Month: March 2024

GB News, Hertfordshire Edition

Some of the planning bar was all-caps aplenty on LinkedIn this week in relation to a couple of Hertfordshire green belt appeal decisions by the Secretary of State:

Before I discuss these (together with in fact a third one – take a bow David Hardy and team), I thought I would share with you some statistics. I have been looking at DLUHC’s list of called in planning application decisions and recovered appeal decisions to get a feel for the recent pass/fail rate and the extent to which the Secretary of State is departing from inspectors’ recommendations (a feature of two out of three of the recent decisions).

In relation to call in decisions over the last year, the Secretary of State has approved 5 out of 8. In 4 of them (half!) he has reached a different decision to that which the inspector recommended – two approvals against recommendation, two refusals against recommendation (although one of the latter – M&S Oxford Street – is of course back for redetermination).

In relation to recovered appeals, there have been 17 decisions – 10 allowed and 7 dismissed. In 5 of them he has reached a different conclusion to that which the inspector recommended – two allowed against recommendation, three dismissed against recommendation.

I’m not sure what you take from this back of the envelope calculation other than how unpredictable the process is. I feel I need to point again to my 9 February 2024 blog post, The Weighting Game .

Turning to these Hertfordshire green belt decisions…

Tring

This was an appeal against Dacorum Borough Council’s refusal of an application for planning permission for up to 1,400 dwellings (including up to 140 falling within use class C2), a new local centre, sports/community hub, primary school, secondary school and public open space on land bound by Bulbourne Road and Station Road, bisected by Marshcroft Lane, Tring, Hertfordshire. The site is in the green belt and surrounded on three sides by the Chiltern area of outstanding natural beauty. By his decision letter dated 15 March 2024 he disagreed with his inspector’s recommendations and refused planning permission.

The Secretary of State found that Dacorum has a significant housing land supply deficit – its supply stands at just 2.06 years. The inspector gave moderate weight to the provision of recreational and sporting facilities, whereas the Secretary of State gave this limited weight but, other than that, his findings did not materially depart from those of the inspector. However, it all came down to that tricky issue of weight:

“In line with paragraph 148 (now 153) of the Framework, the Secretary of State has considered whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harms resulting from the development is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Overall, he considers that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other identified harms relating to impact on character and appearance, setting of the AONB, harm to designated and non- designated heritage assets and loss of agricultural land. He therefore considers that [very special circumstances] do not exist to justify this development in the Green Belt.”

Chris’ LinkedIn post on the decision is here .

Chiswell Green Lane, St Albans

This was the Secretary of State’s decision letter dated 22 March 2024 in relation to two appeals against refusal by St Albans City and District Council of applications for up to 391 new dwellings, the provision of land for a new school and associated development on land south of Chiswell Green Lane and  for up to 330 discounted affordable homes for key workers, including military personnel, the creation of open space and associated development on land north of Chiswell Green Lane, St. Albans

St Albans’ housing land supply stands at only 1.7 years and its housing delivery test figure stands at 55% (both figures worse at the time of the decision than at the inquiry). Although St Albans’ emerging local plan is still only at regulation 18 stage, the Secretary of State agreed with the inspector that “the Green Belt Review is a material consideration relevant in considering Green Belt matters in the district, and that the relative suitability of strategic sub-area S8 (which both appeal sites fall within), as defined by the Green Belt Review, is an important consideration.” and that the land to be secured for a new school via appeal A should attract significant weight.

In terms of housing:

“The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is a very substantial need for housing in the district which is persistently going unmet, that the Local Plan housing requirement is hopelessly out of date, and that, using the standard method, the Council can demonstrate just a two-year housing land supply at best. He also notes that the latest HDT has been failed by some margin.  Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is triggered, in accordance with footnote 8 to paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.

For the reasons given in IR586-591, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that in the context of such a great housing need, very substantial weight should be attached to the proposed housing.”

Compare and contrast with that Tring decision – Dacorum 2.06 years versus St Albans 1.7 years – hmmm, not much in it is there?

