growth if the Government empowers it to do so.

 

The uniqueness of National Highways as a critical agent for growth is reflected by the fact that as well as being a statutory consultee in the planning and development process, the company also plays the dual role of being an applicant for major highway DCOs. These important in-house skills could be harnessed to help add value to the consideration of major development proposals which have implications for the SRN.   

From a speech made by the Prime Minister last week (‘Britain Built for all’[3]), it is clear the Government is serious about rolling out significant change across all statutory functions which interact with businesses, developers, investors and other key drivers of the country’s capacity to generate economic growth.

 

If the Government wants to be known as one that introduced a planning framework that quickly approves new transport infrastructure, data centres, power stations or even whole new towns, then it requires a statutory consultation system that is aligned accordingly – one which is proactive and enabling with a can-do, industry-facing personality.

 

The Prime Minister made direct reference to the John Fingleton review of the UK’s nuclear industry. He extracted a blunt quote from the Fingleton report which stated that the nuclear industry faces "a mindset that favours process over outcome". The PM also drew attention to the economically draining effects of ‘pointless gold plating’ which characterises chunks of the statutory consultation system.

In working closely with National Highways, Lichfields has experienced a strong sense of willingness and drive to adapt their role as a statutory consultee toward one more aligned with enabling growth. Indeed, as highlighted by Matthew Pennycook MP in the consultation document, National Highways has already taken positive steps to enable and accelerate growth with measures including:

• establishing a housing applications taskforce.
   
• promptly addressing applications which have been subject to a holding objection for more than 9 months.
   
•  introducing improvement to its spatial planning services including the proposed introduction of a new triage service to quickly prioritise proposals which are likely to have a safety impact on trunk roads. 

In addition, the Government proposes to limit referrals to National Highways only for developments that require a transport assessment. This is long overdue, but its effectiveness will depend on the clarity, focus and prioritisation adopted in the collaborative efforts by MHCLG and DfT to update guidance on when a transport assessment is required.

These proposals come on top of the updated NPPF which addresses to an extent, the ‘gold-plating’ issue by highlighting that development should only be prevented (by National Highways) should there be an unacceptable impact on highway safety in “all tested scenarios”. This is an important shift in policy, as development proposals historically have been assessed against a ‘worst-case scenario’ in terms of road network impact which typically reflects the traditional ‘predict and provide’ approach to transport assessments. Not only has this led to the build-up of unnecessary referrals requiring National Highway’s intervention but ultimately diminishes the capacity of the company to focus on the most important development proposals which actively support economic growth or compromise safety and operational efficiency. 

 

With a fair tail wind, these measures could combine to help National Highways focus on and prioritise major development proposals and substantially reduce the need for paralysing holding objections. They also open the door to a Vision-led approach to integrated land-use and transport planning in which National Highways should be a key player. 

 

In seeking changes to the statutory consultee system, the Government highlights for National Highways that ‘it is vital that the impacts of proposed developments on the operation and safety of the network can be managed effectively.’ I would go further to state that SRN ‘operation’ should explicitly include the need for National Highways to be proactive in enabling economic growth.

In previous research (The Road Ahead: The role of National Highways in economic growth and housing delivery), we have highlighted the potential for the company to play a much more significant and positive role in enabling place-based and national economic growth. This potential can, in part, be realised if Government provides National Highways (and other statutory consultees) with a direct remit to act in helping stimulate and accelerate economic growth. This Consultation is a first step in the right direction.

 

The Government’s plans for growth are expected to result in a glut of new local plans, the development of which should include National Highways as a collaborative partner.  These will be accompanied by new local growth plans, spatial development strategies, local government reorganisation, enhanced devolution and a latent rush of major development and DCO applications. Consequently, if the Government wishes statutory consultees to actively lean into the growth agenda, it must do more than streamline processes and reduce pointless administrative burdens albeit acknowledging such measures are essential. 

I would advocate the Government giving relevant statutory consultees like National Highways, an unambiguous remit to proactively support development that can deliver growth alongside the core responsibilities of safety and operational efficiency. Taking on such a role inevitably would require changes to and reorganisation of National Highways’ internal structures not least its approach to delivery of spatial planning services. For example, the triage service could be extended to provide a prioritisation channel for schemes with major growth implications.  It could also be used to provide a central platform for ensuring greater consistency across the country in the application of National Highways statutory consultee functions.  

