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.
I never thought I would live to see a chief executive of Marks and Spencer plc (Marks and Spencer plc!) issue a statement such as this:
““After a two-year process where our proposals were supported at every stage, our investment in 2,000 jobs, building one of the most sustainable buildings in London, improving the public realm and creating a flagship store, is now effectively in the deep freeze. Today the Secretary of State has ignored his appointed expert David Nicholson who recommended approval of our scheme.
When 42 of the 269 shops on what should be our nation’s premier shopping street sit vacant, disregarding the expert opinion and approval of the appointed planning inspector and playing to the gallery by kiboshing the only retail-led regeneration proposal is a short-sighted act of self-sabotage by the Secretary of State and its effects will be felt far beyond M&S and the West End. It is particularly galling given there are currently 17 approved and proceeding demolitions in Westminster and four on Oxford Street alone, making it unfathomable why M&S’s proposal to redevelop an aged and labyrinthian site that has been twice denied listed status has been singled out for refusal.
The suggestion the decision is on the grounds of sustainability is nonsensical. With retrofit not an option – despite us reviewing sixteen different options – our proposed building would have ranked in the top 1% of the entire city’s most sustainable buildings. It would have used less than a quarter of the energy of the existing structure, reduced water consumption by over half, and delivered a carbon payback within 11 years of construction. It is also completely at odds with the inquiry process where the analysis on sustainability, including from independent experts Arup, was accepted.
We cannot let Oxford Street be the victim of politics and a wilful disregard of the facts. At a time when vacancy rates on what should be the nation’s premier shopping street are 13% higher than the average UK high street and Westminster Council is pleading for help in managing the growing proliferation of sweet shop racketeers, the Secretary of State has inexplicably taken an anti-business approach, choking off growth and denying Oxford Street thousands of new quality jobs, a better public realm and what would be a modern, sustainable, flag-bearing M&S store.
There is no levelling up without a strong, growing Capital city, but the ripple effect extends well beyond Oxford Street. Towns and cities up and down the country will feel the full effects of this chilling decision, with decaying buildings and brownfield sites now destined to remain empty as developers retreat. The nation’s fragile economic recovery needs Government to give confidence to sustainable regeneration and investment as well as following due process; in London and across the UK. Today the Secretary of State has signalled he is more interested in cheap shot headlines than facts and if it weren’t so serious it would be laughable.
We have been clear from the outset that there is no other viable scheme – so, after almost a century at Marble Arch, M&S is now left with no choice but to review its future position on Oxford Street on the whim of one man. It is utterly pathetic.” (Stuart Machin, 20 July 2023)
Throughout this process there has been ferocious opposition to the scheme by some prominent groups and individuals – with detailed representations made; lobbying at each stage, and commentary in the media and social media.
I have often criticised the process whereby the Secretary of State can call-in an application, or recover an appeal, for his own decision-making.
What is the point of local democracy? What is the point of a hugely expensive, lengthy, quasi-judicial process, and a 109 page report by one of our most experienced planning inspectors, when you arrive at this sort of outcome?
If Secretary of State didn’t like the scheme when he called it in, and was going to refuse it in any event, why even the pretence of due process?
To dip into the decision. First point: of course it’s written with an eye to being watertight against legal challenge, by way of making sure that the conclusions revolve around the degree of weight to be attached to specific material considerations and around ultimately subjective assessments as to harm and significance (albeit assessments made without the benefit of hearing the evidence, of accompanied site visits or the ability to ask questions of witnesses). Time will tell if that objective has been secured.
Given that some may think (I couldn’t possibly comment) that this is how the Secretary of State reached his decision, I’m going to start with the overall conclusions (paragraph 51 onwards).
The first set of subjective conclusions (paragraph 51) are findings as to “overall conflict with development plan policies D3 and 38 which deal with design, and partial conflict with heritage policies HC1 and 39”.
That enables him to take the position that the scheme is in conflict with the development plan overall. With the onus shifted, the question for him is accordingly “whether there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in line with the development plan.”
In favour of the proposal are (paragraph 52) “the advantages of concentrating development in such a highly accessible location, which attracts substantial weight; and the potential harm to the vitality and viability of the area which could follow from a refusal of permission, which attracts limited weight. The heritage benefits carry moderate weight, and the possibility of demolition attracts limited weight. The benefits to employment and regeneration through improved retail and office floorspace, and the benefits in terms of permeability and connectivity, safety and shopping experience and the public realm collectively carry significant weight.” As long as properly reasoned, the weight to be attached to each consideration is for the decision maker.
Against the proposal (paragraph 53) “is the Secretary of State’s finding that in terms of paragraph 152 of the Framework, the proposal would in part fail to support the transition to a low carbon future, and would overall fail to encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings, which carries moderate weight. He has also found that harm arising from the embodied carbon carries moderate weight; and the future decarbonisation of the grid carries limited weight.”
In terms of assessing the heritage impacts of the proposal “the Secretary of State has taken into account the requirements of s.66 of the LBCA Act and the provisions of the Framework. He has found that in terms of paragraph 202 of the Framework, the harm to the settings, and so the significance, of the designated heritage assets would fall into the ‘less than substantial’ category. In respect of Selfridges and the Stratford Place CA, he has found the harm would be at the upper end of that category; in respect of the Mayfair CA it would be in the middle of that category; and in respect of the Portman Estate CA it would be at the lower end of the category. Overall he has found that the harm to the settings of, and significance of the designated heritage assets carries very great weight. He has further considered paragraph 202 of the Framework and has found that the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets. The Secretary of State considers that harm from the loss of the nondesignated heritage asset of Orchard House attracts substantial weight and has considered paragraph 203 of the Framework in coming to this decision. In respect of paragraph 189 of the Framework, the Secretary of State considers that the proposal would overall fail to conserve the heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. He considers that the possibility of an Oxford Street CA attracts limited weight.”
So what did the scheme in was its design, its less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets which he gives “very great” weight, not outweighed by public benefits; harm from the loss of unlisted Orchard House which he gives substantial weight, and, in terms of climate change issues, the failure to support the transition to a low carbon future (moderate weight), failure to encourage the reuse of existing resources (moderate weight), harm arising from the embodied carbon (moderate weight) and future decarbonisation of the grid (limited weight).
Let’s look in more detail at how the Secretary of State reached some of those conclusions.
Design
His conclusion on non-compliance with policy D3 is said by him to follow from his conclusions on the impact on designated heritage assets (paragraph 43). Similarly policy 38 (paragraph 44). Aside from these conclusions, based on concerns as to heritage aspects, he reaches no conclusions on the design of the scheme.
Heritage
So let’s turn to heritage.
The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (paragraphs 12 to 15) as to the level of harm caused to designated heritage assets. However, he disagrees as to the weight to be given to any harm (paragraph 15): “Given the significance of Selfridges, and his conclusions in paragraphs 13-14 above, the Secretary of State considers that the harm to designated heritage assets in this case carries very great weight. He does not agree with the Inspector’s assessment that the harm to the setting and so to the significance of Selfridges, including with the additional harm to the settings of the CAs, carries only moderate weight (IR.13.11 and IR13.78).”
The Secretary of State agrees with Historic England rather than the inspector as to the significance of Orchard House as a non-designated heritage asset (paragraph 16) and considers that its loss attracts substantial weight. He recognises, some heritage benefits of the scheme, to which he ascribes moderate weight.
Carbon
This is the area where we need to pay particularly careful attention.
First, to note that he reaches no concluded view on whether the redevelopment would over the life of the building use less carbon than any replacement: “the Secretary of State has also taken into account the applicant’s argument that over the life of the building it would use less carbon than any refurbishment, which would have to rely on an inefficient building envelope (IR13.38). He agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given in IR13.37 and IR13.39, that the understanding of WLC Assessments and the tools available for calculations are still developing, and therefore it is no surprise that there was disagreement over the lifetime carbon usage for the proposals and, more particularly, for a refurbishment.” (paragraph 21).
That might be seen as surprising given that surely it is the core issue.
It was said by some that redevelopment should be delayed until the grid is decarbonised, when “the extent of embodied energy, particularly from manufacturing materials, and from vehicle emissions would be much lower or eliminated. He agrees that the proposed development now would result in far more carbon emissions than after the UK has achieved a net-zero grid (IR13.99), because a fully renewably sourced electricity grid should allow most construction vehicles, and the manufacture of concrete, steel and other materials, to be undertaken using renewable energy rather than fossil fuels (IR13.40).” However, he recognised that would not be a practical general principle: “An assessment of the weight to give to the fact that development now will give rise to far more carbon emissions than in the future with a net-zero grid depends on the facts of the case and the planning policy context. Evidence has been put before the Secretary of State that the existing store is currently assessed as failing (IR13.71), and M&S has stated that it will not continue to occupy and trade from the store for very much longer if permission is refused (IR13.46). The Secretary of State has also concluded that the development is supported by some current and up to date development plan policies which aim to support the regeneration and economic development of the area (paragraph 26 below). Overall he considers that this matter carries limited weight against the proposal.” (paragraph 22)
Strangely, although possibly because of the lack of empirical evidence on the point at the inquiry, he gives no weight to any possible reduction in pressure for development elsewhere (paragraph 23).
Paragraph 24 is important:
“The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR13.43 that there should generally be a strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, as reflected in paragraph 152 of the Framework. In the circumstances of the present case, where the buildings in question are structurally sound and are in a location with the highest accessibility levels, he considers that a strong reason would be needed to justify demolition and rebuilding. However, he agrees that much must depend on the circumstances of the case, including how important it is that the use of the site should be optimised, and what alternatives are realistically available. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State has gone on to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of an alternative scheme going ahead.”
The Secretary of State’s position as to the prospect of an alternative scheme going ahead is vital to his overall decision:
“31. The Secretary of State considers that given the Inspector could not draw clear conclusions on this matter, and its importance in the determination of this application, a degree of caution ought to be exercised in drawing overall conclusions from the evidence, and considering the weight to be given to this issue. He finds the applicant’s evidence much less persuasive than the Inspector appears to have done in light of the gaps and limitations identified by the Inspector. He does not consider it appropriate to draw such firm and robust conclusions about this issue as the Inspector does (IR13.70- 13.75 and IR13.97). The Secretary of State is not persuaded that it is safe to draw the same conclusion reached by the Inspector, namely that ‘there is no viable and deliverable alternative’ (IR13.74), which leads to the Inspector’s overall conclusion that ‘there is unlikely to be a meaningful refurbishment of the buildings’ (IR13.97).
