Tag: appropriate assessment

CG Fry: AA Post PP

CG Fry v Secretary of State (Sir Ross Cranston, 30 June 2023) is a difficult case with a perhaps unsurprising answer, although one that is disappointing to many.

I’ve often written about the ongoing problems arising from Natural England’s advice that in certain areas, due to potential harm to Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas by way of nutrients (nitrates or phosphates), water abstraction pressures or recreational pressure, schemes should not be permitted to proceed without demonstrating (through the local planning authority carrying out “appropriate assessment” under the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2017), that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant protected area. See for example my 18 March 2022 blog post New NE Nutrient Neutrality & Recreational Impact Restrictions (+ DEFRA Nature Recovery Green Paper).

The stage at which appropriate assessment is usually carried out is when an application for outline or full planning permission is being determined in circumstances where it is likely that the development will have a significant effect on an SPA or SAC. But one of the most frustrating aspects for developers about the introduction, usually without notice on the part of Natural England, of these controls is Natural England’s position, supported by the Government, that appropriate assessment is required even if planning permission has already been obtained and where what is being sought is reserved matters approval or discharge of a pre-commencement condition. I mentioned the problem in my 26 March 2022 blog post More On That Natural England Advice. As I said then:

“This of course cuts across the traditional planning law tenet that the planning permission stage is the point at which the principle of the development is determined to be acceptable, with subsequent approvals serving to define the detailed scale and disposition of development within the tramlines of what has been authorised by way of the permission. The authorities’ stance means that planning permission no longer gives any certainty as far as purchasers and funders are concerned and is a real impediment to market certainty and confidence. Who knows what equivalent restrictions lie ahead, after all? Even if your area is not affected at present, this should be of concern.”

I asked:

“Is anyone aware of this issue having been tested, on appeal or in litigation post 1 January 2021? Or is everyone being terribly British and waiting patiently for strategic solutions to be found to all of these neutrality issues before their reserved matters and pre-commencement conditions can be signed off? I suspect that some permissions will expire in the meantime. In my view this is not acceptable, or warranted, but am I a voice in the wilderness here?”

Well, the point now has been tested.

In CG Fry, outline planning permission had been granted for a residential development of 650 houses, community and commercial uses, a primary school and associated infrastructure. Reserved matters approval was secured. Natural England then published its advice to Somerset authorities on development in the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site, advising that  greater scrutiny was required of plans and projects that would result in increased nutrient loads which may have an effect on SPAs, SACs and sites designated under the Ramsar Convention. CG Fry then sought to discharge various pre-commencement conditions but the Council withheld approval on the basis that an appropriate assessment was required before the conditions could be discharged. CG Fry appealed and the inspector dismissed the appeal. To quote from the judgment:

“He determined that it was legitimate to apply paragraph 181 of the NPPF to give the Ramsar site the same protection in all respects as a European site under the Habitats Regulations 2017. That was because the discharge of the conditions would be an authorising act, as part of the wider consent process, that would allow the realisation of potential effects on the Ramsar site which the Natural England advice note sought to manage. Considering the overarching nature of paragraph 181, this applied regardless of the specific subject matter of the conditions themselves: DL24-26. The Inspector considered that the grant of outline planning permission and reserved matters approval did not have an effect on the scope of any necessary appropriate assessment; the validity of the planning permission was not in question: DL41.

The inspector then determined that the requirement for an appropriate assessment in the Habitats Regulations 2017 applied to the discharge of conditions stage. He rejected the claimant’s argument that inclusion of specific provisions relating to the grant of planning permission, including outline planning permission, at regulation 70 of the Habitats Regulations 2017, did not diminish the applicability of regulation 63, which was simply a sweep up provision: DL44. Even adopting the claimant’s approach that the permission in relation to “consent, permission or other authorisation” in regulation 63 is the planning permission referred to in regulation 70, the concept of “other authorisation” was a broad one. The claimant’s approach would create loopholes counter to a purposive approach to the Habitats Regulations 2017: DL45-47.

As the competent authority, the Inspector said, he was unable to carry out the necessary appropriate assessment to agree the conditions: DL71. He said that he had considered the other relevant planning considerations, in particular the impact on housing delivery: DL72, 74. However, the unfulfilled requirement for an appropriate assessment was an issue of material significance: DL77. In other words he conducted the balancing exercise and concluded that in this case the delay in housing delivery was outweighed by the need to protect the Ramsar site.”

