Month: February 2024

Can Local Plan Policies Require Developers To Go Beyond National Standards?

The answer is already relatively clear in relation to biodiversity net gain, in that the latest Planning Practice Guidance (14 February 2024) says this:

“Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented.” (Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 74-006-20240214).

[This is of course not to say that developers cannot choose to commit to provide more biodiversity net gain than is required. If they so choose, the decision maker should give appropriate weight to that commitment – see NRS Saredon Aggregates Limited v Secretary of State (Eyre J, 16 November 2023)].

But for a long time the answer has been less clear when it comes to whether local planning authorities can impose minimum energy efficiency standards which go beyond what is required by way of national policy or legislation and it is that lack of clarity which led to R (Rights Community Action) v Secretary of State (Lieven J, 20 February 2024). The case concerned a judicial review, brought by a national campaign group, of an inspectors’ report into the Salt Cross Garden Village Area Action Plan. Salt Cross is a project being promoted by Grosvenor Developments Limited to the north of the A40 near Eynsham, West Oxfordshire. The challenge was to the inspectors’ finding that the plan’s policy 2 (“net zero carbon development”) was unsound because it was inconsistent with national policy, which they interpreted as advising that policies should not be used to set conditions above the equivalent of level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Policy 2 was certainly prescriptive:

The inspectors tested this policy against what they took to be the “extant expression of national policy”, namely a 2015 written ministerial statement. They stated:

“123. In relation to the building performance standards in Policy 2 as they would apply to dwellings, there is a question of whether the approach is consistent with national policy. The issue arises by virtue of Paragraph 154(b) of the NPPF and the need for local requirements for the sustainability of buildings to reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards.

124. Although various Government consultations linked to the Future Homes Standard have signalled potential ways forwards, the current national planning policy relating to the endorsement of energy efficiency standards exceeding the Building Regulations remains the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) on Plan Making dated 25 March 2015. This is supported by the associated NPPG dated from 2019 which explains that the 2015 WMS sets out the Government’s expectation that policies should not be used to set conditions on planning expectation that policies should not be used to set conditions on planning permissions with requirements above the equivalent of the energy requirement of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (approximately 20% above the 2013 Building Regulations across the building mix). The 2015 WMS remains an extant expression of national policy.”

They considered “there are inconsistencies between the approach set out in Policy 2 of the AAP and the national policy position explained above relating to exceeding the Building Regulations. In light of our conclusions relating to whether the overall approach in Policy 2 is justified, we do not regard the requirements as reasonable”. They also considered the requirements to be insufficiently flexible:

“137. The detailed requirements also do not reflect the evolving nature of zero carbon building policy, where standards inevitably will change in response to technological and market advancement and more stringent nationally set standards, including within the Building Regulations. Policy 2 contains little flexibility to allow for such changes, or indeed to respond to detailed master planning that will evolve over time. This brings into question whether the evidence that supports the standards justifies the approach as a sound one.

138. We appreciate that Policy 2 provides a high degree of certainty about the standards that will be applied over the lifetime of the development. However, even judged on a proportionate basis, the evidence that underpins the prescriptive requirements lacks the necessary depth and sense of realism to show that Policy 2 represents an appropriate strategy. As such, Policy 2 is not justified.”

They recommended a modification that “substitutes the wording of Policy 2 to introduce the need for an ambitious approach to the use of renewable energy, sustainable design, construction methods and energy efficiency. This is to be assessed at the planning application stage in response to an energy statement. The modification sets out what should be included within an energy statement, including elements set out in the submitted policy but without the specific, stringent requirements which we have found are neither consistent with national policy nor justified.”

The 2015 written ministerial statement did indeed advise that local plan policies exceeding minimum energy efficiency standards should not go beyond level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes:

“For the specific issue of energy performance, local planning authorities will continue to be able to set and apply policies in their Local Plans which require compliance with energy performance standards that exceed the energy requirements of Building Regulations until commencement of amendments to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 in the Deregulation Bill. This is expected to happen alongside the introduction of zero carbon homes policy in late 2016. The Government has stated that, from then, the energy performance requirements in Building Regulations will be set at a level equivalent to the (outgoing) Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. Until the amendment is commenced, we would expect local planning authorities to take this statement of the Government’s intention into account in applying existing policies and not set conditions with requirements above a Code level 4 equivalent. This statement does not modify the National Planning Policy Framework policy allowing the connection of new housing development to low carbon infrastructure such as district heating networks.” (key passage underlined).