32. Overall, the Secretary of State concludes that the evidence before him is not sufficient to allow a conclusion as to whether there is or is not a viable and deliverable alternative, as there is not sufficient evidence to judge which is more likely. The Secretary of State also does not consider that there has been an appropriately thorough exploration of alternatives to demolition. He does not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that refurbishment would not be deliverable or viable and nor has the applicant satisfied the Secretary of State that options for retaining the buildings have been fully explored, or that there is compelling justification for demolition and rebuilding.
33. The Secretary of State notes that M&S has stated that it will not continue to occupy and trade from the store for very much longer if permission is refused (IR13.46). Whether or not M&S leave the store following the Secretary of State’s decision is a commercial decision for the company. However, taking into account the locational advantages of the site, the Secretary of State does not agree with the Inspector at IR13.75 that redevelopment is the only realistic option to avoid a vacant and/or underused site. He considers that there is potential for some harm to the vitality and viability of Oxford Street as suggested by the Inspector at IR13.46-47 and IR13.74. However, he does not agree with the Inspector that harm would be caused to the wider West End beyond Oxford Street (IR13.46) as he considers that this overstates the scale of the impact. He also does not agree with the Inspector’s conclusion that the harm would be substantial. The Secretary of State considers that potential harm to the vitality and viability of Oxford Street could arise from a refusal of permission but, unlike the Inspector, he considers that 8 the extent of any such harm would be limited. He attributes limited weight to this possibility.”
Time will tell if he is right.
I find his conclusion on the carbon which would go into construction materials unfathomable given that he failed to reach a conclusion on whether the new building would use less carbon than refurbishment of the existing building (paragraph 21 quoted earlier above):
“45. In respect of paragraph 152 of the Framework, the Secretary of State agrees that a substantial amount of carbon would go into construction (IR13.32), and that this would impede the UK’s transition to a zero-carbon economy (IR13.87). He has found that there has not been an appropriately thorough exploration of alternatives to demolition (paragraph 32 above). He has also taken into account that the carbon impacts would be to an extent mitigated by the carbon offset payments secured via the s.106 Agreement, which would be used to deliver carbon reductions (albeit it has not been demonstrated that the carbon reductions would fully offset the embodied carbon arising from this proposal). He has also taken into account the sustainability credentials of the new building (paragraph 21 above). Overall he concludes that in terms of paragraph 152 of the Framework, the proposal would in part fail to support the transition to a low carbon future, and would overall fail to encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings. The Secretary of State considers that this carries moderate weight against the scheme.
46. The Secretary of State has also considered the Inspector’s conclusion at IR13.99 that of the material considerations in this case, the extent of embodied energy weighs most heavily against the scheme. He has taken into account that a substantial amount of embodied carbon would go into construction. He has also taken into account at paragraph 21 above the sustainability credentials of the new building, and has further taken into account that the carbon offset payments secured via the s.106 Agreement would be used to deliver carbon reductions (albeit it has not been demonstrated that the carbon reductions would fully offset the embodied carbon arising from this proposal). Given his conclusions on these matters, he considers, unlike the Inspector at IR13.99, that in the particular circumstances of this case, the embodied carbon carries moderate weight.”
Finally, a warning against treating this decision as too much of a precedent:
“47. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s comments at IR13.94 that there is a ‘growing principle that reducing climate change should generally trump other matters’; and his comments at IR13.99 that as climate change policy is still developing, the Secretary of State is entitled to use his judgement to give this consideration greater weight than the Inspector has attributed to it. Policy in this area will continue to develop and in due course further changes may well be made to statute, policy or guidance. This decision letter sets out the Secretary of State’s judgement on the weight which attaches to these matters in the circumstances of this particular case.
48. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s comment at IR13.95 that fear of precedent could be a material consideration of sufficient weight to justify dismissing the application. However, he is confident that any future decision-maker would pay attention to the whole decision and the detailed reasoning and not just to the outcome of the decision. In any event, the decision turns on its own very specific facts, including the relevant development plan policy matrix, the Inspector’s report and the evidence which was before the inquiry, which are all unlikely to be replicated in other cases.”
Easy to say but of course there will be attempts to read across these findings to other projects.
My overall prediction? An important part of Oxford Street may well indeed become vacant or subjected to uses which will do nothing for this vulnerable commercial area – which is currently frankly a disgrace. A project has been first stalled, then killed, brought forward by one of the country’s most respected companies, for reasons which aren’t even based on any finding that demolition and rebuild will lead to greater release of carbon over the lifetime of the building than a hypothetical refurbishment of the existing building – and, in so far as they are heritage-based, on the one hand ascribe a surprising amount of weight to the moderate levels of harm arising and on the other ascribe little weight to the public benefits that would surely arise from a twenty first century flagship department store in Oxford Street.
Some of you will get very upset by this blog post I’m sure. But not as upset as Mr Machin is about Mr Gove.
Even if the policy thrust set out in the 22 December announcement was appropriate and worth some short-term process turbulence, it has already stalled. So, what really was the point (aside of course from its politically necessary signalling of capitulation to Conservative backbenchers’ concerns over the prospect of development taking place in their constituencies)? Consultation closed on 3 March 2023. The Government was to respond to the consultation and publish the revised NPPF in Spring 2023. There was then to be consultation on proposed changes to the rest of the NPPF and on more detailed policy options and proposals for National Development Management Policies (supported by environmental assessments), once the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill had passed through all its Parliamentary stages shortly thereafter. But the Bill is still in the Lords. Lords Report Stage will be on 11 and 13 July. We then have the summer recess (Commons from 20 July, Lords from 26 July) and the Bill then needs to return to the Commons – so there is no prospect of Royal Assent before Autumn 2023. I can’t see how the LURB’s plan making reforms can be implemented this side of the general election.
And yet the Government criticises local planning authorities – and indeed developers – for not getting on with things….
In the meantime, we have little flutters of activity, the latest being Michael Gove’s endorsement this week of a paper published by Policy Exchange (the Government’s de facto policy incubation hub), Better Places: A Matrix for Measuring & Delivering Placemaking Quality, which is an exercise to see whether determining the quality of place making can be reduced to a “universal tool capable of measuring how successful developments will be, (or are) at placemaking for the very first time.”
“The Placemaking Matrix contained within this paper sets out a series of questions whose answers can be used to calculate a score which then reflects the placemaking quality of any new development. Combining the two words of its title and conveniently appropriating the Latin word for peace, the score will be known as the PAX rating.”
“The matrix questions are divided into three groups, those that relate to the Physical, Socio-Economic and Psychological elements of any new development. In this alone the rating system forms a pioneering departure from conventional placemaking practice, while it is relatively easy to define physical attributes and, to a slightly lesser extent, socio-economic ones, no previous study or standard has attempted to quantify the psychological content of places and yet these are arguably the most important when assessing their human impact. The PAX system does just this.”
Aside from the substance of the paper, one thing it really calls out for is some sub-editing and proof-reading. Mark these passages on a range of 0 to 4:
“It is important to note that the Placemaking Matrix does not present itself as a definitive ‘magic formula’ that can conclusively determine design quality and character. While the Matrix sets out to be a universal tool, the localised nature of placemaking will inevitably require adaptation to local contexts and conditions. Consequently It is not our intention that the current set of questions are forever fixed in stone forever. While the paper acknowledges that there are objective, observable truths that define good placemaking, it is not so ideologically rigid as to suggest that a tool such as this must attain pure, unqualified universality. We see our paper as the earliest development of the matrix and we hope and anticipate that with time, testing and hopefully trust from the industry, the questions can be modelled, adapted and evolved to strike the best possible balance between universal best practice and the localised, contextual nuance that also helps drive placemaking success.”
“Furthermore this paper emerges as the latest addition to a Policy Exchange Building Beautiful programme that has attempted to distil the very essence of beauty into an objective standard rather than a subjective instinct, a challenge that now form a central part of the political housing debate.”
So, it’s to be a “universal tool” but (I like this phrase) not “forever fixed in stone forever”. The paper is “not so ideologically rigid as to suggest that a tool such as this must attain pure, unqualified universality”.
Reader, my head was hurting. And then I entered the Matrix: 272 questions, each to be marked on a range of 0 to 4. The percentage score of each of 12 sections is then averaged out. 70% outstanding, 60% good, 50% average, below 50% poor. The questions are quite specific but in large part call for subjective responses. Their relevance is wholly dependent on the scale and nature of the scheme and its location. Some examples:
Does the development incorporate cycle lanes?
Does the development maintain a cycle hire scheme?
Does the development contain fountains?
To what extent do building uses integrate into existing usage patterns in the area surrounding the development site?
Does the programme design incorporate opportunities for impromptu street performance?
Does any programme apparatus incorporate audio-visual, tactile, sensory or play equipment?
What level of healthcare facilities have been provided on the development?
Has a letterbox been provided within the development?
Will any properties offer commonhold ownership?
Does the development incorporate audial stimulation? (i.e. church bells, wildlife habitats)?
Does the development promote a visual brand, motif or logo?
Why on earth add yet another technocratic process to the system, to be gamed by all concerned? I would say it’s tick-box but it’s worse than that!
This would all be classic “silly season” stuff. Except for Michael Gove’s endorsement by way of his foreword:
“…it is because placemaking is crucial to the country’s long-term health that Policy Exchange’s newly devised Placemaking Matrix promises to be an indispensable resource. A universal tool that can be used to score a range of elements seen in new and existing developments, it can help build confidence in the wider social value of new residential schemes during the planning process and so unlock much-needed new housing supply.”
“For too long, quality has been viewed by many as a planning impediment. The Placemaking Matrix could help transform it into an incentive. Ike Ijeh’s brilliant new paper for Policy Exchange is no less than a detailed instruction manual for how we can create the good places of the future. I hope it receives the welcome it deserves.”
I don’t disagree with the final sentence incidentally.
The Secretary of State’s 6 April 2023 decision to refuse planning permission for Berkeley Homes’ proposed development of 165 new dwellings in Cranbrook, Kent (a decision in fact taken by planning minister Rachel Mclean on behalf of the Secretary of State) = a head on collision for sure.
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council had resolved to approve the scheme but Natural England, concerned as to the prospect of harm to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, secured its call in by the Secretary of State.
