It’s obvious now why the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill was named as it was. Having now received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023 it is formally the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, or Lura to its friends.
I consulted the oracle which is The Bump website:
“Origin: German
Meaning: Alluring temptress
Lura is a feminine name of German origin that means “alluring temptress.” A variation of the traditional name Lorelei, Lura is a modern alternative with the same fascinating history and connotations. In legends, Lorelei was the name of a maiden who would lure fishermen to their deaths by singing her haunting song. Today, Lorelai is the name of a rock face along the Rhine River in Germany. With connotations of otherworldly beauty and natural wonder, Lura is an excellent option for your little one.”
Very clever Mr Gove, very clever.
(Although there is also the LURA, which is the Leeds University Rocketry Association. And there is a Portuguese singer, Lura. Planning law is going to get even more confusing).
As is usual, it will take a bit of time for the Act to be printed. In the meantime you either have to trawl through the various sets of amendments on the Parliament website, take your chances with the Government’s press statement or (more usefully) delve into the various summaries already on social media. I would recommend for instance:
Lichfields’ summary of the planning-related sections
I also very much recommend, as a wider update, the latest Planning Law (With Chickens) podcast episode, recorded that day by my Town colleagues, Victoria McKeegan and Nikita Sellers. The chat covers Lura but also much else of what has been happening in our world over the last few months.
Because it isn’t all about the Act, the operation of which is dependent on much further secondary legislation to come. The Act will only change the system’s hardware. A software update, in the form of an updated version of the NPPF following the December 2022 consultation draft, is expected any day now.
In the meantime, Michael Gove’s letter to local planning authorities dated 8 September 2023 is worth a read if you haven’t seen it. I’m not sure it was initially online. For instance:
“First and foremost, this Government is unashamedly supportive of development and regeneration in and around existing town and city centres. This is how we will get homes built where it makes sense, support growth, and enable people to get on the property ladder.
And making it easier to progress such developments is front of mind as we finalise the update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), following our consultation which attracted more than 26,000 responses. In that context, and ahead of the publication of the refreshed NPPF in the autumn, I wanted to make clear my expectation that:
• development should proceed on sites that are adopted in a local plan with full input from the local community unless there are strong reasons why it cannot;
• councils should be open and pragmatic in agreeing changes to developments where conditions mean that the original plan may no longer be viable, rather than losing the development wholesale or seeing development mothballed; and
• better use should be made of small pockets of brownfield land by being more permissive, so more homes can be built more quickly, where and how it makes sense, giving more confidence and certainty to SME builders.”
[That viability statement is particularly topical].
“My intention is for the regulations, policy and guidance necessary for the preparation of the first new-style local plans to be in place by Autumn 2024. In the new system, planning authorities will need to prepare, consult on and adopt plans within a 30-month timeframe – and follow the same process for each subsequent update of their plans, including examination by PINS.
In the interim, we want local authorities to continue adopting ambitious local plans, which is why we set out fair transitional arrangements in our current consultation on implementing the plan-making reforms. As part of these arrangements, we confirmed our intent that the last day to submit a plan under the current system will be 30 June 2025. I want to reiterate that local authorities without an up-to-date local plan are likely to be subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development when facing applications.”
Our version of eats, shoots and leaves might be, for instance:
Stop, plan!
vs.
Stop plan!
Or perhaps ask yourself whether you follow your principles, or your principals; or whether you effect better outcomes, or affect them; or whether this issue needs an enquiry, or an inquiry?
Whilst bloggers are not bound by the strict rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar, the grown-ups in the planning system should be: after all (controversial thought), isn’t the modern planning system more about words than about plans?
These thoughts were sparked by Nicola Gooch bringing to my attention Moore v Somerset Council (Jay J, 12 October 2023) – maybe to deflect me from writing about more topical issues (do read her latest post on what has happened to the Lords’ amendments to the LURB now it is back in the Commons).
Moore was just the latest example of litigation spawned by poor drafting, which could have been resolved by way of the introduction of two commas into a local plan policy.
The dispute was all about the meaning of the fifth indent to this policy in Mendip District Council’s local plan:
“Town centre redevelopments, including Saxonvale and, in the longer term, the Westway centre, (as identified in the Policies Map as CP6C), will collectively deliver:
a medium scale foodstore including only an ancillary element of non-food goods – to supplement limited town centre choice and in turn draw back trade from out of town large format foodstores.
