As Zack Simons noted in his LinkedIn post this morning (27 July 2024), there was a detailed story in today’s Times as to what will be in the consultation draft revised NPPF. As Zack summarises:
“- Tuesday’s the day.
– 8 week consultation, new NPPF adopted late September.
– “Mandatory housing targets” going up by 50%.
– That’s a circa 100,000 home national increase to what we now call “local housing need”. Changes include: (i) “toughened” affordability ratios “to take account of how many people might move into an area if housing was cheaper”, and (ii) no use of “previous oversupply of housing to reduce future targets”.
– Councils “must review protections for the green belt if they cannot meet their housing need on brownfield land”.”
It’s such a detailed story that depressingly the new Government is obviously continuing the previous Government’s routine practice of trailing imminent significant announcements in the weekend newspapers as unattributed news stories rather than first announcing them in Parliament. Easy spin, easy journalism.
However, the story is totally and deliberately useless as anything that can yet be relied upon.
Here are some of the things I’ll be looking to understand on Tuesday (no surprise it’s Tuesday: that’s when the House of Commons rises for the summer):
I assume that the consultation document will be accompanied by a ministerial statement setting out the Government’s policy objectives underlying the document. This is important because, subject to anything specified to the contrary, then the statement and at least the direction of travel demonstrated by the draft is capable of being a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and appeals, with the weight to be given to it a matter for the decision maker. Depending on its potential relevance to current applications and appeals, the decision maker may choose to invite representations as to the implications for the particular application or appeal of what has been published, and, indeed, in some circumstances decisions may be susceptible to legal challenge if such an announcement is “obviously material” and not taken into account. So as much as its content, what will be important will be the tone of the consultation (is the consultation just about detailed wording or is it more open-minded, testing alternative potential approaches?) and of the accompanying statement or statements (particularly, what is said about its immediate intended effect). (And incidentally what we don’t want is for decision-makers to conclude that they need to wait for the final version!)
What transitional arrangements, if any, are proposed in relation to emerging and adopted local plans before their policies are to be treated as out of date by virtue of the new policies and targets? After all, we still have a plan-led system.
To what extent will the requirement that councils “must review protections for the green belt if they cannot meet their housing need on brownfield land” simply be a peeling back of the December 2023 revision to the NPPF?
If local housing targets are going to be increased, does this mean that the consultation process will include (long awaited) proposed revisions to the standard method? If so, how extensive will the changes be? For instance will the 35% uplift remain for England’s 20 largest towns and cities?
Is this going to be a “big bang” set of NPPF changes delivering on all that has been previously trailed by Labour, for instance giving some reality to the “grey belt” notion, or (possibly more pragmatically) are we to expect a further set of revisions before long, possibly alongside a proposed initial set of national development management policies and/or alongside guidance to reflect the amended local plans system enabled by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act?
What about anything other than housing?
When really will we see the final version? Eight weeks’ consultation takes us to the end of September. To avoid an obvious legal challenge, the Government will need to consider properly the representations received (and there will be many). My bet is that the final version will be October at the earliest (12 October is the 100th day after the election and they will be going very fast to publish by then…).
Anyone else remember the annual Beaujolais Nouveau races? That used to be how the industry routinely did business development, for better or worse, before we all became amateur journalists. These days its more sober and less fun replacement is the “who can get their NPPF text mark-up up first on LinkedIn” game. But that’s a young person’s sport. I’ll be truffle-hunting instead for the answers to those seven questions.
I know, it’s the hope that kills you. We still await any real detail as to the new government’s proposed reforms of the planning system, despite the King’s Speech and background briefing paper (17 July 2024) and despite newspaper headlines, TV news vox pops and much earnest speculation from many of us. But it’s early days and we should be patient.
In this post I just want to focus on the proposed reforms to compulsory purchase compensation which would in some cases remove the ability of landowners to recover “hope value”.
We know that there will be a Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We do not know anything more as to its likely contents than is set out on pages 17 to 19 of the background briefing document. It is intended to “accelerate housebuilding and infrastructure delivery” by:
streamlining the delivery process for critical infrastructure including accelerating upgrades to the national grid and boosting renewable energy, which will benefit local communities, unlock delivery of our 2030 clean power mission and net zero obligations, and secure domestic energy security. We will simplify the consenting process for major infrastructure projects and enable relevant, new and improved National Policy Statements to come forward, establishing a review process that provides the opportunity for them to be updated every five years, giving increased certainty to developers and communities.
further reforming compulsory purchase compensation rules to ensure that compensation paid to landowners is fair but not excessive where important social and physical infrastructure and affordable housing are being delivered. The reforms will help unlock more sites for development, enabling more effective land assembly, and in doing so speeding up housebuilding and delivering more affordable housing, supporting the public interest.
improving local planning decision making by modernising planning committees.
increasing local planning authorities’ capacity, to improve performance and decision making, providing a more predictable service to developers and investors.
using development to fund nature recovery where currently both are stalled, unlocking a win-win outcome for the economy and for nature, because we know we can do better than the status quo. Our commitment to the environment is unwavering, which is why the Government will work with nature delivery organisations, stakeholders and the sector over the summer to determine the best way forward. We will only act in legislation where we can confirm to Parliament that the steps we are taking will deliver positive environmental outcomes. Where we can demonstrate this, the Bill will deliver any necessary changes.”
All we are told so far about reform of compulsory purchase compensation is in that second bullet point. But of course, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 already goes some way in this direction. Section 190 (“power to require prospects of planning permission to be ignored”) amended the Land Compensation Act 1961 to enable an acquiring authority, when submitting a compulsory purchase order for confirmation, to include a direction that the prospect of planning permission is to be ignored where the underlying project will deliver the provision of a specified number of affordable housing units. If the acquiring authority does not deliver the scheme it promised (including the provision of specific numbers of affordable housing units) within 10 years of the issuing of the original direction, or earlier where there is no realistic prospect that the scheme can be delivered within 10 years, affected landowners may ask the Secretary of State (or the Welsh Ministers for CPOs in Wales) to issue a direction that additional compensation may be paid to them by the local authority. The Act also provides for an equivalent mechanism in relation to some CPOs for NHS purposes or educational purposes. These provisions all came into force on 30 April 2024. (How did a Conservative government arrive at this incursion into the traditional compulsory purchase principle of “equivalence”? See eg my 11 June 2022 blog post Land Value Capture Via CPO which tracks the proposal back to at least the Conservative May 2017 manifesto and for a deeper historical dive into the vexed issue of land value capture I recommend Richard Harwood KC’s brilliant paper delivered to the Compulsory Purchase Association in April 2018, Land Value Capture).
