This is good news for residential property owners.

Section 144 of the Act creates a new criminal offence of squatting in a residential building. Under the Act, a squatting offence will be deemed to have been committed if a person does all of the following:

1. Is in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered it as a trespasser;

2. Knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser; and

3. Is living in the building or intends to live there for any period of time

Although section 144 has not yet come into force (and no definite date has been given at the time of writing), if a person enters a residential building as a trespasser before or after the section’s enforcement, that person will have committed an offence under the Act. Offenders face up to one year in prison and/or a fine of up to £5000.  Some further background information is here.

There are a number of exceptions to this new offence, where an offence will not have been committed – for example, when a legitimate tenant or occupier who has occupied a property with permission refuses to leave following a disagreement with the landlord.

Importantly, the Act does not extend to commercial properties, so commercial property owners will have to continue to evict squatters through the civil possession procedure.

The Act is expected to come into force in September 2012, but we are awaiting confirmation.

The purpose of the NPPF is to streamline planning bureaucracy, by condensing 44 planning policy statements and guidance notes (and thousands of pages) into a single 59-page document. It also:

1. Contains the economic, environmental and social planning policies for England;

2. Sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they are expected to be applied; and

3. Must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans.

The central theme of the NPPF is the “presumption in favour of sustainable development.”

The definition of “sustainable development” has been expanded so that it now includes reference to the social and environmental benefits of development. It includes five “guiding principles” of sustainable development, as set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy: living within the planet’s environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.

The NPPF lists 12 key planning principles that should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-taking. Planning should:

1. Be genuinely plan-led;

2. Not simply be about scrutiny;

3. Be pro-actively driven and support sustainable economic development;

4. Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity;

5. Take account of the different roles and character of different areas;

6. Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate;

7. Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution;

8. Encourage the effective use of land by re-using brownfield land;

9. Promote mixed use developments;

10. Conserve heritage assets;

11. Actively manage patterns of growth; and

12. Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing.

Some key points

1. The NPPF encourages the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (i.e brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;

2. Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of town centres. The NPPF retains the “sequential approach” to planning applications for main town centre uses. This requires most central town centre sites to be developed for shops, leisure and offices before out-of-town sites. However, an exemption to the sequential approach is included for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development;

3. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should identify and annually update a supply of sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional buffer of 5 per cent to ensure choice and competition in the market. Where there has been a history of persistent under-delivery of housing, LPAs should increase the buffer to 20 per cent to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choices and competition in the market for land. However, there is recognition that housing land supply can best be met through new settlements or extensions to existing towns and villages;

4. The NPPF continues to protect land designated as green belt. As with previous green belt policy, inappropriate development should not be approved except in special circumstances. New buildings within the green belt, subject to a limited number of exceptions, are inappropriate. It should be noted that renewable energy projects will often be inappropriate development, and in such cases, the developer will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed; and

5. Transitional provisions have been introduced to give local authorities a 12 month reprieve (until 26 March 2013), provided that the local development plan does not conflict too much with the NPPF.

The future

It is absolutely clear that we have entered a new planning era, although it will be some time before we see its full effect. There will undoubtedly be a period of uncertainty while LPAs try to interpret and then apply the transitional provisions.

Through the NPPF, the Government is attempting to support employment and growth, whilst serving the interests of local communities and the environment by keeping the relevant checks and balances in place. Development powers have been transferred to local authorities, and local communities will be able to decide where new homes (and the infrastructure to support them) should be built.

The new online system will provide conveyancers with instant Buildmark cover information and access to all the associated documentation. This is good news for purchasers of new homes as it should help to speed up the conveyancing process.

Conveyancers will be able to:

1. Check whether a property is covered by Buildmark prior to exchange of contracts;

2. Complete the acceptance form online; and

3. Check and download all of the NHBC documentation, including the Insurance Certificate, policy documents, warranty status, and the CML Cover note.

The new process will allow any amendments to be made directly on to the system, thus avoiding the delays and costs associated with having to issue revised paper-based documents.

The change is good news for both homeowners and housebuilders.

As well as generally speeding up the conveyancing process, there should also be fewer cases where contracts are exchanged for the purchase of new homes where cover is not in place. In the event that there is a problem with the cover (e.g. if cover is not available as the builder or developer is no longer registered with NHBC), then that information will be available to view immediately. Builders and developers will also benefit because there will be no acceptance-related paperwork to store or send.

