Visionary Planning UK

25/08/2026

When Should Strategic Authority Mayors Be Able To Reverse Local Authority Planning Decisions?

By simonicity on August 24, 2026

The question goes both ways: if a local planning authority is minded to refuse a planning application, when should the mayor of a strategic authority be allowed to call in the application and potentially approve it? Conversely, if a local planning authority is minded to approve a planning application, when should a mayor be allowed to direct refusal?

The principle of giving mayors of strategic authorities the power to intervene in local decision making is not new – originally proposed in the December 2024 English Devolution White Paper and given statutory effect by way of section 33 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 – and the operation in practice of the Mayor of London Order 2008 is of course very familiar in practice to those of us who work on projects within London.

However, that is not to say that today’s MHCLG consultation paper Planning powers for mayors in England August 2026) doesn’t raise some significant issues.

Perhaps the biggest change from what was envisaged in the white paper is that mayors’ powers to intervene are no longer proposed to be dependent on their authorities first having a spatial development strategy in place. It is said in the consultation paper that before SDS adoption a mayor would only be able to:

– direct refusal of PSI applications where the development proposed would be detrimental to the area’s growth, and would be contrary to good strategic planning in the area

– call in PSI applications if the development proposed would have a significant impact on the growth of the area, and there are sound planning reasons for intervention.

I do worry about this change, for three reasons.

First, it reduces the incentive for the authority to have an SDS in place.

Secondly, a mayor who is intent on standing in the way of a particular development or type of development – or indeed intent on supporting a scheme which is otherwise heading for a local refusal – will not find it particularly difficult to frame his or her intervention in terms which fall within these criteria. They don’t in practice provide much of a safeguard at all.

Thirdly, how can participants predict with any confidence whether the mayor might intervene (for or against), and if so on what grounds, without an SDS in place? What inappropriate negotiating lever might this give whoever is in that mayoral position?

Generally, how robust is this emerging system against the risk that those in positions of power may not have the proper positive planning of their area as their priority as against other political objectives?

Aside from that question, my other main thought at the moment is whether any concerns should arise from how what is set out in the consultation paper reflects very closely how the system operates in London:

Applications of potential strategic importance (“PSI applications” in the jargon) are defined by way of various detailed categories (e.g. proposals for at least 150 dwellings or at least 15,000 m2 of commercial floorspace)
The local planning authority would consult with the mayor when the PSI application is made (familiar to us in London as the stage 1 referral) and the mayor would give their views, indicating whether they have no wish for further involvement
Unless the mayor has indicated that he or she does not wish for further involvement, the authority would notify the mayor of their ”minded to grant or refuse” decision (familiar to us in London as the stage 2 referral), giving the mayor 14 days to decide whether to intervene either by directing refusal or by calling the application in for the mayor’s own determination.
If the mayor calls in the application, he or she determines the application either by holding a hearing or (not previously the case in London) by written representations.
The Secretary of State can still call in the application at any time and if the mayor has refused the application, the applicant can appeal in the usual way.
It’s somewhat worrying that planning in London is being used as a blueprint for elsewhere in the country. It’s certainly no silver bullet. In London these procedures add significant time and complexity to application processes. The applicant will want to sound out the mayor’s team at an early stage on any major scheme, so pre-app discussions become more complicated. Negotiations with the mayor’s team often become as important as negotiations with the LPA’s team, particularly (in London) on issues such as affordable housing quantum and viability. Dilemmas arise on occasion: whether to follow LPA officers’ steer or that of the mayor’s team, because priorities will sometimes differ. In practice the stage 2 referral stage takes far longer than two weeks because the mayor’s team will ensure that the application package is not referred until all material issues have been ironed out, including having the section 106 agreement having reached an advanced stage with issues relevant to the mayor usually agreed. Particularly given the detail of the current London Plan, detailed negotiations will also be taking place on any number of detailed issues which if unresolved may lead to a risk of a direction of refusal. If an application is called in by the mayor, there may well be a lengthy further period where negotiations with the mayor’s team are needed to “improve” elements of the scheme or section 106 agreement package.