So how might the new government go further? The Labour manifesto simply said “We will take steps to ensure that for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission”. It seems to me that the government has deliberately left itself the scope to widen the categories of CPO for which compensation can exclude any element of land value attributable to the prospect of “no scheme world” development. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill would be a straight-forward vehicle to achieve this, by amendment of section 190 of the 2023 Act.
“Fairness” is of course a loaded word, going to the heart of the political as well as practical issues which land value capture inevitably gives rise to. To what extent should the state be able to take land without paying the owner what that land is worth in the open market? The nuanced answer to that question probably lies in the wording of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to respect for private and family life and our home is qualified: “except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” The right not to be deprived of our possessions is similarly qualified: “except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.” And the state has the right to “enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
I can see that the “public interest” argument can be made in relation to affordable housing, the NHS and schools (although of course it is still at root a political decision to fund these projects in part via land value capture rather than by way of public spending paid for by other taxation measures). It will be interesting to see how much further the new government looks to go. New towns? Green Belt? Shrugged shoulders emoji.
Aside from the politics (which are beyond my pay grade), there are the practical issues (which are well within it). How will the spectre of compulsory acquisition of land, for less than what in the real world it is worth, influence the strategies of the participants? Will developers look to work pro-actively with local authorities to explore the potential for using the mechanism to achieve viable projects? Will land owners and promoters be discouraged from early land promotion activity for fear that the value gains they achieve will not be realised by them? Will processes become even more contentious given even higher stakes, particularly where land owners can show that they can bring forward development without the need for exercise for exercise by the local authority of its compulsory purchase powers?
All should be clearer before too long – at least, here’s hoping.
Simon Ricketts, 21 July 2024
Personal views, et cetera
Extract, courtesy Wikipedia, from Shepard Fairey’s Barack Obama 2008 electoral campaign poster, featuring the word “hope“.
As a sorbet course to be enjoyed as a palate cleanser between the excitement last week of the general election and associated announcements and the excitement of further announcements promised by MHCLG (RIP DLUHC) later this month (plus this Wednesday’s King’s Speech), I thought we might look at a couple of Planning Court rulings this month which provide reminders as to some development management procedural fundamentals.
R (Gurajena) v London Borough of Newham (Deputy High Court Judge Timothy Corner KC, 5 July 2024) – what is the extent of the duty on a local planning authority to (1) notify “adjoining” owners and occupiers of an application and (2) publicise changes made to an application after initial consultation has taken place?
This case concerned a planning permission for works to a terraced house at 5 Silver Birch Gardens, West Ham. The proposed works comprised the construction of a rear extension, rear garden decking and an outbuilding. The grant of permission was challenged by way of judicial review by the next door neighbour at no 6 and another neighbour two houses away at no 8. They had objected to the application on grounds of privacy, overlooking and effect on visual amenity (although no 8 had not been notified of the application by the council, despite having been consulted in 2022 in relation to a proposed dormer loft extension and associated works to the roof).
Once the permission had been issued the claimants had realised that amended drawings had been submitted after their objections had been received, changing the location of the stairs to the decking and replacing a close boarded timber fence between numbers 5 and 6 with the retention of a low picket fence. The claimants argued that there was (1) a breach of Article 15 (5) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (which requires that “adjoining” owners and occupier be notified) given that no 8 had not been notified (2) a breach of no 8’s legitimate expectation that they would be consulted (having been consulted over the 2022 application) and (3) procedural unfairness by way of the council’s failure to carry out any further consultation despite a material change to the application after the close of the consultation period.
The judge held:
“”adjoining” in Article 15 of the DMPO embraces not just properties which are contiguous, but also those which are “very near to” or “lying close to” the application site”…”Whether one site is “very near to” or “lying close to” another requires judgement, and that judgement is one for the local planning authority. The court will interfere with the authority’s judgement only if it is Wednesbury unreasonable, by reason of being a judgement that is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it.” The council’s decision in this case could not be impugned as being unreasonable.
“In my judgement the Second Claimant did not have a legitimate expectation that she would be consulted about the Application. The reality is that a judgement was reached in the case of the 2022 application as to whom to consult, based on the anticipated impact. The Application in the present case was different, being at ground floor level only. The fact that no. 8 was consulted once about a planning application different in nature from the Application does not amount to a practice of consultation sufficiently settled and uniform to amount to a clear, unambiguous and unqualified promise to consult the Second Claimant on a planning application having the nature of the Application.”
The application plans were confusing and there was clearly confusion as to what was shown on the original application plans and therefore as to the extent to which the revised plans amounted to changes to the proposals which had previously been consulted upon. The judge found that the first claimant had already made clear in her objections that even a close boarded fence in place of the existing low picket fence would not be acceptable so there was no requirement to re-consult her on that aspect. However, in relation to the stairway to the decking: “I accept that an assessment of whether the outcome for the First Claimant might have been different (i.e. refusal of the Application) had she had the chance to comment on the realignment of the stair must take account of the context, which is the Application as a whole. The Application comprised erection of an extension, with raised timber deck and a new outbuilding on the deck. The stair to the deck was only a part of the Application as a whole. However, in my judgment the position and orientation of the new stair is capable of having an important effect on the privacy of no. 6.”
The permission was quashed on that final ground. Lesson: local planning authorities (and applicants) should be careful to ensure that plans are accurate and comprehensible and that revisions which may have a material effect on potential objectors are adequately publicised.
For the detail please see my colleague Sophie Bell’s Town Library summary but, very briefly, the case concerned competing planning applications for supermarkets in Horncastle. There would be a significant adverse impact on the town centre if both developments were to proceed. Lidl’s and Aldi’s applications were both due to go to the same committee meeting but there was a hold-up with Aldi’s application and so only Lidl’s application was taken to the committee, where it was approved. The judge held that the council was required to consider the competing merits of the two schemes but failed to do so properly by considering the applications separately: “the need for a comparison was “so obviously material” as to ” require direct consideration“.