Up to 7,000 sqm of non-food retail space in a range of unit sizes …
Residential uses and uses that enhance the attraction of the town to visitors and as an evening destination …
Creative and imaginative public realm improvements as well as new urban spaces which integrate new development areas with the town’s historic centre and which also incorporate and enhance the River Frome as a feature within the town centre.
At least half of the 11,500 sqm of flexible office/studio space requirement (see Table 10) including a permanent site for FETE within the Saxonvale area.”
(my emboldening).
Did this mean that town centre developments were to deliver at least half of the 11,500 sq m of flexible office/studio space identified elsewhere in the plan as “town centre” uses (NB to add to the confusion, that figure was in itself an error, the correct figure referred to elsewhere in the plan being 11,850 sq m)? Or did it mean that this floorspace needed to be delivered within the Saxonvale area of the town centre? And what was the relevance of the reference to FETE, an educational establishment?
The claimant was seeking to challenge a planning permission for a mixed use development at Saxonvale. He contended that the council had wrongly concluded that the policy required the floorspace to be delivered in the town centre generally rather than at Saxonvale.
Jay J was not impressed with the drafting: “[Counsel for Somerset (the successor authority to Mendip)) described [the fifth indent] as “ambiguous” but a more accurate description would be that it is poorly drafted. It would certainly benefit from the insertion of punctuation.”
“It is not just the absence of punctuation that bedevils this provision. The FETE educational site, undoubtedly to be provided within Saxonvale and nowhere else, is completely different in character from the “flexible office/studio space” stipulation. This uncomfortable combination of developments or redevelopments which do not belong together under the same rubric has brought about the present difficulty.”
After detailed submissions from both sides, the judge allowed the claim, in essence concluding that the indent should be read as follows:
“o At least half of the 11,500 sqm of flexible office/studio space requirement (see Table 10), including a permanent site for FETE, within the Saxonvale area”
He accepted that putting the reference to FETE in the same sentence as the flexible office/studio space was still “uncomfortable” but I read the judgment as a valiant attempt at making the best of a bad job!
All credit to local plan inspectors who raise ostensibly nitpicking points on policy wording during local plan examinations. If that isn’t done, this is what happens.
The traditional approach to legal drafting, of course, was to avoid the use of punctuation, so as to impose the discipline of ensuring that the meaning is sufficiently precise without recourse to punctuation that so often can go awry. But with such an approach, text can become overly dense and difficult to understand. Whether or not punctuation is used (and not to use it nowadays comes across as wilfully antiquated), the important thing is for text in plans, agreements, permissions and conditions to be stress-tested. Is the intended meaning unambiguous? It is interesting how many cases reach the Supreme Court which revolve around one phrase, for instance:
Trump International Golf Club v the Scottish Ministers (Supreme Court, 16 December 2015): the requirement, within a condition, for the applicant to submit a construction method statement for approval, but with no express requirement subsequently to comply with the statement once approved.
Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes (Supreme Court, 10 May 2017): “Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”
DB Symmetry v Swindon Borough Council (Supreme Court, 14 December 2022): “The proposed access roads, including turning spaces and all other areas that serve a necessary highway purpose, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each unit is served by fully functional highway, the hard surfaces of which are constructed to at least basecourse level prior to occupation and bringing into use.”
Do you want to know one of my other bugbears? The use of the slash, as in “/”. Does it mean “or”, “and” or “and/or”? Usually its use denotes that the writers are hedging their bets. The Court of Appeal recently considered the meaning of “live/work” units, in the context of a lease, in AHGR Lyd v Kane-Laverack (21 May 2023). Dingemans LJ considered the circumstances of the grant of planning permission for the unit and concluded that the phrase “live/work” meant “live and/or work”: “the relevant plan which formed part of the planning permission showed the whole of the premises shaded as “live/work” which meant that there was no sub-division imposed by the planning permission into separate “live” or “work” areas. This meant that it would be for the leaseholder to determine where to live and where to work. Leaving such matters to the discretion of the leaseholder suggests a permissive approach to the phrase “live/work” meaning that the leaseholder might decide only to live at the premises, or only to work at the premises, or to do both in parts of the premises at their choosing. Thirdly because a leaseholder might be served with enforcement notices and might ultimately be the subject of criminal proceedings for breach of planning permission, then if it was intended that lawful use of the premises required both living and working, that would be spelled out using language that was clear and unambiguous.”
None of the usual commentary this week. Instead I wanted briefly to share with you that Town Legal and Landmark Chambers have finally updated our joint Planning Court Case Explorer.