You may remember the context of that statement. The non-statutory Code for Sustainable Homes was at that point being formally being withdrawn. But the amendments to the Planning and Energy Act that were referred to in the 2015 WMS were never brought into force and the Government stated in 2021 that this meant that “local planning authorities will retain powers to set local energy efficiency standards for new homes.” Energy standards were amended in 2021 in excess of level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The closest there then was to a clear statement of the Government’s position was its January 2022 response to a Select Committee report on local government and the path to net zero:

“The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low-carbon energy and associated infrastructure. The NPPF expects Local Plans to take account of climate change over the longer term; local authorities should adopt proactive strategies to reduce carbon emissions and recognise the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. Local authorities have the power to set local energy efficiency standards that go beyond the minimum standards set through the Building Regulations, through the Planning and Energy Act 2008. In January 2021, we clarified in the Future Homes Standard consultation response that in the immediate term we will not amend the Planning and Energy Act 2008, which means that local authorities still retain powers to set local energy efficiency standards that go beyond the minimum standards set through the Building Regulations. In addition, there are clear policies in the NPPF on climate change as set out above. The Framework does not set out an exhaustive list of the steps local authorities might take to meet the challenge of climate change and they can go beyond this.“ (key passages underlined)

Clear as mud!

Lieven J considered that the inspectors (perhaps unsurprisingly in the light of this confusion) had misunderstood what current Government policy was:

“The WMS has to be interpreted in accordance with the mischief it was seeking to address, and with an “updating construction”, see by analogy with statute, Bennion on Statutory Construction (Eighth Edition) at Chapter 14. The WMS is not a statute but a policy, but even with a statute the mischief is a highly relevant consideration in interpretation, and the principle of applying an updating construction is well established. In order to make sense of the WMS in the circumstances that applied in 2023 it is essential to have regard to the fact that the restriction on setting conditions above Code Level 4, upon which the Inspectors relied in IR124, no longer apply.

In my view, the Inspectors’ interpretation neither makes sense on the words, seen in their present context, or of the mischief to which it was applying. To interpret the WMS so as to prevent or restrict the ability of the LPA to set a standard higher than Level 4 is plainly wrong in the light of subsequent events. For this reason, the Inspectors erred in law in their approach by finding that Policy 2 of the AAP was inconsistent with the WMS.

I note that this analysis entirely accords with the position of the Government in its response to the Select Committee on Housing Communities and Local Government in January 2022, when it said: “Local authorities have the power to set local energy efficiency standards that go beyond the minimum standards set through the Building Regulations….” Therefore the Government itself did not appear to be suggesting that the policy in the WMS remains extant.”

The policy position has in fact moved on further since the inspectors reached their findings and is, I hope, now clearer:

Consultation closes on 7 March 2024 in relation to the Government’s current consultation on the Future Homes and Buildings standards to be delivered by way of changes to Part 6, Part L and Part F of the Building Regulations (12 December 2023)

In his accompanying written ministerial statement housing minister Lee Rowley says this about local authorities’ ability to set their own local energy efficiency standards:

““Since [the 2015 WMS], the introduction of the 2021 Part L uplift to the Building Regulations set national minimum energy efficiency standards that are higher than those referenced in the 2015 WMS rendering it effectively moot. A further change to energy efficiency building regulations is planned for 2025 meaning that homes built to that standard will be net zero ready and should need no significant work to ensure that they have zero carbon emissions as the grid continue to decarbonise. Compared to varied local standards, these nationally applied standards provide much-needed clarity and consistency for businesses, large and small, to invest and prepare to build net-zero ready homes.

The improvement in standards already in force, alongside the ones which are due in 2025, demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring new properties have a much lower impact on the environment in the future. In this context, the Government does not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale. Any planning policies that propose local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulation should be rejected at examination if they do not have a well-reasoned and robustly costed rationale that ensures:

  • That development remains viable, and the impact on housing supply and affordability is considered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
  • The additional requirement is expressed as a percentage uplift of a dwelling’s Target Emissions Rate (TER) calculated using a specified version of the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP).

Where plan policies go beyond current or planned building regulations, those polices should be applied flexibly to decisions on planning applications and appeals where the applicant can demonstrate that meeting the higher standards is not technically feasible, in relation to the availability of appropriate local energy infrastructure (for example adequate existing and planned grid connections) and access to adequate supply chains.” (key passages underlined).

Isn’t all this where national development management policies would be particularly useful?

Simon Ricketts, 24 February 2024

Personal views, et cetera

Back To Big: Amended Class MA

My 13 February 2024 blog post The RUBR Hits The Road: Residential Urban Brownfield Regeneration covered the various announcements by the Secretary of State that day. But, of course, that afternoon also saw the loosening of significant restrictions on existing permitted development rights to convert commercial buildings into residential use.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024 comes into force on 5 March 2024.

