Quite a week. I was going to write about the London Mayor’s Large-scale Purpose-built Shared Living London Plan Guidance (29 February 2024) – less prescriptive in relation to co-living than his initial draft as a result of constructive engagement with the industry, well received and good to see – or indeed the Competition and Markets Authority’s final report into housebuilding in England, Scotland and Wales (26 February 2024) – the best analysis of the house building and land promotion industry and indeed opportunities to reform the planning system that I have read. But all that will need to wait because one case has dominated the chat in the last day or so:
This was of course the legal challenge by M&S to the Secretary of State’s refusal of the retailer’s application, which he had called in, for planning permission for the construction of a nine storey new mixed office and retail store to replace its existing store at the western end of Oxford Street.
As to the various stages in the decision making process which led to the Secretary of State’s decision, together with an initial critique at the time of that decision (as well as the statement at the time from the M&S chief executive who had described Mr Gove’s decision as taken “on the whim of one man” and “utterly pathetic”) see my 21 July 2023 blog post, M&S Mess.
Russell Harris KC and Heather Sargent acted for M&S on the legal challenge, together with Dentons. Well done all for the outcome. For the pithiest and precise summary of the outcome you cannot beat Heather’s LinkedIn post yesterday:
“Lieven J has held that:
– The Secretary of State’s statement that “there should generally be a strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, as reflected in paragraph 152 of the [2021 NPPF]” was a misinterpretation of the NPPF and an error of law;
– The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to explain why he disagreed with his Inspector’s conclusions that there was no viable and deliverable alternative to the redevelopment scheme proposed by M&S;
– The Secretary of State unlawfully failed “to grapple with the implications of refusal and the loss of the benefits and thus departure from important Development Plan policies”;
– The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to provide adequate reasons for concluding (again in disagreement with his Inspector) that the harm to the vitality and viability of Oxford Street if M&S’s scheme (or an alternative) were not delivered would be “limited”; and
– The Secretary of State’s decision was also vitiated both by a factual error (namely, an erroneous understanding that there was no dispute that the proposed scheme would involve much greater embodied carbon than refurbishment) and by a misinterpretation of development plan policy on carbon. The judgment confirms that it is “clear beyond any rational doubt … that the offsetting requirements in [London Plan policy] SI 2C are in relation to operational carbon, and not embodied carbon”.
My (possibly unfairly) selective quote in the title to this blog post is from paragraph 116 of Lieven J’s judgment where she reports his apparent misunderstanding that the London Plan’s requirement for carbon off-setting applies to embodied carbon rather than just operational carbon (ground 5). She goes on to conclude:
“120 It would be astonishing if one of the key policies in the London Plan on carbon emissions could have suddenly expanded the scope of the off-setting requirements in such a significant way without anyone applying it in this way before. The approach of the SoS appears to believe that there is a “net zero” requirement of, or at least aspiration for, construction impacts, in a key Development Plan policy which has never previously been applied.
121 It is important to make clear that this case is not about whether or not it would be appropriate or justified to have such a policy in the light of the climate emergency. Such a judgement is not the function of the court. The issue for the court is whether the SoS erred in law by misinterpreting the adopted London Plan policy.”
The only further comment I would add at this point is that this saga is not yet at an end. The effect of the judgment is that (absent any application by the Government Legal Department to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal) the application goes back to the Secretary of State to be redetermined. No doubt the parties will need to be given the opportunity to make further representations. It will take months. Indeed, who will be the Secretary of State by then?
Paragraph 152 of the previous version of the NPPF, on which ground 1 turned, survives unchanged as paragraph 157 of the latest version of the NPPF but will any relevant policy changes be made before the final outcome of the redetermination process? We know from the Government’s December 2023 Future Homes and Buildings Standards consultation:
“ Embodied carbon, the carbon emissions generated from the production and transportation of building materials, construction process and maintenance of a building – is beyond the scope of this consultation and the existing Building Regulations. We recognise, however, that embodied carbon is a significant contributor to the whole life carbon of a building and that it is therefore crucial that we take steps to address it. The government intends to consult on our approach to measuring and reducing embodied carbon in new buildings in due course” (paragraph 1.1.4)
At a local level, and as an example of how life constantly edges on, Westminster City Council also adopted on 28 February 2024 (I said it was a busy week) its new Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD, which is intended to become a material consideration in decision making from 7 March 2024, with, amongst other things, a swingeing increase in carbon off-set payments (see brief Westminster Property Association explainer here).
The Secretary of State’s call-in of this application in June 2022 will so far have caused (assuming, which is not in the bag yet, that planning permission is eventually granted) at least two years’ delay, vast expense and delay for M&S as well as opportunity cost for the most important traditional shopping street in the nation’s capital (for which there is no financial recompense for M&S or for London). There really should be a higher threshold for call-in by the Secretary of State (whatever his or her political persuasion) of decisions which are referable to the Mayor of London (whatever his or her political persuasion). And the “behind the scenes” weighing of planning considerations/political advantage which leads to decisions such as this and that in relation to the Television Centre (see my 9 February 2024 blog post, The Weighting Game) is unfathomable (a word which I was relieved to see I used in my M&S Mess post last year about the Secretary of State’s reasoning on some aspects in his M&S decision).
Finally on this subject, whether as a thumbs up to that M&S legal team, or as a general thank you tip for us planning law bloggers, or as a gesture of support to Russell Harris and most importantly the young people’s charities he is supporting by way of this mad thing, please do sponsor Russell’s Cycle to MIPIM 2024 . He and the rest of them will no doubt shortly setting out and would appreciate any support. When I last looked, he was about £1,500 short of his £11,000 target. As another retailer might say, every little helps.
