tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81707188465074767732024-03-06T20:02:20.119+00:00Martin Goodall's Planning Law BlogThis popular and widely read blog acts as a Legal Commentary on issues affecting Town & Country Planning including recent changes in planning legislation and judicial rulings in planning cases, as well as some thoughts on other issues arising in the course of my work as a Planning Lawyer. It was originally intended mainly for fellow planning professionals, but all are welcome to read it. The views expressed are my own and nobody else’s.Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger706125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-45301942616048276352024-02-13T11:02:00.000+00:002024-02-13T11:02:21.636+00:00Planning & Environment Update 2024 - BOOKING NOW<br/>On Friday of next week, 23 February, I shall be chairing a seminar in London (and online) which will give everyone an opportunity to get up to speed with the new planning and biodiversity regime that has just come into force (from12 February). The importance of this legislation cannot be over-emphasised. It will have a major impact on the way that development is carried out, and the processes that must now be gone through when planning and getting permission for development. <br/><br/>
A whole suite of regulations has now come into force as part of the moves to embed biodiversity into the planning system. From now on, many planning permissions for the development of land in England will be subject to a new general condition requiring approval of a biodiversity net gain plan before development can begin. So planners, developers and their professional advisers need to know what these recent changes mean in practice, so that projects don't fall foul of the increasingly complex and diverse environmental regulations affecting planning decisions. Our expert panel will: <br/><br/>
• bring you up to speed with the new Biodiversity Net Gain regime<br/><br/>
• provide practical tips and guidance on how to make sure your projects are not biodiversity problems<br/><br/>
• update you on the progress of the Environment Act and other policy issues<br/><br/>
As ever there will also be a lively panel session where you can ask your own questions, making it an unmissable event for all developers, their advisers and planners. <br/><br/>
This seminar is being held at One Great George Street, London, SW1P 3AA (or you can, if you prefer, attend online via Zoom). It starts at 10.00 a.m. that morning and will continue until at 1.00 p.m. The fee of £175+ VAT includes a free copy of <i><b>Contamination, Pollution & The Planning Process: A Practitioner's Guide</b></i> and, as a bonus, a free eBook - <b><i>The Environment Act 2021: A Guide for Planners & Developers</b></i> (delivered to your inbox when you book a place). With only 9 days left within which to secure your place, there is no time to lose in getting your booking in. <br/><br/>
We have an excellent panel of speakers who are experts in their field: <br/><br/>
Tom Graham, barrister now acting as a sole practitioner specialising in planning, highway and environmental law. He is also the author of <i>A Practical Guide to Planning, Highways & Development</i>and <i>The Environment Act 2021: A Guide for Planners & Developers</i>.<br/><br/>
Jacqueline Lean, Barrister, Landmark Chambers. <br/><br/>
Alistair Mills, Fellow and College Lecturer in Law at Magdalene College, Cambridge. He is a practising barrister and author of <i>Interpreting the NPPF</i> and co-author of the Fourth Edition of <i>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</i>.<br/><br/>
Dr Nick White, Principal Advisor - Net Gain, Natural England. <br/><br/>
This is the programme in outline: <br/><br/>
09.30 - 10.00 - Registration & Refreshments<br/>
10.00 - 10.10 - Introduction from the Chair - <i>Martin Goodall</i><br/>
10.10 - 10.40 - Environment Act Update - Where are we now? - <i>Jacqueline Lean</i><br/>
10.40 - 11.10 - Planning Policy & the Environment - current thinking - <i>Alistair Mills</I><br/><br/>
11.10 - 11.30 - Refreshments<br/><br/>
11.30 - 12.00 - The new Biodiversity Net Gain regime - <i>Dr Nick White</i><br/>
12.00 - 12.30 - Biodiversity and Planning: practical tips - <i>Tom Graham</i><br/>
12.30 - 13.00 - <i>Panel session</i><br/><br/>
BOOK NOW ON THE BATH PUBLISHING WEBSITE: <i><a href="https://bathpublishing.com/">https://bathpublishing.com/</a> </i><br><br/>
<b>But hurry – You have only a little over a week left to secure your place.</b> <br><br/>
MARTIN H GOODALL<br><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-76214851419421578162023-12-22T20:45:00.002+00:002024-02-02T12:51:35.584+00:00Four-year rule lives on (for now)<br/>After retirement it is unsurprising that I have largely lost interest in planning law and practice but, as I have promised, I will leave the contents of this blog available online, subject to the long-standing health warning that posts and comments in the blog must not be treated as legal advice, and that changes in the law, and in its interpretation by the courts, may well render significant parts of the blog out-of-date. Proper legal advice should always be sought from fully qualified planning professionals.<br/><br/>
Having said all that, I am still curious to see when the four-year rule is actually going to be abolished, so that all planning enforcement will in future be subject to the 10-year rule. As readers will no doubt be aware, the so-called “Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023” received Royal Assent on 26 October just in time before Prorogation later the same day, bringing the last parliamentary session to a close. Section 115 of that Act will amend section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that in England only (but NOT in Wales) the time limit for all breaches of planning control will in future be ten years beginning with the date of the breach. <br/><br/>
However, almost the whole of the Act must await the making of a commencement order (or probably a whole sequence of commencement orders, which are not guaranteed to bring every section of the Act into force). Only one very minor commencement provision has so far been promulgated, relating to a handful of abstruse paragraphs in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. <br/><br/>
So, for the time being, where a planning breach is either operational development or a change of use to a single private dwelling, the clock continues to count down under the 4-year rule following the expiry of which, such breaches will be immune from enforcement and will then become lawful. Some people in this position are no doubt getting very nervous about the chances of their getting past the finishing post before the axe finally falls on the 4-year rule. <br/><br/>
When (or if) the relevant commencement order is made bringing section 115 of the 2023 Act into force (thereby amending section 171B of the 1990 Act) it is by no means certain that it will happen suddenly without any further warning. I would not be surprised if some sort of delayed implementation might be adopted in the wording of the commencement order. (But maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part.) <br/><br/>
In the meantime, try not to bite your fingernails down to the quick in your anxiety over this.<br/><br/>
Merry Christmas!<br/><br/>
<b>UPDATE 2.2.24:</b> The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has finally got around to making a commencement order that brings into force some of the substantive sections of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These are contained in the <i>Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024</i> (SI 2024 No.92), which were made on 25th January 2024. However, section 115 of the Act is not brought into force by any of these regulations. So the 4-year rule continues to live on, at least for the time being.<br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-55372324788231552732023-09-13T11:58:00.001+01:002023-09-14T13:55:59.027+01:00Planning & Environment Update 2023: 2 November 2023 <br />I thought you would like to know about my publisher's latest planning law book and launch seminar to be held in London on 2 November 2023 and which I am pleased to say I will be chairing.<br /><br />
Their <a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/products-planning-environment-update-biodiversity-contamination-pollution" target="_blank">Planning & Environment Update 2023</a> <a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/products-planning-environment-update-biodiversity-contamination-pollution"></a> gathers a panel of specialists, including my fellow authors Tom Graham and Alistair Mills, who will bring you up to speed with:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The latest thinking on the impact of environmental issues on national planning policy</li><li>A review of where we are with the implementation of The Environment Act 2021 and the effect it is having in practice</li><li>The latest on the biodiversity metric, due for an update this year</li><li>Practical guidance on contamination and pollution in your development projects</li></ul>The ongoing, piecemeal implementation of the Environment Act and the twists and turns of Government policy make this a must-attend event for all planners, developers or their advisors.<br /><br />
Attendance at the seminar also includes a free copy of Tom's latest book: <a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/contamination-pollution-the-planning-process" target="_blank">Contamination, Pollution & The Planning Process</a><a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/contamination-pollution-the-planning-process"></a>, due to be published in October.<br /><br />
Full details of the programme, speakers and prices are <a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/products-planning-environment-update-biodiversity-contamination-pollution" target="_blank">on the Bath Publishing website</a> <a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/products-planning-environment-update-biodiversity-contamination-pollution"></a> where you can also book your place online. Or you can contact them by email via <a href="mailto:info@bathpublishing.co.uk">info@bathpublishing.co.uk</a> <a href="info@bathpublishing.co.uk"></a> or call them on 01225 577810.<br /><br />
I look forward to seeing you there.<br /><br />
MARTIN H GOODALL
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-78254335021102501162023-03-11T16:45:00.000+00:002023-03-11T16:45:32.102+00:00March book offer – 20% off!<br/>Bath Publishing are offering a 20% discount during March on all <i><b>planning law books</b></i> in their catalogue. So if you have been thinking about buying one or more of the titles among these very useful practical guides, maybe this offer will persuade you that now is the time to place an order. <br/><br/>
You don’t need to quote a code when ordering. This offer is open to anyone who visits the Bath Publishing website and buys any of these planning law titles during the month of March. You won’t have to request the 20% discount when placing your order – this will be applied automatically on all orders when you visit the Bath Publishing website this month: <br/><br/>
<a href="https://bathpublishing.com/collections/our-books">https://bathpublishing.com/collections/our-books</a><br/><br/>
So hurry! There is now less than three weeks left within which you can benefit from this generous offer. <br/><br/>
[<i> Please note: This is not an advertisement but, as one of Bath Publishing’s authors, I am pleased to pass on to readers of this blog news of their current offer.</i>]<br/><br/>
MARTN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-43301858987002683422023-02-27T15:13:00.003+00:002023-03-11T17:01:32.092+00:00Levelling-up Bill in the Lords<br/>I wrote a rather dismissive note last year on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. My views on the Bill as a whole have not changed. It is a dog’s dinner of miscellaneous ideas, many of which are simply not going to work. But Part 3 of the Bill does make various changes to planning law, and some of these will certainly be of concern to planning professionals. The Bill has currently reached its Committee Stage in the House of Lords. <br/><br/>
In this Part of the Bill, Chapter 1 (currently Clauses 78 to 84) regulates the collection, processing and publication of various planning data, Chapter 2 (currently Clauses 85 to 94) amends various provisions relating to plan making, Chapter 3 (currently Clauses 95 to 98) makes amendments to the provisions for the protection of various ‘heritage assets’, Chapter 4 (currently Clauses 99 to 106) makes further provision as to the grant and implementation of planning permission, Chapter 5 (currently Clauses 107 to 113) amends the rules and procedures regarding Enforcement, and Chapter 6 (currently Clauses 114 to 123) contains miscellaneous other provisions. In this note, I shall confine myself to Chapters 3, 4 and 5, with a brief look at one or two of the clauses in Chapter 6. <br/><br/>
<b>Special regard to more heritage assets</b><br/><br/>
So, starting with a brief look at ‘Heritage’, a new Section (58B) will be inserted in the principal Act (T&CPA1990). This extends the duty imposed by section 66 of the Listed Buildings Act, which relates solely to listed buildings to certain other heritage assets. When considering a possible grant of planning permission, the decision maker will now also be required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the following specified assets or their setting – a scheduled monument, registered garden, protected wreck, or World Heritage Site. The section refers to the particular aspects of these heritage assets that make them significant (by reference to the relevant legislation in each case that gives that type of asset statutory protection). <br/><br/>
<b>Temporary Stop Notices for works to Listed Buildings</b><br/><br/>