 

Importantly, for the plan making process, local authorities should also be proactive and less prohibitively cautious by partnering with National Highways at the embryonic stage to find early highways-related solutions with developers in a positive and co-ordinated manner. For major development proposals, all parties should be supported in positive and early pre-application collaboration.  Hopefully some of the measures being proposed in the consultation document will work in favour of such an approach. However, the Government could go further and give National Highways and other relevant statutory consultees a direct job to do in enabling growth.

 

In my previous blog, “Why the tRESP Consultation Matters for the Future of Energy Investment”, I explored how the Transitional Regional Energy Strategic Plan (tRESP) was a first step towards a more coordinated, place-based approach to planning Great Britain’s energy system. That consultation introduced new regional evidence, future Pathways, Consistent Planning Assumptions (CPAs) and Strategic Investment Needs (SI Needs), with a clear link to ED3 price controls and the UK’s 2030 decarbonised grid and 2050 net zero targets.

For energy developers, operators and investors, this consultation matters because it sets out how future RESPs will be built: how local priorities will be captured, how evidence will be assembled, how Pathways will be modelled, and how Strategic Investment Needs will be identified and justified. In short, it describes the rules of the game that will sit upstream of the investment and connections environment you operate in.

 

  

 

NESO’s RESP role is now a formal part of the strategic planning landscape. Through RESP, NESO will produce first-of-a-kind, whole-energy strategic plans for each nation and region, sitting alongside the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP) and Centralised Strategic Network Plan (CSNP).

 

The tRESP was a pilot and bridge – designed to support the ED3 price control (2028–2033), test methods and start building a regional evidence base. The RESP Draft Methodology explicitly takes learnings from tRESP and extends the same core components – Contexts, Pathways, CPAs and SI Needs – into a fuller, whole-energy, more spatially explicit approach.

If you engaged with tRESP – for example by providing pipeline information or highlighting growth areas – this consultation is about how that type of information will be used and weighted in future, and what the enduring RESP process will look like.

 

The methodology retains and formalises the main elements that appeared in tRESP:

• Nations and Regions Contexts – regional evidence base
• Pathways – scenarios for demand and supply
• Consistent Planning Assumptions (CPAs) – common inputs to network impact modelling
• Spatial Context – a geospatial view of system need (a stronger emphasis than in tRESP)
• Specification of Strategic Investment Need (SI Need) – identifying where more complex or strategic investment may be needed

Taken together, these provide an end-to-end logic:

• Contexts and local evidence shape the Pathways.
• CPAs ensure that network impacts are modelled consistently.
• Pathways, network data and local priorities are brought together in the Spatial Context.
• All of this underpins the identification of Strategic Investment Needs.

It’s important to emphasise that RESP does not replace detailed network planning by distribution network operators (DNOs) and gas distribution networks (GDNs). Instead, it provides a strategic steer and evidence base – highlighting where business-as-usual may be insufficient and where more complex, cross-boundary or earlier investment is justified.

The Nations and Regions Contexts are the foundation of each RESP. They pull together data on demographics, industry, existing energy infrastructure, transport, heating, local and national net zero targets, and – crucially – local plans, Local Area Energy Plans (LAEPs) and Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies (LHEES) where they exist.

For developers and operators, the opportunity here is that project pipelines, strategic sites and growth corridors can be reflected in the regional story, not just as individual loads but as part of an overall pattern of future energy need.

The RESP Pathways build on the tRESP work but move from an electricity focus to whole-energy – electricity, gas, hydrogen and heat. NESO proposes a single short-term Pathway (to support near-term investment) and multiple longer-term Pathways aligned with the Future Energy Scenarios (FES) to explore uncertainty out to 2050.

For the sector, this is where regional demand and supply expectations are crystallised: how quickly electrification accelerates, where hydrogen may come into play, and how industrial and domestic needs evolve over time.

Pathways remain scenarios, not forecasts. The consultation is therefore an opportunity to comment on whether the proposed approach to Pathways – and the way uncertainty is handled – reflects what you are seeing in the market and in your project pipeline.

CPAs continue to play a central role by providing common planning assumptions for translating the deployment of technologies (EVs, heat pumps, efficiency improvements, etc.) into network impacts. For developers and operators, this is key to getting a consistent view of headroom and reinforcement needs across regions.