It makes two major changes to the class MA right (class E commercial, business and service uses to class C3 residential use) that came into force on 21 April 2021. First, the 1,500 sq m floorspace upper limit for building changing use under the right is removed. Secondly, the removal of the requirement that the building must have been vacant for a continuous period of at least 3 months immediately prior to the date of an application for prior approval.

This has been a topsy turvy ride.

First of all, of course, from 2013 class O allowed conversion of offices to residential with relatively limited matters in respect of which the local planning authority could require prior approval and with no limitation on the size of building that could be converted (initially a temporary mechanism that was made permanent in 2015). In 2017 new permitted development rights were introduced to enable conversion of light industrial buildings as well as those falling within the old use A1 and A2 use classes (500 sq m and 150 sq m respectively).

Once the new commercial use class E was introduced by way of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (in force from 1 September 2020), the Government consulted on various proposed new permitted development rights, including the right “for the change of use from any use, or mix of uses, within the Commercial, Business and Service use class (Class E – see paragraph 12 above) to residential use (C3). The right would replace the current rights for the change of use from office to residential (Part 3, Class O of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order), and from retail etc to residential (Part 3, Class M of the General Permitted Development Order) which remain in force until 31 July 2021. (See also Part 3 of this consultation document in respect of consequential changes.) It will go significantly beyond existing rights, allowing for restaurants, indoor sports, and creches etc to benefit from the change use to residential under permitted development rights for the first time. The protections in respect of pubs, including those with an expanded food offer, theatres, and live music venues, all of which are outside of this use class, continue to apply and a full planning application is always required for the change of use to or from such uses.

The Commercial, Business and Service use class applies everywhere in all cases, not just on the high street or in town centres. In order to benefit from the right premises must have been in the Commercial, Business and Service use class on 1 September 2020 when the new use classes came into effect.”

“Building on the delivery success of the permitted development right for the change of use from office to residential, it is proposed that there be no size limit on the buildings that can benefit from the right. The right would allow for the building, or part of the building, to change use, rather than lying vacant for example. It is recognised that some retail and office buildings in particular could be a substantial size, and therefore result in a significant number of new homes, the impacts of which would be managed through prior approvals. Permitted development rights do not apply to development that is screened as requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment.”

So at that point the Government was considering not imposing any floorspace limitation. However the Government listened to the outcome of that consultation process. From its consultation response (31 March 2021):

“Question 1: Do you agree that there should be no size limit on the buildings that could benefit from the new permitted development right to change use from Commercial, Business and Service (Class E) to residential (C3)?

10 There were 711 responses to the question, with strong opposition to the proposal. Less than a third were supportive of there being no size limit to the right.

11. Views were expressed as to the impact the measure might have on the viability of the high street. For instance, if it encouraged large numbers of residents to move into the area, this would place additional demands on local services, schools, traffic and parking. It was also suggested that this right could support a trend towards ‘out of town’ shopping while town centres became more residential. Views were expressed about the economic impact that the loss of larger commercial units could have on an area. It was also suggested that the lack of size limit could have far reaching and unintended consequences for local areas and could change the character of those areas. There were some suggestions that there should be a size limit, including that it applies only to ‘smaller shops’.

12. Other respondents felt that the right allowed for the more effective use of buildings, addressing the decline in retail, and changing ways of working, and that a size limit would inhibit such development. There was a view that the change of use of vacant buildings should be supported. Some stated that the policy would result in the loss of neighbourhood parades of shops and local facilities, with a threat to “20 Minute Neighbourhoods” – that is, places where residents have easy, convenient access to many of the places and services they use daily. Views were also expressed as to the potential loss of health services, nurseries and day centres and what impact this might have.”

“47. Reflecting responses to Question 1 that the right should only apply to smaller buildings, the right will provide for up to 1,500 sq m of floorspace to change use. To go further, reflecting comments on the potential impact on business, the building must have been vacant for at least three continuous months. This will help focus the right on smaller buildings that may more easily change use, and which are already vacant, thereby protecting existing businesses. Larger buildings may continue to be brought forward for redevelopment under a planning application, and in such cases may attract affordable housing.”

Accordingly, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021 which came into force on 21 April 2021 imposed a cap of 1,500 sq m on the floorspace that could be converted within a building as well as the requirement that the floorspace should have been vacant for at least three months leading up to the date of the prior approval application.