“The Secretary of State has considered whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and the other harms he has identified, are clearly outweighed by other considerations. He considers that they are, and therefore very special circumstances exist to justify permitting the development. As such, the proposed development accords with Policy S1 of the St Stephen Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2036 and Policy 1 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994, and national planning policy on Green Belt.”

Charlie’s LinkedIn post is here .

Great Wymondley

This was a decision dated 11 March 2024 taken on behalf of the Secretary of State in relation to an application, which he had called in, for a proposed solar array with associated battery storage containers and ancillary development including means of access and grid connection cable on land at Graveley Lane and to the east of Great Wymondley, Hertfordshire. The inspector recommended that the application be refused but the Secretary of State disagreed and granted planning permission.

The Secretary of State placed significant weight on the contribution that the scheme would have to renewable energy targets, including “the generation of sufficient electricity to meet the requirements of about 31% of the homes in” North Hertfordshire. He disagreed with the inspector’s conclusion that the development would cause serious harm to the setting of the grade 1 listed Wymondley Priory and a nearby grade II* listed nearby tithe barn and with the inspector’s concerns as to the inadequacies of the site selection process carried out.

In summary (although as always do read the full letter):

“Weighing against the proposal is harm to the Green Belt which carries substantial weight, harm to heritage which carries great weight and uncertainty about mitigation for displaced Skylarks which carries moderate weight. Further to this, harm is found to the impact on views from Graveley Lane and the Hertfordshire Way which carries considerable weight, to the landscape of the site and its immediate surroundings which carries significant weight and to the effect on landscape character area which carries moderate weight.

The Secretary of State has considered paragraph 208 (formerly paragraph 202) of the Framework. He considers that the public benefits of the proposal do outweigh the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets and therefore, in his judgement, the Framework’s heritage balance is favourable to the proposal.

The Secretary of State has considered paragraph 153 (formerly paragraph 148) of the Framework. He considers that the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, and therefore considers that VSCs exist.”

It is so hard to predict outcomes or to establish reliable patterns: three decisions – one allowed in accordance with the inspector’s recommendations, one refused against the inspector’s recommendations and one allowed against the inspector’s recommendations. Rather dispiriting for any inspector, one imagines.

In return for reading this free blog post….

Chris Young is doing a seriously great thing again this year, running the London marathon dressed as a house, for Shelter. Sponsor this qood cause here .

Town Legal partners, staff and their pressganged families are all running, walking, roller-skating etc at least 5km this weekend in aid of XLP, a charity which does life-changing work for disadvantaged young people. I’m checking internally as to whether tapping out 5k words counts but if not I may go walking tomorrow, either in the direction of the Tring appeal site or in the direction of the St Albans one. Or maybe I’ll just head in the direction of my favourite hefty Belties on Blackbird’s Moor. Please help XLP and give me a bit of impetus to keep typing away by sponsoring this good cause here .

Simon Ricketts, 23 March 2024

Personal views et cetera

The Belted Galloways on Boxmoor, Hertfordshire, pic courtesy of the Boxmoor Trust

Water Water Everywhere, Nor Any Drop To Drink

“Day after day, day after day,

We stuck, nor breath nor motion;

As idle as a painted ship

Upon a painted ocean.”

(from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1834)

But that’s all I’m going to say about MIPIM. This post is just a toe dip into (1) flood risk and (2) water scarcity.

Water Water Everywhere

Government policy on planning and flood risk is set out in paragraphs 165 to 175 of the current December 2023 version of the NPPF, supplemented by Government’s Planning Practice Guidance on flood risk and coastal change. The Environment Agency is the Government’s statutory planning consultee on flood risk issues.

The proper interpretation of the Government’s policy on flood risk, and in particular on the risk-based sequential approach to locating development which is at the heart of it, was considered in two recent cases. In relation to each of them I am simply going to point to the relevant Town Library summary (to subscribe for free to our weekly case law and other summaries click here ).

