Planning Insights Bulletin – July 24

Welcome to the July 2024 edition of the Planning Insights Bulletin where we discuss:

1. Green Belt Recoloured: Housing Crisis Hope?
2. Nutrient Neutrality Requirements: Developer Implications
3. Scope 3 Emissions and EIA – Legal Update

Coming up in our September 2024 edition:

1. Understanding the detail behind the Government’s Updates including the NPPF consultation and more...
2. BRE updates to BREEAM assessments - Draft guidance will be published this summer and estimated to be applied by Q4 2024. Schemes that are not registered before version 7 is published will be subject to the first updates since 2021!

Green Belt Recoloured: Housing Crisis Hope?

The Green Belt is soon to be recoloured; but what does this actually mean, and to what extent should evolution from green to grey really ignite hope of solving the nation’s housing crisis?

It is well-known that the UK is entrenched in a housing crisis, that under the last Government deepened to an estimated under-delivery in the order of 50,000 homes per year, culminating in a dismal total under-provision of housing over the duration of that Government’s term, with real and appalling consequences for hundreds-of-thousands of British families. Against a background of tremendous need, the year ending March 2024 saw the lowest number of home approvals in the past decade, dropping nearly one-third compared to the number of homes permitted in the year to March 2019 (the peak of the decade).

The housing crisis is complex; there are many factors which can be cited as contributors to the demise of house-building – the state of the economy, a fluctuating political and policy environment, uncertainties and red-tape within the planning system, severe under-resourcing of planning departments, supply shortages, and rising costs of materials and labour. So, where does the solution lie?

To read more, view the full article here.

Nutrient Neutrality Requirements: Developer Implications

In the landmark decision, the Court of Appeal has clarified the application of nutrient neutrality requirements in planning applications, particularly in the case of C G Fry & Son Limited vs SSLUHC and Somerset Council (2023). While not the outcome that many in the development industry were anticipating, this ruling is crucial given the significant impact of nutrient neutrality on housebuilding across affected regions. The result will inevitably lead to more cost and delay to developers.

The crux of the case was whether nutrient neutrality requirements could be imposed on reserved matters or condition discharge applications when the original planning permission (Reference 43/14/0130) was granted before the introduction of the Natural England guidance. Last June, the High Court confirmed that these requirements could indeed be imposed, prompting an appeal.

The Claimant raised three points of appeal:

1. Whether the High Court judge made an erroneous decision by determining that regulation 63 of the Habitat Regulations 2017 was applicable during the discharge of conditions stage.
2. Whether the judge's decision was incorrect in affirming that the policy outlined in paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which provides protection to Ramsar Sites, should be considered as a material consideration.
3. Whether it was inaccurate to conclude that an 'appropriate assessment' as defined by the Regulations was only necessary for matters influenced by the conditions for discharge, rather than for the development itself.

Following a detailed two-day hearing in March, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision on all counts.

To read more, view the full article here.

Scope 3 Emissions and EIA – Legal Update

On 20 June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Finch (R (Finch) v Surrey County Council) in a landmark decision which concluded that Scope 3 emissions must be considered as an indirect environmental effect and should be considered as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Prior to this, EIAs were only required to consider Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect) emissions, meaning that this ruling has significant implications for future hydrocarbon projects in the UK and potentially across multiple industries, as it now requires consideration of emissions generated by downstream users.

The case centres around a long fought legal battle that began in 2019, when planning permission was granted for the expansion of the Horse Hill hydrocarbon site (ref: RE18/02667/CON). Finch filed a judicial review, contending that Surrey County Council had failed its legal duty to consider the indirect environmental impacts of the scheme, as the EIA had considered the climate impact of extracting oil from the ground (predicted to be around 140,000 tonnes of CO₂e), but did not consider the Scope 3 emissions from the burning of the oil (amounting to more than 10 million tonnes of CO₂e).

To read more, view the full article here.

To discuss any of the matters discussed above or any other planning matter, please contact the team.