Twin tracking planning applications: when it works

Twin tracking a planning application means having two applications for the same development live at once, or running a fresh application while an appeal against the earlier refusal sits with the Planning Inspectorate. Nothing forbids it. It is also easier to get wrong than most agents expect, because the fee concession that makes it look free is withdrawn in precisely the situation people reach for it, and section 70B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 lets an authority decline to determine the second application altogether.

The tactic earns its place in two situations. The first is a refusal you intend to appeal, where you also want to keep talking to the case officer about a revised scheme. The second is a site where you want a permission banked on a modest design while testing a larger one. Outside those, a second application usually buys delay rather than options.

What running two applications at once actually means

Two applications on the same land, for the same or nearly the same development, each with its own reference number, its own validation check, its own 21-day publicity period, its own consultee responses and its own decision. The Development Management Procedure Order 2015 sets out that machinery once, and it simply runs twice.

Three shapes turn up in practice. Identical duplicates, submitted as insurance so that a refusal on one leaves a live application on the other. Deliberately different pairs, where a fallback scheme runs beside an ambitious one. And a fresh application lodged after a refusal while the appeal against that refusal proceeds.

Councils treat the first shape least kindly. Where the descriptions of development are word for word the same, expect a call or an email asking which one you actually want determined. Whether the two descriptions really describe the same thing matters more than it sounds, and the test for what counts as a material change of use is a useful reminder that the description, not the drawing pack, defines the development.

The free further application and its conditions

Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Planning Permission and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012 allows one further application without a fee. The conditions are narrow. The applicant must be the same, the land the same or substantially the same, and the development of the same character or description. The further application has to be made within 12 months of the relevant date, which the regulations tie to the refusal, the withdrawal or the conclusion of an appeal. Only one such concession is available for a given site, and the earlier application must itself have carried a fee.

Then comes the part that catches people. The concession is not available where the earlier application was one of two or more applications for the same development submitted on the same day. A genuine same-day twin track therefore costs two full fees and forfeits the later free resubmission as well.

Fees themselves move. The national scale was uplifted in December 2023 and is indexed annually from April, so check the current schedule on gov.uk before you budget for two submissions rather than one.

Section 70B and the power to decline

Section 70B, inserted by the Planning Act 2008, lets a local planning authority decline to determine an application where a similar application on the same land by the same applicant is already under consideration and its determination period has not expired, or is the subject of an appeal that has not been decided, or has already been through an appeal. Similar means the same or substantially the same development on the same or substantially the same land.

There is no appeal against a decision to decline. Judicial review is the only route, and on these facts it is rarely worth the cost. So the risk is real rather than theoretical: an authority with a stretched development management team has a statutory reason to remove one of your two files from its workload.

The practical answer is candour. Say in the covering letter which application is the primary one, why the second exists, and what you expect to happen to it. Authorities reach for section 70B against applicants who look like they are working the system, not against those who explain themselves.

An application running alongside an appeal

Lodging an appeal takes the refused application out of the authority's hands. It cannot then grant permission on it. That is the whole reason the parallel application exists: it gives the officer something to negotiate over while the deadline is protected.

Watch the deadlines. Most appeals must be lodged within six months of the date on the decision notice. Householder and minor commercial appeals run on a 12-week limit. An appeal against non-determination must be made within six months of the expiry of the determination period. Miss those and no amount of parallel activity helps.

If the parallel application is granted, withdraw the appeal. If it is refused, you hold a second refusal and a second appeal right, and the original appeal carries on regardless. The Inspectorate works to its own timetable and will not hold an appeal open to see what the council does next.

There is a cost to this that agents underplay. The inspector sees both files. A revised scheme that quietly drops the second storey, or halves the roof terrace, is an admission about the refused scheme, and a competent council statement will say so. Only make the concession in the parallel application if you are willing to defend it in the appeal.

Where the saving disappears

Two applications mean two validation exercises, two sets of drawings kept in step, two rounds of neighbour notification and two supporting statements. Where the second scheme is materially different, the evidence base often has to be redone rather than copied. A changed footprint moves the root protection area. A larger floor area can cross a threshold that pulls in a Transport Assessment. Sixty extra square metres can be the difference between a Transport Statement and something far more expensive.

Drafting the narrative documents twice is where the unbilled hours go, which is why agents batch them. PlanScope drafts a Planning Statement from the site answers and scheme description, flags the facts it cannot confirm, and lets you regenerate a section when the second scheme diverges from the first. The full list of report types shows which of the supporting documents each version of the scheme is likely to need.

An illustrative example. A nine-unit scheme is refused on parking and on the relationship to a neighbouring terrace. The agent appeals on parking alone, and on the same day submits a fresh application with one unit removed and the terrace elevation set back. The appeal is dismissed. The revised application is approved four months later. The fee position: two full fees, no free go, and a permission in hand. Whether that was cheaper than a single careful resubmission depends entirely on what the delay was worth to the client's funding.

Keeping two submissions consistent

Contradictions between parallel submissions are the commonest own goal. Use a different drawing number series for each application, not the same numbers with revision letters. Keep the red line identical unless you mean it to differ, and if it differs, explain why. Serve ownership notices again for the second application rather than assuming the first covers it.

Check that the statements agree on facts. If one says the site sits outside a critical drainage area and the other's drainage strategy assumes it is inside one, an objector will find it. The same goes for floor areas quoted in a heritage statement and in a fee calculation that do not match.

And keep track of what happens if both are granted. Two extant permissions on one site is a normal position, but only one gets implemented, and the other lapses on its own timetable. If you start work on the wrong one, or begin work that fits neither, the rules on unfinished development and completion notices become the reader you did not want.

Deciding whether it is worth it

Work through four questions before you commit:

1. Is the refusal reason capable of being cured by design, or is it a policy objection that survives redesign? If the latter, the parallel application adds nothing.
2. Does the client need a permission by a fixed date, for funding, an option agreement or a sale? That deadline is usually the only thing that justifies the second fee.
3. Will the concession in the revised scheme damage the appeal? Ask what your own advocate would do with it.
4. Has the site already used its free further application? Check the planning history before you promise anyone a cost saving.

If three of those four point the same way, twin track. If they do not, spend the money on a better single submission and a pre-application meeting instead. Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports a revised scheme is likely to need before you decide how many applications to run.

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.