Planning matters

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

Take notes: localised planning fees a step closer

Take notes: localised planning fees a step closer

Seán Farrissey, Harry Payne & Jennie Baker 08 Jan 2026
 The Planning and Infrastructure Act (“the Act”), which gained Royal Assent in December 2025, includes scope for further changes to the planning fee regime. These include localised planning fees and surcharge payable to statutory consultees. We explain the proposed changes to fees below, with brief discussion on other potential changes to fees that have been mentioned by the Government.  Lichfields’ ‘Surcharge to supercharge?’ blog discusses the proposed surcharges payable to fund statutory consultee engagement with planning applications. Cost recovery for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, also provided for by the Act, will be discussed in a future blog.
Planning fees have been subject to a few amendments in recent years as the Government has sought to respond to shortfalls in funding for local planning authorities (LPAs) and improve the performance of the planning service[1]. Changes made last year, including the first year of indexation[2], which came into force on 1 April 2025 and are discussed in further detail here[3].
 
The provisions in the Act discussed in this blog will require secondary legislation before they come into force. It is anticipated that further details of a local fee setting model, surcharges and the benchmarking of associated costs will be consulted on in early 2026[4].  
 

 

Localisation of Planning Fees
Background and legislation
The Act provides for the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) to be amended to give LPAs autonomy to set planning fees[5] themselves, but not exceeding cost recovery levels. 
The September 2025 Planning and Infrastructure Bill ‘Factsheet’[6] on local fee setting sets out the rationale for the change:
“Nationally set planning fees do not account for local variations in costs of running development management services across different LPAs in England.”
and
“allowing LPAs to set their own planning fees is the most effective way to increase resources in a way that responds to the individual circumstances of each LPA.”
Once brought into force, the Act will amend section 303 of the TCPA, allowing regulations that authorise or require an LPA or Mayor of London[7] to set the level of a planning fee or charge.
The Regulations must include procedures for or set out:
  1. consultation to be carried out in relation to the setting of the level of a fee or charge;
  2. the criteria to be applied when setting the level of a fee or charge;
  3. publication of information or reports;
  4. obligations to notify the Secretary of State; and
  5. reviews of the level of a fee or charge.
Income raised via these new provisions must be spent on development control, enforcement, advertisement consent, tree preservation order, listed building consent, certificate of alternative development, mayoral development orders or neighbourhood amenity duties[8].
The ringfencing of planning fees is a big shift, as the Government emphasised in the Commons, when seeking to reassure MPs of the controls on very high fees being imposed:
“We are also introducing safeguards to ensure that the fees are reasonable and directly invested in improving planning performance, and that they are not used to fund other council services. Planning fee charges will not be able to exceed the cost to local planning authorities in determining a planning application. That will prevent disproportionate or unjustifiably high fees being set. That is an important point, because one of the concerns we have had is about the ability, without the provision being in place, of local authorities that do not want to see development to set extremely high fees to deter applications. To ensure transparency, local planning authorities will also be required to consult on any fee increases and publish evidence to justify the fees that they charge. Finally, and most importantly, income received from planning fees will be ringfenced, as I have said, so that it can only be used in the determination of planning applications”.
To safeguard against exceedance of cost recovery, the Act affords the Secretary of State powers to intervene and to direct LPAs to amend planning fees or charges. Indeed, the Secretary of State may intervene if fees are considered disproportionately too high or too low, or if the requirements for setting or varying fees are not adhered to. This comprises a two-stage process, with the Secretary of State first directing the relevant charging authority to undertake a review of the level of fee or charge, and provide appropriate evidence for the result of the review. Subsequently, if following review, the fee or charge remains set at a level not considered appropriate by the Secretary of State, an imposed fee or charge can be set directly by the Secretary of State, as considered appropriate.
Interestingly, the Act also provides scope for a retrospective refund mechanism, whereby the charging authority would be responsible for reimbursement of applicants where any inappropriate fee or charge is reduced as a result of Secretary of State intervention.
But this is still a fairly loose framework, with the Regulations being key to how fee localisation will operate.
 
