News Type: Other

Alok Sharma, the MP for Reading West, has been appointed the New Housing and Planning Minister. Theresa May has also confirmed that Sajid Javid MP is to continue as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Mr Sharma replaces Gavin Barwell, who is now the new chief of staff to the prime minster having lost his Croydon Central seat in the General Election last week. Following the announcement, Mr Sharma has said that he is ‘honoured to be appointed Minister of State for Housing and Planning to work on building the homes Britain needs’.

The shortlist for the Planning Awards 2017 has just been announced and Firstplan is delighted to be shortlisted for our work on the Everyman Cinema in Muswell Hill in the category ‘Award for best use of arts, culture or sport in placemaking’ and ‘Award for best use of heritage in placemaking’.

Firstplan acted as planning consultant in respect of the hugely ambitious restoration and refurbishment of the Grade II* listed former Odeon cinema in Muswell Hill to enable independent cinema operator, Everyman, to occupy the building.

The former Odeon Cinema in Muswell Hill opened during the heyday of cinema going in 1936 and is considered one of the finest art-deco style cinemas in the country. Despite a decline in attendance since the 1970’s and the subsequent threat of closure, the building has continued to operate as a cinema throughout the last eighty years making it an established part of Muswell Hill’s social and architectural heritage.

Whilst many historic cinemas in the UK have been converted to bingo halls, pubs or become redundant, this project offered the ideal opportunity to invest in the much needed restoration of this Grade II* listed building and to secure its long term future as a cinema.

Working with Fusion Architects and Heritage Collective, we put together a series of planning and listed building applications to allow alterations to the main auditorium including the reinstatement and refurbishment of the original lower stalls which, despite being one of the most significant spaces within the theatre, had previously been redundant for several decades.

Key to the projects success was ensuring that the newly restored cinema enabled Everyman to operate a viable business, which would justify their significant initial expenditure. Following detailed negotiations with Historic England and Haringey Council it was agreed that two innovatively designed independent ‘cinema pods’ could be inserted into the circle area, creating a total of five screens ranging from 40-250 seats. The ‘pods’ create smaller, more intimate cinemas offering a unique experience, whilst the reintroduction of the lower stalls allows an appreciation of the grandiose auditorium space.

The project has significantly enhanced this much loved heritage asset and restored it to its former art-deco glory allowing the building to continue to sit proudly in the heart of Muswell Hill and, most importantly, giving the building a long term, viable purpose.

All winners will be announced at the Awards evening on Wednesday 21st June 2017.

 

Many small scale housing developers will be all too familiar with the on-going saga regarding the need (or otherwise) to make an affordable housing contribution on developments of 10 units or less. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has now issued a letter in an attempt to clarify the approach which should be taken by Inspectors.

To re-cap, back in May 2016, the Government reinstated rules exempting small sites from affordable housing obligations following the Court of Appeal decision in the case of West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

The reintroduction of the exemption was welcome news for small scale developers. However, the Court of Appeal decision made it clear that the exemption, originally introduced in a Written ministerial Statement (WMS) and subsequently translated into Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), does not automatically override development plan policy, which remains the starting point for the determination of applications.

This left the door open for a number of local authorities to continued to seek affordable housing contributions on small sites in line with their development plan policies. However, when tested at appeal, there has been a lack of consistency in Inspectors’ determination of the relative weight that should be afforded to local planning policy, where it conflicts with the WMS and PPG.

The London Borough of Richmond felt particularly aggrieved at this inconsistency, seeing three appeals in which the Inspectors’ decisions supported their requirement for affordable housing, and two in which Inspectors ruled in favour of the WMS exemption, with costs awarded against the Council in both cases. The Borough wrote to PINS in December 2016 highlighting the apparent lack of logic in determining why the Inspectors came to differing views.

PINS has now responded to Richmond’s letter.  The response states that of the five decisions Richmond refer to, the approaches taken by the Inspectors in respect of three of the cases are considered to be reasonable. However, PINS ‘fully accept that there are errors in approach and judgement in appeals 3148614 and 3156689’ and offer ‘sincere apologies…for the flaws in these decisions and for any consequent frustration or inconvenience that this may have caused’.

PINS letter states that:

In respect of the decisions for appeals 3148614 and 3156689, affording considerably lesser weight to relevant local policies because they are now, in part, inconsistent with national planning policy, is arguably not an appropriate one, as the effect of the WMS was not to reduce the weight that should be given to the statutory development plan, or automatically to outweigh relevant development plan policies. Local policies still have weight as the starting point from S.38(6) and the WMS comes into play as a material consideration which post-dates the plan, and which has to be balanced against the plan and the evidence base supporting the LPA’s application of the policy. The decision maker therefore has discretion in applying his or her judgment as to where the balance should lie, drawing on the evidence presented. [Our emphasis].