This was certainly “store wars” nostalgia for some of us! It is a useful case to help guide what should be done where applications for competing developments have been submitted, although the judge does warn that his “decision is not based on accepting [the] proposition that there is a special category of cases which applies to rivals. I consider that this contention underplays the importance of the particular facts of the case. To make generalisations about categories of cases risks oversimplification. It fails to heed the warnings that there is no “one size fits all” approach (per Sullivan LJ in R (Langley Park School) v Bromley LBC [2010] 1 P&CR 10 at para 52) and that categorisation can be “dangerous” (per Oliver LJ in GLC)… the specific evidential circumstances of this case is one in which there are two proposals before the authority aiming to address what on the evidence has been found to be finite retail capacity (without causing significant adverse impact on the town centre). Those are the uncontentious facts which mean that in the specific circumstances of this case a comparison was necessary (and was not undertaken). Moreover, as I have found, the reason for declining to undertake it reveals a logical gap in the Defendant’s decision making.”
There, I hope you’re suitably refreshed. I’m sure something more substantial will be served up before too long.
That Rachel Reeves speech today (8 July 2024) is here in full. The key passages in relation to planning reform:
“Nowhere is decisive reform needed more urgently than in the case of our planning system.
Planning reform has become a byword for political timidity in the face of vested interests and a graveyard of economic ambition.
Our antiquated planning system leaves too many important projects getting tied up in years and years of red tape before shovels ever get into the ground.
We promised to put planning reform at the centre of our political argument – and we did.
We said we would grasp the nettle of planning reform – and we are doing so.
Today I can tell you that work is underway.
Over the weekend, I met with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to agree the urgent action needed to fix our planning system.
Today, alongside the Deputy Prime Minister, I am taking immediate action to deliver this [political content removed] government’s mission to kickstart economic growth;
And to take the urgent steps necessary to build the infrastructure that we need, including one and a half million homes over the next five years.
The system needs a new signal. This is that signal.
First, we will reform the National Planning Policy Framework, consulting on a new growth-focused approach to the planning system before the end of the month, including restoring mandatory housing targets.
And, as of today, we are ending the absurd ban on new onshore wind in England. We will also go further and consult on bringing onshore wind back into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime, meaning decisions on large developments will be taken nationally not locally.
Second, we will give priority to energy projects in the system to ensure they make swift progress…
… and we will build on the spatial plan for Energy by expanding this to other infrastructure sectors.
Third, we will create a new taskforce to accelerate stalled housing sites in our country…
…beginning with Liverpool Central Docks, Worcester Parkway, Northstowe and Langley Sutton Coldfield, representing more than 14,000 homes.
Fourth, we will also support local authorities with 300 additional planning officers across the country.
Fifth, if we are to put growth at the centre of our planning system, that means changes not only to the system itself, but to the way that ministers use our powers for direct intervention.
The Deputy Prime Minister has said that when she intervenes in the economic planning system, the benefit of development will be a central consideration and that she will not hesitate to review an application where the potential gain for the regional and national economies warrant it.
… and I welcome her decision to recover two planning appeals already, for data centres in Buckinghamshire and in Hertfordshire.
To facilitate this new approach, the Deputy Prime Minister will also write to local mayors and the Office for Investment to ensure that any investment opportunity with important planning considerations that comes across their desks is brought to her attention and also to mine.
The Deputy Prime Minister will also write to Local Planning Authorities alongside the National Planning Policy Framework consultation, making clear what will now be expected of them…
…including universal coverage of local plans, and reviews of greenbelt boundaries. These will prioritise Brownfield and grey belt land for development to meet housing targets where needed.
And our golden rules will make sure the development this frees up will allow us to deliver thousands of the affordable homes too, including more for social rent.
Sixth, as well as unlocking new housing, we will also reform the planning system to deliver the infrastructure that our country needs.
Together, [political content removed] we will ask the Secretaries of State for Transport and Energy Security and Net Zero to prioritise decisions on infrastructure projects that have been sitting unresolved for far too long.
And finally, we will set out new policy intentions for critical infrastructure in the coming months, ahead of updating relevant National Policy Statements within the year.
I know that there will be opposition to this.
I’m not naïve to that;
And we must acknowledge that trade offs always exist: any development may have environmental consequences, place pressure on services, and rouse voices of local opposition.
But we will not succumb to a status quo which responds to the existence of trade-offs by always saying no, and relegates the national interest below other priorities.”
That reference to “ending the absurd ban on new onshore wind in England” has been given effect by a DLUHC policy statement on onshore wind (8 July 2024), removing – with immediate effect – the additional tests that have applied to on-shore wind as opposed to other energy proposals, namely that the proposal has policy and community support.
Five years ago today (five years!) I was one of the first to blog about nutrient neutrality – the de facto veto on house building in some areas – in Another Green World: The South Coast Nitrate Crisis (29 June 2019)
Since then the current Government has achieved nothing by way of legislation to unlock the issue. Instead the public and private sectors have gradually had to work up bespoke or locally strategic solutions and work-arounds.
What now are the two main parties promising in their manifestos?
The Conservative party proposes “abolishing the legacy EU ‘nutrient neutrality’ rules to immediately unlock the building of 100,000 new homes with local consent, with developers required in law to pay a one-off mitigation fee so there is no net additional pollution.”
The Labour party promises to “implement solutions to unlock the building of homes affected by nutrient neutrality without weakening environmental protections.”
In the interests of political neutrality I would describe these as two equally empty promises. No legislative solution will be both fast and environmentally robust. The Conservative attempt to shoehorn a provision into the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill last year of course flopped – see my 16 September 2023 blog post NN No. And five years on from Brexit (five years!) it is rather weak still to be pinning this problem on the EU!!
As well as delaying housebuilding, the issue has of course been grossly unfair for many developers and landowners who had obtained planning permission before Natural England had raised nutrient concerns and then find that they cannot achieve reserved matters approval or discharge pre-commencement conditions.