The Government is asking for opinions on regulations that affect the private rented sector, social housing, construction, and the building regulations. Full details are here.

In the Government’s press release on the issue, Communities Minister Baroness Hanham said:

“For years builders, businesses, landlords and residents have had to navigate an increasingly complicated set of rules and regulations to do things by the book. Now we’re giving them the chance to tell us what they would like us to change so that building a new home or property is a smoother ride.”

Interested parties have four more weeks to put forward their views and this can be done on the Red tape challenge website. This website has full details of the challenge and you can also read the opinions of those who have already commented (and respond to those comments if you so wish.)

The note provides an overview of what Build Now, Pay Later is, the advantages it brings to housebuilders, and the terms which government departments will ask developers to bid on when they are disposing of their land.

The Build Now, Pay Later scheme is intended to make it easier for developers to manage their development cash flow, as they do not have to pay upfront for the government-owned land. Housebuilders will pay for the land after they have started work on the new homes, meaning that they can start building immediately.

The scheme has been launched in conjunction with the Government’s decision to release public sector land for housebuilding, with the aim of building 100,000 new homes by 2015. The need for new homes is urgent, as recent figures have revealed that housebuilding is now at its lowest levels since the 1920s (click here for more details.)

In its note, the Government has admitted that Build Now, Pay Later is not appropriate for all sites, and will tend to be more beneficial on larger more complicated sites which will require significant capital investment to unlock.

There are two Build Now, Pay Later models: Phased Payments and Risk Sharing.

The Phased Payments model is where the land value or base price is apportioned across a number of phases with specified dates for when payments will be made. The housebuilder bears less initial risk, as payments are linked to completed or sold phases. The timing of payments and percentage of land value paid on completion of each phase can be varied to suit the risk characteristics of the site.

The Risk Sharing model allows housebuilders to share the risk and reward from the movement in house prices and the subsequent revenue generated. However, the risk of fluctuations in development costs will be borne by the housebuilder.

Increasing housebuilding is one of the Government’s key objectives in its Growth Review, and it is also hoped that the Build Now, Pay Later will create and sustain thousands of jobs in the construction sector.

The HBF’s New Housing Pipeline Q3 2011 report also said that planning permission was granted for only 29,059 homes across England in the same period – a 50 per cent drop in the average number of home approvals in 2006 and 2007.

The report went on to state that the number of homes being built is now lower than at any time since the 1920s and called on the Government to continue with its proposed planning reforms in order to address the current housing crisis.

However, the Government’s planning reforms may be facing a serious challenge. In its review of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NAPF) this week, the parliamentary Communities and Local Government Committee said that the Government’s proposals to reform the planning system should be re-written to give greater protection to the environment and to ensure that developers build on brownfield land and within town centres. The Committee also said that an adequate definition of “sustainable development” was missing from the proposals and put forward its own alternative definition. Full details of the Committee’s report are here.

The Committee claimed that the default answer of “yes” in the planning reforms, which gives the go-ahead to development unless the adverse effects “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits, should be removed as it could lead to poorly planned, unsustainable development.

The Government has said that it will “carefully consider” the new definition of sustainable development offered by the Committee, so we shall see what happens.

The Government is due to implement its final version of the NAPF in early 2012.

The Act includes measures to reform the planning system, to ensure decisions about housing are taken at a local level, and to generally increase the power of local government and local communities. David Marsden, Head of Real Estate at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin, looks at the particular implications for planning here.

The Government has produced a ‘plain English’ guide to the Localism Act, which clearly summarises all of the main ideas contained in the Act and what effect they will have on local communities.

Over the coming weeks and months, the measures laid out in the Localism Act will begin to come into force. Many of the measures are expected to be in place by April 2012, although there is no definite timetable yet.

The Bill, which was introduced to Parliament in December last year, will devolve more power from central government to local councils, so that communities have more control over housing and planning decisions in their areas.

Once Royal Assent is received (which should be a formality) and the relevant sections come into force, the Bill will, amongst other things:

1. Abolish the Regional Strategies;

2. Force local planning authorities (LPAs) to co-operate with each other on issues which cross council boundaries, particularly in relation to sustainable development and the use of land for strategic infrastructure.