 
How fee localisation is intended to come forwards
The approach to fee localisation was first consulted on in July 2024[9]. That consultation included different approaches to localising planning fees[10].
The February 2025 outcome to that consultation[11] provides an indication of how the localisation of fees are intended to be taken forwards and what the Regulations might require.
The outcome states that 49% of all respondents and 63% of LPA respondents considered that each LPA should be able to set its own (non-profit making) planning application fee. Almost half of all respondents supported a local variation model, where a national fee is maintained and LPAs can opt to set local fees. Whereas only 15% supported a full localisation model. The ‘key points’ summary in the consultation provides an interesting perspective on the perceived pros and cons[12].
Notwithstanding the finely balanced consultation responses, the Government said it would take forward a fees model that allows for location variation from a default national planning fee.
How ‘cost recovery’ will be quantified, and importantly standardised between LPAs, will be established through further consultation. The Government has said:
“We will also undertake a benchmarking exercise to establish a robust baseline for full cost recovery of fees and to inform a national default fee”
The Chief Planner’s newsletter on the 16th December set out that “a consultation on the proposed national default fee and guidance on local fee setting will be published in early 2026”.
Work carried out by the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) is likely to inform fee benchmarking. The Explanatory Notes[13] for the version of the then Bill, as brought from the Commons, were clear that cost recovery cannot include wider planning services such as plan-making or enforcement, but can include other technical specialists within the LPA that contribute to planning decisions.
 

 

Planning Advisory Service Summer Survey – cost recovering and benchmarking
PAS sent a National Planning Fees Survey[14] to each LPA, in August 2025. Under the national fee schedule cost recovery section, it asked for “your planning team’s views on how closely the national fee set for a wide range of planning applications achieves full cost recovery in terms of the resources used to process them”.
Other sections of the survey included:
  • Costs and hourly rates – asking how LPAs put together discretionary fees such as PPAs
  • Sharing any work already carried out on localised fees
  • Understanding the cost recovery models associated with NSIPs, particularly PPAs
  • Appetite and priorities for localised fee setting
  • The views of LPAs on local fee setting generally
Regarding work carried out on localised fees, some LPAs officers and respondents to the Government’s consultation advocate for ‘regional’ collaborative fee setting, albeit there will, of course, always be a boundary where the fees shift and local costs might be above or below the LPA fee.
Prior to the survey, PAS had published a blog[15], explaining:
“we are working on a model to allow councils to set their own fees (if they want to) and to promote a way of thinking about what a good planning service should look like”
The blog explained that PAS was working on a light-touch review of the national fee schedule and a sector-owned method for setting localised planning fees.
The PAS author opined “The objective is to help ensure local fees are robust, justifiable and transparent. While we will be looking at setting more realistic fees, I think we can expect there to be a continuation of £0 fees for particular application types”.

 

 

Other potential fee changes
The Government intends to carry out a full review of all national fees, as part of establishing a robust baseline for full cost recovery of fees and setting a national default fee.
The Government has committed to implementing Section 73B, a new procedural route to amending planning permissions.[16] In the February 2025 Government response to the national policy consultation[17] the Government said it would introduce a banded fee structure for s73 or s73B applications, reflecting the varying amounts of input required by LPAs when assessing these applications. This has been introduced for s73 applications, indicating that the fee for s73B applications is likely to be banded similarly. 
In May 2025, the Government published a policy paper regarding reforming site size thresholds[18] to better support housing delivery on different types of sites. The policy paper noted that, once the reforms to planning fees as outlined in the Act have been implemented, shorter determination periods for particular sizes of site may become more appropriate. This is an example of the Government seeking to respond to calls for a stronger connection between the level of time spent determining an application and the fee charged. However, this particular example is perhaps more reflective of the Government’s strong desire to encourage SME builders. 
In addition, the current national policy consultation says that the Government intends:
“to extend the Permission in Principle application route to sites suitable for medium development. […]. This will enable SME builders to test the principle of development for residential development on more sites without the burden of preparing applications for planning permission”.   
It will consult on the fees for such applications as part of the imminent wider consultation.
The Act does not provide any additional controls on the setting of fees for LPAs’ pre-application advice services or Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) services. The interrelationship between the recovery of application fee costs and additional revenue raised through PPAs will need careful consideration, given that a direct function of PPAs is to safeguard supplementary finances for necessary resourcing on large scale planning applications. The Government has said that it considers that PPAs help to ensure that applications can be determined in timely and effective manner.
Additionally, no commentary is provided on the incorporation of third-party review costs within localised fee setting, required when LPAs do not have in-house resourcing for technical reviews such as viability or daylight/sunlight. However, such reviews are typically borne directly by the applicant in addition to application fees.