It was hoped by some that the courts might provide a solution to that particular position, by way of the litigation commenced by CG Fry. Unhappily their case was unsuccessful in the High Court – see my 30 June 2023 blog post CG Fry: AA Post PP. Even more unhappily, that ruling has now been upheld in the Court of Appeal (28 June 2024).
The Court of Appeal held that “the inspector was right to conclude, and the judge to accept, that on their true interpretation regulations 63 and 70 of the Habitats Regulations could require an appropriate assessment to be undertaken at the stage when the discharge of conditions was being considered. This conclusion not only reflects the proper construction of the Habitats Regulations but also accords with the case law, both European and domestic, bearing on this question.”
“What, then, is the correct interpretation of the provisions of the Habitats Regulations with which we are concerned? We must begin with the domestic legislation as it is drafted. Applying normal principles of statutory interpretation, there is nothing in the relevant provisions to exclude the requirement for an appropriate assessment to be undertaken either when reserved matters are being approved or when conditions are being discharged, if the “authorisation” in question is necessary to enable the project to be lawfully implemented.
Given their natural and ordinary meaning, the words of regulation 63 clearly admit that possibility. The obligation imposed on a competent authority by regulation 63 is framed in broad terms. It makes necessary the carrying-out of an “appropriate assessment” before the authority decides to give “any consent, permission or other authorisation” for a plan or project. This formulation is clearly designed to capture a wide range of “authorisations”, of differing kinds; hence the use of the expression “or other authorisation”. It displays the essential purpose of the assessment provisions, which is to avoid any risk of harm to the integrity of a protected site. On a straightforward reading of the language used, having regard to that legislative purpose and to the underlying precautionary principle, the range of authorisations embraced in the provision extends, in our view, beyond the initial stage in the relevant process of decision-making. Any other interpretation would, we think, be incompatible with the words of the provision, inconsistent with the legislative purpose, and inimical to the precautionary principle.
Understood in this way, regulation 63 allows an appropriate assessment to be undertaken when the authority is making the final decision in a sequence authorising the development to proceed. Where that process involves the granting of outline planning permission for the proposed development and the subsequent submission and approval of reserved matters or the discharge of conditions, regulation 63 does not prevent the appropriate assessment of the project being carried out at that later stage as an exercise required before the decision is taken. In principle, it is not too late for such an assessment to be undertaken either when an approval of reserved matters is applied for or when the authority is called upon to discharge “pre-commencement” conditions, whose effect is that development carried out in breach would not be authorised by the planning permission.”
Nor in determining the relevant pre-commencement condition application or application for reserved matters is the decision-maker restricted to considering only the subject matter of the applications themselves, rather than the wider ecological issues.
And the principle applies equally to Ramsar sites as to other sites protected under the Conservation of Habitats Regulations.
I have no insight as to whether CG Fry will apply for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court but, regardless, it is clear that the courts will not be providing even a partial solution to the current crisis any time soon. My eyes turn to the incoming Government – where will we be in another five years I wonder?
Simon Ricketts, 29 June 2024
Personal views, et cetera
I know that some people only read this blog in the hope of references to old music (they regularly tell me that) so obviously here is an extract from the sleeve to Brian Eno’s wonderful 1975 album and everyone of a certain age will remember the theme music to the BBC’s Arena programme taken from it. Repeated references to Five Years in this post will also lead many back to David Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust album. Finally, in the interests of musical neutrality, I would like to point out that I also thought that Dua Lipa was quite good at Glastonbury last night.
If you thought Hillside was an enigma wrapped in a mystery…
There is much to unpack in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council (Supreme Court, 20 June 2024) as to what it means for those carrying out environmental impact assessment; determining applications and appeals which have been subject to environmental impact assessment, or indeed objecting to such projects. To what extent should “downstream” (and indeed “upstream”) effects of the development applied for be assessed – whether those effects be by way of carbon emissions or otherwise?
Let’s not jump to simplistic conclusions. So far I have only read the case once, armed with a highlighter pen, two cups of Nespresso black coffee, on-line dictionary and a Wispa bar. That was not enough. Reinforcements hopefully by next week. Watch this space.
What you have is two diametrically opposed judgments – the majority judgment by Lord Leggatt, with which Lord Kitchen and Lady Rose agree (and which is now the binding statement of the law) and a dissenting judgment by Lord Sales, with which Lord Richards agrees. 3 – 2. And to quote from Matthew Fraser (who acted in the case for the developer, led by David Elvin KC): “Interesting to think that this claim for judicial review was originally found to be “unarguable” on the papers, and also “unarguable” at the oral renewal hearing, by two different High Court Judges. Permission to bring the claim for judicial review was then granted by the Court of Appeal, but then both the High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected the Claimant’s case (for different reasons).” (NB well done, including for what must have been incredible persistence in the face of judicial adversity in the courts below, to Estelle Dehon KC, Marc Willers KC and Ruchi Parekh, acting for the ultimately successful claimant).
The bare conclusion from the beginning of Lord Legatt’s judgment:
“It is agreed that the project under consideration involves the extraction of oil for commercial purposes for a period estimated at 20 years in quantities sufficient to make an EIA mandatory. It is also agreed that it is not merely likely, but inevitable, that the oil extracted will be sent to refineries and that the refined oil will eventually undergo combustion, which will produce GHG emissions. It is not disputed that these emissions, which can easily be quantified, will have a significant impact on climate. The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems to me plain that they are.”
There is the clear dichotomy between the wider role for environmental impact assessment according to the majority judgment, potentially encompassing scope 3 activities (using the GHG Protocol categorisation) – consequences of the activities of the entity occurring from sources not owned or controlled by the entity (and in the case of carbon, usually controlled at a national level) – and the narrower role according to the judgments in the lower courts and according to Lord Sales’ dissenting judgment (“These are all “big picture” issues which a local planning authority such as the Council is simply not in a position to address in any sensible way… Further, it would be constitutionally inappropriate for a local planning authority to assume practical decision-making authority based on its own views regarding scope 3 or downstream emissions and how these should be addressed in a manner which would potentially be in conflict with central Government decision-making and its ability to set national policy.”)