This is a tool which we have designed to provide anyone interested in the planning process with free-to-access data in relation to all cases which have been handed down in the Planning Court following a full hearing, since the creation of the Court in 2014 up to 31 August 2023. The Case Explorer also includes data on cases subsequently heard in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Please explore – and save it on your browser!
You’ll see that the Case Explorer now covers 766 cases (Planning Court: 591, Court of Appeal: 160; Supreme Court: 15). You can click through to the transcript for each of them, and to a summary, by Town Legal lawyers as part of their free weekly Town Library service, of all judgments since 2017. Cases have been categorised by Landmark’s Rebecca Sage, Harley Ronan and Barney McCay.
You will currently see glitches (do tell me about them) and we do not vouch for its absolute accuracy or that nothing has slipped the net. But we hope that is a useful jumping off point for initial research.
Some basic examples of routes you might take through the information:
Know your subject area… If your research task is, for instance, statutory challenges to local plans you will find 222 of them. You want to see which these are? They are all there.
Know your judge… You can search the cases by judge. (By the way, Lang J has handed down more Planning Court judgments than any other judge: 106. Holgate J stands at 54, Dove J at 38).
Who are the most active litigants? In terms of the private sector and NGOs, whether as claimant or interested party, way out in front is Gladman, at 16 (including three appeals); second is Redrow at 8; joint third are Friends of the Earth and the Open Spaces Society, both at 6. In terms of the public sector, we have four authorities which are all at 9: Canterbury, Lambeth, Maidstone and Westminster.
Again, in every instance you can click through to the actual judgment transcripts – and, usually, Town Legal case summaries.
Predicting likely timescales is so often critical… The average duration of a case, from the date of the decision that is challenged to the date of handing down of the Planning Court’s judgment following a full hearing is 333 days, if you consider all of the 591 judgments handed down since 2014. If you just consider the 12 judgments handed down in Q3 2023 up to 31 August, the period rises to 393. (Bear in mind that these statistics do not include cases that do not reach a full hearing, having been sieved out at permission stage or withdrawn – it would be extremely useful to have this further information).
Town Legal and Landmark Chambers will be doing some more in-depth analysis over the coming weeks. If you would be interested in any of the output, do let me know, or indeed Mike Gooch at Landmark Chambers (without whom, et cetera).
Thank you, Heather Sargent, for sharing this appeal win on LinkedIn. This is what I turn to LinkedIn for, rather than for posts about legal directory rankings!
This decision letter dated 6 October 2023 is a must-read for anyone grappling with Conservation of Habitats Regulations issues in relation to nutrient/water neutrality or recreational impact issues.
In summary, the Inspector, Michael Hayden was faced with two identical appeals against the refusal of planning permission relating to proposed residential development (up to 78 homes). The site straddles the South Downs National Park Authority and Horsham District Council areas.
There were various issues to be determined by the inspector but I just want to focus on one:
“the effect of the proposed development on the integrity of the Arun Valley Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar sites, with particular reference to water abstraction, taking account of the proposed water neutrality measures.”
I first covered the north Sussex water neutrality issue in my 19 October 2021 blog post Development Embargos: Nitrate, Phosphate & Now Water. This is equivalent to the nutrients issue which of course has recently been so much in the news – and where we await a fresh Bill to re-present the legislative fix rejected by the House of Lords in its report stage debate on the Levelling up and Regeneration Bill (see eg my 16 September 2023 blog post NN No).
One of the frustrations surrounding the neutrality veto has been with the approach of Natural England and local planning authorities, which have been disinclined to accept that, given that any adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant SAC or SPA only occurs when the homes are occupied, in appropriate circumstances planning permission can still lawfully be granted, and reserved matters applications and pre-commencement condition discharge applications approved, with a Grampian condition preventing occupation until a satisfactory solution is in place to ensure no adverse effect. Whilst it is said that this just kicks the can down the road – who will build if there is no certainty as to occupation? – in some circumstances it can assist, where for instance there will in any event be a long development lead time and the developer is prepared to take the risk that in due course a strategic solution will have been arrived at and implemented – and is prepared to contribute to the costs of that solution and generally seek to ensure that it is achieved.
So what is so interesting about the Storrington decision letter is that the appellant took this issue head-on. And the inspector accepted its approach. See paragraphs 67 to 109 of the decision letter. If your work involves neutrality issues, it’s worth reading them in their entirety.
