Category: Noise

Grassroots Music Venues Report/Agent Of Change

Been there, got the t-shirt.

I support grassroots music venues. I’ve blogged a few times in the past about the agent of change principle. And I’ve just read today’s report by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the steps it recommends to halt the worrying rate at which these venues are closing (two a week and the total number in the country declining last year from 960 to 835), which includes recommendations to strengthen the agent of change principle. Music Venue Trust has played a vital role in drawing attention to the issue.

Previous relevant posts:

As with many public policy issues (housing, the economy, climate change, inequality, health disparities), we in our planning bubble need to remember that when it comes to protecting the conditions for grassroots culture to flourish, whether for its own sake or to grow the next stadium acts, the operation of the planning system is only one part of the problem – but the planning system does need to put its shoulder to the wheel.

The report includes calls for:

  • A comprehensive review by the Government (by summer 2024!) to fully examine the long-term challenges to the live music ecosystem
  • A voluntary levy on large venues by September 2024 and “if a widespread voluntary levy is not in place by September 2024, or if its level does not stem the tide of closures, the Government should introduce a statutory scheme.”
  • Temporary VAT cut and simplification of processes for grant applications, as well as resolution of disputes within the industry on performing rights payments and the like.
  • Placing the “agent of change” principle, which has been in the National Planning Policy Framework since 2018, on a statutory basis.

Briefly on that last point, the agent of change principle forms paragraph 193 of the current NPPF:

“Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.”

Paragraphs 90 to 95 of the report consider how the policy is applying in practice. It was recognised that policy represented progress, however concern as to how local planning authorities interpret and apply it. The Committee supported calls for it to be given more teeth by way of being placed on a statutory footing “at the earliest opportunity”.

Everyone of course calls for legislation about everything. I hope that any subsequent Government review examines this specific aspect in more detail: to what extent is the policy not working and in what respects and in what ways would legislation assist without unintended consequences?

Those with long memories may recall that Labour tried to include such a provision into the Housing and Planning Bill back in 2016.

Just reflecting on what we gain from protecting and encouraging these venues (have you been to the relatively new, cosy but fabulous, Lafayette venue in Argent’s Kings Cross development?), it’s not just about nurturing artists – one great quote from the report, courtesy of a participant from Manchester: “Taylor Swift’s lighting director didn’t start out as Taylor Swift’s lighting director”.

These venues can sometimes even be the catalyst for the rebirth of a whole city – I recommend the excellent book Manchester Unspun – How A City Got High On Music by Andy Spinoza for a description of possibly the world’s most extreme version of this (and let’s not currently mention Co-op Live shall we?).

Simon Ricketts, 11 May 2024

Personal views, et cetera

Everybody Needs Good Neighbours

I’m not sure that the architects of the 1947 town and country planning system could have foreseen the extent to which it so frequently ends up being tested to its limits by the need to protect the specific, often legitimate, interests of neighbours and the extent to which the process has become weaponised in neighbour disputes.

I have dealt before with the inevitable mission creep over time, eg in my 4 April 2023 blog post Tate Modern Viewing Platform Supreme Court Ruling: What Is There For Planners To See?

To what extent can and should local planning authorities supplement adjoining owners’ private rights with policies and decision-making that protect those adjoining owners’ interests over matters such as the impact of noise and vibration on a particularly sensitive neighbour – and, if so, how do they make sure that they have the right engineering basis for their interventions? Particularly in London of course these issues arises again and again – see eg my 5 December 2016 blog post First World Problems: Basements and planning officers can get drawn into a neighbour versus neighbour quasi-mediation.

I was reminded by all this again by a case this week, Strongroom Limited v London Borough of Hackney (Deputy High Court Judge Tim Corner KC, 8 March 2023). I only recite the facts by way of illustration of the way these things escalate – the legal issues were settled on the day of the hearing.

