1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Troubled waters – Equalities Duty and Alternative Sites Failings Fatal

bridgeThe public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (PSED) is playing an increasing role in planning decisions. In LDRA LTD & ORS v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & ORS [2016] EWHC 950 the High Court quashed an Inspector’s decision to grant permission on appeal for an onshore office and warehouse facility to serve offshore wind farm installations.  The authority had refused permission on the grounds of unacceptable amenity harm to adjacent residential occupiers.  The Inspector considered the proposals at an Inquiry and attended an accompanied site visit, during which access to the riverside for local people and the existence of alternative sites with lesser potential impacts were pointed out.  The claimants challenged under Section 288 of the TCPA 1990.

The High Court agreed that the Inspector had failed to give effect to the PSED when considering effects on access to the riverside area for disabled people.

Equalities duties

Section 149 requires authorities to have “due regard to the need” to “eliminate discrimination […] [and] advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not […]” when exercising functions. Disability is a relevant “protected characteristic”.  The key principles are that:

  • The duty is not a duty to achieve a result but to have due regard to the need to achieve the statutory goals in a way that is integral to the decision making process (R (Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] PTSR 809).
  • Decision makers must be properly informed and are under an inquisitorial duty, requiring rigorous enquiry and reporting (applying R (Hurley & Moore) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin) and R (Domb) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 94).

Process matters

Having concluded that only able-bodied people would have the “continuing opportunity to reach the riverside” near the development, the Inspector was held to have failed to discharge the PSED in the absence of: detailed consideration of the value of the existing amenity to disabled people, comparable alternatives, practical difficulties which disabled people and carers would experience and the loss of a resource (access to a car park) would not merely be less convenient, but may result in an inability to access the riverside at all.  The fact that the PSED issues had not been identified as a “main issue” in the appeal was irrelevant to the decision to quash.

Conflicting approaches

The Judge held that Section 31 Senior Courts Act 1981 – preventing a quashing order where it is “highly likely” the outcome would not have been substantially different had the PSED been applied – did not apply given that the PSED is concerned with process, not simply outcomes. This is presumably based on the public interest exception to Section 31(1) under Section 31(2B).  Contrast this with the Court of Appeal’s approach in West Berks accepting a retrospective Equalities Impact Assessment as ‘adequate and in good faith’ to be able to discharge the PSED because a different process “would not have led to a different conclusion“.

Alternative solutions

The Judge also held that the claimants had been substantially prejudiced by the Inspector’s failure to address an alternative site which may well have influenced the outcome. She rejected the suggestion that the Inspector was not required to absorb evidence during the site visit, holding that the purpose of the visit was to identify and view possible alternative sites.  Failing to take into account the identification of the alternative made during the site visit was a breach of natural justice/procedural fairness.

Planning TV – Spotlight on Neighbourhood Planning

Planning TV - LOGO PURPLE BACKGROUND

Dentons Planning TV is a new and innovative platform for engaging in and reacting to the latest developments in the dynamic world of planning. Its mission statement is simple: to provoke debate and facilitate engagement at all levels in the planning process.

Screenshot-2016-07-28-08_59_11-300x167

In this episode of Planning TV, we take a look at neighbourhood planning.  Liane Hartley FSRA (Director of Mend) joins Jamie Mckie (Dentons) to discuss the issues.

Lions and tigers and … Assets of Community Value

The first Asset of Community Value (ACV) case to reach the Upper Tribunal has upheld the listing of a field used by the local community without the permission of the landowner.  The decision will be of considerable interest to the owners of similar properties, considering the uses of land which can benefit the community for ACV purposes, and the bar to show a continuing community use.  The process for listing an ACV is explained here. The case has serious implications for owners allowing inoffensive use of land with development potential, including ‘meanwhile’ uses of buildings.

