• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Is section 73B the answer to Hillside?

min read

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

  • A range of publications including Edie.net, Energy Voice and Environment Journal quote Kevin Gibbs on the Energy Independence Bill set out in the King's Speech

    Kevin Gibbs

    In the Press

    min read
  • Emoji on trial: Can a thumbs-up waive a rent increase?

    Harriet Durn

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises BioMed Realty on two new lettings at the Babraham B960 Research Campus

    Lynsey Inglis

    News

    min read
  • Upward only rent review ban becomes law

    Sarah Keens

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Laura Bushaway contributes to a Legal Q&A in Estates Gazette, outlining steps to be taken in anticipation of the Renters' Rights Act

    Laura Bushaway

    In the Press

    min read
  • Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Ready, set, go!

    Lauren Fraser

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Property Week quotes Cara Imbrailo on John Lewis click-and-collect dispute

    Cara Imbrailo

    In the Press

    min read
  • Planning committees – the national scheme of delegation

    Sadie Pitman

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Mark White comments in Property Week on the rising demand for self-storage assets

    Mark White

    In the Press

    min read
  • Georgina Muskett comments in Estates Gazette and Property Week on a major redevelopment case involving Spirit Pub Company and Pridewell Properties

    Georgina Muskett

    In the Press

    min read
  • Matt Cordwent and Lauren Hunt consider nuisance claims and the role of expert evidence in Expert Witness Journal

    Matt Cordwent

    In the Press

    min read
  • Lauren Fraser comments in The Daily Telegraph on the UK Renters' Rights Act and "no fault" evictions

    Lauren Fraser

    In the Press

    min read
  • New housing: the management burden of public spaces

    Claire Fallows

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Upward only Rent Review Ban: Could Your Lease Be Caught Retrospectively?

    Sarah Keens

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Louise Ward and Georgina Muskett contribute to Estates Gazette on life sciences dilapidations

    Louise Ward

    In the Press

    min read
  • Corporate human rights due diligence – episode 2: practical insights from the experts

    Kerry Stares

    Podcasts

  • Clarification given by the Court of Appeal on rights of first refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

    Natalie Deuchar

    Insights

    min read
  • Q&A: Modifying Restrictive Covenants

    Chandni Pandya

    Insights

    min read
  • RICS Property Journal features Chandni Pandya and Georgina Muskett on service charges for live/work units

    Chandni Pandya

    In the Press

    min read
  • Grid Connections, Environmental Assessment and the DCO Process – What is the effect of the Raeshaw Farms judgement?

    Kevin Gibbs

    Insights

    min read
Back to top