There was then a further consultation last year on “additional flexibilities to support housing delivery, the agricultural sector, businesses, high streets and open prisons; and a call for evidence on nature-based solutions, farm efficiency projects and diversification” (24 July 2023):

“21. The permitted development right currently allows up to 1,500 square metres of Commercial, Business and Service use to change use to residential; this could allow, for example, the delivery of up to 20 two bed homes. To provide greater flexibility for owners and support housing delivery, it is proposed that the right is amended to allow more floorspace to change to residential use. Increasing the cumulative floorspace that may change use in an existing building could have significant benefits for housing delivery, particularly for larger sites. We are seeking views on whether the size cap should be doubled to 3,000 square metres or removed to provide no limitation on the amount of floorspace that can change use.”

“22. The existing permitted development right requires that the premises be vacant for a continuous period of at least 3 months immediately prior to the date of the application for prior approval. This was introduced to safeguard against businesses being displaced. However, we believe the requirement may be ineffective and could result in property being left vacant for longer periods. In order to provide greater flexibility for owners, enable more premises to change use, and therefore to deliver additional homes, it is proposed that this vacancy requirement is removed.”

The latest changes are the outcome of that consultation although we don’t have any analysis yet of the consultation responses and what may have changed so decisively between the 2021 and 2023 consultation processes. Last week’s statutory instrument was accompanied by an explanatory memorandum  and there is no more detail as to the background to the latest changes than this:

“7.1 Permitted development rights have an important role to play in the planning system. They are an important tool to support growth by providing certainty and removing the time and money needed to submit a planning application. Permitted development rights can incentivise certain forms of development and provide flexibilities and planning freedoms to different users, including businesses, local authorities and local communities.

7.2 There are a number of permitted development rights that allow for the change of use from a variety of existing uses to dwellinghouses. These rights make an important contribution to housing delivery. In the eight years to March 2023, permitted development rights for the change of use have delivered 102,830 new homes to rent or to buy. In the last year 9,492 homes were delivered under these rights, representing 4% of overall housing supply.”

“10.2 There were just under 1,000 consultation responses received. The Government response to the consultation will be published in due course. A summary of responses to the relevant Class MA questions is provided below.

10.3 The consultation sought views on either removing or doubling the limit on the cumulative floor space of an existing building that can change use. Those that supported removing or doubling the floor space limit cited positive impacts on housing supply, with greater flexibility and planning certainty encouraging the delivery of dwellinghouses that might not otherwise have come forward under a planning application. Those that did not support amending the floorspace limit thought that larger schemes would benefit from local authority consideration under a planning application owing to the greater number of planning matters that can inform the decision making process. It was also noted that the permitted development right could impact on the quality of housing delivered.

10.4 The consultation sought views on removing the requirement that a building must have been vacant for a continuous period of at least 3 months immediately prior to the date of an application for prior approval. Those that supported the removal of the vacancy requirement considered that it would streamline the permitted development right for the change of use of commercial, business and service uses to dwellinghouses, speeding up housing delivery, and avoiding unnecessary periods of vacancy. Those that did not support the proposal were concerned that removing the vacancy requirement would result in viable businesses closing or being displaced.”

So, in summary, as from 5 March 2024 any building which has been in lawful class E use for at least 2 years prior to the submission of the prior approval application, may be converted to residential use, as long as various protective designations do not apply, and as long as (if required by the local planning authority) prior approval has been obtained as to:

“(a) transport impacts of the development, particularly to ensure safe site access;

(b) contamination risks in relation to the building;

(c) flooding risks in relation to the building;

(d) impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development;

(e) where—

(i) the building is located in a conservation area, and

(ii) the development involves a change of use of the whole or part of the ground floor, the impact of that change of use on the character or sustainability of the conservation area;

(f) the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses;

(g) the impact on intended occupiers of the development of the introduction of residential use in an area the authority considers to be important for general or heavy industry, waste management, storage and distribution, or a mix of such uses; and

(h) where the development involves the loss of services provided by—

(i) a registered nursery, or

(ii) a health centre maintained under section 2 or 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006

the impact on the local provision of the type of services lost.”

The Government’s nationally described space standards must also be met.

By way of reminder, these class MA conversions are not of course subject to requirements as to affordable housing and contributions to schools, health provision and so on.

Desperate measures! No doubt some authorities will contemplate a protective rear-guard action by way of introducing further article 4 directions, although DLUHC has been vigilant in modifying those orders which it considers are wider than is appropriate.