The claimant operates a recording studio. The council granted planning permission for redevelopment of an adjoining property, with which the claimant shares a party wall. The claimant had objected to the planning application, submitting a report by consultant Jim Griffiths of the music acoustic consultancy, Vanguardia [pause here for quiet shout out to the excellent Jim] setting out his advice that “unless noise and vibration levels were strictly controlled during construction, the use of the Studios would be subject to harm, impossible to use and might be compelled to close as a result”. He set out the maximum noise and vibration levels that could be tolerated during the construction phase. The developer responded with their own commissioned report. The council in turn commissioned their own report and in consequence planning permission was granted with a detailed condition requiring submission of a “demolition and construction method statement covering all phases of the development to include details of noise control measures” with specific limits on noise and vibration levels set out in the condition.

Once the developer applied to discharge the condition the claimant argued strongly that the developer’s technical work was flawed and commenced proceedings for an injunction to stop construction works from being carried out. That resulted in a settlement agreement allowing, amongst other things, for on-site noise testing and disclosure of testing results. The claimant continued to take issue with the technical work and with some undisclosed testing which had been made available to the council. The council discharged the condition on the basis of the information submitted by the developer and the claimant challenged this by way of judicial review.

In the meantime, the, presumably despairing, developer sought and obtained a separate planning permission simply for change of use of its building, without any condition prescribing numerical noise and vibration limits during construction but requiring a construction management plan to be submitted including details of noise control measures. Again, the council discharged the condition on the basis of information submitted by the developer and again the claimant challenged this by way of judicial review.

So the Deputy High Court Judge had two complicated judicial reviews to determine, both revolving around whether the the council had acted properly in discharging the respective conditions. Unusually, on the very day of the hearing the parties reached a further settlement agreement resolving all of the issues. Even more unusually the one matter the parties had not managed to agree upon was the question of who should bear the costs of the proceedings and so the judge had to proceed with a relatively full analysis of the relative strength of the parties’ arguments before finally determining that (you may have seen this coming) each party should bear its own costs.

What an expenditure of time and money all round, at every stage of the process. Surely there must be a better way?

One of the problems is that outside the planning system, potential private law remedies in relation to matters such as noise, vibration and potential effects on the structural stability of adjoining buildings do not provide protection in a particularly straightforward and light-touch way. Yes, actions in private nuisance are available but the Tate Modern case is a high profile example of the inherent uncertainties of that expensive process. Yes, there is also the Party Wall Acts process in relation to certain matters but that only covers a narrow range of the issues arising from development and is in itself a rather antiquated system which could do with a thorough statutory review (for a topical description of the system, see another case last week: Power & Kyson v Shah (Court of Appeal, 7 March 2023)).

What’s the solution? I quite like the Australian approach:

Neighbours need to get to know each other. Next door is only a footstep away.

Finally, can I recommend the latest episode of the Planning Law (With Chickens) podcast by my colleagues Victoria McKeegan and Nikita Sellers. They chat through some of the most interesting things in planning law which have happened in the last few months and also have a good interview with James Wickham of Gerald Eve.

Simon Ricketts, 11 March 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Stansted Airport

This blog post covers yesterday’s High Court ruling in Ross & Sanders (obo Stop Stansted Expansion) v Secretary of State for Transport (Dove J, 7 February 2020), where the issue before the court was whether an application for planning permission for development at Stansted Airport, made to the local planning authority, Uttlesford District Council, by the airport under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, should instead have been pursued as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), to be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport. I also set out the timeline as to the council’s decision-making in relation to the planning application. I have limited what I say to a factual account, given that my firm is acting for the airport (alongside Tom Hill QC and Philippa Jackson from 39 Essex chambers).

The airport is subject to a cap of 35 million passengers per annum (mppa) and a cap of 274,000 air traffic movements (ATMs) per annum. On 22 February 2018 the airport submitted an application for planning permission which involved “building two new taxiway links, being a rapid entry taxiway and a rapid exit taxiway, and nine additional aircraft stands. These new developments are planned to take place in four separate locations within the existing footprint of Stansted Airport. It is uncontentious that these developments would increase the use of Stansted Airport’s single runway and its potential to handle aircraft movements. The planning application also includes a request for the planning cap of 35 million passengers per annum (“mppa”) to be increased to 43 mppa.” It was not proposed to increase the ATMs cap.

