From 15 June 2026, there are 10 local planning authorities (LPAs) designated under section 62A Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (referred to as being in “special measures”), meaning applicants for major development may submit applications directly to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) rather than the LPA.

Published: 21 July 2026
Authors: Sarah Fitzpatrick

The nine authorities designated in June 2026 are:

1. Cherwell District Council
2. Dacorum Borough Council
3. Epping Forest District Council
4. Hertsmere Borough Council
5. Malvern Hills District Council
6. Rossendale Borough Council
7. South Tyneside Council
8. Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
9. Wychavon District Council

In addition, Lewes District Council was designated in May 2024. These LPAs will remain designated until the government is satisfied that there has been a sufficient improvement in the quality of decision making. These LPAs were all designated based on the government's assessment of the quality of decision-making on major applications, specifically the proportion of refusals overturned at appeal.

Previously LPAs have been designated based on the speed of decision making (Uttlesford District Council, Fareham Borough Council, Chorley Council, St Albans City and District Council, and Bristol City Council). The government can designate on the basis of both speed or quality, or both, but there have been no designations to date referring to both.

The question for applicants of major developments in designated authorities, is whether they should make a section 62A application direct to PINS, or whether they should submit their application to the LPA in the normal way.

Major development is development:

• of 10 or more dwellings
• on a site of 0.5 ha or more where the number of dwellings is unknown
• non-residential development of 1000 sqm or more
• on a site of 1 ha or more
• mineral development
• waste development

It is useful to analyse the section 62A applications determined to date as a starting point.

A new and untested procedure?

The section 62A procedure isn’t new, Uttlesford District Council was designated in February 2022 with the first applications made shortly thereafter. What is perhaps surprising is how few applications have been submitted – only 122 – between Bristol, St Albans and Uttlesford (all now de-designated). However, it is worth noting that application can only be made under section 62A in respect of the category of development for which a LPA has been designated. Uttlesford - major development only; Bristol - non-major development only; and St Albans – non-major development only. Section 62A can never be used for householder development. Of the 33 section 62A applications submitted for major development (Uttlesford only) 20 have been consented, and 13 refused, a 63% approval rate.

A section 62A application can be determined by way of a hearing or written representations. An applicant can:

• make submissions suggesting that a hearing would be appropriate
• explain why oral discussion would assist
• identify disputed technical issues, planning balance issues or contested evidence.

The choice of procedure, however, rests with PINS. Of the 20 approved major development schemes in Uttlesford, 16 were approved following a hearing and 4 by written representations. Of the 13 refused, these were evenly split: six hearings, seven written representations. Whilst the sample size remains small, the evidence suggests that the chances of securing permission for major development may be greater if a hearing is held, but this is likely to also be influenced by schemes that are better prepared and promoted.

It is considered that the procedure itself is now tried and tested, so provided proposed development falls within the designated type of development, a section 62A application should be considered a realistic option for determination of an application.

Type of development

There is a clear pattern in relation to major development: residential schemes dominate the approvals, but renewable energy schemes have also done well where the evidential case is strong. By contrast in relation to non-major development the results in respect of small infill / HMO / self-build schemes are much more mixed, especially where biodiversity net gain (BNG), design, amenity or highway evidence is weak. Major development has the stronger approval record.

Speed of decision making

Unsurprisingly, the major applications (the larger residential and infrastructure related schemes), took longest for PINS to determine, between 54-149 days, with the non-major applications being determined between 36 – 95 days. Given that applications requiring an environmental statement must be determined in 16 weeks, and applications for major development in 13 weeks (Article 34 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015), these timescales to determination are promising, 16 weeks is 112 days and 13 weeks is 91 days. For a developer that requires a speedy decision, perhaps tied to land contracts or financing, the speed of determination is likely to be a significant consideration.

Political determinations

For applicants whose development proposals are policy aligned, but contrary to the local majority political agenda, in LPAs where decision making is perceived as politicised, or there is significant local political opposition, making a section 62A application may well be the best and quickest route to a policy-led determination, avoiding the need to take the refusal and appeal, or appeal against non-determination.

Following the May 2026 elections, several local authorities have moved to Reform UK or Green Party control, or Reform UK are the largest party or form a major bloc, or there is a major Green influence. Both parties are often resistant to development on green belt or grey belt land, with Reform UK opposed to centrally imposed housing targets putting pressure on green belt releases. Whilst the Conservative’s approach is more varied: with plan led green belt releases being the favoured approach to green belt development, but with grey belt having been identified as a “nonsense” that they will “get rid of” under a future Conservative administration.