R (Substation Action Save East Suffolk Limited) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Court of Appeal, 17 January 2024)

My colleague Jack Curnow summarised this case here. This was a legal challenge to two development consent orders for the construction of the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms together with associated onshore and offshore development. The environmental statement for the project dealt with flooding from surface water stated that the onshore substations and National Grid Infrastructure were located in areas primarily at low risk of surface water flooding, with some permanent infrastructure (parts of access roads) likely to cross areas at both high risk and medium risk of surface water flooding, with appropriate mitigation measures within the design to address any remaining surface water flood risk concerns. The court held that the sequential approach does not apply to the risk of flooding from surface water, as opposed to the risk of fluvial flooding. Whilst the risk of flooding from surface water is to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant development consent, that is a matter of planning judgment for the decision maker.

Mead Realisations Limited v Secretary of State (Holgate J, 12 February 2024)

My colleague Chatura Saravanan summarised this case here. This case dealt with two challenges to inspectors’ decision letters:

a) a decision to dismiss the appeal by Mead Realisations Limited against the refusal by North Somerset Council for a residential development of up to 75 dwellings; and

b) a decision to dismiss the appeal by Redrow Homes Limited against the refusal by Hertsmere Borough Council for a residential development of up to 310 units and other facilities.

The claims were heard together as they raised the common central issue of what is the correct interpretation and application of the flood risk sequential test. Specifically, Mead and Redrow argued that the Inspectors misinterpreted paragraph 162 (now 168) of the NPPF in identifying what might be “reasonably available” sites under the sequential approach, in that they applied the guidance in paragraph 028 of the PPG, which conflicted with paragraph 162 of the NPPF. This raised the question of whether the PPG did indeed conflict with the NPPF and, if so, whether the NPPF should supersede the PPG.

Holgate J held that there was no rule that the PPG could not be inconsistent with the NPPF:

“As a matter of policy, PPG is intended to support the NPPF. Ordinarily, therefore, it is to be expected that the interpretation and application of PPG will be compatible with the NPPF. However, I see no legal justification for the suggestion that the Secretary of State cannot adopt PPG which amends, or is inconsistent with, the NPPF”.

However he held that in any event there was no conflict in any event:

“The PPG performs the legitimate role of elucidating the open-textured policy in the NPPF. The PPG describes “reasonably available sites” as sites “in a suitable location for the type of development with a reasonable prospect that the site is available to be developed at the point in time envisaged for the development.” The PPG provides for issues as to suitability of location, development type, and temporal availability to be assessed by the decision-maker as a matter of judgment in accordance with the principles set out above. In this context, the PPG correctly states that “lower-risk sites” do not need to be owned by the applicant to be considered “reasonably available.” That is consistent with the need for flexibility on all sides.”

For a number of more detailed arguments raised by the claimants (and all rejected), it’s worth reading the case itself or Chatura’s summary.

Nor Any Drop To Drink

Water scarcity is becoming one of those worrying “neutrality” issues which can cut across the more familiar uncertainties of the planning system – see the ongoing issues in Sussex referred to in my 9 October 2021 blog post Development Embargos: Nitrate, Phosphate & Now Water .

Another area where water scarcity concerns have been raised is of course Cambridge (where Samuel Taylor Coleridge was an undergraduate at Jesus College between 1791 and 1794 – these blog posts aren’t just thrown together). The Secretary of State’s 24 July 2023 long-term plan for housing committed to “transformational change” in Cambridge:

“Proposals will see Cambridge supercharged as Europe’s science capital, addressing constraints that have left the city with some of the most expensive property markets outside London, and companies fighting over extremely limited lab space and commercial property with prices that rival London, Paris and Amsterdam.

These ambitious plans to support Cambridge include a vision for a new quarter of well-designed, sustainable and beautiful neighbourhoods for people to live in, work and study. A quarter with space for cutting-edge laboratories, commercial developments fully adapted to climate change and that is green, with life science facilities encircled by country parkland and woodland accessible to all who live in Cambridge.

Any development of this scale will have substantial infrastructure requirements. The government will deliver as much of the infrastructure and affordable housing as possible using land value capture – with the local area benefiting from the significant increase in land values that can occur when agricultural land is permitted for residential and commercial development. Land values will reflect the substantial contributions required to unlock the development (see annex).