As with tRESP, there is a balance to strike between consistency and local realism. The RESP methodology starts to codify decision-making criteria for CPAs, and this consultation is an opportunity to highlight where national assumptions would be out of step with local conditions or markets.

A major evolution from tRESP is the emphasis on Spatial Context. NESO proposes a geospatial layer that overlays the Pathways with network information to identify spatial patterns of system need – essentially, where “hotspots” for investment are likely to emerge.

Spatial Context will not only cover electricity, but also gas, biomethane, hydrogen and heat networks, giving a multi-vector view of where demand and infrastructure pressures could arise. For anyone used to working with planning allocations maps and infrastructure plans, this is the energy-system equivalent – a strategic spatial picture rather than a detailed engineering solution.

The detail of how Spatial Context is presented and used will matter. It will be important that it is seen as a strategic evidence layer, not a replacement for local planning or detailed network studies.

 

The methodology sharpens the approach to Strategic Investment Needs (SI Needs). NESO defines SI Needs as complex, high-value energy needs that cannot easily be met by business-as-usual network planning and that may require earlier, more coordinated or more strategic investment.

Complexity is framed in three broad ways:

• Timescale complexity – major growth areas where energy needs arise quickly (e.g. large housing or employment zones, AI/data clusters, investment zones).
• Geographical complexity – needs that span multiple licence areas or vector boundaries.
• Trade-off complexity – situations where multiple technologies and stakeholders interact, such as industrial decarbonisation clusters.

For developers and operators, this is where RESP comes closest to your project reality. If your schemes sit within, or contribute to, these complex needs, there is a route for them to be recognised as part of a wider SI Need cluster rather than treated purely as isolated loads in queues.

RESP will not specify individual projects or reinforcement schemes – that remains the role of networks – but it will signal where and why strategic investment may be warranted, which can help shape the context for future price controls and business plans.

One of the clearest signals in the methodology is the importance of governance and engagement. NESO proposes:

• Strategic Boards in each nation/region, bringing together local authorities, electricity and gas networks, cross-sector bodies and devolved governments.
• Supporting working groups on key themes.
• A GB-wide Steering Committee to align approaches across regions.

NESO also acknowledges the reality that many local actors lack capacity, data or analytical tools to participate effectively. The methodology therefore includes proposals for Local Actor Support – from energy planning literacy material to signposting existing tools and, over time, more structured support.

For developers and operators, the practical takeaway is that RESP will create new forums and channels through which regional energy priorities are debated and shaped. Engaging either directly, via partnerships with local authorities, or via sector bodies will be key to ensuring that your part of the energy transition is properly reflected.

If implemented well, the RESP methodology offers several key opportunities:

• A more coherent, region-by-region view of future demand and supply, grounded in local priorities.
• A spatially explicit picture of system needs and constraints across energy vectors.
• Clearer pathways for complex, high-value projects to be recognised as strategic and not just incremental loads.
• Stronger alignment between energy planning, spatial planning, and economic strategies.

However, there are also risks:

• If engagement is patchy, RESP may default to national datasets, under-representing local development pipelines and innovation.
• If Spatial Context is poorly communicated, it could be misinterpreted as a substitute for detailed planning or network studies.
• If SI Need is not clearly reflected in regulatory decisions, expectations about anticipatory investment may not be met.

For energy developers and operators, the key is to lean in early: help NESO design a methodology that works for real project development, not just for modelling.

NESO describes this consultation as “a significant step forward in strategic energy planning,” bringing together GB-wide and local plans, and embedding tRESP learnings into a whole-energy, bottom-up framework.

The consultation runs from 17 November 2025 to 16 January 2026, with responses invited via NESO’s online portal. This is the window in which developers, operators, investors and local authorities can shape:

• How Nations and Regions Contexts will be built and used.
• How Pathways and CPAs will handle uncertainty and local variation.
• How Spatial Context will visualise system need.
• How SI Needs will be identified, assessed and specified.

In combination with tRESP – which you may already have responded to – this methodology will define how regional energy planning and investment decisions are made in the years ahead.

The UK’s energy transition isn’t just about technology – it’s about place. This consultation is your opportunity to ensure that the methodology for RESP reflects the realities of development on the ground, supports growth, and delivers an energy system capable of meeting both net zero and local ambitions.

