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.
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 .
“It needs to be borne in mind that the EIA process is intended to be an aid to efficient and inclusive decision making in special cases, not an obstacle-race” (Carnwath LJ as he then was, in R (Jones) v Mansfield District Council (Court of Appeal, 16 October 2003).
The courts continually tell us this, despite so many professionals, politicians and objectors still treating the process of environmental impact assessment as some duller version of Gladiators.
Perhaps if we heeded this message the Government wouldn’t need to tie itself up in knots trying to replace environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment with this still vague idea of environmental outcomes reports (reported by Planning Resource this week as now not likely to progress until 2025!).
I thought about this when looking at this week’s (free subscription) Town Library weekly judgments update – it contains amongst other things two Court of Appeal judgments dealing with particular assessment issues that regularly arise – as to cumulative effects and as to defining the “project“.
First we have R (Substation Action Save East Suffolk v Secretary of State (Court of Appeal, 17 January 2024) which concerned a challenge to development consent orders for the construction of the East Anglia One North and East Anglia Two offshore wind farms with associated onshore and offshore development.
The case has attracted some interest in relation to the court’s determination that the sequential test in relation to flood risk does not apply to the risk of flooding from surface water:
“The relevant provisions of EN-1, the Framework and the PPG do not require an applicant for development consent to demonstrate that whenever there is a risk of flooding from surface water there are no other sites reasonably available where the proposed development could be located in an area of lower surface water flood risk. The risks of flooding from surface water are to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant development consent under section 104 of the 2008 Act. The way in which account is to be taken of that risk raises issues of planning judgment in the application of the relevant provisions of the policies. The judge was correct in her interpretation of the policy and in finding that there was no irrationality or other public law error in the way in which the first respondent dealt with this issue when granting development consent.”
However, it was also interesting to read the the court’s consideration of the extent to which the potential effects on the environment arising from other projects need to be taken into account as cumulative effects. The appellant contended that “certain projects (known as the “Nautilus” and “Eurolink” schemes) have been identified as projects which could connect with the new National Grid substation. An assessment of the effect of those two projects was included in an Extension Appraisal document supplied by the second and third respondents. The appellant contends that the first respondent should have taken that information into account when deciding whether to make the development consent orders but he did not do so.” The reference in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations that the environmental statement must describe the likely significant effects of the development, including “the cumulation of effects with other existing and/or approved projects” is regarded as somewhat of a minefield.
The court ducked whether these potential future projects were to be regarded as “existing or approved” because the decision maker lawfully deferred consideration of the cumulative effects on the basis that there was not yet any adequate information on which a cumulative assessment could be based. “Such information as was available on the likely effects of other potential projects was not relevant to the assessment of the significant effects of the projects forming part of the applications for development consent in the present case.”
EIA pragmatism exhibit #1.
Secondly we have R (Together Against Sizewell C) v Secretary of State (Court of Appeal, 20 December 2023) which concerned a challenge to a development consent order for the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power station. The challenge related to Habitats Regulations Assessment rather than environmental impact assessment but the principles read across. It was argued that the Secretary of State was wrong in law to treat the permanent supply of water to Sizewell C as not being part of the same project as Sizewell C for the purposes of carrying out an “appropriate assessment” under the Habitat Regulations (“Ground 1”) and that even if the Secretary of State was right to regard the permanent water supply as a separate project, he erred in failing to carry out a cumulative assessment of its effects together with those of Sizewell C itself, as per the Habitats Regulations (“Ground 2”).
Lazily I’m now just going to quote from our Town Library case summary:
“Ground 1
The Court dismissed Ground 1. The Court accepted, firstly, that there was no material difference between the meaning of a “project” under the Habitat Regulations and environmental impact assessment regulations and, secondly, that the principle adopted in previous cases that determining the nature and scope of a project, including whether two or more developments are to be regarded as one project, is a matter for the decision-maker to determine, which can only be subject to judicial review by the court on the grounds of irrationality or other unlawfulness. The Court, although seeking not to be prescriptive, endorsed the factors identified in the Wingfield case as capable of influencing this exercise of judgment.
The Court found no irrationality or any other unlawfulness in the Respondent’s decision, noting not only that he was entitled to reach this decision, but the Court would have reached the same conclusion.
It should also be noted that the Court rejected an argument that the Respondent unlawfully avoided appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations and saw the approach taken as a realistic and legitimate use of the “staged approach” previously approved in case law.
Ground 2
Ground 2 was dismissed by the Court for a number of reasons. These reasons included that it is well established that the consideration of cumulative impacts arising from a subsequent development that is still inchoate may be deferred to a later consent stage. Given that insufficient information was available as to the water supply, the decision to defer assessment by the Respondent was rational and lawful.
The Court rejected the argument that no proper assessment of the impacts would be carried out at the later stage because the construction of Sizewell C would result in the inevitable approval of the water supply proposal. There was no evidential basis for assuming that regulators would fail to carry out their statutory duties to assess the adverse effects of the water supply. The Court also rejected the argument that deferral was irrational because of a risk of Sizewell C not being operational in the absence of a water supply, as there was a reasonable level of certainty a permanent water supply would be provided and further the alternatives would still be subject to appropriate assessment.
There was an interesting Hillside after-tremor this week by way of R (Dennis) v London Borough of Southwark (Holgate J, 17 January 2024) which may prove useful in giving more practical guidance as to the approach to drop-in applications in the context of modern multi-phase masterplan-style permissions.
(For a quick refresher on the Hillside judgment itself, see my 2 November 2022 blog post Running Down That Hillside)
In Dennis an objector challenged the decision by Southwark Council to grant a section 96A (non-material amendments) approval the effect of which was intended to make an outline planning permission for the phased redevelopment and regeneration of the Aylesbury Estate in south east London “severable” (within the meaning of the Hillside judgment) by the insertion of that word into the description of development authorised by the outline planning permission. The claimant contended that the amendment was “material” and therefore outside the scope of section 96A. Southwark Council and the developer, Notting Hill Genesis, submitted that the outline planning permission should be interpreted as “severable” in any event and that the amendment sought was just by way of caution. The amendment was made so as to pave the way for implementation of a drop-in permission for development within one of the phases, which would be inconsistent with what the outline planning permission had authorised. The drop-in application had been resolved to be approved subject to grant of the section 96A application.
There are already a few particular aspects as to the facts which need to be borne in mind before applying the judgment more broadly:
The approach to seeking to make a particular phase “severable”, in Hillside terms, from the rest of the permission was simply by way of introducing the word “severable” into the description of development!