The council has slightly less than five years’ housing land supply. The scheme included 40% affordable housing: 50/50 rented and shared ownership.
To cut a long story short (read the decision letter and inspector’s report), the Secretary of State disagreed with the inspector’s recommendation that planning permission be granted.
On the main issues:
⁃ AONB: “Overall the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR823 that there would be some harm to the HWAONB, which would be limited, and that the harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWAONB attracts great weight.”
Tucked within his conclusions on AONB this turns out to be a crucial passage in the decision:
“The Secretary of State recognises that both the HWAONB Management Plan and the High Weald Housing Design Guide emphasise that housing development in the HWAONB should be landscape-led. Whilst he agrees with the Inspector that the proposed development would deliver landscape enhancements (IR826), he does not find the proposal to be of a high standard which has evolved through thoughtful regard to its context (IR723). Overall, he does not find that the scheme is sensitively designed having regard to its setting. He finds that the design of the proposal does not reflect the expectations of the High Weald Housing Design Guide, being of a generic suburban nature which does not reproduce the constituent elements of local settlements. He also considers that the layout of the scheme does not respond to its AONB setting. Rather than being a benefit of the scheme, as suggested by the Inspector, the Secretary of State considers that the design of the scheme is a neutral factor in the context of paragraphs 176 and 177 of the Framework and the planning balance.”
Not “sensitively designed”? “… of a generic suburban nature”? It’s worth looking at the scheme drawings, design and access statement etc on the council’s planning portal. I would disagree. More fundamentally, there is something very odd about a minister (and civil servants) arriving at a conclusion like this, in the face of the elected local planning authority and hands on consideration, site visits and so on conducted at that stage and in the face of the conclusions reached by an inspector after many inquiry days and a site visit. And in the face of Government assertions that it still wants to see 300,000 homes built annually. Frankly why bother with all that if this is the outcome?
⁃ Air quality: “…there would be very limited harm to air quality, and he affords this very limited weight in the planning balance.”
⁃ Site allocation strategy: Whilst he agreed with the inspector that the local plan policies should be treated as out of date because of the lack of five years’ housing supply, because the shortfall was slight he disagreed with the Inspector’s assessment that both the policies and the conflict with them carry limited weight.
⁃ Historic environment: “For the reasons given at IR767-774 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR773 that the proposed development would not harm any significant historic landscape resource and all of the individual features which could be of potential interest would be retained.”
⁃ Sustainable transport: “For the reasons given at IR790-793 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the development would promote sustainable transport in the terms of the Framework and accord with relevant development plan policy in that regard (IR794).”
Turning to the benefits of the scheme:
⁃ Housing delivery: “For the reasons given at IR763-764 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is a clear need for both market and affordable housing in the Borough and that the proposed development would make a significant contribution to the delivery of both (IR764).”
⁃ Biodiversity: “…the proposed development would secure significant BNG such that it would accord with the Framework, including paras 174, 179 and 180 and development plan policy, as well as the eLP, in this regard (IR747).
⁃ Other benefits: “The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR774, IR720 and IR811 that the proposed reinstatement of hedgerows along historic boundaries and of the shaw in the southern fields would be beneficial to the time-depth character of the HWAONB (IR774). Furthermore, the proposed re-creation of Tanner’s Lane would also be beneficial in heritage terms as it would reinstate a historic feature in the local landscape (IR774). The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR720 and IR811 that the new woodland planting and management of existing woodland would be to the benefit of the environment and landscape. He further agrees for the reasons given at IR786 that the proposed highway works may result in improving highway safety. In addition, for the reasons given at IR811 the additional footpaths and substantial new publicly accessible amenity space would enhance recreational opportunities.”
Overall conclusion on benefits:
“The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s view at IR824 as to weight attaching to the benefits of the scheme, and notwithstanding his conclusion at paragraph 36 below that there is not a ‘very compelling case’ for the need for development of this type and in Cranbrook, overall he agrees that the combined weight of the benefits is substantial. However, he does not agree with the Inspector’s characterisation at IR826 that it constitutes ‘a package of exceptional benefits’.”
So “the combined weight of the benefits is substantial”….
Application of policies in the NPPF relating to development in the AONB:
⁃ Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs – conclusion that limited harm but that harm should be given great weight.
⁃ Planning permission for major development in the AONB should be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the development, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest – no exceptional circumstances, not in the public interest.
Overall conclusions:
“Weighing in favour of the development are the need for and delivery of housing, the Biodiversity Net Gain, enhanced recreation opportunities, improvements in highway safety, heritage benefits to the historic landscape and landscape benefits by way of woodland planting and management, which collectively carry substantial weight.
Weighing against the proposal is the harm to the landscape and the scenic beauty of the HWAONB which attracts great weight. There is further harm by way of conflict with the spatial strategy which attracts moderate weight, harm to air quality which is afforded very limited weight and harm to the plan making process through prematurity which is afforded very limited weight.
The Secretary of State has concluded for the reasons given above that exceptional circumstances do not exist to justify the proposed development in the AONB and that the development would not be in the public interest. Therefore, paragraph 177 of the Framework provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed and as such under paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework the presumption in favour of sustainable development is no longer engaged.
Overall, the Secretary of State’s conclusion on section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is that the conflict with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate that permission should be refused.”
The decision appears to have been the final straw for housebuilders, already riled by the overtly anti-housebuilding theme of the proposed amendments to the NPPF (final version soon to emerge). See for example Builders lambast Michael Gove after he blocks plan for ‘generic’ homes in Kent (The Times, 15 April 2023 – behind paywall).
There were no costs applications in this decision but I do note that costs applications and awards appear to becoming more frequent. Often of course these are in favour of appellants where the case against grant of planning permission simply has not been made out by the relevant local planning authority (particularly where the decision to refuse was against officers’ recommendations) – e.g for one example amongst many this decision letter dated 20 April 2023, plus accompanying costs decision letter in relation to a student housing scheme in Bath.
But it’s not just appellants who achieve costs awards. Did people see this recent costs decision letter where Mid Suffolk District Council achieved a full award of costs against the appellant, arising from flooding and access issues which led the inspector to conclude that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success? Proceed with caution.
By way of reminder (ok gratuitous plug), if you sign up to our free Town Library appeal decisions service you get a list each week of the most recent major planning appeal decisions (namely all those arising from inquiries as opposed to hearings or the written representations process) with links to the decision letters themselves.
Oh finally, another mind blowing decision: the Government continuing to press on with the proposed Infrastructure Levy. Truly a terrible proposal. You may have logged on to our recent clubhouse discussion (hopefully soon to emerge as a 50 Shades of Planning podcast), ahead of the 9 June deadline for responses to the Government’s current technical consultation. If there is anyone out there who can articulate why IL would be an improvement over the current system I would love to hear from you.
By contrast with the timeline of this case to date, the planning system zips along.
This week the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Fearn & Others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery (Supreme Court, 1 February 2023), the most important private nuisance case in many years. I’m not hoping to analyse the reasoning of the court in relation to the law of private nuisance, but if you are interested I suggest that you start with the Supreme Court’s own press summary and then enter the blizzard of property litigation lawyers’ updates and thought pieces on LinkedIn etc. I’m only interested in what it means for the town and country planning process – if anything.
I wrote about the first instance ruling of the High Court in my 2 March 2019 blog post, Trial By Instagram: Privacy & Planning. I used to be quite lyrical:
“Photo-sharing social media apps, weaponised by the smartphone camera, are changing our experience and expectations of place. Is the planning system, and the law of private nuisance, keeping up?
At a personal level we have all become artists, influencers, curators, with our instant pics, filtered, composed, annotated. Fomo for you = dopamine for me. But zoom out and through endlessly snapping, sharing, liking and commenting, we are of course the product, the hive mind, the crowd source, working for the data mine, adding to the geo-cache, mapping ceaselessly where the sugar is in the city.
In this context, what sells a place? From outside in: a glimpse of the life style, the life, that could be yours. From inside out: unique views out onto a city. The two ugly i words: iconic, instagrammable.
On one side, the residents of Neo Bankside, housed from floor to ceiling in glass so as to achieve spectacular views out and having paid no doubt precisely to be able to enjoy that experience.
On the other side, at its closest point 34 metres to the north of Block C of Neo Bankside, the viewing gallery on the tenth floor of the Blavatnik Building extension to Tate Modern, from which visitors also have spectacular views, including, to the south, of those residents in their transparent homes.”
And so I went on, analysing Mann J’s judgment in detail, but that analysis is now completely redundant. The Supreme Court has overturned the ruling both of Mann J and subsequent ruling of the Court of Appeal and held, by a majority of three to two that the Tate was liable in nuisance for inviting the public to look out from a viewing platform from which they can, and many do, peer into the claimants’ flats – and (the saga is far from over yet) another court will now need to grapple with the issue of what remedies (injunction/damages) may be appropriate.
However, for planners, it is still worth reading paragraphs 29 to 53 of Mann J’s first instance judgment, where he sets out in detail the planning history of the properties.
Because, for all of us engaged in the town and country planning process, the big question is whether it should be the role of the planning system to seek to prevent juxtapositions of uses like this – or is that a matter for private law (and this case is now a demonstration of the remedies available for individuals who have their private law rights infringed)?
“Whilst this case did concern a very particular set of circumstances as to the level of invasion of privacy the Claimants were subjected to (i.e. I suspect “overlooking” alone is unlikely to be sufficient to base a private nuisance claim on) it does stress how fundamental good design in new development is to avoid future private nuisance claims.
Placemaking, understanding and respecting the integrity of neighbourhoods should be a building block to good design. A further thought is that there is no useful “planning tool” to avoid or minimise future private nuisance claims; unlike property rights, it is not a right which can be lawfully interfered with or compulsorily acquired by relying on a local planning authority’s statutory powers.
Whilst the judgment is an incredibly welcome confirmation that the planning system is not there to police private rights, it is a reminder that design of development is at the heart to preventing these issues arising in the first place.”
