London 2024

The next London Mayoral election will be held on 2 May 2024.

As of 9 November 2023 Sadiq Khan held a 25 point lead over conservative candidate Susan Hall, according to a YouGov poll. Anything could of course happen between now and 2 May though, the greatest risk for Khan possibly being if Jeremy Corbyn stands as an independent candidate and splits the labour vote. The deadline for candidate nominations is 27 March so I suspect we will see increasing levels of speculation in the meantime…

To his left, Mr Corbyn. To his right, Mr Gove.

As part of the flurry of DLUHC announcements on 19 December 2023 (see my blog post that day, In DLUHC Jubilo: NPPF & Much More), the Secretary of State wrote to Mr Khan. The letter included the following passage:

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

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

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

The terms of reference given to the advisors were published on 22 December 2023. Lichfields have been appointed along with the advisors previously announced.

“The expert advisers will assess whether there are specific changes to London Plan policies that could facilitate urban brownfield regeneration in London for housing delivery in an appropriate manner and, if necessary, recommend changes to the London Plan accordingly.

The output of the review will be a short report, delivered by 15 January 2024, to the Secretary of State.”

The objectives of the work are as follows:

“To consider and, if appropriate, make recommendations for specific changes to the London Plan. The Secretary of State will share the recommendations with the Mayor to consider their implementation.

To work with Lichfields consultants to ensure that there is an evidence base which supports the recommendations of the expert advisers.

To complete a report on how, specifically, the London Plan could be improved to facilitate the delivery of new homes on brownfield sites.”

15 January! It will be interesting to see what emerges. I assume that aside from the implications of the detailed and prescriptive approach taken by the London Plan – a document which is instead meant to operate only at a strategic level – one potential area for investigation will be the extent to which the Mayor’s rigid approach to minimum levels of affordable housing, even in the face of agreed unviability, and/or his requirements as to review mechanisms which can cause difficulties with funders, is holding back delivery (although of course the Mayor’s response is always to point to the level of need for social housing). Will another be the Mayor’s resistance to development in the green belt? But this would only make sense in the context of Mr Gove’s letter if the focus is on previously developed land in the green belt – and even this would uncomfortably with the Government’s 19 December 2023 revision to the NPPF, absolving authorities of the need to review green belt boundaries when preparing local plans…

Are there possibly any clues in two recent Secretary of State decisions?

On 11 December 2023 the Secretary of State overturned inspector Jennifer Vyse’s recommendation and granted planning permission in relation to called-in applications for mixed use development at Homebase and Tesco Osterley, Syon Lane, Hounslow. His approach to the planning balance and overall conclusion in  his decision letter is as follows:

“64. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the application is not in accordance with LonP policies D9 and HC1 and LP policies CC3 and CC4 of the development plan, and is not in accordance with the development plan overall. He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in line with the development plan.

65. Weighing in favour of the proposal is the regeneration of under-utilised brownfield land which carries substantial weight. Also weighing in favour is the delivery of up to 2,150 homes which carries substantial weight, and the delivery of 750 affordable homes designed to meet the current housing need profile in Hounslow, which each carry substantial weight. Economic benefits carry significant weight whilst the provision of open space and significant biodiversity net gain both carry moderate weight.  Highway and transport improvements carry limited to moderate weight and the reprovision of an existing Tesco store and the provision of community space each carry limited weight.

66. Weighing against the proposal is less than substantial harm to a number of designated heritage assets which carries great weight. Moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area in relation to the Homebase scheme carries moderate weight. Heritage harm caused by the total loss of a non-designated heritage asset (the Homebase store) carries limited weight and the Secretary of State has considered paragraph 203 of the Framework in coming to this decision.

67. In line with the heritage balance set out at paragraph 202 of the Framework, the Secretary of State has considered whether the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of each designated heritage asset is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Taking into the account the public benefits of the proposal as identified in this decision letter, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR15.11 that the public benefits of the appeal scheme are more than sufficient to outweigh the identified harm, including cumulative harm, to the significance of the designated heritage assets. He considers that the balancing exercise under paragraph 202 of the Framework is therefore favourable to the proposal.

68. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that despite the conflict with the development plan, the material considerations in this case indicate that permission should be granted.

69. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that planning permission should be granted.”

Note the weight placed on delivery of homes, including affordable homes, on under-utilised brownfield land, together with economic benefits, versus heritage harm.

On 4 December 2023 the Secretary of State agreed with his inspector’s recommendation and granted planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the comprehensive phased redevelopment of the site for a mix of uses including up to 1,049 residential units and up to 1,200 square metres of flexible commercial and community floorspace in buildings ranging from 3 to 18 storeys along with car and cycle parking, landscaping and associated works. His decision letter demonstrates a similar balancing exercise, in the additional context of Barnet Council not having a five year supply of housing land:

“35. Weighing in favour of the proposal is the delivery of market and affordable housing which each carry significant weight; the reduction in traffic, provision of open space, biodiversity improvements, regeneration benefits and employment provisions which each carry moderate weight; and improvement in healthcare facilities which carries minimal weight.

36. Weighing against the proposal is the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset which carries great weight.

37. In line with the heritage balance set out at paragraph 202 of the Framework, the Secretary of State has considered whether the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Taking into the account the public benefits of the proposal as identified in this decision letter, overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR238 that the public benefits outweigh the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, and that the proposal would secure the optimum viable use of the site (IR235). He therefore considers that the balancing exercise under paragraph 202 of the Framework is favourable to the proposal.”

Whatever we think of the Secretary of State’s reasoning in granting these permissions, let’s not give him credit for thereby speeding up the development process. These were both applications which had been resolved to be approved by Hounslow and Barnet respectively in 2021!

Finally, how about this for petty point scoring, in relation to the continuing political pawn which is the Mayor’s extended ULEZ scheme? The Secretary of State would like the Mayor to arrange for vehicles that are the subject of his scrappage scheme to be provided to Ukraine to help with its war effort. The Mayor’s position is that this is not within his legal powers. This is Mr Gove’s latest letter dated 21 December 2023 to the Mayor of London. I have no idea what the right answer is on this specific issue but in a year where there are too many real battle grounds around the globe, perhaps let’s try to avoid unnecessary domestic political battlegrounds? Even in an election year?

Simon Ricketts, 30 December 2023

Personal views, et cetera

PS It’s so often been the case that I’ve had some song going through my head when writing one of these posts that I thought as an end of year gift I would present to you this Spotify playlist – a track for each post this year – I’m sure you’ll be able to match them up…

See you in 2024.

From YouGov 9 November 2023 poll

Street Votes!

I know we are all trying to wind down, or maybe are slumped there fully unwound already, I do know that, I do see you. However, I couldn’t let a DLUHC consultation paper just slip out unnoticed on 22 December…

The Government’s consultation paper on street votes development orders landed this afternoon. The consultation period closes on 2 February 2024

You will recall that this new potential consenting route for domestic development was teed up by section 106 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which shoehorns new sections 61QA to 61QM into the 1990 Act.

The consultation paper summarises as follows how SVDOs will work in practice:

“11. A group of residents which meets certain requirements will be able to come together with a proposal for permission to be granted for development on their street, for example the addition of an extra storey to properties. The proposal can be put forward by the group of residents directly or with the assistance of an individual such as an architect.

12. The proposal will be examined by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State to check that the proposed development is in scope and that requirements prescribed in secondary legislation are met. These requirements will help ensure that development meets high design standards and that local impacts are taken into account.

13. If the proposal passes the examination, it is then put to a referendum. Where the required threshold of votes is met, subject to any final checks, the Planning Inspectorate will make the street vote development order on behalf of the Secretary of State. Once the street vote development order is made, granting planning permission, a person with control of the land can then decide whether they want to take forward development.

14. Where street vote development takes place, local authorities will be able to capture value from the new development via the Community Infrastructure Levy and, when it is introduced, the new Infrastructure Levy, and use it to fund infrastructure that will support the local area.”