The parties disagreed as to whether the permission was already to be construed as severable but agreed for the purposes of the litigation that if it was not already severable the amendment would be material and therefore fell outside of section 96A. The judge did not reach a ruling that changes to accommodate drop-in applications are necessarily material and of course that will be a matter for the planning judgment of the decision-maker in every case.
The amendment was by way of securing “severability” rather than adjusting the permission so that building it out would not be materially incompatible with what was to come forward by way of a drop-in application.
This is to be contrasted by many Hillside strategies that we see, where alongside submission of the drop-in application care is taken to amend the existing permission to the extent necessary to achieve material physical compatibility – often by way of section 96A because the local planning authority in its planning judgment determines those amendments not to be material. This after all makes sense and, whilst I might have some sympathy for objectors where the strategy is taken that was taken in Dennis, where there would be no control over what might come forward on the severed part of the permission, I don’t have any sympathy where it is perfectly clear what the changes are, by virtue of the drop-in application having been made, accompanied by full assessments of the acceptability of the proposal in the context of the wider consented development and where this is all reported to committee so that everyone is clear and has a full opportunity to make representations to the same extent as if the whole development had been the subject of a fresh application (the Supreme Court’s impractical suggestion in Hillside).
So what did we learn from Dennis, aside from the extent to which Hillside issues remain a menace for all concerned, and aside from being reminded, again, that the Government really should have grasped the nettle and legislated to address the problem in the way that many of us urged (we even provided draft clauses!) rather than sticking with introducing via LURA the very weak section 73B procedural option into the 1990 Act?
Hillside applies as much to outline planning permissions as to full permissions.
Care is needed as to the word “severable” used by the Supreme Court in Hillside. Simply inserting the bare term “severable” into a permission does not make it severable.
Phasing alone does not connote severability. Indeed, “if the inclusion of phasing provisions were to be sufficient to sever a planning permission, whether detailed or outline, that could have consequences which nobody involved in seeking or granting that permission would have envisaged, such as the application of the statutory time limits for the implementation of each separate permission. For example, if the outline permission in Percy Bilton had been treated by the court as severed, the statutory time limits for submitting reserved matters for approval would have applied to each of the resulting discrete permissions and so some of those consents would have become time-expired. That was the issue in the case. Practitioners will therefore need to consider carefully the possible consequences of seeking to argue that a single planning permission should be treated as severed.”
A final point to note is that this case arose not from a challenge to the approval of the drop-in application (quite right, see my 15 December 2023 blog post Permission Incompatibility Not Relevant For The Decision Maker – Court of Appeal In Fiske). The case arose from the attempt of the developer to ensure, by way of the section 96A application, that implementation of that drop-in permission would not lead to a risk that the existing planning permission could no longer be relied on. I would comment that it is of course open to the developer to seek again to amend the permission such that the proposals can proceed.
I noted the statement in Planning Resource from the Public Interest Law Centre, which represented Dennis:
“This is an important judgement for housing campaigners across the country, as large estate redevelopments often unfold from outline planning permissions over time – or ‘phased’ like this. This case scrutinises the method in which developers use ‘drop in’ applications to deviate from what was promised to residents.”
My response would be: What really has been achieved by the challenge? What further assessments will be needed and further opportunity for views to be expressed, as a result of this outcome, that could not have been made in the context of the drop-in application? I’m sceptical.
On a separate note, I was really pleased at the beginning of the week to participate in a joint Landmark Chambers and Town Legal event, looking at the implications of the revised NPPF, chaired by Hashi Mohamed and with other panellists Rupert Warren KC, Anjoli Foster, Meeta Kaur and Sam Stafford. If you missed it (we were hugely oversubscribed), Sam has now put it out online as a 50 Shades of Planning podcast. Listen via this link or on Apple. Spotify etc.
The scale of the current crisis as to where and how to provide accommodation for asylum seekers can be viewed through a succession of High Court planning law cases over the last year or so. This blog post simply seeks to gather the cases in one place.
“Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of asylum seekers requiring accommodation has reached unprecedented levels. The time taken by the Home Office to process asylum applications has slowed. The Home Office had for some time been “block booking” hotel accommodation for use by asylum seekers, a system by which hotel rooms are booked and paid for, usually at preferential rates, whether or not the rooms are in fact used. In October and November 2022, a “processing facility” at Manston became overcrowded. After the overcrowding at Manston, and in light of the increasing pressure on accommodation, the Home Office started to “spot book” hotels to accommodate the overflow. Spot bookings can be released without payment if they are not needed. This approach was controversial with the local authorities in whose areas the hotels were being booked and, in some cases, they sought injunctions to prevent the use of hotels for that purpose. Spot booking was intended as a short-term solution, but the absence of suitable alternative accommodation has led to the continued use of hotels booked in that way.
As a result of the strains on the asylum system, in January 2023, the Home Office approached the Ministry of Defence and other government departments enquiring about availability of Crown Estate assets which could be made suitable in the short term to assist with accommodating asylum seekers.”
One of the main issues which has come to the fore is whether planning permission required to house asylum seekers in hotels. Indeed this is the specific topic covered in a 17 February 2023 House of Commons Library insight paper .
In planning law, sometimes the easiest questions are the hardest, such as: is there a material change of use? We all know that difficulties particularly arise in relation to the use of properties for sleeping accommodation: for instance, where the boundary lines lie between dwellings, co-living developments, student accommodation, elderly living, hotels, hostels and emergency accommodation for those in need whether through homelessness or asylum seeking. I blogged about some of these issues way back in my 1 July 2016 blog post Time To Review The “C” Use Classes?
Since that House of Commons paper, whilst the issue has arisen in various applications by local planning authorities for injunctions to prevent such use, there has been no final determination of the issue. In fact, the lesson to draw from the (I think) only case where an injunction has been upheld, Great Yarmouth Borough Council v Al-Abdin (Holgate J, 21 December 2022), is that the question is specific to the relevant facts, circumstances and policy position in every case. In Great Yarmouth Holgate J upheld an application for the continuation of an interim injunction “restraining the defendants from using or facilitating the use of the Villa Rose Hotel, 30-31 Princes Road, Great Yarmouth, or any other hotel within an area protected by Policy GY6 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2, adopted in December 2021, as a hostel, whether for the accommodation of asylum seekers or at all.”