So, where does this statement from PINS leave small scale developers? It is helpful that PINS has clarified that the WMS does not automatically outweigh relevant development plan policies and will be updating their internal Inspector guidance accordingly. However, small scale developers remain in the uncertain position that it is up to the decision maker to make a judgment on whether or not the WMS exemption should apply. As such, in many instances, there will unfortunately be a continued need to take schemes to appeal to allow a Planning Inspector the opportunity to consider the relevant policy position and evidence base put forward.

If you have any queries regarding the provision of affordable housing, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

In May 2016, the Government reinstated rules exempting small sites from affordable housing obligations following the Court of Appeal decision in the case of West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

The reintroduction of the exemption was welcome news for small scale developers.  However, the Court of Appeal decision made it clear that the exemption, originally introduced in a Written ministerial Statement (WMS) and subsequently translated into Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), does not automatically override development plan policy, which remains the starting point for the determination of applications.

This left the door open for a number of local authorities to continued to seek affordable housing contributions on small sites in line with their development plan policies. However, when tested at appeal, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a lack of consistency in Inspectors’ determination of the relative weight that should to be afforded to local planning policy, where it conflicts with the WMS and PPG.

For example, Elmbridge Borough Council issued a statement in June 2016, which seeks to justify an exception to the exemption of small sites due to the specific circumstances of the Borough, namely the exceptionally high house prices and affordability issues in the Borough and the importance of small sites to delivering affordable housing.  The Council’s success at appeal has so far been mixed, with decisions of Inspectors backing the Council’s approach on three occasions, yet Inspectors finding in favour of the small scale affordable housing exemption on five other occasions.

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council issued a similar Position Statement in July 2016 again aimed at strengthening the justification for affordable housing on small sites but, in this instance, a recent appeal against the Borough was upheld and resulted in the award of costs against the Council.  Consequently, in November 2016, the Council resolved to take into account the implications of government policy on affordable housing as a material consideration when considering all future planning application.

In Brighton & Hove, two Inspectors issued decisions within weeks of one another, in which they came to opposing conclusions as to whether the Council could seek an affordable housing contribution.

The London Borough of Richmond has experienced the same kind of inconsistency, seeing four appeals in which the Inspector’s decisions supported their requirement for affordable housing, and two in which Inspectors ruled in favour of the WMS exemption, with costs awarded against the Council in both cases.  We understand that the Borough has recently written to PINS highlighting the apparent lack of logic in determining why the Inspectors came to differing views.

The Government originally attempted to introduce the exemption as a means of relieving the ‘disproportionate burden of developer contributions on small scale developers’. Unfortunately, these inconsistent appeal decisions leave small scale developers in the uncertain position of not knowing the weight which will be afforded to local plan thresholds.

We are expecting a number of other appeal decisions over the coming months and will continue to keep a close eye on this issue. If you have any queries regarding the provision of affordable housing, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

 

The Leader Elect of Westminster City Council, Cllr Nickie Aiken, this week announced details of the colleagues that will form her first Cabinet, ahead of their expected formal appointment on 25 January 2017.

The shake up sees Cllr Robert Davis stepping down from his role as Cabinet Member for the Built Environment and Chair of the Planning Committee. Mr Davis has been responsible for planning applications in Westminster for almost 17 years, a role which has seen him awarded an MBE in 2015 for his services to local government and planning.

Mr Davis has agreed to take on a number of new responsibilities in the ‘important, new and vital place making role’ as Cabinet Member for Business, Culture and Heritage and will remain Deputy Leader of the City Council.

Cllr Daniel Astaire will become Cabinet Member for Planning and Public Realm, taking charge of Westminster’s Strategic Planning, and Cllr Richard Beddoe will assume the role as Chairman of Planning.

2016 has been a busy year for Everyman Cinemas and Firstplan. Everyman acquired four former Odeon cinemas in Barnet, Esher, Gerrards Cross and Muswell Hill and, with Firstplan as retained planning and heritage consultants, the independent cinema operator successfully secured permission for the refurbishment of the portfolio – all of which are now up and running.

We are particularly proud of our work on the Grade II* listed Muswell Hill cinema. Eighty years after it was built by renowned cinema architect George Coles, the building has been restored to its former Art Deco glory, including the reinstatement of the magnificent lower stalls which had been abandoned for the last forty years.  The project presented the challenge of sensitively restoring the cinema to its original beauty, whilst ensuring that the renovations incorporated the flexibility and bespoke décor of the Everyman brand to create a viable 21st Century business. The project included detailed negotiations with Historic England and Haringey Council, and the coordination of a public exhibition.