I had noted down pretty much the same passages in the judgment as she identifies, namely paragraphs 109 and 110 from Lord Leggatt’s majority judgment:
“Reliance on planning law
109. The second matter of policy raised by the Court of Appeal was a suggestion that planning laws and regulations would be a better medium for controlling “inappropriate overlooking” than the common law of nuisance (para 83). This seems to me to overlook (if I may use the term) the fact that, while both may sometimes be relevant, planning laws and the common law of nuisance have different functions. Unlike the common law of nuisance, the planning system does not have as its object preventing or compensating violations of private rights in the use of land. Its purpose is to control the development of land in the public interest. The objectives which a planning authority may take into account in formulating policy and in deciding whether to grant permission for building on land or for a material change of use are open-ended and include a broad range of environmental, social and economic considerations. While a planning authority is likely to consider the potential effect of a new building or use of land on the amenity value of neighbouring properties, there is no obligation to give this factor any particular weight in the assessment. Quite apart from this, as Lord Neuberger observed in Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] UKSC 13; [2014] AC 822, para 95:
“when granting planning permission for a change of use, a planning authority would be entitled to assume that a neighbour whose private rights might be infringed by that use could enforce those rights in a nuisance action; it could not be expected to take on itself the role of deciding a neighbour’s common law rights.”
110. For such reasons, the Supreme Court made it clear in Lawrence that planning laws are not a substitute or alternative for the protection provided by the common law of nuisance. As Carnwath LJ said in Biffa Waste, para 46(ii), in a passage quoted with approval by Lord Neuberger in Lawrence, at para 92:
“Short of express or implied statutory authority to commit a nuisance … there is no basis, in principle or authority, for using such a statutory scheme to cut down private law rights.”
The practical as well as legal irrelevance of planning permission in this case is apparent from the judge’s finding that no consideration was given to overlooking in the planning process for the Tate extension: [2019] Ch 369, paras 58-63.”
It is also worth noting that Lord Sales’ minority judgment does not dissent in terms of the role of the planning system:
“148. The designs for the Blavatnik Building always included a viewing gallery in some form, although its precise extent varied through successive iterations of the design. Planning policy for the South Bank encourages the construction of viewing galleries in buildings of significant height. However, there is no planning document which indicates that overlooking by the viewing gallery in the direction of Block C was considered by the local planning authority at any stage. It is not likely that the planning authority considered the extent of overlooking. Further, while the Neo Bankside developer was aware of the plans for a viewing gallery, it did not foresee the level of intrusion which resulted. In broad terms, the design and construction of the Blavatnik Building with the viewing gallery in its final form took place in parallel with the design and construction of Neo Bankside, without the effects of the one on the other so far as visual intrusion was concerned being fully appreciated or addressed.”
201. At para 81 the Court of Appeal also pointed out that overlooking is frequently a ground of objection to planning applications and noted that “any recognition that the cause of action in nuisance includes overlooking raises the prospect of claims in nuisance when such a planning objection has been rejected”. However, other forms of activity which can give rise to claims in nuisance, such as the generation of noise, smoke or smells, are also matters which may be addressed in objections to planning applications, so this does not give rise to any point of distinction. More fundamentally, as this court pointed out in Lawrence, at paras 77-95 per Lord Neuberger, the planning regime is concerned with issues of the public interest, not with resolving questions of individual rights. So it is not surprising, and is not a matter of particular concern, that a cause of action in nuisance may be found to exist in a case where an objection to the grant of planning permission founded on similar matters has been rejected. A grant of planning permission pursuant to the administrative processes under the planning regime cannot remove private rights which neighbouring landowners may have. See also Hunter, p 710D, per Lord Hoffmann and Lawrence, paras 156 (Lord Sumption), 165 (Lord Mance) and 193 (Lord Carnwath).”
This must all surely be right. The right approach to the determination of any application for planning permission is whether the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There may often be policies which seek to protect existing residential amenity (although when I look for instance at the current Southwark local plan, postdating these proposals, I see no specific references to protection of existing residents’ privacy or to avoiding overlooking). Even without local policy support, aspect of a development proposal which may adversely affect neighbours are certainly capable of being a material consideration in the determination of an application for planning permission, but as always it is for the decision-maker to decide how much weight to apply to those considerations.
I don’t believe that the judgment increases the onus on local planning authorities to consider privacy/overlooking considerations: planning decisions can only go so far and private law remedies are the ultimate safety net. And of course the circumstances of the Tate Modern case, by virtue of the unusual nature of the viewing platform and the extent of its use, should not be applied too widely. However, one would hope that the Government’s increased emphasis on design in the planning process may reduce the risks of these sorts of unanticipated juxtapositions in the future. It will be interesting to see the Government’s proposed National Development Management Policies in due course…
M&S used to be the bellwether of the retail sector but its proposed demolition and redevelopment of its 456 – 472 Oxford Street store, in preference to refurbishment and extension, is as likely to be a bellwether of decision makers’ approach to carbon efficiency and in particular to justifying the loss of embodied carbon.
Siri, give me a definition of embodied carbon:
“Embodied carbon means all the CO2 emitted in producing materials. It’s estimated from the energy used to extract and transport raw materials as well as emissions from manufacturing processes.
The embodied carbon of a building can include all the emissions from the construction materials, the building process, all the fixtures and fittings inside as well as from deconstructing and disposing of it at the end of its lifetime.” (UCL engineering faculty).
Plainly, maximising the carbon efficiency of new development should be a significant material consideration in the determination of planning applications. But it’s not easy. How, for instance, to weigh longer term operational carbon savings against the one-off carbon costs associated with demolition and rebuild? And how much weight is to be given to carbon saving in the planning process as against other considerations?
You can look in vain for any specific guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. The “planning for climate change” section (paragraphs 153 to 158) is of course woefully out of date, with an update promised mañana. Climate crisis what crisis?
Even so, the issue was raised by the Secretary of State when he dismissed the Tulip appeal (11th November 2021): “Although considerable efforts have been made to adopt all available sustainability techniques to make the construction and operation of the scheme as sustainable as possible” the result would still amount to “a scheme with very high embodied energy and an unsustainable whole life-cycle.” The Secretary of State also agreed with the Inspector: “that the extensive measures that would be taken to minimise carbon emissions during construction would not outweigh the highly unsustainable concept of using vast quantities of reinforced concrete for the foundations and lift shaft to transport visitors to as high a level as possible to enjoy a view.”
Notwithstanding the lack of national policy guidance, the London Plan does have a policy hook, Policy SI 2:
I want to scoot through the sequence of events so far in relation to the M&S proposal.
Its application for planning permission was submitted to Westminster City Council on 2 July 2021, proposing the demolition of the three buildings that comprise its 456 – 472 Oxford Street store, to make way for a comprehensive redevelopment to provide a building comprising two basement levels, ground and nine upper floors. The proposal would provide an office and retail led mixed use development. The oldest of the buildings, Orchard House, dates from the 1930s. Two comprise basement plus six storeys and one being basement plus seven storeys. Given the changing retail economy, the need for substantial changes to buildings such as this is of course no surprise. The scheme is by architects Philbrow & Partners.
Fred Philbrow stresses the lower lifetime carbon emissions that will arise from the new building, rather than a retrofit:
“It’s not always right to refurbish” old structures, Pilbrow told Dezeen, claiming that the contentious project is akin to trading in a gas guzzler for a Tesla.
“I would liken this to a discussion about a not-very-well-performing diesel car from the 1970s,” he said. “And what we’re trying to do is replace it with a Tesla.“
“In the short term, the diesel car has got less embodied carbon,” he added. “But very quickly, within between nine and 16 years, we will be ahead on carbon because our Tesla will perform better.” (Dezeen, 17 December 2021).
The application was resolved to be approved by Westminster City Council on 23 November 2021, despite last minute objections from Save Britain’s Heritage and others. The report says this on carbon:
“The applicant has submitted a Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment (WLCA) prepared by Arup, as required by Policy SI2 of the London Plan and City Plan Policy 36.
The WLCA includes a comparative assessment of the whole life carbon emissions of a ‘light touch’ refurbishment versus new build development options. The report sets out that refurbishment option has the lowest embodied carbon impact initially because minimal works (and materials) are required. However, this increases over time due to the required maintenance and poor operational performance of the existing buildings.
The assessment concludes that the new build option is the most efficient scenario, especially through the implementation of the low-carbon opportunities recommended in the report. Whilst it has a higher initial embodied carbon than the refurbishment option as it needs to be built (with a high carbon expenditure) – over its operational lifetime it will require much less maintenance than the refurbishment option and be a more efficient building, providing a betterment from years 15/16.
The GLA in their stage 1 response requested the applicant to complete the GLA’s WLCA assessment template. This has been submitted to the GLA and an update on this position with regard to London Plan policy S12 will be reported verbally at the Committee meeting.”
The resolution was subject to referral to the Mayor of London and completion of a section 106 agreement, including an index linked carbon offset payment of £1,198,134 payable prior to the commencement of development.
On the same day as Westminster’s resolution to grant, Historic England turned down a request by objectors that the building be listed.
The Mayor confirmed on 7 March 2022 that he was not going to intervene. However, Save Britain’s Heritage complained that he had not taken into account representations that they had made, including a report they had commissioned from Simon Sturgis Why a Comprehensive Retrofit Is more Carbon Efficient than the Proposed New Build. Simon had previously advised the Mayor on his emerging carbon policies. [NB see Simon Sturgis’ subsequent comments on this blog post at the foot of the page]
Unusually, the Mayor then decided he was going to reconsider the issue:
“A spokesperson for the Mayor of London, said: ‘In line with London Plan policy on Whole Life Carbon, the question of retention and refurbishment or demolition and new build was considered in the GLA’s assessment of this application, and based on officer advice that there was no sound planning reason to intervene, on 7 March the Mayor made the decision to allow Westminster to determine the application.
‘However, City of Westminster is yet to issue its planning decision, and the GLA has now published its planning guidance on Whole Life Carbon and Circular Economy. In light of this situation GLA officers consider it would be prudent to consider a further Stage 2 report, which would also allow consideration of the detailed report by Simon Sturgis examining the carbon emissions impacts of the proposed demolition. An updated Stage 2 report will be presented for consideration at the Mayor’s meeting on Monday 4 April.’” (Architects Journal, 1 April 2022).
However, his decision on 4 April 2022 was the same – no intervention. The stage 2 report and addendum report are available here.