Holgate J did not need to reach a final conclusion as to whether the use of the hotel was in breach of planning control, but simply had to determine by applying the “balance of convenience” test whether the injunction should continue in effect. However, he did state the following:
“Planning considerations are to do with the character of the use of land. It is common ground that the policies of the development plan may be relevant to that issue. See, for example, Wilson v West Sussex County Council [1963] 2 QB 764, 785. In my judgment Policy GY6 is certainly relevant. It is aimed at protecting a substantial part of the local economy of the borough dependent on tourism. That, in turn, is said to depend upon a collection of tourist facilities, including hotel accommodation.”
“There are some factors pointing against a hostel use. Proposed use would involve no alteration of the premises and in many ways the operation of the premises would be similar to that carried out ordinarily by hotel operators. There would be no dormitories and it is not suggested the accommodation is basic or inexpensive.
On the other hand, there are factors pointing to a hostel use. In this case, unlike others, the Council is aware of how the premises would be used. In part this is based upon their experience of the use of the Victoria Hotel. The premises would be block-booked for a substantial period of time, solely for occupation by people belonging to one cohort, asylum seekers, having nowhere else to live. In addition, as Mr Glason points out, there would be a degree of management of movement of the residents. They are not supposed to be absent for more than three days. The duration of their transient occupation would be determined by their move to the next stage of the asylum process. The accommodation would be paid for ultimately by the Home Office. As I have said, the location of the hotel within the Seafront Area in Policy GY6 is important. The claimant may rely upon that policy as a factor indicating that there would be a breach of planning control.
I have already referred to the increase in the 21-day average stay to something of the order of 26 weeks. There is no suggestion that that period is likely to decrease. The hotel would be closed to public bookings both as regards accommodation and the restaurant. There would be little or no expenditure by asylum seekers in the town. It strikes me that that is a highly relevant factor. They would not contribute to the local economy. Policy GY6 resists hostel use for what have been judged to be sound planning and economic reasons. This is a policy which is highly specific. It does not, for example, cover the whole of the borough or the whole of the town. Instead, it is targeted at the most important part of the town for tourism. It applies to a carefully defined strip of land closely related to the major tourist attractions.
At the end of the day whether a material change of use would occur is a question of fact and degree, but in my judgment the particular policy considerations raised in this case by Policy GY6 strengthen the Council’s case on breach of planning control significantly.”
There are two important specific points to bear in mind with this ruling:
First, the relevant local plan policy:
“In my judgment, GY6 is a highly specific, protective policy directed to a large and highly important sector of the Borough’s economy. Mr Glason provides helpful context for the policy. In 2019 the annual value of tourism to Great Yarmouth was around £648 million, supporting around 9,600 full-time tourism jobs and 13,000 tourism-related jobs, representing 37 per cent of total employment within the Borough. A recent economic report indicates that accommodation and food services is likely to be the second largest growth sector in the Borough after government services.”
Secondly, there had already been an enforcement notice in relation to change of use from the hotel to use as a house in multiple occupation, which does not appear to have been subject to any appeal. The judge considered that accordingly, “the present case is one where the apprehended breach of planning control has a flagrant character. “
The case is to be contrasted with earlier cases where Holgate J refused equivalent applications:
First, in Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Ltd v Serco Ltd and East Riding of Yorkshire Council v LGH Hotels Management Limited (Holgate J, 11 November 2022). This judgment contains, at paragraphs 72 to 83, useful analysis as to the distinctions between a hotel and a hostel in planning law terms. At paragraph 101 he states that the “distinction between hotel and hostel use in a case of the present kind is fine.There are some factors pointing against a hostel use. The proposed use involves no alteration of the premises. In many ways the operation of the Novotel would be similar to that carried out ordinarily by the hotel operators. There would be no dormitories and the accommodation could not be described as basic or inexpensive. On the other hand there are factors pointing to a hostel use. The premises would be block-booked for a substantial period of time solely for occupation by people belonging to one cohort, asylum seekers, having nowhere else to live. The duration of their transient occupation would be determined by their move to the next stage of the asylum process. The accommodation would be paid for ultimately by the Home Office. It is arguable that the factors pointing towards a hostel use outweigh those pointing against.
The effect of the block-booking of the whole hotel is that no accommodation is available for any member of the public. It is said that the Novotel is the largest hotel in the centre of Ipswich and that the loss of the accommodation would be damaging to the hospitality and leisure economy of the town, given its close proximity to restaurants and bars. It is arguable that this alleged harm is a planning consideration which may render a change to a hostel a material change of use and so attract planning control.”
At paragraph 110: “In each case before this court there are factors pointing for and against the proposed use being a hostel use. Even if a hostel use would be involved, the key question still remains whether it would represent a material change of use. That would depend upon the planning consequences of the change. In each case that turns upon the planning harm identified by the claimant.”
Secondly, in Fenland District Council v CBPRP Limited (Holgate J, 25 November 2022) which related to the use of a hotel in Wisbech, Lincolnshire. Holgate J refers back to his analysis in Ipswich.
Am injunction was similarly not upheld in The Council of the City of Stoke-on-Trent v Britannia Hotels Limited (Linden J, 2 November 2022) (I don’t have a link to that judgment I’m afraid).
An injunction was also not upheld in relation to the use of the Stradey Park Hotel in Llanelli. On 7 July 2023, Gavin Mansfield KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed an application by Carmarthenshire County Council for an injunction prohibiting the use of the hotel for housing asylum seekers.
In subsequent proceedings, Roger ter Haar KC , sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, granted an injunction to restrain unlawful protest activity against the use of the hotel for those purposes. (Again, no links to these judgments I’m afraid).
And, indeed, the Planning Court has also been kept busy on the wider issues arising.
In R (Parkes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Holgate J, 11 October 2023), Holgate J rejected an application for judicial review that sought to establish that the Home Office’s proposed use of the Bibby Stockholm barge, moored in Portland Harbour, for the accommodation of asylum seekers, was unlawful, in part, it was submitted, because planning permission would be needed for such use. As a matter of principle the judge considered that the claim was misconceived: it was for the local planning authority in the first instance to determine whether the proposed use was in breach of planning permission and whether it would be expedient to enforce against any breach. But in any event the barge was below the low water mark and therefore beyond the scope of planning control.
In R (Clarke-Holland and West Lindsey District Council) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Thornton J, 6 December 2023) (which followed a related judgment of the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2023 which held that section 296A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was a statutory bar to an injunction being upheld against the Government in the case), Thornton J rejected applications for judicial review brought seeking to challenge the lawfulness of the Home Office’s reliance on class Q of the General Permitted Development Order allowing development on Crown land in an emergency in connection with the proposed use of RAF Wethersfield in Essex and RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire for the accommodation of asylum seekers.
