In DLUHC Jubilo: NPPF & Much More

God bless planners who have been waiting for this day all year. I hope you participated in the nppfestivities although to my mind the NPPF itself was the least interesting of what was published today (19 December 2023).

This is today’s publication list as it stands at 6 pm (ten items):

  1. The new National Planning Policy Framework and
  2. the Government’s response to consultation on reforms to national planning policy.

I’ve been reading the latest version of the NPPF as against the previous September 2023 version and against the amendments consulted on in December 2022. This is just a first quick take. I’ve just read the lines so far. The interesting bit is of course going back and reading between them. (A Landmark Chambers/Town Legal seminar is planned for 15 January 2024 with exactly this in mind – details here).

As compared to the December 2022 consultation (see my 22 December 2022 blog post) the changes are relatively limited, the main substantive ones being (in broad summary):

  • No further restrictions after all as to when the paragraph 11 tilted balance applies (although for an authority whose plan has reached at least regulation 18 stage the requirement to show five years’ worth supply of housing supply drops to four years). The consultation paper had suggested exclusions where meeting need in full “would mean building at densities significantly out of character with the existing area” and where there is “clear evidence of past over-delivery”.
  • The changes consulted upon to the “soundness” test for local plans, particularly the deletion of the “justified” requirement, are not being taken forward.
  • Whilst as per the consultation draft, the outcome of the standard method for assessing housing requirements for an area is expressed as an “advisory starting point”, the exceptional circumstances for departure make it clear that “the particular characteristics of an area” is in fact the “particular demographic characteristics of an area”.
  • References have been added, supportive of “community-led development”.

The “area character” point has instead been picked up in a new paragraph 130 which advises that “significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area. Such circumstances should be evidenced through an authority-wide design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the development plan.”

Substantively as per the consultation document, there is “no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated”. How can this possibly work in Green Belt authorities with high levels of unmet housing need?

As per the consultation document there are plenty of exhortations as to beauty.

3. Consequential changes to the advice in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance about the Green Belt and about traveller sites .

4. The Secretary of State’s Falling Back In Love With The Future speech at the RIBA.

5. The Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement to the House of Commons: The Next Stage in Our Long Term Plan for Housing Update.

Much of the statement simply summarises the other documents covered in this blog post but the section on Cambridge is worth setting out in full:

“Cambridge

Finally, I want to provide an update on the Government’s vision for Cambridge 2040. In July, I outlined plans for a new urban quarter – one adjacent to the existing city – with beautiful Neo-classical buildings, rich parkland, concert halls and museums providing homes for thousands. This would be accompanied by further, ambitious, development around and in the city to liberate its potential with tens of thousands of new homes.

In the intervening months, Peter Freeman, the Chair of the Cambridge Delivery Group, has been developing our vision for the city, in collaboration with a whole host of local leaders and representatives. I am clear that delivering our vision means laying the groundwork for the long-term, and that starts now.

We plan to establish a new development corporation for Cambridge, which we will arm with the right leadership and full range of powers necessary to marshal this huge project over the next two decades, regardless of the shifting sands of Westminster.

We recognise the scale of development we are talking about will require support from across the public and private sectors, to realise our level of ambition.

And we must also ensure we have an approach towards water that reflects the nature of Cambridge’s geography. So today I am also announcing that we will review building regulations in Spring next year to allow local planning authorities to introduce tighter water efficiency standards in new homes. In the meantime, in areas of serious water stress, where water scarcity is inhibiting the adoption of Local Plans or the granting of planning permission for homes, I encourage local planning authorities to work with the Environment Agency and delivery partners to agree standards tighter than the 110 litres per day that is set out in current guidance.”

6. Housebuilding in London: Letter from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities – the highlights:

“We agree that housing delivery in London is far below the levels needed. Not only is delivery considerably short of your own London Plan target by approximately 15,000 homes per year, it was approximately 63,500 homes lower than actual need last year, as calculated by the standard method. This is not a national issue. London was the worst performing region in the Housing Delivery Test 2022. Fewer than half of the London Boroughs and Development Corporations delivered more than 95% of their appropriate housing requirement for the test over the three-year monitoring period. Areas like the West Midlands are overdelivering, while London continues to fall short.

This has a significant effect on the availability of homes for those wanting to live and work in the capital, as well as for the standard of housing available. London’s average house prices remain the most expensive in the UK – an average of £537,000 in September 2023. The average price was over 12.5 times average earnings last year. London has the lowest level of home ownership in England. Our capital also has, as you know, the highest proportion of renters. There are 60,040 homeless households in temporary accommodation, including over 80,000 children.

Under your leadership the GLA is failing to provide affordable homes for those that need them most.

While I welcome the commitments you made in your letter, as well as the ideas you have provided for Government to consider, they are not enough to change this woeful picture. In July, I asked my officials to review housing delivery in London to gain a greater understanding of the reasons for this significant under-delivery. We met stakeholders, including planning authorities, developers, and boroughs to identify the challenges they encounter in delivering housing. In the course of those discussions, a number of issues were raised which stakeholders believe are adversely affecting housing delivery in London.

Due to the significant shortfall in housing supply and under delivery of housing in our capital, I have concluded that it may be necessary to take further action now, as a matter of urgency, to make sure London is delivering the homes our capital needs.

With this in mind, I have asked Christopher Katkowski KC to lead a panel of expert advisers comprising Cllr James Jamieson, Paul Monaghan, and Dr Wei Yang, to consider the aspects of your London Plan which could be preventing thousands of homes being brought forward, with a particular focus on brownfield sites in the heart of our capital. I have asked them to produce their report by January and will make sure that it is shared with you.

If you cannot do what is needed to deliver the homes that London needs, I will.”