Now is the moment to engage – not just to comment on a document, but to help shape the rules of the game for regional energy investment and spatial energy planning for the decades to come.

 

• Increasing business investment in the sector from £17bn to £31bn by 2035.
  
  
• Maintaining the UK as one of the best of many global places of to make and invest in performing and creative arts, film and tv, video games, music and associated services (such as advertising).
  
  
• Build on the existence of Creative Clusters in high-potential city regions by investing in economically productive assets, R&D and public-private partnerships. 

 

• Lower business rates for those in retail, hospitality and leisure properties which will replace the existing business rates relief, providing longer-term certainty to many creative industry-based businesses.[3]
  
  
• Allowing elected Mayors to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy, which could be used to raise and invest money into projects which can improve the economically productive capacity of places and their communities.[4]  Whilst the exact nature of this measure is still out for consultation, it provides local leaders with a clear opportunity to invest in their creative industries which form a central component of their visitor economies.  This could offer some funding certainty at a time where many authorities and organisations work precariously around two-year funding cycles and diminished public investment.
  
  
•  £13bn in flexible funding through the Local Growth Fund for 11 Mayoral Strategic Authorities in the North and Midlands to ‘invest in skills, business support and infrastructure’ – a chunk of which the authors consider should be channelled to the cultural and creative sectors in those key cities.

 

The Government is running a two-part consultation on measures designed to support housing delivery in London:

1. the design and administration of a proposed time-limited or ‘emergency’ relief from Borough Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for certain developments in Greater London, which deliver a minimum level of affordable housing; and
    
2. extending the London Mayor’s development management call-in powers by

   1. adding applications for development of over 1,000 sqm, within Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, to applications of potential strategic importance (PSI); and
       
   2. creating a new application of potential strategic importance category, for development of 50 or more homes where boroughs are minded to refuse.

These would be legislative changes.

Simultaneously, the Mayor of London is consulting on draft ‘Support for Housebuilding’ London Plan Guidance, which proposes to comprise:

1. Time-limited changes to cycle parking requirements
2. Withdrawal of some housing design guidance
3.  A ‘time-limited planning route’ for the delivery of affordable housing

These would be policy changes.

Both consultations close on 22nd January 2026.

The GLA has also published updated Accelerated Funding Guidance[1].

The consultations follow the Government’s 23rd October 2025 ‘Support for housebuilding in London’ policy paper and Housing Delivery Written Ministerial Statement, which were trailers for these consultations. That joint Government and Mayoral announcement was analysed by Amy Jones and Ben Kelway in our Emergency measures to unlock housebuilding in The Capital blog, where they also explained the rationale for the (then) proposals. The proposals are essentially unchanged, so the context for the proposals, as trailed, and our analysis of them remain relevant. The Government and the Mayor have detailed their reasoning behind the proposed package of support measures for housebuilding, particularly in the Mayor’s Background Information for London Plan Guidance, which are not set out or scrutinised here.

While the proposals are badged as emergency measures they have been much trailed and are still not expected soon, with the CIL Regulations, which are a key part of these proposals simply due in the “first part of 2026”.

This blog focuses on the proposed legislative changes to CIL in London and on the new time limited planning route, aiming to draw together the various pre-requisites for CIL relief and to summarise the other wide-ranging proposals, which are spread across 74 pages of consultations and a background information note.

The Government invites comment and alternative approaches on most if not all elements of the consultation, but for simplicity, I have assumed all elements of the revised regulations as proposed will emerge as currently intended.

 

Currently, the London Plan has a Threshold Approach to establishing which route a planning application for major residential development takes for viability assessment. The fast track route (no viability assessment at application stage) and viability tested route would continue to apply (see policy H5[2]), with a ‘time limited planning route’ introduced to operate in parallel. The time-limited planning route would allow certain residential development applications to not include an upfront viability assessment. Schemes eligible for the time limited planning route would be eligible for grant funding (excluding the first 10% of homes).

This new, temporary route would be relevant to CIL relief, because a pre-requisite of CIL relief is that developers have sought, where eligible, grant funding “to maintain or increase affordable housing in existing s106 agreements where needed, via the time-limited planning route being consulted on by the Mayor of London”.