I usually end with some flippant closing comments but not today. Behind each case lies much human misery.
I remember watching Don’t Look Up on new year’s day 2022. Not the best film ever but certainly an apt analogy when It comes to the climate crisis. I can’t believe that was two years ago. Where does the time go?
But then news came through yesterday afternoon of Conservative MP Chris Skidmore’s resignation of the party whip (5 January 2024).
I had praised Skidmore’s independent review last year of the Government’s net zero plans in my 21 January 2023 blog post Mission Zero Needs Planning. He knows what he’s talking about on the subject.
Here is his resignation statement in full:
“Next week the government will be introducing the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill in the House of Commons.
This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea. It is a bill that I have already stated my opposition to, by not voting in the King’s Speech debate in protest at the bill’s inclusion in the government’s legislative programme.
As the former Energy Minister who signed the UK’s net zero commitment by 2050 into law, I cannot vote for a bill that clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas. While no one is denying that there is a role for existing oil and gas in the transition to net zero, the International Energy Agency, the UNCCC and the Committee on Climate Change have all stated that there must be no new additional oil and gas production on top of what has already been committed, if we are to both reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and keep the chance of limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees.
Decisions taken at COP28 last month also set in motion the global transition away from fossil fuels. As the exponential growth of renewable and clean power continues, as we seek to reduce our energy demand for fossil fuels through the adoption of better energy efficiency in buildings and industry, as the adoption of electricity replaces fossil fuels, there is no case to be made for increasing fossil fuel production at a time when investment should be made elsewhere, in the industries and businesses of the future, and not of the past.
As fossil fuels become more obsolete, expanding new oil and gas licences or opening new oil fields will only create stranded assets of the future, harming local and regional communities that should instead be supported to transition their skills and expertise to renewable and clean energy.
The Net Zero Review I published a year ago next week, Mission Zero, set out how net zero can be the economic opportunity of this decade, if not our generation, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of new jobs, new growth, new regeneration and inward investment worth hundreds of billions of pounds. To achieve this however requires long term commitment to the energy transition, and a clear and consistent message to business and industry that the UK is committed to climate action as a global leader, as it has been for the past two decades.
The bill that will be debated next week achieves nothing apart from to send a global signal that the UK is rowing ever further back from its climate commitments. We cannot expect other countries to phase out their fossil fuels when at the same time we continue to issue new licences or to open new oil fields. It is a tragedy that the UK has been allowed to lose its climate leadership, at a time when our businesses, industries, universities and civil society organisations are providing first class leadership and expertise to so many across the world, inspiring change for the better.
I cannot vote for the bill next week. The future will judge harshly those that do. At a time when we should be committing to more climate action, we simply do not have any more time to waste promoting the future production of fossil fuels that is the ultimate cause of the environmental crisis that we are facing.
But I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.
I am deeply grateful for the privilege I have had to serve in government across several departments, including as Energy Minister attending Cabinet, and to have been appointed as the Independent Chair of the Net Zero Review. It is nearly fourteen years since I was first elected as the Member of Parliament for Kingswood, and I am especially grateful to my constituents for placing their repeated trust and faith in me. First and foremost, my duty has been to serve them, as their elected representative.
It is with that duty to them in mind as their representative that my personal decision today means, as I have long argued, that they deserve the right to elect a new Member of Parliament. I therefore will be standing down from Parliament as soon as possible.
It has been a remarkable and wonderful opportunity to serve as a Member of Parliament for nearly fourteen years, but I now intend to focus all my energy and attention on delivering net zero and the energy transition.”
“Alongside the need to protect and conserve, historic homes have an important contribution to make in meeting our Net Zero objectives, both in terms of their contribution to the broader UK energy efficiency and low carbon heat agenda, and in the carbon which is saved through their continued use and reuse. Historic properties make up a significant proportion of the UK’s building stock, with 5.9 million buildings constructed before 1919. Historic properties can and should be part of the solution, and this report is intended to maximise their potential in supporting our progress towards Net Zero.
Through this review, we have gained a better understanding of the practical barriers that owners of listed buildings and homes in conservation areas face when they want to install energy efficiency or low-carbon heating measures in their properties.”
The document follows a commitment in the Government’s April 2022 British Energy Security Strategy. It contains sections on the role of the planning system; issues with local authority skills, training and capacity; guidance available for homeowners and occupiers; construction industry sills, training and capacity, and affordability and financial incentives. It concludes with a summary of the 55 actions and future commitments arising. The seven under the heading “planning” are as follows:
Delivery of planning reform through the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act so that it supports good design and environmental outcomes better, is less complex, and easier to engage with
Implementation of the newly updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including a new policy to support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings
Consult on changes to permitted development rights for heat pumps in England
Consultation on National Development Management Policies including specifically on improvements to historic buildings
Consult on the opportunities for greater use of Listed Building Consent Orders (LBCOs) to support energy efficiency improvements to listed buildings
Support Local Planning Authorities that wish to develop exemplar Local Listed Building Consent Orders (Historic England)
Publish a Historic England Advice Note (HEAN) on Climate Change and Historic Building Adaptation to help decision-makers deliver climate action while protecting heritage(Historic England)
The announcements as to national development management policies and also local listed building consent orders are potentially interesting. This is what the document itself says:
“First, as part of the implementation of National Development Management Policies following Royal Assent of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, DLUHC will create new National Development Management Policies (NDMPs), including a policy specifically for improvements to historic buildings. This policy will be integrated into the wider suite of heritage National Development Management Policies which will replace current policy affecting decision making in chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In doing so, this will help to ensure greater certainty and consistency about decisions on applications for energy efficiency improvements affecting listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas across England. The government will consult on this new policy as part of its development of National Development Management Policies.
Second, the review has demonstrated there is a significant appetite for increasing the use of Local Listed Building Consent Orders to provide upfront listed building consent for certain common energy efficiency improvements on listed buildings so owners can make these improvements without the need to apply for consent. There is not, however, a clear consensus from stakeholders about how and when Local Listed Building Consent Orders should be used to support these energy efficiency improvements. In particular, it will be important that these orders do not permit energy efficiency measures which harm the significance of listed buildings.