Backdoor village green?

fieldBedmond Lane field, located in the Green Belt and crossed by two footpaths, had been used informally by the local community for 40 years until 2014. A local residents’ association nominated it as an ACV in 2013, and it was listed by St Albans City and District Council without notice to the owner (Banner Homes) in March 2014.  Banner requested a review of the decision to list the field (and fenced the footpath/ erected notices stating “private land no unauthorised access”).  The Council decided to maintain the listing in September 2014.  Banner appealed to the First Tier Tribunal, which upheld the listing decision in April 2015.

Banner were then granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on two grounds:

  • whether the community use in Section 88(2)(a) of the Localism Act 2011 could include an unlawful use (Ground 1); and
  • whether there was a reasonable prospect of a community use in the next five years (Ground 2).

Unlawful community uses

Banner argued that use of land without permission could not meet the test for listing as an ACV.  Rejecting that, the Upper Tribunal pointed to:

  • the lack of specific exclusions in the ACV legislation for unlawful use (and allowance for criminal use in dealing with acquisition of rights by prescription);
  • the fact that the requirement for the use to further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community provides some “inbuilt protection” from a public policy perspective; and
  • the fact that ACV registration does not create any private rights, unlike the Town and Village Green regime.

More than fanciful

On Ground 2, the Upper Tribunal rejected the argument that the ‘realistic reuse’ test under Section 88 of the Localism Act ACV regime requires anything more than a possibility (as opposed to a likelihood) of a main community use of the land in the future.  Noting Banner Homes’ insistence that it was not and never had been its intention to grant rights of access or use to the public, Levenson J concluded that the future use test was one for the local authority or the Tribunal, and “is not a matter for veto by the landowner”.

The First Tier Tribunal’s decision – that it was “not fanciful” that a community use could re-start if Banner had a change of heart – was upheld. Banner’s difficulties in securing planning permission to graze horses on the Green Belt land (and the limited chance of planning permission being obtained for other uses in the immediate future) was treated as relevant.

Planning prospects

Government guidance recognises that LPAs may treat ACV status as a material consideration.  The Upper Tribunal judgment suggests that “as a matter of planning policy any necessary permission is likely to be refused while land is listed”.  That is wrong but reflects the way that ACV listing is emerging as a trip hazard for developers.

The combination of a low bar to meet the future use test and the limited weight given to the representations of owners will be a matter of concern for the owners of potential ACV sites.  While it is sensible that the decision maker considers the property and its potential in the round, to avoid all owners promising they would never allow a community use and therefore defeating the listing of any asset, a sensible balance needs to be struck.

This case will be of concern to owners of similar development sites.  While the use of fences and notices may interrupt the creation of other rights, they may not prevent the prospect of ACV listing, and owners may wish to take concrete steps to show that it would be fanciful for the main use of the property to be a community use in the future – possibly by obtaining planning permission for a non-community use if possible.

Timely delivery for regeneration projects

man building a brick wallThe Winchester Silver Hill scheme was based on a development agreement between Winchester City Council and a developer for a mixed-use retail and residential scheme in the city centre.  While the principle of regeneration for Silver Hill was widely agreed, this scheme was bitterly opposed by some residents (and local businesses and landowners), primarily on the grounds that the design and mass of the development was inappropriate for the historic setting of Winchester’s city centre.

Here we consider some of the legal issues and challenges that local authorities can face as they attempt to regenerate their localities, taking lessons from this well-documented scheme.

Read the full article

This article was first published in the Solicitor’s Journal Half Year Review (June 2016).

Ready, steady… build!

On April Fool’s Day, we suggested – with a perfectly straight face – that the conditions may be in place for a return to the glory days of local authority house building.

Less than four months on, we find ourselves with:

  • a new Prime Minister;
  • a new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government;
  • a new Minister for Housing and Planning,
  • a new London Mayor; and
  • a newly created Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

If a week is a long time in politics, a few months is a lifetime.

man building a brick wallAgainst a background of political instability, one thing has remained – the pressing need for more houses. It is an imperative which no amount of Ministerial reshuffles can dilute. Indeed, our new Prime Minister recognised the importance of addressing the “housing deficit” as part of her recent – and ultimately successful – leadership campaign.