What indeed is the development? Easy question for us planners and planning lawyers? Wait, here comes Lord Leggatt:
“Holgate J also said, at para 110, that “indirect effects” of the proposed development cover “consequences which are less immediate, but they must, nevertheless, be effects which the development itself has on the environment” (emphasis in original). Outside the realms of Kantian metaphysics, there is no such thing as “the development itself” which enjoys some sort of separate noumenal existence. There are only the human activities which constitute the physical development (or “project”, to use the terminology of the EIA Directive).”
(This was the on-line dictionary moment for me I confess).
Lord Sales’ dissenting judgment makes the case for caution (I’m two coffees down at this point so am ready):
“In relation to … the present case to enlist the EIA Directive in the worthy cause of combating climate change, by seeking to press it into service in relation to requiring EIA in respect of downstream or scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, it is relevant to bear in mind the cautionary words of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681, 703, quoting from Hamlet in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights:
“The Convention is concerned with rights and freedoms which are of real importance in a modern democracy governed by the rule of law. It does not, as is sometimes mistakenly thought, offer relief from ‘The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to.’”.
As Lord Bingham pointed out, that Convention had to be interpreted according to its terms, not in an effort to produce a remedy for every problem which might be identified in a particular situation. So, in the present context, the EIA Directive, interpreted according to its terms, has a valuable role to play in relation to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions associated with projects for which planning permission is sought, but it should not be given an artificially wide interpretation to bring all downstream and scope 3 emissions within its ambit as well. That has not been stipulated in the text of the EIA Directive, is not in line with its purpose and would distort its intended scheme.”
But these two quotes do set up the issues nicely. I would draw out these key questions:
What now is the necessary scope for a lawful environmental impact assessment process and does Finch have any material bearing on development projects more generally as opposed to those relating to, for instance, the extraction of fossil foils where there is an inevitability as to “downstream” effects (and where can a decision maker draw the line as to likelihood of downstream effects)?
What now is the breadth of the evaluative role of the decision-maker, with which the courts should not interfere?
What are the implications of the judgment for the formulation of the “environmental output report” process, which may one day replace environmental impact assessment?
There are already at least three camps with loud voices:
Great judgment, far-reaching effect, being the need for climate change to form a more central backdrop to decision-making in relation to particular applications and appeals; or
This is a judgment which calls for assessments to cover issues which the decision maker is not in a position to address in a sensible way (according to Lord Sales) and which are properly addressed at a national level; or
This is a judgment with narrower implications than people are assuming and which can be addressed in a straight-forward way within environmental impact assessment work where needed.
By next week perhaps I’ll have some tentative answers to those questions. If you are already in one of those three camps, I shall assume you are well ahead of me in your thinking. Respect.
Finally, I have mentioned him already: Mr Justice Holgate. Congratulations on his well-deserved appointment to the Court of Appeal.
There you have it as to the two overwhelming problems with the current planning system:
Stretched public sector resources.
An increasingly complex and legalistic regulatory framework.
I was reflecting on that second element this week at a really great “Planning Question Time” event in Exeter arranged by Carney Sweeney.
I’ve never been one to label all regulation as “red tape”. It’s not “red tape” if it serves a necessary purpose which is justified in the public interest. But this country is increasingly drowning in bureaucracy, and I stand before you as the living embodiment of it.
Town Legal has 12 partners, 28 qualified solicitors in total specialising in planning – and we are not the largest.
When I started as a lawyer in the 1980s I’m not sure there were too many more planning solicitors than that in the whole of the City! I don’t have 1980s figures, but going back just to say 2000-2001 the position in London is set out in the Chambers Directory table below. The largest team by far at that time was Berwin Leighton (now part of BCLP): 4 partners, 16 planning lawyers in total, followed by Denton Wilde Sapte (now Dentons): 3 partners, 13 planning lawyers in total – the bulwark of those firms’ practices at the time being work for their respective clients Tesco and Sainsbury’s. No other firms were in double figures. Now there are 25 firms with more than 10 planning solicitors!
Chambers Directory 2000-2001
Extract from Planning Resource survey, June 2024
According to the Planning Resource survey, the number of private sector planning solicitors increased by 8% just last year! This is not a good thing.
What on earth is keeping so many planning lawyers busy, even in an environment when the number of planning applications has been falling, and does it have to be this way?
These are some of the issues that keep me constantly busy, most of simply did not exist 20 or 30 years ago:
Advising on the procedural hurdles to amending schemes and the work-arounds to all that case law – Finney, Hillside, Dennis, Fiske and so on.
Advising as to how to keep permissions alive by way of token implementation works, partly a factor of constant issues in relation to viability.
Every aspect of the community infrastructure levy.
Procedurally rigid appeals, many of which could have been avoided, often generated either by members’ refusals against officers’ advice or by unacceptable delays in the application process (see the point as to stretched public sector resources above – including at statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency and Natural England as well as at local authorities).
Resisting (and sometimes promoting) judicial reviews that often turn out to be unsuccessful, partly fuelled by objectors’ expectation that rights have been infringed for which litigation will provide an adequate remedy – and the consequent now increasingly usual and time-consuming task, on more complex or contentious proposals, of carrying out a legal audit of draft application documents and committee reports to minimise legal challenge risk.
Unnecessarily repetitive negotiations in relation to section 106 agreements through the lack of national standard templates, alongside the widened scope of planning obligations and drafting sophistication that has arisen hand in hand with both item 10 below; the sheer scale of financial commitments now at play, and yes that public sector resourcing issue again, meaning that many authorities are simply not equipped to progress negotiations in a timely way, particularly in relation to more complex projects.
The increasingly labyrinthine complexities of the permitted development rights system.
Constantly changing legislation and policy and the case law arising from inherent ambiguities in how statutory and/or policy tests are to be applied.
Localism: neighbourhood plans, assets of community value and so on.
Topics that have been shoe-horned into the planning system to deliver on other government objectives eg
Embodied carbon – demolition versus refit (no clear national policy yet)
Biodiversity net gain (the latest over-engineered statutory regime)
The neutralities (nutrients, water, recreational pressure)
Building safety and the widening increasingly unclear overlap between the Building Regulations and the planning system.
(whispers it) Affordable housing requirements (building market homes doesn’t lead to an additional need for affordable housing – it’s just politically convenient government policy to require it) and contributions to other public services (which successive governments have increasingly chosen to fund in part via developers rather than by way of direct taxation).
