Call-in by the Secretary of State and what triggers it

When a planning application called in by the Secretary of State leaves your local authority, the council stops being the decision-maker and a minister takes over, normally after a public inquiry. The power sits in section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and it is used sparingly. Most applicants never meet it. Those who do are usually promoting something that engages national policy, crosses a boundary in some way, or has attracted a campaign loud enough to reach a minister's desk, and the first sign is rarely a call-in itself. It is a holding direction.

The statutory power to call in an application

Section 77 allows the Secretary of State to direct that an application be referred to them instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority. The direction can relate to a single application, a class of applications or a defined area, though single applications are the norm.

Once a section 77 direction is made, the authority loses jurisdiction. It cannot grant, refuse or determine. Its role shifts to that of a party, preparing evidence alongside the applicant, and its officers will often continue to negotiate the planning obligation in parallel.

There is no right of appeal against the Secretary of State's decision on a called-in application. The only route is a statutory challenge in the High Court under section 288 of the 1990 Act, within six weeks of the decision.

The published policy on when it is used

Successive governments have kept to the same self-denying ordinance, set out in a written statement to Parliament in June 1999 and repeated since. The Secretary of State will be very selective, and will generally only take an application away from a council where it raises issues of more than local importance.

The categories given in that statement have proved durable. Applications that conflict with national policy on important matters. Applications with significant effects beyond their immediate locality. Applications giving rise to substantial regional or national controversy. Proposals that raise important architectural or urban design issues. Development on which the interests of national security or of foreign governments may be engaged. And, since the statement was refreshed, schemes with a real bearing on economic growth or housing delivery across an area wider than one authority.

That is a high bar. Local opposition on its own does not clear it, however organised. Neither does an officer recommendation a community disagrees with.

Who can request a call-in and how

Anyone may write and ask. Requests go to the National Planning Casework Unit, which handles this work for the department, and they are usually made by an objector, a neighbouring authority, a parish council, a statutory body or, occasionally, the applicant.

A request works better when it is short, evidenced and pitched at the published criteria rather than at the merits. A letter explaining why a scheme is unattractive will not persuade. A letter showing that the proposal conflicts with a named national policy and that the effects reach across three authority areas might.

Separately, some categories are referred by the council itself. The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021 requires an authority to notify the Secretary of State before granting permission for certain kinds of development, including some Green Belt proposals and development affecting playing fields where Sport England has objected. The flooding direction does something similar where the Environment Agency maintains a flood risk objection. Check the current text of each direction rather than working from an older list, because the categories have been changed more than once.

The holding direction and its effect

Before deciding whether to call an application in, the Secretary of State will usually issue a direction under article 31 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 restricting the grant of permission. This is the holding direction.

Its effect is one-sided. The council may still refuse the application. It simply may not grant it while the direction stands. That asymmetry matters if the committee resolution has already gone in your favour: you have a resolution to grant and no decision notice, which is not a permission and cannot be implemented or sold against.

Holding directions have no fixed duration. They are lifted when the department decides either to call the application in or to leave it with the authority, and there is no published deadline. Plan for the possibility rather than assuming a date.

The inquiry that follows and who conducts it

A called-in application is almost always dealt with by public inquiry. The Planning Inspectorate appoints an inspector who hears the case, then writes a report with a recommendation for the Secretary of State, who makes the decision. Section 77(5) gives both the applicant and the authority the right to be heard before that appointed person.

In practice the sequence runs: a pre-inquiry meeting, statements of case, proofs of evidence exchanged, a statement of common ground, the inquiry itself with evidence tested in cross-examination, closings, then the inspector's report and, some months later, the decision letter. Third parties with an interest can apply for Rule 6 status and take a full part.

Costs can be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably, on the same basis as in an appeal. The Planning Practice Guidance on appeals and costs applies.

How call-in differs from a recovered appeal

The two are easy to confuse because both end with a ministerial decision letter after an inquiry.

The practical difference for a developer is timing. Call-in strikes while you are still building the case and still able to shape the scheme. Recovery lands on a case that is already framed by a refusal, and by then your evidence is largely committed. Neither is an appeal you can walk away from without cost.

Programme and cost consequences for the applicant

Budget for an inquiry, a full expert team and a long tail. The evidence base has to be inquiry-grade rather than application-grade, which usually means the technical work is revisited by people who will be cross-examined on it. Your Planning Statement becomes the spine of a proof of evidence rather than a supporting document.

Three practical moves are worth making early. Ask the authority to confirm in writing whether it has referred the application under any consultation direction, because that is a public act and you are entitled to know. Keep the statement of common ground moving with officers even while the department decides, since agreed ground costs the least to defend at any inquiry. And review whether a parallel, smaller application is worth running, using the same approach set out in the notes on twin-tracking a duplicate application.

One honest uncertainty. Nobody outside the department can predict whether a request will succeed, and the reasoning behind a decision not to call in is rarely published in any detail. That is frustrating, and it is why applicants on high-profile schemes tend to run the non-determination appeal route and the publicity requirements for major development notices properly from the start, so that no procedural weakness gives a campaign something to write to a minister about.

Browse all 66 PlanScope report types and start a draft if you are scoping the evidence base for a major application. This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.