Determination periods at minor, major and EIA scale

Three statutory determination periods apply to planning applications in England: eight weeks for most minor applications, 13 weeks for major development, and 16 weeks where the application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement. They sit in article 34 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, and each runs from the date the application becomes valid rather than the date it was submitted.

Knowing which period applies is easy. Programming around it is the part that goes wrong, because committee cycles, section 106 drafting and consultee response times do not fit inside the period at the upper end of the scale.

The three periods and what triggers each

The trigger is the scale and character of the development, not the complexity of the issues.

Two points about the boundaries. The 16 week period is triggered by the presence of the statement rather than by the size of the scheme, so a relatively modest proposal in a sensitive location can attract it after a positive screening opinion. And the major definition has an area limb as well as a unit limb, which catches outline applications on larger red lines.

Different periods apply to other application types. Prior approval routes under the General Permitted Development Order have their own, usually shorter, timescales, with deemed consent in some classes. Where a larger site is split into parts, the period applies to each application separately, which is one of the reasons phasing a large scheme without gaming thresholds needs care.

When the clock starts

On the valid date. Validity means the correct form, the ownership certificate and any required notices, the correct fee, the national information requirements and the items on the authority's published local list.

Three consequences that matter to a programme. Time spent in validation is lost entirely, because the authority has no duty to consult or allocate a case officer until the application is valid. An authority that finds a deficiency three weeks after submission will register the application from the date the deficiency is cured, not from the submission date. And the valid date drives everything downstream, including the fee refund position and the right to appeal non-determination.

So the first programme entry is not the determination period. It is the time allowed for validation, and on a complex major application a fortnight is a realistic allowance rather than a pessimistic one.

Extensions of time and their effect

Article 34 allows a longer period agreed in writing between applicant and authority. On majors this is normal. On EIA applications it is close to universal.

An extension does three things. It keeps the application alive past the statutory expiry without the authority having to refuse it to protect its performance figures. It gives both sides a realistic date, which can be aligned to a committee meeting rather than to a round number of weeks. And it suspends the right to appeal non-determination for the extended period.

That last point is the one to weigh. An extension agreed to accommodate a section 106 that is actually being drafted is sensible. A series of short extensions agreed while nothing happens is a different matter, and at some point the answer is to stop agreeing and let the period expire.

Put the agreed date in writing, in an email the case officer confirms, and record what the extension is for. An extension agreed loosely becomes a dispute about what was agreed.

Non-determination and the appeal right

Where the relevant period expires with no decision and no agreed extension, the applicant may appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the ground of non-determination. The appeal must be made within six months of the expiry.

It is a blunt tool. The Planning Inspectorate will be deciding a scheme on which the authority has reached no position, the officer report that would have explained the issues does not exist, and an inspector cannot negotiate a section 106 in the way a case officer can. On a major scheme with obligations to agree, a non-determination appeal usually costs more time than it saves.

Where it does work is as pressure. Telling an authority that the period has expired and that an appeal is being considered sometimes produces the committee date that months of correspondence did not. Use it that way first.

Fee refunds for long delays

The fee regulations provide for a refund of the planning fee where a valid application is not determined within 26 weeks, subject to exclusions. Agreed extensions of time and planning performance agreements are among the circumstances that affect it.

Two practical points. Check the current regulations rather than relying on a summary, because the fee schedule and this provision have both been amended and fees are indexed annually. And note the interaction with extensions: agreeing an extension to help the authority may also give up the refund, which is worth knowing before the email is sent rather than afterwards.

The refund is not compensation. On a major scheme the fee is a small fraction of the cost of delay, so treat it as a tidying-up matter rather than a remedy.

Committee cycles inside the period

The statutory period takes no account of how an authority actually makes decisions, and the committee calendar is what determines the real date.

Most authorities meet monthly. The officer's report deadline typically falls two to three weeks before the meeting, which means the substantive assessment, the consultee responses and the heads of terms all have to be settled roughly three weeks before the date on the agenda. Work back from that and a 13 week period offers perhaps nine weeks of actual determination time.

Then there are the gaps. Many committees do not meet in August, and the Christmas period removes a cycle in most authorities. An application validated in late June on a 13 week period, heading to committee, is realistically a September or October decision.

Ask for the committee calendar and the report deadlines at the pre-application stage, and pick a target meeting. Case officers respond well to an applicant working to the same calendar they are.

Managing the programme around them

Build the programme backwards from the target committee date rather than forwards from submission.

1. Identify the target committee meeting and subtract the report deadline.
2. Subtract the time to settle section 106 heads of terms, which on a scheme with affordable housing and highway works is rarely under two months of parallel work.
3. Subtract the consultation period and a realistic allowance for late consultee responses.
4. Subtract a contingency for one round of further information, which on an EIA application carries its own publicity period.
5. Subtract the validation allowance.
6. Fix the submission date, then test it against survey seasons, because an ecology or traffic count window missed moves everything by months rather than weeks.

Two habits make the difference. Submit a complete application, because validation delay is the only part of the timetable entirely within your control. And start the section 106 discussion at submission rather than when the officer recommends approval, since drafting runs in parallel perfectly well and is the commonest reason a committee date slips. Drainage approval is another item with its own timetable, as when drainage needs lead local flood authority approval explains, and the heavier energy and carbon material at larger scales is set out in energy and carbon requirements by scheme scale.

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. Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports your site is likely to need.