Building sufficient homes to meet a growing need is a challenge that rests not only with the private sector. Local Authorities can – and must – play their part. In some cases, they may choose to go it alone, in others by working together with private sector partners.

With that in mind, we recently held a client seminar with Local Partnerships looking at barriers to local authority housing delivery and how these can be overcome in practice.

The central themes included:

Structures and approaches

From wholly-owned Local Development Companies to Local Asset Backed Vehicles, a multitude of options exist for Local Authorities answering the call to build. A wide menu of legal powers are available, with the chef’s speciality being the general power of competence in s.1 Localism Act 2011.

Naturally, given the nature of Local Authorities as creatures of statute, there are some inherent limitations on the use of those powers. Matters of vires, additional regulatory requirements and governance must all be addressed.

Nevertheless, successful innovation and housing delivery is certainly possible. Indeed it is happening in practice, with some notable examples.

Traps for the unwary

In what is a uniquely high risk environment for local authorities, legal challenges can come from several angles. The use of statutory powers, procurement processes and state aid issues all require careful consideration. The extent to which potential challenges can be anticipated – and mitigated – will be critical to avoiding costly legal roadblocks which could derail best laid plans.

Maximising the chances of success

Not all delivery vehicles will succeed. Clear objectives are essential from inception, allied to the capacity and commitment to deliver outputs over a sustained period of time. That commitment, in particular, must be secured at both officer and member level. Scale is also important – examples to date have seen relatively modest numbers delivered.

Transport and Works Act Order upheld in heritage case

high courtIn Whitby v Secretary for Transport & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 444 the Court of Appeal has given its reasons for dismissing challenges to the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) Order and related planning permission and listed building consents for the Ordsall Chord rail scheme.  The judgment confirms that the decision-makers are entitled to undertake a wide ranging balancing consideration when considering harm to designated heritage assets.

All in Order

The Secretary of State for Transport made the Network Rail (Ordsall Chord) Order under the TWA and directed that planning permission for the work to be deemed to be granted under section 90(2A) TCPA 1990. The Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government granted ten application for listed building consent (for demolition, partial demolition and alteration of affected listed buildings).  The Inspector and the two Secretaries of State were presented with an alternative alignment to that proposed in the Order.  The scheme was recognised as delivering significant public benefits (at a cost of substantial harm to listed buildings, their settings and the character and appearance of nearby conservation areas).  An alternative option would have avoided this harm, but damaged the regeneration potential of a key development area.

Heritage duties in play

In deciding whether to grant listed building consent and planning permission the Secretaries of State were required to have “special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” under sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.  Effects on conservation areas fell to be considered in the same way (under section 72(1)).  Preservation means doing no harm, with “considerable importance and weight” to be given to avoiding such harm (Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 137). The NPPF recommends that permission should be refused for any schemes that would lead to “substantial harm” to a designated heritage asset, unless there are substantial public benefits of doing so that outweigh the harm (or an absence of alternative uses and viability constraints combined with a beneficial end use of the site as part of the consent).

Working through the NPPF policies on heritage assets will generally allow an inference that the statutory duties have been properly taken into account (Jones v Mordue [2016] 1P&CR12).  The practice guidance in force at the time of the Inquiry suggested that there should be no other reasonable means of delivering the same public benefits (including through the useful alternative sites) where substantial harm is justified.

Alternative approaches

The Court held that the Inspector had clearly given considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preservation. Both the Inspector and the Secretary of State were also held to have taken the relevant NPPF policies into account.  Considering the case for the proposals and the harm they involved against the reasonable means of delivering similar public benefits (including through appropriate alternative sites with wider adverse effects) was entirely appropriate.   The ultimate test is whether having rigorously tested the harm it is considered necessary for the purposes of the wholly exceptional policy requirement.  The reasons why the alternative option was not appropriate had to be considered but this did not mean that the burden of proof had been switched to the objector.