The relevant part of section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 provides that airport-related development is to be treated as an NSIP in the case of any “alteration” to an airport the effect of which is “to increase by at least 10 million per year the number of passengers for whom the airport is capable of providing air passenger transport services”.

Section 23(6) provides that “”alteration” in relation to an airport, includes the construction, extension or alteration of:


(a) a runway at the airport,

(b) a building at the airport, or

(c) a radar or radio mast, antenna or other apparatus at the airport.”

The Secretary of State for Transport determined on 28 June 2018 that the 10 mppa threshold would not be exceeded and that he would not exercise his discretionary power under section 35 of the Act to treat the proposals as nationally significant and therefore subject to the 2008 Act decision-taking process and a decision at a national level. The latter determination was taken against the background of the Secretary of State’s publication on 5 June 2018 of the government’s “”Airports National Policy Statement: new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in south-east of England” (NPS) together with the policy “Beyond the horizon: The future of UK aviation-Making best use of existing runways” (“MBU”).” The MBU policy paper stated that the government would be using its Aviation Strategy to progress its wider policy towards tackling aviation carbon. “”[T]o ensure that our policy is compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments we have used the DfT aviation model to look at the impact of allowing all airports to make best use of their existing runway capacity.” The paper stated:

“Airports that wish to increase either the passenger or air traffic movement caps to allow them to make best use of their existing runways will need to submit applications to the relevant planning authority. We expect that applications to increase existing planning caps by fewer than 10 million passengers per annum (mppa) can be taken forward through local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. As part of any planning application airports will need to demonstrate how they will mitigate against local environmental issues, taking account of relevant national policies, including any new environmental policies emerging from the Aviation Strategy. This policy statement does not prejudice the decision of those authorities who will be required to give proper consideration to such applications. It instead leaves it up to local, rather than national government, to consider each case on its merits.”

Stop Stansted Expansion challenged the Secretary of State’s 28 June 2018 determination on two grounds: that the airport’s proposals would in fact lead to the 10 mppa cap being exceeded and that the Secretary of State should have used his discretionary power to treat the proposals as an NSIP, the claimant relying, amongst other things on a “suggestion that the application was in truth part of a wider project for expansion of passenger throughput in excess of the NSIP definition, and the ramifications of increased carbon emissions as a result of increased air travel which ought to have led to the conclusion that the development should be treated as an NSIP.”

On the first ground, the court accepted that the proposed works amounted to an “alteration” of an airport (the argument was as to whether the definition was for the purposes of these proposals limited to alterations to a runway but Dove J accepted a wider definition, given the word “includes” in sub-section (6)). However, the court found that the Secretary of State was correct to conclude that the 10 mppa threshold would not be breached:

“I am satisfied that the submissions of the Defendant in this respect are undoubtedly correct. The language of the statute in relation to whether the alteration will “increase by at least 10 million per year the number of passengers for whom the airport is capable of providing air passenger transport services” requires the Defendant to form a judgment in relation to that question. In my view that judgment is to be formed by asking what increase in capacity could realistically be achieved, not what might technically or arithmetically be possible. It requires an analysis based on how the infrastructure is likely to perform, not a hypothetical approach assuming speculative figures in relation to each aspect of the calculation of capacity to show what might be possible rather than what is likely to occur in practice.”

On the second ground, the court noted that from the statutory language of section 35 of the 2008 Act “the Defendant is granted a broad discretion as to whether or not to treat an application for development which does not otherwise meet the definitions for an NSIP as a project which requires development consent on the basis of national significance. Bearing in mind the prescriptive nature of the definitions for various types of NSIP contained in the 2008 Act, the discretion under section 35 is a broad one. Given the nature of the Defendant’s decision, as one which was exercised using a relatively broad discretion, the task of the Claimants to show that the judgment which the Defendant reached was unlawful is daunting.”