7. Housing Delivery Test: 2022 measurement

8. Local Plan intervention: Secretary of State’s letters to 7 local authorities  directing them to revise their local plan timetables – Amber Valley. Ashfield, Basildon, Castle Point, Medway, St Albans and Uttlesford.

9. Direction preventing West Berkshire Council from withdrawing its emerging local plan at a meeting tonight.

10. Freeports delivery roadmap.

A busy day in Marsham Street…

Simon Ricketts, 19 December 2023

Personal views, et cetera

PS This my 400th post. I’ll get the hang of it soon, I promise.

Permission Incompatibility Not Relevant For Decision Maker – Court Of Appeal In Fiske

The Court of Appeal handed down somewhat of a Christmas present today for those of us frustrated with questions raised from time to time by local planning authorities as to whether “Hillside” issues may arise in relation to particular application strategies adopted by our clients. In his judgment today in R (Fiske) v Test Valley Borough Council (Court of Appeal, 15 December 2023) Lindblom LJ makes it clear that this is simply a question for the developer to deal with – it is “not the authority’s job”.

The conclusion is clear although the underlying facts of the judgment take some unpicking. The first elephant trap to avoid is that whilst the case is part of the same saga arising from a local resident’s efforts to thwart development for a proposed solar farm in Hampshire, this is not an appeal from the High Court’s ruling in R (Fiske) v Test Valley Borough Council (Morris J, 6 September 2023) –  the case that endorsed the now well understood legal position in relation to the scope of section 73 permissions, that the development approved must not depart from the description of development on the face of the parent planning permission and must not constitute a fundamental alteration to the development approved by the parent planning permission. The court held in that case that removal of a substation from the approved development (a revised form of substation having been approved within the site by way of a separate planning permission) could not be achieved by way of section 73 given both that this conflicted with the operative wording of the parent permission that referred to a substation and given that the planning committee was not made aware of the removal of the substation from the proposals. (Here is Town Legal’s Town Library summary of that ruling).

In today’s Court of Appeal ruling, the question before the court was as to whether that separate planning permission had been granted unlawfully, given that at the time it was granted the subsequently quashed section 73 permission (to amend the rest of the scheme to be consistent with that permission) had not yet been granted (Sincere congratulations if you are still following this). As encapsulated by Lindlom LJ at the beginning of his judgment:

“Did a local planning authority err in law when granting planning permission for a distribution network operator (“DNO”) substation to connect a proposed solar park to the national grid? In particular, did it fail to have regard to an “obviously material” consideration by not taking into account the incompatibility of that planning permission with the permission it had previously granted for the solar park itself? These questions arise in this case. They involve principles of law that are already well established.”

Lindblom LJ then sets out the relevant legal principles in relation to the nature of material considerations and as to the incompatibility of planning permissions (our old friends Pilkington, Pioneer Aggregates and Hillside).

He goes on to agree with the conclusions of HHJ Jarman KC at first instance: the incompatibility of planning permissions or the prospect of some future breach of planning control was not a material consideration to which the council was required to have regard under any provision of the statutory planning code.

“The fact that the differences between the two proposals were obvious when the challenged decision was taken does not mean that their incompatibility was an “obviously material” and thus mandatory material consideration in the council’s decision. That would be a misconception. The planning system does not preclude the possibility of a number of applications for planning permission being made and granted for different developments on the same site. It accepts the granting and co-existence of mutually incompatible permissions, one or more of which may prove incapable of lawful implementation, whether in whole or in part, unless the incompatibility can be defeated by a further grant of permission under section 70 of the 1990 Act, or section 73. This was a point strongly emphasised in Pilkington.

There is nothing in the judgment of Lord Sales and Lord Leggatt in Hillside Parks, nor in Lord Widgery’s in Pilkington, or elsewhere in the cases to which counsel referred, to support the proposition that the incompatibility between a previously granted planning permission and an application seeking permission for a different scheme is a mandatory material consideration in the decision being taken, either as a general rule or in the “special cases” to which Lord Widgery referred.”

“In the light of the relevant reasoning in Pilkington, recently confirmed in Hillside Parks, and the cases on mandatory material considerations, I do not accept that the fact of the 2017 permission being expressly “associated” with the application for the 2021 permission made the incompatibility between the two permissions an “obviously material” consideration. Such incompatibility did not nullify or prevent the implementation of either the 2017 permission or the 2021 permission. It did not negate the principle of a solar park development on the site, which the 2017 permission had established. Nor did it go to the intrinsic planning merits of the substation proposal that the committee was now considering.”

“I see no force in the submission that the possibility of Woodington Solar acting in breach of planning control was itself an “obviously material” consideration. If the incompatibility of the two planning permissions was not an “obviously material” consideration, the future actions of a developer with the benefit of those two permissions cannot be seen as a matter on which the council needed to speculate. This was a question for Woodington Solar as developer. It did not bear on the planning merits of the proposal in hand.”

“For a large development such as this to require changes to be made to it in the course of design and construction is not unusual. It often happens. When it does, the developer may be expected to make such changes through the normal planning process. If he has the benefit of two or more planning permissions incompatible with each other, or potentially so, there may be lawful steps he can take to overcome that incompatibility and proceed with the development he wants to build. Sometimes this will not be so. In that case the incompatibility will remain, and the lawful implementation of one permission or the other, or both of them, will not be possible. But the local planning authority is not legally compelled to anticipate how the developer might later choose to deal with such inconsistency, or to assume that he will resort to unlawful means of doing so. That is not the authority’s job.”

Hear, hear.

Just waiting now from my NPPF present from DLUHC, although I suspect it may be very similar to what we all received this time last year…

Simon Ricketts, 15 December 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Photo courtesy of Neenu Vimalkumar via Unsplash

2023 Unwrapped (Or The Case Of The DLUHC That Didn’t Bark?)

A pause to reflect as we wait for the latest version of the NPPF finally to be published, possibly in the coming week.