“The claimant’s case in general terms is that the effect of additional phosphate loading resulting from its proposed development was not a material consideration to the determination of the conditions at issue in the case. It was legally irrelevant because it fell outside the specific parameters of what the outline planning permission and the reserved matters approval had left over for consideration under these conditions. The material for the discharge of these conditions was satisfactory, and the only thing preventing their discharge was whether an appropriate assessment of the impact of phase 3 of the development on the Ramsar site from additional phosphate loading was required. There was no nexus between the conditions in relation to phosphates, even with the condition relating to waste water. Nor, on the claimant’s case, does the combination the Habitats Regulations 2017 and paragraph 181 of NPPF change that. The Inspector was wrong in his analysis and conclusions.”

“In broad terms ground 1 is firstly, that the Inspector wrongly construed the Habitats Regulations 2017 and should not have applied regulation 63, as he did, to the discharge of conditions on a reserved matters approval. Mr Banner KC contended that regulation 70 was the relevant provision, and it is confined to planning (including outline planning) permission.”

The judge rejected the ground: “While on a strict reading of the Habitats Regulations 2017 the assessment provisions of regulation 63 do not cover the discharge of conditions, in my view they do apply as a result of firstly, article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, secondly, a purposive interpretation of their provisions and thirdly, case law binding on me”

“ Mr Banner contended that the Habitats Directive had no status in the UK legal system, except through regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2017. The provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 do not take the argument any further, he submitted, because there is no CJEU pre-existing case law which interprets the Habitats Directive as imposing a requirement to conduct an appropriate assessment at subsequent stages, such as the discharge of conditions on a reserved matters approval. He submitted that Harris concerned whether the claimed obligation under article 6(2) had been recognised by the court before Brexit, and it had. By contrast there is no CJEU or domestic case preceding exit day which supports the view that article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive can be relied upon to impose a requirement for an appropriate assessment at the discharge of conditions stage. Unlike Harris section 4(2)(b) of the Withdrawal Act 2018 is not engaged in this case given the absence of relevant pre-exit case-law.

In my view article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive continues to have effect in domestic law as a result of section 4(2)(b). Johnson J explained in Harris that the requirements of article 6(3) were accepted as binding by the CJEU in Waddenzee: [90]. Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive are closely related, so as to be “of a kind” with one another for the purposes of section 4: [91]. The demands of section 4(2)(b) are therefore met. The section is explicit that the recognition in the case law does not have to be by way of the ratio of a case “(whether or not as an essential part of the decision in the case)“.

“Consequently, the requirements of article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive remain part of UK law. That article requires that the competent authorities should not agree a project until an appropriate assessment has been undertaken and it shows that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a site. A planning consent is part of agreeing a project when it is necessary to implement a development. In this case the discharge of pre-commencement conditions was a necessary step in the implementation of the development. An appropriate assessment had not been undertaken up to that point, so consequently the Inspector determined that he could not discharge the conditions prior to one being undertaken. His conclusion was consistent with article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.”

“Secondly, the Habitats Regulations 2017 demand a purposive interpretation so that the appropriate assessment provisions of regulation 63 apply to a subsequent consent stage including reserved matters applications and the discharge of conditions. A broad and purposive interpretation of the regulations flows from the strict precautionary approach which the CJEU has adopted to the assessment provisions of the Habitats Directive…”

“In my view Wingfield and Swire are authority for the proposition that an appropriate assessment can apply at the reserved matters or discharge of condition stage even if there has been a grant of outline planning permission where the subsequent approval is the implementing decision. There is support, as Lang J found in Wingfield, in the case law concerning the EIA multi-stage consenting procedure such as Barker. There, as we saw, Lord Hope recognised that a material change in circumstances could require an assessment at the reserved matters stage. It will be recalled that in Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd the CJEU stated that the meaning of “development consent” was relevant to defining the equivalent term “agree” in the Habitats Directive. All this is retained case law under the Withdrawal Act 2018 concerning the interpretation of the Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations 2017. That the facts in Wingfield and Swire were different is no basis for undermining the principle they established. The common law system would not survive if this were the case, since there will always be a variation, even if slight, in the facts of later cases. That does not preclude the continued application of principle.”