I was going to call this blog post National Lottery but then I remembered I’ve already used that strapline back in 2019. 7 years of this blog, 408 posts – round and round the same track we go.
Much has already been written about the Secretary of State’s decision letter dated 6 February 2024 in which he granted planning permission for the redevelopment of the former London Television Centre, on London’s south bank (NB paragraph 1 of the Secretary of State’s letter curiously describes it as an appeal against refusal of the application by Lambeth Council, which it was not – Lambeth was supportive and had resolved to grant planning permission before the Secretary of State intervened by calling in the application).
See eg Zack Simon’s post as to what the decision may tell us as to the question of “beauty”, Nicola Gooch’s post on severability (although maybe the applicant didn’t have Hillside severability in mind so much as simply phasing for CIL purposes?) and Andy Black’s post on the some of the wider implications of the decision.
I’m not going to duplicate any of those posts. I’m just going to use another aspect of the decision as a jumping off point both for sympathising with all parties who spend vast amounts of time and money at risk on these sorts of application and appeal processes and for giving a small jab at us lawyers.
Because the decision essentially turned on one thing: the Secretary of State having (crucially) found that there was compliance with the development plan as a whole (despite some conflict with individual policies), the pivot was whether there were material considerations which indicated that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan – or, more basically, how much relative weight the Secretary of State decided to apply to the public benefits arising from the scheme as against the harms arising from the scheme (whilst applying the appropriate tests in relation to elements of “heritage” harm, for instance requiring “clear and convincing justification” by way of the public benefits arising). To quote the key paragraphs:
“35. Weighing in favour of the proposal are the employment generating opportunities for the Borough in the construction phase as well as the operational phase of the development, which both carry substantial weight, the placemaking benefits delivered by the public realm strategy which carry substantial weight, and the commitment towards an employment and skills strategy over and above the policy requirements as well as the provision of affordable creative workspace which carries moderate weight.
36. Weighing against the proposal is the less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets of the RNT, the IBM building, Somerset House, the South Bank CA and the Roupell Street CA, which carries great weight. The Secretary of State has also found that the proposal would not provide a positive contribution to the townscape of the South Bank, which carries moderate weight.
37. The Secretary of State has considered the heritage balance set out at paragraph 208 of the Framework (formerly paragraph 202). He has noted public benefits deriving from the public realm strategy, as well as the other public benefits identified in paragraph 35 above. However, he has also identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the RNT, the IBM building and Somerset House, and to the South Bank CA and Roupell Street CA. Having carefully weighed up the relevant factors, he has concluded that the public benefits of the proposal do outweigh the harm to designated heritage assets. Therefore, in his judgement, the balancing exercise under paragraph 208 of the Framework (formerly paragraph 202) is favourable to the proposal.
38. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that the accordance with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate that permission should be granted.”
Of course, a huge amount of expert evidence was given at the inquiry over 12 sitting days by the parties as to each of these matters and the weight to be applied to each of them, but if the Secretary of State had chosen to give less weight to the public benefits set out in paragraph 35, the decision would probably have gone the other way. How much weight the Secretary of State (or any decision maker) gives to such considerations is very difficult to predict – it is quintessentially a matter of planning (whisper political) judgment. (Similarly his decision as to whether, despite non-compliance with some individual policies, there was compliance with the development plan as a whole).
The weighting is particularly interesting, given that he was more bearish than the inspector (who had recommended that permission be granted) on various aspects, including:
whether “the scale of the building and the proposed massing provides an appropriate response to the site”
finding negative elements to the effects on townscape
disagreeing that “the proposed palette of materials and the aesthetic appearance of the building is appropriate for what is a very prominent and sensitive site. He disagrees with the Inspector that an attractive development would be delivered.”
The Planning Practice Guidance summarises the legal position as to the weight to be given to material considerations:
“What weight can be given to a material consideration?
The law makes a clear distinction between the question of whether something is a material consideration and the weight which it is to be given. Whether a particular consideration is material will depend on the circumstances of the case and is ultimately a decision for the courts. Provided regard is had to all material considerations, it is for the decision maker to decide what weight is to be given to the material considerations in each case, and (subject to the test of reasonableness) the courts will not get involved in the question of weight.
Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 21b-009-20140306
Revision date: 06 03 2014”
And as for public benefits:
“What is meant by the term public benefits?
The National Planning Policy Framework requires any harm to designated heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental objectives as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 8). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and not just be a private benefit. […]
“Planning decision-making is far from being a mechanical, or quasi-mathematical activity. It is essentially a flexible process not rigid or formulaic. It involves, largely, an exercise of planning judgment, in which the decision-maker must understand relevant national and local policy correctly and apply it lawfully to the particular facts and circumstances of the case in hand, in accordance with the requirements of the statutory scheme. The duties imposed by section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act leave with the decision-maker a wide discretion.”
We often pretend that planning decision-making to be a quasi-scientific, quasi-judicial process. But it’s really nothing of the sort. We lawyers can seek to ensure that all material considerations are taken into account, that immaterial considerations are not taken into account, that thresholds and criteria in specific statutory and policy tests are taken into account and that the decision-maker’s reasoning is adequate and rational. We can apply our forensic experience to ensure that the necessary evidence is brought forward and is presented as persuasively as possible – and can stress-test the evidence against us. But beyond that, rather than anything resembling the scales of justice, there is a black box in which there is simply the exercise of planning judgment. (I’m not complaining about that – that is the essence of the role of the planner I would have thought).