My final post of 2022, It Will Soon Be Christmas & We Really Don’t Have To Rush To Conclusions On This New NPPF Consultation Draft covered the publication on 22 December 2022 of the consultation draft. Back then the final version was to be published in Spring 2023. Never trust a DLUHC time estimate…

That timescale assumed that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would receive Royal Assent that Spring. Ho ho ho. The Act finally received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, although, as set out in my 4 November 2023 blog post Act Up!, nothing substantive has yet come into force, most elements requiring secondary legislation with only limited sections being switched on from Boxing Day. (My firm has prepared a detailed summary of the planning reform aspects of the Act, running to some 41 pages. Do message or email me if you would like a copy.)

Judging from the tone of DLUHC’s 28 November 2023 response to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s reforms to national planning policy report, together with Mr Gove’s appearance before the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee on 6 December 2023, we assume that the final version of the NPPF will reflect quite closely the December 2022 draft, but time will tell.

Of course, barring a general election in the meantime, in 2024 we will then have consultation on further proposed revisions to the NPPF, to reflect LURA’s proposed reforms to plan-making, and consultation on much else besides.

In the meantime, 2023 has seen yet more ministerial changes with Rachel Maclean sacked in favour of an expanded role for Lee Rowley. There have been at best sporadic attempts to discourage local authorities from withdrawing emerging plans (Spelthorne and Erewash). There has been a self-styled long-term plan for housing. There have been sporadic culture wars – for example the swipe at South Cambridgeshire District Council for its four-day working week trial (anyone remember localism? I have an old book to flog).

But has anything really moved the dial in terms of encouraging housebuilding or indeed encouraging economic activity? Far from it if yesterday’s Planning Resource headline is anything to go by: Number of planning applications plummets 12% year-on-year in latest quarterly government figures (8 December 2023, behind paywall)

Spotify-style, I looked back at which simonicity posts were most widely read, last year. Perhaps this list tells its own story – one of procedural hurdles, unnecessary complexity and political climbdowns. In order:

  1. M&S Mess (21 July 2023). We wait to see what the High Court makes of Mr Gove’s 20 July 2023 decision letter.
  1. Thank You Mikael Armstrong: New Case On Scope Of Section 73 (28 January 2023). The Armstrong case has now been supplemented by R (Fiske) v Test Valley Borough Council (Morris J, 6 September 2023). The scope of section 73 remains a live issue, although the legal boundaries are now pretty clear ahead of the coming into force of section 73B which will raise new questions.
  1. The Government’s Big Move On Nutrient Neutrality – Now We Have Seen The Government’s LURB Amendment (29 August 2023). The subsequent defeat suffered by the Government on this in the House of Lords was possibly DLUHC’s most embarrassing moment of the year, when taken with the subsequent, aborted, attempt by the Government to introduce a fresh Bill.
  1. New Draft London Guidance On Affordable Housing/Viability (6 May 2023). These are critical issues, particularly in London, and we need to understand as clearly as possible the Mayor’s position. But the GLA draft guidance continues to grow like topsy. Since that post in May we have also had draft guidance on purpose-built student accommodation and on digital connectivity – and in the last week we have had draft industrial land and uses guidance.
  1. Euston We Have A Problem (8 July 2023). Subsequent to the post there was then of course the Government’s total  abandonment of proposals for HS2 north of Birmingham (see my 4 October 2023 blog post, Drive Time) and wishful thinking as to a privately funded terminus for HS2 at Euston. It will be interesting to see what happens this coming year to the idea of a new “Euston Quarter” Development Corporation.

Incidentally, thank you everyone for continuing to read this blog, now in its eighth year (with more daily views than ever before), and for occasionally saying nice things about it. Believe me, I would otherwise have given up a long time ago. I did hope that I could pass it over to chatGPT next year but from early experimentation I suspect not:

Simon Ricketts, 9 December 2023

Personal views, et cetera

BNG For The Benefit Of Mr Kite

(plus other species obviously, yes including the beetles)

The post that follows is just really an excuse for the title. Its initial title was going to be The Unbearable Lightness Of BNG, but that didn’t quite fit – for one thing the biodiversity net gain arrangements that we now have in draft are certainly not light.

So what do we now have? At this government page we have the following documents, all dated 29 November 2023, save where indicated:

What biodiversity net gain is:

Land manager guidance:

Developer guidance:

Local planning authority guidance:

Calculate a biodiversity value:

Legal agreements:

Habitat management and monitoring plans:

Planning practice guidance:

We also have four separate sets of draft Regulations:

There is also some useful Planning Advisory Service guidance, Biodiversity Net Gain in Development Management , including examples of developer guidance, planning conditions and section 106 clauses and template agreements.

My previous criticism of the slight delay that there has been in publishing all of this, ahead of the regime taking effect in January 2024 (April 2024 for small sites and November 2025 for NSIPs), was perhaps a little harsh…

Having skimmed only much of this documentation, what have I picked up?

Some exemptions:

(a) small developments where an application for planning permission is made or has been granted before April 2024,

(b) developments with no impact on priority habitat and where impacts on other habitat fall below specified thresholds (namely less than 25 square metres of habitat that has biodiversity value greater than zero and less than 5 metres in length of linear habitat),

(c) householder applications,

(d) HS2,

(e) off-site gain developments i.e. developments which fulfil the biodiversity net gain requirement arising in relation to another development, and

(f) certain self-build and custom build developments.

Detailed provisions about phased developments.

The regime will not catch section 73 applications where the parent permission predates the coming into effect of the regime.

“Irreplaceable habitats” (which are not included in this regime – ie you cannot simply quantify the value of their loss and show a 10% net gain overall) are defined as including ancient woodlands and ancient/veteran trees.

Much detail as to how the register to be maintained by Natural England will operate.

