Chris Barnett’s Post

We’ve sent our Local Plan 2040 to government planning inspectors for examination. The Local Plan 2040 will guide all planning decisions in Oxford for the next 16 years. It is underpinned by an extensive evidence base and four rounds of public consultation. Submitted on 28 March, the plan includes: - a draft of the Local Plan - a copy of all representations received during the final round of public consultation between November 2023 and January 2024  - a schedule of proposed modifications to the plan based on the consultation - the evidence base and other supporting documents    The Planning Inspectorate has appointed two inspectors to hold an independent examination of the plan. Their role is to decide whether the Local Plan 2040 meets with national planning policy and other legal requirements. The Planning Inspectorate will manage the examination process and timetable. We expect a public examination will take place towards the end of this year. The Local Plan 2040 could be adopted in the summer of 2025, when it will replace the existing Local Plan 2036.

A condition may not be imposed on the grant of planning permission if it would materially conflict with the operative wording of the permission, but provided there is no such conflict a condition may be imposed on (or removed from) a permission granted under s 73 TCPA 1990 even if it would effect a fundamental alteration in the development permitted by the original permission: so held the Court of Appeal yesterday in Test Valley BC v Fiske [2024] EWCA Civ 1541. As noted by Holgate LJ, who gave the leading judgment, there have been a number of inconsistent first instance decisions and some doubt as to the true limits on the power to impose conditions under s 73. The Court of Appeal’s decision provides clarity, but it means both applicants and local planning authorities will need to give particular consideration to the description of development in planning applications and decision notices, and to the conditions imposed, to ensure that no conflict arises. The option of cutting down the scope of a permission through the imposition of a condition will no longer be available if the condition would be inconsistent with the words of grant.    

New planning application fees from 1 April 2025 is the latest blog from Jennie Baker and Seán Farrissey [Link in comments]. Following the Governments July 2024 consultation on planning fees, draft amendments to the Planning Fee Regulations have been published. If approved by Parliament, the new fees will come into force on 1 April 2025. In addition, the annual increase to planning fees will commence on the same day. This year the fee increase will be 1.7%, which will apply to the fees in the current Regulations. 

Looking to find out more about the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for planning and development? Peter Gillan from SLC Property and Stuart Evans from Anthony Collins Solicitors outline some of the key proposed changes in this article: https://lnkd.in/eKp9e3bB

What is the impact of the significant updates to Planning Appeals Guidance regarding Section 106 Agreements? Planning specialists Stephanie Hall, Chrisa Tsompani and Nigel Hewitson explain: The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has updated its guidance on planning appeals and section 106 agreements. One of the most important amendments is that, as of 7th October 2024, for appeals that will be dealt by written representations the appellant must submit an executed and certified copy of a section 106 agreement (if this is required) at the time of the appeal; for appeals dealt by a hearing or inquiry, an agreed draft section 106 agreement must be submitted when the appeal is made. Find out more: https://lnkd.in/e74M7nkB #davittjonesbould #realestate #planning #commercialproperty

What is the impact of a judge rejecting the challenge to grant of planning permission for major development amid allegations of procedural irregularities, predetermination and bias? Planning specialists, Chrisa Tsompani, Stephanie Hall and Nigel Hewitson explain: This decision re-emphasises the importance of planning committees and officers attending and advising committees to comply with the rules set out in the local authorities’ constitutions and planning protocols. It also clarifies that the test for apparent bias, which is distinguishable from predetermination, is much higher and consists of an assessment by a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that in the circumstances there is a real possibility that the decision-maker was biased. The court pointed out that the classic basis for a finding of apparent bias is where there is a personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome. Find out more: https://lnkd.in/eSXkbA8r #davittjonesbould #realestate #commercialproperty #planning

Securing a favorable order for a client, particularly in tender matters where the scope of judicial review is very limited, is especially gratifying.  Recently, our client had participated in a tender floated by the State Government for the development of Dragon Palace, Kamptee. The technical bid submitted by our client was rejected on the ground that it was blacklisted by PWD department. However, on the date when the technical bids were opened, the blacklisting order had been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, we had approached the High Court against this arbitrary decision. During the hearing, the Hon’ble High Court opined that the petitioner’s technical bid should not have been rejected, as the blacklisting order had been stayed. Moreover, the court questioned why the financial bid was opened in haste, especially when Tender Condition 23.9(I) clearly stipulated that the result of the evaluation of Part-I of the bids must be made public on the e-procurement system. This was to be followed by a two-working-day period during which any bidder could submit a complaint, which would be considered and resolved before opening Part-II of the bid. The matter was adjourned to the next day to allow the Government Pleader to seek instructions. On the following date, the learned Government Pleader informed the court that the tendering authority had issued a letter stating that they could not open our client’s financial bid. Consequently, a decision was made to recall the tender.

The Inner House has confirmed that notification of loss and expense under the JCT Standard Building Contract is a condition precedent. The decision emphasizes the clear and unambiguous language of clause 4.20.1, requiring compliance with clause 4.21 for any entitlement. The ruling highlights that standard contracts should be interpreted through textual analysis without resorting to supplementary tools, as long as the language is clear. Although specific to Scotland, this decision may have broader implications. Read more about the decision in this LawNow by Fenella Mason and me: https://lnkd.in/e-ZX4fni

Planning appeals Planning appeals are often considered the last resort within the planning process but can be a valuable tool in obtaining permission for your development. In some cases, even if an appeal is dismissed, it may be possible to overcome the issues raised and submit a revised application directly to the Local Planning Authority (LPA). There are three methods of appeal, the simplest form being Written Representation which accounts for the majority of appeals with the remainder Informal Hearing or Public Inquiry. Much of this is associated with cost, although the Planning Inspectorate does require good reasons why a Hearing or Inquiry is necessary. However, it is normal to use hearings for agricultural dwelling cases for example and inquiries are needed where evidence is required on oath which is normally associated with enforcement cases or Certificates of Lawfulness. Appeals are heard by the Planning Inspectorate, an independent Government body. An Inspector is allocated a case and will look at the evidence. A decision will be made based on the policy implications of the proposal effectively fulfilling the role of the LPA. A key aspect with any appeal is the case in writing which applies to all three methods but is critical in terms of a Written Representation as this is the whole case. A chance to comment on the LPAs case is however another important stage. If you have a case you would like to discuss, please contact us and we can advise you on the merit of an Appeal and how best to proceed. #Acorus #nfucompany #nfu #planning #planningappeal #advise #property #design #lpa #certificateoflawfulness #development #proposals

Article 102 contemplates that when the terms of a contract or of grant or of any other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible. Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides that the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last above-noted provision of law, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted as between the parties to an instrument or their representative-in-interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding, or subtracting from, its terms. Article 104 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides that when language used in a document is plain in itself and when it applied accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts. It is manifest from the provisions of law referred supra that where the parties to the transaction reduced the terms and conditions of an agreement in the form of document, then the document itself is the only evidence and no oral evidence can be adduced to add, vary, subtract or modify the terms thereof. For the purpose of understanding the real intent of the parties therein only the document itself is deemed to be final and no oral evidence can contradict or vary the same and that the parties are bound by the terms as specified in the document. Civil Revision 45106/23 Muhammad Arif & 1 other Vs Haji Khalid Mahmood deceased through LRs Mr. Justice Rasaal Hasan Syed 29-11-2024 2024 LHC 6286.