Planning Review 2009


Published on

Slides from a presentation to planning professionals on a case law review from 2008, a look at community infratructure levy and considering the Killian Pretty Review on improving the planning application process

Published in: Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Planning Review 2009

  1. 1. Review of Case Law from 2008 <ul><li>Graham Gover Solicitor </li></ul>
  2. 2. Curtilage of a dwellinghouse
  3. 3. Curtilage of a dwellinghouse
  4. 4. Curtilage of a dwellinghouse
  5. 5. Curtilage of a dwellinghouse <ul><li>Sumption v LB Greenwich Nov 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Crooms House Grade II Listed </li></ul><ul><li>Certificate of Lawful Use granted for the erection of a 1m high fence 125m long </li></ul><ul><li>Was the wall within the curtilage? </li></ul>
  6. 6. Curtilage of a dwellinghouse <ul><li>It was not ‘around/about’ the House </li></ul><ul><li>It did not serve the House in any way </li></ul><ul><li>It did not appear to be part of the House </li></ul><ul><li>There was no historical association with the House. </li></ul><ul><li>Some minor tidying had been done </li></ul><ul><li>No change of use had been granted </li></ul>
  7. 7. Curtilage of a dwellinghouse <ul><li>“It would … be impossible to contend that once the wall was erected and the garden use confirmed … that it was not within the curtilage … He has access to it and it is now part of the land being enjoyed with [Hillside House]”. </li></ul>
  8. 8. The Old Mill, Wansford
  9. 9. Listed buildings 1 <ul><li>R (East Riding Council) v Hobson April 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Hobson obtained LBC for extension and alteration. </li></ul><ul><li>The block was dismantled and reconstructed </li></ul><ul><li>Prosecuted for works that would affect its character (the ‘demolition’ part, not the rebuilding) and convicted </li></ul>
  10. 10. Listed buildings 1 <ul><li>Conviction was set aside </li></ul><ul><li>Cannot divorce the act of dismantling from the subsequent rebuilding. </li></ul><ul><li>The relevant time to assess impact on character was when the works were complete. The test is a future one </li></ul>
  11. 11. Colekitchen Farm
  12. 12. Listed buildings 2 <ul><li>Chambers v Guildford BC April 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Application for LBC to demolish refused </li></ul><ul><li>No appeal but application for a declaration </li></ul><ul><li>Is there jurisdiction: yes </li></ul><ul><li>Is it exclusive: no </li></ul><ul><li>Which is the preferred option? </li></ul>
  13. 13. Listed buildings 2 <ul><li>The status of ancillary structures is an assessment of mixed law and fact that LPAs and Inspectors determine routinely. </li></ul><ul><li>The preferred option is to use the planning process </li></ul>
  14. 14. The Garden House
  15. 15. The Garden House
  16. 16. Materially larger dwelling <ul><li>R (Heath and Hampstead Society) v Vlachos </li></ul><ul><li>Existing dwelling was within Metropolitan Open Land (= green belt policies) </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed increase: floorspace x 3, volume x 4, footprint x 2.5 </li></ul><ul><li>Lower building, much underground </li></ul><ul><li>Proportionate increase or impact on GB? </li></ul><ul><li>Para 3.6 of PPG2 says it is the % increase </li></ul>
  17. 17. Commencement of development 1 <ul><li>Bedford BC v SSCLG and Murzyn August 08 </li></ul><ul><li>Barn conversion granted subject to two conditions, landscaping and boundary treatments. </li></ul><ul><li>“Before development is commenced” but no stipulation that development must not be commenced until or in accordance with approval. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Commencement of development 1 <ul><li>Hart Aggregates applied </li></ul><ul><li>Some conditions are true conditions precedent. If breached, unlawful development </li></ul><ul><li>Others merely stipulate the date by which approval is to be sought. If breached, BCN or EN for that condition. </li></ul>
  19. 19. Commencement of development 2 <ul><li>R (Brent Council) v SSCLG and Ashia Centur </li></ul><ul><li>Removal of spoil not sufficient </li></ul><ul><li>Adding ‘Permazyme’ to soil to form a bonded layer to form a road amounted to operational development </li></ul><ul><li>Some overlap between the Permazymed strip and the access road on the approved plan </li></ul>
  20. 20. Breach of Condition Notice <ul><li>R (Alpha Plus Group Ltd) v RBKC Nov 07 </li></ul><ul><li>Established use of premises for education </li></ul><ul><li>PP granted 1984 and 1987 for ‘continued use as a nursery school’ with conditions, not to use the outside area… </li></ul><ul><li>No breach of condition as the planning consent was unnecessary and did not extinguish the use rights </li></ul>
  21. 21. Defence to enforcement notice <ul><li>Sevenoaks DC v Harber April 08 </li></ul><ul><li>EN alleged change of use from agriculture to residential caravan park </li></ul><ul><li>Requirement to cease the use of the land, remove the caravans, reinstate the land </li></ul><ul><li>S179(3) defence: “did everything he could be expected to do to secure compliance”. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Defence to enforcement notice <ul><li>Landlocked site served only by narrow track </li></ul><ul><li>Caravan would have to be dismantled </li></ul><ul><li>Test: is the recipient able to comply without the assistance of others? </li></ul><ul><li>Issues of hardship or reasonableness of compliance are immaterial </li></ul>
  23. 23. Honeycrock Farm
  24. 24. Honeycrock Farm
  25. 25. When is a building ‘substantially complete’? <ul><li>“ As a matter of fact and degree, I therefore find that the straw bales were part of the totality of the operations and it was necessary for them to be removed before the point of substantial completion was reached … As this did not happen until July 2006, substantial completion did not occur until that time and this is well within the 4 year period from the date of the service of the notice”. </li></ul>