The court concluded that similarly ground 2 was not made out. One of the claimant’s submissions was that the MBU carbon emissions modelling was flawed and had “underestimated the effects of growth in aircraft traffic at Stansted airport”. The judge accepted the Secretary of State’s submission that in “reality this aspect of the Defendant’s decision was essentially based on reliance on the MBU policy, and that the substance of the Claimants’ case is in fact a challenge to the legality of that policy in disguise (see paragraphs 95 and 96 above). Certainly, the legality of that policy is now beyond argument. As such I accept that the Defendant was, lawfully, entitled to reach the conclusion which he did, based squarely on the MBU policy that “an increase in the planning cap at [Stansted]…could be adequately mitigated to meet the CCC’s 2050 planning assumption”. That was a conclusion which applied the provisions of the MBU policy (see paragraphs 38 to 40 above) which had considered that proposals of this scale would not imperil the achievement of climate change targets in the light of the modelling work which had informed the policy.”

“The Defendant has provided in the evidence a clear and coherent explanation of the purpose of the modelling (namely for long-term forecasting at a national level) and the basis on which it was constructed so as to inform and justify the policy in MBU relating to whether planning proposals at airports could be adequately mitigated and dealt with at the local level. Once this background to the technical work is understood, then it becomes clear that the criticisms of the Claimants, based upon short-term analysis or examination of individual years is without substance.”

Accordingly, the airport had been correct to pursue the proposals by way of an application for planning permission to the local planning authority, and the Secretary of State had not acted unlawfully in declining to intervene by way of directing that the proposals should proceed as an NSIP.

So was the local planning authority, Uttlesford District Council, now free to determine the application? Well this would have been the case if it had not resolved, against officers’ recommendations, to refuse planning permission on 24 January 2020, the decision notice then having been issued on 29 January 2020.

It has been a twisting route, summarised in the report prepared for Extraordinary Planning Committee meetings that were held on on 17 and 24 January 2020 (the passages in quotation marks below), with additional factual insertions by me:

The claimant made requests on 19 April and 14 June 2018 to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for the application to be called in. He responded that the Secretary of State for Transport should first determine whether the application should be treated as an NSIP.

The Secretary of State determined on 28 June 2018 that the application was not to be treated as an NSIP. Stop Stansted Expansion issued judicial review proceedings in relation to that decision (those proceedings eventually being dismissed on 7 February 2020 as described above).

“On 14 November 2018, the Planning Committee resolved to grant the application, subject to conditions and subject to completion of an agreement imposing legally binding planning obligations (“section 106 agreement”). The Report and Supplementary Reports identified the planning obligations required. The precise form that the section 106 agreement should take, in accordance with the amended recommendation, was resolved to be delegated to officers. Subsequently, a proposed S106 Agreement was drawn up between the Council, Essex County Council (as relevant highway authority) and Stansted Airport Ltd.”

On 20 March 2019 the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government decided not to call in the application. Stop Stansted Expansion issued judicial review proceedings in relation to that decision (Legal bid lodged after Government rejects ‘call in’ of Stansted Airport planning application, Saffron Walden Reporter, 28 March 2019). Those proceedings were subsequently withdrawn.

The purdah period commenced ahead of local government elections on 2 May 2019.

“5. An Extraordinary Meeting of the Council was called for 25 April 2019 to consider the following motion:

“To instruct the Chief Executive and fellow officers not to issue a Planning Decision Notice for planning application UTT/18/0460/FUL until the related Section 106 Legal Agreement between UDC and Stansted Airport Limited and the Planning Conditions have been scrutinised, reviewed and approved by the Council’s Planning Committee after the local elections.

The motion was defeated by 14 votes to 18 votes.

6. A further Extraordinary Meeting was called to consider the following motion:

To instruct the Chief Executive and fellow officers not to issue the Planning Decision Notice for planning application UTT/18/0460/FUL until members have had an opportunity to review and obtain independent legal corroboration that the legal advice provided to officers, including the QC opinion referred to by the Leader of the Council on 9th April 2019, confirms that the proposed Section 106 Agreement with Stansted Airport Limited fully complies with the Resolution approved by the Planning Committee on 14 November 2018 such that officers are lawfully empowered to conclude and seal the Agreement without further reference to the Planning Committee.

The meeting was originally scheduled for 3 June but was deferred until 28 June to allow further time for consideration of legal advice.