It has long been a serious concern to conservationists that there has up to now been no power for LPAs to prevent or halt, on an interim basis, unauthorised works to a Listed Building, other than by applying to the Courts for an injunction – a cumbersome and expensive procedure. A new section (44AA) will now enable an LPA, as an alternative, to issue a Temporary Stop Notice. Failure to comply with a TSN will be an offence under section 44AB. Section 44AC will provide for the payment of compensation in respect of a TSN, but compensation may be claimed only if there has in fact been no breach of section 9 (i.e. LBC was not required, because the works will not materially affect the character of the listed building as such) or if the TSN is withdrawn. These provisions will, perhaps rather belatedly, bring the law in England into line with law in this regard as it already exists in Wales. <br/><br/>
<b>Street vote development orders</b><br/><br/>
Turning to Chapter 4, we come to the rather weird provisions (to be set out in Sections 61QA to 61QM of the 1990 Act) for “Street vote development orders”. I suspect that no more use will be made of these in practice than has previously been made of “Permission in Principle”. I simply refuse to take any interest in this daft idea. <br/><br/>
<b>Minor variations to planning permissions</b><br/><br/>
Clause 102 has another go at trying to make provision for minor variations in planning provision. This will take the form of a new section 73B in the 1990 Act. It will allow the variation of a planning permission (other than one that was granted under sections 73 or 73A). It applies only to permissions granted under Part III of the 1990 Act, but not to a permission granted by any form of development order (although I am mystified as to what sub-section (3) is supposed to mean). A development order will be required in order to sort out the procedure that is to be followed in these cases, but this does seem to be an improvement on the very restricted scope for minor variations up to now. <br/><br/>
Planning permission may be granted in accordance with this section only if the LPA is satisfied that its effect will not be substantially different from that of the existing permission. Section 73B cannot be used to vary a commencement condition or the time limit for an application for approval of reserved matters. In dealing with a section 73B application, the LPA will not be able to revisit the principle of granting permission for the development; their consideration must be confined to those respects in which the permission being applied for would, if granted, differ in effect from the existing permission. The requirement in section 70(2) to have regard, among other things, to the Development Plan, must be read subjection to section 73B(7), so its application will necessarily be limited in this context. However, no similar limitation is imposed with regard to section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, and this is an omission which should perhaps be repaired before the Bill completes its passage through parliament. <br/><br/>
<b>Commencement notices</b><br/><br/>
I confess that I do not understand the new section 93G (introduced by Clause 103). It will introduce a requirement for commencement notices, and the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill imply that it is intended to apply to most development. What puzzles me, however, is the reference in this Clause to development “<i>of a prescribed description</i>”. I have been unable to find any definition of this phrase. Sub-section (4) provides that a commencement notice must include such information <i>as may be prescribed</i>, and be in such form and be given in such manner <i>as may be prescribed</i>. It seems, therefore, that we shall have to await relevant subordinate legislation before the way this section will work becomes clear. <br/><br/>
<b>Completion Notices</b><br/><br/>
Clause 104 inserts new sections 93H to 93J in the 1990 Act. These are detailed provisions as to Completion Notices which, in England, will replace sections 94 to 96. In future, the provisions in sections 94 to 96 will apply only in Wales. I haven’t had time to compare the new provisions with those that they will now be replacing, but the most significant change would appear to be the removal of the current requirement that a Completion Notice must be confirmed by the Secretary of State before it can take effect. <br/><br/>
<b>More grounds for ignoring planning applications</b><br/><br/>
Clause 105 introduces new section 70D in the 1990 Act, giving LPAs yet another excuse for declining to entertain a planning application. This enables an LPA to avoid determining a planning application where the developer had a previous planning permission that they failed to implement or where having implemented it, they have not got on with the development. Again, these provisions refer to “<i>development of a prescribed description</i> and to the requirement to provide information “<i>of a prescribed description</i>. So here too we shall have to await subordinate legislation to understand precisely what is intended. <br/><br/>
<b>Development Progress Reports</b><br/><br/>
Clause 106 introduces new section 90B in the 1990 Act, providing that where <i>relevant planning permission</i> is granted for </i>relevant residential development</i> in England, such a planning permission <i>must</i> have a condition attached to it requiring that regular development progress reports are to be provided to the LPA. At least in this case sub-section (10) defines “relevant planning permission” (and excludes from this definition permissions granted by the GPDO or other development order, a permission under section 73A, a temporary permission, and permissions granted in an Enterprise Zone or Simplified Planning Zone). “<i>Relevant residential development”</i> is development which involves the creation of one or more dwellings, and “<i> is of a prescribed description</i>”, so here again we shall have to wait for subordinate legislation, which will also include regulations about the form and content of development progress reports, and various other details, in order to assess how the new provisions will work in practice. <br/><br/>
<b>4-year rule to be abolished</b><br/><br/>
Turning now to Chapter 5, which deals with Enforcement, a radical change will be brought about by Clause 107, which amends section 171B (but only in England) so that a single 10-year rule will apply to <i>all</i> forms of unauthorised development. I have argued in the past for a single limitation period beyond which all such development would become immune from enforcement and therefore lawful, in order to put an end to the fraught arguments and confusion as to which of the 4-year or 10-year rule applies in a particular case. But I had in mind a compromise between the 4-year rule and the 10-year rule. (I suggested 6 years.) <br/><br/>
I wonder what Lord Carnwath will have to say about this in the House of Lords. In his celebrated report in 1989, which proposed the comprehensive reform of the planning enforcement system that was enacted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, he proposed the 4-year and 10-year rules as a sensible compromise which recognised that enforcement against an unauthorised change of use to use as a single private dwelling could deprive someone of their home. I do not recall the reasoning behind the application of a 4-year rule in respect of operational development, but presumably it was felt that the LPA ought to be able to identify such physical development rather sooner than some other breaches of planning control. Bearing in mind the reason for the introduction of a 4-year rule in respect of a change of use to use as single dwelling, I would still argue in favour of a 6-year rule for all breaches of planning control, rather than the blanket application of the 10-year rule. <br/><br/>
<b>Temporary Stop Notices</b><br/><br/>
Up to now, section 171E(7) of the 1990 Act has provided that a temporary stop notice ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days from the date when a copy of the notice was first displayed on site (unless a shorter period is specified in the notice), or if it is withdrawn by the LPA. Clause 108 will amend section 171E(7)(a) to make that period 56 days in England (but it will remain 28 days in Wales). This will give an LPA more time within which to investigate a breach of planning control before taking further enforcement action. <br/><br/>
<b>Enforcement Warning Notices</b><br/><br/>
Another innovation is introduced by Clause 109. This is an Enforcement Warning Notice, which will be governed by the provisions of new section 172ZA in the 1990 Act. In this case, where an LPA identifies an apparent breach of planning control, they will now have the option of serving an Enforcement Warning Notice where there is a reasonable prospect that, if an application for planning permission in respect of the development concerned were made, planning permission would be granted. The notice must state the matters that appear to the authority to constitute the breach of planning control, and state that, unless an application for planning permission is made within a period specified in the notice, further enforcement action may be taken. A copy of the notice must be served on the owner and the occupier of the land to which it relates, and on any other person having an interest in the land (if it is an interest that, in the opinion of the authority, would be materially affected by the taking of any further enforcement action). However, the issue of an enforcement warning notice does not affect any other power exercisable in respect of any breach of planning control. <br/><br/>
So this provision will encourage the LPA to invite a planning application and will encourage the developer to regularise the position by obtaining planning permission rather than risking enforcement action. However, this procedure will only be of practical use where there is a reasonable chance that planning permission will be granted. I recall clear ministerial advice some years ago that where the development in question causes no significant harm in planning terms, LPAs should not insist on a planning application being made simply in order to ‘regularise’ the position, and should not threaten enforcement action in these circumstances. The LPA is in any event under a statutory duty under section 172 to consider the ‘expediency’ of serving an enforcement notice. So I am inclined to doubt the practical value of this new provision. <br/><br/>
<b>Restriction on Ground (a) appeals</b><br/><br/>
Clause 110 seeks to restrict appeals against enforcement notices under section 174, where the appellant relies on Ground (a) (that planning permission ought to be granted) if there is also a connected planning application that was under consideration when the enforcement notice was issued. These provisions are too complex to summarise here, and I am at a loss to understand precisely what purpose this provision is intended to serve. The amendment to section 174 may not in fact have the effect intended, as there is also an automatic ‘deemed planning application’ under section 177 (provided that an appeal fee is paid) on which the appellant is entitled to rely in any event. <br/><br/>
<b>Appeal delays caused by appellants</b><br/><br/>
Clause 111 attempts to address the problem of undue delays in appeals. This will introduce additional sub-sections in both section 176 and section 195. If at any time before the determination of an appeal against an enforcement notice issued by an LPA in England it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, the Secretary of State may give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified for the expedition of the appeal, and if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, the appeal may be dismissed. <br/><br/>
<b>Higher fines for breaches of condition</b><br/><br/>
Clause 112 adjusts the maximum fine for failure to comply with a BCN under section 187A, or a to comply with a section 215 notice (for the maintenance of land). In both cases the penalty in England will now be an unlimited fine. The fine for a further offence under section 216 <i>for each day</i> following his first conviction on which any of the requirements of the notice remain unfulfilled will be one-tenth of the greater of £5000, or of level 4 on the standard scale. <br/><br/>
<b>Relief from enforcement of planning conditions</b><br/><br/>
Clause 113 inserts new section 196D in the 1990 Act. This is designed to provide relief from the enforcement of planning conditions. This will be dependent on the introduction of regulations (yet more subordinate legislation!) enabling the Secretary of State to lay down the rules under which such relief will operate. In the absence of any indication of what exactly is intended, the purpose of this provision is a complete mystery, but the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill seem to imply that it relates to the operation of Heavy Goods Vehicles. We shall just have and see (if or when the promised regulations emerge). <br/><br/>
Finally, I’ll mention briefly one or two of the miscellaneous provisions introduced by Chapter 6. <br/><br/>
<b>Pre-application consultations</b><br/><br/>
Clause 114 will make permanent the requirement for certain pre-application consultations (currently set out in sections 61W to 61Y of the 1990 Act). These powers have been used to require pre-application consultation on proposals for on-shore wind turbines. I don’t know off-hand whether any other types of development have been specified by the DMPO or any other development order. <br/><br/>
<b>Form and content of planning applications</b><br/><br/>
Clause 116 will insert new section 327ZA in the 1990 Act to provide greater control over the form and manner of planning applications and their associated documents. It will enable the Secretary of State to introduce subordinate legislation to require or allow planning applications to be made and associated documents to be provided online. One interesting aspect of this is that it will include a power to require the application or associated documents to be prepared or endorsed by a person with particular qualifications or experience. Could this be the end of planning applications being submitted by unqualified ‘planning advisers’? Matching changes are proposed to various other Acts (such as the Listed Buildings Act and the Hazardous Substances Act) in respect of applications submitted under those Acts. <br/><br/>