My jab at us lawyers is simply that perhaps we do not stress strongly and frequently enough to clients how unscientific the planning application and appeal process is. We are often asked to indicate what the odds are on a proposal finding favour with the decision-maker: what are the percentage prospects of success? This is an entire reasonable question to ask, because otherwise how can the client carry out a proper cost benefit analysis of whether the process is likely to be a worthwhile investment? But save for rare examples of cases which mainly turn on the correct interpretation of a particular policy, we have so little to go on other than analysis (which is often not sufficiently objective and evidence-based and possibly infected by eg optimism bias) of previous trends in decision-making to see what weight has previously been applied to various material considerations, in differing circumstances and permutations – trends which in any event do not amount to formal precedents.
I’m not even sure that appeal odds can be given which are much more than, say:
Less than 35 – 40% ie very unlikely to succeed given significant technical or legal hurdles to be overcome.
Circa 50% ie yes it’s arguable but it’s going to come down to whether there has been development plan compliance as a whole and the weight that the decision-maker gives to competing material considerations
Circa 60% – 65% ie a scheme which appears to be policy compliant and to meet the relevant legislative and policy tests
Would anyone be prepared to bet good money on the basis of assuming prospects materially higher than 65%? In my view it would need to be an unusual case turning on relatively binary issues.
Factors which lead to additional variability:
The scale of the development proposal, the range of potential issues and process timescale (will the decision maker or other circumstances in fact change along the way?!)
Cases where the principal live issues give rise to a large element of subjectivity, in relation to matters such as design or townscape
Is this a Secretary of State decision (ie in relation to an application which he has called in or an appeal he has recovered for his own determination)? – again this inevitably makes the outcome less predictable, both due to the influence of “politics” but due to the additional delays thereby arising (see above)
Political/media interest or pressure
Unusual proposals and/or where the decision-maker does not have a relevant or consistent track record.
When set against the scale of investment required to promote a large scheme at inquiry or indeed to defend against it, these may be sobering thoughts.
Simon Ricketts, 9 February 2024
Personal views, et cetera
PS Since I left Twitter I have experimented with a few social media platforms. None are ideal but, now that it is finally public access, you could give Bluesky a go. I share these posts there (my account is here) and on LinkedIn and you may find some related content.
I remember watching Don’t Look Up on new year’s day 2022. Not the best film ever but certainly an apt analogy when It comes to the climate crisis. I can’t believe that was two years ago. Where does the time go?
But then news came through yesterday afternoon of Conservative MP Chris Skidmore’s resignation of the party whip (5 January 2024).
I had praised Skidmore’s independent review last year of the Government’s net zero plans in my 21 January 2023 blog post Mission Zero Needs Planning. He knows what he’s talking about on the subject.
Here is his resignation statement in full:
“Next week the government will be introducing the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill in the House of Commons.
This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea. It is a bill that I have already stated my opposition to, by not voting in the King’s Speech debate in protest at the bill’s inclusion in the government’s legislative programme.
As the former Energy Minister who signed the UK’s net zero commitment by 2050 into law, I cannot vote for a bill that clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas. While no one is denying that there is a role for existing oil and gas in the transition to net zero, the International Energy Agency, the UNCCC and the Committee on Climate Change have all stated that there must be no new additional oil and gas production on top of what has already been committed, if we are to both reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and keep the chance of limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees.
Decisions taken at COP28 last month also set in motion the global transition away from fossil fuels. As the exponential growth of renewable and clean power continues, as we seek to reduce our energy demand for fossil fuels through the adoption of better energy efficiency in buildings and industry, as the adoption of electricity replaces fossil fuels, there is no case to be made for increasing fossil fuel production at a time when investment should be made elsewhere, in the industries and businesses of the future, and not of the past.
As fossil fuels become more obsolete, expanding new oil and gas licences or opening new oil fields will only create stranded assets of the future, harming local and regional communities that should instead be supported to transition their skills and expertise to renewable and clean energy.
The Net Zero Review I published a year ago next week, Mission Zero, set out how net zero can be the economic opportunity of this decade, if not our generation, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of new jobs, new growth, new regeneration and inward investment worth hundreds of billions of pounds. To achieve this however requires long term commitment to the energy transition, and a clear and consistent message to business and industry that the UK is committed to climate action as a global leader, as it has been for the past two decades.
The bill that will be debated next week achieves nothing apart from to send a global signal that the UK is rowing ever further back from its climate commitments. We cannot expect other countries to phase out their fossil fuels when at the same time we continue to issue new licences or to open new oil fields. It is a tragedy that the UK has been allowed to lose its climate leadership, at a time when our businesses, industries, universities and civil society organisations are providing first class leadership and expertise to so many across the world, inspiring change for the better.
I cannot vote for the bill next week. The future will judge harshly those that do. At a time when we should be committing to more climate action, we simply do not have any more time to waste promoting the future production of fossil fuels that is the ultimate cause of the environmental crisis that we are facing.
But I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.
I am deeply grateful for the privilege I have had to serve in government across several departments, including as Energy Minister attending Cabinet, and to have been appointed as the Independent Chair of the Net Zero Review. It is nearly fourteen years since I was first elected as the Member of Parliament for Kingswood, and I am especially grateful to my constituents for placing their repeated trust and faith in me. First and foremost, my duty has been to serve them, as their elected representative.
It is with that duty to them in mind as their representative that my personal decision today means, as I have long argued, that they deserve the right to elect a new Member of Parliament. I therefore will be standing down from Parliament as soon as possible.
