End of Term Round-up: CIL, Planning Fees, LGR and other news

The end of the parliamentary summer term is always a big day for Planning news… and this year is no exception.

Whilst we now have confirmation that we will not be getting the NPPF before the summer holidays*, there has been plenty of other announcements to get our teeth into.

This blog is a round-up of all of the announcements made on 16 July 2026. It is quite long. Sorry about that.

London Calling – London Plan News and Consultation on Temporary CIL Relief Regulations

Let’s start with all of the London news – of which there is quite a bit, so feel free to skip this section if most of your work is outside of the capital.

1. Yesterday, the GLA published a consultation on the new London Plan. The consultation runs until 15 October 2026. I have not read the draft London Plan as yet, but people smarter than I am,** have pointed out that the draft plan underprovides for London’s local housing need figure (as defined under the standard method) by about 300,000 homes. It will be interesting to see how MHCLG’s respond to that proposal, given the impact that London’s under-delivery has on England’s overall housing numbers.
2. Also, yesterday, Matthew Pennycook amended his direction to the Inspector’s examining the City of London Plan that is currently in the process of being adopted*! – to clarify that they were only to look at one specific heritage issue in their further hearings and nothing else.
3. The third and final London-centric announcement on this list is the launch of a technical consultation on emergency CIL relief measures for the City. The consultation closes on 18 September 2026. Whilst this consultation is absolutely fascinating, it is also quite involved, and we have a lot to cover – so I will leave the detail for another day…

Pragmatism returns to PINS

Matthew Pennycook has written to the Planning Inspectorate urging pragmatism on the questions of deliverability and viability in local plans.

The letter states that:

Planning Fees: Consultation Response, WMS & Draft Statutory Instrument

Yesterday also saw the release of MHCLG’s response to March’s consultation on moving to locally set planning fees.

The response confirms that:

• MHCLG will move to a default national costs schedule designed to establish about 90% costs recovery from the new fee levels.
• That a further consultation will follow on the detailed design and implementation of a planning surcharge to fund statutory consultees.
• That local planning authorities will be able to set planning fees up to a maximum of 30% above the national default fee, where this is justified by evidence.
• That MHCLG is working with the Planning Advisory Service to develop standard methodologies, guidance and toolkits to support local fee setting and promote national consistency.
• The Secretary of State will have powers to intervene where local fees are set unreasonably high or low.
• Whilst the ability to offer PPAs and discretionary charged services will not be removed, MHCLG is clear that: “Fees for PPAs and discretionary services should not exceed the cost of providing them. We expect local planning authorities to be transparent about the basis of these charges, including clearly setting out the additional services being provided beyond the statutory planning service.“; and
• Further national guidance on the use of these services, transparency of costs and good practice in delivery will follow.

The Written Ministerial Statement, also published yesterday, confirms that any increases in planning fees will need to be justified by an LPA with evidence that “the national schedule does not cover their costs”.

It also states that “a small number of LPAs may face exceptional cost pressures that cannot reasonably be addressed within this limit. Where this the case, LPAs will be able to consult the Secretary of State with a view to providing robust evidence to justify a proposed fee level above the 30% cap. The operation of the cap, including the use of the approval mechanism and intervention powers, will be subject to further policy development and set out through future regulations”.

The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 have also been published.

The draft Regulations introduce proposed increases in fees levels, and restructure certain fee categories, but do not contain any of the provisions that would allow local rate setting, or implement the planning surcharge.

The proposed fee increases/ changes are described in the explanatory memorandum as follows:

The new fees order will not be retrospective and will only apply to applications made after the order comes into force.

Further Restrictions on JRs in Infrastructure Projects

The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on extending the restrictions on judicial reviews, that currently apply to NSIP projects, to a wider range of planning consents.

At a very high level, the consultation proposes extending protections, that currently only apply to NSIPS, to major infrastructure projects and strategically significant developments granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and/ or the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Those protections are:

• removing the permission stage and removing the the right of appeal for cases which are deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing
• Changing the CPR to formally designate these challenges and Significant Planning Court Claims
• Changing the CPR to encourage the use of case management conferences following the grant of permission to apply for judicial review
• Extending the tighter procedural timescales set for progressing NSIP claims to claims against major infrastructure projects

The consultation closes on 27 August 2026.

It is described in the MHCLG Press Release as a “Crackdown on baseless legal claims to get Britain building”, but that on a first read that does seem like a little bit of an exaggeration.

Local Government Reform

And finally, we now have decisions for the next tranche of local government reform. In a written ministerial statement, the Secretary of State confirmed that:

• Derbyshire and Derby will become two unitary authorities.
• Devon, Plymouth and Torbay will become four unitary authorities.
• East Sussex and Brighton and Hove will become two unitary authorities.
• Gloucestershire will become one unitary authority.
• Hertfordshire will become four unitary authorities.
• Kent and Medway will become four unitary authorities.
• Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen will become four unitary authorities.
• Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland will become two unitary authorities.
• Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and Northeast Lincolnshire will become four unitary authorities.
• Nottinghamshire and Nottingham will become two unitary authorities.
• Oxfordshire will become three unitary authorities
• Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent will become two unitary authorities.
• Warwickshire will become two unitary authorities.
• Worcestershire will become two unitary authorities; and
• In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex no decisions have yet been made.

Some of the previous Local Government Reform proposals have proven somewhat controversial. We shall have to wait and see whether this set of proposals are more favourably received.

Right – I think that’s everything for now!

Deep breaths everyone – I think it is going to be an interesting summer!

*Instead MHCLG “will seek to do so in due course”

**by which I mean Zack Simons KC of Landmark Chambers

*! yup – confusing isn’t it