The appellant’s position was that its scheme incorporated various measures to reduce the increased demand for mains water from the proposed development:
“76. In order to achieve water neutrality, the appellant proposes to mitigate the increased demand for mains water from the proposed development through a combination of on-site water reduction measures and an off-site offsetting scheme. In terms of on-site measures, it is proposed to install water efficient fixings, and greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting systems into each dwelling. It is common ground that these measures would reduce potable water consumption from the residential development to 8,129.07 litres per day, subject to suitable management and maintenance to ensure they are effective.
77. The signed and executed UU contains obligations requiring an On-Site Water Neutrality Scheme to be submitted to, and approved by, the LPAs and implemented prior to first occupation, which would include a regime for the management and maintenance of greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting systems by a management company. I am satisfied this would provide a legally binding mechanism for the LPAs to ensure the long term effectiveness of the measures to reduce potable water use to the required level within the proposed residential development. This position was confirmed by the Council’s witness in oral evidence at the Inquiry.”
Over and above these measures:
“79. The appellant seeks to rely on one of two alternative means of offsetting the residual water demand of the proposed development:
• payment of a fee or tariff into an LPA-led offsetting scheme for the Sussex North WRZ as a financial contribution towards an equivalent reduction in mains water demand elsewhere in the WRZ (the strategic offsetting scheme); or
• installation of a rainwater harvesting scheme at a garden centre in Horsham that would deliver an equivalent reduction in mains water use (the site specific offsetting scheme).
80. The strategic offsetting scheme is not yet in place, but how it would operate is explained in the Mitigation Strategy prepared for the Sussex North WRZ45. The first element of the Strategy is a programme being implemented by Southern Water to reduce water demand across the network by reducing leakages and household water consumption. This is expected to mitigate a large part of the increase in demand from committed and planned housing growth in the WRZ in the period 2021-2039.
81. The balance of the increased water demand is proposed to be mitigated through an LPA-led offsetting scheme, comprising a series of measures to reduce water demand in social housing and property under LPA control, which would be funded by a tariff on all new development per litre of mains water required to be offset. The most significant measure would be a programme for retrofitting flow regulators into existing social housing stock within the WRZ managed by local authorities or registered social landlords (RSLs), the effectiveness of which has already been demonstrated in trials.”
“83. On the question of prioritisation, the Mitigation Strategy recommends that priority should be given to sites allocated in local plans or identified in the associated housing trajectories, such as through the allowance for windfall, albeit not strategic-scale windfall49. In this case, around two-thirds of the proposed residential part of the appeal site is allocated for housing in the SSWNP. The housing proposed on the part of the site allocated for allotments would count as windfall provision, not at a strategic scale, for which an allowance is included in the housing trajectory for Horsham district from 2024/25 onwards50. If allowed therefore, the appeal site should be a candidate for priority of access to water neutrality via a payment to the offsetting scheme, given that it forms part of the planned and projected housing growth in Horsham district.
84. I recognise that the governing body for the strategic offsetting scheme is likely to have choices to make in terms of an order of priority for permissions to access the scheme, particularly early on in its operation. However, if the appeal proposals were allowed, the appellant confirmed that they would not need to rely on the strategic offsetting scheme for a period of 18 months from the grant of planning permission, whilst reserve matters were dealt with, the allotments relocated and site infrastructure laid. By that time (early 2025), the LPA-led offsetting scheme would have been operating for around 12 months and offsetting capacity from the SW programme is likely to be available to contribute to water neutrality in planned housing schemes. Furthermore, under the suggested standard time limit condition, the appellant would have up to 5 years from the grant of planning permission for the outline residential component of the proposed development to be implemented. By then (mid-2028), the strategic scheme would have been operating for over 4 years, with further offsetting capacity added to the scheme by both the LPA-led and Southern Water programmes.
85. Therefore, there is firm evidence that the proposed development would be able to access offsetting capacity within the strategic scheme to mitigate its residual water demand. However, case law establishes that in order for a competent authority to reach a conclusion under Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations that a project will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site, there must be no reasonable scientific doubt. In order to provide the necessary degree of certainty, the appellant has proposed a ‘Grampian’ condition and an obligation in the S106 UU, the effect of which would be to prevent implementation of the proposed development until a payment is made to HDC under the strategic offsetting scheme and water neutrality secured.”