A Cambridge Delivery Group, chaired by Peter Freeman and backed by £5 million, will be established to begin driving forward this project. The Group will work to turn this vision into a reality, taking a lead on identifying the housing, infrastructure, services and green space required. It will also consider options for an appropriate delivery mechanism that will be needed to lead the long-term work on planning, land acquisition and engagement with developers, starting in this Parliament but running through the next few years as development takes shape.”

The Delivery Group was to “take forward immediate action to address barriers such as water scarcity across the city, including:

  • Convening a Water Scarcity Working Group with the Environment Agency, Ofwat, central and local government and innovators across industries to identify and accelerate plans to address water constraints. The Group will include all relevant partners to understand what it would take to accelerate building the proposed new Fens Reservoir and enabling Cambridge to reach its economic potential.
  • Supporting the council in efforts to make sure new developments proposed as part of the local plan can be as sustainable as possible, including whether new houses in planned developments such as Waterbeach and Hartree can be made more water efficient. To support this, the government is announcing today a £3 million funding pot to help support measures to improve the water efficiency of existing homes and commercial property across Cambridge, to help offset demands created by new developments in the local plan.
  • The government will also take definitive action to unblock development where it has stalled, providing £500,000 of funding to assist with planning capacity. Cambridge City Council, Anglian Water, Land Securities PLC and Homes England will work together to accelerate the relocation of water treatment works in Northeast Cambridge (subject to planning permission), unlocking an entire new City quarter – delivering approaching 6,000 sustainable well-designed homes in thriving neighbourhoods – as well as schools, parks and over 1 million square feet of much needed commercial life science research space.”

On 6 March 2024 DLUHC published The case for Cambridge :

“Our first priority is water scarcity, which is holding back development and risks causing environmental harm. It is vital that the city has the water supply it needs to support long-term growth, including a new reservoir in the Fens and a new pipeline to transfer water from nearby Grafham Water. We are also making a one-off intervention to support growth in the shorter-term by delivering water savings through improved water efficiency of appliances in existing buildings that can offset new homes and commercial space.

The government will:

  • Deliver a unique offsetting intervention to save water now through improving efficiency and support sustainable growth – set out in detail in a paper published alongside this document.
  • Issue a joint statement from the Environment Agency, Greater Cambridge Shared Planning, DLUHC and Defra, outlining our commitment to sustainable growth and development on the basis of our water credits scheme.
  • Appoint Dr Paul Leinster to chair the Water Scarcity Group to advise the government on future water resource options, including the reservoir in the Fens and the Grafham Water pipeline.”

Alongside the case for Cambridge document, a joint statement between DLUHC, Defra, the Environment Agency and Greater Cambridge councils (Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire districts) on measures to address water scarcity issues in the area was published on the same day, setting out its proposed scheme to develop, and help to fund, a water credits market “intended to provide greater certainty through:

a. The delivery of water savings measures in the Cambridge Water operating area, supported by the government’s spending.

b. A robust water credit system being in place to assure those water savings and issue credit certificates to developers and housebuilders.

c. Application of enforceable planning mechanisms so that planning permissions are linked to water savings measures in a robust way.”

The focus is of course welcome but water scarcity is increasingly going to be a challenge facing us in many parts of the country– see for instance this 4 September 2023 FT article The UK is at risk of running low on water. Why?   (although the answer to the question in the heading to the article may lie in its sub-heading: “A country famous for its rainy climate faces grave supply issues, after years of poorly managed systems”…)

NB Did you know that 15 out of the 22 albatross species remain threatened with extinction? How stupid are we as a species – and how ignorant of the message of that poem?

Simon Ricketts, 16 March 2024

Personal views, et cetera

An Accelerated Planning System?

How clear do you think you are on the various pulleys and levers that make up the English development management system? A further series of proposed alterations were announced this budget day.