The case confirms that whether alternatives that would cause lesser harm to heritage assets would themselves have significant difficulties or cause their own harm (whether to heritage assets or other planning interests) is a perfectly acceptable consideration in addressing the question of appropriate alternatives and the necessity for the harm to the assets. The weight given to the other harm relative to the heritage asset harm is a matter for the decision maker as long as he or she gives considerable weight to the statutory purpose.

Planning TV – Spotlight on Viability in Planning

Planning TV - LOGO PURPLE BACKGROUND

Dentons Planning TV is a new and innovative platform for engaging in and reacting to the latest developments in the dynamic world of planning. Its mission statement is simple: to provoke debate and facilitate engagement at all levels in the planning process.

PTVJuly13Publicationshot-300x185

 

 

 

 

 

In this episode of Planning TV we take a look at viability in planning. Stephen Ashworth (Dentons),  Alice Lester (PAS) and Anthony Lee (BNP Paribas) share their thoughts on this issue.

High Court allows relaxed view of needs on appeal

high courtThe High Court has adopted a flexible approach to dealing with ‘objectively assessed needs’ (OAN) on a planning appeal in Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 649 (Admin). In considering an appeal against refusal of permission for housing, the Inspector had to decide whether the authority could demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites against OAN.  If not, NPPF policy recommends that restrictive local housing policies are supplanted by the presumption in favour of permission.

The Core Strategy included a ‘maximum’ housing delivery figure (based on environmental constraints) and a lower figure (at which active management of under-delivery would be needed). At the lower figure, the authority could show a 5 year supply. Neither the appellant nor the authority appear to have submitted OAN evidence, despite the ability to do so (West Berkshire District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 267 (Admin)).

The Inspector found that the scheme merited approval regardless of the OAN position. He also explained that the authority was not likely to meet full OAN judged against the maximum housing figure and so applied the NPPF presumption. The authority challenged the decision under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the basis that his reasons were inadequate (including why the upper figure was the correct measure of OAN). The High Court dismissed the challenge, on the basis that the upper/lower level figures provided a ‘context for assessing housing need’ and that nothing in the NPPF should prevent decision makers from being able to use a range of figures to assess whether there would still “be advantage in the grant of permission“.

The judgment purposively and pragmatically allows for range-based approach to assessing OAN where there is no real demographic evidence available on appeal, and emphasises the undesirability of appeal Inspectors being diverted into a statistical “sojourn in a garden of delights” on OAN.  Care is needed, though:

  • It does not address the situation where reliance on OAN is required to ‘switch off’ restrictive housing policies and engage the NPPF presumption.
  • It also recognises that “a more thorough analysis would have been required” in those circumstances, consistent with the finding in West Berkshire that the Inspector had to “identify an annual housing requirement in the district. If he failed to do so he would not have been able to identify whether the council was able to demonstrate whether it had a five year supply of housing land.”
  • The maximum figure the Inspector used for the upper limit of the OAN ‘range’ in Dartford appears to have been derived from a historic Regional Spatial Strategy policy set by reference to policy-based environmental constraints.  It is hard to reconcile this with the need to avoid OAN assessments being artificially limited by such ‘policy on’ considerations (St Albans City and District Council v (1) Hunston Properties Limited and (2) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWCA Civ 1610).

You only get what you ask for – High Court confirms approach to unauthorised building immunity

In R (Waters) v Breckland District Council [2016] EWHC 951 (Admin) the High Court considered whether a planning authority determining an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness in relation to buildings constructed without permission had to consider the lawfulness of their use.  The agricultural operator applied only in respect of the lawfulness of the operational development not the use, and the Council concluded that the four year period for accrued immunity applied under Section 171B(1) TCPA 1990.

high courtThe claimant agreed that the Council should have taken into account that:

  • the erection of a building resulting in a material change of use of land is subject to a ten year – not a four year-time limit; and
  • that buildings which are an integral part of an unauthorised use may be liable to removal even if the buildings themselves become immune.