Given the assessment that the Mayor will have made as against his own policies, more up to date and stringent than those of the Government, it is perhaps disappointing for those who believe in devolved decision making then to read that Michael Gove has, presumably in response to further representations (see eg Save Britain’s Heritage’s letter dated 20 April 2022) issued a holding direction preventing Westminster City Council from issuing planning permission until he has decided whether to call it in. The holding direction, under Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, is only a precautionary procedural step to buy time and doesn’t at all mean that the Secretary of State is definitely going to call the application in, just that he is considering whether to do that. Indeed holding directions are not particularly unusual in relation to controversial proposals where the Secretary of State has received requests from objectors for him to use his call in powers. seeking call in. But frankly it’s anybody’s guess what will now happen.
The planning system is certainly curious in its inconsistencies. What about the “demolish and rebuild” permitted development rights for some categories of building, introduced in August 2020? Or that demolition of itself does not usually require formal planning permission?
Concluding thoughts:
⁃ climate change considerations should increasingly be central to planning decision making
⁃ but it’s no use the Government reacting in an ad hoc way to specific proposals – up to date, practical, guidance is needed to manage everyone’s expectations – a lengthy call in inquiry is in no-one’s interests
⁃ it shouldn’t be about the easy headlines and twitter pile-ons, but about robust detailed calculations.
⁃ watch how heritage campaign groups continue to accentuate the embodied carbon issue: embodied carbon vs operational savings via more efficient buildings is going to be a constant battleground.
Talking of listening…no clubhouse Planning Law Unplanned discussion this week but plenty of previous episodes to listen to here and some good sessions lined up….
There was a customarily short and clear judgment from Holgate J this week as to how decision makers should approach applications for prior approval for the upward extension of buildings under the General Permitted Development Order: CAB Housing Limited v Secretary of State (3 February 2022)
So I’m saying nothing, you will be pleased to hear, about the 2 February 2022 Levelling Up white paper There are plenty of summaries available – and you do need a summary! Or listen to the Planning Law Unplanned clubhouse event we held, featuring Catriona Riddell (linkedin piece here), Iain Thomson (linkedin piece here) and Victoria Hutton (linkedin piece here).
Nor anything about mythical Bob, the Government’s 31 January 2022 Benefits of Brexit paper, which seemed to have little new to say in terms of the subject matter of this blog.
Nor anything about the energy price cap – although that does give additional topicality to our our next Planning Law Unplanned clubhouse event plugged at the end of this post.
Nor anything about the continuing NIMBY vs YIMBY noise that I got drawn into on twitter this week – although there is at least some link between Holgate J’s judgment & all that: someone came out with the usual trope that a planning system with a large discretionary element to decision making is “good for the lawyers”. I didn’t respond, but thought to myself that a less discretionary system, whether based on zoning or permitted development rights, is of course even better for the lawyers – because it all becomes about where the legal boundary lines are.
When Parliament amended the General Permitted Development Order to allow upwards extensions, subject to defined criteria and limitations together with the need to seek prior approval for certain aspects of the proposals, the description of the matters in relation to which prior approval is required was far too vague. What do matters such as “impact on amenity” and “external appearance” actually mean? Do you take as a given the right to extend up to two storeys upwards and in that context consider external appearance, akin to considering reserved matters with the equivalent of outline planning permission already having been granted for the two storeys, or can issues of principle as to the acceptability of that upwards extension be considered, as long as they relate to amenity or external appearance,? Obviously this is a particularly critical question where the local planning authority may be resistant in principle to upwards extensions – these new rights trumpeted by the Government become rather less meaningful.
The Cab Housing case related to three appeal decisions where the relevant inspector had dismissed appeals in relation to proposals under Class AA of Part 1 of the GPDO (upwards extensions to detatched houses).
Over to Holgate J to explain:
“These challenges raise important issues regarding the true interpretation of Class AA of Part 1. First, are the claimants correct in saying that a planning authority’s control of impact on amenity limited to effects on properties contiguous with, or abutting, the subject property and are those effects limited to overlooking, privacy and loss of light? Alternatively, does that control embrace impact upon all aspects of the amenity of neighbouring premises, as the Secretary of State contends? Second, is the authority’s control of the external appearance of the subject dwelling limited to the “design and architectural features” of its principal elevation and any side elevation fronting a highway, and is it further limited to the effects of those matters upon the subject dwelling itself? The claimants contend for that interpretation and they say that the authority is not allowed to consider the effects of external appearance upon any property outside the subject dwelling. Alternatively, is the correct interpretation, as the Secretary of State contends, that the control covers (1) all aspects of the external appearance of the proposed development, and not simply the two elevations specifically referred to in AA.2(3)(a)(ii)) and (2) impact upon other premises, and not simply the subject dwelling itself?
In the decisions challenged in these proceedings, the Inspectors took the broader approach in relation to external appearance and, in two cases, to amenity. It is common ground that if the claimants’ construction of the GPDO 2015 is correct, then each of the decisions must be quashed as ultra vires. The decisions would have been taken outside the ambit of the powers exercisable by the Inspector. But, if the defendant’s interpretation is correct, then it is also common ground that each of the three Inspectors reached decisions which fell within their powers, their decisions are not otherwise open to legal challenge and the applications for statutory review must be dismissed.
The claimants point out that other Inspectors have taken a different view upon the scope of the controls exercisable in the determination of an application for prior approval under Class AA of Part 1. It has been said that the decision-maker is not allowed to assess the impact of the external appearance of a proposed addition of 1 or 2 storeys on any area outside the subject building, for example, the streetscape. It has also been said that the principle of an upwards extension of up to 2 storeys is “established” by the permitted development right itself, so that the decision on the application for prior approval should not frustrate, or resile from, that principle. Such statements have even been made in relation to other permitted development rights where the GPDO 2015 requires “external appearance” to be controlled, without going on to refer to specific elevations (see e.g. the decision letter dated 6 July 2021 on Kings Gate, 111, The Drive, Hove). If the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the GPDO 2015 is correct, then all these decisions were potentially liable to be quashed on an application under s.288 brought within time. Plainly there are differences of interpretation which need to be resolved. There is also the question: to what extent is it correct to say that the principle of development is established where a permitted development right is subject to prior approval?
The issues in this case also affect the proper construction and ambit of permitted development rights granted by GPDO 2015 under Classes ZA, A, AA, AB, AC and AD of Part 20. These provide for up to two storeys of multiple units of residential units to be erected on top of an existing purpose-built block of flats, or on top of detached or terraced buildings in commercial or mixed use or residential use.
The claimants’ narrower approach to the legal scope of prior approval in these Classes also has implications for non-residential permitted development rights. For example, the right to erect or extend an agricultural building under Class A of Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the GDPO 2015 is potentially subject to control by prior approval in respect of the “external appearance” of the building proposed. If, as some decision-makers have said, that control is limited to assessing the effects of that appearance on the building itself, then it would follow, for example, that the effects of that external appearance on the setting of a listed building nearby could not be controlled. Can this really be right?”
His conclusion was that this was not right:
“(i) Where an application is made for prior approval under Class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO 2015, the scale of the development proposed can be controlled within the ambit of paragraph AA.2(3)(a);
(ii) In paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(i) of Part 1, “impact on amenity” is not limited to overlooking, privacy or loss of light. It means what it says;
(iii) The phrase “adjoining premises” in that paragraph includes neighbouring premises and is not limited to premises contiguous with the subject property;
(iv) In paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of Part 1, the “external appearance” of the dwelling house is not limited to its principal elevation and any side elevation fronting a highway, or to the design and architectural features of those elevations;
(v) Instead, the prior approval controls for Class AA of Part 1 include the “external appearance” of the dwelling house;
(vi) The control of the external appearance of the dwelling house is not limited to impact on the subject property itself, but also includes impact on neighbouring premises and the locality.”
The judge seeks to downplay the significance of these conclusions:
“The decision of each Inspector was entirely lawful. That is as far as the Court’s function permits this judgment to go. Individual decision-makers will make their own planning judgments applying the prior approval controls, correctly interpreted, to the materials before them. This judgment does not mean that individual decision-makers would be bound to determine the appeals on the three properties the subject of these proceedings in the way that in fact occurred. That is always a matter of judgment for the person or authority taking the decision. I would also add that there is no evidence before the Court to show that the correct interpretation of Class AA of Part 1, along with the related Classes in Part 20, will in practice make it impossible or difficult for developers to rely upon these permitted development rights.”
As it is, given their inherent restrictions and limitations, these new GPDO rights have not yet delivered substantially more homes. Holgate J is of course right that his interpretation will not make it impossible for developers to rely on them – but surely it will make it more difficult in many cases. Despite the analysis in the judgment as to what was said in consultation documents in relation to the new rights, I’m left wondering whether the Government appreciated what confusion these changes would cause and, ultimately, their potentially limited advantages over an application for full planning permission?
As trailed earlier, this week’s Planning Law Unplanned clubhouse event will be all about reducing energy use and increasing renewables, with a sparky collection of guests I assure you… 6 pm, Tuesday 8 February 2022, link to app and event here.
It is interesting to consider what the Secretary of State has said about design matters in three recent decisions, subsequent to the July 2021 revisions to the NPPF and new national model design code (see my 27 July 2021 blog post Beauty & The Beach).
Westferry Printworks
Image courtesy of Westferry Developments
Following the quashing of his predecessor’s decision to allow the appeal by Westferry Developments Limited in relation to the non-determination by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets of its application for planning permission for 1,524 dwellings and associated development on the former Westferry Printworks site (see my 23 May 2020 blog post) the Secretary of State has now dismissed the appeal in a decision letter dated 18 November 2021.
On design he says this:
“The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR.A.420-435 and IR.B.235-240 and IR.B.302 in relation to the effect of the scale, height and massing of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. For the reasons given at IR.B.235-236 and IR.B.302 the Secretary of State agrees that the appeal scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area (IR.B.302).
The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment at IR.A.436 that the spacing between the proposed towers and the way materials and the detailed design of the facades would bring texture and variety to the appearance of the buildings. However, for the reasons given at IR.B.235-236, the Secretary of State further agrees that the appeal scheme would result in a proposal of excessive height, scale and mass which would fail to respond to the existing character of the place. He further agrees that it would not enhance the local context by responding positively to local distinctiveness and, like the Inspector, considers that the proposal would conflict with LonP 2021 Policy D3 (IR.B.236).