 

Timescales
The provision relating to new localised fees for local authorities is currently in force for the purpose of making regulations; fully coming into force on a date to be ‘appointed’.
 
 
Closing thoughts
The decision by the Government to pursue the localisation of planning fees will undoubtedly divide opinion, as the responses to the July 2024 consultation reflected.Despite LPAs only being allowed to charge up to cost recovery levels, developers will understandably be keen to ensure that this translates into a better and more responsive planning service. There will also be an expectation that the imposition of a surcharge for statutory consultee services will need to coincide with a significantly improved service, particularly that these potentially large increases in fees will occur concurrently. 
 
The Government is clear that the localisation of fee setting will provide LPAs with greater flexibility to deliver an effective planning service, in a manner that is clearly justifiable and based on actual costs incurred. However, with resourcing a continuing problem, and many officers likely to be attracted to strategic planning, the uplift in planning application fees might be spent on job retention rather than recruitment.
 It would be interesting to learn whether the 1 May 2025 fee increases relating to prior approval applications, householder applications and s73 applications, together with the first year of indexed fees, have provided the intended improvements to cost recovery and whether there has been a directly linked improvement in the determination periods.
Those who voiced their frustration in relation to the lack of ringfencing for planning fees in the previous amendments to the Fee Regulations will be encouraged by the controls on how localised fees can be spent. Indeed, the ringfencing provision could be introduced without, or ahead of, introducing localised fees.
 The consultation exercises that will inform secondary legislation will provide LPAs and developers with a better sense of how locally set fees and the ability to impose surcharges for statutory consultee services will impact the industry. While the intended approach might emerge fairly swiftly, the approaches to benchmarking, including how localisation of fees might be viable; how full cost recovery will be achieved (while recognising current differences in LPA efficiencies); and avoiding competition between LPAs, may well take some time to resolve.
This is an updated version of a blog first posted on 18 March 2025.

 

Footnotes

[1] Though outside the scope of this blog, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is also consulting on moving to a cost recovery fee model for energy infrastructure Development Consent Order applications, in order to improve the performance of its planning delivery services. [2] Indexation of fees table [3] There were also changes to fees related to certain Crown Development [4] Chief Planner Newsletter, 16 December 2025 [5] Essentially those within the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012 [6] Factsheet: Local fee setting [7] Or “specified person” in the case of a Mayoral Development Order [8] Relevant planning functions are defined in the Act [9] Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system, July 2024 [10] More detail on this can be found here [11] Government response to the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system consultation - GOV.UK [12] See question 94 – response and question 95 – response within the link above [13] Explanatory Notes relate to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill as brought from the House of Commons on 12 June 2025 [14] PAS, National Planning Fees Survey - Guide and Resources, August 2025 [15] Localised fee setting – get involved with PAS, June 2025 [16] See this blog for more details on the implementation of s73B [17] See footnote 5 [Government response to the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system consultation - GOV.UK]

CONTINUE READING

A surcharge to supercharge statutory consultees?

A surcharge to supercharge statutory consultees?

Jennie Baker & Sean Farrissey 08 Jan 2026
The Planning and Infrastructure Act (“the Act”), which gained Royal Assent in December 2025, includes scope for further changes to the planning fee regime. These include localised planning fees and surcharge payable to statutory consultees. The proposed changes to planning fees are discussed in ‘Takes notes: localised fees a step nearer’. This blog discusses the proposed surcharges payable to fund statutory consultee engagement with planning applications.
The Act will amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to introduce provisions that allow surcharges on planning application fees to be applied.
 