It has been a remarkable and wonderful opportunity to serve as a Member of Parliament for nearly fourteen years, but I now intend to focus all my energy and attention on delivering net zero and the energy transition.”
“Alongside the need to protect and conserve, historic homes have an important contribution to make in meeting our Net Zero objectives, both in terms of their contribution to the broader UK energy efficiency and low carbon heat agenda, and in the carbon which is saved through their continued use and reuse. Historic properties make up a significant proportion of the UK’s building stock, with 5.9 million buildings constructed before 1919. Historic properties can and should be part of the solution, and this report is intended to maximise their potential in supporting our progress towards Net Zero.
Through this review, we have gained a better understanding of the practical barriers that owners of listed buildings and homes in conservation areas face when they want to install energy efficiency or low-carbon heating measures in their properties.”
The document follows a commitment in the Government’s April 2022 British Energy Security Strategy. It contains sections on the role of the planning system; issues with local authority skills, training and capacity; guidance available for homeowners and occupiers; construction industry sills, training and capacity, and affordability and financial incentives. It concludes with a summary of the 55 actions and future commitments arising. The seven under the heading “planning” are as follows:
Delivery of planning reform through the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act so that it supports good design and environmental outcomes better, is less complex, and easier to engage with
Implementation of the newly updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including a new policy to support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings
Consult on changes to permitted development rights for heat pumps in England
Consultation on National Development Management Policies including specifically on improvements to historic buildings
Consult on the opportunities for greater use of Listed Building Consent Orders (LBCOs) to support energy efficiency improvements to listed buildings
Support Local Planning Authorities that wish to develop exemplar Local Listed Building Consent Orders (Historic England)
Publish a Historic England Advice Note (HEAN) on Climate Change and Historic Building Adaptation to help decision-makers deliver climate action while protecting heritage(Historic England)
The announcements as to national development management policies and also local listed building consent orders are potentially interesting. This is what the document itself says:
“First, as part of the implementation of National Development Management Policies following Royal Assent of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, DLUHC will create new National Development Management Policies (NDMPs), including a policy specifically for improvements to historic buildings. This policy will be integrated into the wider suite of heritage National Development Management Policies which will replace current policy affecting decision making in chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In doing so, this will help to ensure greater certainty and consistency about decisions on applications for energy efficiency improvements affecting listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas across England. The government will consult on this new policy as part of its development of National Development Management Policies.
Second, the review has demonstrated there is a significant appetite for increasing the use of Local Listed Building Consent Orders to provide upfront listed building consent for certain common energy efficiency improvements on listed buildings so owners can make these improvements without the need to apply for consent. There is not, however, a clear consensus from stakeholders about how and when Local Listed Building Consent Orders should be used to support these energy efficiency improvements. In particular, it will be important that these orders do not permit energy efficiency measures which harm the significance of listed buildings.
As a first step, DLUHC will consult on the opportunities for using Local Listed Building Consent Orders to support energy efficiency improvements on listed buildings. The consultation will specifically ask about:
the role for Local Listed Building Consent Orders prepared by local planning authorities; and
the potential for a Listed Building Consent Order made by the Secretary of State which would grant listed building consent for certain improvements across England.”
Here’s to much more of this, in particular to closer working between DLUHC and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and in particular to politicians such as Mr Skidmore actually prepared to look up.
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.
Once a building is included within a conservation area, the permitted development right to demolish it, by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B of the General Permitted Development Order, no longer applies.
What a coincidence it would be if, after redevelopment of a building was proposed (in the face of local opposition), a local authority were to extend an existing conservation area so as to include the building, so as to prevent its demolition without the need for planning permission….
The claimant owns the former Debenhams store in Staines. Its application for planning permission for demolition and redevelopment was submitted on 10 November 2021 and elicited 268 objection letters, including objections on the basis that this would represent the “loss of an iconic building” and that there would be “heritage impacts on nearby conservation areas and listed building”. The application was subsequently refused on 6 June 2022, the reasons for refusal including “harm to the significance of designated heritage assets (including the [adjoining Staines Conservation Area]) and non-designated heritage assets” and “overdevelopment causing harm to the character and appearance of the area”.
Prior to the refusal, presumably to narrow the points in contention in relation to the planning application, on 25 February 2022 the claimant made an application to determine whether prior approval was required for the demolition of the building under the GPDO. On 24 March 2022 the council confirmed that prior approval was required (not in itself a big issue in that the prior approval process cannot engage with the principle of demolition as opposed to how it is carried out). But it then extended the Staines Conservation Area to include the building, before refusing prior approval on the basis that the building was now in a conservation area and therefore the GPDO permitted development right to demolish was no longer available.
Before deciding to extend the conservation area, the council had carried out a consultation process and it was reported internally within the council that there were no material objections to the proposal. Somehow, the council had overlooked detailed representations submitted by a heritage specialist (Pegasus’ excellent Gail Stoten) on behalf of the claimant.
When the claimant issued a pre-action protocol letter threatening to judicially review the decision to extend the conservation area, the council then prepared a supplementary report that purported to consider the overlooked set of representations, before concluding that the points made did not change the council’s decision.
The claimant relied on four grounds in its subsequent claim for judicial review:
Ground 1 – The council acted unlawfully in making the decision to extend the conservation area in that its true purpose was to prevent its demolition and redevelopment – an improper purpose and therefore contrary to law.
Ground 2 – The council failed to take into account the claimant’s representations.
Ground 3 – The officers’ reports were seriously misleading in not referring to the fact that Historic England had declined to list the building “on the basis that the Building did not possess the quality of design, decoration and craftsmanship to merit being of special architectural interest”.