<b>Modification or discharge of Planning Obligations under Section 106</b> <br/><br/>
Clause 117 will introduce additional powers in relation to planning obligations. It will enable regulations to provide for requirements which must be met in order for a section 106 planning obligation to be modified or discharged under section 106A, and for circumstances in which section 106 planning obligations may not be modified or discharged. <br/><br/>
<b>Widened ministerial powers</b><br/><br/>
Finally, technical changes to legislative procedure are introduced by Clauses 122 and 123. These appear to give wide power to the Secretary of State to amend and consolidate planning legislation by subordinate legislation. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill seek to justify Clause 122 by asserting that it is merely concerned with providing express powers to make ancillary provision when exercising powers to make statutory instruments under the Planning Acts. The current general powers to make statutory instruments (as Regulations or Orders) under those Acts do not expressly refer to making ancillary provision. These amendments, it is claimed, would correct that omission. It is usual/standard practice to expressly provide for ancillary provision to be made when exercising powers to make statutory instruments. This provision is intended to avoid the need to rely on implied powers. The legislative aim of this amendment is to make the legal position clear and express. The amendments, it is claimed, do not affect the Parliamentary process which applies whenever the statutory instrument powers are exercised. <br/><br/>
Clause 123 seems to be potentially even wider in its effect. It will enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the law relating to planning, development and compulsory purchase in connection with the consolidation of some, or all, of that law. It will provide the Secretary of State with the power to amend and modify relevant enactments by regulations in support of their future consolidation, including the ability to repeal and revoke enactments. Hmmm; that sounds worryingly wide to me. <br/><br/>
There are, of course, other provisions that I have not covered in this note, but those summarised above seem to me to be the most important ones. In practice, they represent yet more tinkering with the planning system without tackling the major issues that the 2020 White Paper sought to address, and which the government had been expected to introduce in its intended, but now abandoned, Planning Bill. The sad fact is that the government’s back-benchers, worried about defending their seats, particularly in the well-heeled South of England, were not prepared to vote for such radical changes and the resulting development that would have followed. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-16067190953982675102023-01-30T11:10:00.000+00:002023-01-30T11:10:39.349+00:00When is a dwellinghouse a “dwellinghouse”?<br/>Readers of this blog (if there are any left after my blog posts have become so few and far between) are no doubt well aware that [<i>for the purposes of the UCO</i>] Use Class C3 in the First Schedule to the Use Classes Order applies to the use of a “dwellinghouse” (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by a person or people forming a single household, as a care home for not more than six residents, or by no more than six residents living together as a single household (other than within Class C4), and that Use Class C4 applies [again <i> for the purposes of the UCO</i>] to the use of a “dwellinghouse” by not more than six residents as a “house in multiple occupation”. <br/><br/>
It is important to understand that the sole function of each of the Use Classes in the UCO is to identify a specific use of a building or other land, so as to give effect to Article 3(1A) (repeating the effect of section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act) which provides that where a building or other land is situated in England and is used for a purpose of any class specified in Part B or C of Schedule 1 or in Schedule 2, the use of that building or that other land, or if specified, the use of part of that building or the other land (“part use”), <i>for any other purpose of the same class</i> is not to be taken to involve development of the land. But the Use Classes in the UCO do not define the use of that building or other land for any other interpretative purpose. <br/><br/>
As explained by <i>paragraph 13.2</i> of <i>Chapter 13</i> in <i>The Essential Guide to the Use of Land and Buildings under the Planning Acts</i>, the word “dwellinghouse” itself is not defined as such in the UCO or in the 1990 Act. However, paragraphs 24 to 26 of former Circular 05/2010 contained a helpful summary of the relevant criteria. The common feature of all premises which can generally be described as dwellinghouses is that they are buildings that ordinarily afford the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence. (This was a reference to the judgment in <i>Gravesham BC v SSE</i> (1984) 47 p. & C.R. 142.) It follows from this that an individual bed-sitting room in an HMO would not come within the definition of a “dwellinghouse”, because it does not in itself satisfy the <i>Gravesham</i> test, if the occupants have to share some communal facilities within the building such as a kitchen, bathroom or lavatory. <br/><br/>
I went on in that paragraph to make the easy and widely held assumption that it would also be the case that such a building, not being in single occupation, would also fail to meet the <i>Gravesham</i> test. In this it appears that I may have been mistaken. My colleague David Evans has kindly drawn my attention to a High Court judgment in which this point was considered last July - <i><b>Brent LBC v SSLUHC and Rothchild</b></i> [2022] EWHC 2051 (Admin) <br/><br/>
This case arose from the erection of an extension to an HMO which the developer claimed was permitted development under Class A in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO. The LPA contended that this could not be PD, as the building was not occupied as a single dwelling. They served an enforcement notice, but a Planning Inspector upheld the developer’s appeal against the EN and quashed the notice. The LPA then appealed to the High Court under section 289 seeking to overturn that appeal decision. The Secretary of State was prepared to consent to judgment, but the developer fought on, and won. <br/><br/>
In giving judgment, the Deputy Judge pointed out that, on the face of it, the LPA’s submission that it is necessary to consider whether a dwellinghouse in C4 use is occupied by or in a manner akin to a single household before it can be said to be a dwellinghouse for the purposes of the GPDO is flatly inconsistent with the language of Use Class C4 itself. Use Class C4 applies only to the use of <i>a dwellinghouse</i> by not more than six residents as an HMO. If the building in question is not a dwellinghouse at all, it will not fall within Use Class C4 in the first place. Equally, if a building is accepted to be in Use Class C4, it must by definition be a dwellinghouse. The Deputy Judge did not accept that the term "dwellinghouse" had been used in a different sense in Use Class C4 to that in which it had been used in the GPDO, unless there were express words to that effect or authority compelling such a conclusion. Barring the exclusion of flats and any building containing flats from the definition of "dwellinghouse" in the GPDO [in this context specifically in Part 1 of the Second Schedule], there is none. <br/><br/>
A second argument put forward by the LPA depended on the judgment in <i> Moore v. SSCLG </i> [2012] EWCA Civ 1202, on which I commented in this blog on 27 October 2012. However, that case did not establish that to be a dwellinghouse, the building had to be in single family occupation; it simply upheld the Inspector’s finding in that case that ‘as a matter of fact and degree’ the dwellinghouse was no longer being used for a purpose within Use Class C3 but that the nature of its use had turned it into a <i>sui generis</i> use. This was a material change of use that required (but did not have) planning permission. [However, the building in that case did not thereby cease to be a “dwellinghouse” in the general sense, as it still met the <i>Gravesham</i> test.] <i>Moore</i> (2012) was therefore of no assistance to the LPA in the present case. The LPA’s argument that the HMO must be occupied in a manner akin to a single household if it is to remain a "dwellinghouse" was a proposition which the Deputy Judge found difficult to reconcile with the very concept of an HMO as defined in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004. This argument incorrectly sought to import a requirement which belongs only in Use Class C3, and cannot properly be derived from <i>Moore</i> 2012. <br/><br/>
Looking at this judgment in <i>Brent LBC v SSLUHC</i>, it seems clear that the finding that a building satisfies the <i>Gravesham</i> test and is therefore a “dwellinghouse” in the general sense of the word must necessarily be a matter of fact and degree, which lies solely within the jurisdiction of the decision-maker (in this case the Inspector). However, I still have slight doubts as to whether an HMO would necessarily meet the <i>Gravesham</i> test; it would seem to depend on the facts of each case. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the reference in Use Class C4 to the use of “<i>a dwellinghouse</i>……. as a house in multiple occupation”, on which the Deputy Judge specifically commented. <br/><br/>
It appears that in this case, the dwellinghouse, as extended, will accommodate no more than six persons and so would come within the parameters of Use Class C4. So it would appear that there is no breach of planning control against which the LPA could take any enforcement action in this case. The position would be different, however, where an HMO already accommodated six residents, and the extension then expanded the dwellinghouse to accommodate a total of eight residents. The erection of the extension itself as PD under Part 1 would appear still to be unassailable, but there would then be a material change of use of the building as a whole from a use within Class C4 to a <i>sui generis</i> use, which would be vulnerable to enforcement action. As none of the bed-sits would be a self-contained dwelling, the 10-year rule would apply, rather than the 4-year rule. As the local housing authority, the council might also consider its powers in relation to the regulation of HMOs under the housing legislation. <br/><br/>
As a final thought, Brent LBC (and no doubt other London Boroughs) are constantly on the look-out to prevent the development of "beds in sheds" , and quite rightly so. I don't think the case referred to above provides a loophole for any such development. Whilst the provison of outbuildings is capable of being PD under Class E of Part 1, this would only be PD if it is "required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such". It is well-settled law that the provison of additional sleeping accommodation would be part of the <i>primary</i> residntial use and would not therefore qualify as an incidental purpose within Class E.<br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-33395450220005631272022-10-25T19:19:00.002+01:002022-11-03T08:35:30.117+00:00Musical Chairs, anyone?<br/>When we were small children, Musical Chairs was a favourite party game. It seems that it is still popular with Tory prime ministers. This week’s Secretary of State for Levelling Up, etc. is Michael Gove again. He previously held the post from 15 September 2021 to 6 July 2022 in Bojo the Clown’s government. Unlike other ministers who resigned in the dying days of Bojo’s government, Gove was sacked, apparently in belated revenge for having stymied Bojo’s original ambition to be PM in 2016. <br/><br/>
In reality, not a lot has changed as a result of Rishi Sunak’s having taken over the reins of government. Sunak cannot claim, any more than Truss before him, that his is a ‘new’ government. These are the same tired crew who served under both Johnson and Truss. Sunak himself served continuously under both May and Johnson, having first been appointed as a junior minister in the newly re-named Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in January 2018, during Theresa May’s premiership, then as a senior member of the Treasury team in Bojo’s government from July 2019 until his resignation as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Chief Clown’s government fell apart in July of this year. <br/><br/>
I have deliberately refrained from commenting on emerging planning policy in recent months, because the situation was so fluid that was impossible to tell which parts (if any) of various planning changes that had been canvassed would be implemented in practice. At the moment, there is continuing uncertainty. Sunak is keen on promoting ‘free ports’ - a wizard way to facilitate money laundering and tax avoidance in those areas, as well as diverting existing jobs and investment from other areas. Truss was all set to promote ‘investment zones’ (effectively free ports on steroids), although it was being hinted that Jeremy Hunt, as Chancellor, was concerned at the cost of these, when he is desperate to find savings in government spending. So enterprise zones may prove to be still-born, although Sunak may still want to press ahead with his free ports project. <br/><br/>
Other aspects of planning and development policy are still up in the air, and will depend on efforts to resolve the fundamental differences within the Tory party as to how much new development would be acceptable, particularly in the South of England. This is what prevented the implementation of the previous White Paper and led to the demise of the promised Planning Bill during Bojo’s time at No.10. So watch this space over the coming months to see what (if anything) actually comes forward, and whether significant resistance on the Tory backbenches might still defeat such proposals. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL <br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-47620550253783207742022-10-04T12:43:00.003+01:002022-10-06T16:00:48.854+01:00The Environment Act: A Guide for Planners & Developers<br/>Readers of this blog may recall that Bath Publishing held a seminar on this subject in London (and online) last November. This had been intended to launch Tom Graham’s new book on the subject. The government, however, completely messed up the plans for publication of the book by considerably delaying the final stages of the Bill, with numerous last-minute changes to the legislation, so that Tom Graham had to do an extensive re-write (every legal author’s nightmare). Now at last this vital legal guide to the important new rules on environmental protection and bio-diversity can be published, and I am confident that it will serve as an essential guide for developers and for all planning professionals. <br/><br/>