Context – a long term desire to improve response times and quality
In December 2023, the then Secretary of State announced[1]:
“three-month review into the wider statutory consultee system to understand how best to direct their advice and resources to support speedy and effective decision making. I also expect to see greater discretion and judgement applied by both local authorities and statutory consultees on where advice is sought and where it needs to be offered”.
The review was not published, but the new Government was alive to the concerns that had been raised.
The ‘Reform of the Statutory Consultee System’ Written Ministerial Statement was made by the Housing and Planning Minister in March 2025. This proposed removal of some statutory consultees, to review which applications were being consulted upon and announced a moratorium on new statutory consultees. The Statement also referred to the need to adequately fund consultees. The Minister noted:
“It is essential that statutory consultees look to provide practical, pragmatic advice and expertise which is focussed on what is necessary to make development acceptable”
[…]
“the Government recognises that statutory consultees need to be resourced adequately, and on a sustainable basis to enable them to support the government’s growth objectives in full. We intend to develop a model to support this sustainable funding, while ensuring we are incentivising efficient and constructive engagement in applications, and in the planning system more generally.”
A consultation was launched on 18 November 2025 that is seeking views on reforming the role of statutory consultees in the planning system[2], specifically those consulted on applications submitted under the TCPA.
The consultation sets out the intentions of the statutory consultee reforms in 13 points, which are here, short and worth reading in full. Under item 5, the Government says:
“MHCLG and the Department for Transport (DfT) are collaborating with National Highways to provide greater clarity on when a transport assessment is required and whether it meets the necessary standards, with the aim of improving guidance and reducing the need for holding responses”.
‘Steering the statutory consultee system to support economic growth – the role of National Highways’ by Richard Coburn[3], considers this point.
The consultation also proposes the removal of Sports England, the Theatres Trust and the Gardens Trust. It says also says “most statutory consultees recognise that there are opportunities to substantially reduce referrals”.
And, referring to the surcharge on planning fees provided by the now Act, it says:
“We recognise that an efficient and effective statutory consultee system requires that the statutory consultees have sufficient resources to fulfil their obligations.”
The proposed surcharge for statutory consultees
The Act provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting the level of the surcharge. Regulations will also define different surcharge levels for different types of applications or circumstances; and specify how and when surcharge payments must be transferred to the Secretary of State by collecting authorities. The Reforms to the statutory consultee system consultation says:
“We do not intend for the surcharge to cover the costs of voluntary pre-engagement or planning performance agreements, and rates will be set accordingly”.  
While the Explanatory Notes to the (then) Bill say…
“The surcharge must, if imposed, be set by reference to the costs incurred by bodies, listed in regulations, which provide advice in the planning application process, including by way of consultation responses”.
…the Act also says that the Regulations that provide for the surcharge:
“may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons of providing advice, information or assistance in connection with the application, proposed application or proposal in respect of which the surcharge is imposed”.
The Government says it will consult on the detailed proposals ‘in due course’. According to the statutory consultee consultation, the Government:
“will explore with statutory consultees the most effective use of this funding, including supporting ongoing case management work, and funding specific projects which will enable performance gains”.
The Government consultation also alludes to concerns raised by the planning and development industry, criticising the quality of statutory consultee responses and questioning the effectiveness of the current system:
“In far too many instances, statutory consultee engagement with planning applications is not proactive or proportionate, and advice and information provided is not timely or commensurate with what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms.”
Those paying surcharges would expect to see a significantly improved statutory consultee process that reflects the higher fee paid. And given that several bodies are statutory consultees, managed and operated differently, it might be that some rise to the challenge while others take the money but don’t run. However, achieving the intention of a more proportionate level of statutory consultee engagement would reduce the time spent by consultees, thus lowering the potential surcharges. Therefore, proportionate engagement is key – which isn’t new, but could be even more difficult to achieve if cost recovery is not accurate and prolonged engagement attracts a fee.
Provisions relating to surcharges will come into force on 18 February 2026, but will also require further regulations in order to take effect.
The ‘Reforms to the statutory consultee system’ consultation closes on 13 January 2026.

CONTINUE READING

A pedestrian renaissance for Oxford Street? Pulling the Mayoral Development Corporation lever
2026 is set to mark the beginning of Oxford Street’s potential transformation, with plans to pedestrianise part of Europe’s busiest shopping street passing a significant milestone last week - via the enactment of the Oxford Street Development Corporation (1st January 2026).
Against a backdrop of high national retail vacancy rates and a widely reported Boxing Day sales slump, this brings renewed faith in enhancing Oxford Street’s vitality through implementation of a decades-touted lifeline for the congested street. Although clearly one of the key shopping destinations in London, evidence that improving the pedestrian experience will generate more tourist and shopping trips is cause for optimism. If successful, pulling the Mayoral Development Corporation lever may broaden support for similar models within London to broaden the Capital’s growth agenda, and possibly set a benchmark outside of London for the enhancement of high streets.
 