“The upshot is that the Habitats Directive and Habitats Regulations 2017 mandate that an appropriate assessment be undertaken before a project is consented. That is irrespective of whatever stage the process has reached according to UK planning law. The basal fact in this case is that neither at the permission, reserved matters, or conditions discharge stage has there has been an appropriate assessment. Application of the Habitats Directive and a purposive approach to the interpretation of the Habitats Regulations 2017 require the application of the assessment provisions to the discharge of conditions. The strict precautionary approach required would be undermined if they were limited to the initial – the permission – stage of a multi-stage process.”

Ground 2: “For the claimant Mr Banner contended that paragraph 181 of the NPPF did not enable the Inspector to take into account considerations which were legally irrelevant to those conditions.” [Paragraph 181 states that Ramsar sites should be given the same protection as SPAs and SACs].

The judge: “The impacts on the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site and paragraph 181 of the NPPF cannot be said to be irrelevant considerations in this development. The issue is the read-across of the Habitats Regulations 2017 to Ramsar sites as provided by the NPPF in circumstances where the Council’s shadow appropriate assessment shows that if the project if permitted it will cause harm to the Ramsar site.”

Ground 3: “Mr Banner submitted that even if regulation 63 applies to the discharge of conditions, it ought to be interpreted in such a way that the scope of the appropriate assessment reflects the scope of the conditions being considered. Thus, for example, in the context of an application to discharge a condition relating to root protection zones for trees, an appropriate assessment would concern any effects on site integrity arising from the range of choices the decision-maker has in relation to root protection zones, given the permission granted (and any conditions already discharged). The appropriate assessment would not consider the effects of the scheme as a whole on the habitat in question.”

The judge: “Regulation 63 requires an appropriate assessment to consider the implications of the project, not the implications of the part of the project to which the consent relates. […]  As Mr Wilcox for the Council put it, the thing which is to be the subject of the appropriate assessment is the thing which will be permitted by the authorisation, so that where the decision is the final stage in granting authorisation for a development, it is the development which is to be assessed.”

It was a certainly an issue to be tested and, whilst Richard Moules and Nick Grant (for the Government) and Luke Wilcox (for Somerset Council) may have been on the winning side, well done to Charlie Banner KC and Ashley Bowes for arguing it (and to CG Fry for being prepared to put its head above the parapet). I hope Charlie won’t mind me quoting his subsequent LinkedIn post in its entirety:

“Judgment in CG Fry has been delivered this morning . Key headlines:

1) The Court agreed with the Claimant that on a natural and ordinary reading of the Habitats Regulations they do not require appropriate assessment at the reserved matters or discharge of conditions stages

2) However, CJEU case law to the effect that the EIA Directive’s requirements apply at the reserved matters stage was to be read across to the Habitats context and to discharge of non-RM conditions, as well as first instance domestic case-law upholding the legality of a *voluntary* AA at reserved matters stage.

3) This is an EU “obligation… identified by a court” pre-Brexit which is preserved by the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 ss4&6, because the direct effect of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive had been recognised by the CJEU pre-Brexit.

4) Therefore the Habitats Directive continues to apply directly and overcomes the natural and ordinary meaning of the Regulations.

The judge has indicated he is minded to grant permission to appeal his judgment and the parties are discussing the potential for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court.

The judgment will present Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities with some challenges for any future legislative solution for the nutrients issue given the Court’s approach to considering whether s4 of the Withdrawal Act preserves post-Brexit the force of EU “obligations… of a kind recognised by a court “ pre Brexit. The Claimant said that this meant the Courts had to have recognised an obligation for AA at discharge of conditions stage, which they hadn’t. The judgment suggests that the relevant obligation is article 6(3) generally. The potential effect of this is that it will be open to anyone to apply to court to set aside legislation on the basis it is contrary to article 6(3) *even if based upon an interpretation of article 6(3) that hasn’t previously been made by the Courts*

The Home Builders Federation’s evidence to court was that 44,000 already consented homes in England are currently blocked because of this issue. The Land Promoters and Developers Federation has also been very active on this issue.

Watch this space!”

A final couple of wry comments from me:

  1. If anyone voted for Brexit thinking that these sorts of problems would become a thing of the past, more fool them.
  1. Let’s not forget that the root of much of the issues over neutrality – whether in relation to nutrients and water abstraction – is the appalling lack of investment on the part of the privatised water companies.