I will restrict this post to DLUHC’s “an accelerated planning system” consultation paper (6 March 2024), which seeks views by 1 May 2024 on “proposals to:

1. introduce a new Accelerated Planning Service for major commercial applications with a decision time in 10 weeks and fee refunds if this is not met

2. change the use of extensions of time, including ending their use for householder applications and only allowing one extension of time for other developments, which links to a proposed new performance measure for local planning authority speed of decision-making against statutory time limits

3. expand the current simplified written representations appeals process for householder and minor commercial appeals to more appeals

4. implement section 73B for applications to vary planning permissions and the treatment of overlapping permissions”

I will leave the 4th strand of that, section 73B, for another day as in order to do that justice I would need to go into some heavy legal engineering detail, but today I will summarise the main components of the rest of the proposals and then wrap up with a few guesses at the more obvious risks to be avoided, if acceleration is indeed to be achieved without unintended adverse consequences.

The Accelerated Planning Service

“9. All local planning authorities will be required to offer an Accelerated Planning Service for major commercial applications [i.e. applications for major commercial development which create 1,000 sqm or more of new or additional employment floorspace, including mixed use developments if they meet the employment floorspace criteria]. The applicant would pay a higher planning fee to the local planning authority which, in exchange, will be required to determine these applications within 10 weeks (rather than the 13-week statutory time limit), with a guarantee that the fee would be refunded if the application is not determined within this timescale.

10. We are exploring two options for the detailed design of this service. Under the first discretionary option, applicants could choose to use the Accelerated Planning Service where their application meets the qualifying criteria or they could use the standard application route for a major development (with a lower fee and longer timescales). A second mandatory option could be that the Accelerated Planning Service is the only available application route for all applications in a given development category. This would have the benefit of clarity and certainty for applicants and local planning authorities but remove the element of choice for the applicant.”

The service would not apply to applications which are for EIA development, although DLUHC is “interested to receive views on whether there is scope for EIA development to also be covered by an Accelerated Planning Service that offers a guaranteed decision before the 16-week statutory time limit.”

“The service would apply to section 73 and 73B applications which seek to vary existing planning permissions for relevant commercial development.”

“Over time, we are keen to explore the extension of the Accelerated Planning Service to similar major infrastructure and residential developments. But we want to ensure the Service works for commercial development before any extension is made, given that there are significantly more residential applications and often a larger number of matters to be considered with these types of applications.”

“The key aim is to ensure that these applications are prioritised through the local planning authority’s own internal processes faster. This would require local planning authorities to: set up efficient case work systems; ensure validation teams, lawyers and internal expertise are on hand; and, where relevant, convene planning committees on time. The availability of a higher planning fee (discussed below) is intended to ensure that local planning authorities have the resources to do this.”

The ten weeks’ deadline would be “used as the trigger point for when appeals can be made against non-determination and for monitoring the performance of local planning authorities”.

DLUHC recognises that it is “crucial that the applications submitted are of good quality with the right information” and to that end proposes that:

  • “local planning authorities should offer a clear pre-application service to potential applicants so they can discuss their proposals, key issues, information requirements and any other issues (such as EIA screening), and we will strongly encourage applicants to use these services… We will ensure best practice is disseminated across the sector building on the work the Planning Advisory Service has been undertaking on pre-application services”
  • “prior to submitting their application, applicants should notify key statutory consultees which are likely to be engaged that they are making an application under the Accelerated Planning Service… The government will look to use its oversight of statutory consultees to prioritise applications under the Accelerated Planning Service and to monitor their performance. In the meantime, we welcome views about how statutory consultees can best support this accelerated service. In most cases, early pre-application engagement will be important”

“To cover the additional resourcing costs, we propose to set a premium fee for an application through the Accelerated Planning Service… It is proposed that an applicant or the local planning authority would still have the ability to propose an extension of time to the determination of the application (for instance, if there is an outstanding matter which could be readily resolved to make an application acceptable). But such an extension of time should be an exception. An extension of time would not affect any potential refunds… We propose that either all or a proportion of the statutory application fee must be refunded by the local planning authority to the applicant if the application is not determined within the 10-week timescale, even if an extension of time has been agreed. This refund policy differs from the existing Planning Guarantee where a refund is not provided if an extension of time has been agreed.