Still no news as to which will be the “responsible bodies” with which owners will be able to enter into conservation covenants.

A solid step forward for the environment or just another technocratic “price of everything/value of nothing” system? Time will tell, but for now, in the words of Catriona Riddell’s least favourite band …

Let It BNG! This bird has flown. We can work it out. Strawberry fields forever.

Simon Ricketts, 2 December 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Red kite, courtesy of Wikipedia. (Where I live in west Hertfordshire, kites are these days such a common – and wonderful – sight).

There’s No Other Way

To what extent is a decision-maker required to consider, before granting planning permission, whether there are alternative, more acceptable, development proposals compared to that which has been applied for?

The question arises again and again and the answer can be a bit of a blur.

Now that Marks and Spencer’s challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse planning permission for the demolition and redevelopment of its Oxford Street building has been ruled by Lang J to be arguable and will proceed to a full hearing, we shall see what the court makes of the reliance that the Secretary of State placed upon his conclusion that:

“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.”

My 18 November 2023 blog post, Two Apples: Bramley and Worcestershire, referred in passing to alleged inadequate consideration of alternatives being one of the unsuccessful grounds of challenge in R (Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group) v Secretary of State (Lang J, 15 November 2023). Lang J referred to  Holgate J’s review of the case law on alternative sites in R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (Holgate J, 30 July 2021 – see also my 30 July 2021 blog post Stonehenge Road Tunnel Consent Quashed) – see his paras 268 to 272, in particular:

“269 The analysis by Simon Brown J (as he then was) in Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1986) 53 P & CR 293,299–300 has subsequently been endorsed in several authorities. First, land may be developed in any way which is acceptable for planning purposes. The fact that other land exists upon which the development proposed would be yet more acceptable for such purposes would not justify the refusal of planning permission for that proposal. But, secondly, where there are clear planning objections to development upon a particular site then “it may well be relevant and indeed necessary” to consider whether there is a more appropriate site elsewhere. “This is particularly so where the development is bound to have significant adverse effects and where the major argument advanced in support of the application is that the need for the development outweighs the planning disadvantages inherent in it.” Examples of this second situation may include infrastructure projects of national importance. The judge added that, even in some cases which have these characteristics, it may not be necessary to consider alternatives if the environmental impact is relatively slight and the objections not especially strong.

270 The Court of Appeal approved a similar set of principles in R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2017] PTSR 1166, at para 30. Thus, in the absence of conflict with planning policy and/or other planning harm, the relative advantages of alternative uses on the application site or of the same use on alternative sites are normally irrelevant. In those “exceptional circumstances” where alternatives might be relevant, vague or inchoate schemes, or which have no real possibility of coming about, are either irrelevant or, where relevant, should be given little or no weight.”

And now it has arisen yet again, in R (Peak District and South Yorkshire Branch of the CPRE) v Secretary of State for Transport (Thornton J, 17 November 2023. The CPRE argued that the Secretary of State should not have given development consent for the A57 Link Roads Scheme, on the basis that:

“Ground 1: The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to comply with the requirement in Regulation 21(1)(b) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to provide a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the Scheme because he erroneously treated National Highways’ Environmental Statement as providing a cumulative assessment of the carbon emissions from the Scheme in conjunction with other developments when it did not and he failed to assess the significance of those cumulative impacts.

Ground 2: when concluding that the benefits of the Scheme clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt such that there were ‘Very Special Circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the Secretary of State unlawfully failed personally to assess whether credible alternatives proposed might deliver substantially similar benefits with less harm to the Green Belt.”

Both grounds of challenge were rejected but I am going to focus on the second.

“Twenty-two hectares of the Scheme will be located on Green Belt land. The Panel reached the view that the Scheme will cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It will cross the Green Belt, introduce permanent embankments, bunds, and barriers alien to the Green Belt; give prominence to vehicles and introduce new street lighting. The Panel gave the harm significant weight in its decision making but concluded that the need for, and considerable public benefits of, the Scheme clearly outweighed the adverse effects of the Scheme, including its harm to the Green Belt. The public benefits weighing significantly in favour of granting consent were said to include the reduced congestion and improved journey time through Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle, as well as between Manchester and Sheffield, together with the significant economic benefits brought about by the improvements proposed. The Secretary of State agreed with the Panel’s conclusion.”

CPRE argued that “in the circumstances of this case, the existence or absence of alternatives that might deliver the same or similar benefits, with no or substantially less harm to the Green Belt, was a mandatory material consideration which the Secretary of State unlawfully failed to take into account. The following reasons were advanced for this assessment. First, the Scheme will involve large scale civil engineering works that will be permanent and irreversible. Second, the Scheme was considered to be inappropriate development and the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt by the Scheme was given “substantial weight” by the Secretary of State. Third, National Highways had expressly relied on its options appraisal, and “the lack of alternatives” to demonstrate very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development. Fourth, interested parties had specifically identified credible alternatives in the course of the Examination that they claimed would deliver the same or similar benefits with no or substantially less harm to the Green Belt. Fifth, the alternatives proposed were concrete and capable of genuine assessment. They had scored well in early options appraisals, and their promoters were present and engaged in the Examination. Those credible alternatives had received considerable attention in the Examination. Sixth, this was not an “alternative sites” case. Rather, as in Langley Park School for Girls v Bromley London Borough Council ([2010] 1 P & CR 10) and R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport ([2021] EWHC 2161 (Admin)) it was an “alternative schemes” case where the alternative schemes advanced by interested parties fell within the red line boundary of the application site. Seventh, the initial options appraisal was more than seven years old and did not reflect substantial changes in policy and technology since then and had not assessed alternatives with regard to their impacts on Green Belt purposes and openness, as in Langley Park.“

The judge referred to Holgate J’s summary of the case law.