Much of this of course is in the public interest and has value. Most schemes which come forward are far more considered and of higher quality than back when I started.
But I do wonder at what cost.
Here’s an idea for Planning Resource: How about publishing an annual metric, being the ratio of homes and square metres of floorspace delivered in England over the relevant year divided by the number of practising planning solicitors in the private sector? I’m not wanting to do us out of a job. It would just be nice to be more productive…
Lastly, nostalgia for some of us: commentary from the 1994/1995 Chambers Directory. The scary new thing that was direct professional access to the bar! And some names to conjure with – all those names were, and in some cases still are, bright stars in our once little planning law world.
Labour announced on 9 June 2024 that, if in power, it would:
“Take control of the planning process by classifying prisons as being of ‘national importance’ on public safety grounds, so the approval decision is in ministers’ hands.”
It made me smile, given that in practice recent decisions in relation to new prisons have already been in ministers’ hands by way of recovered planning appeals. Labour’s announcement is possibly pointing towards including prisons within the scope of the Planning Act 2008 nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, although it is of course carefully enigmatic.
Securing planning permission for new prisons is slow and difficult, given the usual extent of local objections. Three recent examples:
Proposed new category C prison (up to 67,000 sq m gross external area) within a secure perimeter fence adjacent to HMP Grendon and HMP Springhill, Grendon Underwood, Edgcott
This application was submitted to Buckinghamshire Council for approval in June 2021 and was refused by committee, on officers’ recommendations) in March 202. The Ministry of Justice appealed. An inquiry took place in January and February 2023, lasting for eight days. The appeal was allowed by the Secretary of State, on the inquiry inspector’s recommendation, on 20 January 2024.
I note in passing that the constituency MP, Greg Smith (Conservative), standing again in this election, has described Mr Gove’s decision on his website as “devastating and preposterous”:
“Needless to say, my faith in the whole Planning Inspectorate has now hit absolute zero. Local people said no, Buckinghamshire Council as the planning authority said no, but this potty system has walked all over local wishes. It’s not right.”
Proposed new category B prison (up to 82,555 sq m gross external area) within a secure perimeter fence adjacent to HMP Gartree, Market Harborough
This application was submitted to Harborough District Council in September 2021. It was refused at planning committee against officers’ recommendations in April 2022. The Ministry of Justice appealed. An inquiry took place in October 2022 and the appeal was allowed by the Secretary of State, contrary to the inquiry inspector’s recommendation, on 15 November 2023.
The constituency MP, Neil O’Brien (Conservative), standing again in this election, has been one of the objectors to the proposal.
Proposed new prison adjacent to HMP Garth and HMP Wymott, Leyland, Lancashire
This application was submitted to Chorley Borough Council and was refused, again against officers’ recommendations, in December 2021. Following an inquiry held in July 2022, the Secretary of State determined on 19 January 2023 (unusually) that notwithstanding the inquiry inspector having recommended dismissal, the Secretary of State was minded to allow the appeal, subject to giving the parties the opportunity to provide further evidence on highways matters. He then decided on 6 April 2023 to reopen the inquiry. It reopened in March 2024 and the outcome is awaited.
The constituency MP, Katherine Fletcher (Conservative), standing again in this election, has been one of the objectors to the proposal.
That tension between national politics versus local politics, time and time again.
What’s the answer? I’m not sure that it is to bring new prisons within the Planning Act 2008 regime, as nationally significant infrastructure projects. First, this would be likely to require primary legislation to bring prisons within the definition of “infrastructure” and secondly it is such a procedurally onerous process! Alternatives would be to use the special development order route under section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or to promote the projects as Crown development under section 293D of the 1990 Act. However, whichever the route and whichever the party in government, shall we start with some specific national policy guidance…?
…because surely much of their value lies in guiding participants in future appeals as to the conduct that is expected of them – whether appellants, local planning authorities or third parties?
Ironically, the thought occurred to me due to an unusual headline in yesterday’s Planning magazine update, Inspector awards costs against both housebuilder and objectors for ‘unreasonable behaviour’ after allowing 1,730-home appeal (30 May 2024, paywall). Following on from the news on 24 May 2024 that inspector Christina Downes had allowed Taylor Wimpey’s long-running appeal in relation to up to 1,730 dwellings and associated development at Wisley Airfield, Guildford, I hadn’t been aware of her decisions the same day in relation to an application for costs made by Wisley Action Group, Ockham Parish Council and RHS Wisley against Taylor Wimpey and an application for costs made by Taylor Wimpey against Wisley Action Group, Ockham Parish Council and RHS Wisley.
The inspector made a partial award of costs against Taylor Wimpey on the basis of an error in modelling contained in a transport assessment which was not addressed until it was the basis for cross-examination at the inquiry. The inspector found that the objectors were put to unnecessary expense identifying the error, preparing written notes and extra evidence, recalling their highway witness and preparing and delivering cross-examination which all took an extra inquiry day.
Going the other way, the inspector also made a partial award of costs against the objectors, finding that there had been “unreasonable behaviour in the following respects:
• In the ecology evidence insofar as it related to matters that had already been addressed by previous decision makers; and in raising issues about the surveys, other than in relation to bats.
• In the highway evidence insofar as it related to the difference between the TA and ES in respect of peak traffic flows.
• In the planning evidence insofar as it persisted in raising issues about the principle of the development, but the costs limited to the cross-examination of this point and its preparation.”
In the context of an inquiry which ran to (by my reckoning) 32 days this may all be small beer but is an interesting indication of the extent to which parties may be prepared to put the behaviour of their opponents under the microscope.
There is of course detailed Planning Practice Guidance as to the award of costs in planning appeals, the basic principle being that costs may be awarded, either on the application of any party or at the instigation of the inspector, where a party has behaved unreasonably and the unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. I often have to explain to clients that, no, they can’t cover their wider commercial losses caused by that unreasonable behaviour…
My colleague Jack Curnow ran a search of appeal decisions today – there have been around 93 costs award decisions in the last 12 months. How much more might we learn if the key findings were made available, in the way that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman provides a comprehensive database of its rulings?
