Robin Green’s Post

FULL AWARD OF COSTS - Council accuses appellant of 'point scoring' 🔍 Key Points from the Decision: Handling of the applications was "indicative of the Council’s misunderstanding of Class Q and the extent of the development it permits". The Council failed to provide objective analysis or evidence to support their refusal, relying on vague and generalised assertions. Inconsistent decision-making was highlighted and the "failure of the Council to provide adequate reasons for taking a decision contrary to 22/5037M amounts to unreasonable behaviour." "[10] The Council suggest the applicant submitted three appeals for the same site ‘purely for point scoring reasons’. This is a wholly unreasonable and unwarranted remark to make by the Council, not only because the three appeal developments are all different, but the applicant has every right to exercise their right to appeal the Council’s decisions. Indeed, the fact that all three appeals have now been allowed validates their decision to do so. [11] The lack of an application for an award of costs being made in relation to a previous appeal, whether by the appellant or the Inspector, does not mean unreasonable behaviour did not occur. It simply means no argument was made that it had. [12] Overall, the failure of the Council to make an objective analysis of the evidence before them and their lack of consistent decision-making amounts to unreasonable behaviour. In such circumstances, it is evident the appeals in this case could have been avoided if the Council’s unreasonable behaviour had not taken place. The applicant, therefore, suffered wasted expense in pursuing the appeals and a full award of costs is justified." #Planning #PermittedDevelopment #ClassQ #UrbanPlanning #TownPlanning #PlanningAppeal #AppealDecision #CostsDecision #Development #PlanningPermission #DevelopmentControl #PlanningPolicy #LandDevelopment #PlanningInspectorate #PlanningLaw

MY SUGGESTED ADDITION TO THE PPG: DO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES NEED TO CITE REASONS FOR REFUSAL ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABSENCE OF A PLANNING OBLIGATION ON DECISION NOTICES? Local planning authorities are not required to cite specific reasons for refusal on their decision notice relating to the absence of a planning obligation pursuant to s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It can often be assumed that in the absence of a s.106 agreement (for example addressing affordable housing in the context of major development for a housing scheme), a scheme will not secure the contributions necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and thus permission will often be refused. Thus, if a local planning authority do not receive a completed legal agreement during the lifetime of an appeal, the Council can still object to the proposal on this basis, despite there being no reason for refusal. Councils are still, however, encouraged to work pro-actively with appellants to make them aware what contributions are required and early engagement over this issue is crucial. END It is a bugbear of mine where there are reasons for refusal on a decision notice relating to the absence of a s.106 agreement. I think the edit above would (hopefully) remove such objections. I recently saw a very long decision notice refusing permission with 6 reasons for refusal. But, when you broke it down, 4 of them boiled down to the lack of a s.106 agreement and may as well not be there as far as the appellant is concerned. I get that superficially it provides padding and makes the LPA seem like they are really opposed to the development for lots of reasons to members of the public. But it's so superficial that anyone in the know immediately sees past it. Why not spare the ink and have the above paragraph? Food for thought.

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

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

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. 

Important note for landholders at Planning Panels hearings – recent Supreme Court decision. Rockford Constant Velocity Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council [2024] VSC 343 The Supreme Court of Victoria has dismissed an appeal brought by two landowners seeking a determination that Planning Panels Victoria’s refusal to give them a right of reply to a referral authority’s assessment of their expert evidence amounted to a procedural defect pursuant to section 39 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Her Honour held that the 30-day time limit for filing an application pursuant to s39 commenced at the time the defect in procedure occurred, not at the time the effect of that defect becomes apparent. Significantly for the Applicants in this case, that meant that their 30-day window commenced at the time the Panel refused their right of reply, not when the Panel published its report following the hearing. By lodging the s39 application after the Panel’s report was published, and more than 30 days after their right of reply was refused, the Applicants were out of time. In affirming the Tribunal’s original decision to refuse an extension of time, her Honour highlighted that s39 functions as a prompt supervisory review. The reasons make clear that there is an urgency in relation to bringing an action under s39 and that you cannot wait for the effect of a procedural defect to become apparent. PPP regularly appear before Planning Panels Victoria and we can provide advice in respect of all matters of procedure relating to the Planning & Environment Act 1987. Read the case here: Rockford Constant Velocity Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council [2024] VSC 343 (21 June 2024)

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

We've contributed to a co-ordinated response to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation led by IEMA. In short we think that the "Golden Rules for public benefit" when building on green belt are lacking. Here's what we wrote: https://lnkd.in/e2qMFwTQ

Really sensible advice in this article from my learned colleagues Kathryn Jump and Bob Pritchard - these decisions have generated a huge amount of angst but there is a way through them. Read here 👇 https://lnkd.in/e4jhhEky

We've contributed to a co-ordinated response to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation led by IEMA. In short we think that the "Golden Rules for public benefit" when building on green belt are lacking. Here's what we wrote: https://lnkd.in/eaVASQUx