• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Is section 73B the answer to Hillside?

A recent government consultation proposes that the new section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can provide a solution to the issues created by overlapping, incompatible planning permissions. 

Case law confirms that:

  • Where there are two overlapping permissions which are materially inconsistent, should the carrying out of Permission B make it physically impossible to carry out the rest of Permission A, then it is unlawful to carry out further development under Permission A (known as the Pilkington principle).
  • When considering whether development under Permission B would make it physically impossible to comply with Permission A, you have to consider the whole site of Permission A unless Permission A was granted on a severable basis (per the Supreme Court decision in Hillside).

This casts doubt on the ability to rely on “drop in” permissions with the intention of providing for alternate development in a small part of a large scheme that is already being implemented.

  • A permission will only be severable if this is expressly clear on the face of it. 
  • These principles apply to both outline and full permissions (per Dennis).

This leaves developers in a difficult position where there are overlapping permissions which were not granted on a severable basis. The Supreme Court in Hillside suggested that the route forward would be to apply for a new permission for the entire site. However, this comes with inherent difficulties (not least: increased planning application fees, the need to adapt to evolved planning policies for any new application and potential CIL implications). 

The government is consulting on the extent to which section 73B could help address these issues. S73B (which was introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 but is not yet in force) will facilitate changes to a permission (to the description of development and/or conditions) where the effect of the variation permission would not be “substantially different” from that of the existing permission.  The authority is limited to considering the merits of the variation under section 73B. The government sees this as a potential solution, on the basis that, in many cases, changes will not take the proposed development beyond the original masterplan and therefore are not “substantially different”. 

However, there is no definition or test for what is “substantially different” and it will be a matter of planning judgement. The government is unwilling to provide prescriptive guidance, but experience of section 73 applications would suggest that general guidance or examples as to the scope of permissible changes would be helpful.

The consultation does acknowledge that section 73B may not address all circumstances and the government is therefore seeking views on alternative options to manage the operation of overlapping permissions – for example via a new general development order which would deal with overlapping permissions in prescribed circumstances (such as for a specific class of development). 

For now, developers must take care when implementing overlapping and inconsistent permissions to avoid invalidating any future development under the original permission that may have taken years to obtain. The solution to addressing those matters must be considered carefully on a case-by-case basis.

The consultation closes on 1 May 2024.

the government wants to ensure there are “effective, proportionate and transparent routes to manage post-permission changes to development”

Our thinking

  • Standard of repair put to the test - Estates Gazette Q&A

    Emma Humphreys

    Insights

  • The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill gains Royal Assent

    Laura Bushaway

    Quick Reads

  • Injunctions against potential protesters - Estates Gazette Q&A

    Samuel Lear

    Insights

  • Property Patter: Great Estates Miniseries - part 2

    Cara Imbrailo

    Podcasts

  • Property Week quotes Claire Fallows on Labour's proposed new towns programme

    Claire Fallows

    In the Press

  • Property Patter - Great Estates Miniseries - part 1

    Cara Imbrailo

    Podcasts

  • Freight and logistics – still on the agenda

    Sadie Pitman

    Quick Reads

  • A Glimpse into Saudi Arabia's Tourism and Leisure Vision 2030 and Beyond

    Reem Al Mahroos

    Quick Reads

  • The Building Safety Act 2022 – Considerations for Real Estate Lenders

    James Walton

    Insights

  • Property Patter: Building and Fire Safety Miniseries - part 2

    Richard Flenley

    Podcasts

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises on the new build residential sales at the super-prime Chelsea Barracks development

    Suzi Gatward

    News

  • DIFC Courts Release 2023 Annual Report

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Acting reasonably over consent applications

    Harriet Durn

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys continues to strengthen its Real Estate team with the hire of Nicholas Burt

    Nick Burt

    News

  • Cara Imbrailo and Ilona Bateson write for Fashion Capital on pop-up shops

    Cara Imbrailo

    In the Press

  • Planning and Life Sciences: the challenges and opportunities in the Golden Triangle

    Sophie Willis

    Quick Reads

  • Second reading of Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill in the House of Lords

    Laura Bushaway

    Quick Reads

  • Charles Russell Speechlys boosts its Real Estate offering with the arrival of Kim Lalli and Rafe Courage

    Kim Lalli

    News

  • Property Patter: Building and Fire Safety Miniseries - part 1

    Michael O'Connor

    Podcasts

  • House of Lords calls for property agent regulation

    Laura Bushaway

    Quick Reads

Back to top