A couple of other interesting costs decisions spotted in the wild (on LinkedIn that is):
First of all, as with that first costs award at Wisley, a reminder that a party may end up winning the appeal but being on the receiving end of an award of costs for unreasonable behaviour. On 16 May 2024 Bellway Homes lost a planning appeal for a proposed development of 148 dwellings in County Durham, but (perhaps small comfort) secured an award of costs against Durham County Council on the basis that it had not substantiated three of its reasons for refusal (on effect on countryside, unacceptable harm to the landscape and on design). In relation to the remaining reasons for refusal – on planning and transport, where the relevant LPA witnesses appear to have made significant concessions under cross-examination, there is an interesting passage:
“In my view, the concessions made by the sustainable transport and planning witnesses rather than being a deficiency in the Council’s case were the result of a series of subtly directed questions by a skilled advocate and the inability of the witnesses to grasp the direction of the examinations. That said concessions made by witnesses are material considerations in concluding on a proposal and I did not ignore them. However, as the decisionmaker, whether I am bound by them is not, in my view, a binary choice. As the various examples of Case Law referred to show, I am entitled to bring to bear my own judgement, both as a planning professional and an Inspector, to weigh the written and oral evidence before me. This is particularly so where, as in this case, the final decision turned on a matter of planning judgement i.e., whether the proposal represented sustainable development and the relevant witness’s failure to grapple with the basis of their own evidence. In this context, despite the direction that the cross-examinations took the witnesses, I consider the Council was able to substantiate its case in relation to the second main issue, sustainability. On this basis, I consider that, continuing the case in the face of the planning witness’s concessions, the Council did not act unreasonably.”
[Who might that “skilled advocate” be, Hashi…?]
Secondly, an example of an appeal in relation to non-determination of the application within the statutory period (in this case an appeal, which was allowed on 2 April 2024, for up to 540 dwellings and associated development at Yarnton, Oxfordshire, where both the local planning authority and county education and highways authority were the subject of full costs awards in favour of the appellant, through not having resolved matters, ultimately conceded in the immediate run-up to the inquiry, far earlier in the process.
“The concerns of the Council set out in the putative reasons for refusal should have been addressed early in the life of the application; some of them, in particular those relating to green infrastructure, could have been dealt with as conditions on a planning permission or as part of a planning obligation. The fact that all the objections were withdrawn by the Council prior to the opening of the inquiry demonstrates that there was nothing substantive in the Council’s reasons for refusal that could not have been agreed much earlier in the process. As it was, the applicant was forced to address these matters through an appeal, and to produce revised material and re-consult at the appeal stage. It had to produce evidence on the reasons for refusal and, given that this was an appeal against non-determination, it had to produce adequate evidence on all matters relevant to the planning application to enable the decision-maker to reach a decision.
Although costs can only be awarded in relation to unnecessary or wasted expense at the appeal, the behaviour and actions of the Council at the time of the planning application can be taken into account in the consideration ofwhether or not costs should be awarded. The Council acted unreasonably in its handling of the planning application and the application should not have needed to come to an appeal. The Council delayed development that should clearly have been permitted, failed to produce evidence that substantiated each putative reason for refusal, and issued putative reasons for refusal on grounds that were capable of being dealt with by planning condition or in an obligation. The Council’s unreasonable behaviour led the applicant to the unnecessary costs of an appeal with the consequent need to maintain an appeal team with legal representation and to produce evidence on a wide range of matters.
For the reasons given above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has occurred and an award of costs against Cherwell District Council is therefore warranted, covering all the costs relating to the appeal, with the exception of the two matters which are the subject of the costs claim against Oxfordshire County Council.”
From the award against Oxfordshire County Council:
“Costs should only be awarded against a third party in exceptional circumstances. In this case those circumstances exist. The County Council’s position was critical to the progress of the planning application and subsequent appeal because of its role as a main party to the s106 obligation, and it bears full responsibility for the delay and costs incurred in addressing the matters discussed above. The matter of the playing field access was capable of being addressed much earlier as part of the planning application if the County Council had taken a reasonable approach, and should never have had to come to appeal. The County Council did not defend its position at the inquiry. The request for a contribution for the Cassington Road to Peartree Interchange highways works should never have been made. The County Council behaved unreasonably in both respects and caused the applicant to incur unnecessary expense in addressing these issues in respect of legal representation, expert witnesses, the preparation of statements of case, proofs and rebuttals, and in having to seek information and prepare a legal opinion to inform the inquiry. A partial award of costs is therefore warranted.”
[NB the highways contribution point may be of wider interest: the county council had sought a contribution towards highways works “which were not dependent on the development and which had already been funded from the public purse and built”!]
Some other costs decisions this year that may be of interest:
An award in favour of Bellway Homes in relation to an appeal in Stroud, where planning permission was granted for 54 dwellings. In his decision letter dated 20 May 2024 the inspector awards costs against Stroud District Council largely through its failure to grapple properly with biodiversity net gain issues:
“In a large part, the reason for the appeal is because the Council failed to review, accept and liaise with the appellant on the Mitigation Hierarchy Review. In my view, this necessitated the submission of the appeal. In addition, the
Council’s lack of engagement added unnecessary time at the hearing and necessitated further time being given to the main parties to agree the wording of a Grampian condition after the close of the hearing.
I am cognisant that the position on the value of high value habitats has been clarified with the statutory metric coming into force and has confirmed the basis on which such units can be traded and that this has been a recent change that the Council has not been obliged to accept. However, given that the Council were not seeking to resist the principle of development, the absence of indication that the appellant had met the expectations of the hierarchical approach should have been provided at an earlier point in time to have paved the way for more meaningful negotiations on the mitigation package. This concession was only made at the hearing in person, with the written evidence still having largely maintained a defensive position.
In view of this, my conclusion is that the Council has behaved unreasonably, for reasons including its failure to determine a planning application based on an issue that was capable of being dealt with by condition and failing to review and clarify its case promptly following the lodging of an appeal.”
A full award of costs in favour of the promoter of a solar farm in Rayleigh. The appeal was allowed on 11 March 2024 and full costs were awarded against Rochford District Council. The decision to refuse the application had been made by members against officers’ recommendations. The inspector concluded:
“Overall, I consider that the Council has not produced relevant evidence at appeal stage to support their decision to refuse planning permission and has therefore delayed a development that should have been permitted, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations. It has also been inconsistent in its decision making. I therefore consider that the Council’s approach does represent unreasonable behaviour, and this has resulted directly in the need for this appeal.”