7. An informal meeting was held on 30 April with members who had requisitioned the Extraordinary Meeting. It was agreed:

⁃ that officers would not complete the section 106 agreement and issue the

planning consent for the time being;

⁃ That the legal advice previously obtained from Christiaan Zwart, barrister,

would be circulated to all members;

⁃ That a briefing session would be held for all members, with Christiaan Zwart in attendance to answer questions about his advice;

⁃ That, if need be, further advice would be sought at Q.C. level and a further briefing for all councillors would be held. This advice would focus on whether the planning obligation requirements made by the Planning Committee have been incorporated fully and effectively into the s106 agreement, and on the origin and consequences of any “gaps” if any between the Planning Committee Resolution and the resulting S106 Agreement.”

At the local government elections on 2 May 2019, the council came under the control of Residents 4 Uttlesford by a substantial majority.

“8. A briefing meeting for all councillors was called for 14 May. Advice obtained from the Council’s barrister, Christiaan Zwart, was circulated prior to the meeting. He spoke to his advice on 14 May and answered questions.

9. Further advice was then obtained from Stephen Hockman Q.C. working jointly with Christiaan Zwart. Their joint advice was sent to members prior to a second briefing meeting held on 21 May. They answered questions raised by members at that briefing. Issues raised at the briefing meeting by members, and by Stop Stansted Expansion separately, led to additional further advice from Stephen Hockman, Q.C. and Christiaan Zwart. This also was shared with all members of the Council. In all cases information was shared on a legally privileged and confidential basis.

10. At the Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council on 28 June officers were instructed not to issue a Planning Decision Notice for planning application UTT/18/0460/FUL until the Planning Committee had considered:

(i) the adequacy of the proposed Section 106 Agreement between UDC and Stansted Airport Ltd, having regard to the Heads of Terms contained in the resolution approved by the Council’s Planning Committee on 14th November 2018;

(ii) any new material considerations and/or changes in circumstances since 14 November 2018 to which weight may now be given in striking the planning balance or which would reasonably justify attaching a different weight to relevant factors previously considered.

11. Since that meeting further expert legal advice has been obtained from Philip Coppel QC at the request of Members, and officers have been supporting members of the Planning Committee in preparing to consider the two matters set out above through a series of workshop sessions, in part owing to the significant change in membership of the committee. These sessions have taken members through the content of the draft obligations and issues that might be raised as potential new material considerations and regarded as a material change in circumstances since 14 November. They have provided opportunities for councillors and officers to ensure the obligations and issues are fully understood.

12. This report seeks to set out the issues comprehensively, to enable the Committee to comply with the Council resolution and authorise the release of the appropriate decision notice on the planning application.”

Officers recommended the following:

“The Assistant Director – Planning be authorised to issue the decision notice approving the planning application subject to the planning conditions as resolved by the Planning Committee on 14 November 2018 on signing of the amended S106 Agreement appended to this report.”

The Committee sat on 17 and 24 January 2020. Members rejected the officers’ recommendation (ten members voting to reject it, with two abstentions).

The reasons for refusal set out on the decision notice are as follows:

“1 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the additional flights would not result in an increased detrimental effect from aircraft noise, contrary to Uttlesford Local Plan Policy ENV11 and the NPPF.

2 The application has failed to demonstrate that the additional flights would not result in a detrimental effect on air quality, specifically but not exclusively PM2.5 and ultrafine particulates contrary to Uttlesford Local Plan Policy ENV13 and paragraph 181 of the NPPF.

3 The additional emissions from increased international flights are incompatible with the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation that emissions from all UK departing flights should be at or below 2005 levels in 2050. This is against the backdrop of the amendment to the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) to reduce the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 to net zero from the 1990 baseline. This is therefore contrary to the general accepted perceptions and understandings of the importance of climate change and the time within which it must be addressed. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to approve the application at a time whereby the Government has been unable to resolve its policy on international aviation climate emissions.

4 The application fails to provide the necessary infrastructure to support the application, or the necessary mitigation to address the detrimental impact of the proposal contrary to Uttlesford Local Plan Policies GEN6, GEN1, GEN7, ENV7, ENV11 and ENV13.”