The Environment Act 2021 eventually gained Royal Assent on 9 November last year, and created a new governance framework regulating how the nation manages biodiversity, water resources and air pollution, and introducing conservation covenant agreements as an option for developers. <br/><br/>
This new regime leans heavily on the planning system, with environmental considerations becoming a key factor in planning and development decision making. Everyone involved in considering or advising on new developments needs to know how the new regime could impact on those plans. In particular, the provisions around biodiversity net gain are set to kick in this November so it is essential that planners, developers and their professional advisers take these new requirements into account now. <br/><br/>
So join us to get up to speed in this seminar where Tom Graham, author of <b><i>The Environment Act: A Guide for Planners & Developers</i></b>, will be joined by a team of experts in planning law and environmental management to examine some of the key issues surrounding how the environmental considerations will impact on the planning process including: <br/><br/>
• a look at the wider policy considerations, <br/>
• an update on the biodiversity metric, <br/>
• the impact of climate change on planning decisions<br/>
• an overview of the practical considerations for planning applications in the light of the new law. <br/><br/>
All delegates will receive the print and digital editions of <b><i>The Environment Act: A Guide for Planners & Developers</i></b> free (worth £60) which makes for a comprehensive package of resources to get you up to speed with the new regime. <br/><br/>
<b>Who should attend?</b> <br/><br/>
• Planning consultants<br/>
• Planning and environmental lawyers<br/>
• Property developers<br/>
• Environmental consultants<br/>
• Local authority planning officers<br/><br/>
<b>Programme</b> <br/><br/>
09.30 - 10.00: Registration and refreshments <br/>
10.00 - 10.10: Introduction from the Chair (Martin Goodall) <br/>
10.10 - 10.40: The Environment Act and National Planning Policy - Alistair Mills<br/>
10.40 - 11.10: Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - an update on what's coming - Dr Nick White<br/>
11.10 - 11.30: Refreshments <br/>
11.30 - 12.00: Climate change & Planning (speaker to be confirmed) <br/>
12.00 - 12.30: The Environment Act 2021 - Practical Considerations for Planning and Development - Tom Graham <br/>
12.30 - 13.00: Q & A / Round up from Chair <br/><br/>
<b>Speakers include: </b> <br/><br/>
• Chair: Martin Goodall, author of <b><i>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</i></b> and <b><i>The Essential Guide to the Use of Land and Buildings</i></b><br/>
• Alistair Mills, barrister, author of <b><i>Interpreting the NPPF</i></b> and co-author of the Fourth Edition of <b><i>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</i></b><br/>
• Dr Nick White, Natural England<br/>
• Tom Graham, barrister, author of <b><i>The Environment Act: A Guide for Planners & Developers</i></b> and <b><i>A Practical Guide to Planning, Highways and Development</i></b><br/><br/>
<b>Date & Venue</b> <br/><br/>
Date: Thursday 3 November 2022 (from 10.00 - 13.00), <br/>
<b><i>In-person</i></b> <br/>
One Great George Street <br/>
London <br/>
SW1P 3AA <br/>
<b><i>Online</i></b><br/>
Via Zoom <br/><br/>
<b>Price: </b> £150+ VAT - includes print and digital editions of <b><i>The Environment Act: A Guide for Planners & Developers worth £6</i></b>0 <br/><br/>
If you attended last year’s seminar, don’t assume that this is just a re-run of that event. Things have moved on considerably since then, and there is yet more material with which everyone is going to have to get to grips. This book and the seminar will ensure that you can “hit the ground running” (but a lot more successfully than someone else who used that phrase in the recent past!). <br/><br/>
I look forward to seeing you there on 3 November, if not in person then online. <br/><br/>
<b>P.S. TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU TO BOOK FOR THE SEMINAR AND ORDER TOM GRAHAM'S BOOK, I HAVE NOW ADDED A LINK IN THE LEFT-HAND MARGIN ON THIS PAGE SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE YOUR BOOKING DIRECT FROM HERE WITH JUST ONE CLICK.</b><br/><br/>
MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-51676696842080491502022-09-07T08:44:00.000+01:002022-09-07T08:44:38.504+01:00All Trussed-up and ‘oven-ready’<br/>The Tory Party may well be in for a roasting under Truss and her Truss-pots, but there’s no point in speculating how it’s all going to turn out. Judging by her various pronouncements at sundry Tory leadership hustings, our new PM seems to have been modelling herself not so much on the Blessed Margaret as on Lewis Carroll’s White Queen, who “believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”. But we should perhaps pay less attention to what politicians say, and concentrate more closely on what they actually do (or don’t do). <br/><br/>
Truss’s first actions as PM have been to appoint the members of her cabinet. Far from being an ‘inclusive’ selection from all parts of her party, it represents an almost complete exclusion of those former ministers who supported Sunak’s leadership bid. More significantly, the new cabinet includes many of ‘the usual suspects’. Truss can hardly claim that this is a ‘new’ government. These are the warmed-over remnants of Johnson’s tired crew. Truss herself has served continuously as a senior minister under all three of her Tory predecessors as PM. She cannot escape collective responsibility for the actions of those governments, from George Osborne’s disastrous austerity drive, through the whole ghastly saga of Brexit and its aftermath, and the mis-steps in dealing with the covid virus pandemic, including the scandals surrounding the improper award of lucrative contracts to Tory cronies. She was one of the nodding donkeys around the cabinet table throughout the entire Whitehall farce. <br/><br/>
And so we come to the new <i>Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities</i> (a name which does not seem to have been changed, despite Ms Truss having made no mention of “levelling up” in her recent pronouncements). As I predicted only two months ago, Greg Clark’s tenure of this office was destined to be unusually brief. His successor is Simon Clarke, who is the MP for Middlesborough South and East Cleveland. He had previously spent some 18 months in the department, having been a Minister of State (for Regional Growth and Local Government) in what was then ‘De-CLoG’ from 13 February 2020 to 15 September 2021. Clarke has only been in the Commons since 2017, when he won the seat from Labour with a small majority. His majority in 2019 was significantly greater, but this remains a ‘red wall’ seat, which must be at some risk in the next General Election. <br/><br/>
New junior ministers in the Ministry will no doubt be appointed in the next day or two. <br/><br/>
As to what planning policies the Truss government will pursue, your guess is as good as mine. As I indicated at the beginning of this post, we can’t place much reliance on politicians’ random statements on the subject up to now. We shall just have to wait and see what emerges in practice. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-25129873412228450972022-07-07T12:43:00.002+01:002022-07-07T12:43:48.420+01:00Greg Clark appointed new Housing Secretary<br/>Greg Clark is Michael Gove’s replacement at DLUHC. He is MP for Tunbridge Wells. <br/><br/>
Clark was a junior minister in DeCLoG (the predecessor to DLUHC) from 2010 to 2012, and later went back to DeCLoG as Secretary of State in 2015. He was the Secretary of State between the 2015 General Election and the appointment of Theresa May as PM in 2016, when he was moved to the post of Business Secretary, serving in that office under Theresa May from 2016 to 2019. <br/><br/>
Following the replacement of Theresa May as PM by Boris Johnson in July 2019, Clark (who was opposed to a ‘No Deal’ Brexit) voted against the EU Withdrawal Bill, whereupon Boris Johnson withdrew the Tory whip from him and other Tory rebels. (The whip was restored in the following month.) He is regarded as a Tory moderate. <br/><br/>
So, rather unusually, his new department is one that is familiar to the new Secretary of State. (Complete inexperience in and ignorance of the subject with which the new minister will be dealing is more usual!)<br/><br/>
Politics is still in a state of some flux, and it is uncertain how long Clark will serve in his new post. This will depend on how long Boris Johnson continues as PM. All ministerial posts will be at the disposal of a new PM when he or she takes over from Johnson.<br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-26807450319630232402022-07-06T22:22:00.001+01:002022-07-07T10:32:14.068+01:00Gove out!<br/>The Department for ‘Levelling Up’, Housing and Communities has lost its Secretary of State this evening. Unlike other ministers who have left the government in the past few days, Gove was sacked. At the time of writing (10 p.m. on 6 July), the PM’s reason for this sacking has not yet been made public. <br/><br/>
A new Secretary of State will no doubt be appointed in the next day or two (provided that the besieged Chief Clown can find one). It is too early to say what effect this will have on the so-called Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. This may well depend on the fate of Bojo the Clown. Tonight he is fighting like mad to face down his critics, but if he does not resign in the next day or two, his hash may be settled by Tory MPs next week. <br/><br/>
The new Secretary of State (if/when appointed), like other newly appointed ministers, may have a very short term in office. <br/><br/>
Watch this space! <br/><br/>
UPDATE (7.7.22): News came through just ater 9 a.m. this morning that Johnson has bowed to the inevitable and will step down as Chief Clown and leave the circus. However, there is coninuing controversy this morning over whether he should continue as Prime Minister pending the election of his successor as leader of the Tory Party, or whether he should be replaced now by a caretaker PM. This leaves considerable uncertainty over the refilling of nearly 60 ministerial posts that have been vacated in the past 48 hours. Even greater uncertainty centres on the position of Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communiites, bearing mind that Gove was the only cabinet member who has been sacked, as opposed to resigning. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL <br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-6238474643257857592022-07-05T15:12:00.000+01:002022-07-05T15:12:01.720+01:00Brexit wrecks it<br/>My last piece in this blog about Brexit appeared on “Black Friday” (31 January 2020) - the day on which the UK formally ceased to be a member state of the European Union. Re-reading it almost 2½ years later, I have not found any need to alter a single word of what I wrote in that piece. <br/><br/>
For a year or two, the government hid behind the covid virus pandemic as a convenient excuse for the consequences of their actions (or, in some cases, inaction), but the fog is clearing now, and it is becoming increasingly clear that Brexit itself has been and will continue to be a significant factor in the economic problems our country is facing. The economy is already 5% smaller than it would have been if the UK had not left the EU. Investment is more than 13% down, as is trade between the UK and the EU. Brexit has cost the government (and hence taxpayers) £30 billion, and growth in our GDP next year is set to be the second lowest of any G20 country except Russia. Farmers are no longer getting the payments they received under Common Agricultural Policy, which the government has failed to replace, and the fishing industry is being devastated by their inability to sell fish into the lucrative European market as they did before Brexit. <br/><br/>
Of course, we could have negotiated much more favourable terms for continued trading arrangements with the EU, but the present government, having bluffed and blustered about the possibility of leaving the EU with no deal at all to provide for our future trading relations with Europe, eventually agreed minimal terms at the last minute in order to deliver the ‘hard’ Brexit that their Brextremist right wing demanded, and they have been whingeing ever since about the terms that they themselves signed up to, threatening unilaterally to break the treaty by which the UK is bound in international law. <br/><br/>
What the Brextremists on the right-wing of the Tory Party have never understood, and would prefer to ignore, is that the UK is now a ‘third country’ which is in the same position as any other country in the world that is not a member of the EU. It is this (almost certainly wilful) ignorance of the position that leads these Brextremist idiots to wail that the EU is ‘punishing’ the UK for having left the club. But the UK is being treated no differently than any other non-member. You can’t resign from the Golf Club and still expect to have free use of the clubhouse and its facilities or to be able to play on the course in the same way as you did when you were a member. Terms would nevertheless have been available for a much more advantageous relationship that would have preserved the close trading links which this country enjoyed with the EU for nearly 50 years, and which the present government has so wantonly trashed. <br/><br/>