 

The draft LPG says that to be eligible for the time-limited planning route “Residential developments must meet or exceed the following time limited adjusted affordable housing thresholds”:

 

The affordable housing must consist of 60% social rent and 40% intermediate tenure. Build to Rent schemes can provide at least 30 per cent at or below London Living Rent levels or Key Worker Living Rent and 70% genuinely affordable rent.

Sites on or released from Green Belt (including grey belt sites), estate regeneration schemes and other schemes demolishing affordable housing, Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) or Co-living schemes comprising more than 50% or more of the total scheme’s residential floorspace would not be eligible for the time limited route. PBSA and Co-living schemes comprising less than 50% of a residential scheme will be eligible only if they meet PBSA and Co-living thresholds and requirements[3].

For outline planning proposals the gross external area (GEA) of the PBSA and/or Co-living shown on the parameter plan will be used to assess whether these elements are 50% of the residential part of the scheme or not..

The time-limited planning route will end on the earlier of 31st March 2028 or the publication of the revised London Plan; planning applications on this route will need to have been approved – i.e. the decision notice issued - by the deadline. The consultation says that LPAs should consider granting permissions that would expire in less than three years, to encourage delivery.

As announced in October, if eligible housing schemes progress to completion of their first floor level by the end of March 2030, the requirements for a late stage review will be waived. For larger housing schemes 200 units must have been built by that date, unless it is demonstrated that the delay was caused by the Building Safety Regulator.

A gain-share review mechanism will be applicable where construction on the scheme has not reached that point by 31 March 2030. If this is triggered, it would allow for a review of scheme viability to determine whether any additional affordable housing can be provided if viability improves.

 

The Government’s intention is “to make qualifying residential development viable and so be built-out, which would not otherwise occur but for the relief”. Emergency relief from Mayoral CIL is not proposed.

Changes to the CIL legislation would be introduced by the agreement of both Houses of Parliament (as is the case for CIL and the Fee Regulations), in 2026. Therefore, change is not imminent – the Government is aiming for as soon as possible in the first half of 2026.

 

The starting point is that at least 20% of the housing proposed should be affordable housing, which reflects the proposed time-limited planning route. The Government proposes that where 20% affordable housing is to be delivered and all other qualifying criteria are met, LPAs must grant CIL relief of 50 per cent.

The Government also proposes higher relief where additional affordable housing is delivered over and above 20 per cent, rising “linearly up to 80 per cent relief for 35 per cent affordable housing delivery”. See Figure 1

 

Regarding the last criterion above, the Government says:

“To support this, additional limits may be introduced to ensure the targeted and time-limited nature of the emergency relief cannot be undermined through certain forms of structuring and phasing, particularly where related to part outline or fully outline applications. These limits would be designed to provide a sufficient level of protection against boundary-pushing”.

The emergency CIL Relief will be granted on the residual amount once other reliefs (e.g. social housing relief) are taken into account.

 

The Government proposes “clawback provisions tied to:

As is often the case, the questions posed in the consultation identify where the Government has concerns about unforeseen circumstances or potential failure to meet policy intent.

For example, question 6 asks whether the application and level of the proposed borough-level CIL liability threshold, would have, among other things, significant negative implications for SME builders.

And question 7 asks whether applying the threshold to a development as a whole would present challenges for phased developments where each phase is a separate chargeable development for CIL purposes and whether a lower threshold should apply for phased developments.

The consultation proposes these changes to the Mayor’s powers:

1. a new PSI category (PSI being applications for planning permission of potential strategic importance for London) and streamlined procedure for residential development of 50 or more homes if the development is not included in other PSI categories, where the Mayor will have the power to call in the application if the local planning authority is minded to refuse development; and
    
2. a new power for the Mayor to call in applications for development of a building of more than 1,000 square metres on Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land.

The Mayor does not want the 50+ home schemes to be subject to the Stage 1 referral process, which is why PSI category 1A, for 150 homes plus, is not being extended. Instead, a new referral category is proposed to be introduced.

The Mayor would be notified that the LPA has a 50+ home application, but does not have a duty to respond, so no Stage 1 referral process.

If the LPA is minded to approve, there is no further action.

