Chaos in the planning system - part 2
In my previous article, I highlighted the confusion which had been caused in planning circles as a result of Eric Pickles letter to all local authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate of the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and, in effect, ignore them when considering future planning applications and appeals.
The resulting confusion was not, however, confined to those considering planning applications and appeals. It extended to developers who did not know what planning principles should be applied (or to which, in some cases, they should pay lip service) when preparing planning applications. They could see the supply of new development land drying up.
When challenged, Eric Pickles contended that an obscure provision in the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act conferred on him the ability to issue his diktat. One developer, Cala Homes, decided to challenge this view. For reasons which will be expanded, they had a lot to lose.
Cala had an interest in a large site in Winchester which they thought could accommodate 2,000 new residential dwellings. All pre-application discussions with the planning officers had been conducted on the basis of the current RSS. However, as a result of the Pickles’ diktat, their application was refused. Cala wanted to appeal against this refusal but could not usefully do so because of the total confusion as to which planning policies the appeal should be argued upon. They decided therefore to challenge the diktat in the courts by means of proceedings for judicial review.
Their argument was twofold. First, they said that Pickles did not have any existing statutory powers to abolish RSS especially as no attempt had been made to put alternative provisions in place. Secondly, they argued that even if the power existed, its exercise should have been preceded by a full environmental assessment.
The High Court agreed with Cala. The court accepted the first argument and indicated that if it had to decide the application on the basis of the second ground, it would have found in Cala’s favour as well.
Eric Pickles did not appear to accept the court’s decision with good grace. He and the Government’s Chief Planning Officer issued a second diktat advising all local authority planning departments to treat the decision to abolish the RSS as a material consideration to be taken into account when determining planning applications. Cala saw this as an attempt to reverse the court’s decision by the back door. Cala therefore went back to the court which endorsed Cala’s view yet again and directed local authorities to disregard the Government’s statement of intent.
For the moment therefore RSS rule. The position will no doubt change when the new Localism Bill becomes law but for the moment, one can only hazard a guess on how the replacement policies will operate.
To speak to someone who can help with your commercial property matters call, email or request a call back from one of our specialist lawyers.
This article contains information of general interest about current legal issues. It does not give legal advice and specific advice should always be sought about your particular circumstances. We will be happy to assist.