The sad fact is that the government has not “got Brexit done”, because Brexit was not a single event; it is a continuous and never-ending process, which will involve constant negotiation and re-negotiation between the UK and European Commission for years to come, in order to sort out the numerous loose ends and anomalies thrown up by the slipshod trade agreement that our Chief Clown cobbled together at the last minute with his mate ‘Frosty’. <br/><br/>
What is clearly needed is an urgent effort to repair our relationship with the EU. Clearly the present government is unwilling to take any such step. In fact they seem intent on worsening an already troubled relationship and destroying any trust that the EU might previously have had in this country’s good faith and reliability as a business partner. So it will take an entirely new government of a different political complexion to restore a sensible working relationship with the EU. <br/><br/>
The process will be a gradual one, starting with quiet and patient diplomacy to restore trust. From this foundation the new government must then move on to a friendly and sensible discussion with a view to restoring frictionless trade and closer and mutually beneficial trading terms between the UK and EU, starting with the removal of unnecessary non-tariff barriers and avoidable red tape. This will necessarily involve the abandonment of the present government’s stubborn insistence on ‘freeing’ itself from European rules and standards. Many small and medium enterprises dependent on importing from or exporting to Europe are crying out for re-alignment with the common regulatory regime that used to guarantee frictionless trade across the Channel. Only a fool could seriously advocate the abandonment of common food and environmental standards that underpinned cross-border trade, or the even sillier (and utterly impractical) idea of trying to turn Britain into a kind of ‘Singapore-on-Thames’. <br/><br/>
No dramatic action will be needed to resolve any operational issues associated with the Irish Protocol. Most businesses in the province are happy with the current arrangements, which are generally advantageous to them. It is really only the DUP’s barmy army that are making a fuss about it, for purely doctrinaire political reasons. Any necessary or desirable adjustments to the protocol are likely be minor, and can be agreed as an integral part of the negotiations referred to above. <br/><br/>
This is in fact what the Labour Party is now proposing. In his speech on 4 July, Sir Keir Starmer promised a plan “that will deliver on the opportunities Britain has, sort out the poor deal Boris Johnson signed and end the Brexit divisions once and for all. It is a proper plan to make Brexit work.” <br/><br/>
The first step, he said, will be to sort out the Northern Ireland protocol. “If you’re going to make Brexit work, that has to be the starting point.” Labour, he promised, will get the protocol working and we will make it the springboard to securing a better deal. As well as building trust, Labour would eliminate most border checks created by the Tory Brexit deal with a new veterinary agreement for agri-products between the UK and EU. And they will work with business to put in place a better scheme to allow low-risk goods to enter Northern Ireland without unnecessary checks. <br/><br/>
The second step Labour would take is to tear down unnecessary barriers. Starmer frankly admitted that outside of the single market and a customs union, we will not be able to deliver completely frictionless trade with the EU. This is the weak point in his plan, but he explained that there are things that can be done to make trade easier. Labour would agree a new veterinary agreement with the EU to cover all the UK, seeking to build on agreements and mechanisms already in place between the EU and other countries, which should benefit exporters “at a stroke”. <br/><br/>
Starmer’s avowed intent is to ‘unclog’ the Tory Brexit deal, and all the red tape and bureaucracy this has created, which is hampering the flow of British business. Labour’s intention is to break that barrier down, unclog the arteries of our economy and allow trade to flourish once more. A Labour government would also seek mutual recognition of professional qualifications, ensuring UK services can compete and restoring access to funding and vital research programmes. Another important objective will be to strengthening security cooperation with our European neighbours, and an agreement to share data, intelligence, and best practice, and set up joint intelligence working in partnership with Europe. <br/><br/>
This, then, is Labour’s plan “to make Brexit work”, hoping to put the divisions of the past behind us and to help everyone from exporters to musicians thrive. But I must confess, as an enthusiastic Europhile, that Starmer’s blunt assertion that under Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU (and that <i>“We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union</i>” coupled with the undertaking that “<i>We will not return to freedom of movement to create short-term fixes”</i>) was extremely disappointing. Freedom of movement was never a short-term fix; it was fundamental to the fair and open operation of the Single Market. Far from British workers rushing to fill the jobs in the UK that before Brexit were being done by workers from the EU, many of those jobs have remained unfilled; crops have been left to rot in the fields, and the shortage of nurses and care workers has become even more acute. Freedom of movement in fact works both ways, as tourists, students and professional musicians in our post-Brexit world will ruefully attest. I wish I still had an EU passport!<br/><br/>
Starmer’s stance seems to me to be unwise. Given goodwill and flexibility on both sides (especially on the part of UK negotiators, compared with previous performance), it should prove possible over time to move towards an agreement that would enable the UK to rejoin the EU’s Customs Union and the Single Market, as well as rejoining the Horizon scientific research programme as a full member, and other EU institutions, including Europol, the Erasmus programme and other Europe-wide arrangements. <br/><br/>
After the history of the last few years, rejoining the European Union may be a bridge too far, for the Europeans as much as for us, but one of the promises of the Brexiteers in the 2016 referendum campaign was that this country could reach terms with the EU which would be just as favourable as the terms of our membership of the EU. They even averred that the UK could remain a member of the Customs Union and stay in the Single Market. So, in moving towards this type of arrangement, a future UK government would be doing no more than the Brexiteers themselves promised. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-44854712893585105642022-06-27T15:38:00.000+01:002022-06-27T15:38:20.521+01:00The sands of time ……<br/>Just a quick reminder to anyone wanting to avail themselves of permitted development rights for ‘protected development’ - You have barely a month left in which to do so, before ‘protected development’ ceases to be permitted development under the GPDO after 31 July. <br/><br/>
‘Protected development’ is development that was permitted development before 1 August 2021, and which continues to come within the definition of development under section 55 of the 1990 Act, but which has ceased to be permitted development following the amendment of the GPDO in August 2021. So, in effect, there was a year’s grace in which to implement the PD rights for those changes of use that had been removed from the GPDO in 2021. <br/><br/>
It would take too long to list here the classes (and sub-classes) of PD in Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO that constitute ‘protected development’, but full details can be found in <i>paragraph 1.6.3</i> of <i>Chapter 1</i> in the Fourth Edition of <b><i>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</i></b> [“PCU4”]. <br/><br/>
‘Protected development’ is of two types. First there is development that does not require a prior approval application. ‘Protected development’ of this type must be <i>completed</i> no later than 31 July 2022. This means that the permitted change of use must actually have taken place by that date. <br/><br/>
The second type of ‘protected development’ is one in respect of which a prior approval application must be made. In this case, such an application must be made before the 31 July deadline. In practice, this means that the prior approval application must reach the LPA not later than Friday 29 July 2022. Provided that this deadline is met, the further steps in the prior approval procedure can then follow on, irrespective of the fact that they may take place after 31 July. The 56-day rule will operate in the usual way, and the right to proceed with the permitted development will take effect on the happening of the prior approval event. The 3-year time limit within which the permitted development must be completed will run from the prior approval event. So if a prior approval application is submitted in the next four weeks or so, and is then refused but is subsequently allowed on appeal, the 3-year time limit for completion of the protected development might possibly not expire until some time in 2026.<br/><br/>
A refusal of prior approval can still be appealed under section 78 of the 1990 Act after 31 July 2022 and will take its normal course. <br/><br/>
The consequences of missing the 31 July deadline depend on whether the development in question required a prior approval application or not. If a prior approval application was not required, any ‘protected development’ that is not completed by that date (by the actual change of use taking place) will no longer be lawful. The only way of regularising the position where a development that would otherwise have been ‘protected development’ remains uncompleted on 31 July will be to apply for full planning permission under Part III of the 1990 Act. In the absence of such planning permission being obtained, it would be open to the LPA to take enforcement action in respect of the uncompleted development. <br/><br/>
The position where the ‘protected development’ required a prior approval is more straightforward. In the absence of a prior approval application being received by the LPA before 31 July, the development will no longer be permitted development, and simply cannot go ahead as such. It will then be development that can be authorised only by a planning permission issued under Part III of the 1990 Act. <br/><br/>
As explained in PCU4, the usual rules continue to apply to those classes of development that continue to be permitted development under the GPDO. It is only a minority of classes (or sub-classes) of development that are ‘protected development’ until the end of next month. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-52389634226130376732022-05-30T16:46:00.000+01:002022-05-30T16:46:05.255+01:00A waste of paper - the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill<br/>Out of idle curiosity, I took a look the other day at the so-called <i>Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill</i> introduced in the Commons on 11 May (when it received its purely formal First Reading). <br/><br/>
We can dispose very quickly of the “levelling up” content of the Bill. It comprises a mere six sections, which are among the most meaningless legislative provisions that have ever been drafted. Ministers are enjoined to publish statements of “levelling-up missions” for their ministries, replete with targets and progress reviews. Those of us who have ever worked in any kind of corporate body are depressingly familiar with meaningless and content-free mission statements, which are promptly forgotten before the ink has even had time to dry on them. This pathetically thin part of the Bill is no more than the regurgitation of an empty slogan, devoid of any policy or plan actually to deliver any meaningful change or improvement to the lives of citizens in those parts of the country that have been left behind as a result of de-industrialisation, lack of public investment in infrastructure and, above all, lack of revenue support from central government for vital public services. In truth, the idea of ‘levelling-up’ is entirely devoid of content. The government has absolutely no idea how to deliver on their election promises to those parts of the country that have suffered from the government’s previous long-term neglect, and they have no real intention of doing so. <br/><br/>
As for “Re-generation”, this appears only in the title of the Bill. There is apparently an unwritten assumption that re-generation will miraculously occur, simply through the magical thinking of ministers. Harry Potter-like they have only to intone “<i>Regeneramus!</i>” and, lo, it will happen (although don’t ask how or when). [It seems from the Explanatory Memorandum that ministers are relying on Parts 6 and 7 of the Bill, dealing with Urban Development Corporations and Compulsory Purchase, to deliver ‘regeneration’. But where’s the funding?] <br/><br/>
The rest of the Bill is a mish-mash of miscellaneous tinkering with local government and the planning system. So far as the structure of local government is concerned, the Bill provides for more ‘regional’ mayors, presiding over combined county authorities. There are currently 12 of these combined authorities. We already have one of these in the West Country, and so far it has been absolutely useless and its Mayor a mere cipher. <br/><br/>
The provisions relating specifically to Town and Country Planning are really designed only to tinker with various administrative procedures. Some minor reforms are welcome, for example beefing up temporary enforcement notices, and some additional protection against unlawful works to listed buildings, but the overall impact of the changes to the planning system is minimal. <br/><br/>
Even the much vaunted proposal for ‘street votes’ [Clause 96] is only a skeleton provision, giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations (which may or may not be forthcoming). The universal mirth that has greeted this proposal may prove to be fatal to the concept, and I strongly suspect that this bright idea may turn out to be dead on arrival.