“The category of legal error relied on in the present case is said to be that the Secretary of State erred by failing to take account of the alternatives advanced by CPRE and Mr Bagshaw. An error of law cannot arise in this regard unless, on the facts, the alternatives advanced by CPRE and Mr Bagshaw were so obviously material, that it was irrational for the Secretary of State to fail to consider them.”

The judge rejected the arguments as follows:

“In conclusion; I do not accept the underlying factual basis of CPRE’s primary case that the Secretary of State treated alternatives as a material consideration but failed to assess them for himself. Permission to apply for judicial review on CPRE’s primary case is refused.

Nor am I persuaded that the alternatives advanced by CPRE and Mr Bagshaw were mandatory material considerations such that it was unlawful for the Secretary of State to rely on their assessment by National Highways in its options appraisal of the Scheme. The present case is not analogous with the wholly exceptional set of circumstances in R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site) v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWHC 2161 (Admin). There is no general principle of law that the existence of alternative sites inevitably becomes a mandatory material consideration in any case where a proposed development would cause adverse effects but these are held to be outweighed by its beneficial effects (Lang J in R (Substation Action Save East Suffolk Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] PTSR 74 at §211). Neither the applicant for development consent or the decision maker relied on the absence of alternatives to justify the Scheme. The credibility of the alternatives advanced was in dispute. The present case is distinguishable from Langley Park School for Girls v Bromley London Borough Council [2010] 1P & CR 10). The criticism advanced about the age of the options appraisal by National Highways was addressed by the Panel in its Report.

The Panel approached the alternatives proposed as a matter of planning judgement, giving them brief consideration but focussing its consideration on whether a proportionate options appraisal had been carried out by the applicant for development consent, in accordance with paragraph 4.27 of the Policy Statement on National Networks. The Secretary of State agreed with the Panel’s approach and conclusion. In my judgment the approach taken demonstrates no error of law.”

I have emboldened above the passages which are of most interest.

It is also worth remembering that environmental impact assessment does not require consideration of alternatives, simply a description of the “reasonable alternatives” which have in fact been “studied by the developer”.

In summary, whilst there are exceptions, decision making in relation to planning applications and appeals is not generally about casting around for better alternatives to the proposal under consideration, but about assessing its adequacy, judged against the development plan and other material considerations.

Simon Ricketts, 26 November 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Two Apples: Bramley & Worcestershire

I hope you didn’t notice that there was no blog post last weekend. I really needed the clocks to go back again to give me enough time. Picking up the tablet and chisel a fortnight later is not easy.

So much to say!

Another planning minister bit the dust. I liked Iain Thomson’s quip on LinkedIn about 15 minute planning ministers – far more of a scourge than 15 minute cities.

As part of its ongoing market study into housebuilding the Competition and Markets Authority has published on 15 November 2023 two further working papers, on landbanks and planning rules. To quote from the press release:

“On land banks, the CMA’s analysis has found that, although land equivalent to over a million plots is held in landbanks, in most local areas that land is held by several different builders. The CMA is seeking feedback on this analysis, and in particular, whether local competition is being negatively impacted in the small number of areas where large amounts of developable land are controlled by a small number of housebuilders.

The CMA is continuing to examine the size of land banks overall, recognising that housebuilders need to hold a pipeline of land as sites pass through the planning system. The conclusions of this analysis will be published in the final report.”

“On planning, the CMA has developed options that the UK, Scottish and Welsh governments may consider when reforming their planning systems, including:

Whether a zoning or rules-based approach to development may help improve competition between housebuilders and boost housing delivery.

Making better use of councils’ limited time and resources by requiring them to only consult statutory stakeholders, rather than a wider group, as part of their assessment of planning applications. Late consultee responses on development could also be ignored.

Having an effective housing target which reflects the housing need of specific areas, and improving the ways governments ensure all councils have a proper local plan in place.”

Yep, another set of helpful suggestions as to planning reform.

But I wanted to step back from the politics and just shine a torch on two useful recent planning law cases. And to save myself from too much chiselling, all I am going to do is to point you to the following case summaries put out by those involved:

First of all, a summary by No 5 Chambers’ Thea Osmund-Smith and Odette Chalaby of R (Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group) v Secretary of State (Lang J, 15 November 2023).

In the context of a challenge by local residents to an inspector’s decision to allow an appeal for a solar farm and battery storage scheme in Hampshire, the judgment covers a number of practical issues such as:

  • Where an environmental statement is to be updated at the appeal stage, can the appellant carry out the publicity and consultation process? Yes.
  • Can a party choose not to call a witness, despite having submitted that witness’ proof of evidence to the inquiry? Yes.
  • Does the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance on renewable and low carbon energy impose a requirement to consider alternatives where solar farms use best and most versatile agricultural land? No. Consideration of alternative sites will only be relevant to a planning application in “exceptional circumstances”.

Secondly, a summary by Landmark Chambers of NRS Saredon Aggregates Limited v Secretary of State and Worcestershire County Council (Eyre J, 16 November 2023), a case in which Landmark’s Jenny Wigley KC appeared for the successful claimant. Eyre J quashed an inspector’s decision refusing planning permission for a sand and gravel quarry in the green belt, on the basis that the inspector made a legal error in relation to the weight to be applied to the biodiversity net gain (BNG) that would arise from the project. To quote from the summary:

“It was agreed at the inquiry that the scheme would deliver over 39% BNG. The Inspector afforded ‘only moderate weight’ to this on the basis that “some of the biodiversity net gain that would be achieved is required to meet national policy and future legislative requirements in order to mitigate the environmental impact of the development”.

