Intervention

As the saying almost goes, necessity is the mother of intervention.

Remember Rachel Reeves’ 8 July 2024 speech?

“…if we are to put growth at the centre of our planning system, that means changes not only to the system itself, but to the way that ministers use our powers for direct intervention.

The Deputy Prime Minister has said that when she intervenes in the economic planning system, the benefit of development will be a central consideration and that she will not hesitate to review an application where the potential gain for the regional and national economies warrant it.”

Let’s look at the new Government’s interventions so far in relation to planning applications (by way of Angela Rayner calling in applications for her own determination) and in relation to planning appeals (by way of Angela Rayner recovering appeals for her own determination rather than that of planning inspectors – NB outside world, please don’t call these recoveries call-ins!). (And for a basic procedural primer see this House of Commons research briefing).

Quinn/Sittingbourne call-in

It’s topical because of the big news this week – that Rayner has called in Quinn Estates’ two applications for planning permission for a total of up to around 8,400 homes with significant infrastructure and associated development near Sittingbourne – a scheme known as Highsted Park. The call-in letter is dated 7 November 2024 and landed less than three hours before Swale Borough Council’s Planning Committee was due to consider both applications, both of which were recommended for refusal.

The applications will now be determined by her following a public inquiry – as no doubt would have been the case, via appeal, if the Planning Committee had proceeded to determine the applications, so the timing is interesting. Was the call-in partly a political statement of intent, partly just accelerating timescales and/or partly a recognition of the difficulties arising from local determination of schemes of this sheer scale (particularly where the LPA in question has a local plan which is now over seven years old)?

I do sympathise with Swale over the timing (see their press statement ) but I do not agree with complaints on social media from some that Rayner’s letter is in some ways “subverting local democracy”. I would place money on the fact that were it not for Rayner’s intervention (1) if Swale had resolved to approve the applications, there would have been demands for call-in from those against the proposals and (2) if Swale had refused the applications, Quinn would have appealed. So I regard that as a somewhat hollow complaint, particularly given the new (if we can still call it that) Government’s explicit stance in relation to using its powers of intervention.

There isn’t one publicly accessible resource setting out the decisions which the Secretary of State has made to call in or recover applications or appeals respectively (as opposed to the Secretary of State’s final decisions, for which this is a useful resource).

From my research, I think these are the other ones so far since the election:

Chinese Embassy/Royal Mint Court, Tower Hamlets – call-in

Again called in prior to the LPA’s determination of the application, although against the background of Tower Hamlets Council having refused a previous application.

This one is whatever the phrase is in Cantonese for a massive political hot potato. See this 5 November 2024 Guardian piece for a flavour: China blocking UK plans in Beijing amid east London mega-embassy dispute.

SOG Group/Runcorn – call-in

This might be said to be a more traditional call-in situation, following as it did Halton Council’s resolution to approve the application for planning permission for 545 homes (see for example this 18 October 2024 piece by North West Place Rayner calls in SOG’s 545 Runcorn homes. It seems there may be an HSE objection. An inquiry starts 4 February 2025.

Marlow Film Studio – appeal recovered

See eg the Guardian’s 9 October 2024 piece Angela Rayner reconsiders rejected application for Marlow film studio.

Data centre proposals in Iver (Buckinghamshire) and Abbots Langley (Hertfordshire) – appeals recovered

Both inquiries have now taken place, with the outcomes awaited with interest. The decisions to recover were made within a week of Labour coming into government and indeed were referred to in that Reeves speech I mention above.

Have I missed any?

Of course it is also interesting to see where the Secretary of State has decided not to intervene, for instance in relation to the Wimbledon All England Tennis Club’s expansion proposals approved by the London Mayor in September, and indeed in relation to Peel’s proposals for Chatham Docks.

The politics in relation to these decisions as to whether to intervene or not in local decision making is definitely going to be as important to watch as the detailed proposed changes to the NPPF.

Simon Ricketts, 9 November 2024

Personal views, et cetera

Extract from Quinn Estates website, courtesy of Quinn Estates