Oxford Street Transformation – the proposals
The pedestrianisation of Oxford Street has its history in early traffic-free days between 2005 and 2012, with proposals to permanently expand the scheme to varying spatial extents gaining significant public backing in the subsequent years. This public support was consistently co-opted by several cohorts of Mayoral candidates, culminating in the 2016 election of Sadiq Khan, who consulted on the first concrete plans for implementation in 2017. Westminster City Council initially blocked the proposals before proposing a series of scaled-back schemes in 2021 and 2023 to placate resident backlash. The 2023 proposals included public realm improvements and pavement widening, but only proposed pedestrianising minor side streets.
The elections of 2024 created conditions for the revival of Oxford Street’s pedestrianisation as Mayor Sadiq Khan, re-elected, was able to draw on central government support to establish the Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC), which needed to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State.
Extensive consultation was completed, with engagement in May 2025 returning high levels of public support: 69% supported proposals to establish an MDC, and 66% were in support of pedestrianisation in principle. Westminster City Council expressed some reservations but is now working proactively with the MDC.
The established MDC is the Oxford Street Development Corporation (OSDC) which spatially covers Oxford Street and immediate surrounding side streets, extending from Marble Arch to St Giles Square, with a northern extension to Mortimer Street to the east. The OSDC is proposed to be chaired by Scott Parsons, and it will act as planning authority for the area, developing a new local plan and taking responsibility for planning decisions at all scales.
 
Oxford Street Development Corporation Boundary

Source: London Assembly

Pedestrianisation is at the core of the transformation, proposed (initially) along ‘Oxford Street West’ between Orchard Street and Great Portland Street. Traffic will be closed to all vehicles and cycles, bus routes will be diverted, and some north-south streets will be made one-way. Transport for London is consulting on highways proposals until 16th January.
 
Oxford Street: Challenges and Opportunities
The establishment of the OSDC lends certainty that action will follow, which is cause for optimism. Oxford Street has not been immune to economic pressures on England’s shopping streets, and it suffered a stalled recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic with vacancy rates climbing from 12.25% in 2017 to 14.5% in 2022. Visitor numbers remained stubbornly low, at 52% of the pre-pandemic levels by 2022, and the American candy shop scandal possibly marked the lowest point of the iconic street, prompting mournful predictions of its extinction. The quality of the pedestrian experience has also suffered, with media attention focusing on phone snatching amongst reports of overcrowding and pickpocketing. Calls for drastic action have only compounded, which may have cemented the creation of the OSDC, but this also gifts it a wide-ranging brief.
Recently there have been signs that Oxford Street is bouncing back. The arrival of Elizabeth Line stations has boosted demand for retail space, particularly at its eastern end. CoStar has reported an eight-year low in retail availability, and prime rents are also on the rise following drops of 30% in previous years. Footfall is however a mixed picture. Compared to historic levels, Oxford Street is lagging behind: in November 2024, it had only 57% of 2006 footfall levels, compared to 98% for Bond Street, and 83% on Regent Street. It still however boasts the highest footfall of any shopping street in Europe, and overcrowding of the street is evident to anyone who visits at peak times.
Evidence from the GLA suggests that high footfall has conversely limited expenditure by creating an environment inconducive to dwelling, browsing, and spending. Oxford Street is operating at capacity, and it is expected that creating a slower-paced environment will improve the footfall to expenditure conversion rate, as well as accommodating further footfall. The proposals have received strong support from the London Chamber of Commerce and Oxford Street operators, and GLA Economics estimates that pedestrianisation will increase the GVA by almost £82 million per year, supporting a further 781 jobs. Positive reporting from September 2025’s traffic-free day included 67% of stores reporting higher sales, alongside more than 75% of visitors having an improved experience of Oxford Street. Half of these respondents attributed this to increased pedestrian space.
 