If, therefore, there is a concern that local political considerations may influence committee decision-making, rather than an application being determined on its merits, particularly if the scheme involves green belt/grey belt with strong policy support, or a contentious major housing scheme, the answer may well be to make a section 62A application to reduce the influence of local political considerations on decision-making. Inspectors’ decision letters approving major development on section 62A applications (unsurprisingly) read like appeal decisions focussing on local and national policy and taking a plan-led approach.

Consultation

Although the application is submitted to PINS, the LPA remains heavily involved. The planning officer at the LPA will still prepare a report, and statutory and local consultees can respond to consultation. To ensure that LPA officers are on board with the proposals and any technical issues are resolved at an early stage it is likely to be beneficial to enter into detailed pre-application discussions with the LPA (and any other key consultees such as the highway authority, or Environment Agency) in advance of submitting the section 62A application. This way, all key internal and external consultees have an opportunity to comment on the proposals before the application is submitted. This then reduces the risk of an incomplete package of information being submitted to PINS.

Whilst PINS will accept minor amendments and additional information, substantial changes that materially alter the proposal are unlikely to be accommodated meaning a fresh application is required. However, even if a fresh application is required, given the relative speed of determination of section 62A applications it is likely to still be possible to submit and withdraw a section 62A application and then submit a fresh one and have it determined in less time than it would take the LPA to determine the first application amended as necessary.

With reference to determined section 62A applications, PINS has accepted all the following post validation:

• revised plans
• ecological survey
• transport information
• viability information;
• draft and revised s.106 obligations
• BNG material
• legal undertakings
• clarification notes.

All of the following are likely to be amendments that have a low-risk of not be accepted by PINS:

• revised house types
• amended layouts
• amended elevations
• design refinements
• revised landscape plans
• revised ecology information
• revised drainage strategies
• revised access details
• amended planning obligations.

A total of 8 section 62A applications have been refused by PINS in part because of missing technical evidence, these involved insufficient biodiversity or protected species evidence; insufficient BNG information, or failure to demonstrate an exemption; or failing to include a mechanism to secure self-build. This means that a section 62A application must be treated as being much closer to an appeal style process, with an appeal ready scheme being submitted for determination, rather than one relying on post-submission negotiation to make it acceptable.

Whilst materially different in legal structure from the Planning Act 2008 regime, from a project-management and promotion strategy perspective there are a few similarities, with both processes rewarding applicants who place emphasis on pre-application work and front-loaded evidence gathering before submission, including:

• extensive pre-application engagement
• front-loaded technical evidence
• early resolution of consultee issues
• preparation of draft obligations and mitigation up front
• submission of a scheme that is substantially ready for determination.

Provided a section 62A is approached with this mind-set then the chances of securing consent from PINS in a timely manner are enhanced. It’s not a process to be afraid of and should be embraced by more applicants proposing major applications in an appropriate case.

Conclusion

The evidence available from determined section 62A applications suggests that the procedure should no longer be regarded as unusual, risky or experimental. It is a credible alternative to the traditional planning application route and, in the right circumstances, may provide a faster and more policy-focused path to a decision.

The strongest candidates for the section 62A route are likely to be major developments with a robust technical and policy foundation; schemes where there is a concern that local political considerations may affect committee decision-making; and developments requiring a timely determination to support contractual, investment or funding objectives.

However, the process is not a shortcut and does not lower the planning merits threshold. Weak applications continue to fail. Successful schemes have generally been those supported by comprehensive evidence, clear planning justification and extensive pre-application preparation.

The principal lesson from the determined s.62A applications is that the process rewards applicants who undertake most of the scheme refinement before submission. Applications relying upon iterative negotiation after submission appear to be at a greater risk of refusal than applications supported by a mature evidence base at validation.

For developers, promoters and landowners operating within one of the 10 authorities currently designated under section 62A, the key lesson is straightforward: if the proposal is policy-compliant, technically mature and capable of being determined largely on the material submitted at validation, a section 62A application should be seriously considered as an alternative to the conventional LPA route. In many cases it may provide a quicker, more predictable and less politically influenced route to obtaining planning permission.