Twin tracking: running two applications at once

Twin tracking means submitting two applications for the same or nearly the same development at the same time, so that one can be taken to appeal while the other stays with the council for negotiation. It is a timing device rather than a design device. The point is that once an appeal is lodged against non-determination, the authority loses the ability to determine that application, and an applicant who has only one application in play has to choose between appealing and continuing to talk.

Used well, it buys a parallel track without giving up a negotiation. Used badly, it produces two refusals, two sets of reasons and a cross officer.

What the practice involves

The mechanics are straightforward. Application A and application B are submitted for the same development, usually within days of each other. Both are validated, publicised and consulted on. When the statutory determination period for application A expires without a decision, the applicant appeals against non-determination under section 78. Application B stays live with the authority, where amendments can be made and agreement sought.

If negotiation on B succeeds, the appeal on A is withdrawn. If it fails, the appeal proceeds and the applicant has lost no time.

The practice is lawful. There is nothing in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 that prevents an applicant making more than one application for the same development, and the authority must determine each on its merits.

Where it earns its cost is on schemes with a hard external deadline: an option expiry, a funding condition, a lease end, a site assembly programme. Where the only pressure is impatience, the cost rarely justifies it.

Fees and the repeat application concession

The fee position is where practitioners get caught out, so check it rather than assuming.

The Fees Regulations contain a repeat application concession, commonly called the free go, which allows a further application for the same development on the same site by the same applicant to be made without a fee within a limited period after the earlier application was decided or withdrawn. It is subject to conditions and it can only be used once in relation to a given development.

The regulations also contain provisions aimed at stopping the concession being used to fund simultaneous duplicate applications. Do not plan a twin track on the assumption that the second application is free. Read the current Fees Regulations, and where there is any doubt ask the authority's fee team in writing before submitting, because an application submitted without the correct fee is not valid and the determination clock does not start.

Budget for two full fees and treat any concession as a bonus. On a major application that is a substantial sum, which is part of why the tactic is used sparingly.

Appeal timing and non-determination

The determination periods are eight weeks for most minor applications, 13 weeks for major development and 16 weeks for development subject to environmental impact assessment, unless a longer period has been agreed in writing.

An appeal against non-determination may be made once the relevant period has expired without a decision. The deadline for lodging is set by the appeal rules and differs by application type, with householder appeals on a much shorter timetable than the general period. Diary both dates: the date the appeal becomes available, and the date the right to appeal is lost.

The key consequence is jurisdictional. Once the appeal is lodged, the authority can no longer determine that application, though it will submit a statement setting out the decision it would have made. That is why the second application matters. Without it, appealing ends the conversation.

Worth noting that an extension of time agreement achieves something similar at a fraction of the cost, by pushing back the date on which the determination period expires. If the authority will sign one and is engaging properly, that is the better answer.

The risks

Inconsistent decisions. Two officers, or an officer and a committee, can reach different conclusions on identical material. A refusal on application B while the appeal on A is running hands the inspector a reasoned local refusal to consider.

Consultee fatigue. Statutory consultees and neighbours respond twice to the same scheme, and the second round of objections is often better organised than the first.

Cost. Two fees, two sets of publicity, duplicated officer time, and an appeal that may not have been necessary.

Relationship damage. Twin tracking signals that you expect the authority to fail, and some officers read it that way. On a scheme where you will need the same case officer for reserved matters and conditions discharge, that matters.

And a practical one: the two applications must actually be for the same development. If they diverge as amendments are made to B, you end up appealing a scheme you no longer want.

How authorities respond

Most authorities validate duplicate applications and get on with it, because they have no basis to refuse.

Some publish guidance discouraging the practice and stating that they will not prioritise either application. Some raise it in the officer report. A few treat a twin track as a signal to determine the first application quickly and refuse it, which removes the tactical advantage entirely.

At appeal, twin tracking is not in itself unreasonable behaviour, and an application for costs on that basis alone is unlikely to succeed. What can attract a costs finding is conduct around the tactic: submitting materially different schemes while describing them as identical, or failing to withdraw an appeal promptly once the parallel application is approved.

Where a scheme is large and the relationship is good, a planning performance agreement does what twin tracking does without the friction, by fixing a timetable both sides sign up to.

An illustrative example

A developer holds an option on a site expiring in 11 months and needs a resolution within that period. Two applications for a 40-dwelling scheme are submitted a week apart. At 13 weeks the authority has not determined either, citing an outstanding highways consultation. The applicant appeals application A on non-determination and continues to work with officers on application B, agreeing a revised access and a lower unit count. Application B is approved at committee in month nine, and the appeal is withdrawn the same week. This example is illustrative and not drawn from a decided case.

When it actually saves time

Three conditions have to hold together.

There is a fixed deadline that a further six months of negotiation would breach. The authority is unlikely to determine within the statutory period, on the evidence of its performance and the state of consultations. And the scheme is strong enough that an appeal is a credible outcome rather than a bluff.

If any one of those is missing, the tactic is expensive theatre. In particular, appealing a scheme with unresolved technical objections because the clock ran out tends to produce a dismissal and a decision letter that makes the resubmission harder.

Alternatives worth trying first

1. An extension of time agreed in writing, with a date and a reason, which is the standard answer where the delay is a consultation response.
2. A planning performance agreement on a larger scheme, setting out milestones, resources and a decision date.
3. Escalation within the authority, politely and in writing, to the team leader or development management manager where a case has stalled.
4. Splitting the application: a straightforward element determined quickly, with the contested element in a separate application.
5. Withdrawing and resubmitting a properly revised scheme, which is often faster than arguing about the original.
6. A section 73 application on an existing permission, where what you need is a variation rather than a fresh consent.

Where the dispute is about enforcement rather than a pending application, the parallel is the deemed application on a ground (a) appeal, which gets the planning merits in front of an inspector without a separate application at all.

Whichever route you take, the evidence base is the thing that decides it. Work out which of the supporting documents the scheme needs and get them right first, because no amount of procedural manoeuvring rescues an application that is short of evidence. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Fee regulations, determination periods and appeal deadlines change, so check the current position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on anything here.