 
Tools for Revitalisation
Increasing footfall and importantly, expenditure, to revitalise town centres can be achieved by turning a variety of dials, including diversification by office or residential development. Like many other shopping streets, Oxford Street is also burdened by a weighty stock of large units which carry risks of long refurbishment timescales and often require bespoke repurposing solutions. Topshop’s departure left a four-year vacancy before IKEA’s delayed opening, but Nike punctuated its two-year refurbishment of the flagship NikeTown by temporarily occupying the former Microsoft store at Oxford Circus. Both demonstrate the importance of adapting to a new retail climate, where experiential, showroom, and events-based enticements are of increasing importance.
For Oxford Street, pedestrianisation proposals can be complemented by diversification of activities to encourage longer dwell time. Nearby Outernet, an LED art installation opposite Tottenham Court Road station demonstrates the concept in action, and Oxford Street itself already benefits from a calendar of live performances within stores and pop-ups and emerging operator tactics to prolong visits such as John Lewis’ new member’s lounge.
London’s tourist numbers are beginning to recover from the pandemic, with the Capital attracting 20.9 million overnight visitors in 2024, close to the 21.7 million of 2019. Capturing tourist as well as Londoner interest will therefore be essential to Oxford Street’s future success. The last traffic-free day in September 2025 illustrated how live music, exhibits, and food stands could become regular fixtures post-pedestrianisation. By complementing its existing retail allure, continued diversification will help to maintain Londoner and tourist favour for Oxford Street, which may then foot the bill for its new infrastructure thanks to new tourist tax powers.
 
Mayoral Development Corporations
MDCs establish a statutory body for the delivery of regeneration schemes, often acting as planning authorities and benefitting from a ringfenced budget exempt from the usual pressures of Local Authority spending. MDCs can be established by Metropolitan Mayors across England and have been employed within a range of contexts; including its first use in 2011 at the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. More recently, MDCs have been used to deliver town centre improvements in Stockport and help re-industrialise the Tees Valley.
Not all existing DCs have received positive press coverage, with the Old Oak & Park Royal DC facing criticism for making slow progress, but the high-profile implementation at Oxford Street may help to encourage further uptake in other key town centres. As explored in Lichfield’s earlier blogs, this would also align with the Government’s ambitions for devolution, and may complement emerging regional initiatives such as the High Streets Commission or  some of the more community-based solutions which have been put forward in the last 2 years, such as high street rental auctions. The evolution of MDCs may therefore represent another available tool in the renewal of politically-driven Mayoral and/or local entrepreneurial initiatives.
The success of the scheme may be further aided by Government pressure to evidence the efficacy of the DC model. Considering the New Towns Taskforce’s recent recommendation to revive Development Corporations for this purpose, securing public and political support for similar models will be essential to the Government’s growth ambitions, beyond the beacon that may be lit by an Oxford Street renaissance.
Conclusion
Once implemented, Oxford Street will join a venerable list of pedestrianised shopping streets, with the long-term success of Vienna’s Kärtner Strasse (pedestrianised 1974), Dublin’s Grafton Street (1982), Madrid’s Calle Preciados (1973) and Milan’s Corso Vittorio Emanuele II (mid-1980s) evident from their lofty positions in footfall rankings, embedded value to city economies, and consistent tourist appeal.
2026 signals the renewal of hope that Oxford Street will not fall victim to its popularity, with the creation of the OSDC bringing significant opportunities for renewal - beyond pedestrianisation. Following years of stymied schemes, the issue has been promoted to city-scale importance with central Government backing. It also positions a spotlight on the principle of the MDC, with any reputational fallout having implications for the delivery of broader Government growth ambitions.
Further reading
Insight: Out with the old, in with the new - guiding principles for successfully repurposing town centre buildingsInsight: Meanwhile Matters: Unlocking the potential of Temporary UsesProduct: Revitalise: Delivering town centre transformation
 
Image credit: Intrepid via unsplash

CONTINUE READING

I’ve previously penned my thoughts on how tall buildings and greater density can help alleviate the housing crisis in an urban context, so one might think that I ought to be supportive of the Government’s proposed move to introduce minimum density standards. However, helpful they may seem, with a laudable intent, experience tells me that density standards do need to be treated with a degree of caution.
 