We have considered whether it is appropriate for the whole fee to be refunded if the application is not determined within the required 10-week period and recognise that if the whole fee is refunded at 10 weeks, in cases where no decision has been made, and the performance target is therefore missed, there is no further incentive for the local planning authority to make a decision on the application. To mitigate this, we consider that there is an alternative option, to stagger the fee refund. For example, if no decision has been made within 10 weeks, the premium part of the fee or 50% of the whole fee could be refunded at that point with the remainder of the fee refunded at 13 weeks, if the application was still undecided.”

As part of the consultation, views are sought as to whether the accelerated planning service should be optional or mandatory.

Planning performance and extension of time agreements

“the government has published a new Planning Performance Dashboard . This dashboard displays performance figures over a 12-month period and includes performance within statutory time limits, excluding extension of time agreements, so a true picture of local planning authority performance figures is accessible. We expect local planning authorities to report on their data from the Planning Performance Dashboard to their planning committees and other stakeholders, in order to drive continual improvements in performance, identify areas of weakness at an early stage, and help inform priorities for service delivery.”

“It is proposed that the new performance thresholds would be:

  • major applications – 50% or more of applications determined within the statutory time limit; and
  •  non-major applications – 60% or more of applications determined within the statutory time limit

The proposed thresholds do not preclude the use of extension of time agreements and planning performance agreements, but the expectation is that such agreements are used only in exceptional circumstances. The proposed threshold is also lower for major applications in recognition that, in more instances, extension of time agreements may still be required due to the more complex nature of the applications and major applications are also more likely to be subject to a planning performance agreement.”

“Following a transition period, it is proposed that we measure performance against both the current measure, which includes extension of time agreements and planning performance agreements, and the new measure, which would cover decisions within statutory time limits only. We would continue to measure major and non-major applications separately.

Local planning authorities would be at risk of designation for speed [of] decision-making in the following circumstances:

 1. if a local planning authority does not meet the threshold for the current measure, inclusive of extension of time agreements and planning performance agreements (as per current regime), or

 2. if a local planning authority meets the threshold for the current measure, inclusive of extension of time agreements and planning performance agreements, but does not meet the new threshold for the proportion of decisions within the statutory time limit, or

 3. if a local planning [authority] does not meet the threshold for both the current and the new measure

Where a local planning authority is designated, applicants may apply to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), rather than the local planning authority, for the category of applications (major, non-major or both) for which the authority has been designated.”

It’s worth clicking into that Planning Performance Dashboard which will provide some welcome transparency as to individual authority performance.

Performance for speed of decision-making is currently assessed across a 24 month period. DLUHC is seeking views as to whether the assessment period should be reduced to 12 months.

Incidentally, whilst there is a reference in the general introductory passages of the consultation paper to only allowing one extension of time, I couldn’t find it in the actual section on the proposals (paragraphs 40 to 46) – can you?

The proposed assessment periods and measures of performance for speed of decision-making are as follows:

DLUHC proposes to remove the ability to use extension of time agreements for householder applications and is considering prohibiting their use where a repeat application is submitted.

Simplified process for planning written representation appeals

There is already an accelerated appeals procedure for householder and small commercial appeals, with for instance no opportunity for additional information to be provided at the appeal stage by the main parties or other interested parties. DLUHC proposes to expand this to a far greater range of written representations appeals, namely:

  • appeals relating to refusing planning permission or reserved matters
  • appeals relating to refusing listed building consent
  • appeals relating to refusing works to protected trees
  • appeals relating to refusing lawful development certificates
  • appeals relating to refusing the variation or removal of a condition
  • appeals relating to refusing the approval of details reserved by a condition
  • appeals relating to the imposition of conditions on approvals
  • appeals relating to refusing modifications or discharge of planning legal agreements
  • appeals relating to refusal of consent under the Hedgerow Regulations
  • appeals relating to anti-social high hedges

Time limits for appealing would remain unchanged but “appeals determined through the simplified route would be based on the appellant’s brief appeal statement plus the original planning application documentation and any comments made at the application stage (including those of interested parties). There would be no opportunity for the appellant to submit additional evidence, to amend the proposal, for additional comments to be made from interested parties or for the main appeal parties to comment on each other’s representations.”