The Government proposes that for the procedure to be available there will need to be at least ten residential properties in the street, with rules as to the minimum size of the qualifying group of voters and percentage of votes required as follows:

It is proposed that any proposal must include:

  • “a signed and witnessed letter from members of the qualifying group declaring that they support the proposal, where a proposal has been submitted on their behalf
  • a map which identifies the street area and the land in that street area to which the proposal relates
  • a draft order which includes a description of the development to which the order relates and any proposed planning conditions
  • any necessary supporting information such as impact assessments or statements. Further information is set out in the “Managing local impacts” section of this consultation
  • details of any consultation with statutory bodies
  • a declaration that the qualifying group has engaged with the local community”

“21. In addition, we propose that qualifying groups (or those acting on their behalf) must submit a street design code that sets out illustrated design parameters for physical development within the street area such as number of floors, plot use and the facade treatment of buildings.

22. We also propose qualifying groups (or those acting on their behalf) will have the option to submit a detailed specification of the elevations visible from public spaces for new or extended buildings that are permitted in the street area. If these are submitted, they must include at least one detailed elevation drawing for facades facing public spaces. Specifications of elevations not facing public spaces are optional. Qualifying groups may provide various façade options if a varied streetscape is desired.

23. If plot widths in the street area vary, the specification must include requirements on how the elevations can be adapted to deal with such variation. If they wish, qualifying groups may also choose to include permitted elevations for wider buildings that can be created by merging plots e.g. an elevation for a small mansion block created by merging three existing plots.”

A ”street area” is to be defined as “the properties on each stretch of road starting or ending at a crossroads or as a minor road at a T-junction or where there is a gap between buildings of more than 50 metres. A street is treated as terminated if the continuous stretch of buildings is broken by a bridge wider than 3 metres. This applies to both the street running beneath and over the bridge. A residential property is counted as being in a street area if any part of its boundary runs along the highway. The street area must have at least 10 residential properties within its boundary. We also propose that adjoining streets could be joined together to form one street area, for example, joining together two streets that have fewer than 10 residential properties.”

Detailed design requirements are set out in a table at paragraph 35 of the consultation document, informed by six design principles:

  • Supporting a gradual evolution in the character of neighbourhoods
  • Limiting impacts on neighbours
  • Preserving green space and increasing outdoor space (including balconies)
  • Celebrating heritage
  • Promoting active travel
  • Creating sociable neighbourhoods

If you look at the paragraph 35 table you will see that there is much detail as to for instance, the maximum number of extra storeys (dependent on the density of the area); setbacks; basements; angled light planes; ceiling heights and corner properties.

It is proposed that “street vote development orders should be permitted to go beyond that which might be permitted under the local development plan where the impacts are broadly acceptable in the view of the Secretary of State according to national policy, and it will not cause problems with the implementation of the local plan.”

If the proposal survives examination and the necessary referendum, the Government hasn’t yet decided how long property owners will have to commence development:

  • “Option A: Development must be commenced within 10 years of the order being made. This is longer than is typically allowed for planning permission granted through existing consent routes because the permission will potentially apply to properties under many different owners, some of which may not be able to commence development within a shorter period (e.g. 3 years). The qualifying group would also have the option to propose an increase to this period as part of its proposal if it takes the view more time is needed to commence development;
  • Option B: Development must be commenced within a specified period (e.g.10, 20 or 30) years of the order being made. The qualifying group would also have the option to apply to the local planning authority after the order has been made to extend the commencement period; and
  • Option C: No time period. Permission granted through a street vote development order would be permanent.”

In summary, there’s a lot here for local planning authorities, planning professionals and (above all) home owners to get their heads around. The concept has been widely lobbied for by eg Policy Exchange, Create Streets and YIMBY. I’ll be interested to see the extent to which ultimately there is take-up and, aside from the inevitable definitional problems with any rules-based process such as this, of course there are some open questions as to the extent to which this process, alongside continuing extensions of permitted development rights and the prospect of national development management policies, further marginalises the role of the local planning authority. And does anyone remember neighbourhood development orders and all of that malarkey…?

But something to be picked up again on the other side, as they say.

In the meantime, peace to all in 24 – even to those I may be seeing across a planning inquiry or court room!

Simon Ricketts, 22 December 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Image from YIMBY Street Votes website

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