How this this complex dynamic going to play out in different mayoral strategic authorities? Isn’t the honest answer that no-one knows? It is partly going to come down to the political priorities of individual mayors and partly down to whether mayoral teams will be sufficiently well resourced and managed to deal with referred PSI applications in a timely, predictable and consistent basis.

So, given that this system is being introduced to encourage new homes and economic growth rather than to provide an additional brake or check on decision making, how sure are we that the additional administrative steps involved will not introduce more cost and uncertainty to the system than is outweighed by the opportunity on occasion for a mayor to step in and approve a scheme which the LPA was going to refuse? And has the system been stress tested as against the risk of (elected) bad actors?

What might be mitigations against these risks?

Perhaps going back to the concept of having these far-reaching powers only unlocked once a spatial development strategy is in place.
Perhaps increasing the PSI application thresholds, at least to begin with?
Perhaps closing loopholes that allow referral stage timescales to be elongated?
The consultation process runs until 5 October 2026.

Simon Ricketts, 24 August 2026

Personal views, et cetera

21/08/2026

Housing Delivery Test shows sharp rise in councils missing targets

The number of planning authorities facing policy consequences from the government’s Housing Delivery Test by failing to meet housing targets has risen significantly.
New figures show that almost half of councils missed the 95 per cent delivery target in 2024/25, up from just over a third when results were last reported in 2022/23.

As a consequence, almost a third of councils will now be subject to a presumption in favour of sustainable development, up from just 20 per cent in 2023.

The test measures housing delivery in local authorities over a rolling three-year period. The newly published 2025 results assess delivery between 2022/23 and 2024/25 against each authority's housing requirement.

Authorities scoring below 95 per cent must prepare an action plan to tackle under-delivery, while those scoring below 85 per cent must find a 20 per cent buffer in their five-year housing land calculation.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework treats authorities scoring below 75 per cent as evidence of unmet housing need, triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development for decision-making. Authorities scoring above 95 per cent face no consequences.

The latest test results show only 51 per cent or 154 authorities, avoided any test consequences, down from 65 per cent when the test was last measured in 2023.

A total of 147 councils, or 48.8 per cent of planning authorities, are below 95 per cent.

The results also reveal that 93 councils, amounting to 31 per cent of authorities, are below 75 per cent and are now subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This figure is up from 20 per cent in the 2023 test.

Planning consultant Lichfields pointed to a “strong geographical pattern” to the latest results. The North West fares best, with fewer than 20 per cent of its authorities failing the test.

In both the South West and the South East, more than two thirds of authorities score below 100 per cent. However, half of authorities in the South East are subject to presumption in favour of sustainable development, compared with 28 per cent of South West authorities, it added. London fares worst, with only five of the 32 boroughs passing the test.

19/08/2026

NPPF 26: Ensuring the vitality of town centres?
Alison Bembenek
19 Aug 2026
The new National Planning Policy Framework, published on 17th August 2026 (NPPF26) maintains both the ‘town centre’s first’ principle and other familiar retail policy tests, including both sequential and impact tests.
Beneath that continuity, however, are significant shifts in emphasis: from protecting existing centres towards actively planning for their adaptation, repurposing and regeneration. NPPF26 broadens the policy ambition for town centres, seeking greater emphasis on diversification (including residential development), intensification, reuse of vacant sites and place-making, alongside a redefinition of town centre boundaries. There are also new policies which the development industry will need to grapple with for pubs and roadside facilities.
NPPF26: a structural overhaul?
Whilst the ‘Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres’ title remains unchanged, like the rest of NPPF26 the Chapter considering town centres and town centre uses has had a structural overhaul. The familiar paragraphs 90-94 are replaced with Plan-making policies TC1 and National decision-making policies TC2–TC4.
But town centres remain the priority
The Chapter now opens with an explicit objective:
“to promote the long-term vitality and viability of town centres by prioritising them as locations for main town centre uses and allowing them to adapt to changing community and business needs, in a way which reflects their locally distinctive roles and opportunities”.
The drafting creates a clear statement of intent from the outset of the Government’s overarching aim: town centres should remain priority locations for main town centre uses, while adapting to changing community and business needs.
For the purposes of the Chapter ‘town centres’ includes “city, town, district and local centres” as defined in the glossary at Annex B.