For the reasons given at IR.A.436-438 and IR.B.237, the Secretary of State agrees that although the site is within a Tall Buildings Zone (TBZ) as identified in the development 6 plan, the scale, height and mass of the proposal is such that it would not make a positive contribution to the skyline nor the local townscape or achieve an appropriate transition in scale to buildings of significantly lower height. He further agrees that it would not reinforce the spatial hierarchy of the local and wider context, and would cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, would harm the ability to appreciate a World Heritage Site (WHS) and would compromise the enjoyment of an adjoining water space (IR.B.237). He further agrees at IR.A.436 that the proposal would not be well related to the street scene of Westferry Road (IR.A.436). For the reasons given, he agrees that the proposal would conflict with LonP Policy D9. He also agrees at IR.B.238 that the proposal would conflict with LP 2031 Policy S.DH1 because it would not be of an appropriate scale, height, mass, bulk and form. He further agrees, for the reasons given at IR.B.239, that the proposal would conflict with Policy D.DH6.
The Secretary of State further agrees that for the reasons given at IR.B.240, the proposal would not accord with the design principles set out in site allocation 4.12 (Westferry Printworks) of the LP 2031 and would therefore conflict with site allocation 4.12.
For the reasons given, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR.B.302 that overall, the proposal would not represent high quality design which responds to its context. He further agrees that significant weight should be attached to the harm to the character and appearance of the area because of the degree of harm that would be caused and the wide area over which that harm would be experienced (IR.B.302).
The Secretary of State has taken in to consideration the appellant’s representation of 27 August 2021, including that the proposal is representative of the highest quality design and appearance and that the development would deliver an attractive well-designed landscape masterplan that is easily accessible for pedestrians and cyclists; that trees are integral to the proposed streetscape; and that the proposals will deliver a safe, secure and attractive environment. The appellant considers that the proposed development is compatible with the emphasis in the revised Framework for building and places to be beautiful and sustainable. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the Council’s representation of 26 August 2021. This considers that the amended Framework and the requirement to consider the National Design Guide further reinforces and strengthens the Council’s case, and sets out where the Council considers that the proposal does not align with the principles in the National Design Guide.
For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State considers that overall, the appeal scheme does not reflect local design policies or government guidance on design, and is not in accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework. This view is further reinforced by his conclusions on heritage issues, below. He considers that the shortcomings of the proposal in terms of the failure to accord with the provisions of the revised Framework carry significant weight against the proposal.”
On behalf of the Secretary of State, the Minister for Housing, Christopher Pincher, dismissed an appeal by Bury Street Properties against the refusal by the City of London Corporation for planning permission for a 304 metre high visitor attraction in the City of London. His decision letter dated 11 November 2021 and inspector’s report make fascinating reading.
Zack Simons gave a great summary of the decision on clubhouse last Tuesday and you can listen again here.
There are some fascinating passages both in the decision letter and in inspector’s David Nicholson’s elegantly written report. Aside from his conclusions on heritage impact (particularly the effect of the proposal on the setting of the Tower of London world heritage site), there is a detailed analysis at paragraphs 32 to 41 of the six criteria for good design set out in paragraph 130 of the NPPF (the six criteria are unchanged from the previous version of the NPPF but it is interesting to see them used in this way):
• Function
“…the Secretary of State agrees that the scheme would function properly with regard to delivering a very high level viewing experience together with some exciting fairground-style additions. He further agrees with the Inspector’s comments about the level of skill and effort which has been put into resolving the entrance and exit requirements in such a tight space and the quality of the detailing. However, he agrees with the Inspector’s concerns that the number of visitors would need to be limited to prevent overcrowding at ground level. Overall, he agrees with the Inspector that the extent to which the design would overcome the constraints (of the site) and function well is a matter which should be given moderate weight (IR14.72).
For the reasons given in IR14.73, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that little if any thought has been given to how the building would function over its extended lifetime. He notes that there are no plans for its re-use when it has served its purpose as a viewing tower, or for its demolition. He agrees that if the owner were disinclined with little incentive, it would leave either an unmaintained eyesore or a large public liability, and this counts heavily against its design quality.”
• Visually attractive
“The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given at IR14.74, that while the quality of the presentation materials is of an exceptional standard, achieving the highest architectural quality goes well beyond the level of detailing and presentation. While he recognises that the quality of the presentation materials has made it easier to appreciate how the scheme is designed and how it impacts on its surroundings, he considers that the quality of the presentation materials is not directly relevant to the quality of the design and does not carry weight in this matter.
The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is some comfort that the attention to detail would be followed through into the finished article (IR14.83). For the reasons given at IR14.75-14.83, he agrees with the Inspector that however carefully detailed, in terms of aesthetics the result would be visually compromised, being neither a continuous flowing object, as with the Gherkin, nor a structure of three distinct parts, as with the Monument (IR14.77). He also shares the Inspector’s reservations about the finish to the concrete of the Tulip (IR14.78-14.79). In terms of symmetry, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that while there have obviously been considerable effort and architectural dexterity employed in modelling the top of the building, the way the gondolas, slide and skywalk have been incorporated into the viewing areas has produced a compromised design that is neither a flamboyant expression nor a consistent elegance (IR14.81).
In terms of overall appearance, the Secretary of State, like the Inspector, finds too many compromises to amount to world class architecture. He considers that taking into account his conclusions in paragraphs 35-36 above and paragraph 46 below, the 8 proposal does not draw support from paragraph 126 of the Framework, which promotes the creation of ‘high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places’.”
• Sympathetic to local character and history
“…the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the form and materials of the Tulip at its proposed height and location would be a poor and unsympathetic response to the historical context. He considers that this weighs very heavily against the quality of the design, and has reflected this in the very considerable weight attributed to the heritage harm.”
• Strong sense of place
“The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given at IR14.88 to 14.90, that the base of the Tulip and the Pavilion would create distinctive spaces and the double height arches between the buttresses would be attractive and welcoming alongside the green wall. He further agrees that the sense of drama and expression of structural forces at the base of the Tulip would be striking, and that the Pavilion would be a bright new building with an exciting roof garden at high level. However, he also agrees that the space around the entrances might feel uncomfortable and shares the Inspector’s reservations about the treatment of the Pavilion’s street elevation and how the ground level functions would be achieved. Overall, he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions that while the scheme would enhance detailed elements of the existing context it would do so at a cost to openness (IR14.90).”
• Optimise the potential of the site
“For the reasons given at IR14.91, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that while the scheme would develop this windfall site to the full, and considerable skill has gone into overcoming the functional requirements within such a tight site and turning these into attractively detailed elements, nevertheless, this would not overcome the loss of open space and part of the backdrop to the Gherkin.”
• Inclusive and accessible
“…while the scheme would be generally accessible to all, its inclusivity would be limited by the cost of the main attractions.”
The Secretary of State concludes on design that he “agrees with the Inspector that the approach would be a muddle of architectural ideas and would be compromised, and that the unresolved principles behind the design would mean that in many regards it would fall between two stools. He further agrees that the development would not amount to a design of outstanding quality, and that the quality of design would not be nearly high enough as to negate its harm to the settings of heritage assets.”
“The Secretary of State has gone on to consider these findings against the revised design policies in the Framework. He concludes that those design elements set out above which weigh against the scheme, both in terms of design process and outcome, have greater weight than the positive elements which have been identified. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR14.106 that the proposal would not amount to a design of outstanding quality.”
“In particular, The Secretary of State considers that the revisions to the Framework make clear that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve (Framework paragraph 126) and he considers this emphasis on design quality to be an important material consideration in this case.”
“The Secretary of State has further considered whether there is conflict with government guidance on design. In the light of his conclusions above, and for the same reasons, he considers that the proposal is not in accordance with aspects of the National Design Guide, in particular those elements of the Guide dealing with context and resources. He has taken into account the representation of 7 September made on behalf of the appellant which refers to the National Design Guide and the evidence submitted to the inquiry. However, as above, because of significance of the areas of conflict, and the resultant degree of harm, overall he considers that that the proposal does not reflect government guidance on design. He considers that design as a whole carries significant weight against the proposal.”
It is well worth reading the more detailed analysis in inspector David Nicholson’s report. Given public discourse about the “beauty” agenda, reflected in the revised NPPF and national model design code, he makes this interesting comment:
“I did not pursue the notion of beautiful found in the draft NPPF. It is evident, for all the reasons that they set out, that the Appellant and its supporters consider that the scheme would be beautiful while objectors think it would not. While I certainly accept that innovative designs can be beautiful, in other regards I consider that the concept of beauty or otherwise for this appeal is in the eye of the beholder and that any further discussion is unlikely to be helpful”.
Amen to that.
Brighton Marina
Image courtesy of the Outer Harbour Development Company Partnership
The Secretary of State dismissed an appeal by the Outer Harbour Development Company Partnership in relation to the non-determination by Brighton and Hove City Council of an application for planning permission for phase two of a phased residential-led mixed use development at Brighton Harbour Outer Harbour. On design, the decision letter dated 11 November 2021 includes the following:
“For the reasons given he agrees with the Inspector that the various spaces want for discipline and overall there are not enough ‘events’ or ‘signposts’ to make for a properly legible route across the site (IR11.17). Furthermore, he agrees with the Inspector that in terms of the regularity of the façade treatments, and the homogenous mass that would be created, together with the failure to provide a proper landmark or bookend, the scheme lacks the exuberance and ambition that the best of Brighton’s seaside buildings exhibit. He also agrees that it would not, therefore, be a positive contributor to its context and in many respects, it would fail to take the great opportunity the appeal site presents (IR11.22).”
“The Secretary of State agrees with the Council that the updated NPPF gives even stronger weight to the need to follow local design guidance. For the reasons given in this letter, he agrees with the Council’s assessment of the areas of conflict with the UDF. He has taken into account the Appellant’s representations on the matter. However, given the significance of the areas of conflict, and the resultant degree of harm, particularly in respect of heritage, harm to the setting of the National Park and living conditions, he considers that overall there is conflict with the newly adopted UDF, this being a material consideration in its own right. In the light of this conclusion, he considers that overall the proposal fails to reflect local design policies, as required by paragraph 134 of the Framework. He further considers that it fails to reflect the elements of paragraph 130 relating to layout, the requirement to be sympathetic to local character and history, establishing a strong sense of place and providing a high standard of amenity.