As a first step, DLUHC will consult on the opportunities for using Local Listed Building Consent Orders to support energy efficiency improvements on listed buildings. The consultation will specifically ask about:
the role for Local Listed Building Consent Orders prepared by local planning authorities; and
the potential for a Listed Building Consent Order made by the Secretary of State which would grant listed building consent for certain improvements across England.”
Here’s to much more of this, in particular to closer working between DLUHC and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and in particular to politicians such as Mr Skidmore actually prepared to look up.
The next London Mayoral election will be held on 2 May 2024.
As of 9 November 2023 Sadiq Khan held a 25 point lead over conservative candidate Susan Hall, according to a YouGov poll. Anything could of course happen between now and 2 May though, the greatest risk for Khan possibly being if Jeremy Corbyn stands as an independent candidate and splits the labour vote. The deadline for candidate nominations is 27 March so I suspect we will see increasing levels of speculation in the meantime…
To his left, Mr Corbyn. To his right, Mr Gove.
As part of the flurry of DLUHC announcements on 19 December 2023 (see my blog post that day, In DLUHC Jubilo: NPPF & Much More), the Secretary of State wrote to Mr Khan. The letter included the following passage:
“Due to the significant shortfall in housing supply and under delivery of housing in our capital, I have concluded that it may be necessary to take further action now, as a matter of urgency, to make sure London is delivering the homes our capital needs.
With this in mind, I have asked Christopher Katkowski KC to lead a panel of expert advisers comprising Cllr James Jamieson, Paul Monaghan, and Dr Wei Yang, to consider the aspects of your London Plan which could be preventing thousands of homes being brought forward, with a particular focus on brownfield sites in the heart of our capital. I have asked them to produce their report by January and will make sure that it is shared with you.
If you cannot do what is needed to deliver the homes that London needs, I will.”
The terms of reference given to the advisors were published on 22 December 2023. Lichfields have been appointed along with the advisors previously announced.
“The expert advisers will assess whether there are specific changes to London Plan policies that could facilitate urban brownfield regeneration in London for housing delivery in an appropriate manner and, if necessary, recommend changes to the London Plan accordingly.
The output of the review will be a short report, delivered by 15 January 2024, to the Secretary of State.”
The objectives of the work are as follows:
“To consider and, if appropriate, make recommendations for specific changes to the London Plan. The Secretary of State will share the recommendations with the Mayor to consider their implementation.
To work with Lichfields consultants to ensure that there is an evidence base which supports the recommendations of the expert advisers.
To complete a report on how, specifically, the London Plan could be improved to facilitate the delivery of new homes on brownfield sites.”
15 January! It will be interesting to see what emerges. I assume that aside from the implications of the detailed and prescriptive approach taken by the London Plan – a document which is instead meant to operate only at a strategic level – one potential area for investigation will be the extent to which the Mayor’s rigid approach to minimum levels of affordable housing, even in the face of agreed unviability, and/or his requirements as to review mechanisms which can cause difficulties with funders, is holding back delivery (although of course the Mayor’s response is always to point to the level of need for social housing). Will another be the Mayor’s resistance to development in the green belt? But this would only make sense in the context of Mr Gove’s letter if the focus is on previously developed land in the green belt – and even this would uncomfortably with the Government’s 19 December 2023 revision to the NPPF, absolving authorities of the need to review green belt boundaries when preparing local plans…
Are there possibly any clues in two recent Secretary of State decisions?
On 11 December 2023 the Secretary of State overturned inspector Jennifer Vyse’s recommendation and granted planning permission in relation to called-in applications for mixed use development at Homebase and Tesco Osterley, Syon Lane, Hounslow. His approach to the planning balance and overall conclusion in his decision letter is as follows:
“64. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the application is not in accordance with LonP policies D9 and HC1 and LP policies CC3 and CC4 of the development plan, and is not in accordance with the development plan overall. He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in line with the development plan.
65. Weighing in favour of the proposal is the regeneration of under-utilised brownfield land which carries substantial weight. Also weighing in favour is the delivery of up to 2,150 homes which carries substantial weight, and the delivery of 750 affordable homes designed to meet the current housing need profile in Hounslow, which each carry substantial weight. Economic benefits carry significant weight whilst the provision of open space and significant biodiversity net gain both carry moderate weight. Highway and transport improvements carry limited to moderate weight and the reprovision of an existing Tesco store and the provision of community space each carry limited weight.
66. Weighing against the proposal is less than substantial harm to a number of designated heritage assets which carries great weight. Moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area in relation to the Homebase scheme carries moderate weight. Heritage harm caused by the total loss of a non-designated heritage asset (the Homebase store) carries limited weight and the Secretary of State has considered paragraph 203 of the Framework in coming to this decision.
67. In line with the heritage balance set out at paragraph 202 of the Framework, the Secretary of State has considered whether the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of each designated heritage asset is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Taking into the account the public benefits of the proposal as identified in this decision letter, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR15.11 that the public benefits of the appeal scheme are more than sufficient to outweigh the identified harm, including cumulative harm, to the significance of the designated heritage assets. He considers that the balancing exercise under paragraph 202 of the Framework is therefore favourable to the proposal.
68. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that despite the conflict with the development plan, the material considerations in this case indicate that permission should be granted.
69. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that planning permission should be granted.”
Note the weight placed on delivery of homes, including affordable homes, on under-utilised brownfield land, together with economic benefits, versus heritage harm.
On 4 December 2023 the Secretary of State agreed with his inspector’s recommendation and granted planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the comprehensive phased redevelopment of the site for a mix of uses including up to 1,049 residential units and up to 1,200 square metres of flexible commercial and community floorspace in buildings ranging from 3 to 18 storeys along with car and cycle parking, landscaping and associated works. His decision letter demonstrates a similar balancing exercise, in the additional context of Barnet Council not having a five year supply of housing land:
“35. Weighing in favour of the proposal is the delivery of market and affordable housing which each carry significant weight; the reduction in traffic, provision of open space, biodiversity improvements, regeneration benefits and employment provisions which each carry moderate weight; and improvement in healthcare facilities which carries minimal weight.
36. Weighing against the proposal is the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset which carries great weight.
37. In line with the heritage balance set out at paragraph 202 of the Framework, the Secretary of State has considered whether the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Taking into the account the public benefits of the proposal as identified in this decision letter, overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR238 that the public benefits outweigh the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, and that the proposal would secure the optimum viable use of the site (IR235). He therefore considers that the balancing exercise under paragraph 202 of the Framework is favourable to the proposal.”