Ground 4 – The purported reconsideration of the decision by way of the supplementary report was unlawful.
The claimant was represented at the hearing by Paul Tucker KC leading Jonathan Easton (now KC but not earlier in the week when judgment was handed down!).
On the first ground the judge stated:
“Since the purpose of designating or extending conservation areas is to preserve or enhance areas of “special architectural or historic interest”, the designation or extension of a conservation area which is motivated principally by a desire to protect a specific building and prevent its demolition will be unlawful.”
The judge considered that on the basis of the case law the question was whether the desire to protect the building from demolition was one impetus for the designation (which would be lawful) or the only impetus (unlawful). This is obviously a high bar for a claimant to clear. On the facts he concluded that it was the former and so ground 1 failed.
However the claim succeeded on the other grounds.
In relation to grounds 2 and 4:
“(i) the defendant failed to take account of the claimant’s representations in response to the consultation at the proper time; (ii) it did not do so in a legally adequate manner in the SR (if that was what the defendant purported to do in the SR); and (iii) having regard to (ii), it cannot be said that it is inevitable or even highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.”
In relation to ground 3:
“…there was a clear need to provide Members with a fair and balanced analysis of the architectural worth of the Building. This included informing them of the outcome of the approach made to Historic England regarding possible statutory listing.” It was also obviously material that “in both 2004 and 2016, the Building had not been regarded as sufficiently important to merit even local listing.” Nor could members have been expected to know about these matters. “It has not been shown that their local knowledge extends to being aware of negative decisions on potential listing on the part of Historic England. Likewise, Members may not have been aware (or may have forgotten about), the previous local list review exercises.”
Given a local planning authority’s breadth of discretion in deciding whether to designate or extend conservation areas, this was quite a win for the claimant, basically down to the council’s administrative own goals (full credit to PT KC and JE KC of course…).
Let’s not forget the wider issues swirling around on the question of demolition of buildings, in the context of embodied carbon (we still await the Secretary of State’s M&S Oxford Street decision). See for example this campaigning piece Could a Grade III listing for buildings halt the UK’s tide of demolition? (22 November 2022) by Will Arnold, head of climate action at The Institution of Structural Engineers or this contrary view Why grade III listings should be avoided at all costs (Edward Clarke in The Times, 12 March 2023 (behind a paywall). But it surely brings the heritage system into disrepute when conservation designations are relied upon as a convenient means of controlling demolition for other purposes, whether those may be a reaction to the spectre of redevelopment or arising from laudable concerns about climate change.
Since then the antagonism seems to have increased and areas of common ground seem to reduced. Planning and heritage processes are frequently just another battleground in this time of global and cultural division.
But I’m just going to pick the most recent item from this week’s news. It’s possible that politics played as much a role as planning in the decision on 1 December 2022 by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Strategic Development Committee, against officers’ recommendations, to refuse planning permission for the redevelopment of Royal Mint Court, near the Tower of London, to establish a new Chinese Embassy (replacing its existing embassy on Portland Place), including “the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II listed), partial demolition, remodelling and refurbishment of Seaman’s Registry (Grade II listed), with alterations to the west elevation of the building, the retention, part demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray House and Dexter House, the erection of a standalone entrance pavilion building, alterations to the existing boundary wall and demolition of substation, associated public realm and landscaping, highway works, car and cycle parking and all ancillary and associated works.”
51 objections had been received, raising a range of planning and non-planning objections. One has a sense of non-planning issues swirling around from the officer’s report which, after summarising the various planning and heritage based objections received, sets out the “non-material considerations” raised by objectors as including:
“Concerned about the building becoming a secret police station
Concerned about the violent assault of protesters at the Manchester Chinese Consulate
Concerned about the actions of the Chinese government in relation to other countries and human rights record
All phone calls and fibre optic cables will be listened to as the site is adjacent to a BT telephone exchange”.
The minutes are not yet available but I understand that the Committee resolved that the proposals would “affect the ‘safety and security’ of residents, such as those at next-door Royal Mint Estate, cause harm to heritage assets, impact the quality of the area as a tourist destination and have an impact on local police resourcing.”
What is going to happen next? The People’s Republic of China has owned the site outright since 2018 and they are hardly going to walk away from the project. Michael Gove could conceivably call the application in before the refusal notice is issued, or China could appeal against the refusal and the appeal would presumably be recovered for his determination following recommendations from an inspector who would hold a public inquiry.
The political sensitivities are surely going to ramp up, no matter what. Perhaps this application should have been called in by the Government at an earlier stage rather than leave committee members with (1) such a difficult decision, balancing local concerns against international diplomatic responsibilities, and (2) such power. But I’m sure the government would have loved to have left this particular hot potato well alone. And they thought that juggling an appearance of dealing with the housing crisis with an appearance of leaving communities in control of local housing numbers was difficult….
In this case Holgate J found that the inspector in granting planning permission had taken into account a legally irrelevant consideration in assessing the level of harm caused to the neighbouring Grade I listed St Ann’s Church (paras 60-79). The inspector’s decision had accounted for the fact that the level of harm to the Church could not be further minimised by a different design. The court held however that even if the level of harm was “minimised” by the current design, this said nothing about what that “minimised” level of harm amounts to – harm to a heritage asset might be “minimised” by the design proposed but nevertheless still be “substantial”. Another reminder of the care that needs to be taken by decision makers in relation to the NPPF heritage test heffalump traps (see also for instance my 12 December 2020 blog post, Where’s The Harm In That? Misreporting Heritage Effects).
