Pincher leaves DLUHC

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?

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]

[1] 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!

[2] Pincher was in fact appointed as Deputy Chief Whip, after a delay of 5 hours, which led some political journalists to wonder why.

[Postscript (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.]

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Upward extensions – effect on amenity and external appearance

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.

So to kick off anew, I am taking a quick look today at Cab Housing Ltd v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 208 (Admin), heard jointly with two other challenges on the same points.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This judgement established the following points:

• 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.
• The phrase “adjoining premises” in that paragraph includes neighbouring premises and is not limited to premises contiguous with the subject property.
• 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.
• Instead, the prior approval controls for Class AA of Part 1 include the “external appearance” of the dwelling house.
• 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.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

ENVIRONMENT ACT 2021

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 Biodiversity for Planners & Developers: The New Law. 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.

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.

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 biodiversity net gain [“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).

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.

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 Garner’s Environmental Law 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Next year, we shall all have the assistance of Tom Graham’s new book - The Environment Act 2021 – A Guide for Planners and Developers 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.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Winding down

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.)

I first opened the pages of the Planning Encyclopedia 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.

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.

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.)

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.

And then of course there are also my two books (A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use and The Essential Guide to the Use of Land and Buildings under the Planning Acts). Both of these will clearly require new editions in due course.

So maybe I shan’t be riding off into the sunset just yet.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Biodiversity book and seminar

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.

Tom Graham is a practising lawyer with many years of experience in environment and planning law, and is an established legal author whose book, A Practical Guide to Planning, Highways and Development is a ‘must have’ title from Bath Publishing’s catalogue. Bath Publishing will shortly be launching Tom’s latest book, The Environment Act 2021: A Guide for Planners and Developers. 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.

This new book answers the questions that planners and advisers will need to consider such as:

• The interpretation of the Environment Act
• Conservation biology and the planning system
• What is Biodiversity Net Gain and how will it interact with the planning system?
• What is the "precautionary principle" and how is this to be reflected in the planning process?
• Can local planning authorities push a "green agenda"?
• Section 106 agreements, conservation covenants, planning conditions and ecology
• How will local planning committees get to grips with the complexities of the Act?
• How will the act impact on developers? Is it a benefit or a problem?

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.

• Paperback
• 200 pages approx
• £40 inc free digital edition if you pre-order
• ISBN 978-1-9163023-1-0

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.

Attend the seminar and get the book free! This seminar, Biodiversity for Planners & Developers: The New Law, 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.

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). So readers of this blog have just one week to snap up this generous offer, and save £25! [To get this discount, you will need to quote this code: BDMG1121 ]

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.

UPDATE (17 November) : 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.

MARTIN H GOODALL

THE GREAT POST OFFICE SCANDAL : An important new book

As regular readers of this blog will know, Bath Publishing 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.

So I was excited to hear of Bath Publishing’s latest and very interesting publishing venture. This is the publication of THE GREAT POST OFFICE SCANDAL: The story of the fight to expose a multimillion IT disaster which put innocent people in jail

About the book

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Private Eye. 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.

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.

This book will be available from Bath Publishing from 18 November 2021.

Price: £25.00 in Hardback

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.

Daft name competition

And the winner is ……….Mr Alexander de Piffle Johnson of London SW1, who came up with the stunningly daft name of “The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities”. 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.

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 “Après moi, le DeLUge!”

Unhelpful and sarcastic suggestions for other acronyms or epithets would be welcome, provided they are printable.

© MARTIN H GOODALL