Section 27 intervention in the emerging Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan

The figures at the centre of it

All four figures are taken from the council's response letter, which cites Table 2 of the South East Water interim Position Statement and the standard method need for the borough.

How it unfolded

1. December 2025

   South East Water raises water supply concerns during the Regulation 18 consultation on the emerging Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan.

2. 2025–2026

   The council works through the DEFRA Water Delivery Taskforce with South East Water to seek evidence that the plan's housing can be supplied with water.

3. 3 September 2026

   Full Council resolves not to progress the emerging plan to Regulation 19 publication at this time, with cross-party support from four parties, while continuing to work with South East Water and other infrastructure providers.

4. 4 September 2026

   The Minister of State for Housing and Planning writes to the council exercising the Secretary of State's powers under section 27(2) and (3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, directing the council to hold the Regulation 19 consultation and submit the plan for examination by 31 December 2026, and inviting exceptional circumstances by 18 September.

5. 11 September 2026

   The council's Leader responds, setting out the exceptional circumstances and asking for the intervention to be withdrawn.

What the directions require

• Direction 1 — proceed to publication and consultation on the emerging plan under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, which apply to this plan under the transitional legacy plan provisions.
• Direction 2 — submit the plan consulted on for independent examination no later than 31 December 2026.
• Duration and consequences — the directions remain in force until withdrawn, and the letter states that further action will be considered if the council fails to comply. The council was given until 18 September 2026 to set out exceptional circumstances.

The council's case

Why this matters beyond one borough

This is the first pattern of its kind we are tracking: a legacy plan held short of examination by a water resource evidence gap, met with a direction to press on regardless. Three points carry across to other authorities.

• Water is now a plan-making constraint on the same footing as highways or flood risk. Where a water undertaker's resource management plan forecasts fewer homes than the standard method requires, the gap has to be evidenced away rather than assumed. Other authorities in the South East Water area face the same arithmetic.
• The December 2026 legacy plan deadline is driving behaviour. Missing it means restarting under the new plan-making system, which is why the intervention prioritises submission over readiness.
• Intervention does not settle allocations. A directed Regulation 19 consultation still produces representations, and an examination still tests soundness. Promoted sites gain no permission and no allocation from the direction itself.

What we do not yet know

• Whether the Secretary of State accepts the exceptional circumstances and withdraws the directions.
• Whether a Regulation 19 consultation is published, and on what version of the plan.
• Whether South East Water's interventions enter and clear the Ofwat growth reopener process.
• Whether further action is taken under section 27, including plan preparation by the Secretary of State.

We record each of these as unconfirmed until it appears in a primary source. Nothing above is treated in our appraisals as an allocation, a permission, or a settled plan position.

Common questions

What is a section 27 intervention?

Section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 allows the Secretary of State to intervene where a local planning authority is failing or omitting to do something necessary in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of its local plan. Powers include directing the authority to take specified steps, and ultimately preparing or revising the plan in its place.

Can a council be directed to submit a plan it does not consider ready?

That is the central dispute here. Section 20 of the 2004 Act provides that an authority must not submit a plan for examination unless it has complied with the relevant regulations and it thinks the document is ready for independent examination. The council argues the directions override that statutory judgement; the intervention letter treats the failure to support the Regulation 19 consultation as the trigger.

Why does water supply affect a local plan?

A plan must be justified, effective and deliverable to be found sound. Where the water undertaker's own resource plan forecasts capacity for materially fewer homes than the plan proposes, and the interventions to close the gap have not been through the Ofwat growth reopener process or secured funding, the council's position is that delivery cannot be demonstrated on current evidence.

What does this mean for land in Tonbridge and Malling?

Nothing is decided. Until the intervention is withdrawn, complied with, or escalated, the emerging plan has no Regulation 19 version out for consultation and no examination timetable that can be relied on. Sites promoted through the emerging plan should be appraised on the adopted plan and national policy, with the plan-making position treated as unresolved rather than assumed either way.

Does a water constraint block development outright?

No. It is a deliverability and phasing consideration that carries weight in plan-making and in decisions on larger schemes served by the constrained resource zone. Its effect on a particular site depends on the resource zone, the scale of the scheme, and what the water undertaker confirms in writing.