The inspector noted that the threshold for imposition of a Grampian condition is simply that it would not be the case that there are “no prospects at all” of the action in question being performed within the time-limit imposed by the condition. “The Council’s evidence is that there is a very slim, 5%53 prospect of the appeal proposal being able to offset its water demand through the strategic scheme during the lifetime of any permission. A slim prospect does not amount to no prospect at all. Therefore, the condition would be reasonable in terms of the likelihood of access to the strategic offsetting scheme.”
The council was worried about the precedent effect but the inspector considered that each application needs to be determined on its own merits. “In this case, I have established above that a large part of the residential component of the appeal site is included in the planned housing growth in Horsham District, and the remainder would contribute to the windfall allowance in the housing trajectory, both of which the Mitigation Strategy recommends should be priorities for the strategic offsetting scheme. Accordingly, the condition would not be unreasonable on this count either.”
He considered that the measures set out in the section 106 unilateral undertaking would be workable in practice and met the requirements of Regulation 122 and of section 106 itself.
But what about Natural England’s objection?
“93. NE’s position with regard to the strategic offsetting scheme remains that whilst the mitigation strategy is evolving, decisions on planning applications should await its completion or demonstrate water neutrality by other means. Whilst the advice of NE as the expert national agency on this matter carries significant weight, case law establishes that, as the competent authority, I may lawfully depart from this advice, provided I have cogent reasons for doing so.”
After analysis he considered that he did.
The appeal was allowed. The relevant planning condition reads as follows:
“16. No development shall commence that results in an increased use of potable water when compared with the existing baseline water usage at the site until either:
(1) Water neutrality mitigation has been secured via the Council’s adopted Offsetting Scheme (in line with the recommendations of the Sussex North Water Neutrality Study: Part C – Mitigation Strategy, Final Report, December 2022) as set out in the Planning Obligation that accompanies this planning permission and this has been confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority; or
(2) The site specific Water Neutrality Mitigation Scheme set out in the Planning Obligation that accompanies this planning permission has been implemented in accordance with the requirements set out in the Planning Obligation and the Local Planning Authority has given its written confirmation of the same.”
Horsham District Council had applied for costs, partly on the basis that “the Appellant did not submit their full case on water neutrality with the appeals, delayed the provision of key information on their revised water neutrality strategy until 31 January 2023, and presented information on rainwater yield coefficients in an inaccurate and misleading way, leading Natural England and the Council to misinterpret the case, and the Council to incur unnecessary and wasted expense in terms of counsel’s advice and officer time redrafting its evidence.”
That costs application was refused.
This is a decision which will cause ripples but in my view is wholly in line with the regime set out in the Conservation of Habitats Regulations and potentially applicable to issues relating to, for instance, nutrient neutrality or recreational impact (eg Chiltern Beechwoods SAC).
B Side: Keep The Customer Satisfied
Phew, no politics in this blog post. After my midweek Drive Time post I was politely asked by a reader to keep politics out of my comments on planning. I think it was felt that simonicity had become simon15minicity. All reaction is good, and thank you for it, but the request is difficult, given that the whole of the planning system is a political construct and given that every legislative stub that we have to navigate around is the result of an often short-term political decision in the past. We arrive at a better planning system by seeking to ensure that those political decisions are as considered as they need to be. I also had push-back from a couple of people at my characterisation of the prime minister’s comments on 15 minute cities as “bizarre”. I would simply refer readers to the numerous fact-check pieces out there (see eg Full Fact). Whether wilful or in ignorance, I don’t think there really is an excuse for mixing up the 15 minute city concept (previously supported by the Government – see eg this 31 March 2023 statement) with traffic management measures in cities such as Oxford to ration use of road space and prioritise active travel. At the recent Oxford Joint Planning Law Conference, that hotbed of woke radicalism, Jonathan Porritt spoke of the dangers of each of us being a WeWeBe: a well-informed, well-intentioned, bystander. Let’s not be that. We can avoid that whilst maintaining party political neutrality. If people who know about something don’t say something, who will?
The neutrality concept needn’t mean that nothing at all can be done – or said.
Turbulent times as the Conservative party desperately looks to position itself for the next general election, still mindful, it seems, of its narrow, anti-ULEZ fuelled, win in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election in July 2023.
I wonder if the prime minister has recently read chapter 9 of the NPPF (“Promoting Sustainable Transport”)?