The High Court dismissed the claim on the basis that the law in relation to certificates distinguishes between operational development and use – applicants may specify both in any application. When dealing with an application for a certificate in respect of operational development only, planning authorities are therefore not under any duty to consider the use associated with them.  She distinguished cases dealing with enforcement against unauthorised changes of use where it is recognised that an enforcement notice may require buildings to be removed where they are an integral part of the unauthorised use (Murfitt v Secretary of State for the Environmental (1980) 40P&CR254).  It was relevant that the application for the certificate was for operational development only (and that the building/structures were not solely for the purpose of the alleged industrial intensified use relating to the wider lawful use of the site).  The claimants’ application to require the authority to issue enforcement proceedings also failed.

The key points are that:

  • Applications to regularise the status of new buildings should cover both operational development and the relevant use.
  • Where use is an issue, the ten year immunity period will generally apply.
  • Achieving a certificate for buildings does not rule out subsequent enforcement against the use itself (but is subject to the application of the principle of fairness and good governance that may preclude subsequent enforcement action, noted in Welwyn Hatfield BC v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2011] UKSC15).

Neighbourhood watch

signNeighbourhood Planning remains a political priority and is one of the areas for which Planning Policy Guidance has recently been updated.  Following the Woodcock Holdings decision, relating to the Husterpoint and Sayers Common 2031 Neighbourhood Plan, the recommended approach to Neighbourhood Plans emerging before up to date Local Plans are in place has been clarified.

Already clear?

In Sayers Common, the Secretary of State dismissed an appeal despite his Inspector’s recommendation to allow it.  He concluded that the proposal would conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, formally made after the Inspector’s report.  Permission was refused as the proposal would conflict with a requirement to enhance the existing settlement pattern, and was considerably in excess of the 30-40 dwellings the Neighbourhood Plan considered could be accommodated during the plan period.

However, this was quashed when Woodcock Holdings Limited successfully challenged the decision, on the basis that the Secretary of State had failed to identify the nature and extent of the conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, had not applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the PPG guidance (that permission would seldom be refused for a pre-examination draft plan had not been complied with), and that the NPPF policy regarding weight to be afforded to an emerging plan had not been followed. The judgment did conclude that a neighbourhood plan could come forward ahead of a Local Plan, but the legal challenge was allowed on all grounds (see our blog on the detail).

Back to the future

The planning application has been re-determined by the Secretary of State, who again refused permission on the basis that it was not in accordance with the Local Plan or the now-made Neighbourhood Plan, to which he gave “careful consideration”.  He also gave the emerging Local Plan “very limited weight”, and reached the same conclusions regarding conflict with the policies as before.

As discussed previously in relation to the DLA Delivery Limited case, which challenged a Neighbourhood Plan prepared in accordance with an emerging local plan (rather than the existing expired core strategy), there has been debate on the treatment of Neighbourhood Plans which come forward in the absence of an up to date Local Plan.  Recent updates to the Planning Policy Guidance clarifies the Government’s position where a Neighbourhood Plan comes forward in advance of a new Local Plan. The Guidance states that:

  • Neighbourhood Plan policies “may become out of date, for example if they conflict with policies in a Local Plan that is adopted after the making of the neighbourhood plan. In such cases, the more recent plan policy takes precedence“.
  • communities may decide to update all or part of their Neighbourhood Plans where they have become out of date, which will require a fresh examination and referendum, putting a considerable burden on Neighbourhood Plan steering groups.

The best way to avoid this is to ensure that Neighbourhood Plan policies either do not interfere with meeting Objectively Assessed Needs or, more difficult where there is no proper assessment of needs on the table, that any restraint policies are consistent with maintaining a 5 year housing land supply. The PPG update does not suggest that a Neighbourhood Plan that is immediately out of date at adoption – because its policies thwart a 5 year Housing Land Supply – should be given more weight than the policy imperative to maintain housing land supply and meet OAN.

In Woodcock Holdings the relevant parts of the Neighbourhood Plan were held to be inconsistent with the NPPF in this sense and so unlikely to survive either examination or allow a finding of prematurity.  The latest Sayers Common decision does not explain how an out of date set of NP settlement policies could be given overriding importance relative to national policy requirements in that sense.