No doubt ministers will huff and puff, and claim that this Bill will herald a wonderful new dawn for the country, but any such claims are nonsense. Like so many other initiatives of this government, there is an almost complete lack of substance, and this Bill will not deliver any significant economic benefits, let alone ‘levelling-up’ those parts of the country that are in dire need of government support – not simply a rag-bag of infrastructure projects that it will take years to deliver, and some of which may be quietly dropped on grounds of cost once the fanfare with which they are announced has been forgotten. What is really needed, and which the present government will never deliver, is a major increase in current revenue support to local authorities and other public bodies at a local level to boost existing public services. <br/><br/>
Roll on the next General Election! <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-9265213670037322452022-05-06T16:25:00.000+01:002022-05-06T16:25:26.080+01:00Permitted Changes of Use – unravelling the increasing complexities of the GPDO<br/>As readers of this blog will be aware, the changes to the GPDO last year, following on from the substantial amendment of the Use Classes Order in 2020, has necessitated the publication of a FOURTH EDITION of <i><b>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</b></i>. Bath Publishing organised another very successful seminar yesterday to launch the new edition. This was held once again in the splendid surroundings of the Institution of Civil Engineers in Great George Street, Westminster and also online. The seminar was ably chaired by Lee Mallett. Qualified as a chartered surveyor, with an MA in urban design, Lee is an urbanist, writer and regeneration consultant. He directs the <i>Urbik</i> consultancy, and is co-editor and publisher of <i>Planning in London</i> magazine. In addition to chairing the event, Lee delivered an interesting introduction and personal insight into the current state of the planning system. <br/><br/>
This Fourth Edition of the book, which we tend to refer to among ourselves as “PCU4”, has been a joint effort on the part of Alistair Mills, David Evans and myself. Each of us addressed the seminar in turn, and a particular point we touched on during the course of the morning is the increasing complexity of the law governing permitted changes of use, so that what was originally billed as a ‘simplification’ of planning law requires a book which (including its Tables, introductory notes, Appendices and Index) totals some 550 pages. It was Alistair Mills who put his finger on the underlying reason for this. The primary motivation on the part of the government was not to simplify the planning system; it was conceived as a political device to curtail the ability of local planning authorities to resist certain types of development that they would otherwise seek to resist in their areas. This particularly applies to the residential conversion of agricultural buildings (under Class Q) and of offices (formerly under Class O), now widened to embrace all buildings in business, commercial or service use within the very broad Use Class E (under Class MA). <br/><br/>
LPAs do, of course, have the power to make Article 4 directions to prevent these types of permitted development in their areas (or in some parts of them), but ministers made it abundantly clear last year, both in a written ministerial statement and in a new paragraph 53 of the NPPF that Article 4 Directions, where they relate to change from non-residential to residential use, should be limited to situations where the Direction is necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts (such as the loss of the essential core of a primary shopping area which would seriously undermine its vitality and viability), but they should rarely extend to the whole of a town centre. Article 4 Directions should, in all cases, be based on robust evidence and should apply to the smallest geographical area possible. The Secretary of State has power to cancel Article 4 Directions, and has done so in the past. It is clear that he is fully prepared to make more use of this power in future where LPAs attempt to use Article 4 Directions too widely in their areas. <br/><br/>
David Evans pointed out that, notwithstanding this, Kensington & Chelsea has made a Borough-wide Article 4 direction (not yet in force) banning residential conversions of business and commercial premises under Class MA. Meanwhile, in Richmond-upon-Thames the Council has made a similar direction in 67 separate areas of the Borough, and the Cities of London and Westminster both have plans in train to make similar directions. David also drew attention to the Mayor of London’s Strategic Evidence to support London Borough Article 4 Directions. This was published on 31 July 2021. Its timing may have been fortuitous, but it is a remarkable coincidence that it followed so hard on the heels of the ministerial guidance referred to above. <br/><br/>
All three of us drew attention to various pitfalls that await both developers and LPAs. Some of these have been a problem for quite a time, and yet developers and LPAs continue to fall into them. They really should buy our book, and read it! There nevertheless remain a few unresolved issues, some of which were raised in the Q&A session at the end of the morning, and even the combined brainpower of the joint authors was unable to resolve some of these. One delegate asked whether some of the more contentious issues that have arisen might be addressed by sensible amendments to the GPDO designed specifically to tackle them. However, the panel could not discern any appetite on the part of the present government to deal with these issues. It would take a change of government to make this possible, and even if a government of a different political complexion were to take office after the next General Election, there can be no guarantee that they would necessarily grasp this particular nettle. <br/><br/>
Since the Third Edition of <i>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</i> was published in November 2019, there has continued to be a steady stream of High Court challenges to appeal decisions in prior approval cases, which are dealt with in the new edition of the book, and Alistair Mills took the audience through some of these, together with some of the more noteworthy Inspectors’ decisions in prior approval appeals. There isn’t time to summarise those here, but you will find succinct summaries of them in the book. <br/><br/>
My own contribution to the seminar included a look at ‘protected development’ under the transitional provisions in last year’s amendment order. This is development that was permitted by the GPDO before last August and which continues to be development (because the pre-existing and the new use do not both fall into Use Class E following the 2020 changes to the Use Classed Order, so that such a change of use is not covered by section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act) but is no longer permitted development, because it has now been removed from the GPDO. Getting one’s head around this new (temporary) type of permitted development is not made any easier by the omission from the amendment order of any list identifying the Classes of development that are ‘protected’. However, we have identified these classes of PD in the book (in <i>paragraphs 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2</i> and <i>6.1.3</i> of <i>Chapter 1</i>) and have drawn attention to the 31 July deadline for either completing this development or, where a prior approval application is required, making an application. In the latter case, the other steps in the prior approval process can then follow on, including an appeal against refusal, plus the three-year period from the prior approval event for completing the development. As we point out in the book, some of this ‘protected development’ could potentially have a ghostly after-life of several years in some cases. If you want further details of this ‘protected development’, then I strongly recommend that you study the relevant paragraphs in <i>Chapter 1</i> of this new edition of the book. The relevant paragraphs where these Classes of development are also be found in the main text are listed in the revised Table 1 at the end of <i>Chapter 1</i>. <br/><br/>
So “PCU4” has been well and truly launched, and I hope that it will be as valuable a resource to property owners, developers and planning practitioners (including local authority planning departments and the Planning Inspectorate) as each of the three previous editions. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-14775920472537094112022-04-13T10:21:00.000+01:002022-04-13T10:21:41.083+01:00Permitted Changes of Use - FOURTH EDITION goes to press<br/>The new FOURTH EDITION of <i>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</i> went to press a fortnight ago. It was delivered to the printers on 31st March, and so copies should become available by the end of this month. <br/><br/>
After having written the three previous editions of this book, I am very grateful to Alistair Mills and David Evans for accepting the invitation of Bath Publishing to become Joint Editors with me of this Fourth Edition. They have brought to this new edition a wealth of legal knowledge and experience, not only in updating the text to reflect the latest amendments to the GPDO but also in contributing additional insights into the law and practice in this complex area of development management. The preparation of the new edition has been a rewarding collegiate exercise, and I am confident that readers will continue to find this work a valuable and even essential resource in tackling the issues that the book explains. <br/><br/>
Alistair Mills is a Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge and Dias College Lecturer in Law there. He is a practising barrister, and an Associate Member of Landmark Chambers in London. David Evans is a Consultant Solicitor with 20 years’ experience specialising in planning law. As for me, as readers of this blog are aware, I retired as a Solicitor last year after more than 40 years specialising in planning law.<br/><br/>
As we await the publication of “PCU4”, bookings continue to flow in for our launch seminar in London (and online) on Thursday 5 May and we are looking forward to welcoming delegates to this event. It promises to be another interesting exploration of some of the many issues that the complex and convoluted provisions of the subordinate legislation on permitted changes of use have thrown up. <br/><br/>
There is still time to book for the seminar, or to order a copy of the new edition of the book (if you can’t attend the seminar in person or online). Don’t forget that a seminar booking gets you a free copy of the book. You can make your booking and/or order the book by clicking on the link on the left-hand side of this page. This will take you straight to Bath Publishing’s website. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-10467947848419566812022-03-11T17:58:00.001+00:002022-03-23T08:49:52.215+00:00Planning Bill, RIP?<br/>A long time ago (well, June 2021 seems a long time ago after everything that has happened since then), I published a blog post under the title “<i>Planning radicalised – or a damp squib?</i>” You may recall that on the day before the Queen’s Speech last May, the PM made a great noise (accompanied by much ballyhoo in the press) asserting with his usual hyperbole that the government was definitely going ahead with the revolutionary changes to the planning system that had been promised in the heavily criticised White Paper that had been published in 2020. A Planning Bill was duly announced in the Queen’s Speech the following day. <br/><br/>
However, it quickly became clear that the government was in fact nowhere near ready to go ahead with the promised Bill. It emerged in the weeks that followed that as a result of strenuous opposition within Tory ranks, the government was far less determined to press ahead with their planning proposals than the PM made out. Considerable alarm was caused among party loyalists early in May by the loss of control of several councils in the south of the country, as a result of growing public opposition to the perceived threat of development in traditionally Tory-held areas. Following the shock result of the Chesham and Amersham by-election in June, backbench Tory MPs became even more jumpy about the government’s proposed planning ‘reforms’, and the pressure on the government to drop or considerably water down their proposals only intensified.<br/><br/>
For a time, ministers tried to bluff and bluster their way through this ‘noise’, and Robert Jenrick (then the Secretary of State) was sent out to ‘reassure’ Tory backbenchers that it wasn’t going to be as bad as all that. This, however, clearly failed to quell the disquiet in Tory ranks, which continued to intensify in light of the worrying election results and polling . As a result, it became increasingly clear that there would be substantial further delay in the introduction of the promised Planning Bill, while the government tried to decide how much of their proposals could still be taken forward. I predicted that a complete U-turn on the part of the government could not be ruled out, and I suggested that it would not be altogether surprising if the promised Planning Bill did not in fact come forward in the current parliamentary session, despite its announcement in the Queen’s Speech. <br/><br/>
It seems that this is what has transpired. There are now apparently well-informed reports that the government has indeed dropped any intention of introducing a Planning Bill. To save face, ministers seem to be hinting <i>sotto voce</i> that they may instead pursue ‘incremental’ reforms to the planning system. Well, as I said before, let’s wait and see. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL <br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-78323719269988565952022-03-01T15:43:00.000+00:002022-03-01T15:43:41.971+00:00Permitted Changes of Use – FOURTH EDITION<br/>“<i>The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things</i>” - in this case, the important changes to the GPDO that became necessary last year as a result of the substantial recasting of the Use Classes Order the previous year. <br/><br/>
The extensive changes to the Use Classes Order in September 2020 were clearly going to be followed by consequential amendments to the GPDO, especially to permitted development rights for changes of use in Parts 3 and 4 of its Second Schedule. <br/><br/>
This has led to the most radical shake-up of these provisions since permitted development rights for changes of use began to be significantly expanded from 2013 onwards. <br/><br/>
The new provisions came into force on 1 August 2021, and the forthcoming FOURTH EDITION of <i>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</i> will contain a fully updated text explaining these legislative changes in detail. <br/><br/>
Some significant expansion of PD rights has been brought about, notably Class MA, which permits the residential conversion of the wide range of buildings in commercial, business or service uses that now fall within Use Class E. <br/><br/>
A number of PD rights have now been removed. A few of these were simply redundant, as a result of both the pre-existing use and the new use now falling within one and the same Use Class, so that a change of use from one to the other is no longer development at all. <br/><br/>