Density might be a dirty word in some NIMBY outposts, but it’s just a number at the end of a design process. Whether density is low, high, somewhere in the middle, good or bad, it is all relative and it shouldn’t really matter provided a site’s development potential has been optimised. To optimise development on a site naturally follows a robust assessment of its capacity taking into account development management considerations (such as heritage, townscape, daylight/sunlight), surrounding context and character and transport accessibility.
 
As far back as PPG3: Housing (2000) local planning authorities have been urged to avoid housing developments at low densities (below about 30 dwellings per hectare net) and to encourage housing that makes ‘more efficient’ use of urban land, including achieving 30–50 dwellings per hectare net on suitable sites. Twenty-five years on, here we are with a newly proposed NPPF advocating minimum densities of 40dph or a higher figure of 50dph around train stations. If we are serious about solving the housing crisis then perhaps we ought to be more aspirational, certainly on urban sites where there is clear potential to optimise density. The same approach to optimising density can be applied in other locational contexts, for example suburban or rural (including Green Belt), as we need to develop such land responsibly. There is, however, a need to acknowledge and respond to market indicators and evidence of housing need in a specific area – this inherently has an influence on development typology and therefore density. What we cannot risk is the NPPF approach to density culminating in half-measures that fail to make a dent in the housing emergency.
 
The consultation paper does elude to a wider debate on the issue, stating that “For development around well-connected stations, we are proposing a minimum density requirement of 50 dwellings per hectare within the net developable area of the site. We consider this will be sufficiently ambitious in some locations, particularly locations outside of settlements, and will act as the minimum requirement for other locations. For more urban locations, we would expect higher densities to be achieved, and are interested in how we could set clear expectations for more ambitious minimum density requirements in our urban cores – including how these locations should be defined. We also acknowledge that other public transport modes, beyond trains and trams, could support minimum residential density standards.”
In the Capital, the GLA has previously used a density matrix, first seen in 2004 London Plan. Originally known as the Sustainable Residential Quality Matrix, it was a tool that linked density targets to a site location and transport accessibility. Makes sense, right, but the matrix was often criticised for being inflexible (colleagues here raised such concerns ten years ago), and when it came to higher density schemes, it was used by objectors and some officers to seek moderations in height (as each range had a cap) which drove down housing numbers. It was subsequently discarded in the 2021 iteration.
 


Table 3.2, London Plan 2015

In place of the density matrix, the GLA adopted a design-led approach to site optimisation. Following a design-led approach often adds more subjectivity and negotiation into the pre-app process, but I would speculate that whilst there was already a growing trend for taller buildings coming forward in London each year (see NLA’s tall building survey data since 2014), the design-led approach results in better outcomes – higher quality contextual design and more homes. Our recent work at Borough Triangle for Berkeley is a great example of what can be achieved. In urban and some suburban areas, a minimum density is rarely required from a developer perspective, as the market is incentivised to deliver as much development as possible, often in flatted typologies, notwithstanding the recent Building Safety Act and increasing construction cost implications as you reach a certain height.
 