I wonder if the prime minister recalls that since 1 June 2023 a new Government quango, Active Travel England is a statutory consultee on all large planning applications to “to help planning authorities in their work to implement good active travel design – for example, by ensuring developments include walking, wheeling and cycling connectivity to schools and local amenities. This will help improve public health, save people money and reduce harmful emissions.” ATE’s framework document may be seen as dangerously woke in this new political climate, aiming to deliver increases in active travel to 50% of all journeys in urban areas.
“End the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2030; from 2035, all new cars and vans must be zero emission at the tailpipe.” (long gone)
“Increase the share of journeys taken by public transport, cycling and walking.”
“Invest £2 billion in cycling and walking, building first hundreds, then thousands of miles of segregated cycle lane and more low-traffic neighbourhoods with the aim that half of all journeys in towns and cities will be cycled or walked by 2030. As announced in the Transport Decarbonisation Plan, we will create at least one zero emission transport city.”
The party’s Manchester conference saw two major policy announcements by the Government on transport (neither made first to Parliament as convention requires):
From the foreword to the Plan for Drivers, the car is king again:
“There’s nothing wrong with driving. Most of us use a car and, for many, life would not be liveable without their car. For those in rural areas, it is a lifeline. A car can hugely expand the independence of a younger person, as well as keep older people connected to key services and their families.”
There is the rather grudging nod to other modes of transport, but whatever you do, don’t vilify the private car:
“Walking, cycling and public transport are necessary in a multi-modal transport system and we support their continued growth, but they are not the right choice for everyone’s journey. Being pro-public transport does not mean being anti-car. The easy political choice is to vilify the private car even when it’s been one of the most powerful forces for personal freedom and economic growth in the last century. Used appropriately and considerately, the car was, is, and will remain a force for good.”
That first sentence is somewhat mealy mouthed in the face of what follows. The Government apparently intends to:
“update guidance (in England) on 20mph speed limits. While 20mph zones are an important tool in improving road safety in residential areas, over-use risks undermining public acceptance, so we are clear that 20mph zones should be considered on a road-by-road basis to ensure local consent, not as blanket measures
stop local authorities using so-called “15-minute cities” to police people’s lives. We will consult on measures including the removal of local authorities’ access to DVLA data to enforce such schemes by camera
following the LTN review, consider new guidance on LTNs with a focus on the importance of local support, and consider as part of the LTN review how to address existing LTNs that have not secured local consent”
Local authorities policing people’s lives via “15 minute cities” enforced by cameras? Bizarre.
There will be restrictions on the operation of bus lanes, measures to make parking easier, discouragement of penalty charge notices. And so it goes on.
And then today we had, to accompany the prime minister’s party conference speech, Network North – serving as the political cover for today’s decision to scrap HS2 north of Birmingham. Regardless of the noise about monies being diverted to other transport projects (many of which, worryingly for our climate change targets, are of course road projects), the cancellation decision is disturbing – not just for people and businesses who would have benefited from the longer route – but of course hugely upsetting also those whose properties have already been taken, as well of all of us whose money has been spent, irreversibly changing the environment including areas of outstanding natural beauty and ancient woodlands, on the basis of asserted public benefits that will now never be fully realised. In retrospect, today’s decision raises question marks over the initial decision by David Cameron’s government to proceed – as well as subsequent governments’ decisions to continue.
I was at least pleased to see that the Government has at re-committed to the line actually reaching Euston:
“We are going to strip back the project and deliver a station that works, and that can be open and running trains as soon as possible, and which has the leadership in place to deliver maximum value to the taxpayer. We will not provide a tunnel between Euston and Euston Square underground station or design features we do not need. Instead we will deliver a 6-platform station which can accommodate the trains we will run to Birmingham and onwards and which best supports regeneration of the local area. That is how we properly unlock the opportunities the new station offers, while radically reducing its costs.
We will appoint a development company, separate from HS2 Ltd, to manage the delivery of this project. We will also take on the lessons of success stories such as Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms, which secured £9 billion of private sector investment and thousands of homes. So we will harness the future growth that the station will unleash to support its development, to ensure we get the best possible value for the British taxpayer – and ensure that funding is underpinned by contributions from those people and businesses its development supports. At the same time, we are considerably upping the ambition of the Euston redevelopment, where we will be looking to establish a Development Corporation to create a transformed ‘Euston Quarter’ – potentially offering up to 10,000 homes.”
It will be interesting to see what ensues.
Foot to the floor, election ahead….
Simon Ricketts,4 October 2023
Personal views, et cetera
Detail from one of the first records I ever owned…
SIMONICITY 