Life is Like a Box of Chocolates: Natural England Changes Consultation Rules, New PD Rights & other planning news

Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get.

That sentence, which is a slight misquote from the film Forest Gump, rather neatly encapsulates the last couple of weeks. Since my last blog we have seen:

• The return of help for first time buyers, in the form of “Your First Home”
• some really rather disappointing planning statistics from MHCLG; and
• The Labour Party conference

However, this blog is not about any of those events.

I have had a busy few weeks doing the actual day job, I am afraid, so I rather missed the boat. Instead, I am going to talk about some more recent developments.

Natural England Changes Consultation Rules

Yesterday, Natural England published a new operational statement, which resets how it will engage with local planning authorities – at least in respect of ordinary planning applications. NSIPs, plan-making inquiries and EIA / Habitat Regs assessments are not impacted by the changes.

The thrust of the guidance seems to be aimed at reducing the number of “unnecessary” referrals, to allow Natural England to focus on the bigger and more complex changes.

With this in mind, Natural England will now be operating a new triage service for planning application inquiries. Which is described as follows:

This framework is then expanded on in a table at Annex 1 of the operational note, which states:

Which I guess means that we are all going to have to start paying a lot more attention to the standing guidance.

Changes to Permitted Development Rights from 21 October 2026

On 25 September, MHCLG made The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2026, which come into effect on 21 October 2026.

The amended rights include:

• A new PD Right that allows householders to install cross-pavement domestic EV charging solutions. This PD right only applies to planning permission – you would still need permission from the Highway Authority (under s.178 Highways Act 1980) to lay a cable across the pavement. It is also temporary – the cross pavement charging must be removed (and the pavement reinstated) when it is no longer needed. The PD Right is not available if the site is a listed building or scheduled ancient monument.
• Connected to the new right for the cross-pavement charging solution; there are also extended rights for installing charging points. Class D and Class E of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order have been extended to allow households without off-street parking to install charging points within the curtilage of the house and link them to a cross pavement solution. This is also a temporary right – the charger should be removed when it is no longer needed. The existing restrictions on these rights remain, and some new ones have been added, just to keep up on our toes.
• an increase in the size of substations that electricity providers can install under permitted development from 29 cubic metres to 45 cubic metres; albeit with new restrictions and prior approval rights on the larger substations – including restrictions on height, how close they can be to a dwelling, an exclusion for SSSIs and European habitat sites; and prior approval rights on article 2(3) land.
• The temporary PD right that allows schools with RAAC issues to have temporary classrooms etc. on site, which was due to end on 24 October this year, has been extended by two years. It now ends on 24 October 2028.

Building Safety Levy Regulations amended on eve of adoption

)n 12 September 2026, the Government made The Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, which introduced a series of changes to the regulations just before they came into effect on 1 October 2026.

According to the explanatory memorandum the changes “makes targeted amendments to the Levy Regulations and related building control regulations ahead of commencement on 1 October 2026. This instrument makes corrective amendments to enable the levy to operate as intended, including amendments to the definition of a previously developed site, which benefits from a separate levy rate that is half the standard rate to reflect the often higher cost of building on these sites, and other amendments and corrections to address issues identified since the Levy Regulations were made.“

Which is at least an improvement on the CIL regulations, where most of the hiccups were spotted after the regulations had taken effect…

Again, according to the explanatory memorandum, the changes introduced are as follows:

• the definition of previously developed sites has been amended to clarify when land is treated as previously developed, including the treatment of fixed-surface-type infrastructure, unlawful operations and the exclusion of wholly underground buildings or parts of buildings from the definition;
• corrections have been made to the determination period for levy liability in Reg. 38
• the levy information spot check provisions have been changed to set an earlier deadline by when a collecting authority must notify the client if information relating to their building control application is selected for a levy information spot check and to make clear the period within which the spot check must be carried out.
• the levy update notice provisions have been amended to align the content requirements of a levy update notice with those of a building control application. As well as clarifiying that a levy update notice can concern an application in respect of which a notice of no charge has been issued;
• To amend provisions for requests for revised levy determinations, refunds, reviews and appeals to clarify what constitutes a revised levy determination notice for the purposes of regulation 54 and to provide for the cancellation of a levy liability notice or levy payment certificate (as the case may be) in circumstances specified in those regulations;
• amends the 2010 Regulations, the HRB Regulations and the RBCA Regulations to make it clear that references to “dwelling” for levy purposes do not include PBSA (which has a “bedspaces” definition instead) and that levy information is required in relation to building control approval applications for a stage of HRB work. This instrument also substitutes a new version of Form 2 in Schedule 1 of the RBCA Regulations to incorporate minor corrections.

Planning is not immune from boundary disputes…

And finally, on the basis that this was a bit dry, I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to the High Court decision in McQueen, R (On the Application Of) v Mid Suffolk District Council [2026] EWHC 2398 (Admin).

A case which demonstrates both the importance of neighbourly relations, even in the context of neighbourhood plans, and that boundary disputes get absolutely everywhere.

The case concerns a draft neighbourhood plan, which was determining the settlement boundary for a village in Mid-Suffolk. The boundary, as drawn, fully included two large houses. The claimant believe that land to the rear of one of the houses should have been excluded – on the basis that the owner of that house had repeatedly failed to get planning permission on land to the rear of the property.

The decision to approve the neighbourhood plan was challenged on the basis that the Defendant failed to take into account four mandatory material considerations: “(a) the settlement boundary as set out in an earlier draft Joint Local Plan; (b) the planning history in relation to Cadogan House; (c) the criterion in para.7.23 of the Draft NP of “reflecting development on the ground”; and (d) the fact that the person proposing the amendment to the settlement boundary to include Cadogan House, namely the Interested Party, was himself a member of the Parish Council.”

The challenge failed. The discussion around the relevance of previous planning history to neighbourhood plan-making, however, is rather interesting.

The Court found:

“51. The logical consequence of Mr Lewis’s submission that planning history in respect of a particular site is relevant in deciding whether a proposed settlement boundary in a Draft NP meets the basic conditions is that the planning history of all sites within the area would have to be considered. Indeed, Mr Lewis went as far as to submit that there was no reason why the Examiner could not consider the planning history of all sites within the boundary given the small size of the area and especially if brought to her attention. However, any such obligation to consider the planning history of all sites within the area of a Draft NP would impose a near-impossible burden on Examiners and would be likely to stall the process of reporting on the Draft NP. That in itself strongly militates against a conclusion that such considerations are mandatory.”

53. It seems to me that a similar approach applies in assessing the requirement under paragraph 8(2)(d) of Schedule 4B that the making of the plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Any such assessment should involve considering whether the Draft NP as a whole contributes to the achievement of sustainability and not whether each and every aspect of it does. It would be all too easy to single out a small aspect of the Draft NP as it affects one particular site, which, if viewed in isolation does not contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, but when viewed against the totality of the draft NP, there is a net gain or contribution in terms of such development. Taking that approach, it is plain that the Examiner is not required to consider whether each and every site within the area of the plan makes such a contribution so long as overall the making of the plan would do so.

54. For these reasons, it is my view that the neither the Examiner nor the Defendant was required to take the planning history of individual sites into account in determining whether it was appropriate to make the NP; nor can it be said that such history was so obviously material that it was irrational not to address it.”

Which must come as rather a relief.