The High Court agreed with the Claimant that the Inspector’s judgement as to weight was affected by a mistaken view as to requirements of forthcoming legislation. Because there was no basis for considering that the legislation might be retrospective, it was plainly not applicable to the scheme to be determined:

“The effect of that interpretation is that when assessing the weight to be attributed to the biodiversity net gain for the purposes of assessing whether there were very special circumstances outweighing the harm to the openness of the Green Belt the Inspector reduced the weight on the basis of a mistaken view as to the law. He did so believing incorrectly that some of the net gain would be required in any event by reason of the forthcoming legislation. That was an error of law and meant that the Inspector exercised his planning judgement as to the weight to be given to that material consideration (namely the net gain) on a basis that was wrong in law.”

The case is a useful way of reminding decision makers that there is, as yet, no legal requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain. The relevant provisions in the Environment Act 2021 have yet to come into force and, when they do (in January, we’re now told), the requirement will only apply to new applications submitted on or after that date. There is a policy requirement in the NPPF for biodiversity net gain, but only that such gain should be positive, i.e above zero, and there are also varying policy requirements in some Local Plans, but still no legal requirement. In emphasising benefits of development proposals, it is useful to stress the degree of BNG being offered and, for all applications already in the system, it is worth pointing out that any degree of BNG goes above and beyond legal requirements and should be afforded due weight accordingly.”

Two reminders that the courts are often more useful than politicians in clarifying how important practical aspects of the planning system should work.

Another fact to note:  in the NRS Saredon case, all four counsel were female. In the Bramley case, three of the five counsel were female, as well as of course the judge.

As always, these cases, together with any others handed down last week by the Planning Court or on appeal from the Planning Court, will feature in our Town Library Planning Court Judgments weekly update and you can subscribe for free at the link.

Simon Ricketts, 18 November 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Pic courtesy of Thiva via Unsplash

Act Up!

Following royal assent on 26 October 2023, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 was finally published on 3 November 2023.

My, this has been some development project. The Bill was introduced into Parliament on 11 May 2022. Due particularly to the amendments introduced at report stage in the House of Lords and subsequent ping pong between the Commons and Lords (which saw all except one of those ultimately rejected), tracking through to work out the final form of the provisions has not been straight forward without sight until yesterday of the final version,

This is still not of course a completed development. The Act just gets the majority of its contents to “shell and core”. Secondary legislation will be needed to complete the job. Timescales for the substantive changes being brought into force? Shrugging shoulders emoji.

Nicola Gooch’s updated commencement table , drawing on section 255 (commencement and transitional provisions) is a useful guide to where we are with most of the planning-related provisions. Some additional comments:

  • Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Bill (sections 92 to 101) covers development plans, national development management policies, the London Plan and neighbourhood plans and none of this will come into force until such day as the Secretary of State appoints by way of Regulations. The reality is that the Government first needs to conclude its detailed position on implementing the proposed plan-making reforms, following its 25 July 2023 consultation paper. The transitional arrangements announced in that consultation paper were as follows:

“We confirm our intention that the latest date for plan-makers to submit local plans, minerals and waste plans, and spatial development strategies for examination under the current system will be 30 June 2025. We also confirm our intention that those plans will, in general, need to be adopted by 31 December 2026. As referred to above, these dates are contingent upon Royal Assent of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, as well as Parliamentary approval of the relevant regulations. However, we are setting this out now to provide planning authorities with as much notice as possible of these dates.”

“We confirm our intention to have in place the regulations, policy and guidance by autumn 2024 to enable the preparation of the first new-style local plans and minerals and waste plans. As set out above, this deadline is contingent upon Royal Assent of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, as well as Parliamentary approval of the relevant regulations.”

The Government consulted on options for a phased roll-out of new local plans, to ensure a smooth transition. We don’t yet know the outcome of this.

In terms of protection from speculative development in the meantime:

“We also intend to set out that plans that will become more than 5 years old during the first 30 months of the new system (i.e. while the local planning authority is preparing their new plan), will continue to be considered ‘up-to-date’ for decision-making purposes for 30 months after the new system starts.

Additionally, where a plan has been found sound subject to an early update requirement, and the Inspector has given a deadline to submit an updated plan within the first 30 months of the new system going live, this deadline will be extended to 30 months after the new system goes live. This will ensure that local planning authorities are protected from the risk of speculative development while preparing their new plan.”

This could be extended, depending on the roll-out option adopted.

  • There has been some discussion around the planning enforcement provisions, particularly as to the extension in England to ten years of the current four years’ deadline for enforcement in the case of building operations and unauthorised change of use of a building to a dwelling. The change will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by way of Regulations. We don’t yet know whether the Regulations will include any transitional protection – I wouldn’t bet on it. Accordingly, if you are currently in that four to ten year danger zone you might think about applying for a certificate of lawfulness.
  • Fast track DCOs will in theory be possible from 26 December 2023, together with the power for the Secretary of State to make non-material changes to DCOs, which is when sections 127 and 128 come into force. In practice I assume that we will need the Government to have concluded its detailed thinking on reforms to the DCO process following its 25 July 2023 consultation paper.
  • Part 4 of the Act deals with the infrastructure levy and, like much of the Act, will not come into force until the Secretary of State introduces Regulations to that effect. Again we await the outcome of the consultation process which took place earlier this year, as to the detail.

This is just a first and very much incomplete dip into the Act, now that we finally have it to hand. I look forward to publication of the official accompanying explanatory notes and, no doubt, a winter blizzard of summaries as to what it all will mean in practice. Part of the difficulty arising from this long LURB soap opera period since last May is that we do need to come back to the final text with fresh eyes so as to work out what it is likely to mean for what we do – and most importantly, when!

And still we wait for the final version of the updated NPPF…

Simon Ricketts, 4 November 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Alluring Temptress

It’s obvious now why the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill was named as it was. Having now received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023 it is formally the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, or Lura to its friends. 