Non-determination appeals would still follow the existing procedure.

What do we think about all this? From a development industry perspective I suspect that the proposals will be cautiously supported, but we all know it is all going to be about the actual implementation, about the proactive management and resources available to authorities and about closing off the obvious loopholes:

  • If there are hard-edged consequences for authorities of not determining applications within ten weeks, won’t some authorities be tempted to persuade applicants to delay submission until they can be sure that the application is oven-ready, or to delay validation (NB we really do need controls on local validation lists which have become lengthy shopping lists)?
  • Won’t we see more refusals where the authority is approaching the relevant determination deadline without being in a position to agree an extension of time and should the appeal costs regime be updated to ensure that authorities do not take this step unreasonably?
  • What about where any delay is not down to the authority (or the authority alone), as is often the case? The exhortation to approach statutory consultees at pre-application stage may not be enough to ensure a timely response.
  • Wouldn’t it be helpful for any guidance to encourage that a greater proportion of decisions are taken by way of delegated powers, particularly where applications are consistent with the relevant local plan?
  • How do we ensure that section 106 agreements are completed in a timely manner, given the lack still of any recommended template and, in particular, the delays caused by the push and pull of negotiations in two tier areas, whether county and district, or London Mayor and borough?
  • Does the idea of excluding third parties from written representations appeals accord with the principles of natural justice if issues arise or arguments made by the main parties which could not have been foreseen at the application stage?
  • Will there be time to introduce the necessary legislation before the election, whenever that may be, and how many of these proposals may in fact ultimately have cross-party support?

In the meantime, two further authorities have been designated for their poor speed in determining applications for non-major development: St Albans and Bristol, meaning that applications for minor development other than householder development and retrospective applications may be made direct to the Planning Inspectorate.

Simon Ricketts, 9 March 2024

Personal views, et cetera

Image by W. Heath Robinson

M&S Mess 2: “The SoS Appears To Have Become Thoroughly Confused On This Point”

Quite a week. I was going to write about the London Mayor’s Large-scale Purpose-built Shared Living London Plan Guidance (29 February 2024) – less prescriptive in relation to co-living than his initial draft as a result of constructive engagement with the industry, well received and good to see – or indeed the Competition and Markets Authority’s final report into housebuilding in England, Scotland and Wales (26 February 2024) – the best analysis of the house building and land promotion industry and indeed opportunities to reform the planning system that I have read. But all that will need to wait because one case has dominated the chat in the last day or so:

Marks & Spencer plc v Secretary of State (Lieven J, 1 March 2024)

This was of course the legal challenge by M&S to the Secretary of State’s refusal of the retailer’s application, which he had called in, for planning permission for the construction of a nine storey new mixed office and retail store to replace its existing store at the western end of Oxford Street.

As to the various stages in the decision making process which led to the Secretary of State’s decision, together with an initial critique at the time of that decision (as well as the statement at the time from the M&S chief executive who had described Mr Gove’s decision as taken “on the whim of one man” and “utterly pathetic”) see my 21 July 2023 blog post, M&S Mess.

Russell Harris KC and Heather Sargent acted for M&S on the legal challenge, together with Dentons. Well done all for the outcome. For the pithiest and precise summary of the outcome you cannot beat Heather’s LinkedIn post yesterday:

“Lieven J has held that:

– The Secretary of State’s statement that “there should generally be a strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, as reflected in paragraph 152 of the [2021 NPPF]” was a misinterpretation of the NPPF and an error of law;

– The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to explain why he disagreed with his Inspector’s conclusions that there was no viable and deliverable alternative to the redevelopment scheme proposed by M&S;  

– The Secretary of State unlawfully failed “to grapple with the implications of refusal and the loss of the benefits and thus departure from important Development Plan policies”;

– The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to provide adequate reasons for concluding (again in disagreement with his Inspector) that the harm to the vitality and viability of Oxford Street if M&S’s scheme (or an alternative) were not delivered would be “limited”; and

– The Secretary of State’s decision was also vitiated both by a factual error (namely, an erroneous understanding that there was no dispute that the proposed scheme would involve much greater embodied carbon than refurbishment) and by a misinterpretation of development plan policy on carbon. The judgment confirms that it is “clear beyond any rational doubt … that the offsetting requirements in [London Plan policy] SI 2C are in relation to operational carbon, and not embodied carbon”.

