Twin tracking and duplicate applications: is it worth it

Twin tracking means running two planning applications for the same development at the same time, so that one can be appealed for non-determination or refusal while the other stays in negotiation with the case officer. It buys optionality, and it costs two full fees, two consultation exercises and a certain amount of goodwill.

Whether that trade is worth making depends almost entirely on how long the authority is taking and how far apart you and the officer actually are.

What the tactic looks like in practice

The usual pattern is straightforward. Application A is submitted, the eight or thirteen week period expires without a decision, and the applicant lodges a non-determination appeal. Application B, identical or near-identical, has been submitted a few weeks behind and continues with the council.

If the appeal succeeds, the scheme is consented. If the negotiation succeeds first, application B is granted and the appeal is withdrawn. The applicant runs both routes because they cannot tell which will finish first.

A variant uses two applications with materially different schemes, one policy-compliant and unexciting, one better but riskier. That is a different tactic and it does not carry the same procedural baggage.

Why applicants do it

Delay is the main reason. Where an authority is chronically late, an applicant with a funding deadline or an option expiry cannot wait for a determination that may be months away, and the non-determination appeal is the only lever available.

The second reason is pressure. An appeal in the system changes the conversation. Officers who have been slow to engage often engage quickly once the Planning Inspectorate has a case reference, because the authority now has to prepare a statement setting out what it would have decided.

The third reason is insurance against a hostile committee. Where an officer recommendation for approval looks likely to be overturned at committee, having a parallel route means a refusal against advice does not end the scheme.

Fees and the concession you lose

Budget for two full fees. The fees regulations do not treat a duplicate application as free, and the concession usually called the free go does not help here, because it applies to a further application following a fee-paying one rather than to two applications running in parallel.

There is a narrow concession in the regulations for applications for alternative proposals on the same site submitted on the same day by the same applicant. Read it carefully before relying on it, because it does not cover duplicate applications for the same development, and validation teams apply it strictly. Check the current position on the Planning Statement fee category before you submit rather than after.

The other cost is professional time. Two applications generate two sets of consultee responses, two rounds of neighbour representations and two officer reports, and someone on your side has to respond to all of it.

Council attitudes and published policies

Some authorities publish a position on duplicate applications, and a few decline to validate a second application for the same development while the first is undetermined. That is not a universal power, and its basis varies, so check the local validation guidance before assuming you can submit.

Officers dislike the tactic for understandable reasons. It doubles their workload on a case that was already contentious, and it signals that you expect them to fail. Where a working relationship matters for future schemes in the same district, weigh that.

There is a middle path that is usually better. Ask for an extension of time in writing, with a specific date and a list of what has to be resolved by then. Most authorities agree, the appeal right is preserved by the agreement rather than lost, and the officer stays engaged. Where an authority refuses to agree a date, that itself tells you something.

Interaction with an appeal already lodged

Once a non-determination appeal is lodged, the authority loses the power to determine that application. The case transfers to the Planning Inspectorate, and the council's role becomes preparing a statement of what its decision would have been.

The parallel application is unaffected and can still be granted. If it is, the appeal usually becomes academic and is withdrawn, though the Inspectorate will want telling promptly.

Watch the sequencing. Amending the scheme on the parallel application while the appeal proceeds on the original creates two different schemes in the system, and inspectors will consider only what was before the council in the appeal application. Any improvement you negotiate into application B does not help application A.

Risks to the record and the register

Two live applications for the same site generate confusion that outlasts the decision. Neighbours object twice and feel misled. Consultees respond to one and not the other. A search on the site later shows an approval, a withdrawal and an appeal, and a purchaser's solicitor asks what happened.

Keep the paperwork clean. Use clear, distinct descriptions of development, cross-reference the applications in each covering letter, and tell the case officer in writing what you are doing and why. An applicant who explains the commercial reason for twin tracking is treated better than one who is discovered doing it.

When one application and a good negotiation is faster

Most of the time, honestly.

Officers determine applications in the order that work reaches them, and a second file for the same site rarely moves you up the queue. What moves you up the queue is removing the reason the case is stuck. That might be a highway response that has not arrived, a consultee objection nobody has answered, or an internal referral waiting on a heritage officer who covers three districts. Ask which of those it is, in writing, and ask for a date by which it will be resolved.

Where the block is a consultee, deal with the consultee directly. Highway authorities, lead local flood authorities and county archaeologists all take calls from applicants, and a fifteen-minute conversation often produces a response that has been sitting in a queue for six weeks.

Twin tracking helps where the delay is structural rather than substantive. Where the officer is engaged and the disagreement is about a design point, a highway detail or a contribution figure, a second application solves nothing, because the same officer will raise the same issue on both.

The decisive question is what the second application is meant to achieve that the first cannot. If the answer is only speed, an extension of time and a non-determination appeal on a single application usually gets there for one fee.

If the answer is real optionality on a scheme where the commercial downside of delay is large, twin tracking earns its cost. Do it deliberately, price it properly, and make sure the evidence base is complete on both applications rather than strong on one and thin on the other. The report index is a useful check that nothing has been left off the second submission, and PlanScope pricing shows what drafting the duplicate documents costs.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Local validation policies and fee categories vary, so 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.