As the judge says at the beginning of his judgment: “In broad terms, this issue relates to the phosphate loading of protected water habitats, leading to eutrophication. This is caused by reasons including agricultural practices and under-investment in water infrastructure. There is a risk of the problem being exacerbated by water generated by new developments which contain phosphates, principally from foul water. The Home Builders Federation states that, due to the unavailability of mitigation options, this issue is holding up the building of no fewer than 44,000 homes in England which already have planning permission.” (my emboldening)

Until the CG Fry judgment landed this morning, I had been intending to pull together some wider thoughts on the implications for planning and the environment of the poor state of our privatised water industry, provoked by articles such as UK government looks at nationalising Thames Water as crisis deepens (FT, 28 June 2023) where delayed housebuilding, aka providing people with homes,  is just part of the collateral damage.

Simon Ricketts, 30 June 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Pic courtesy Towfiqu barbhuiya via Unsplash

Neutrality: Government Clambers Off The Fence

Ahead of a late but welcome announcement by the Government, there was a silly headline in The Times this week: Homes crisis ‘worsened by environmental red tape’ (18 July 2022). Yes, we are back to the topic of my 16 July 2022 blog post: nutrient/water neutrality.

It’s good that this huge issue is attracting media attention – and I’ll come on to the Government announcement in a moment – but it is disappointing to see the usual “red tape” sneer.

The problem isn’t the rules or bureaucracy: we have specific areas designated of particular ecological importance and sensitivity, the integrity of some of which is under threat because of the existing levels of nutrients draining into them, from farming (eg fertilisers, animal waste) and from homes (human waste), and the integrity of others which is under threat due to the consequences of over-abstraction of water. These situations haven’t been adequately dealt with by the water companies or government agencies, meaning that even one more home being built in these catchment areas is considered by Natural England to be unacceptable without adequate mitigation in place (which can be difficult, particularly for smaller schemes). The problem isn’t the housebuilding, it’s the pre-existing precarious state of these areas.

It is a big problem, and it has been with us for a long time now (see my previous blog posts).

The Government has been waking up to the issue. Back in March 2022, DEFRA announced some support for affected local planning authorities, Nutrient pollution: reducing the impact on protected sites  (16 March 2022). But this was little comfort to those stuck in the system.

But this week we saw more wide ranging measures announced by DEFRA and DLUHC. Of course they won’t provide an immediate solution, but they are certainly welcome. 

The package of announcements comprises

These are the main measures announced by the Secretary of State:

  • “In order to drive down pollution from all development in the relevant catchments, we will be tabling an amendment to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. This will place a new statutory duty on water and sewerage companies in England to upgrade wastewater treatment works to the highest technically achievable limits by 2030 in nutrient neutrality areas. Water companies will be required to undertake these upgrades in a way that tackles the dominant nutrient(s) causing pollution at a protected site. We are also using feedback from the recent ‘call for evidence’ to water companies to identify where these upgrades could be accelerated and delivered sooner.”
  • Natural England is directed to establish a nutrient mitigation scheme. “Defra and DLUHC will provide funding to pump prime the scheme: this is intended to frontload investment in mitigation projects, including wetland and woodland creation. This will then be recouped through a simple payment mechanism where developers can purchase ‘nutrient credits’ which will discharge the requirements to provide mitigation. Natural England will accredit mitigation delivered through the Nutrient Mitigation Scheme, enabling LPAs to grant planning permission for developments which have secured the necessary nutrient credits…We will announce further details in the autumn when the scheme will launch, and in the meantime, Natural England will be in touch with local authorities and developers.”
  • “Longer term, we continue to progress proposals to reform the Habitats Regulations so that impacts on protected sites are tackled up front, focusing on what is best for bringing sites back into favourable status.”
  • “We will make clear in planning guidance that judgements on deliverability of sites should take account of strategic mitigation schemes and the accelerated timescale for the Natural England’s mitigation schemes and immediate benefits on mitigation burdens once legislation requiring water treatment upgrades comes into force. DLUHC will revise planning guidance over the summer to reflect that sites affected by nutrient pollution forming part of housing land supply calculations are capable of being considered deliverable for the purposes of housing land supply calculations, subject to relevant evidence to demonstrate deliverability. It will be for decision takers to make judgements about impacts on delivery timescales for individual schemes in line with the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Joanna Averley’s letter goes into more detail as to how the proposed new statutory duty on water companies will help:

“The majority of nutrient pollution from residential properties enters waterbodies via treated discharges from wastewater treatment works (WWTW). The performance of WWTW varies based on the limits in environmental permits issued by the Environment Agency, which in turn reflect the environmental requirements of the waterbodies to which the effluent is discharged. The performance of WWTW is therefore the central factor in the level of nutrient pollution associated with existing homes and new development. It is therefore logical that effort on reducing nutrient pollution associated with housing focusses on upgrading WWTW. The statutory obligation for upgrading WWTW, which will be introduced into the LURB, will ensure that WWTW in nutrient neutrality catchments are operating at the highest level of performance, rectifying nutrient pollution at source. This will reduce the pollution from not only new development coming forward, but also from the majority of existing dwellings in affected catchments, representing a significant decrease in overall pollution from housing.