I consulted the oracle which is The Bump website:

“Origin: German

Meaning: Alluring temptress

Lura is a feminine name of German origin that means “alluring temptress.” A variation of the traditional name Lorelei, Lura is a modern alternative with the same fascinating history and connotations. In legends, Lorelei was the name of a maiden who would lure fishermen to their deaths by singing her haunting song. Today, Lorelai is the name of a rock face along the Rhine River in Germany. With connotations of otherworldly beauty and natural wonder, Lura is an excellent option for your little one.”

Very clever Mr Gove, very clever. 

(Although there is also the LURA, which is the Leeds University Rocketry Association. And there is a Portuguese singer, Lura.  Planning law is going to get even more confusing).

As is usual, it will take a bit of time for the Act to be printed. In the meantime you either have to trawl through the various sets of amendments on the Parliament website, take your chances with the Government’s press statement or (more usefully) delve into the various summaries already on social media. I would recommend for instance:

  • Lichfields’ summary of the planning-related sections
  • Nicola Gooch’s 26 October 2023 blog post 

I also very much recommend, as a wider update, the latest Planning Law (With Chickens) podcast episode, recorded that day by my Town colleagues, Victoria McKeegan and Nikita Sellers. The chat covers Lura but also much else of what has been happening in our world over the last few months. 

Because it isn’t all about the Act, the operation of which is dependent on much further secondary legislation to come. The Act will only change the system’s hardware. A software update, in the form of an updated version of the NPPF following the December 2022 consultation draft, is expected any day now. 

In the meantime, Michael Gove’s letter to local planning authorities  dated 8 September 2023 is worth a read if you haven’t seen it. I’m not sure it was initially online. For instance:

“First and foremost, this Government is unashamedly supportive of development and regeneration in and around existing town and city centres. This is how we will get homes built where it makes sense, support growth, and enable people to get on the property ladder.

 And making it easier to progress such developments is front of mind as we finalise the update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), following our consultation which attracted more than 26,000 responses. In that context, and ahead of the publication of the refreshed NPPF in the autumn, I wanted to make clear my expectation that:

• development should proceed on sites that are adopted in a local plan with full input from the local community unless there are strong reasons why it cannot;

  • councils should be open and pragmatic in agreeing changes to developments where conditions mean that the original plan may no longer be viable, rather than losing the development wholesale or seeing development mothballed; and

 • better use should be made of small pockets of brownfield land by being more permissive, so more homes can be built more quickly, where and how it makes sense, giving more confidence and certainty to SME builders.”

[That viability statement is particularly topical]. 

“My intention is for the regulations, policy and guidance necessary for the preparation of the first new-style local plans to be in place by Autumn 2024. In the new system, planning authorities will need to prepare, consult on and adopt plans within a 30-month timeframe – and follow the same process for each subsequent update of their plans, including examination by PINS.

In the interim, we want local authorities to continue adopting ambitious local plans, which is why we set out fair transitional arrangements in our current consultation on implementing the plan-making reforms. As part of these arrangements, we confirmed our intent that the last day to submit a plan under the current system will be 30 June 2025. I want to reiterate that local authorities without an up-to-date local plan are likely to be subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development when facing applications.”

30 months.. There’s that haunting song again. 

Simon Ricketts, 28 October 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Lorelei by William Turner

Girlfriend In A Comma: Why Punctuation, Spelling & Grammar Matter

I know, it’s really serious (© Morrissey, Marr)

Our version of eats, shoots and leaves might be, for instance:

Stop, plan!

vs.

Stop plan!

Or perhaps ask yourself whether you follow your principles, or your principals; or whether you effect better outcomes, or affect them; or whether this issue needs an enquiry, or an inquiry?

Whilst bloggers are not bound by the strict rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar, the grown-ups in the planning system should be: after all (controversial thought), isn’t the modern planning system more about words than about plans?

These thoughts were sparked by Nicola Gooch bringing to my attention Moore v Somerset Council (Jay J, 12 October 2023) – maybe to deflect me from writing about more topical issues (do read her latest post on what has happened to the Lords’ amendments to the LURB now it is back in the Commons).

Moore was just the latest example of litigation spawned by poor drafting, which could have been resolved by way of the introduction of two commas into a local plan policy.

The dispute was all about the meaning of the fifth indent to this policy in Mendip District Council’s local plan:

“Town centre redevelopments, including Saxonvale and, in the longer term, the Westway centre, (as identified in the Policies Map as CP6C), will collectively deliver:

  1. a medium scale foodstore including only an ancillary element of non-food goods – to supplement limited town centre choice and in turn draw back trade from out of town large format foodstores.
  2. Up to 7,000 sqm of non-food retail space in a range of unit sizes …
  3. Residential uses and uses that enhance the attraction of the town to visitors and as an evening destination …
  4. Creative and imaginative public realm improvements as well as new urban spaces which integrate new development areas with the town’s historic centre and which also incorporate and enhance the River Frome as a feature within the town centre.
  5. At least half of the 11,500 sqm of flexible office/studio space requirement (see Table 10) including a permanent site for FETE within the Saxonvale area.”

(my emboldening).

Did this mean that town centre developments were to deliver at least half of the 11,500 sq m of flexible office/studio space identified elsewhere in the plan as “town centre” uses (NB to add to the confusion, that figure was in itself an error, the correct figure referred to elsewhere in the plan being 11,850 sq m)? Or did it mean that this floorspace needed to be delivered within the Saxonvale area of the town centre? And what was the relevance of the reference to FETE, an educational establishment?

The claimant was seeking to challenge a planning permission for a mixed use development at Saxonvale. He contended that the council had wrongly concluded that the policy required the floorspace to be delivered in the town centre generally rather than at Saxonvale.

Jay J was not impressed with the drafting: “[Counsel for Somerset (the successor authority to Mendip)) described [the fifth indent] as “ambiguous” but a more accurate description would be that it is poorly drafted. It would certainly benefit from the insertion of punctuation.”