Plan-Making Strategies
TC1: Planning for town centres offers a stronger, more strategic approach:
Whereas para 90 of the 2024 NPPF required local authorities to take a “positive approach” to “growth, management and adaptation” of town centres, TC1 now requires explicitly that development plans are informed by “a strategy for town centres…”.
This represents a more proactive and comprehensive shift in planning for the future role and function of individual centres. However, how this will square with the many resource-challenged authorities remains to be seen.

Hierarchy and Primary Shopping Areas retained
The NPPF24 required policy makers to define both a network and hierarchy of town centres, and within this, both the extent of town centres and Primary Shopping Areas (PSAs).
Whilst the 2025 draft NPPF removed reference to PSAs, the final cut NPPF26 reinstates PSAs in TC1 1(b)(i), reflecting its continuing importance in focussing development through plan-making and in applying sequential and impact tests.
However, the policy brief is now markedly broader than simply defining a hierarchy and shopping areas. Plans should identify areas within centres suitable for “greater diversity and/or intensification of use, including through residential development”, as well as areas where infrastructure and public realm improvements are proposed. Indeed, Policy TC1 1 (a) requires plans to consider a full range of potential needs and opportunities for development, including:
“…the scope to accommodate additional floorspace, to broaden the mix of uses beyond main town centre uses (including residential development) where this would not undermine the vitality and viability of a centre, to strengthen or re-introduce markets, to bring vacant sites and premises back into use, and to reduce or expand the boundaries of town centres where appropriate.”
Whilst diversification with a broadened mix of uses and recognition of the role of residential in town centre regeneration is not new, where there is change of emphasis is the recognition of the role of ‘repurposing’ in bringing vacant sites and premises back into use – which quite rightly is front and centre of planning for town centres.
The NPPF26 also restores the explicit reference to strengthening or re-introducing markets, given the role they can play in supporting town centre vitality and viability, which was not included in the December 2025 draft.
Notably, NPPF26 also introduces reference to town centre boundaries being reduced as well as expanded where appropriate. In doing so, the policy rightly provides recognition that centres could be expanding or contracting. TC1 1 (c) reinforces the focus on making effective use of existing land, requiring vacant town centre sites and areas suitable for intensification to be considered before boundaries are reviewed to accommodate additional development.

Design, place-making and Article 4 directions
Policy TC1(2), encourages local planning authorities to use of “design guides, design codes and masterplans” to support their vision for, and the development of, town centres. This is a new emphasis on design and placemaking that was not included within the NPPF24 Chapter on ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’.
This policy also introduces a policy basis for plan makers to bring in Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights where it would support the “vitality and viability of centres and their character”. This would allow local authorities to restrict permitted development rights where considered necessary. This could be relevant, for example, where authorities seek greater control over changes from Class E uses[1] to residential. The NPPF24 said that Article 4 Directions should:
“where they relate to change from non-residential use to residential use, be limited to situations where an Article 4 direction is necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts (this could include the loss of the essential core of a primary shopping area which would seriously undermine its vitality and viability, but would be very unlikely to extend to the whole of a town centre)”.
The current approach to the introduction of Article 4 Directions arguably has a softened test of suitability. This is reflected in the Government’s intention that there will be a more proportionate and flexible approach to the introduction of Article 4 Directions, as stated in its response to the national policy consultation on policy DM10 ‘removal of national permitted development rights’. DM10 also refers to supporting the vitality and viability of town centres, as well as safeguarding against the demolition of local facilities. However, Article 4 Directions should be supported by robust evidence and applied to the smallest area required to mitigate evidenced harm.

Decision Making and Determining Applications
New: ‘substantial weight’ for beneficial proposals
TC2 introduces an important change for decision-making. “Substantial weight” should be given development that supports town centre vitality and viability, including through diversification, intensification and residential accommodation (subject to consistency with any site-specific development plan policies).
Substantial weight should also be given to improving or retaining access to local shops and facilities providing day-to-day services.
This provides stronger policy support for town centre regeneration and repurposing schemes than the previous NPPF24 and should be a welcome boost for those looking to invest in town centres.