Whatever we think of the Secretary of State’s reasoning in granting these permissions, let’s not give him credit for thereby speeding up the development process. These were both applications which had been resolved to be approved by Hounslow and Barnet respectively in 2021!
Finally, how about this for petty point scoring, in relation to the continuing political pawn which is the Mayor’s extended ULEZ scheme? The Secretary of State would like the Mayor to arrange for vehicles that are the subject of his scrappage scheme to be provided to Ukraine to help with its war effort. The Mayor’s position is that this is not within his legal powers. This is Mr Gove’s latest letter dated 21 December 2023 to the Mayor of London. I have no idea what the right answer is on this specific issue but in a year where there are too many real battle grounds around the globe, perhaps let’s try to avoid unnecessary domestic political battlegrounds? Even in an election year?
Simon Ricketts, 30 December 2023
Personal views, et cetera
PS It’s so often been the case that I’ve had some song going through my head when writing one of these posts that I thought as an end of year gift I would present to you this Spotify playlist – a track for each post this year – I’m sure you’ll be able to match them up…
I know we are all trying to wind down, or maybe are slumped there fully unwound already, I do know that, I do see you. However, I couldn’t let a DLUHC consultation paper just slip out unnoticed on 22 December…
The consultation paper summarises as follows how SVDOs will work in practice:
“11. A group of residents which meets certain requirements will be able to come together with a proposal for permission to be granted for development on their street, for example the addition of an extra storey to properties. The proposal can be put forward by the group of residents directly or with the assistance of an individual such as an architect.
12. The proposal will be examined by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State to check that the proposed development is in scope and that requirements prescribed in secondary legislation are met. These requirements will help ensure that development meets high design standards and that local impacts are taken into account.
13. If the proposal passes the examination, it is then put to a referendum. Where the required threshold of votes is met, subject to any final checks, the Planning Inspectorate will make the street vote development order on behalf of the Secretary of State. Once the street vote development order is made, granting planning permission, a person with control of the land can then decide whether they want to take forward development.
14. Where street vote development takes place, local authorities will be able to capture value from the new development via the Community Infrastructure Levy and, when it is introduced, the new Infrastructure Levy, and use it to fund infrastructure that will support the local area.”
The Government proposes that for the procedure to be available there will need to be at least ten residential properties in the street, with rules as to the minimum size of the qualifying group of voters and percentage of votes required as follows:
It is proposed that any proposal must include:
“a signed and witnessed letter from members of the qualifying group declaring that they support the proposal, where a proposal has been submitted on their behalf
a map which identifies the street area and the land in that street area to which the proposal relates
a draft order which includes a description of the development to which the order relates and any proposed planning conditions
any necessary supporting information such as impact assessments or statements. Further information is set out in the “Managing local impacts” section of this consultation
details of any consultation with statutory bodies
a declaration that the qualifying group has engaged with the local community”
“21. In addition, we propose that qualifying groups (or those acting on their behalf) must submit a street design code that sets out illustrated design parameters for physical development within the street area such as number of floors, plot use and the facade treatment of buildings.
22. We also propose qualifying groups (or those acting on their behalf) will have the option to submit a detailed specification of the elevations visible from public spaces for new or extended buildings that are permitted in the street area. If these are submitted, they must include at least one detailed elevation drawing for facades facing public spaces. Specifications of elevations not facing public spaces are optional. Qualifying groups may provide various façade options if a varied streetscape is desired.
23. If plot widths in the street area vary, the specification must include requirements on how the elevations can be adapted to deal with such variation. If they wish, qualifying groups may also choose to include permitted elevations for wider buildings that can be created by merging plots e.g. an elevation for a small mansion block created by merging three existing plots.”
A ”street area” is to be defined as “the properties on each stretch of road starting or ending at a crossroads or as a minor road at a T-junction or where there is a gap between buildings of more than 50 metres. A street is treated as terminated if the continuous stretch of buildings is broken by a bridge wider than 3 metres. This applies to both the street running beneath and over the bridge. A residential property is counted as being in a street area if any part of its boundary runs along the highway. The street area must have at least 10 residential properties within its boundary. We also propose that adjoining streets could be joined together to form one street area, for example, joining together two streets that have fewer than 10 residential properties.”
Detailed design requirements are set out in a table at paragraph 35 of the consultation document, informed by six design principles:
Supporting a gradual evolution in the character of neighbourhoods
Limiting impacts on neighbours
Preserving green space and increasing outdoor space (including balconies)
Celebrating heritage
Promoting active travel
Creating sociable neighbourhoods
If you look at the paragraph 35 table you will see that there is much detail as to for instance, the maximum number of extra storeys (dependent on the density of the area); setbacks; basements; angled light planes; ceiling heights and corner properties.
It is proposed that “street vote development orders should be permitted to go beyond that which might be permitted under the local development plan where the impacts are broadly acceptable in the view of the Secretary of State according to national policy, and it will not cause problems with the implementation of the local plan.”
If the proposal survives examination and the necessary referendum, the Government hasn’t yet decided how long property owners will have to commence development:
“Option A: Development must be commenced within 10 years of the order being made. This is longer than is typically allowed for planning permission granted through existing consent routes because the permission will potentially apply to properties under many different owners, some of which may not be able to commence development within a shorter period (e.g. 3 years). The qualifying group would also have the option to propose an increase to this period as part of its proposal if it takes the view more time is needed to commence development;
Option B: Development must be commenced within a specified period (e.g.10, 20 or 30) years of the order being made. The qualifying group would also have the option to apply to the local planning authority after the order has been made to extend the commencement period; and
Option C: No time period. Permission granted through a street vote development order would be permanent.”
In summary, there’s a lot here for local planning authorities, planning professionals and (above all) home owners to get their heads around. The concept has been widely lobbied for by eg Policy Exchange, Create Streets and YIMBY. I’ll be interested to see the extent to which ultimately there is take-up and, aside from the inevitable definitional problems with any rules-based process such as this, of course there are some open questions as to the extent to which this process, alongside continuing extensions of permitted development rights and the prospect of national development management policies, further marginalises the role of the local planning authority. And does anyone remember neighbourhood development orders and all of that malarkey…?
But something to be picked up again on the other side, as they say.
In the meantime, peace to all in 24 – even to those I may be seeing across a planning inquiry or court room!
God bless planners who have been waiting for this day all year. I hope you participated in the nppfestivities although to my mind the NPPF itself was the least interesting of what was published today (19 December 2023).
