• 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

  • Claire Fallows writes for New Civil Engineer on how developers can navigate Biodiversity Net Gain in 2025

    Claire Fallows

    In the Press

  • The Times quotes William Marriott and Lauren Fraser on the impact of Land Registry on property transactions

    William Marriott

    In the Press

  • Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 - Government opens consultation on permitted insurance fees

    Laura Bushaway

    Quick Reads

  • Modernising Business Tenancies: Where and how should disputes be heard?

    Andrew Ross

    Insights

  • Hydrogen Hurdles: navigating the path to net zero in the UK

    Rachael Davidson

    Insights

  • A range of titles including the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph and The Times quote Claire Fallows on M&S receiving approval to demolish its flagship Oxford Street store

    Claire Fallows

    In the Press

  • The EU Deforestation Regulation: an update and what it means for companies

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

  • Navigating Cross-Border Bankruptcy: The UK Supreme Court’s Judgment in Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2024] UKSC 39

    Bianca Venkata

    Insights

  • Adverse Possession of Land: Key Points for Landowners, Developers and those working in Strategic Land

    Emma Preece

    Insights

  • Georgina Muskett writes for Property Week on property development and telecoms operators

    Georgina Muskett

    In the Press

  • Landlords and Tenants receive a pre-Christmas update from the Government on its plans for Leasehold and Commonhold Reform

    Lauren Fraser

    Quick Reads

  • Property Week quotes Claire Fallows on the Hillside Parks vs Snowdonia National Park Authority judgment two years on

    Claire Fallows

    In the Press

  • Modernising Business Tenancies – the end of security of tenure?

    Andrew Ross

    Insights

  • Investment Treaty Arbitration – An Overview

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Property Patter: Great Estates Miniseries – part 3 (or where to find excellent cheesecake and chocolate!)

    Emma Humphreys

    Podcasts

  • What does the budget mean for the logistics sector?

    Sadie Pitman

    Quick Reads

  • What constitutes “possession” and its importance (and relevance) for correctly calculating your SDLT liability

    Pippa Clifford

    Insights

  • Property Patter: What does the Budget mean for property?

    Emma Humphreys

    Podcasts

  • Housebuilder Highlights of Labour’s first budget

    Nick Burt

    Quick Reads

  • Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 - further amendments to the BSA 2022

    Oliver Park

    Insights

Back to top