The specific performance levels of the connected WWTW is a major variable when determining the amount of mitigation new development has to secure to achieve nutrient neutrality. Suitable mitigation measures might include constructed wetlands or land use change, which can be land intensive. Under Natural England’s Nutrient Neutrality methodology, the permit limit is used, or where there is no permit limit on nutrient discharges from WWTW, a standard precautionary figure is used (8mg/l for phosphates (P) and 27mg/l for nitrates (N)). The statutory obligation from 2030 will require WWTW to operate at the technically achievable limit (TAL); for phosphates this is 0.25mg/l and nitrates 10mg/l. This action will ameliorate nutrient pollution and significantly reduce the mitigation burden for developments.

The habitat regulations require that mitigation be secured for the lifetime of the development which Natural England consider to be 80-120 years. The obligated upgrades to WWTW required from 2030; will provide clarity from the point of the LURB measures coming into force. For developments this means that the current high level of mitigation will only be required up to the end of 2030. After 2030, the pollution levels via WWTW will be much reduced and so a lower level of mitigation will be required. This reduces the overall mitigation burden on housing developments coming forward in nutrient neutrality catchments.”

This should be welcomed (even if it is so belated and does raise questions as to whether water companies will actually be able to deliver – and at whose cost) but of course there is still the period to 2030 before these new permit limits apply and so it is important that the promised nutrient mitigation scheme is up and running as soon as possible. Housing Today have raised significant concerns on that score in their piece, Government’s nutrient mitigation scheme ‘years away’ (22 July 2022)

Finally, the ministerial statement sets out unambiguously the Government’s position as to whether the Regulations bite on reserved matters applications and applications to discharge pre-commencement conditions: “The Habitats Regulations Assessment provisions apply to any consent, permission, or other authorisation, this may include post-permission approvals; reserved matters or discharges of conditions.” Joanna Averley’s letter promises further planning practice guidance on this issue. 

In the meantime, there is no Planning Law Unplanned clubhouse event this week but I am speaking at a clubhouse event arranged by Iain Thomson of Bellona Advisors for 6pm on Monday 25 July 2022 on the subject of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges, alongside writer Gareth Dennis and Intermodality’s Nick Gallop – join here. And for a taster of what we may cover, here’s Iain’s recent SRFIs blog post.  

Simon Ricketts, 23 July 2022

Personal views, et cetera 

18 July 2022 tweet

More On That Natural England Advice

This is a follow-on from my snappily titled blog post last week New NE Nutrient Neutrality & Recreational Impact Restrictions (+ DEFRA Nature Recovery Green Paper).

Implications of NE’s updated generic Nutrient Neutrality Methodology and updated catchment calculators referred to on page 4 of its 16 March 2022 letter

The updated methodology and calculators are appended to the letter, which advises that individual authorities consider how to transition to “the new tools and guidance”.

My blog post focused on the implications for areas not previously caught by nutrient neutrality issues but of course the guidance also creates an element of uncertainty for areas already caught, where good progress has been made towards solutions, if calculations need to be amended and given that there can be no certainty as to what transitional period (if any) each authority will allow for.

Examples of progress

A huge amount has gone into developing strategic mitigation solutions, but it is inevitably complicated – involving multiple land interests, commercial arrangements, local authority joint working, robust survey work and ecological analysis. The Solent nutrient market pilot is a great example – see this LinkedIn post by Simon Kennedy last month, strategic environmental planning officer for the Partnership for South Hampshire.

As another example, in Kent, Ashford Borough Council is progressing with a strategic mitigation solution in relation to potential effects on Stodmarsh Lakes, taking a report to cabinet on 31 March 2022.

Let’s hope that the new advice does not slow down progress in relation to these initiatives. Let’s also hope that these pioneers pave the way for a much faster roll out of solutions for the additional areas now caught.