Out of Centre Development
Sequential test — new sustainable transport emphasis, ‘flexibility’ in format and scale retained


Policy TC3 notes the sequential hierarchy remains unchanged; main town centre uses should be located sequentially, in town centres, then edge of centre and only then out of centre locations.
Whereas previously preference was given to accessible sites which are well connected, the drafting now goes further and explicitly refers to sites that are accessible and well connected by “sustainable transport modes”[2]. This arguably adds a more explicit sustainability dimension to the considerations of the sequential test, and could be an important consideration for planning applications going forward.
The December 2025 drafting, suggested a much more radical approach to the sequential assessment, including suggestion of disaggregation / the potential to split proposed developments across “multiple sites”. This drafting has not been carried forward, instead the flexibility of format and scale from NPPF24 is maintained. This will clearly be a welcome by those concerned the more rigid approach suggested in the draft could deter economic investment.

Edge of centre – definition refined
For retail purposes, the glossary (Annex B) now refers to sites within 300m from the primary shopping area and,
"if no primary shopping area has been defined in the development plan, it should be regarded as a location that is well-connected to, and up to 300 metres from, that part of the town centre within which retail uses predominate – measured from its outer edge".
In essence, this provides clarity on how to measure whether a site sits at an edge of centre location.

An unchanged Impact Test
The impact test, set out at TC4 remains unchanged[3]. Retail and leisure proposals outside town centres that exceed the relevant locally defined threshold, or the default 2,500sqm threshold where no local threshold exists, remain subject to an impact assessment.
The assessment continues to focus on impacts on investment and on town centre vitality and viability, including consumer choice and trade.

Other key points for the sector:


More protection for public houses - Policy HC6 introduces additional protections for ‘local shops’ and public houses recognising the role they play in community facilities. Loss of these needs to be justified, including through demonstrating commercial viability and 12 months marketing evidence. Equivalent or better reprovision can justify a loss. This follows the July announcement that pubs, clubs and live music venues will receive a further 20% cut to their business rates bills from April 2027[4].

The challenges facing the pub sector was explored in this recent Lichfields blog, which considered pressures of planning for pubs in London. In such a challenging sector, there is a question of whether a protectionist approach like Policy HC6 is right. Would it be better to have greater distinction between pubs of historic and cultural value? On the face of it, certainly, Policy HC6 does not appear to adequately recognise or plan for the need for many public houses to adapt and evolve – which is perhaps an opportunity missed.

Roadside Facilities – Roadside facilities receive greater recognition. Policy S5 explicitly recognises such facilities as acceptable in principle outside settlement boundaries, subject to the requirements of Policy TR5.

Policy TR5 provides positive support for new and expanded roadside services where they would meet an unmet need or improve access to electric vehicle charging and alternative fuels. The policy is however silent on the retail and food and drink elements of roadside facilities, despite these often forming an integral part of their offer. Nevertheless, the policies provide useful national policy support for roadside facilities, which is welcomed.

Hot food takeaways – Policy HC5 broadly maintains the previous NPPF24 wording, providing guidance on the location of hot food takeaways. Linked to the new policy, Annex 2 provides some clarification on what a ‘reasonable walking distance’ from potentially sensitive receptors could be, identifying that this should be considered to be around 400 metres, or around five minutes’ walk time if topography, route availability and quality or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking up to 400 metres.

Conclusion


NPPF26 retains the town centre first principle and core retail tests of the NPPF24 but significantly broadens the policy expectations for those planning for town centres’ future – from developing a strategy and identifying opportunities for intensification, to using design and masterplanning to shape evolution. Whilst town centre policies emphasise adaptation, diversification and repurposing; there is also a more protective approach to public houses and Article 4 directions, for example. Town centres continue to be pulled in different directions – towards both adaptation and protection. The challenge will be working with local planning authorities to achieve overall growth, buoyed by and with reference this stated overarching Government aim.
If you would like to discuss how Lichfields can assist with your town centre project or help you navigate the new NPPF town centre policies, please get in touch.