This is today’s publication list as it stands at 6 pm (ten items):
I’ve been reading the latest version of the NPPF as against the previous September 2023 version and against the amendments consulted on in December 2022. This is just a first quick take. I’ve just read the lines so far. The interesting bit is of course going back and reading between them. (A Landmark Chambers/Town Legal seminar is planned for 15 January 2024 with exactly this in mind – details here).
As compared to the December 2022 consultation (see my 22 December 2022 blog post) the changes are relatively limited, the main substantive ones being (in broad summary):
No further restrictions after all as to when the paragraph 11 tilted balance applies (although for an authority whose plan has reached at least regulation 18 stage the requirement to show five years’ worth supply of housing supply drops to four years). The consultation paper had suggested exclusions where meeting need in full “would mean building at densities significantly out of character with the existing area” and where there is “clear evidence of past over-delivery”.
The changes consulted upon to the “soundness” test for local plans, particularly the deletion of the “justified” requirement, are not being taken forward.
Whilst as per the consultation draft, the outcome of the standard method for assessing housing requirements for an area is expressed as an “advisory starting point”, the exceptional circumstances for departure make it clear that “the particular characteristics of an area” is in fact the “particular demographic characteristics of an area”.
References have been added, supportive of “community-led development”.
The “area character” point has instead been picked up in a new paragraph 130 which advises that “significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area. Such circumstances should be evidenced through an authority-wide design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the development plan.”
Substantively as per the consultation document, there is “no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated”. How can this possibly work in Green Belt authorities with high levels of unmet housing need?
As per the consultation document there are plenty of exhortations as to beauty.
3. Consequential changes to the advice in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance about the Green Belt and about traveller sites .
Much of the statement simply summarises the other documents covered in this blog post but the section on Cambridge is worth setting out in full:
“Cambridge
Finally, I want to provide an update on the Government’s vision for Cambridge 2040. In July, I outlined plans for a new urban quarter – one adjacent to the existing city – with beautiful Neo-classical buildings, rich parkland, concert halls and museums providing homes for thousands. This would be accompanied by further, ambitious, development around and in the city to liberate its potential with tens of thousands of new homes.
In the intervening months, Peter Freeman, the Chair of the Cambridge Delivery Group, has been developing our vision for the city, in collaboration with a whole host of local leaders and representatives. I am clear that delivering our vision means laying the groundwork for the long-term, and that starts now.
We plan to establish a new development corporation for Cambridge, which we will arm with the right leadership and full range of powers necessary to marshal this huge project over the next two decades, regardless of the shifting sands of Westminster.
We recognise the scale of development we are talking about will require support from across the public and private sectors, to realise our level of ambition.
And we must also ensure we have an approach towards water that reflects the nature of Cambridge’s geography. So today I am also announcing that we will review building regulations in Spring next year to allow local planning authorities to introduce tighter water efficiency standards in new homes. In the meantime, in areas of serious water stress, where water scarcity is inhibiting the adoption of Local Plans or the granting of planning permission for homes, I encourage local planning authorities to work with the Environment Agency and delivery partners to agree standards tighter than the 110 litres per day that is set out in current guidance.”
“We agree that housing delivery in London is far below the levels needed. Not only is delivery considerably short of your own London Plan target by approximately 15,000 homes per year, it was approximately 63,500 homes lower than actual need last year, as calculated by the standard method. This is not a national issue. London was the worst performing region in the Housing Delivery Test 2022. Fewer than half of the London Boroughs and Development Corporations delivered more than 95% of their appropriate housing requirement for the test over the three-year monitoring period. Areas like the West Midlands are overdelivering, while London continues to fall short.
This has a significant effect on the availability of homes for those wanting to live and work in the capital, as well as for the standard of housing available. London’s average house prices remain the most expensive in the UK – an average of £537,000 in September 2023. The average price was over 12.5 times average earnings last year. London has the lowest level of home ownership in England. Our capital also has, as you know, the highest proportion of renters. There are 60,040 homeless households in temporary accommodation, including over 80,000 children.
Under your leadership the GLA is failing to provide affordable homes for those that need them most.
While I welcome the commitments you made in your letter, as well as the ideas you have provided for Government to consider, they are not enough to change this woeful picture. In July, I asked my officials to review housing delivery in London to gain a greater understanding of the reasons for this significant under-delivery. We met stakeholders, including planning authorities, developers, and boroughs to identify the challenges they encounter in delivering housing. In the course of those discussions, a number of issues were raised which stakeholders believe are adversely affecting housing delivery in London.
Due to the significant shortfall in housing supply and under delivery of housing in our capital, I have concluded that it may be necessary to take further action now, as a matter of urgency, to make sure London is delivering the homes our capital needs.
With this in mind, I have asked Christopher Katkowski KC to lead a panel of expert advisers comprising Cllr James Jamieson, Paul Monaghan, and Dr Wei Yang, to consider the aspects of your London Plan which could be preventing thousands of homes being brought forward, with a particular focus on brownfield sites in the heart of our capital. I have asked them to produce their report by January and will make sure that it is shared with you.
If you cannot do what is needed to deliver the homes that London needs, I will.”
8. Local Plan intervention: Secretary of State’s letters to 7 local authorities directing them to revise their local plan timetables – Amber Valley. Ashfield, Basildon, Castle Point, Medway, St Albans and Uttlesford.
9. Direction preventing West Berkshire Council from withdrawing its emerging local plan at a meeting tonight.
The Court of Appeal handed down somewhat of a Christmas present today for those of us frustrated with questions raised from time to time by local planning authorities as to whether “Hillside” issues may arise in relation to particular application strategies adopted by our clients. In his judgment today in R (Fiske) v Test Valley Borough Council (Court of Appeal, 15 December 2023) Lindblom LJ makes it clear that this is simply a question for the developer to deal with – it is “not the authority’s job”.
The conclusion is clear although the underlying facts of the judgment take some unpicking. The first elephant trap to avoid is that whilst the case is part of the same saga arising from a local resident’s efforts to thwart development for a proposed solar farm in Hampshire, this is not an appeal from the High Court’s ruling in R (Fiske) v Test Valley Borough Council (Morris J, 6 September 2023) – the case that endorsed the now well understood legal position in relation to the scope of section 73 permissions, that the development approved must not depart from the description of development on the face of the parent planning permission and must not constitute a fundamental alteration to the development approved by the parent planning permission. The court held in that case that removal of a substation from the approved development (a revised form of substation having been approved within the site by way of a separate planning permission) could not be achieved by way of section 73 given both that this conflicted with the operative wording of the parent permission that referred to a substation and given that the planning committee was not made aware of the removal of the substation from the proposals. (Here is Town Legal’s Town Library summary of that ruling).
