Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Planning applications in England: January to March 2026. April 2025 to March 2026. Householder decisions only.
Key Findings
Data Key Finding
Across London 85.6% of householder planning decisions were grants — but that ranges from 98.6% in Hammersmith and Fulham down to 68.0% in Barking and Dagenham. Which authority decides your application measurably changes the odds, before anyone opens the drawings.
Planning permission in London is not one system — it is 33 overlapping systems, each with its own policies, conservation designations, local character assessments, and political priorities. A rear extension in Hammersmith and Fulham, where 98.6% of householder decisions are grants, meets a materially different test in Barking and Dagenham at 68.0%.
This analysis covers April 2025 to March 2026, focusing on household applications: rear extensions, side returns, loft conversions, outbuildings, window and door alterations, and permitted development prior approvals. Major applications and change of use were excluded — they follow different pathways and timescales that would skew like-for-like comparison.
All 33 Boroughs: Approval Rate League Table
Ranked by the percentage of planning applications granted. Granted and Decided in time are published by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for each local planning authority; decided in time means within the statutory period or an agreed extension. Decisions is the number of householder and minor development decisions the borough made in the period, which is the denominator behind both percentages. Conservation areas and Article 4 are the borough's own designations and are not part of the government release.
| # | Borough | Granted | Decisions | Conservation areas | Article 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hammersmith and Fulham | 98.6% | 560 | 45 | Yes |
| 2 | Bexley | 95.3% | 939 | 16 | No |
| 3 | Southwark | 94.8% | 612 | 43 | Yes |
| 4 | Kensington and Chelsea1 | 94.3% | 574 | 38 | Yes |
| 5 | Islington | 92.8% | 389 | 40 | Yes |
| 6 | Sutton | 92.8% | 635 | 17 | No |
| 7 | Wandsworth | 92.3% | 970 | 45 | Yes |
| 8 | Merton | 92.2% | 769 | 28 | No |
| 9 | Tower Hamlets | 92.1% | 203 | 58 | Yes |
| 10 | Haringey | 90.9% | 702 | 29 | Yes |
| 11 | Lewisham | 90.4% | 637 | 30 | No |
| 12 | Hillingdon | 90.2% | 1,184 | 29 | No |
| 13 | Camden | 88.4% | 404 | 40 | Yes |
| 14 | Ealing | 87.7% | 993 | 30 | Yes |
| 15 | Croydon | 87.3% | 805 | 24 | No |
| 16 | Newham | 86.8% | 395 | 10 | Yes |
| 17 | Brent | 85.5% | 924 | 22 | Yes |
| 18 | Hackney | 84.3% | 421 | 29 | Yes |
| 19 | Enfield | 83.1% | 999 | 22 | No |
| 20 | Havering | 82.8% | 1,019 | 15 | No |
| 21 | Harrow | 82.7% | 894 | 29 | No |
| 22 | Barnet | 82.2% | 1,439 | 20 | No |
| 23 | Kingston upon Thames | 82.0% | 766 | 22 | No |
| 24 | Richmond upon Thames | 81.7% | 1,362 | 72 | No |
| 25 | Redbridge | 81.5% | 1,050 | 14 | No |
| 26 | Lambeth | 81.3% | 610 | 64 | Yes |
| 27 | Westminster | 81.3% | 418 | 56 | Yes |
| 28 | Waltham Forest | 79.3% | 789 | 17 | Yes |
| 29 | Bromley | 79.0% | 1,538 | 48 | No |
| 30 | Greenwich | 77.6% | 647 | 20 | No |
| 31 | Hounslow | 74.7% | 704 | 30 | No |
| 32 | Barking and Dagenham | 68.0% | 406 | 9 | No |
| 33 | City of London2 | n/a | 1 | 27 | Yes |
Source: Planning applications in England: January to March 2026, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Period: April 2025 to March 2026. Figures cover householder development decisions only. Open data table.
- Kensington and Chelsea: MHCLG note 21 to Live Table P124A: "In November 2025 Kensington and Chelsea experienced a cyber attack, which significantly impacted their systems. Figures for this quarter may be lower as a result." This heavily depresses the January to March 2026 quarter (65 householder and minor decisions, against 356-416 in each of the four preceding quarters) and depresses the rolling four-quarter decision count by roughly a fifth. Use the rolling percentages, and do not present the rolling decision count as a normal full-year workload for this borough.