The council tried to make the case that it was difficult to find private sector consultants to support them. The inspector didn’t think much to that excuse!
“In the rebuttal to the cost claim it was suggested that it is difficult for members to provide a substantial evidence base as few consultancies will take on such work as it would be likely to lose them future work as they would be known as “Council lovers”. Whilst in my experience consultancies quite regularly support Council’s at appeal, even if that were the case this does not absolve the Council from the need to substantiate the reasons for refusal at appeal.”
Finally, a reminder to councils of the need to engage in pre-app discussions. An appeal in Mole Valley was dismissed on 28 February 2024, but with the appellant awarded its costs due to the council’s failure to engage at pre-application stage:
“In respect of the appellant’s attempt to engage with the Council at the pre-application stage, I note that the Council suspended these services due to resourcing limitations. Although not binding, this process, if it had been available, would have been an opportunity for the Council to raise any concerns at an early stage in respect of design, living conditions and affordable housing provision. The appellant, therefore, would have been well-informed and provided with the opportunity to amend the scheme as necessary.
The Council’s resourcing is not a matter for the appellant, who sought an effective, positive and pro-active approach at an early stage. Given that the Council has an established pre-application function, which was suspended for a time, and which did not allow the appellant to use it, amounts to unreasonable behaviour. This is my view, irrespective of the Council’s communications later in the process.
For the reasons given above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has occurred in respect of pre-application advice and a partial award of costs is therefore warranted.”
I could go on, and on. There are so many. There’s a lesson in each decision – whether as to how parties should behave or as to how the system itself, under-resourced as it is, may be failing us all. After all, perhaps penalising authorities with costs awards is simply adding to the resourcing problem – it certainly is if costs awards do not influence future behaviour. So as well as my suggestion that these decisions should be more widely publicised, I would go further: when an award is made against an authority and the amount of costs payable has been determined, by negotiation or following reference to a High Court costs judge, why shouldn’t authorities be under a duty to publicise to their members and to their local electorate the financial consequences of what has happened and why?
Shadow Secretary of State Angela Rayner’s speech at UKREiif in Leeds on 21 May 2024 was interesting, particularly on new settlements. I have emboldened some key passages below:
“New Settlements
And while we work with the grain of local communities and their character, we’ll also consider how urban regeneration and extension can play their part.
We want homes on these sites within the first term of a Labour government.
But these new large settlements must be built in the right place, in partnership with local people.
This is why an expert independent taskforce will be set up to help choose the right sites and a list of projects will be announced within our first 12 months of government, so we can start building the towns of the future within months, not decades.
Our next generation of New Towns will build homes fit for the future. Creating places where people want to live. Inspired by garden suburbs like Hale in Manchester, Roundhay in Leeds, and the Garden City project
But let me be clear – I will not simply demand “more units, at any cost”.
The reason many local communities resist new homes is often because the housing is of the wrong type, in the wrong place – it doesn’t come with the schools, GP surgeries and green spaces that make communities, not just streets.
Or the affordable and social housing local people need.
Our next generation of New Towns will build homes fit for the future. Creating places where people want to live. Inspired by garden suburbs like Hale in Manchester, Roundhay in Leeds, and the Garden City project.
We will set out a New Towns Code – criteria that developers must meet in these new settlements:
More social and affordable homes – with a gold standard aim of 40%
Buildings with character, in tree-lined streets that fit in with nearby areas
Design that pays attention to local history and identity
Planning fit for the future, with good links to town and city centres
Guaranteed public transport and public services, from doctors’ surgeries to schools
And access to nature, parks, and places for children to play “
New Towns are just one way we get good quality, affordable houses built in the national interest.
Our local housing recovery plan will reverse the Conservatives’ damaging changes to planning, getting stalled sites moving at speed.
We’ll give Mayors the tools they need to deliver homes in their areas, revitalising brownfield first, unlocking ugly, disused grey belt land for housebuilding and setting tough new conditions for releasing that land.
Our ‘golden rules’ will ensure any grey belt development delivers affordable homes, new public services, and improved green spaces.
This means more social and affordable homes and we will ensure that brownfield sites are approved quicker so homes get built fast.
Together, we will unleash the biggest wave of affordable and social housing in a generation.
Because a safe, secure, affordable home is the foundation of a good life.
We can see the consequences when that foundation is taken away.
Today, there is an epidemic of homelessness and rough sleeping in Britain.”
Some intriguing aspects here that go beyond the Labour Party’s Plan to Power-Up Britain that I covered in my 13 April 2024 blog post Powering Up Britain and beyond Sir Keir Starmer’s party conference speech in October 2023 (see 10 October 2023 BBC piece Keir Starmer promises to build new towns and 1.5m homes). Particularly intriguing that “an expert independent taskforce will be set up to help choose the right sites and a list of projects will be announced within our first 12 months of government, so we can start building the towns of the future within months, not decades.”.
The huge question will be how to avoid previous governments’ false starts and missteps. The last Labour government’s eco-towns programme was similarly ambitious, with preferred sites arrived at on the basis of criteria set out in a prospectus which became hotly contested by those whose sites were not selected and by local campaigners. A High Court challenge to the process failed but, given time slippages, the programme was ultimately overtaken by the 2010 General Election. The judgment in the case, Bard Campaign v Secretary of State (Walker J, 25 February 2009) makes for interesting reading as to the context. For a wider piece setting out subsequent proposals by the present government for “locally-led” new towns see my 11 July 2020 blog post The New Towns Question (Again) .
Full marks for ambition but how to balance speedy top-down decisions as to quantum, potential locations, scale and so on (however “independent” “expert” led) with ensuring that (1) there is a joined up plan to deliver the necessary infrastructure (2) schemes have sufficient local buy-in (3) schemes are commercially viable (4) there is a fit-for-purpose consenting process if building is to start “within months” (polite cough) and (5) all legal trip hazards in terms of, for instance adequate assessment and consultation can successfully be navigated? Those will be some of the questions.
And the “gold standard aim of 40%” affordable housing is an interesting political phrase!
SIMONICITY 