“It is not just the absence of punctuation that bedevils this provision. The FETE educational site, undoubtedly to be provided within Saxonvale and nowhere else, is completely different in character from the “flexible office/studio space” stipulation. This uncomfortable combination of developments or redevelopments which do not belong together under the same rubric has brought about the present difficulty.”

After detailed submissions from both sides, the judge allowed the claim, in essence concluding that the indent should be read as follows:

“o           At least half of the 11,500 sqm of flexible office/studio space requirement (see Table 10), including a permanent site for FETE, within the Saxonvale area”

He accepted that putting the reference to FETE in the same sentence as the flexible office/studio space was still “uncomfortable” but I read the judgment as a valiant attempt at making the best of a bad job!

All credit to local plan inspectors who raise ostensibly nitpicking points on policy wording during local plan examinations. If that isn’t done, this is what happens.

The traditional approach to legal drafting, of course, was to avoid the use of punctuation, so as to impose the discipline of ensuring that the meaning is sufficiently precise without recourse to punctuation that so often can go awry. But with such an approach, text can become overly dense and difficult to understand. Whether or not punctuation is used (and not to use it nowadays comes across as wilfully antiquated), the important thing is for text in plans, agreements, permissions and conditions to be stress-tested. Is the intended meaning unambiguous? It is interesting how many cases reach the Supreme Court which revolve around one phrase, for instance:

Trump International Golf Club v the Scottish Ministers (Supreme Court, 16 December 2015): the requirement, within a condition, for the applicant to submit a construction method statement for approval, but with no express requirement subsequently to comply with the statement once approved.

Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes (Supreme Court, 10 May 2017): “Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

DB Symmetry v Swindon Borough Council (Supreme Court, 14 December 2022): “The proposed access roads, including turning spaces and all other areas that serve a necessary highway purpose, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each unit is served by fully functional highway, the hard surfaces of which are constructed to at least basecourse level prior to occupation and bringing into use.”

Do you want to know one of my other bugbears? The use of the slash, as in “/”. Does it mean “or”, “and” or “and/or”? Usually its use denotes that the writers are hedging their bets. The Court of Appeal recently considered the meaning of “live/work” units, in the context of a lease, in AHGR Lyd v Kane-Laverack (21 May 2023). Dingemans LJ considered the circumstances of the grant of planning permission for the unit and concluded that the phrase “live/work” meant “live and/or work”: “the relevant plan which formed part of the planning permission showed the whole of the premises shaded as “live/work” which meant that there was no sub-division imposed by the planning permission into separate “live” or “work” areas. This meant that it would be for the leaseholder to determine where to live and where to work. Leaving such matters to the discretion of the leaseholder suggests a permissive approach to the phrase “live/work” meaning that the leaseholder might decide only to live at the premises, or only to work at the premises, or to do both in parts of the premises at their choosing. Thirdly because a leaseholder might be served with enforcement notices and might ultimately be the subject of criminal proceedings for breach of planning permission, then if it was intended that lawful use of the premises required both living and working, that would be spelled out using language that was clear and unambiguous.”

And don’t get me started on the Oxford comma.

Simon Ricketts, 21 October 2023

Personal views, et cetera

The Updated Town Legal/Landmark Chambers Planning Court Case Explorer

None of the usual commentary this week. Instead I wanted briefly to share with you that Town Legal and Landmark Chambers have finally updated our joint Planning Court Case Explorer.

This is a tool which we have designed to provide anyone interested in the planning process with free-to-access data in relation to all cases which have been handed down in the Planning Court following a full hearing,  since the creation of the Court in 2014 up to 31 August 2023. The Case Explorer also includes data on cases subsequently heard in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Please explore – and save it on your browser!

You’ll see that the Case Explorer now covers 766 cases (Planning Court: 591, Court of Appeal: 160; Supreme Court: 15). You can click through to the transcript for each of them, and to a summary, by Town Legal lawyers as part of their free weekly Town Library service, of all judgments since 2017. Cases have been categorised by Landmark’s Rebecca Sage, Harley Ronan and Barney McCay.

You will currently see glitches (do tell me about them) and we do not vouch for its absolute accuracy or that nothing has slipped the net. But we hope that is a useful jumping off point for initial research.

Some basic examples of routes you might take through the information:

Know your subject area… If your research task is, for instance, statutory challenges to local plans you will find 222 of them. You want to see which these are? They are all there.

Know your judge… You can search the cases by judge. (By the way, Lang J has handed down more Planning Court judgments than any other judge: 106. Holgate J stands at 54, Dove J at 38).

Who are the most active litigants? In terms of the private sector and NGOs, whether as claimant or interested party, way out in front is Gladman, at 16 (including three appeals); second is Redrow at 8; joint third are Friends of the Earth and the Open Spaces Society, both at 6. In terms of the public sector, we have four authorities which are all at 9: Canterbury, Lambeth, Maidstone and Westminster.

Again, in every instance you can click through to the actual judgment transcripts – and, usually, Town Legal case summaries.

Predicting likely timescales is so often critical… The average duration of a case, from the date of the decision that is challenged to the date of handing down of the Planning Court’s judgment following a full hearing is 333 days, if you consider all of the 591 judgments handed down since 2014. If you just consider the 12 judgments handed down in Q3 2023 up to 31 August, the period rises to 393. (Bear in mind that these statistics do not include cases that do not reach a full hearing, having been sieved out at permission stage or withdrawn – it would be extremely useful to have this further information).

Town Legal and Landmark Chambers will be doing some more in-depth analysis over the coming weeks. If you would be interested in any of the output, do let me know, or indeed Mike Gooch at Landmark Chambers (without whom, et cetera).

Simon Ricketts, 13 October 2023

Personal views, et cetera