The Judge dismissed two further grounds of challenge, including a challenge that the inspector had wrongly considered the likely deliverability of the scheme. Holgate J held that there was no reason why deliverability could not be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application/appeal if relevant to the merits of the proposal – in this case, the site was owned by Homes England and this was relevant to the likelihood of delivery given its statutory function to promote regeneration.
(Thanks to my colleague Emma McDonald for her initial summary of the case for our Town Library Planning Court Weekly Updates (subscribe for free here).
No original work from me at all this week because I’m now going to reproduce Landmark Chambers’ summary of the ruling on this important and recurring issue – I had started to draft my own but it was less concise – for any more than this do read the judgment itself):
“In a judgment handed down at 5.30pm this evening, Mr Justice Holgate has dismissed applications by two local planning authorities to continue injunctions previously granted without notice, which had the effect of preventing the use of hotels in the two authorities’ areas to accommodate asylum seekers (including those being relocated from the overcrowded facility at Manston).
The claims were brought by the two councils under s. 187B Town and Country Planning Act on the basis that using the hotels to accommodate asylum seekers would amount to a material change of use, from use as a hotel to use as a hostel. Noting that the mere fact that a hostel was not in the same use class as a hotel did not of itself establish that the change was “material”, and that the distinction between a hotel and a hostel was “fine”, Holgate J nevertheless accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried. However, applying the American Cyanamid balance of convenience, he concluded that the factors in favour of discharging the injunction clearly outweigh those in favour of continuing it. In particular:
1. The distinction between use as a hostel and use as a hotel was fine. Whether there was a material difference depended upon the planning harm identified by the claimants.
2. There would not be any irreparable damage or harm. The use would not cause any environmental damage or any harm to the amenity of neighbouring uses. The buildings would not be altered and there would be no issues relating to traffic generation.
3. Although there is a public interest in enforcement action being taken against breaches of planning control, the integrity of the planning system is not undermined by the normal enforcement regime, which allows alleged breaches to continue while the merits of an appeal are under consideration.
4. The defendant’s conduct was not a flagrant breach of planning control. There were respectable arguments that planning permission was not needed.
5. The Home office was facing an unprecedented increase in the number of asylum seekers, the vast majority of who it was under a duty to accommodate. Without the ability to contract for the use of hotels there was a real risk of some asylum seekers becoming homeless.
6. In the claim brought by Ipswich, the Council’s concerns about the potential impact on tourism were “tepid”.
7. The proposed use would be temporary in nature. If that turned out not to be the case there were “plenty of other weapons in the LPA’s enforcement armoury to tackle the issue”.”
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….
Current events underline why we must never forget the Holocaust. When it comes to what is now happening in Ukraine at least there is more that we could be doing NOW both for the victims and to seek to bring this dreadful intentional slaughter of innocents to an end.
It is utterly frustrating that the planning permission granted for the construction of the United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to the Houses of Parliament, has been now quashed due to the failure of the decision maker, and indeed every major participant in the application process, to consider the implications of a local Act of Parliament affecting the gardens, the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. For this is the outcome of London Historic Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing (Thornton J, 8 April 2022). The court has also published this summary.
The judgment repays reading not just on this point but on the issue which often arises in cases involving heritage aspects – what is the threshold for “substantial harm” as defined in the NPPF?
First, the background…
The Government set up the Holocaust Commission in January 2014 “to examine what more should be done in Britain to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust is preserved and that the lessons it teaches are never forgotten.”
The Commission carried out a consultation process and recommended in January 2015 that a monument be established, vitally with an accompanying learning centre:
“there should be a striking new memorial to serve as the focal point for national commemoration of the Holocaust. It should be prominently located in Central London to attract the largest possible number of visitors and to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.”
The UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation was created and the then prime minster announced on 27 January 2016 that Victoria Tower Gardens would be the location.
As summarised by the judge:
“Victoria Tower Gardens has considerable cultural, historical and heritage significance. It is located on the north bank of the River Thames immediately south of and adjacent to the Palace of Westminster and Black Rod Garden. It is a Grade II Registered Park and Garden. It contains within it three listed structures; the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst (Grade II listed), the statue of the Burghers of Calais (Grade I listed) and the Buxton Memorial Fountain (Grade II* listed). The site has contained a garden for public recreation since approximately 1880.”
Unusually, Secretary of State made the application for planning permission, in January 2019 (this would have been the late James Brokenshire).
The proposals have always been surprisingly controversial. When Westminster City Council delayed in determining the application, rather than being appealed on the basis of non-determination, the Application was procured to be called in but due to the Secretary of State clearly being “off side”, handling arrangements were arrived at (after previous litigation by the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust) that resulted in the minister of state for housing being the decision maker.
The proposals were approved on 29 July 2021 after a long inquiry.
The decision was challenged by the Trust on what became three grounds when the case came to a full hearing before Thornton J. The grounds before her were as follows:
“Ground 1: Harm to heritage assets
The Planning Inspector and Minister applied the wrong legal test to the issue of whether there will be ‘substantial harm’ to the heritage assets within the Gardens. The correct application of the test would have led inevitably to the conclusion that the harm to the significance of the Buxton Memorial was substantial and which would have led in turn to a very different test for the acceptability of the proposal.”
“Ground 3: The London County Council (Improvements) Act, 1900”
“Ground 4: error of law in relation to alternative sites
The Inspector erred in law in considering that in order to attract significant weight, the merits of any alternatives must be underpinned by a good measure of evidence demonstrating their viability and credibility as such an alternative.”
The issues arising were as follows:
“1) Did the inspector err in his assessment of harm to the historic environment of the Gardens; in particular the setting of the Buxton Memorial?