The Secretary of State has further considered whether the proposal reflects government guidance on design. In the light of his conclusions above, and for the same reasons, he considers that the proposal is not in accordance with the aspects of the National Design Guide dealing with context, layout, form, appearance, external appearance and public spaces. He has taken into account the appellant’s statement in their representation of 5 August that the provisions set out in paragraph 134 of the revised Framework are covered within Mr Aspland’s POE, which sets out how the landscape design proposals meet the relevant objectives of the National Design Guide. However, as above, because of significance of the areas of conflict, and the resultant degree of harm, overall he considers there is conflict with the National Design Guide. He therefore agrees with the conclusion in the Council’s representation of 24 August that the proposal does not reflect government guidance on design.
Overall, the Secretary of State considers that the shortcomings in terms of the failure to accord with the provisions of the revised Framework carry significant weight against the proposal.”
Taken together, it is clear that care is needed to ensure that proposals are indeed consistent with the revised chapter 12 (“achieving well-designed places”) of the NPPF. But how? On Tuesday 23 November 2021 at 4.30 pm I’m participating in a Montagu Evans webinar: “Planning for beauty, or the “provably popular”. A new urban design agenda?” which I hope will explore the practical implications. I will be joining Chris Miele (Montagu Evans), Charles Banner QC (Keating Chambers) and leading architect Deborah Saunt, one of the founding directors of DSDHA. If of interest please do register here.
In consequence, there will be no Planning Law Unplanned session on Tuesday. You will have to make do with listening back to last week’s session – featuring Zack Simons, as mentioned above, along with Kate Olley, who discussed last month’s Sage case.
The proposals seek to give effect to the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’s recommendations that I summarised in my 1 February 2020 blog post Beauty Duty.
“The National Model Design Code is intended to form part of the government’s planning practice guidance. It is not a statement of national policy. However, once finalised, the government recommends that the advice on how to prepare design codes and guides is followed.”
I will leave others to comment on the draft national design code and the proposed “beauty” related changes to the NPPF (the consultation proposals identify the changes and the draft revised text is helpfully marked-up to show all the textual changes).
However, you should note that the draft NPPF changes go wider:
“We have also taken this opportunity to make a number of environment-related changes, including amendments on flood risk and climate change. The amendments also include a small number of very minor changes arising from legal cases, primarily to clarify the policy. A few minor factual changes have also been made to remove out-of-date text (for example, the early thresholds for the Housing Delivery Test), to reflect a recent change made by Written Ministerial Statement about retaining and explaining statues, and an update on the use of Article 4 directions.”
As summarised in the consultation proposal, the draft revised text:
• Implements policy changes in response to the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission recommendations
• Makes a number of changes to strengthen environmental policies – including those arising from our review of flood risk with Defra
• Includes minor changes to clarify policy in order to address legal issues
• Includes changes to remove or amend out of date material
• Includes an update to reflect a recent change made in a Written Ministerial Statement about retaining and explaining statues.
• Clarification on the use of Article 4 directions
Some points that immediately leapt out (this is not a comprehensive list):
Overarching objectives of the planning system
Paragraph 8 of the NPPF has been amended to refer to refer to “beautiful, well-designed and safe places” (previously “a well-designed and safe built environment”).
The presumption in favour of sustainable development
Paragraph 11 (a) has been amended to read:
“all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects”.
(The previous wording was “plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change”).
Article 4 directions
“We also propose clarifying our policy that Article 4 directions should be restricted to the smallest geographical area possible. Together these amendments would encourage the appropriate and proportionate use of Article 4 directions.”
This is really interesting, particularly in the context of the proposed class E to C3 permitted development right. The proposed wording is pretty tight:
“The use of Article 4 directions to remove national permitted development rights should
• where they relate to change of use to residential, be limited to situations where this is essential to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts
• [or as an alternative to the above – where they relate to change of use to residential, be limited to situations where this is necessary in order to protect an interest of national significance]
• where they do not relate to change of use to residential, be limited to situations where this is necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area (this could include the use of Article 4 directions to require planning permission for the demolition of local facilities)
• in all cases apply to the smallest geographical area possible.”
Larger scale residential proposals
There is an amendment to paragraph 73 to require that these should include “a genuine choice of transport modes”.
Isolated homes in the countryside
The design should now be “outstanding”. The “or innovative” is gone.
Affordable home ownership
“Paragraph 64 has been amended to clarify that, where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the total number of homes to be available for affordable home ownership. This is to address confusion as to whether the 10% requirement applies to all units or the affordable housing contribution.”
Neighbourhood plan allocations
“Paragraph 69 has been amended to remove any suggestion that neighbourhood plans can only allocate small or medium sites. This was not the policy intention, so the wording has therefore been amended to clarify that neighbourhood planning groups should also give particular consideration to the opportunities for allocating small and medium-sized sites (of a size consistent with paragraph 68a) suitable for housing in their area.”
Trees
A new paragraph 130:
“Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined [Unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate], that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long- term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are retained wherever possible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work with local highways officers and tree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places, and solutions are found that are compatible with highways standards and the needs of different users.”
The “well-designed” test
Paragraph 133:
“133. Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents which use visual tools such as design guides and codes. Conversely, significant weight should be given to:
a) development which reflects local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents which use visual tools such as design guides and codes; and/or
b) outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability,, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.”
Development affecting the setting of national parks and AONBs
“New paragraph 174 has been amended in response to the Glover Review of protected landscapes, to clarify that the scale and extent of development within the settings of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be sensitively located and designed so as to avoid adverse impacts on the designated landscapes.”
Historic statues, plaques and memorials
(which was going to be the subject of this week’s blog post until the curtains/drinking in the emails moment)
“New paragraph 196 has been added to clarify that authorities should have regard to the need to retain historic statues, plaques or memorials, with a focus on explaining their historic and social context rather than removal, where appropriate.”
As a draft for consultation in my view the consultation material so far has only limited weight for decision makers and, as is usually and appropriately the case, the final documents may be subject to change. However, there is much for us all to get to grips with – and comments on the national design code are for another day.
are probably the three words I most associate with the planning system in England, since you asked.
The main part of this post is a commentary by special guest and fellow Town partner Duncan Field on the Government’s Planning for the future white paper, published on 6 August 2020.
But before we get to that, some initial comments from me on timescales.
The consultation period on the white paper ends on 29 October 2020.
The aspiration in the document is that (subject to time extensions for recent plans) new local plans should be in place by the end of this Parliament, so by Spring 2024. Given that those local plans will take up to 30 months to be put in place under the new system proposed, the necessary primary legislation will need to have been passed and in force, with any necessary accompanying Regulations and guidance, by Autumn 2021.
By way of proxy for legislative timescales, the less ambitious Housing and Planning Act 2016 and Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 each took around seven months to pass through the necessary Parliamentary stages, which would mean introducing a Bill by the beginning of 2021. One perhaps has to look back to the Localism Act 2011 for planning legislation of equivalent complexity. That took eleven months from soup to nuts.
Something is going to have to give – either there is going to be rushed consideration of these proposals, which still need significant refinement, or that “end of this Parliament” aspiration is going to have to be reconsidered before long.
But in any event, things can be expected to move quickly.
The timescales in that document for the four sets of proposals within it are as follows:
· changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need: “Following the outcome of this consultation, the Government will update the planning practice guidance with the revised standard method for assessing local housing need.”
· securing of First Homes through developer contributions in the short term until the transition to a new system: “We intend to begin by making planning policy changes, to ensure that clear expectations are set. However, to ensure that First Homes are delivered, nationwide, on a consistent basis, we are keeping under consideration the option to strengthen the policy through primary legislation at a future date. We also intend to introduce an exemption from the Community Infrastructure Levy for First Homes, to enable delivery prior to wider developer contribution reform. This would require changes to regulations. Lastly, we are also considering significant reforms to the system of developer contributions. We will ensure that First Homes willcontinue to be delivered under a reformed approach”
· supporting small and medium-sized builders by temporarily lifting the small sites threshold below which developers do not need to contribute to affordable housing: “Following the consultation, a decision will be taken on whether to proceed with this approach. If it is taken forward, this could be through the introduction of a Written Ministerial Statement in the Autumn.”
· extending the current Permission in Principle to major development: “Following this consultation, if we introduce Permission in Principle by application for major development, we aim to introduce amending regulations this Autumn, with the regulations expected to come into force by the end of the calendar year. Changes to the fee structure would require separate changes to the Planning Fees Regulations.”
The white paper is in my view a considered document and less radical than might have been expected, although certainly ambitious in its breadth. Proposals spin out of it, one after the other, often just in a sentence or two. There are of course areas where there needs to be further thought or explanation. For me, there are two big ones in particular:
⁃ the way in which housing numbers are to be set by the Government for individual authorities and how to resolve the inevitable tension between a swifter examination process and a process that allows proposals in a plan (and the basis for proposals not being in the plan) to be properly tested (particularly where the plan is going to be the equivalent of a series of outline planning permissions for its growth areas);
⁃ how this new infrastructure levy is really going to work and how obligations are going to be addressed that presently are dealt with by way of section 106 agreement, in particular the delivery of affordable housing.
There will also have to be a clear working through of the respective powers and responsibilities across the system, as between government, strategic authorities, local planning authorities and neighbourhoods.
I must say that I found Chris Katkowski QC’s explanations in the latest Have We Got Planning News For You episode really helpful in bringing the proposals, and the thinking behind them, to life. And, boring to say, there is no substitute for reading the actual document.
Planning for the Future begins with some fairly combative language, referring to “our outdated and ineffective planning system” and drawing comparisons with a patched up building which needs to be torn down.
In truth the Government’s proposals do not go quite as far as that and in practice, to continue with the same analogy, we might end up with a better and more sustainable outcome if we were to save the parts of the “patched up building” which have architectural merit. The biggest problem with the current system is not that it is all inherently bad but that it is not sufficiently resourced; it is a pity that planning reforms by successive Governments have never really grappled with that central issue. The good news on this occasion is that the new system will be accompanied by a comprehensive skills and resources strategy for local authorities and key participants in the system; let’s hope the Government delivers on that.
Further on in the document there are some powerful words from the Secretary of State which bring home just how important a time this is for the planning system and what it can deliver. It is hard to disagree with any of this:
The outbreak of COVID-19 has affected the economic and social lives of the entire nation. With so many people spending more time at home than ever before, we have come to know our homes, gardens and local parks more intimately. For some this has been a welcome opportunity to spend more time in the place they call home with the people they love. For others – those in small, substandard homes, those unable to walk to distant shops or parks, those struggling to pay their rent, or indeed for those who do not have a home of their own at all – this has been a moment where longstanding issues in our development and planning system have come to the fore.