Simon Ricketts, 17 February 2024

Personal views, et cetera

extract from photograph by Sergei Wing via Unsplash

The RUBR Hits The Road: Residential Urban Brownfield Regeneration

“Building homes on brownfield land will be turbocharged under a major shake-up to planning rules to boost housebuilding while protecting the Green Belt. “

For a concise summary of today’s DLUHC announcements and all the links, see my Town Legal colleague Susie Herbert’s post.

I have seen some understandable cynicism about the proposed changes – along the lines of “it’s motivated by the politics” (obviously in part yes); and/or “it’s in dribs and drabs, why couldn’t this have been done as part of the December 2023 NPPF changes?” (well yes, although maybe better late than never?); and/or ”none of it will make a difference” (I’ll declare an interest having assisted British Land and Land Sec in a small way last year with their report More Growth, More Homes, More Jobs: how to reform the planning system to unlock urban regeneration – but I would have said this anyway – I think the announced changes could well make a difference – and in fact there are plenty more within that report that are worthy of consideration!).

There is of course already existing policy encouragement (albeit rather general) in paragraph 124 (c) of the NPPF, which states that planning policies and decisions should “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs.”

The Government proposes to strengthen that message with the following additional wording within paragraph 129 (c):

“local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework, especially where this involves land which is previously developed. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible and take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight and  internal layouts of development, where they would otherwise inhibit making the most efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).” [new passages underlined]

I do think this does move the dial further with those references to “delivering as many homes as possible” and (particularly in London) the “flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to …  internal layouts of development”.

The dial will then move into full “tilted balance” paragraph 11 (d) territory for those boroughs in London and those other 19 towns and cities subject to the urban uplift, where their Housing Delivery Test results (to be published in May) indicate that their delivery of housing was below 95% of the housing requirement over the previous 3 years.

For an indication of the potential outturn of those results see Ross Raftery’s excellent Lichfields blog post today, Testing times for England’s big cities – an extended reach for the presumption and other NPPF changes.

This strengthening of the tests is likely to make a difference (even during this consultation period): it will influence the way that planning committees are advised when they come to make decisions; it will focus a broader spread of authorities on the potential consequences of not meeting delivery targets (admittedly not fully within their control, but certainly partly), and it will certainly influence how inspectors and the Secretary of State approach appeals and call-ins.

In London there is also much good analysis in the excellent report prepared by Christopher Katkowski KC and his panel. From the executive summary:

“6 The consequences of housing under-delivery have significant economic, societal and personal impacts, not least on those who face no alternative option but homelessness (living in temporary accommodation), or who are forced into poor-quality rental accommodation.

7 Public and private sector stakeholders are clear in their view that the London Plan is not the sole source of the problem: wider macro-economic conditions; fire safety; infrastructure constraints; statutory consultees; viability difficulties; and planning resourcing pressures have all contributed.

8 However, there is persuasive evidence that the combined effect of the multiplicity of policies in the London Plan now works to frustrate rather than facilitate the delivery of new homes, not least in creating very real challenges to the viability of schemes. We heard that policy goals in the Plan are being incorrectly applied mechanistically as absolute requirements: as ‘musts’ rather than ‘shoulds’. There is so much to navigate and negotiate that wending one’s way through the application process is expensive and time-consuming, particularly for SMEs who deliver the majority of London’s homes.

9 This position is exacerbated by the change in context since the London Plan was formulated. The London Plan’s ‘Good Growth’ policies were advanced on the basis of public and private sector investment assumptions that were described in 2019 as being “ambitious but realistic” by the London Plan Inspectors. But planning and housing delivery indicators suggest this strategy has not been sufficiently resilient to the subsequent change in circumstances. Housing schemes (and decision makers on applications) have struggled to reconcile the multiple policy exhortations, which create uncertainty and delay in the preparation, submission and determination of planning applications.”

Many will also welcome the Secretary of State including within his consultation paper the question as to whether the threshold for referral of applications to the Mayor should be raised:

“As part of the large scale development theme, a threshold for large scale residential development was first set in the previous regulations in 2000 as development providing more than 500 houses, flats, or houses and flats or residential development on more than 10 hectares. In 2008, this threshold was reduced to 150 houses, flats or houses and flats.

Through engagement, the government is aware that in some instances this threshold is considered to be too low, requiring what may amount to duplicative interactions by developers with the relevant London Borough and with the Greater London Authority which is not always considered proportionate to the nature of the development in question.

The government wants to make sure that this threshold is set at the right level, in order that it adds value to the process of determining applications for potential strategic importance (especially for residential development), and does not inadvertently slow down or disincentivise developments that could be appropriately determined by the London Borough.”