2) Does the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 impose a statutory prohibition on locating the Memorial in the Gardens?
3) Did the inspector err in his treatment of alternative sites for the Memorial?”
That 1900 Act ground had been considered unarguable at permission stage in the proceedings but the renewed application for permission on that ground had been allowed by Thornton J to be dealt with on a rolled-up basis as part of the main hearing. The twists and turns of litigation never fail to amaze. This proved to be the decisive issue in the whole case. As indicated by the judge:
“In his application to renew, Mr Drabble focussed on section 8(1) of the 1900 Act rather than section 8(8) which had been the focus of submissions before the Permission Judge. As refined by Mr Drabble, the ground is arguable, and I grant permission. Given the refinements to the Trust’s case as developed during oral submissions at the hearing, including the production of the Local Law (Greater London Council and Inner London Borough) Order 1965, I considered it appropriate (and of assistance to the Court) to allow the parties the opportunity to make short written submissions after the hearing.”
So what was this killer point?
By way of brief interjection, the outcome hasn’t gone down well with one previous Secretary of State at least:
Section 8(1) reads as follows:
“(1) “The lands lying to the eastward of the new street described in this Act as consisting in part of widenings of Abingdon Street and Millbank Street which is in this section called “the new street” and between the said street and the new embankment wall shall be laid out and maintained in manner herein-after provided for use as a garden open to the public and as an integral part of the existing Victoria Tower Garden subject to such byelaws and regulations as the Commissioners of Works may determine”
The judge’s interpretation:
“On its ordinary and natural meaning, Section 8(1) of the 1900 Act imposes an enduring obligation to lay out and retain the new garden land for use as a public garden and integral part of the existing Victoria Tower Gardens. It is not an obligation which was spent once the Gardens had been laid out so that the land could be turned over to some other use or be developed or built upon at some point after it had been laid out whenever it suited those subject to the obligation”
Her conclusion was reinforced by detailed consideration of pre-legislative material leading up to the 1900 Act.
Did this restriction on use of the gardens matter, being separate from planning legislation? In her view, yes:
“the 1900 Act is a material consideration because of the impediment it presents to delivery of the Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens and the importance attached by the Inspector to the delivery of the Memorial in the lifetime of Holocaust survivors.”
So the case succeeded on ground 3, and also partly therefore on ground 4:
“I have concluded in relation to Ground 3 that, section 8 of the 1900 Act imposes an enduring statutory obligation to maintain Victoria Tower Gardens as a public garden, This is a material consideration in the context of the Inspector’s emphasis on the importance of the need to deliver the scheme within the lifetime of the Holocaust survivors. The Inspector considered the question of alternative sites and the implications of their deliverability without assessment of the deliverability of the location in Victoria Tower Gardens in the context of the issues now presented by the Court’s construction of the 1900 Act. In the circumstances, as a consequence, to this extent, Ground 4 succeeds.”
What of ground 1, whether the correct test of “substantial harm” was used? I’m going to pass the keyboard to my Town Legal colleague Tom Brooks to explain:
“Ground One sought to challenge the primacy of that long favoured quote of heritage consultants seeking to duck the NPPF test of substantial harm, from Bedford BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (High Court, 2012), paras 24-25:
“for harm to be substantial, the impact on significance was required to be serious such that very much, if not all, of the significance was drained away […] an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced.”
In arguing that there was no substantial harm to the Grade II* listed Buxton Memorial at the inquiry, the Secretary of State (as applicant) had relied on this definition from Bedford. In making the same argument, Westminster City Council had preferred the Planning Practice Guidance definition that substantial harm “seriously affects a key element of special architectural or historic interest”.
The ground of challenge put to Thornton J, that the inspector had erred by adopting the Bedford test, failed.
Thornton J found that the references to Bedford in the inspector’s heritage analysis “are no more than the Inspector confirming, or cross checking his analysis, conducted by reference to his view of the test as the ‘serious degree of harm to the asset’s significance’, by reference to the case advanced before him […] This is unimpeachable” (para 46)
The inspector’s approach was thus “entirely consistent” with the approach to the NPPF test that had been stipulated in City & County Bramshill Limited v Secretary of State (Court of Appeal, 2021), summarised by Thornton J as follows:
“The question whether there will be substantial harm to a heritage asset is a matter of fact and planning judgment and will depend on the circumstances. The NPPF does not direct the decision maker to adopt any specific approach to identifying harm or gauging its extent beyond a finding of substantial or less than substantial harm.” (para 47)
The judgment helpfully and eloquently goes on to put to bed the use of Bedford as a test of substantial harm.
The references to the draining away and vitiating of significance are simply Jay J’s “encapsulation of the Inspector’s application of the test of substantial harm” (para 51) in that specific case, and nothing more.
Crucially then:
“[The Bedford] judgment does not import a test of ‘draining away’ to the test of substantial harm […] a word like ‘substantial’ in the NPPF means what it says and any attempt to impose a gloss on the meaning of the term has no justification in the context of the NPPF. […] It is not appropriate to treat comments made by a Judge assessing the reasoning of an individual decision maker, when applying the test of ‘substantial harm’ to the circumstances before him/her, as creating a gloss or additional meaning to the test.” (para 53)
Cue hasty edits to heritage impact assessment methodologies across the land.”
Thanks Tom. Now it’s back with me, just to say that this week’s clubhouse session will be at 5pm on Wednesday 13 April 2022 and we will be examining the government’s Energy Security Strategy, with Ben Lewis (Barton Willmore), Rachel Ness (Clearstone Energy), David Hardy (Squire Patton Boggs) and my Town Legal colleagues Duncan Field and Nikita Sellers. Join us here.
