Planning matters

Scotland has historically built its renewable energy sector around wind and hydro, which investors consider to provide more consistent output given local climate conditions. Combined with lower average solar irradiance than the south of England[2] — or at least the perception of this — solar has been left in the dark in Scotland. 

While no one in Scotland would deny there can be dreich days, the country benefits from long daylight hours in summer, and modern solar PV panels can now operate efficiently in diffuse or lower-light conditions. Solar can pair well with battery energy storage systems (BESS) with BESS improving predictability and reliability — ideal for critical loads. It is also suitable for industrial, commercial and logistics uses including data storage where the operator may want to control their renewable energy generation. An example of this is Edinburgh Airport’s airside solar farm, with aims to provide approximately 27% of the airport’s energy needs – indeed, on several occasions in 2025 the airport operated solely on solar power between 08:30 and 19:00, demonstrating the potential of renewable energy in Scotland[3]. Despite some challenges compared with sunnier parts of the UK, it is clear that solar development can still be both viable and effective in Scotland.

The recent Future for Solar & Storage Conference in Scotland 2025, held in Edinburgh on 11 November 2025, focused on the potential for solar development in Scotland, and its role in delivering a balanced, resilient renewable energy mix aligned with net-zero targets.

Josh King, Chair of Solar Energy Scotland and Director of GenSource Ltd, emphasised that to cut bills and keep them low, Scotland needs to produce as much home-grown power as possible.  Solar Energy Scotland wants the Scottish Government to commit to a minimum target of deploying 4GW of solar energy across Scotland by 2030 and declare an ambitious target of 6GW[4].  Whilst roof top solar panels will play a significant role in reaching this target, more than half of the expected growth in solar generation will come from solar farms.

 

One key way in which solar is supported in Scotland is through a favourable planning policy position. In 2024 the Scottish Government relaxed permitted development (PD) rights in relation to rooftop solar panels on domestic and non-domestic buildings (subject to conditions e.g. not a listed building or world heritage site etc).  This change simplifies the planning process and brings the regulations in line with England.

More relevant to solar farms and other larger-than-domestic solar and storage infrastructure beyond the PD rights referenced above, solar has a favourable policy position in the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). These policies include: 
 

• Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis states that significant weight should be given to the global climate and nature crises;
   
• Policy 5 Soils seeks to protect valued soils for their primary use and lists developments that can be supported on prime agricultural land, including renewable energy as long as the layout minimises use of such land and includes restoration commitments;
   
• Policy 8 Green belts states that renewable energy development in the green belt can be supported;
   
• Policy 11 Energy provides general support for renewable energy development in all its forms including for solar arrays. 

It is clear the planning system aims to facilitate opportunities for solar development, rather than trying to limit development.

This favourable policy position is highlighted by the Scottish Government’s planning application statistics for 2024/25 which show that renewable energy developments (the annual planning statistics do not break down decisions by technology type) pursued under planning have an approval rating of 82.8% and those pursued under energy consent applications have a 96.9% approval rating[5]. However, recent trends indicate that some types of renewables are much more likely to be refused than others. For example, BESS developments appear to be very rarely refused[6] whereas planning decisions on solar farms show mixed outcomes. Key reasons for refusals on solar applications are predominantly around development on prime agricultural land (even tough NPF4 provides support for such) and/or sensitive landscapes and the industrialisation of rural landscapes.

 

 

We consider several routes through which the existing position could be improved. 

First, the Scottish Government could set out further pro-solar polices which would recognise solar developments as a low impact, biodiversity-friendly technology and suitable for rural locations. Solar and agriculture can be combined through a practice called agrivoltaics, which involves installing solar panels on farmland to produce renewable energy while simultaneously allowing for agricultural use. A successful example of this is Milltown Airfield Solar Farm near Elgin in Moray.

Second, community wealth building could also play a role. Challenges are often raised by local communities in relation to renewable energy developments and, whilst projects may help meet net zero targets, these benefits can feel remote to those local communities living in rural locations, particularly in areas where there is a perception of over-concentration of renewable energy projects. Community benefit funds have been utilised historically for larger-scale wind farms; however, there has been a recent shift in the use of these to include other types of renewable energy developments. These funds result in direct, tangible benefits for rural residents in their own community.

Finally, further information and training for local councillors and communities could improve understanding of how the industry works. Related to the over-concentration point mentioned above, it would be particularly helpful to explain that the number of renewable energy planning applications submitted/approved does not equal the number of projects that will actually be built.  This can be for a host of reasons including financing, grid constraints, the approval of connections to the grid and market conditions etc. In this respect, renewable energy developments can differ significantly from other types of development such as housing. Sometimes a number of energy developments will be competing for the same grid connection and so only one will inevitably be built.

Regardless of the planning policy context, grid capacity, congestion and wider energy-storage challenges remain major barriers to all types of renewable energy delivery across the UK. There is improvement on the horizon as grid connection reform is now underway, replacing the old queue for grid access system with a system that prioritises ready-to-build projects.

 

Yes it very much is.  If you have upcoming solar developments in Scotland or indeed anywhere in the UK and would like to discuss them, Lichfields has extensive experience in solar and wider renewable energy projects — we’d be delighted to help.

 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].  

 

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:

and

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.

 

 

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.

 

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”.

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.

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’.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

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.