In conclusion, will building homes on brownfield land be “turbocharged under a major shake-up to planning rules”? It’s more a ratcheting-up of policy than a “major shake-up to planning rules” (thankfully). And whilst I refuse to engage with that ridiculous, very Boris Johnson, word “turbocharged” and whilst this is a very late initiative for a Government that is fast running out of road, let’s hope there is at least some acceleration as a result.

Simon Ricketts, 13 February 2024

Personal views, et cetera

The Weighting Game

 I was going to call this blog post National Lottery but then I remembered I’ve already used that strapline back in 2019. 7 years of this blog, 408 posts – round and round the same track we go.

Much has already been written about the Secretary of State’s decision letter dated 6 February 2024 in which he granted planning permission for the redevelopment of the former London Television Centre, on London’s south bank (NB paragraph 1 of the Secretary of State’s letter curiously describes it as an appeal against refusal of the application by Lambeth Council, which it was not – Lambeth was supportive and had resolved to grant planning permission before the Secretary of State intervened by calling in the application).

See eg Zack Simon’s post as to what the decision may tell us as to the question of “beauty”, Nicola Gooch’s post on severability  (although maybe the applicant didn’t have Hillside severability in mind so much as simply phasing for CIL purposes?) and Andy Black’s post on the some of the wider implications of the decision.

I’m not going to duplicate any of those posts. I’m just going to use another aspect of the decision as a jumping off point both for sympathising with all parties who spend vast amounts of time and money at risk on these sorts of application and appeal processes and for giving a small jab at us lawyers.

Because the decision essentially turned on one thing: the Secretary of State having (crucially) found that there was compliance with the development plan as a whole (despite some conflict with individual policies), the pivot was whether there were material considerations which indicated that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan – or, more basically, how much relative weight the Secretary of State decided to apply to the public benefits arising from the scheme as against the harms arising from the scheme (whilst applying the appropriate tests in relation to elements of “heritage” harm, for instance requiring “clear and convincing justification” by way of the public benefits arising). To quote the key paragraphs:

“35. Weighing in favour of the proposal are the employment generating opportunities for the Borough in the construction phase as well as the operational phase of the development, which both carry substantial weight, the placemaking benefits delivered by the public realm strategy which carry substantial weight, and the commitment towards an employment and skills strategy over and above the policy requirements as well as the provision of affordable creative workspace which carries moderate weight.

36. Weighing against the proposal is the less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets of the RNT, the IBM building, Somerset House, the South Bank CA and the Roupell Street CA, which carries great weight. The Secretary of State has also found that the proposal would not provide a positive contribution to the townscape of the South Bank, which carries moderate weight.

37. The Secretary of State has considered the heritage balance set out at paragraph 208 of the Framework (formerly paragraph 202). He has noted public benefits deriving from the public realm strategy, as well as the other public benefits identified in paragraph 35 above. However, he has also identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the RNT, the IBM building and Somerset House, and to the South Bank CA and Roupell Street CA. Having carefully weighed up the relevant factors, he has concluded that the public benefits of the proposal do outweigh the harm to designated heritage assets. Therefore, in his judgement, the balancing exercise under paragraph 208 of the Framework (formerly paragraph 202) is favourable to the proposal.

38. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that the accordance with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate that permission should be granted.”

Of course, a huge amount of expert evidence was given at the inquiry over 12 sitting days by the parties as to each of these matters and the weight to be applied to each of them, but if the Secretary of State had chosen to give less weight to the public benefits set out in paragraph 35, the decision would probably have gone the other way. How much weight the Secretary of State (or any decision maker) gives to such considerations is very difficult to predict – it is quintessentially a matter of planning (whisper political) judgment. (Similarly his decision as to whether, despite non-compliance with some individual policies, there was compliance with the development plan as a whole).

The weighting is particularly interesting, given that he was more bearish than the inspector (who had recommended that permission be granted) on various aspects, including:

  • whether “the scale of the building and the proposed massing provides an appropriate response to the site”
  • finding negative elements to the effects on townscape
  • disagreeing that “the proposed palette of materials and the aesthetic appearance of the building is appropriate for what is a very prominent and sensitive site. He disagrees with the Inspector that an attractive development would be delivered.”

The Planning Practice Guidance summarises the legal position as to the weight to be given to material considerations:

“What weight can be given to a material consideration?

The law makes a clear distinction between the question of whether something is a material consideration and the weight which it is to be given. Whether a particular consideration is material will depend on the circumstances of the case and is ultimately a decision for the courts. Provided regard is had to all material considerations, it is for the decision maker to decide what weight is to be given to the material considerations in each case, and (subject to the test of reasonableness) the courts will not get involved in the question of weight.

Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 21b-009-20140306

Revision date: 06 03 2014”

And as for public benefits:

“What is meant by the term public benefits?

The National Planning Policy Framework requires any harm to designated heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental objectives as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 8). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and not just be a private benefit. […]

Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 18a-020-20190723

Revision date: 23 07 2019”

To quote Lindblom LJ in East Staffordshire Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  (Court of Appeal, 30 June 2017):

“Planning decision-making is far from being a mechanical, or quasi-mathematical activity. It is essentially a flexible process not rigid or formulaic. It involves, largely, an exercise of planning judgment, in which the decision-maker must understand relevant national and local policy correctly and apply it lawfully to the particular facts and circumstances of the case in hand, in accordance with the requirements of the statutory scheme. The duties imposed by section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act leave with the decision-maker a wide discretion.”

We often pretend that planning decision-making to be a quasi-scientific, quasi-judicial process. But it’s really nothing of the sort. We lawyers can seek to ensure that all material considerations are taken into account, that immaterial considerations are not taken into account, that thresholds and criteria in specific statutory and policy tests are taken into account and that the decision-maker’s reasoning is adequate and rational. We can apply our forensic experience to ensure that the necessary evidence is brought forward and is presented as persuasively as possible – and can stress-test the evidence against us. But beyond that, rather than anything resembling the scales of justice, there is a black box in which there is simply the exercise of planning judgment. (I’m not complaining about that – that is the essence of the role of the planner I would have thought).

My jab at us lawyers is simply that perhaps we do not stress strongly and frequently enough to clients how unscientific the planning application and appeal process is. We are often asked to indicate what the odds are on a proposal finding favour with the decision-maker: what are the percentage prospects of success? This is an entire reasonable question to ask, because otherwise how can the client carry out a proper cost benefit analysis of whether the process is likely to be a worthwhile investment? But save for rare examples of cases which mainly turn on the correct interpretation of a particular policy, we have so little to go on other than analysis (which is often not sufficiently objective and evidence-based and possibly infected by eg optimism bias) of previous trends in decision-making to see what weight has previously been applied to various material considerations, in differing circumstances and permutations – trends which in any event do not amount to formal precedents.

I’m not even sure that appeal odds can be given which are much more than, say:

  • Less than 35 – 40% ie very unlikely to succeed given significant technical or legal hurdles to be overcome.
  • Circa 50% ie yes it’s arguable but it’s going to come down to whether there has been development plan compliance as a whole and the weight that the decision-maker gives to competing material considerations
  • Circa 60% – 65% ie a scheme which appears to be policy compliant and to meet the relevant legislative and policy tests

Would anyone be prepared to bet good money on the basis of assuming prospects materially higher than 65%? In my view it would need to be an unusual case turning on relatively binary issues.

Factors which lead to additional variability:

  • The scale of the development proposal, the range of potential issues and process timescale (will the decision maker or other circumstances in fact change along the way?!)
  • Cases where the principal live issues give rise to a large element of subjectivity, in relation to matters such as design or townscape
  • Is this a Secretary of State decision (ie in relation to an application which he has called in or an appeal he has recovered for his own determination)? – again this inevitably makes the outcome less predictable, both due to the influence of “politics” but due to the additional delays thereby arising (see above)
  • Political/media interest or pressure
  • Unusual proposals and/or where the decision-maker does not have a relevant or consistent track record.

When set against the scale of investment required to promote a large scheme at inquiry or indeed to defend against it, these may be sobering thoughts.

Simon Ricketts, 9 February 2024

Personal views, et cetera

PS Since I left Twitter I have experimented with a few social media platforms. None are ideal but, now that it is finally public access, you could give Bluesky a go. I share these posts there (my account is here) and on LinkedIn and you may find some related content.

Scheme image courtesy of CO-RE website

Treasure Hunt: LURA Commencement Regulations & Transitional Provisions

Peter Ellis sent me overnight a judgment in the Chancery Division of the High Court from Friday: Cotham School v Bristol City Council (HHJ Paul Matthews, 2 February 2024) – part of the convoluted saga of whether some school playing fields had been wrongly registered as a town green. Peter particularly liked, as do I, the judge’s quote from George Bernard Shaw (paragraph 12):

“This kind of legal treasure hunt, searching in the interstices of secondary legislation for the text of the currently applicable law, and holding several inconsistent ideas in your mind simultaneously, is certainly not for the faint-hearted. How lay people can deal with it is beyond me. Little wonder that George Bernard Shaw once wrote that professions “are all conspiracies against the laity” (Preface to The Doctor’s Dilemma, 1906).”