Others have been replaced by new or enlarged PD rights under other Classes. For example, the revised and expanded Class A now embraces previous PD rights under Classes A, B, C, D, E and F (to the extent that some of these have not been rendered altogether redundant by the revised Use Classes Order). <br/><br/>
This has left a number of PD rights that have been removed from the GPDO altogether without being replaced in any way. These are defined as ‘<i>protected development</i>’, and their life has been extended for a limited period. All these former PD rights are identified in the book, and the transitional rules that apply to them are explained in detail. <br/><br/>
This FOURTH EDITION of A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use will be an essential resource for property owners, developers and their professional advisers, giving them a completely up-to-date guide to this increasingly complicated and much-amended legislation. <br/><br/>
Publication is due in a few weeks’ time, and will be followed on 5 May by a seminar in London to launch this new edition. These <i>Bath Publishing</i> seminars have proved to be extremely popular, and spaces are already filling up fast. <br/><br/>
So, if you want to come to the seminar (with a copy of the book thrown in) or you just want to buy the book by itself, all you have to do is to click on the relevant button on the left-hand side of this page, and you will be taken straight to the <i>Bath Publishing</i> website, where you can get full details of the book and the seminar, and place an order. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-67309908954585121152022-02-08T16:46:00.006+00:002022-07-05T15:23:12.948+01:00Pincher leaves DLUHC<br/>So Christopher Pincher joins the list of former Housing and Planning Ministers to bite the dust when he had hardly had time to warm the office chair with his posterior [1]. But then Housing and Planning are such unimportant subjects, so much less sexy than sorting out the chaos resulting from Brexit or cutting public services and benefits. After all, it’s not as if any significant legislation on Town and Country Planning is in the offing in the foreseeable future, so a tyro Housing and Planning Minister with no knowledge or experience in this area of policy (Stuart Andrew MP, previously a Deputy Whip) can be confident of a quiet snooze in his new post, er, can’t he? <br/><br/>
Other ministers who have been shuffled out of their jobs today have moved straight to other ministerial posts, but at the time of writing, Pincher does not seem to have a new job. He was tipped to become Chief Whip, but that post has gone to Chris Heaton-Harris. [2]<br/><br/>
[1] <i>He had in fact been Housing Minister for 2 years; his role was redesignated in Septemebr 2021, which is the date of appointment that was shown on the Gov.UK website. So he turns out to have been 'long-serving' by ministerial standards!</i><br/><br/>
[2] <i>Pincher was in fact appointed as Deputy Chief Whip, after a delay of 5 hours, which led some political journalists to wonder why.</i><br/><br/>
[<i>Postscript </i> (5 July 2022): On that final point, I think we now have an inkling of what may have occasioned that 5-hour delay in Pincher's appoointment as Deputy Chief Whip. What is surprising in retrospect is not that it was delayed (presumably due to certain misgivings in offcicial circles) but that it went ahead at all. In the event, his appointment didn't last very long.]<br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-67522597548775685972022-02-07T20:29:00.002+00:002022-02-08T14:57:08.130+00:00Upward extensions – effect on amenity and external appearance<br/>I am acutely aware that I have not posted on this blog since November. This is largely due to my current involvement in yet another writing project, of which more anon. <br/><br/>
So to kick off anew, I am taking a quick look today at <i><b>Cab Housing Ltd v SSLUHC</b></i> [2022] EWHC 208 (Admin), heard jointly with two other challenges on the same points. <br/><br/>
One of the matters requiring prior approval under Class AA in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO is the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises including overlooking, privacy and the loss of light. The claimants submitted that an LPA’s consideration of impact on amenity should be limited to effects on properties contiguous with, or abutting, the subject property and solely to those effects limited to overlooking, privacy and loss of light. The contention of the Secretary of State, in defending three appeal decisions by his Inspectors, was that this control embraces the impact upon all aspects of the amenity of neighbouring premises. <br/><br/>
A second issue before the court was whether the LPA’s control of the external appearance of the subject dwelling is limited to the design and architectural features of its principal elevation and any side elevation fronting a highway, and whether it is further limited to the effects of those matters upon the subject dwelling itself. The claimants contended for the latter interpretation so that, in their submission, the authority is not allowed to consider the effects of external appearance upon any property outside the subject dwelling. The Secretary of State’s reply was that the control covers all aspects of the external appearance of the proposed development, and not simply the two elevations specifically referred to in paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii)), and also the impact upon other premises, and not simply the subject dwelling itself. <br/><br/>
The issues in this case also affect the proper construction and ambit of permitted development rights granted by the 2015 GPDO under Classes ZA, A, AA, AB, AC and AD of Part 20. These provide for up to two storeys of multiple units of residential units to be erected on top of an existing purpose-built block of flats, or on top of detached or terraced buildings in commercial or mixed use or residential use. This issue may also impinge on Class A of Part 6, relating to the erection or extension of an agricultural building. <br/><br/>
Holgate J set out a thorough and detailed analysis of these arguments, which (for the sake of brevity) I will refrain from rehearsing here. His conclusion was that the approach of the Inspectors to these issues was, as the Secretary of Stage had argued, a correct interpretation and application of the provisions of the GPDO. This interpretation was also consistent with the relevant provisions in the NPPF. So the decision of each Inspector was entirely lawful. <br/><br/>
This judgement established the following points: <br/><br/>
• In paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(i) of Part 1, “impact on amenity” is not limited to overlooking, privacy or loss of light. It means what it says. <br/>
• The phrase “adjoining premises” in that paragraph includes neighbouring premises and is not limited to premises contiguous with the subject property. <br/>
• In paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of Part 1, the “external appearance” of the dwelling house is not limited to its principal elevation and any side elevation fronting a highway, or to the design and architectural features of those elevations. <br/>
• Instead, the prior approval controls for Class AA of Part 1 include the “external appearance” of the dwelling house. <br/>
• The control of the external appearance of the dwelling house is not limited to impact on the subject property itself, but also includes impact on neighbouring premises and the locality. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-86326387120095862582021-11-29T16:52:00.000+00:002021-11-29T16:52:59.559+00:00ENVIRONMENT ACT 2021<br/>Having retired from legal practice, the first thing I did after that was to go and chair a planning law seminar in London last week, at the invitation of Bath Publishing. The subject was <i>Biodiversity for Planners & Developers: The New Law</i>. This very successful conference (which was held both as a live event and online) was an excellent introduction to the important changes in planning procedure that will be brought about by the recently passed Environment Act, which obtained Royal Assent on 9 November. <br/><br/>
The provisions of the Act will be phased in gradually, and it will be some two years before the important changes that will govern how developers structure and present planning applications, but it is abundantly clear that everyone involved in planning and development is going to have to get thoroughly to grips with these changes in good time before they become a binding statutory requirement. <br/><br/>
Perhaps the most important aspect of the Act (and which was the focus of last week’s seminar) will be the requirement to demonstrate how significant <i>biodiversity net gain</i> [“BNG”] will be achieved through the proposed development. There is, of course, a lot more in that Act than this, and I do not for one moment belittle the importance of other parts of the Act, which aim to improve the natural environment and will set up the Office for Environmental Protection as an independent monitoring body and regulator. Other parts of the Act deal with waste and resource efficiency (including waste management and enforcement) and air and water quality (including the regulation of water and sewerage undertakers). <br/><br/>
But it is Part 6 of the Act, dealing with nature and biodiversity, and the requirement for biodiversity in planning, which strikes me as the part of the Act which it will be most important for planning professionals to understand. Coupled with this will be the introduction of conservation covenants, which are dealt with in Part 7 of the Act. <br/><br/>
Three extremely interesting and helpful papers were presented at our seminar last week, by Alistair Mills, of Landmark Chambers, who is a Fellow of Magdelene College, Cambridge and a law lecturer at that college, as well as being a contributor to <i>Garner’s Environmental Law</i> among his other writing credits (giving us a general overview of the new Act), followed by Dr Nick White, Principal Adviser on Net Gain at Natural England, who has been intimately involved in developing the concept of BNG and successive iterations of Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric, which will become a legally sanctioned tool under the Act, and finally Tom Graham, barrister, legal author and a very experienced planning lawyer, whose paper addressed the practical considerations for planning and development that arise from the new Act. The event was rounded off by a lively Q&A session which threw up some interesting and thought-provoking points. <br/><br/>
At present, only a few of the Act’s numerous provisions are in force (out of a total of 149 sections and no fewer than 21 detailed schedules). They are sections 22 to 24, 26, 44 to 47, 63, 142 to 149 and Schedule 1. On 9 January, sections 51 to 56, 58, 66, 70, 80, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 97 and Schedules 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 will come into force. Other provisions of the Act will be brought into force by future Commencement Orders. There is also going to be a huge raft of subordinate legislation, none of which has been published yet (unless, unbeknown to me, anything has appeared in the past few days). The NPPF will also have to be revised again to reflect the new regulatory regime. <br/><br/>
Nick White stressed the fundamental importance of the Biodiversity Metric to net gain. The Metric calculates the baseline and forecasts outcomes. It is intended to provide confidence in its methodology and ensure consistency of approach. It was clear from Nick’s paper that considerable work has been done within Natural England in developing the Biodiversity Metric as a robust and reliable tool for ensuring the achievement of BNG. The Metric applies the core principles of BNG, i.e. that it secures additionality and does not countenance trading down of biodiversity. The resulting tool (currently version 3.0, to be replaced in January 2022 by version 3.1, incorporating minor changes, and accompanied by the publication of supporting case studies) is extremely sophisticated; its calculation tool and condition assessment are supplemented by both a User Guide and a Technical Supplement. Next year the Secretary of State is expected to consult formally on the Biodiversity Metric, followed by the publication of Metric 4, the final pre-mandatory BNG version before it becomes a statutory requirement, following which it will be reviewed every 5 years or so. <br/><br/>
Some of the larger housing developers are already familiar with BNG, and have test flown their own biodiversity metrics. Similarly, a number of LPAs have developed BNG as a development management tool. Now this is all to be put on a statutory basis, and Natural England’s official Metric will become the sole benchmark, with which all developers and LPAs must comply. Present expectations are that this will come into force in about two years’ time. <br/><br/>
Tom Graham’s paper also stressed the Biodiversity Net Gain objective and the mitigation hierarchy, drawing attention to the scope for purchasing biodiversity conservation credits. There will in future have to be a biodiversity gain plan and, overall, the biodiversity gain objective must be achieved. There remains at present, however, a degree of doubt as to the practical means by which this is to be secured. One limitation of the Biodversity Metric (which Nick White also flagged up in his talk) is that it measures habitats, rather than species as such, although it could be said that habitats are in effect a proxy for the species they support. <br/><br/>
There is still some uncertainty as to the mechanisms by which all this is to be secured on individual sites. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (aka CEMP), a Landscape & Ecological Management Plan (aka LEMP) and species specific measures will ned to be part of the package. Tom expressed misgivings about the suitability of planning conditions to secure BNG, which may not be an adequate mechanism to deal with changes to the Biodiversity Gain Plan or to guarantee the enforceability of these requirements. Offset or land transfers may be alternative mechanisms, but would require a legally binding agreement to secure them (although a Grampian condition might be a useful first step towards this). The same would apply to financial contributions. Even a planning obligation carries with it some risk as to whether the developer is capable of delivery, and as to maintenance mechanisms and long term financial security. (What happens, for instance, if the management company goes bust? My own answer to this would be for the developer to provide a bond, backed by a substantial financial institution). There are also questions as to the suitability of a 106 agreement, compared with a conservation covenant agreement. <br/><br/>
Many of these points will no doubt become clear in time, and will be refined and perfected as practical experience is gained in the operation of these provisions and procedures. In the meantime, however, the final message of Tom Graham’s paper, and of the whole seminar, was to emphasise the crucial importance of familiarisation and training of personnel at all levels, for developers, their staff and their professional advisers, as well as local planning authority staff. Two years is not as long as it may seem in which to get to grips with the new regulatory regime. <br/><br/>
