The vape of things to come?
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
Updated: 1 day ago
The government's pledge to crack down on vape shops is easier said than done
Partner, Nigel Hewitson featured in CoStar News. In this piece Nigel comments on the government's proposed crackdown on the growth of vape shops, betting shops and similar high street uses, examining the practical planning law challenges of delivering those reforms.
On 11 August 2026 the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham announced a plan to save our “hollowed out” high streets, vowing to crack down on the “unchecked” spread of vape shops, betting shops and “rogue businesses” such as “dodgy barber shops”. This article, coming on the heels of the recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), considers the proposals from a purely planning perspective.
In recent years the direction of travel has been about making it easier to change uses in town centres and high streets to provide flexibility for businesses during difficult economic times. In 2020, a large use class (Class E) was introduced, encompassing shops, sandwich shops, financial services, indoor sports, health services, children’s nurseries, offices and even light industrial. Any use within that broad range can change to any other use within the use class without needing planning permission. It is this flexibility that has allowed vape shops and “dodgy barber shops” to spring up without reference to the local planning authority.
Although it is not 100% clear, it appears the intention is to make vape shops and other “rogue” businesses something which planners call “sui generis”, Latin for “of its own kind”. This means the use in question is not in any use class and so any proposal to change to that use would require an application to the local authority for planning permission. I assume this is what Burnham means when he talks about putting communities back in control.
Betting shops are already sui generis, so they cannot open without having obtained planning permission. The tighter controls proposed over betting shops seem to be focused on licensing under the Gaming Acts and, in particular, removing the so-called “aim to permit” rule, which requires licensing authorities to seek to control activities in licensed betting shops by condition, rather than refuse a licence.
But what if vape shops and so-called “rogue” businesses? As the Prime Minister acknowledges, the first thing that needs to happen if these uses are to become sui generis is to define what we mean by, let’s say, a vape shop. In practice, planning authorities will need to be able to objectively distinguish between a shop and a vape shop, both when they are considering planning applications and when they are considering whether they should use their enforcement powers.
This may not always be as simple as one might expect. At one extreme you have shops that only sell vapes. But if you make that the criterion, there is nothing to stop the vape shop also selling sweets or newspapers and thus ceasing to be a vape shop by that definition. One might argue the solution is to define a vape shop as one that derives most of its turnover from vapes. But what of the corner shop that sells vapes among many other things such as groceries and newspapers? If vape shops are driven out, demand for vapes will still be there. What if that results in a corner shop’s turnover being derived primarily from the selling of vapes? Does that make it a vape shop? And has it changed its use from shop to vape shop, potentially leading to enforcement action?
But then let’s say that the problem of defining the uses we’re targeting is overcome. Planning permission will then be required for new vape shops and new rogue barbers. This is fine, except that planning applications statutorily have to be considered in the light of the local plan and other material considerations. Current plan policies will normally encourage shops and hairdressers in town centres and high streets. If the new sui generis uses such as vape shops are to be successfully resisted, there will need to be policies providing that such uses are not appropriate.
One important material consideration is the NPPF, recently published by the government. This can be amended quite quickly, although it should be noted that practitioners had been waiting eight months for the latest version of the NPPF to be published. But in due course local planning authorities will need to amend their plan policies to resist such uses in their town centres and high streets.
Of course, none of Burnham’s proposals change the harsh economic realities – unviable high street shops going out of business, caught between competition from supermarkets and the rise of online shopping – that have created the vacuum into which vape shops and others have moved. The unanswered question is: if not vape shops then what?
To find out more about Nigel Hewitson, or to get in touch, visit his web profile here.
For more information about CoStar News, visit their website here.
Interested in our planning capabilities? View our expertise here.