Footnotes

[1] Class E uses as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020)

[2] ‘Sustainable transport modes’ is a defined term “Any efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment, including walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport”. The consultation responses explains that for policy TC3 it means access to edge-of-centre and out of centre locations by non-car modes.
[3] Paragraph 94 of the NPPF24 contained the same requirements.
[4] Business Rates Relief for Pubs, Clubs and Live Music Venues Statement made on 23 July 2026

17/08/2026

Nicola Gooch - Linkedin

It isn't often that a major piece of planning policy is soft-launched by DEFRA, but that is exactly what happened on Friday, when a press release about drought relief confirmed the imminent publication of the updated NPPF.

The news was then confirmed in a BBC article, which was (somewhat unusually) mostly about pubs, before finally getting a confirmation press release from MHCLG first thing this morning.

Even more surprisingly, at least for me, it is being published on a week when I am actually in the office. Something I am personally deeming a Summer miracle.

Perhaps less surprisingly, it hasn't been published alone. As such, today has given us

A policy statement on "Creating a clear, rules-based planning system"
The new NPPF
MHCLG's response to the draft NPPF Consultation
The latest Housing Delivery Test Results - which are a little behind schedule; and
The Government's response to its consultation on streamlining Statutory Consultees

This blog provides some initial high level thoughts on some (not all) of the above. It is by no means a through or comprehensive review. I simply haven’t had time to fully absorb the new NPPF yet, and haven’t even attempted to read the HDT results.

It does, however, take a highly selective look at some of the things that have caught my attention on a first read through - Including:

The transitional provisions
presumptions in favour of sustainable developments
developments around train stations
small & medium sites
The inclusion of military housing as a form of affordable housing provision
Some nitty, gritty practical stuff around local validation lists, conditions and standardising s.106 Agreements
viability; and
the changes to statutory consultees

but somewhat shockingly, for BBC readers everywhere, not including pubs. It also omits the policies on SDS's, but I am pretty sure Catriona Riddell will have those covered.

The blog also leaves out the (helpful) tweaks to Grey Belt policy and the Golden Rules - as frankly, I couldn't cover everything. But it is nice to see:

An acceptance that you can now submit viability assessments in respect of "golden rules" requirements - albeit in limited and specific circumstances; and
A default provision for affordable housing contributions, as opposed to on-site provision of 50% affordable housing, on Grey Belt Sites where the Local Plan doesn't actually set an affordable housing requirement for the specific type of residential development. Something which is likely to help Integrated Retirement Communities in particular.

The full blog can be found here: https://www.birketts.co.uk/people/nicola-gooch/further-thoughts/summer-surprise-the-new-nppf-has-landed/

So there we have it.

The new NPPF is here. It has immediate effect for decision-making. NDMPs bite immediately, and anyone with an undetermined planning application, draft s.106 Agreement or Appeal in progress is probably going to have a very busy few days as we work through the implications.

Beyond that, if I was going to proffer an immediate reaction, it would be this: The final NPPF follows the direction of travel set by the consultation draft. There don’t appear to have been any major shifts as a result of the change in Prime Minister – which is both really quite reassuring for longer term planning and actually means that we can run redline versions this time around. It remains a document designed to standardise and streamline – with a view to boosting development and economic growth, whilst keeping a close eye on the need to ensure the impacts of that growth are mitigated. Any claims that it is a Developer’s or a NIMBY’s charter would be misplaced.

New NPPF brings major planning changes, tighter rules and fresh guidance for developers. Find out more in this article by Nicola Gooch.

17/08/2026

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a82fb953bd75b81e2329a87/National_Planning_Policy_Framework.pdf

31/07/2026

New Draft London Plan. What it means for SME housebuilders.

Draft London Plan published with specific measures to boost housebuilding including affordable housing thresholds and green belt release.

27/07/2026

Appeal: Green belt energy storage allowed as ‘world in crisis’

A battery energy storage system (BESS) has been allowed in the West Yorkshire green belt after an inspector concluded that additional energy storage projects are required to address the climate crisis.