In today’s Court of Appeal ruling, the question before the court was as to whether that separate planning permission had been granted unlawfully, given that at the time it was granted the subsequently quashed section 73 permission (to amend the rest of the scheme to be consistent with that permission) had not yet been granted (Sincere congratulations if you are still following this). As encapsulated by Lindlom LJ at the beginning of his judgment:
“Did a local planning authority err in law when granting planning permission for a distribution network operator (“DNO”) substation to connect a proposed solar park to the national grid? In particular, did it fail to have regard to an “obviously material” consideration by not taking into account the incompatibility of that planning permission with the permission it had previously granted for the solar park itself? These questions arise in this case. They involve principles of law that are already well established.”
Lindblom LJ then sets out the relevant legal principles in relation to the nature of material considerations and as to the incompatibility of planning permissions (our old friends Pilkington, Pioneer Aggregates and Hillside).
He goes on to agree with the conclusions of HHJ Jarman KC at first instance: the incompatibility of planning permissions or the prospect of some future breach of planning control was not a material consideration to which the council was required to have regard under any provision of the statutory planning code.
“The fact that the differences between the two proposals were obvious when the challenged decision was taken does not mean that their incompatibility was an “obviously material” and thus mandatory material consideration in the council’s decision. That would be a misconception. The planning system does not preclude the possibility of a number of applications for planning permission being made and granted for different developments on the same site. It accepts the granting and co-existence of mutually incompatible permissions, one or more of which may prove incapable of lawful implementation, whether in whole or in part, unless the incompatibility can be defeated by a further grant of permission under section 70 of the 1990 Act, or section 73. This was a point strongly emphasised in Pilkington.
There is nothing in the judgment of Lord Sales and Lord Leggatt in Hillside Parks, nor in Lord Widgery’s in Pilkington, or elsewhere in the cases to which counsel referred, to support the proposition that the incompatibility between a previously granted planning permission and an application seeking permission for a different scheme is a mandatory material consideration in the decision being taken, either as a general rule or in the “special cases” to which Lord Widgery referred.”
“In the light of the relevant reasoning in Pilkington, recently confirmed in Hillside Parks, and the cases on mandatory material considerations, I do not accept that the fact of the 2017 permission being expressly “associated” with the application for the 2021 permission made the incompatibility between the two permissions an “obviously material” consideration. Such incompatibility did not nullify or prevent the implementation of either the 2017 permission or the 2021 permission. It did not negate the principle of a solar park development on the site, which the 2017 permission had established. Nor did it go to the intrinsic planning merits of the substation proposal that the committee was now considering.”
“I see no force in the submission that the possibility of Woodington Solar acting in breach of planning control was itself an “obviously material” consideration. If the incompatibility of the two planning permissions was not an “obviously material” consideration, the future actions of a developer with the benefit of those two permissions cannot be seen as a matter on which the council needed to speculate. This was a question for Woodington Solar as developer. It did not bear on the planning merits of the proposal in hand.”
“For a large development such as this to require changes to be made to it in the course of design and construction is not unusual. It often happens. When it does, the developer may be expected to make such changes through the normal planning process. If he has the benefit of two or more planning permissions incompatible with each other, or potentially so, there may be lawful steps he can take to overcome that incompatibility and proceed with the development he wants to build. Sometimes this will not be so. In that case the incompatibility will remain, and the lawful implementation of one permission or the other, or both of them, will not be possible. But the local planning authority is not legally compelled to anticipate how the developer might later choose to deal with such inconsistency, or to assume that he will resort to unlawful means of doing so. That is not the authority’s job.”
Hear, hear.
Just waiting now from my NPPF present from DLUHC, although I suspect it may be very similar to what we all received this time last year…
That timescale assumed that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would receive Royal Assent that Spring. Ho ho ho. The Act finally received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, although, as set out in my 4 November 2023 blog post Act Up!, nothing substantive has yet come into force, most elements requiring secondary legislation with only limited sections being switched on from Boxing Day. (My firm has prepared a detailed summary of the planning reform aspects of the Act, running to some 41 pages. Do message or email me if you would like a copy.)
Judging from the tone of DLUHC’s 28 November 2023 response to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s reforms to national planning policy report, together with Mr Gove’s appearance before the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee on 6 December 2023, we assume that the final version of the NPPF will reflect quite closely the December 2022 draft, but time will tell.
Of course, barring a general election in the meantime, in 2024 we will then have consultation on further proposed revisions to the NPPF, to reflect LURA’s proposed reforms to plan-making, and consultation on much else besides.
In the meantime, 2023 has seen yet more ministerial changes with Rachel Maclean sacked in favour of an expanded role for Lee Rowley. There have been at best sporadic attempts to discourage local authorities from withdrawing emerging plans (Spelthorne and Erewash). There has been a self-styled long-term plan for housing. There have been sporadic culture wars – for example the swipe at South Cambridgeshire District Council for its four-day working week trial (anyone remember localism? I have an old book to flog).
Spotify-style, I looked back at which simonicity posts were most widely read, last year. Perhaps this list tells its own story – one of procedural hurdles, unnecessary complexity and political climbdowns. In order:
M&S Mess (21 July 2023). We wait to see what the High Court makes of Mr Gove’s 20 July 2023 decision letter.
The Government’s Big Move On Nutrient Neutrality – Now We Have Seen The Government’s LURB Amendment (29 August 2023). The subsequent defeat suffered by the Government on this in the House of Lords was possibly DLUHC’s most embarrassing moment of the year, when taken with the subsequent, aborted, attempt by the Government to introduce a fresh Bill.
Euston We Have A Problem (8 July 2023). Subsequent to the post there was then of course the Government’s total abandonment of proposals for HS2 north of Birmingham (see my 4 October 2023 blog post, Drive Time) and wishful thinking as to a privately funded terminus for HS2 at Euston. It will be interesting to see what happens this coming year to the idea of a new “Euston Quarter” Development Corporation.
Incidentally, thank you everyone for continuing to read this blog, now in its eighth year (with more daily views than ever before), and for occasionally saying nice things about it. Believe me, I would otherwise have given up a long time ago. I did hope that I could pass it over to chatGPT next year but from early experimentation I suspect not:
SIMONICITY 