Firstplan successfully secured planning permission and listed building consent for the refurbishment of the entire building, the addition of two new pod screens within the circle, to create five screens ranging from 40-250 seats, and works to enable the re-opening of the lower stalls. As well as the screens, the cinema also offers two bars, a restaurant and outside space.

We are sure you will agree that the results are stunning and we look forward to continuing our work with Everyman in 2017!

The Directors of Firstplan are delighted to announce that Tim Williams has been promoted to Director.

Since joining Firstplan in 2010, Tim has developed strong relationships with many of Firstplan’s new and existing clients and has secured planning permission for a wide spectrum of developments ranging from small and large scale residential projects to offices, hotels, restaurants, hostels, student accommodation, theatres, schools, petrol filling stations, warehouses and industrial uses up to and including major retail led mixed use regeneration schemes.

Gavin Barwell MP has been announced as the new Minister of State for Housing & Planning, replacing Brandon Lewis who moves to the Home Office. Interestingly, Mr Barwell has also been appointed as Minster for London, a role which was last occupied by Tessa Jowell who left office in 2010. David Cameron did not choose to appoint a replacement.

Mr Barwell was elected Conservative MP for Croydon Central in May 2010 and served as a House of Commons Whip until his promotion yesterday. In a statement issued following his appointment, Mr Barwell unsurprisingly highlights the need for more housing as a key priority. His new role will see him work closely with both the former Business Secretary Savid Javid who was made Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government last week, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Following the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been updated to reinstate policies on the Vacant Building Credit and local planning authorities not requiring small sites to make s106 contributions for affordable housing.

The story so far…

August 2015 saw the Council’s of West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council succeed in a High Court ruling following a challenge of the Government’s exemption for affordable housing requirements on small development sites of ten units or less and the introduction of a Vacant Building Credit (VBC), which were introduced in 2014 in a Ministerial Statement and included in the PPG.   The High Court decision led to the subsequent removal of these policies from the PPG in 2015 .

The SofS appealed against the High Court ruling and May 2016 saw the Court of Appeal find in favour of the government’s approach.  The Court of Appeal upheld all four appeal grounds brought by the Secretary of State, namely;

1.     The exemption and VBC policy expressed could not be faulted on grounds that it did not use language which indicated that it is not to be applied in a blanket fashion. Furthermore, policy may overtake a development plan.

2.     It was accepted that statutory planning context does constrain the Secretary of State and would prevent the introduction of planning matters which were not proper planning considerations.

3.     There was no unfairness in the procedure adopted by the Secretary of State and the relevant paragraph in the ministers response on consultations represented a balance of the various submissions;

4.     There was no breach of the public sector equality duty.

The Court of Appeal decision effectively reversed the judgement by the High Court.  Despite the fact that West Berkshire and Reading Council’s have 28 days from the date of the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court, the Government has wasted no time in updating the online PPG to restore the statements relating to affordable housing thresholds and VBC which had been previously removed (specifically paragraphs 015, 016, 017, 019, 020, 021, 022 and 023 of the document are now reinserted with the same wording from the 2014 Statement).

Questions will no doubt be raised over the weight which local authorities should attach to this guidance, but the reintroduction of this policy is nonetheless welcome news for small scale developers.

If you have any queries regarding the new guidance, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgement in the case of  West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.   The case centred around the Government’s decision to  introduce a national affordable housing threshold and the Vacant Building Credit.

The controversial policy, set out in a Written Ministerial Statement back in November 2014, excluded housing developments of 10 units or 1,000sqm or less from the need to provide, or contribute towards, affordable housing – with a lower threshold introduced in rural areas.  The Vacant Building Credit (VBC) allowed local authorities to provide a ‘credit’ equivalent to the floorspace of any vacant building brought back into use or demolished for redevelopment, which could then be set against affordable housing contributions.

West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council challenged the guidance on the basis that it would result in a loss of 21% of affordable housing contributions nationwide.  In July 2015 the High Court backed their arguments and quashed the policy, concluding that the national policy changes introduced in November 2014 were incompatible with the statutory planning framework. The decision also highlighted failure to have regard to material considerations, unlawful consultation and breach of the public sector equality duty (“PSED”). The Secretary of State appealed on all of these grounds.

Today, the Court of Appeal upheld all four appeal grounds brought by the Government, and reversed the High Court’s decision to quash the policy.  Subject to the local authorities not appealing to the Supreme Court, this decision paves the way for the policy to be reintroduced into Planning Practice Guidance.

This is an important case, particularly for many small scale developers, and we will be keeping a close eye on the implications of the judgement.  If you have any queries about this decision, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.