If you are interested in the debate that led to these conclusions, you are out of luck: No webcast or sound recording of the 24 January session is apparently available. There is an apology on the council’s website:

“Unfortunately the broadcasting of today’s meeting failed. Officers worked throughout the day, in liaison with the supplier, to identify and rectify the problem without success.

It has now been established that the back-up local recording of the meeting also failed, meaning an audio recording of the meeting will not be available on the council’s website.

We sincerely apologise to those who had wanted to ‘listen in’ or ‘listen again’ to the meeting.”

From lack of sound to lack of soundness…

The inspectors examining Uttlesford’s local plan concluded in their 10 January 2020 post stage 1 hearings letter as follows:

“Unfortunately, despite the additional evidence that has been submitted during the examination and all that we have now read and heard in the examination, including the suggested main modifications to the plan (ED41) put forward by the Council, we have significant concerns in relation to the soundness of the plan. In particular, we are not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Garden Communities, and thus the overall spatial strategy, have been justified. We therefore cannot conclude that these fundamental aspects of the plan are sound.”

But that, friends, is for another blog post.

Simon Ricketts, 8 February 2020

Personal views, et cetera

Sajid Javid: Agent Of Change?

Sajid Javid’s statement Strengthened planning rules to protect music venues and their neighbours on 18 January 2018, confirming that the “agent of change” principle would be included in the revised NPPF, was widely supported. 
But this was hardly news was it? Go back to the February 2017 housing white paper:

“Noise and other impacts on new developments 

A.140 The National Planning Policy Framework, supported by planning guidance, already incorporates elements of the ‘agent of change’ principle (this provides that the person or business responsible for the change should be responsible for managing the impact of that change) in relation to noise, by being clear that existing businesses wanting to grow should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. 

A.141 We propose to amend the Framework to emphasise that planning policies and decisions should take account of existing businesses and other organisations, such as churches, community pubs, music venues and sports clubs, when locating new development nearby and, where necessary, to mitigate the impact of noise and other potential nuisances arising from existing development. This will help mitigate the risk of restrictions or possible closure of existing businesses and other organisations due to noise and other complaints from occupiers of new developments. ”

The latest statement takes this further forward not one jot. I was blogging about the agent of change principle back in October 2016 in my post Noise Annoys.

The prod for the 18 January announcement was the introduction into the House of Commons on 10 January 2018 of a private members’ bill, the Planning (Agent of Change) Bill, by Labour MP John Spellar. Following the debate on 10 January, the Bill (which has not actually been published at this stage, as is often the case with private members’ bills of this nature which are largely intended just intended to draw attention to an issue) was due to receive a second reading on 19 January but this has now been postponed until 16 March. Presumably the intention of the bill was simply to keep the Government focused on what it had already indicated to do. If this is how politicians have to spend their time but it all seems odd to this outsider. 
The agent of change concept really now does have momentum, with a strong campaign run by the Music Venue Trust and supported by the Local Government Association. It is frustrating that even such an apparently simple change to policy (oversold in Javid’s statement as a new “rule”) takes so long to introduce. 
The Welsh Assembly was able to move rather faster, introducing an equivalent policy change by its letter letter Supporting the Night Time Economy and the Agent of Change Principle (26 May 2017):
“Existing policy in Planning Policy Wales already says new uses should not be introduced into an area without considering the nature of existing uses. Under the agent of change principle, if new developments or uses are to be introduced near a pre-existing business, such as a live music venue, it is the responsibility of the developer to ensure solutions to address and mitigate noise are put forward as part of proposals and are capable of being implemented. 

PPW also encourages local planning authorities to consider the compatibility of uses in areas and afford appropriate protection where they consider it necessary, as part of their development plans. The revisions to PPW will add to this and allow for the designation of areas of cultural significance for music through development plans.”



The letter advises Welsh planning authorities that they “should begin to apply this principle, where it is a relevant consideration, with immediate effect.” Javid could have taken this approach with his 18 January announcement and it is a disappointment that he did not.  
The Mayor of London has also of course introduced a policy into the draft London plan. 