LOCATION Land south of Wakefield B Substation and east of Neil Fox Way, Wakefield WF1 5DB
AUTHORITY Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
INSPECTOR John Braithwaite
PROCEDURE Inquiry
DECISION Allowed
REFERENCE APP/X4725/W/25/3368025
“If the climate crisis is not successfully addressed, then the green belt might become no longer green and might have to be renamed the brown belt”, concluded planning inspector John Braithwaite, who approved the 100-megawatt BESS on land near Neil Fox Way, Wakefield, after Wakefield Metropolitan District Council failed to determine the proposal.

Braithwaite stated: “The world is in crisis; a climate crisis caused by carbon emissions. One of the remedies to the crisis is to reach net-zero carbon emissions as soon as possible” and cited the government’s statement that “storage has a key role to play in achieving net zero”.

In the inspector’s view, this was enough to provide the “very special circumstances” required to justify the scheme’s impact on the green belt. The proposal would have a “significant adverse effect” on the landscape, which would reduce as planting matures.

Braithwaite noted that there is currently a 10.9-gigawatt (GW) shortfall against the 2030 target of 27GW of energy storage, with only 3.5 years left to achieve this.

A low level of harm was found to the Grade II* listed Dame Mary Bolles’ Tower, but the project would offset this by undertaking conservation work on the 17th-century tower.

The inspector concluded that the benefits of the scheme “clearly outweigh the harm caused to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness”. The appeal was allowed.


The inspector’s decision – case reference 3368025

24/07/2026

Data Centres: ‘in or out’ as Nationally Significant Infrastructure?
Nancy Stuart
24 Jul 2026

There is much fanfare around Government changes to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) consenting process, the latest update to which is a new suite of guidance published on the 3rd July 2026, that comes into force this week - 24 July. The ambition of the changes is to cut through the procedural burden on applicants to make the process more attractive to use. In outline, changes involve redesigning the pre-application stage to create a more applicant-led process, with earlier technical input from PINS, removal of statutory consultation requirements and a greater focus on tracking the ‘main issues’ hopefully leading to a focused issue-led Examination.
There is undoubtedly a real effort being made in streamlining the process, but whether it will deliver on supposed time savings remains to be seen - as applicants are likely to remain nervous about shifting away from current practices on consultation, particularly with guidance removing procedural requirements yet still encouraging early engagement and consultation with all parties involved. There remains a need for Examinations to have no surprises - but how will this be achieved without supplying statutory consultees with sufficient information through meaningful (and time-consuming) consultation. But for data centre promoters, there is a lot to consider in deciding whether to progress projects through the DCO system.
Data Centre Options (DCO…?!)


Hugh Scanlon’s blog in December last year discussed the potential implications of the reforms and opportunities for promoters, and in particular the latest state of play regarding data centre NSIP opt-in. The Government’s July 2026 consultation response re-affirms the reforms for data centre consenting, in particular the apparent benefits of the approach for data centre projects, stating:
Much-needed infrastructure like data centres can now opt in to the NSIP regime that allows developers to rapidly deliver these projects, if granted, through strict, fixed timeframes rather than facing endless delays locally. Ministers have already directed three data centre proposals into the NSIP regime at Wapseys Wood in Buckinghamshire, Ampthill Road in Bedford[1], and New Barn Lane in Dartford.
The tone set is to highlight the benefits of the DCO regime for data centre projects. However, while there is the possibility to opt-in, there is also the choice to opt out (if qualifying) where the SoS is satisfied that an alternative regime is appropriate for the development. Guidance on Powers to Direct a Project into or out of the NSIP Regime discusses the alternative consenting regimes under which qualifying developments that can seek to opt out of the DCO process may consider as appropriate alternatives. The obvious being the TCPA, which to date has been the clear or only route for most Data Centre projects, though not without its trials.
What differences between DCO and TCPA should data centre developers be considering?