Nice one. Whether we’re laity or lawyers, “treasure hunt” is exactly how it feels as we try to work out when, how and if elements of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 will be brought into force.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024  were made on 25 January 2024. (They followed a completely irrelevant (as far as we are concerned) set of commencement provisions made on 18 December 2023 with an even more snappy title: The Elections Act 2022 (Commencement No. 11, Transitional Provisions and Specified Day) and Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2023).

So what do the latest Regulations achieve?

As of 31 January 2024 a whole range of provisions relevant to the planning system has been switched on, namely:

“(a) [  ]

(b) [  ]

(c)section 94 (national development management policies: meaning);

(d)section 106 (street votes), so far as it confers a power to make regulations and so far as it relates to the provisions of Schedule 9 brought into force by paragraph (q);

(e)section 107 (street votes: community infrastructure levy), so far as it confers a power to make regulations;

(f)section 123 (duty in relation to self-build and custom housebuilding);

(g)section 129 (hazardous substances consent: connected applications to the Secretary of State);

(h)section 140 (enforcement of community infrastructure levy);

(i)section 180 (acquisition by local authorities for purpose of regeneration);

(j)section 181 (online publicity), so far as it confers a power to make regulations;

(k)section 184 (corresponding provision for purchases by Ministers), so far as it relates to the provisions of Schedule 19 brought into force by paragraph (r);

(l)section 185 (time limits for implementation);

(m)section 186 (agreement to vary vesting date);

(n)section 187 (common standards for compulsory purchase data);

(o)section 188 (‘no-scheme’ principle: minor amendments);

(p)Schedule 5 [  ]

(q)paragraph 1 (Town and Country Planning Act 1990), sub-paragraphs (6) to (10) of Schedule 9 (street votes: minor and consequential amendments), so far as they confer a power to make a development order;

(r)paragraph 1 (online publicity) of Schedule 19 (compulsory purchase: corresponding provision for purchases by Ministers), so far as it confers a power to make regulations.”

 However, care is needed. In most cases, the bringing into force of these sections simply enables the Secretary of State to introduce the actual changes without any changes yet “on the ground”. Looking through the sections, the only exceptions to that in the above list (save for some minor and unexciting tweaks to the wording of some provisions)  appear to be various provisions in relation to compulsory purchase – eg acquisition for “improvement” can include “regeneration”; the possibility for the confirming authority to provide for an implementation deadline of more than three years, and the possibility for the authority to agree a postponed vesting date and minor amendments to the “no scheme” principle in section 6D of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (from the explanatory notes at the end of the Regulations: “These sections provide that where land is acquired for regeneration or redevelopment which is facilitated or made possible by a relevant transport project, the ‘scheme’ includes the relevant transport project. The amendments ensure that the definition of ‘scheme’ includes any re-development, regeneration and improvement that form part of the ‘scheme’).

As of 12 February 2024 the biodiversity net gain regime is switched on (albeit, as we know, with later dates for minor development and for NSIPs).

As of 30 April 2024, section 190 of the Act (power to require prospects of planning permission to be ignored) comes into force, in relation to England. This is the big “ignore hope value in some situations” one – from the explanatory notes: “The amendments allow confirming authorities, in relation to certain public sector acquiring authorities exercising certain CPO powers, to direct that the value associated with the following matters are not payable, provided doing so is in the public interest: (a) the prospect of the grant of a planning permission; and (b) compensation for the loss of the potential of development for which there was a reasonable expectation that planning permission would have been granted in the absence of the CPO”) and as of 31 January 2025 section 189 of the Act (prospects of planning permission for alternative development) comes into force (from the explanatory notes: “The amendments make various changes including to when prospective planning permission is to be treated as certain, what certificates of appropriate alternative development should contain, to clarify when the relevant planning date falls, whether account should be taken of the expenses incurred in the issue of a certificate, and corresponding amendments to the process of appeals to the Upper Tribunal against certificates”)– I’ll leave others to look at these in more detail. There are transitional provisions set out in Regulation 6 of the Regulations.

Ugh, that was hard yards. NB if you want to understand what drives me to continue writing these interminable posts, you might want to listen to the latest Hitting the High Notes/50 Shades of Planning podcast, where Sam Stafford interviews me and asks me exactly that question, maybe not quite in those terms. Listen here .

Simon Ricketts, 4 February 2024

Personal views, et cetera