Next year, we shall all have the assistance of Tom Graham’s new book - <i><b>The Environment Act 2021 – A Guide for Planners and Developers</b></i> to guide us through the new legislation. If the government had not taken such an inordinate time to get its legislation through parliament, Tom’s book would have been published by now. Last week’s seminar had originally been planned as a launch event for the book, and it is no fault of either Tom or Bath Publishing that the book has been delayed. Late changes to the legislation, right up to the last minute, have made re-writes of some chapters unavoidable, but I have seen the manuscript and it is already at an advanced stage of preparation. So readers can pre-order the book, confident in the expectation that it will prove to be an essential companion in navigating around this legislation, with sound practical advice on the day-to-day operation of the statutory procedures. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-13907941139237371542021-11-12T16:58:00.001+00:002021-11-13T15:13:10.877+00:00Winding down<br/>After some 44 years in practice as a solicitor, during nearly the whole of which I have specialised in the law and practice of Town and Country Planning, not to mention the years that I spent in the profession before being admitted as a solicitor, I have finally decided that it is high time that I retired. Planning law is an area of work that I have always enjoyed, and it was for this reason that I carried on for some considerable time after what most people would think of as a ‘normal’ retirement age. But none of us can go on for ever, and so I have finally hung up my metaphorical wig. (As you are no doubt aware, solicitors don’t actually wear a wig, but I did do a great deal of heavy-weight advocacy at planning inquiries, and long ago lost count of the number of public inquiries and hearings in which I had appeared.) <br/><br/>
I first opened the pages of the <i>Planning Encyclopedia</i> as long ago as 1967, if only for the purpose of filing new loose-leaf pages, and I drafted my first notice of appeal (on behalf of my principal) in 1970. It was addressed to the Minister of Housing and Local Government (just a few months before Ted Heath created the Department of the Environment as a new ‘super-department’), as well as drafting some written representations in a couple of planning appeals. <br/><br/>
It took me a lot longer to qualify as a solicitor than it should have done, due to my having got involved in politics, which proved to be a considerable distraction. However, I realised that I really did have to concentrate on the two papers in the solicitors’ finals that I had repeatedly failed – Revenue Law and Equity & Succession. I really don’t know how I eventually managed to get through these two papers; the Rule in Earl of Chesterfield’s Trusts and the doctrine of election are as much a mystery to me now as they ever were. Just as well, then, that my interest even at that time was focused on town and country planning, and that I took the opportunity of pursuing this as my career. <br/><br/>
I gave up politics ‘temporarily’ in order to concentrate on my finals, but I never went back to politics. I have never lost my interest in the subject, but purely as a spectator and commentator. If I am asked what alternative career I would like to have pursued, it would have been as a political journalist. (I fear that this may have been all too obvious at times from the contents of this blog.) <br/><br/>
To echo the words of Theresa May, I have decided that “Retirement means Retirement”, and so I am not tempted to continue in some sort of consultancy role. However, I shall not be closing this blog, but now that I have retired from active legal practice, posts are likely to appear rather less frequently in future. In fact, you may already have noticed a reduction in the number and frequency of posts. But I am sure that I shall be unable to resist commenting on planning topics from time to time, and I have no intention of taking down my previous posts, which will remain available to be read by anyone who’s interested. <br/><br/>
And then of course there are also my two books (<i>A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use</i> and <i>The Essential Guide to the Use of Land and Buildings under the Planning Acts</i>). Both of these will clearly require new editions in due course. <br/><br/>
So maybe I shan’t be riding off into the sunset just yet. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-20449088597890908332021-11-05T10:27:00.004+00:002021-11-17T17:22:41.113+00:00Biodiversity book and seminar<br/>As you know, I am a great fan of Bath Publishing, who continue to expand their planning and environment law list, in addition to the other areas of the law that they cover.<br/><br/>
Tom Graham is a practising lawyer with many years of experience in environment and planning law, and is an established legal author whose book, <i>A Practical Guide to Planning, Highways and Development</i> is a ‘must have’ title from Bath Publishing’s catalogue. Bath Publishing will shortly be launching Tom’s latest book, <b>The Environment Act 2021: A Guide for Planners and Developers</b>. This book could hardly be more topical, and will be published almost before the ink has had time to dry on the new Act. So it will be one of the first books available to provide a comprehensive overview of the Act specifically for the planning sector. <br/><br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4745xNi3zWlE_i8PmPhS_ZajfvKa5-4ZSsrLKKga6PGxCawoQ_JTb7hj1Chqc-5UL3EENe5GLoTJpwZq_n3tWbnjxmd9RpaBIWbVzmNEff1aRCOPuW5gZ21zlMhPqW6_3IMi3BmnC1D9-/s1382/Tom+Graham+book+cover+2021.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="1382" data-original-width="921" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4745xNi3zWlE_i8PmPhS_ZajfvKa5-4ZSsrLKKga6PGxCawoQ_JTb7hj1Chqc-5UL3EENe5GLoTJpwZq_n3tWbnjxmd9RpaBIWbVzmNEff1aRCOPuW5gZ21zlMhPqW6_3IMi3BmnC1D9-/s400/Tom+Graham+book+cover+2021.jpg"/></a></div><br/>
This new book answers the questions that planners and advisers will need to consider such as: <br/><br/>
• The interpretation of the Environment Act <br/>
• Conservation biology and the planning system <br/>
• What is Biodiversity Net Gain and how will it interact with the planning system? <br/>
• What is the "precautionary principle" and how is this to be reflected in the planning process? <br/>
• Can local planning authorities push a "green agenda"? <br/>
• Section 106 agreements, conservation covenants, planning conditions and ecology<br/>
• How will local planning committees get to grips with the complexities of the Act? <br/>
• How will the act impact on developers? Is it a benefit or a problem? <br/><br/>
As well as practical commentary, the book includes the relevant sections of the Act, annotated by the author, so you will have the sources you need in one, handy volume. Due for publication shortly after Royal Assent is granted in the Autumn, it will be the essential, practical guide to help navigate the new regime efficiently and profitably. <br/><br/>
• Paperback<br/>
• 200 pages approx<br/>
• £40 inc free digital edition if you pre-order<br/>
• ISBN 978-1-9163023-1-0<br/><br/>
In order to launch this important new book, Bath Publishing have organised a seminar in London later this month, which will also be available online.<br/><br/>
<i>Attend the seminar and get the book free!</i> This seminar, <b><u>Biodiversity for Planners & Developers: The New Law</u></b>, is being held on Thursday 25 November 2021. You can attend in person or online and you'll get a free book as part of the package. The event is being held at One Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA between 10am and 1pm, and I am honoured to have been invited to chair this event. The speakers will be Tom Graham, Dr Nick White and Alistair Mills, all of whom are experts in this area of law and practice. <br/><br/>
As a special offer to readers of this blog, the ‘early bird’ offer for seminar bookings, giving you access to the seminar (with book included) of £150 + VAT has been extended to 12 November 2021. (The price will be £175 + VAT if booked after 12 November). <i>So readers of this blog have just one week to snap up this generous offer, and save £25!</i> [To get this discount, you will need to quote this code: <b>BDMG1121</b> ]<br/><br/>
I should mention that the availability of 'in-person' tickets is now limited (due to a rapid take-up of bookings). There is a need to keep the numbers fairly limited in order to minimise covid risks, so far as possible. Bath Publishing is offering everyone the option to swap to remote attendance if preferred. <br/><br/>
<b>UPDATE (17 November) :</b> As readers are no doubt aware, it took the government until 9 November to get the Environment Bill through its final stages in parliament, and it became the Environment Act 2021 on that day. Tom Graham's book is now at an advanced stage of preparation, but it could not be finalised until after Royal Assent had been achieved (because important changes to the Bill were in the offing right up to the last minute). So, through no fault of Tom's, the book will not be ready as soon as everyone had hoped. The seminar on 25 November will nevertheless be a valuable opportunity to learn about the new Act and the way it will affect the way we do development in future. Attendees will, of course, be entitled to a copy of the book when it is published, and in the meantime they will find the seminar very helpful as a timely introduction to this important new legislation.<br/><br/>
MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-1636370970791597772021-10-28T16:46:00.001+01:002021-10-28T16:47:41.453+01:00THE GREAT POST OFFICE SCANDAL : An important new book<br/>As regular readers of this blog will know, <i><b>Bath Publishing</b></i> has gained a well-deserved reputation as publishers of very useful and accessible books on various legal topics, including employment law and family law. In 2015 they published the first of my two books on planning law, and they have subsequently published several other planning law titles. Having now worked with Bath Publishing over a period of more than six years, I hold them in very high regard and have been very pleased to see this firm’s growing success and reputation. <br/><br/>
So I was excited to hear of Bath Publishing’s latest and very interesting publishing venture. This is the publication of <b>THE GREAT POST OFFICE SCANDAL: The story of the fight to expose a multimillion IT disaster which put innocent people in jail</b><br/><br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJf6GtRY2ldb__x-XLMJnKr9pBAPvfV8CaC5Qd5uT9Vd3ObHfoTxTuWy3ksWXlG8NXuoNt41s72XELIX2NC8tUYi0otuqG70UPANxEyHinbKlWOKMq4sNSeALa2i0hOWyY8_4OiSdAu6ox/s2048/Post+Office+book+jacket+front+cover+final.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1404" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJf6GtRY2ldb__x-XLMJnKr9pBAPvfV8CaC5Qd5uT9Vd3ObHfoTxTuWy3ksWXlG8NXuoNt41s72XELIX2NC8tUYi0otuqG70UPANxEyHinbKlWOKMq4sNSeALa2i0hOWyY8_4OiSdAu6ox/s400/Post+Office+book+jacket+front+cover+final.jpg"/></a></div><br/><br/>
<i>About the book</i><br/><br/>
On 23 April 2021, the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of 39 former Sub-postmasters and ruled their prosecutions were an affront to the public conscience. It is a scandal that has been described as one of the most widespread and significant miscarriages of justice in UK legal history. <br/><br/>
The 39 were just a few of the 738 people who, between 2000 and 2015, had been prosecuted by the Post Office for theft, false accounting and fraud. The prosecutions were based largely on evidence drawn from Horizon, the Post Office’s deeply flawed software system that threw up duplicate entries, lost transactions and made erroneous calculations. If these errors resulted in apparent losses, Sub-postmasters were forced to settle the discrepancies from their own pockets, sometimes for tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds. Those who could not pay were sacked and taken to court. Proud pillars of their communities were stripped of their jobs and livelihoods. Many were forced into bankruptcy and/or borrowed from friends and family to give the Post Office thousands they did not owe. The really unlucky ones were sent to prison. <br/><br/>
This is the story of how these innocent people fought back to clear their names against a background of institutional arrogance and obfuscation, a fight dragged out by the Post Office’s refusal to accept responsibility for its failings. <br/><br/>
Nick Wallis, an award-winning freelance journalist and broadcaster, has been pursuing this story since 2010 when he met a taxi driver who told him his pregnant wife had been sent to prison for a crime she did not commit. Since then, he has recorded interviews with dozens of victims, insiders and experts, uncovering hundreds of documents to build up an unparalleled understanding of the story. <br/><br/>
Using these sources, Nick has been instrumental in bringing the scandal into the public eye. He broadcast his first investigation for the BBC in 2011. In the same year he took the story to <i>Private Eye</i>. He has subsequently made two Panoramas, a Radio 4 series, and raised thousands of pounds to crowdfund his own court reporting for the Post Office Trial website. <br/><br/>
Nick has now written the first definitive account of the scandal. He takes us from the ill-fated deal that brought Horizon into existence, through years of half-truths and obstruction, to the tearful scenes at the Court of Appeal this year. He exposes the secrecy and mistrust at the heart of the story, and the impact that it had on the victims. He also chronicles how this story’s hero, Alan Bates, started as a lone public voice of dissent but went on to beat the Post Office - against overwhelming odds – at two of the highest courts in the land, and win some redress for the victims. <br/><br/>
This book will be available from Bath Publishing from 18 November 2021. <br/><br/>
Price: £25.00 in Hardback<br/><br/>
<i>Horizon Scandal Fund: Bath Publishing and the author are donating 10% of the revenue from the book sales to a 'fighting fund' so that Sub-postmasters can continue their quest for proper redress and compensation.</i> <br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-38683602170195871002021-09-21T14:08:00.001+01:002021-09-22T14:06:52.096+01:00Daft name competition<br/>And the winner is ……….Mr Alexander de Piffle Johnson of London SW1, who came up with the stunningly daft name of “<i>The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities</i>”. Well done Mr Johnson, a cheque (by way of a generous donation to the Conservative Party) is on its way to you, subject to a little something back in the New Year’s Honours List, please. <br/><br/>
When it was called the Department for Communities and Local Government, various people (including those in PINS) used to refer to it as “DeCLoG”, a name I delighted to use in this blog. The new name does not so readily lend itself to being turned into an acronym, although I suppose “DeLUge” might be a possibility? So the previous incumbent, Robert Jenrick can now go around Westminster intoning “<i>Après moi, le DeLUge!</i>”<br/><br/>
Unhelpful and sarcastic suggestions for other acronyms or epithets would be welcome, provided they are printable. <br/><br/>
© MARTIN H GOODALL<br/><br/>
Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com5