The attraction of the DCO route is its offer of a nationally managed process without local politics at play, clarity of timeframes from submission, and a single development consent that brings together planning permission, compulsory acquisition powers and other consenting powers within a single decision which may be difficult to assemble through a standard planning permission. For large data centre campuses involving grid connections, energy generation, complex highway works, or the need for compulsory acquisition, the DCO regime could provide a more attractive consenting route to a locally determined planning application.
However, the DCO process is front-loaded, resource-intensive and can be procedurally demanding (even with the removal of statutory consultation requirements). Promoters need a mature scheme, an efficient consultation and engagement strategy to enable the key issues to be drawn out and dealt with early on, detailed environmental material and legal input throughout. The new PINS guidance on preparing the DCO application reinforces the transition to applicant-led issues tracking during the pre-application stage to ensure the scheme submitted is examination ready.
Is opting-in a real alternative for data centres?


With only three data centre schemes currently opting in, attitudes towards the NSIP consenting option appears less than enthusiastic. Furthermore, two of these projects include on-site energy generation that would constitute NSIPs in their own right – in such circumstances, a single DCO for the entirety of the scheme (data centre and energy production) presents the only coherent consenting strategy for the proposals. However, earlier this month, a third was directed into the NSIP process, with the SoS stating in its Direction that the project by itself is nationally significant for the reasons of significant economic impact; driving economic growth; substantial physical size; and transboundary impacts. Perhaps we are on the cusp of a new wave of opt-in data centre schemes, as applicants look at the new streamlined consenting approach with new vigour?

To opt-in or not? What should developers consider going forward?


In advance of the long-promised National Policy Statement (NPS) on data centres, there is some uncertainty as to the potential treatment of data centres in the DCO system. The Government’s positive attitude towards the sector is clear (see the NPPF, its designation as Critical National Infrastructure, and various appeal precedents), but the NPS will need to cement this support. Assuming this outcome, potential DCO applicants may want to consider the following in consenting strategy decisions:

S35 qualifying criteria: Are projects of national significance? The opt-in mechanism depends on a Section 35 direction; it is not an entitlement. The promoter must demonstrate to the SoS that the project is nationally significant. Is there clear evidence to the economic impact and reach of the scheme; is the physical size and capacity that of national significance; is it important to the delivery of a NSIP or other significant development?

Other consents: Are compulsory acquisition powers required, or is there required links to power sources, grid infrastructure, highways or other enabling infrastructure that would require separate consents and licensing to enable delivery of the project?

Programme: The DCO process has statutory stages, with relatively fixed timeframes for most parts, and even with the removal of statutory consultation, the overall period is still likely to remain protracted. Comparison to other consenting regimes should be mapped with your planning consultant to consider realistic time savings.

Statutory consultee engagement: With the removal of statutory consultation, what’s ensuring the assistance of statutory consultees through the pre-application process – when their views and guidance on key issues to these major infrastructure projects is vital? The cost recovery system for some statutory consultees is a consideration but does not enforce the same mandatory participation in pre-application advice and consultation on NSIPs.

Local authority attitude to the sector/proposals: Local authority attitude towards development proposals is critical. Any reaction to an application proposal will of course be bespoke to the characteristics of that scheme and its context, but increasingly, issues related to power availability and a focus towards on-site job generation, rather than wider (and significant) economic benefit are heading agendas. Furthermore, with the rise in data centre development, promoters are facing increased interest from lobby groups, challenging the merits of the sector. Despite an NPPF direction to consider the needs of data centres in its plan-making and development management decisions, as a consequence of this context, the sector might find increased resistance to development proposals. In such a scenario with an unsupportive local authority, the DCO consenting option may well become a more attractive proposition.

In or Out?


The reforms represent a huge shift in NSIP consenting and only add to the attractiveness of the DCO process as a consenting option for major data centres schemes. Consenting strategies will remain dependent upon project circumstances, but Lichfields has witnessed an increased level of enquires from the sector exploring the possibilities on offer. The final piece in the jigsaw is the long-awaited data centre NPS – many are hoping that it will create sufficient encouragement to the burgeoning data centre sector to definitively tip the balance in favour of the ‘opt-in’. The early pioneers already the subject of successful s35 directions may be sitting pretty.