Borough Triangle, London

Image credit: Berkeley Group Plc

It’s not only London that has tested the use of a density matrix – Salford’s adopted local plan (LP H3) Housing Density has a matrix with minimum requirements based on locations in a designated centre or the distance from a transport node (for example, 200 dph (net) in city centres or within 400m of certain stations). Bristol was recently consulting on a new plan containing a minimum net 50dph target with higher minimums in inner and city areas (100 and 200 dph respectively).
However, as mentioned, the approach in suburban or rural areas may differ where saleability of the right product often drives developers development typology – why would you build higher density townhouses or apartments in areas where the demand is for detached homes? The application of a minimum density standard that uses locational criteria, for example within a railway station in the countryside, does run the risk of dictating what typologies come forward in certain locations, and by association, the future demographic of that specific area. Policy intervention is one thing, but we need to ensure it reflects the ability and will of the market to deliver.
So, the question is, if we are to solve the housing crisis is a minimum density threshold the answer and whether, in reality, would it really deliver more homes? I’m not so sure. A minimum density may help guard against objections to applications, but the various professional design teams, advisors and agents, developers and officers ought to be capable of arriving at a suitable density for each site or area, having regard to a multitude of factors which, when put together, would deliver an ‘optimised’ development for that site. From my experience, it is rare that we walk away from a planning process feeling that much was left on the table. We should, therefore, have a national policy presumption that all development proposals should be ‘optimised’ for housing delivery, unless exceptional circumstances apply. This could form a widened definition or explanation of what ‘making efficient use’ of land really means.
Turning to the draft NPPF itself, draft policy L1 1a iii. proposes setting minimum residential density standards for town centres and for locations that have a high level of connectivity, where this can support more effective land use, but it does not chime with the requirements of policy L3 (achieving appropriate densities, see below). Higher density in town centres is a no-brainer, but what about regeneration or opportunity areas which should aspire to higher densities in the interests of sustainability, or other parts of a settlement that have planned infrastructure investment? What about the new towns – should they set a new benchmark? If the ‘catch-all’ of this policy is anywhere with a “high level of connectivity” then that should be clearly defined, and include areas that will have high connectivity in the future. The Department for Transport launched a Connectivity Tool in June 2025 so why not adopt its scoring system on a national basis?
In fairness, the draft NPPF consultation paper does start to ask the right questions, reminding us that it’s not all a question of density, but often an intricate patchwork of considerations before reaching a point of sustainable development: “identifying whether minimum density standards should be set for other parts of the plan area, especially where there are opportunities for intensification. It may be appropriate to set out a range of densities that reflect the identified need for different types of housing, local market conditions, the availability of infrastructure and its scope for improvement, the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places, and the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character or of promoting regeneration and change.”
Conversely, draft policy DP3 (Key principles for well-designed places), at 1a, seems to suggest that we shouldn’t be too concerned about context at all as it should not preclude innovation and change, especially where an increase in scale or density of development is justified.
So back to draft Policy L3: Achieving appropriate densities (my comments in bold): 
  1. Development proposals should make efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for different types of housing and other development, local market conditions, the availability of infrastructure (including sustainable transport options) and its scope for improvement, a site’s connectivity and the importance of securing well designed, attractive and healthy places. Nothing new here so why not replace ‘efficient use of land’ with a more definitive requirement to ‘optimise development capacity’ of land for identified needs as this appears to work in London?
     
  2. Within this context development proposals for residential and mixed-use development within settlements should contribute to an increase in the density of the area in which they are situated. The existing character of an area should be taken into account, in accordance with policy DP3, but should not preclude development which makes the most of an area's potential. This is a positive step forward – increasing density in every settlement (not just town centres or areas with high levels of connectivity), and take account of context but don’t be restrained by it.
     
  3. Minimum densities for residential development proposals are appropriate in locations which provide high levels of connectivity to jobs and services. Where development proposals for housing or mixed-use schemes are within reasonable walking distance of a railway station, a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site, or 50 dwellings per hectare where the station or stop is defined as ‘well-connected’. So it’s minimum  densities in town centres and locations that have high levels of connectivity (set locally through local plans), its increasing densities in settlements (again set locally), but it’s a specific minimum density (set nationally) for sites within walking distance of a station? That station should be well-connected, (which has its own definition linked to frequency of rail services), which is a different thing to a site with high levels of connectivity (as that doesn’t have a definition at all). It’s starting to get complicated, which is exactly the opposite of what we need from a national policy.
     
  4. Development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with this policy should be refused. There aren’t many refusal directions in the draft NPPF, so this one is quite serious – meet the minimum density requirements set at a local level, or the station-specific requirement set nationally, or be refused, effectively. It again begs the question whether using minimum densities is too blunt a tool.
In summary, a well-intentioned proposal, but there are some further issues to consider and plenty of constructive debate to be had. From my perspective, whether minimum density standards are the right approach and whether they will ultimately deliver all the extra homes we need is questionable. As we now know, the NPPF changes often enough to enable us to alight and change track, but the housing crisis means we cannot take a wrong turn. If we are going down this track then we could give lofty density ambitions a try in certain contexts and see whether it has the desired effect. To my mind, if we are going to use density as the parameter, be brave. Set aspirational minimum targets (with an exceptional circumstances caveat to avoid refusals), be really clear on locational and connectivity criteria, and avoid any ambiguity over what the priority is – homes for all, quickly.
Courtesy of ChatGPT, the image below epitomises optimised residential development density (not bad, eh):

CONTINUE READING