The Environment Act 2021 was born on 9 November 2021, over 22 months after the first version of the Bill received its first reading on 30 January 2020 – a gestation period equalled in the animal kingdom only by the African elephant.
One of the less controversial but potentially most useful elements of the Act is Part 7, namely the introduction of a mechanism for land owners to enter into “conservation covenants”. What is this new beast?
In simple terms, a conservation covenant is a private voluntary agreement between a land owner and a local authority or other responsible body designated by the Secretary of State with commitments given by the land owner, enforceable against successors in title, to do or not do specified things on the land that have a “conservation purpose”.
The Law Commission first recommended in a 2014 report that this regime be introduced in legislation, given that existing legal mechanisms each have significant legal and/or practical limitations, for instance planning obligations need to fall within the types of commitment specified in section 106(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations will often be a constraint on the authority’s ability to take the obligation into account in its decision making; restrictive covenants more generally carry with them the constraint of requiring the party with the benefit of the covenant to have an interest in land that will take the benefit of the covenant (the “dominant tenement” as any legal fule kno) and with the covenant having to be a negative obligation in order to be automatically enforceable against successors.
The Commission gave three examples of how conservation covenants might be used:
• “protecting woodland over the generations”
“Example: The owner of an extensive family estate, much of which is forested and used by the public for hiking, intends to leave the land to her children. She wants to ensure that the forest is maintained and that public access continues, but she is not sure that her children – or future generations – would share those priorities”
• “selling heritage property”
“Example: A heritage group has invested funds in buying and restoring a Tudor house. The organisation wishes to sell the property, but wants to ensure that the work it has undertaken, and the heritage value of the property, is preserved.”
• “”protecting a biodiversity offsetting site”
“Example: A local planning authority is faced with a planning application for an affordable housing development. The proposed development site is a wild flower meadow. If the development were to go ahead the meadow would be destroyed completely. In this instance the planning authority is willing to grant planning permission, provided the damage caused to the meadow is offset by the creation and long-term maintenance of a similar site elsewhere.”
DEFRA then carried out a consultation in 2019. Its subsequent response to the consultation process confirmed that it would proceed with legislation, by way of the Environment Bill, and would develop guidance.
The provisions in Part 7 of the Act the provisions do indeed give effect to what was proposed. For a good summary I recommend that you look at the explanatory notes to the Act (pages 132 to 141). Some highlights from that summary:
• It must be apparent from the agreement that the parties intend to create a conservation covenant.
• Any provision must be of a “qualifying kind”, which can take one of two forms. “First, it may require the landowner to do, or not to do, something on specified land in England, or require the landowner to allow the responsible body to do something on such land. Second, it may require the responsible body to do something on such land.” The agreement can also include ancillary provisions.
• The land owner must have a “qualifying estate” in the land – namely a freehold interest or a leasehold estate of more than seven years.
• A conservation purpose “extends to the natural environment of the land, such as plants and animals and their habitats; the land’s natural resources, such as water on the land; the land as a place of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest; and the setting of the land. The reference to setting provides for the protection of land around a conservation site, which may affect its conservation status. For example, the architectural or artistic value of a country house could derive in part from the landscape in which it is set.” This is important! Conservation covenants are not just about nature conservation but can also be used in relation to, for instance, heritage conservation (see back to that second example from the Law Commission report).
• Bodies (including local authorities) need to apply to the Secretary of State to be designated by the Secretary of State to be a responsible body. If not a local body, the applicant body “will, additionally, have to satisfy the Secretary of State that at least some of its main purposes, functions or activities relate to conservation”. Criteria will need to be published by the Secretary of State. (Interesting that local authorities are not automatically designated).
• A conservation covenant is a local land charge and once registered is effective against subsequent owners of the land. It has indefinite effect unless otherwise stated in the agreement (and subject to the length of the relevant lease if entered into by a leaseholder). Enforcement will usually be by way of seeking an injunction or order for specific performance. It can be discharged or modified by agreement or by application to the Upper Tribunal.
• Section 135 (1) “gives the High Court, the county court or the Upper Tribunal, on application of any person interested, the power to make a declaration as to the validity of a conservation covenant, whether land is subject to an obligation under a conservation covenant, who is bound by or has the benefit of such an obligation, and the true construction (that is, meaning) of such an obligation. It will be for the court or the Upper Tribunal to decide whether an applicant has sufficient interest to make an application. The power to make a declaration extends to any agreement or order that modifies a conservation covenant. A person might seek a declaration under subsection (1) in circumstances where they needed to know the status of a conservation covenant – for example, in order to resist an action enforcing a breach or because the land was wanted for a different use.”
There is no news yet as to when the Regulations will be made to bring Part 7 into force. The biodiversity net gain provisions are likely to be a couple of years away from being switched on. Let’s hope that conservation covenants are not that far off, although of course we do need some good guidance to accompany what could prove to be a well-used procedure, because the opportunities for use of conservation covenants are wide: commitments to provide biodiversity net gain off-site are an obvious example but think also about commitments in relation to offsetting to address nitrate, phosphate or water neutrality for instance, as well as commitments which might previously have involved transferring land to a conservation or heritage group – the land will now be able to be retained with long term commitments given by way of a CC.
This week’s Clubhouse session (6pm 7 December) will be a descent into the strange world of planning enforcement. Whatever your perspective, Scott Stemp and Nicola Gooch will be leading us through the murky depths. Stories welcome. Link to app here.
SIMONICITY 