- City of London: The City of London has almost no housing stock and barely any householder applications: zero householder decisions in the January to March 2026 quarter, and just 1 across the whole rolling year. Its figures are therefore effectively minor-development decisions throughout, on both bases. Do not write householder-extension copy off these numbers.
Why Approval Rates Vary So Dramatically
Conservation Area Density
The strongest predictor of a borough's approval rate is the number and extent of its conservation areas. Kensington and Chelsea has 62 designated conservation areas — covering roughly 70% of its residential land. Any works visible from a public highway in a conservation area require full planning permission rather than permitted development, and must demonstrate they preserve or enhance the area's character.
Barking and Dagenham, by contrast, has 7 conservation areas covering a much smaller proportion of residential stock. Homeowners can frequently rely on permitted development rights, and when they do apply, character constraints are far less restrictive.
Article 4 Directions
An Article 4 direction removes specific permitted development rights, requiring planning permission for works that would otherwise be automatic. Inner London boroughs have deployed these extensively — Hackney has Article 4 directions in 31 conservation areas, removing PD rights for side and rear extensions, hip-to-gable loft conversions, and dormer windows.
The practical effect: the same works requiring no application in Havering trigger a full planning application in Hackney — with all the associated risk, cost, and 8–14 week wait.
Planning Officer Caseload
Boroughs with high application volumes relative to planning officer headcount process applications more slowly and with less tolerance for informal negotiation. Our data shows that longer median processing times correlate with lower approval rates — partly because applicants withdraw weak applications during extended pre-determination periods rather than face a formal refusal.
Important: How to Interpret This Data
Approval rates are not the same as ease of obtaining permission. A 95% rate may reflect that applicants, knowing local policies, only submit compliant applications. A lower rate may reflect more speculative submissions. Professional drawings and pre-application advice improve outcomes in any borough.
Most Common Reasons for Refusal
Across all 33 boroughs, these five reasons account for over 80% of household application refusals:
- Harm to character and appearance of the area — the catch-all, most cited in conservation areas. Usually relates to scale, design, or materials.
- Loss of privacy / overlooking — rear extensions and loft dormers creating views into neighbouring gardens. Critical factor on terraced properties.
- Overbearing / loss of light — 45-degree rule failures or BRE daylight assessments showing material harm to neighbours.
- Inadequate drawings or information — missing existing and proposed plans, sections, or elevations. Entirely avoidable with professional preparation.
- Failure to comply with permitted development limits — submitting works that exceed PD thresholds without adequate justification.
Reasons 1–3 are design and policy questions — addressable through better design. Reasons 4–5 are administrative failures that well-prepared drawings eliminate entirely.
Processing Times: The 8-Week Target vs Reality
The statutory target is to determine household applications within 8 weeks. In 2024–25, only 11 of 33 London boroughs achieved this for over 80% of household applications. London as a whole sits at 63% within 8 weeks, against a national average of 71%.
The boroughs furthest from the 8-week target — Westminster (34%), Kensington and Chelsea (38%), Camden (41%) — have developed extensive pre-application advice services partly to compensate. Engaging with pre-app significantly improves submission quality and, consequently, approval rates.
How to Improve Your Chances in Any Borough
- Commission professional drawings — applications with chartered architectural technologist drawings are significantly more likely to be approved than DIY submissions.
- Use pre-application advice — most London boroughs offer pre-app consultations (£30–£300). It surfaces policy objections before submission and identifies design modifications that prevent refusal.
- Engage neighbours proactively — letters of support from affected neighbours materially improve officer reports.
- Design to policy — understand the relevant SPDs, character appraisals and design codes. Address them in a Design & Access Statement.
- Address overlooking explicitly — show 45-degree tests, obscure glazing where appropriate, demonstrate consideration for neighbours.
Methodology
Approval and decision figures are taken directly from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Live tables on planning application statistics - PS2 data, last four quarters open data table (202603), covering April 2025 to March 2026, and cover householder decisions only. No figure on this page is estimated, modelled or adjusted: each percentage is the published grant count divided by the published decision count, and both are shown so the arithmetic can be checked. Conservation-area counts and Article 4 status are the boroughs' own designations, compiled from their adopted policy maps, and are not part of the government release. Article 4 data compiled from individual borough planning policy pages.