For the best explainer, a vivid and fascinating piece of prose as ever, you have to read Zack Simons’ 2 March 2024 blog post This is not just *any* judgment: M&S in the High Court.  

My (possibly unfairly) selective quote in the title to this blog post is from paragraph 116 of Lieven J’s judgment where she reports his apparent misunderstanding that the London Plan’s requirement for carbon off-setting applies to embodied carbon rather than just operational carbon (ground 5). She goes on to conclude:

“120 It would be astonishing if one of the key policies in the London Plan on carbon emissions could have suddenly expanded the scope of the off-setting requirements in such a significant way without anyone applying it in this way before. The approach of the SoS appears to believe that there is a “net zero” requirement of, or at least aspiration for, construction impacts, in a key Development Plan policy which has never previously been applied.

121 It is important to make clear that this case is not about whether or not it would be appropriate or justified to have such a policy in the light of the climate emergency. Such a judgement is not the function of the court. The issue for the court is whether the SoS erred in law by misinterpreting the adopted London Plan policy.”

The only further comment I would add at this point is that this saga is not yet at an end. The effect of the judgment is that (absent any application by the Government Legal Department to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal)  the application goes back to the Secretary of State to be redetermined. No doubt the parties will need to be given the opportunity to make further representations. It will take months. Indeed, who will be the Secretary of State by then?

Paragraph 152 of the previous version of the NPPF, on which ground 1 turned, survives unchanged as paragraph 157 of the latest version of the NPPF but will any relevant policy changes be made before the final outcome of the redetermination process? We know from the Government’s December 2023 Future Homes and Buildings Standards consultation:

“ Embodied carbon, the carbon emissions generated from the production and transportation of building materials, construction process and maintenance of a building – is beyond the scope of this consultation and the existing Building Regulations. We recognise, however, that embodied carbon is a significant contributor to the whole life carbon of a building and that it is therefore crucial that we take steps to address it. The government intends to consult on our approach to measuring and reducing embodied carbon in new buildings in due course” (paragraph 1.1.4)

At a local level,  and as an example of how life constantly edges on, Westminster City Council also adopted on 28 February 2024 (I said it was a busy week)  its new Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD, which is intended to become a material consideration in decision making from 7 March 2024, with, amongst other things, a swingeing increase in carbon off-set payments (see brief Westminster Property Association explainer here).

The Secretary of State’s call-in of this application in June 2022 will so far have caused (assuming, which is not in the bag yet, that planning permission is eventually granted) at least two years’ delay, vast expense and delay for M&S as well as opportunity cost for the most important traditional shopping street in the nation’s capital (for which there is no financial recompense for M&S or for London). There really should be a higher threshold for call-in by the Secretary of State (whatever his or her political persuasion) of decisions which are referable to the Mayor of London (whatever his or her political persuasion). And the “behind the scenes” weighing of planning considerations/political advantage which leads to decisions such as this and that in relation to the Television Centre (see my 9 February 2024 blog post, The Weighting Game) is unfathomable (a word which I was relieved to see I used in my M&S Mess post last year about the Secretary of State’s reasoning on some aspects in his M&S decision).

Finally on this subject, whether as a thumbs up to that M&S legal team, or as a general thank you tip for us planning law bloggers, or as a gesture of support to Russell Harris and most importantly the young people’s charities he is supporting by way of this mad thing, please do sponsor Russell’s Cycle to MIPIM 2024 . He and the rest of them will no doubt shortly setting out and would appreciate any support. When I last looked, he was about £1,500 short of his £11,000 target. As another retailer might say, every little helps.

Simon Ricketts, 2 March 2024

Personal views, et cetera

Extract from photograph by Victor via Unsplash