If the LPA intends to refuse the application, a modified version of the Stage 2 referral process is proposed as  follows:

1. The LPA provides the Mayor with the reasons for refusal, representations received and a copy of the officer report, including details of proposed conditions and obligations if the application had been recommended for approval by Members; and
    
2. Mayor has 21 days from receipt of the above to decide whether to call in or not. The Mayor must only call-in if the Mayor considers that the development (or any of the issues raised by it) would have an impact on the implementation of the spatial development strategy (the London Plan); and there are sound planning reasons for the intervention

The consultation says that, since 2021, 207 more applications would have been PSI applications under the proposed 50 homes category, of which 33 were refused and 19 were appealed, “some of which” were upheld.

Landstack data indicates that, in the year to October 2025, 30 additional applications would have been capable of call-in, but only if the LPA had been minded to refuse them and only if they met the tests at 2. above.

The Mayor only intervenes in a very small proportion of applications, and it remains to be seen whether alongside these expanded powers the Mayor would become more interventionist - and whether the justification would exist should he want to be.

 

The Mayor of London is consulting on draft ‘Support for Housebuilding’ London Plan Guidance[5], which proposes:

1. Time-limited changes to cycle parking requirements
    
2. Withdrawal of some housing design guidance
    
3.  A ‘time-limited planning route’ for the delivery of affordable housing (addressed earlier in this blog)

 

The short term changes to long-stay cycle parking standards are set out at section 2 of the draft guidance. The Background Information to the draft LPG is discusses the context for change and provides the existing standards, which will be reverted to. In essence, the draft standards place each LPA in a cycle standards band and provide guidance on the required provision of long-stay cycle parking per bedroom within each band. Guidance on the quality of cycle parking is also provided. The temporary guidance on cycle parking applies until the earlier of 31 March 2028 or the publication of the revised London Plan.

Withdrawal of housing design standards

Three housing design standards set out in the Housing Design Standards London Plan Guidance 2023 are proposed to be permanently withdrawn:

1. The standard requiring that new homes be dual aspect unless exceptional circumstances make it impractical or undesirable;
    
2. The standard required that the number of homes accessed by a core should not exceed eight per floor; and
    
3. A standard that repeats the cycle parking requirements in the London Plan

The commitment by the new Secretary of State - made in October just 6 weeks from his appointment - to a set of unprecedented and considered interventions remains good news. It has already been discussed in detail and soft tested with stakeholders.

My colleagues’ observations regarding whether the proposals will have the desired effect and how the Government could go further remain largely valid now that we know the detail. In particular:

The need to amend the Housing Standards LPG reflect highly detailed, non-strategic policy and guidance that the Mayor issues. October’s policy note and trailer for these consultations made welcome reference to the significant policy layering in London. It said that the Mayor “is clear” that, in the next London Plan, “there should be a streamlining of requirements on developers and a reduction in the layering of policy across the London Plan and borough-level local plans” – reflecting the approach anticipated in the forthcoming national decision making policies, to be consulted at the end of 2025 and into 2026.

The very welcome proposed CIL relief appears to be a potentially onerous process – reflected in the high assessment fee - and applicable to only a limited number of major residential schemes. The £25,000 CIL relief application fee will be made to local planning authorities which are likely to scrutinise compliance with regulations and guidance, as they will not wish to part with anticipated CIL funding easily. They will be dealing with Regulations, so in theory there wouldn’t be grey areas, but the need for sworn statements and use of the time limited route for affordable housing viability assessment adds an instant greyness. 

LPA CIL teams have busy and complex caseloads in the same way that development management officers do, so the fee may not be able to fund an officer, in the same way that pre-application requests and PPAs are not always easy to resource. 

In October’s Written Ministerial Statement regarding these proposals, the Government said it intends to clarify the use of Section 73 applications so they can no longer be used to reconsider a scheme’s viability or planning obligations, which will be done through an update to Planning Practice Guidance “in due course” and through national decision making policies, which are due to be consulted on by the end of the year. This seems to me  another potential opportunity blocked as another one opens. 

However, the pro-growth message from Government remains clear, and a some potential stumbling blocks should not and are unlikely to dissuade the residential development sector from engaging with these significant proposed changes. As mentioned above, the Government is seeking input and potential alternatives on most elements of the proposals. Consultation responses that encourage the amendments scrutinise consequences and recommend where the Mayor and Government could go further should be advanced, to help ensure a significant increase in market and affordable housing delivery across London.

 

 

 

---