So much for the “Silly Season”: Changes to PD Rights and other news
The Summer recess is meant to be a time to recharge. A time for rest, relaxation and silly “fluff” pieces about dinosaurs… or the holiday child-care juggle…
This year, however, is hitting a little different. Not only did we start the Summer recess with a new Prime Minister, and the return of some familiar faces to MHCLG, but the slow down in planning news has yet to materialise.
So, where to begin.. oh, I know:
Changes to Permitted Development Rights for Household Solar
On 29 July, the Government made The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2026, which come into effect on 27 August 2026.
The Order tweaks the permitted development rights that cover the installation of domestic Solar equipment to:
- make it clear that the rights apply to “plug in solar” panels – by adding new definitions and specific limitations for these types of installations.
- separate out the provisions that relate to installation of solar on individual dwellings to those that apply to flats;
- introduce a new requirement for prior approval in respect of stand-alone solar that is installed both within article 2(3) land and within five metres of the boundary of the curtilage; and
- introduces other new height limits and other restrictions for the installation of stand alone solar panels.
There are transitional provisions within the order, which mean that solar panel installations that:
- would have been permitted under the previous version of the order; but which
- are not permitted under the new version of these PD Rights
can still be carried out until 26 August 2027 – presumably to avoid any issues with solar panels that had already been ordered by householders, but which had yet to be installed.
Five Recovered Appeals and a Call-In
Over the last week, MHCLG has also published the Secretary of State’s decisions in five recovered planning appeals and one called-in application.
Thankfully, for bloggers everywhere, four of the recovered appeals were heard together.
- On 28 July, the Housing Minister granted outline planning permission for up to 300 homes in Melksham, Wiltshire
- On 29 July, permission was granted for four linked developments in Tower Hamlets, comprising a data centre, a mixed use, residential-led regeneration scheme, a mixed-use, commercial-led regeneration project and an associated listed building consent; and
- On 30 July, permission was refused for a major regeneration project located near Ebbsfleet Football Club – which would have included a new football stadium.
All five decisions were made in-line with the Inspector’s recommendations on the applications.
The reasons weighing against the grant of the Ebbsfleet scheme in the planning balance are somewhat interesting – with risks to human health, the loss of a safeguarded minerals wharf and the loss of an industrial estate without re-provision all being cited as harms that were not overcome by the provision of housing, a new sports stadium and other economic benefits.
Tales from the Admin Court – a mega-embassy and a warning
As it is the summer holidays, and I could do with an ice-cream, I thought I would finish up with some news from the High Court.
On 28 July, the Court issued a stern warning on the nature of judicial embargos – in Wild Justice & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Natural England (No.3) [2026] EWHC 1932 (Admin) .
The facts of this one matter an awful lot less than the warning itself, which I have set out below:
Further Thoughts by Nicola Gooch
End of Term Round-up: CIL, Planning Fees, LGR and other news
New BNG Exemptions to apply from 6 August 2026
And finally, just to prove I have my finger on the pulse of all things planning, just a few moments ago the BBC reported that the judicial review challenge against the “Chinese Mega-Embassy” in London has failed.
The Judgment is not yet available, but the BBC report states that:
“A High Court hearing was held earlier this month and two judges have now dismissed RMCRA’s challenge.
Mrs Justine Lieven, sitting with Lord Justin Dingemans, said there was “no doubt” that the government took into account that it was the Chinese government applying for planning permission.
She also said that RMCRA was not disadvantaged by not receiving a copy of a “blast assessment” at the time of the planning decision, which detailed the effect of a possible terrorist explosion.
The judge said: There was no unfairness to the claimant by reason of these documents not having been disclosed.”
The RMCRA say they intend to appeal against the High Court ruling.”
Right, where did I leave that cornetto….
The opinions in this article are the author’s own, and the content of this article is for general information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. If you require any further information in relation to this article, please contact the author in the first instance. Law covered as at 31 July 2026.