It has been an interesting week for the planning team at Prosperity Law – Pamela Chesterman, Head of Planning, fills us in on what’s been happening. The Prosperity Law planning team has years of experience working with corporates, government bodies and local authorities, providing legal advice on planning, highways and environmental development.
We have read, with a mix of confusion and continuing anticipation, the Government’s proposals to simultaneously give judges new powers to suspend orders quashing planning permission. The reason provided; to give decision-makers more time to rectify flaws. Whilst at the same time, advising Claimants that they may risk costs awarded against them, from all parties!
This has been during the same period we received an urgent instruction to assist learned Counsel on behalf of a client who had received an Appeal Refusal as a consequence of an Inspector’s misreading of an S106 Agreement. Our assistance led to an unusually early concession on behalf of our mutual client, even before filing a claim for the statutory challenge.
Despite attestations from Rt Hon Jenrick MP that the planning system is broken, the High Court in our case accepted a Consent Order signed by all parties, which had been agreed during a non-statutory pre-action protocol request. The Planning Inspectorate accepted that this was wrong in fact and law. The High Court attached its seal to the order in less than a fortnight.
I have several takeaways from this week’s success:
- Firstly, there is clearly still a place for well-drafted S106 Agreements/Planning Obligations
- Secondly, understanding the planning system, but applying best practice and exercising options that might not be of direct requirement, can achieve a much quicker response than sticking to the black-letter law
- Thirdly, when explained simply and presented holistically, the system can work including its many composite parts, including several organisations and bodies.
The Court of Appeal in CPRE Kent v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Case Number: [2021] UKSC 36 confirmed that its findings on costs risks apply equally to judicial review, statutory review, and non-statutory review proceedings. So, whilst on the one hand suggesting revisions to the planning system will make it easier for everyone to get involved, by issuing such harsh warnings it seems to be attempting to deter the average layperson from thinking that it’s something they can pursue.
The Aarhus Convention will still apply and where the claim (and claimant) falls within the scope of its coverage, costs will be limited to £10,000.
If you are asking yourself ‘can I bring a legal challenge?’ and would like to discuss the potential with our team, please feel free to email Pamela@ProsperityLaw.com or call 0151 958 0057.