  26. 26. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) <ul><li>Tim Roberts </li></ul><ul><li>DLP Planning Ltd (Bristol) </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  27. 27. Community Infrastructure Levy <ul><li>What is it? </li></ul><ul><li>How will it work? </li></ul><ul><li>When will it be implemented? </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  28. 28. For ‘Levy’ read: Tax, Duty, Excise, Fee, Tariff or Toll <ul><li>“ It is [also] right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community to help fund the infrastructure.” </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  29. 29. We’ve Been Here Before: <ul><li>The Community Land Act 1975 </li></ul><ul><li>& </li></ul><ul><li>Development Land Tax </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  30. 30. How New is the Community Infrastructure Levy? <ul><li>Planning Obligations/Agreements made under Section 52 and now Section106 of the Planning Acts </li></ul><ul><li>Circular 05/2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Pooled Contributions </li></ul><ul><li>Formulae and Standard Charges </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  31. 31. What’s New? <ul><li>A charge LPAs may levy on new development </li></ul><ul><li>Replace most of the content of Section 106 Agreement </li></ul><ul><li>Based on a simple formula (£s per sq.m) </li></ul><ul><li>Apply to nearly all new development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Exemptions: Householder applications and Permitted Development’) </li></ul></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  32. 32. What are the Advantages of the CIL? <ul><li>“ Will improve predictability and certainty for developers as to what they will be asked to contribute; </li></ul><ul><li>Will increase fairness by broadening the range of developments asked to contribute; </li></ul><ul><li>Will allow the cumulative impact of small developments to be better addressed; and </li></ul><ul><li>Will enable important sub-regional infrastructure to be funded”. </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  33. 33. The Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP: <ul><li>“ Until now developers and Councils have had to negotiate planning agreements for each new project and as a consequence only a minority of developments have contributed to the infrastructure needed to support development.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ The Levy will make the process fairer and faster for all, with almost all developments contributing a fair share.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Of course we recognise that developers are facing challenging short-term market conditions at present. And during these more difficult times, certainty and clarity is absolutely essential.” </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  34. 34. Q: What will it be spent on? A: Infrastructure Only <ul><li>Transport, flood defences, schools and other education facilities, sporting and recreational facilities and open spaces. </li></ul><ul><li>Other possibles: Police stations, community safety facilities and social care facilities. </li></ul><ul><li>Sub Regional infrastructure new hospitals and trunk roads. </li></ul><ul><li>Affordable Housing??? </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  35. 35. Paying the Levy <ul><li>The charges will be mandatory </li></ul><ul><li>Payment will be due 28 days from commencement of development </li></ul><ul><li>Failure to pay on time will result in surcharges. </li></ul><ul><li>Continued non-payment will then result in a new form of Stop Notice, criminal prosecution and even committal to prison, </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  36. 36. Steps Towards Implementation <ul><li>Introduction of the Planning Bill November 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Royal Assent November 2008 (2008 Planning Act) </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction of Detailed Regulations </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation by LPAs following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure Planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultation on Schedule of Charges </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Independent Examination </li></ul></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  37. 37. Implementation by LPAs <ul><li>Infrastructure Planning </li></ul><ul><li>(part of the evidence base necessary to support a ‘sound’ Core Strategy ) </li></ul><ul><li>Drafting a Charging Schedule (with 6 weeks Consultation) </li></ul><ul><li>Independent Examination </li></ul>dynamic development solutions™
  38. 38. Winners and Losers? dynamic development solutions™
  39. 39. Planning Applications: A faster and more responsive system
  40. 40. Terms of reference <ul><li>We were asked to look objectively at the planning application process , to identify how it could be further improved, and in particular to consider ways to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy , making the process swifter and more effective for the benefit of all users. </li></ul>
  41. 41. Key areas of concern <ul><li>Making the process more proportionate </li></ul><ul><li>Making the process more effective </li></ul><ul><li>Improving engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Changing the culture </li></ul><ul><li>Tackling complexity </li></ul><ul><li>Addressed through 17 recommendations </li></ul>
  42. 42. Making the process proportionate <ul><li>Expand PD rights for non-householder development </li></ul><ul><li>Enlarge prior approval scheme </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage local development orders </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce information and validation requirements, e.g. DAS </li></ul>
  43. 43. Making the process proportionate
  44. 44. Making the system more effective <ul><li>Improve pre-application discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage Planning Performance Agreements </li></ul><ul><li>Improve approach to planning conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Better negotiation of s106 obligations </li></ul>
  45. 45. Improving engagement <ul><li>Streamline consultation process with statutory and non–statutory consultees </li></ul><ul><li>The role of councillors: training, consultation, delegation </li></ul><ul><li>Engagement with the public </li></ul>
  46. 46. Achieving changes in culture <ul><li>Improve quality of applications </li></ul><ul><li>Address LPA skill shortages </li></ul><ul><li>Replace timescale based performance targets with a satisfaction indicator </li></ul><ul><li>Higher application fees for LPAs with higher satisfaction rating </li></ul>
  47. 47. Tackling complexity <ul><li>Aimed at Government </li></ul><ul><li>Stop expansion of national policy objectives to be delivered through the planning system </li></ul><ul><li>Avoid duplication with other control systems </li></ul>
  48. 48. <ul><li>“A faster and more responsive system” </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss. </li></ul> Killian Pretty Review