There has also been coverage this week of the supposed news of further slippage in the publication of the draft NPPF, which would cause further delay to the final document. Senior MCHLG servant Melanie Dawes was reported in Planning magazine as saying to the CLG Commons Select Committee that it would be “ready for consultation in the next few months – I hope just before Easter or thereabouts”, meaning that we should assume it may be at the end of March (“or thereabouts”!). But again, this wasn’t news, given that Government chief planner Steve Quartermain’s 21 December 2017 letter to local authorities had promised the draft “early” in 2018. The letter states that the final version of the revised NPPF would be “before the end of the summer“. In my view this is careful wording: we should not necessarily assume that we will see it this side of the Parliamentary recess (which starts on 20 July). Which of course has an immediate influence on those authorities who had either been rushing to submit their local plans by the end of March 2018 or waiting until after that deadline, depending on their tactical judgment as to how they would be affected by the proposed standardised methodology for assessing housing needs – that end of March deadline is now a late summer deadline. 

Honestly, it would be enough to make one scream, if it wasn’t for the neighbours. 
Simon Ricketts, 19.1.18
Personal views, et cetera

Noise Annoys

We’ve surely got to find better solutions to the conflicts arising between residents (in both new and existing homes) and noise generating or noise sensitive uses. Otherwise we will kill those activities that make cities what they are and an important element what attracts people to live in them in the first place: nightclubs; cinemas; music and sports venues; recording studios. 
Noise arises in the planning system in various ways:
– Effect of proposals on existing noise-sensitive uses

– Effect of proposals that will bring sensitive receptors near to noisy operations whose activities may over time be curtailed

– Effect of proposals for noisy activities on sensitive receptors


Effect of proposals on existing noise-sensitive uses
It has been a bad week or so for noise-sensitive uses:
London
R (Grand Central Sound Studios Limited) v Westminster City Council (Patterson J, 20 October 2016). The claimant operates eight recording studios from a building in central London, a use sensitive to noise and vibration. It unsuccessfully challenged, alleging (basically) irrationality and inconsistency of approach, Westminster City Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the residential conversion of an adjacent office building.
It was always going to be an uphill struggle once planning permission had been granted. Contrast with the well-publicised battle that has been fought by Air Studios in Hampstead against a nearby super-basement proposal. 
Manchester
The Secretary of State for Transport has approved proposals for the Trafford Centre extension to the Manchester Metrolink in the face of reported objections from the studios where Coronation Street is filmed. Paragraph 11 of the 13 October 2016 decision letter:
“The Secretary of State notes that the main effects of the … proposals due to noise and vibration would be on the production of “Coronation Street” at the ITV Trafford Wharf Studios due to construction noise, wheel squeal on the tight bend near the studios, and groundborne noise as a result of vibration from the trams. He accepts that construction noise should be able to be controlled through the Code of Construction Practice (“CoCP”); that occurrences of wheel squeal could be reduced by changing the wheel profile of trams, by control of the track gauge at the bend and by the use of a vehicle-mounted friction modification system; and that the effects of groundborne noise could, if necessary, be reduced by use of a “floating track slab” design in the vicinity of the studios. The Secretary of State accordingly agrees with the Inspector that these matters would be adequately addressed through the imposition and enforcement of planning conditions … which should ensure that measures are taken to avoid exceedances of the “just acceptable” noise levels specified by ITV”

Effect of proposals that will bring sensitive receptors (people) near to noisy operations whose activities may over time be curtailed
Such as nightclubs…

Obar Camden Limited v London Borough of Camden  (Stewart J, 8 September 2015) was the successful challenge by the Camden nightclub Koko of a planning permission granted by Camden Council for a mixed use redevelopment of the adjoining public house. Koko was concerned that the presence of residents next door would jeopardise the future of the venue due to the risk of noise complaints. In contrast to the Grand Central Sound Studios case, the court accepted that the decision was irrational and also that the noise condition imposed was legally flawed:

“The tenor of the [officer’s report] is that so long as the noise consultant’s mitigation measures were implemented, this would require further details of those particular mitigation measures, then the proposed residential use would not “result in increase noise and complaints which may result in harm to the future operation of the neighbouring businesses.” This was not accurate. Therefore the overall effect of the report in relation to noise significantly misled the Committee about material matters which were left uncorrected at the meeting before the relevant decision was taken”. 
The claimant’s noise consultant “Mr Vivian’s report in effect says that the conditions cannot possibly fulfil the aims they seek to achieve. There is no evidence from [the defendant]. The court would not expect a detailed technical response and would not become involved in such a merits based argument. However there is nothing apart from the fact that the conditions were drafted by [the defendant’s] officers, to refute any of the points made by Mr Vivian. A brief witness statement setting out in summary form why issue was taken with Mr Vivian’s conclusions may well have been sufficient. Nevertheless the court is in effect left with a detailed and systematic witness statement alleging irrationality and nothing of real substance to begin to counteract it. Therefore in my judgment [the claimant] succeeds on this ground also.”

The Eileen House development in south London, near to the Ministry of Sound nightclub, was the previous cause celebre, called in by the previous Mayor of London and approved in 2014 after lengthy negotiations leading to:

– reportedly, a novel form of deed of easement being entered into by the owners of Eileen House allowing noise from the nightclub to pass over the Eileen House developments so that incoming residents would not be able to object to it

– condition 19 attached to the 7 January 2014 planning permission requiring flats to be adequately insulated against noise from the nightclub

– paragraphs 11 to 13 of Schedule 2 of the 6 January 2014 section 106 agreement  requiring noise mitigation measures to be kept in place and for incoming residents to be told about the noise from the nightclub. 

“Agent of Change”
The Eileen House approach could be seen as a domestic example of the Australian “agent of change” principle – that where development takes place near to noisy activities, it is for the developer to manage the impact of the change (see Music Venue Trust  for more information, or this detailed paper  from a 2014 noise conference held in Melbourne). 
Sadiq Khan has embraced the concept, reportedly  intending to introduce it into policy. His statement was made in the context of the problems faced by the Curzon cinema in Mayfair, being faced with complaints from incoming residents to newly converted flats in its building. Its problems arise from its tenancy position, unable to control the nature of its neighbours, and the difficulties of retrofitting soundproofing of its activities into a listed building. 
Whilst a Labour attempt  to introduce the concept into the Housing and Planning Bill failed, the Government did of course from 6 April 2016 introduce a further prior approval requirement into the office to residential permitted development right: a requirement to provide details as to the “impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development”. 
Effect of proposals for noisy activities on sensitive receptors
More traditionally, the introduction of noisy activities into residential areas has always led to disputes. We have recently seen a surge in popularity in outdoor music events, leading to a surge in popularity in related litigation, which often turns on collateral challenges to the lawfulness of temporarily closing off the relevant open area for a commercial event. 
The recent challenge to north London’s Wireless Festival, Friends of Finsbury Park v London Borough of Haringey  (Supperstone J, 22 June 2016) , was a case in point, along with Save Battersea Park’s recent litigation in relation to the holding of Formula E racing in Battersea Park and ongoing disputes in relation to events on Clapham Common.  
and beyond planning…
As with the Curzon cinema case, noise issues are not confined to the planning system – there is often an overlap with licensing and with private law, including landlord and tenant matters and the law of nuisance. The law of nuisance is beyond this blog’s pay grade but the key legal authority is undoubtedly Coventry v Lawrence  (Supreme Court, 22 July 2015), a case about noise from a motor sports track in Suffolk. The case considers, amongst other things, the relevance of how long the noise complained of has been generated (as to whether rights by prescription can be obtained after 20 years), the relevance of whether the activities have the benefit of planning permission, the relevance of whether the complainant has come new to the situation and the availability of injunctions. Worth reading in a quiet moment….
Final bars 
The Government’s planning guidance at present as to the treatment of noise in the planning system is useful eg paragraphs 123, 109 and 111 of the NPPF., the noise section in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance  and its earlier Noise Policy Statement for England. However, whether at national or at local/city level, isn’t it time now for more a more explicit articulation of the agent of change principle – with a view to maintaining city living as a sound proposition? 
Simon Ricketts 22.10.16
Personal views, et cetera