Onto the objectives for reform, which can be summarised as follows:
• Reduce complexity and with it, uncertainty and delay.
• In doing so, deliver a more competitive market with a greater diversity of developers.
• Remove the discretionary nature of individual development management decisions and replace it with a rule-based system of development control.
• In doing so, reduce planning risk and the cost of capital for development.
• Reduce the time it takes to produce a local plan.
• Simplify assessments of housing need, viability and environmental impacts.
• Restore public trust and encourage more widespread public participation.
• Get better at unlocking growth and opportunity, encouraging beautiful new places, supporting town and city centres and revitalising existing buildings as well as new development.
• Harness digital technology.
Linked to this is a long list of desired outcomes including the user experience, home ownership, access to infrastructure, economic growth and innovation.
We then come to the main proposals which the Government intends to bring forward:
1. Local plans
a. These will be simplified so that they only identify land for development, the sites that should be protected and the development that can take place. There would be three categories of land:
i. Growth – sites suitable for comprehensive development which, once allocated, will have outline approval for development.
ii. Renewal – sites where smaller scale development is appropriate, which would benefit from a statutory presumption in favour of development once allocated.
iii. Protected – sites with environmental or cultural characteristics where development should be subject to more stringent controls.
An alternative approach might be a more binary system (growth and renewal with permission in principle versus protected areas) or more scope for the existing development management approach in areas other than those allocated for “growth”.
b. Plans should become digital, visual and map-based, interactive and data rich, using a standardised approach to support open access.
c. Local plans (and neighbourhood plans) will be more focused on giving clear area-specific requirements for land that is allocated for growth and renewal including design codes; generic development management policies and duplication of national policy and guidance needs to be avoided.
d. Plans should be subject to a single test of achieving sustainable development instead of the current tests for soundness and the duty to co-operate. There would be no Sustainability Appraisal and instead this would be replaced by a simplified process for assessing the environmental impact of plans.
e. Local plans would meet housing need by reference to a standard method for establishing housing requirements developed and set at a national level; this would mean distributing the national housebuilding target of 300,000 new homes annually, and one million homes by the end of the Parliament, taking into account local factors including constraints, opportunities and affordability. The Housing Delivery Test would stay.
f. Local plans would have to be brought forward by reference to a fixed 30 month statutory timescale with six stages and individual timings for each stage.
g. Local planning authorities would be under a duty to review their plans every 5 years; powers of intervention would remain such as the issuing of directions and preparation of a plan in consultation with local people.
h. Neighbourhood Plans to be retained but with more focus on form of development to reflect the proposals for Local Plans.
This is a refreshingly clear vision of what local plans might become and a digitalised system would be transformative for the user experience and public engagement. However, there are some big questions around how to encourage strategic planning across local authority boundaries for the bigger than local issues (the Government is open to suggestions), how in practice the “sustainable development” test would work and, linked to that, how robust the new environmental assessment process will be.
Equally as important, what will the effect of these promised changes be on current local plans? Without further incentives or assurances around their continuing effect in any transitional arrangements as we switch over to the new system, there must be a real concern they will be halted in their tracks.
2. Development Management
a. As indicated above, growth areas allocated in a local plan would have outline permission for the principle of development; details would be agreed and full planning permission achieved through a new reserved matters process, a local development order or possibly, on bigger sites, via a development consent order.
b. Renewal areas would benefit from a new statutory presumption in favour of development and would benefit from either a new automatic consenting route where specified forms of development meet design and other prior approval requirements, a faster planning application process or a local or neighbourhood development order.
c. Proposals which do not conform to the local plan in renewal and growth areas could still come forward, exceptionally, through a planning application process.
d. In protected areas, proposals will have to be brought forward via a planning application (subject to any permitted development rights or local development orders) and will be judged against the NPPF.
e. Generally, the development management process will be based on a more streamlined end-to-end process with firm deadlines for determination through a mix of:
i. Digitalisation;
ii. Data access;
iii. Shorter and standardised applications with reduced or limited supporting material;
iv. A standardised approach to technical information, conditions and developer contributions; and
v. Delegation of detailed planning decisions to planning officers where the principle of development has been established.
f. The Government will build in incentives for prompt determination of applications by local planning authorities such as deemed approval of some applications or refunds of application fees.
g. The process will still be subject to call-in powers and appeals but the Government expects the volume of call-ins and appeals to reduce over time.
h. There will be encouragement for faster build out by making provision in local plans/design codes for a variety of development types by different builders (picking up on the conclusions of the Letwin Review).
This vision for the new development management system feels less clear: permission in principle and outline planning permission are used interchangeably in places as a consequence of land being allocated for growth; however, over and above this, there appears to be provision for a “full” planning permission through a new reserved matters system or local development orders or even development consent orders. Would this not remove a lot of the benefit of allocating land for growth? There is also a myriad of possible ways in which land allocated for renewal might gain consent and, in the meantime, we retain the current planning application process as well. If the Government is not careful it might add to the complexity of development management.
Certainly, we can all get on board with the much-needed streamlining of the development management process from end to end, with more standardisation, reducing the quantity of application documents and increased use of digital technology. However, resourcing this change will be key to its success.
3. Building better, building beautiful and sustainable places
Design and place-making is still high up on the Government’s political agenda. Proposals in this space include the following:
a. A National Model Design Code to be published in the Autumn which will work alongside the National Design Guide and the Manual for Streets; together these are expected to have a bearing on design of new communities and to guide decisions on development. (This will be an early entrant into the current planning system.)
b. Local guides and codes are to be prepared wherever possible to reflect local character but need to have input from the local community before they are given any weight in the planning process.
c. A new expert body will be set up to help local authorities make use of design guidance and codes, as well as performing a wider monitoring and challenge role for the sector.
d. The much-heralded “fast-track” for beauty will be achieved through:
i. The NPPF – which will have provision for schemes that comply with local design guides and codes to be approved quickly;
ii. Legislation to require that sites in growth areas should have a masterplan and site-specific code as a condition of the permission in principle which is granted through allocation in the local plan; and
iii. Widening permitted development rights through the use of “pattern books” for different building types.
e. The NPPF will require targeted consideration of measures to support climate change mitigation and adaptation. (In our view, policy has been playing catch-up on climate change for some time – this is long overdue and should be welcomed.)
f. There will be a quicker and simpler framework for assessing environmental impacts, stepping away from the current frameworks such as Strategic Environmental Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment. The key requirements for the new framework will be:
i. early consideration;
ii. clear and easy to understand; and
iii. avoidance of duplication.
A further consultation on this is expected in the Autumn.
g. The Government intends to review and update the planning framework for listed buildings and conservation areas, to ensure their significance is conserved while allowing, where appropriate, sympathetic changes to support their continued use and address climate change.
h. Improvements to the energy efficiency standards for buildings will be brought forward to help meet the 2050 net zero commitment.
The intention here is clear and consistent with the recent focus of the Government on design and beauty in the planning system. The area with the most loaded questions is the promised framework for assessing environmental impact; in our view, there is clear scope to reduce the voluminous and highly technical nature of the current framework but now is not the time to water it down in terms of its ambit and its protective function. We will have to wait until the Autumn to find out more.
4. Infrastructure
There are radical proposals for the funding of infrastructure:
a. Replace S106 obligations and the current version of Community Infrastructure Levy with a new Infrastructure Levy calculated as a fixed proportion of the development value above a threshold, with a mandatory, nationally-set rate or rates (potentially variable by area).
b. This new levy will be charged on the final value of a development (or an assessed sales value where the development is not sold, e.g. build to rent) by reference to the rate in force when planning permission is granted. This would have to be paid before occupation.
c. Local authorities would be able to borrow against Infrastructure Levy revenues so that they could forward fund infrastructure.
d. The London Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy and similar strategic Community Infrastructure Levies in combined authorities could be retained.
e. The Infrastructure Levy Could be extended to capture changes of use without additional floor area and through permitted development.
f. The new levy would be extended to fund affordable housing. Allowance would be made for in-kind delivery on-site, which could be made mandatory where an authority has a requirement, a capability to deliver on site and wishes to do so. In those circumstances local authorities would be able to specify the form and tenure of the on-site provision. The Government anticipates that there would need to be a considered policy approach to the risk of imbalance between the value of the agreed in-kind delivery and the fluctuating nature of the levy liability, contingent as it will be on the development value.
g. Local authorities could be given more freedom on how they spend the levy.
There is a lot of detail to be worked through here. Setting the new levy at a level which does not deter development (and indeed land supply through the price paid by developers) will be key and a difficult issue to judge.
The Government will also need to be scrupulous in ensuring that affordable housing continues to come forward using levy funds and still comes forward as part of mixed and balanced communities.
The removal of the blunt and inflexible tool that we have come to love or hate in the form of CIL is welcome in our view and with it the removal of a considerable amount of confusing and time-consuming red tape. For practical reasons – not least delivering site-specific solutions for development – we are not sure we are witnessing the end of S106 obligations or an equivalent just yet but they will undoubtedly be slimmed down.
5. Delivery
The consultation document ends with a few final proposals and thoughts from Government on the delivery of a new planning system:
a. As a first step there is a parallel consultation on changes to the current system including extension of Permission in Principle (by application to major development), the standard method for assessing local housing need, First Homes and supporting SME builders by temporarily lifting the small sites threshold below which developers do not need to contribute to affordable housing. More here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-the-current-planning-system
b. The Government sees a potential delivery role for development corporations.
c. The reforms are considered likely to reduce judicial review risk.
d. The need for resources and skills is recognised and will be addressed through a comprehensive strategy. In principle, the Government’s view is that the cost of operating the new planning system should be principally funded by the beneficiaries of planning gain – landowners and developers – rather than the national or local taxpayer. Funding may also be achieved through application fees and potentially the new infrastructure levy or- to a limited extent – general taxation.
e. The Government intends to strengthen the powers for local planning authorities to enforce against breach of planning control and provide incentives for enforcement action to be taken.
To end where this overview began, resources are key and a comprehensive strategy to ensure the sufficiency of funding and skills will be very welcome, as long as it does what it says on the tin. This will be vital to the success of the new system.
We know now what the Government wants to achieve. It is up to all of us in the sector to help them make it work and if parts of the system are worthy of retention for their “architectural” merit, to explain why that is, with reference to the Government’s objectives.
SIMONICITY 