Another dark cloud?

The Natural England advice letter also referenced last year’s High Court ruling, R (Wyatt) v Fareham Borough Council (Jay J, 28 May 2021), which is currently subject to an appeal – which the Court of Appeal will hear in the first week of April 2022. The advice should be regarded as provisional until the outcome of that case. The concern is that the case concerned a challenge to Natural England’s 2020 advice on achieving nutrient neutrality in the Solent region on the basis that the advice, in effect, was not stringent enough – see our Town Library summary of the first instance ruling prepared last year by my colleague Safiyah Islam. The court rejected the challenge but if the Court of Appeal takes a different stance then Natural England may need again to reconsider its methodology.

Reserved matters and pre-commencement conditions

One particularly unfair aspect of the way in which many local planning authorities are applying Natural England’s advice is to assert that if the necessary Conservation of Habitats Regulations assessment work was not done at planning permission stage (which will often not have been the case if the nutrient neutrality issue had not been identified by Natural England at that point) it must now be done at reserved matters stage, in the case of an outline planning permission, or at the stage of discharge of any pre-commencement condition, in the case of a full planning permission.

This of course cuts across the traditional planning law tenet that the planning permission stage is the point at which the principle of the development is determined to be acceptable, with subsequent approvals serving to define the detailed scale and disposition of development within the tramlines of what has been authorised by way of the permission. The authorities’ stance means that planning permission no longer gives any certainty as far as purchasers and funders are concerned and is a real impediment to market certainty and confidence. Who knows what equivalent restrictions lie ahead, after all? Even if your area is not affected at present, this should be of concern.

Local planning authorities appear to base their position on a decision of the High Court (i.e. a first instance ruling, not the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court) in R (Wingfield) v. Canterbury City Council (Lang J, 24 July 2019), but surely the case is capable of being distinguished in at least the following ways:

• The basic facts were different – a claimant was seeking to quash the outline planning permission because the LPA had failed to carry out appropriate assessment in a lawful manner. The developer and LPA had accepted there was a breach but had sought to rectify it by carrying out appropriate assessment at reserved matters stage – which the court agreed remedied the breach. This was not a case where the developer was challenging the ability of the LPA to undertake appropriate assessment at reserved matters stage or indeed to require appropriate assessment at that stage.

• Lang J relied in her reasoning on the Habitats Directive and interpretation of the Directive in rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union. That was permissible at that time but since 1 January 2021 is no longer how the UK courts are able to approach these issues. The Habitats Regulations are now to be interpreted on their own terms without reference to the Directive. This potentially gives the UK courts the opportunity to ensure that the approach to assessment in relation to the stages of decision making allowed for in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are consistent with the legislative framework of the 1990 Act – i.e. issues of principle are for outline permission stage, with the outline permission setting the parameters for subsequent more detailed decision making at reserved matters stage and discharge of other conditions – but without the principle of the basic acceptability of the development being able to be re-visited at those later stages.

It should also be noted that regulation 70 of the 2017 Regulations is headed “grant of planning permission” and provides that the “assessment provisions” apply to specified categories of decision. None of these is a decision to grant reserved matters approval, or a decision to discharge a pre-commencement condition.

Is anyone aware of this issue having been tested, on appeal or in litigation post 1 January 2021? Or is everyone being terribly British and waiting patiently for strategic solutions to be found to all of these neutrality issues before their reserved matters and pre-commencement conditions can be signed off? I suspect that some permissions will expire in the meantime. In my view this is not acceptable, or warranted, but am I a voice in the wilderness here?

And lastly

Just to note that there was also a Welsh case on nitrates last week, R (National Farmers Union of England and Wales) v Welsh Ministers (Sir Wyn Williams, 23 March 2022). Welsh farmers are unhappy about the Welsh Government ending, post-Brexit, certain dispensations as to the amount of livestock manure that can be deposited on grassland. The claim, based on an asserted breach of legitimate expectation, as well as lack of rationality, failed.

This coming Tuesday 29 March at 6pm we will be focusing on all of these Natural England neutrality issues: “More Natural England Development Bans – What To Do?” – there is so much to cover with our panellists, who will include Charles Banner QC, Mary Cook, Tim Goodwin (Ecology Solutions) and Peter Home (Paris Smith). Link here.

Simon Ricketts, 26 March 2022

Personal views, et cetera