3. Make changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy, so that LPAs will have greater control over the setting of their charges;

4. Introduce Neighbourhood development orders and plans (so local communities can specify where they think development should take place and how the local area should be planned);

5. Require developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for certain developments;

6. Introduce new enforcement measures for LPAs, including the power to reject retrospective planning applications; extend time limits on taking enforcement action against people who conceal unauthorised development; set new financial penalties; and increase powers to deal with unauthorised advertisements;

7. Abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, so that its functions can be transferred to a new unit in the Planning Inspectorate and decisions can be made by democratically elected (and accountable) government minsters; and

8. Reform the delivery of social housing.

Royal Assent could be given as early this week, but, if not, certainly before the end of the year; the Bill is then expected to come into force in April 2012 (although confirmation is still awaited.)

UPDATE: The Localism Bill received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011.

The first dispute concerned a joint venture between the claimant and defendant to redevelop a property for commercial gain. The claimant, Mr Edmonds, had purchased the freehold of the property, pursuant to a joint venture between the two parties. The joint venture, though, was never formalised in writing. The defendant property developer’s contribution to the purchase price of the property was obtained through a bank loan (and secured by a legal charge on the property.)

The redevelopment, however, did not take place and the property was subsequently sold. However, the two parties could not agree on how the proceeds of the sale should be divided between them. Mr Edmonds alleged that it had been agreed that he would be repaid his cash contribution of £300,000 before the defendant was repaid for the bank loan. The Court rejected this allegation, although it did accept that the defendant had agreed to bear half of the cost of maintaining the property; the Court therefore deducted that sum of money (more than £50,000) from the £300,000 that Mr Edmonds owed.

The second dispute concerned the cost of the defendant renovating Mr Edmonds family home. Again, the contract was never formalised in writing. When the renovation was completed, the two parties could not agree on how much money was payable. The Court, after carrying out a quantum meruit valuation of the works, rejected Mr Edmond’s suggestion that the defendant had agreed to manage the renovation for free and without a mark-up on “all other costs, labour and materials, etc.” Instead, the Court allowed a 15 per cent mark up, plus a percentage for the defendant’s services, although deductions were made after the Court acknowledged that the defendant had not properly advised on planning, building regulations and VAT. The court awarded the defendants £683,512 (less sums already paid.)

Although this case was decided on its facts, it highlights the dangers of proceeding with joint venture projects without a formal agreement between the parties involved.

Apart from the media and general interest created by the celebrity involved, there are lessons to be learned from this case. Many developers and landowners enter into joint venture agreements, particularly when bank finance can be hard to find. These come about in a variety of ways: setting up a formal joint venture company or limited liability partnership with responsibilities and profit shares set out in shareholders’ or members’ agreements, via collaboration or joint venture agreements, or by less formal methods such as a handshake in the local pub. Joint ventures start off with high hopes, but it should always be appreciated that things can go wrong, parties fall out, or the market can fall. Proper legal advice should be taken at the outset, the correct legal structure agreed and all likely scenarios taken into account.

There is some parliamentary opposition to parts of this Bill and an amendment to clause 26, which would have watered downed proposals to criminalise squatting in residential property, was recently defeated in Parliament. The amendment would have meant that no offence would have been committed if a building has been empty for six months or more.

Squatting is a form of trespass which involves a person or persons occupying land or property without the consent of the owner; however, at present, squatting is not a criminal offence in England and Wales (although section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 does make it is an offence for a squatter to fail to leave a residential property when required to do so by, or on behalf of, either a displaced residential occupier or other occupiers whose interest in the property is protected under the legislation.)

Under the current Bill, squatters could face one year’s imprisonment and/or £5,000 fine if found guilty of squatting in a residential property.

Unfortunately, the new offence will not criminalise squatting in commercial and other non-residential buildings, as, according to the Government’s response to a recent consultation on the issue, “there does not appear to be the same level of concern about squatting that occurs in those premises.”

The Bill (and defeat of the amendment) is to be welcomed by property owners and occupiers who have borne the cost of evicting squatters and the associated property repair and clean-up costs, which can be a lengthy and expensive process. However, it is a shame that  the criminal offence of squatting will not currently be extended to commercial property, although it is very possible that this may happen in the future.

The Bill is expected to be enacted in spring 2012, with it coming into force shortly after.

These changes could affect all commercial property owner-occupiers and investors.

HMRC intends to do the following:

1. Require all taxpayers to claim capital allowances within one or two years of when the money was spent, or no capital allowances claim will ever be allowed for any current or future owner. This will apply to all new construction expenditure (e.g. new-builds, extensions, refurbishments, etc) as well as purchases of second-hand property. Historic expenditure made before April 2012 is also likely to be subject to the new rules.

2. Require the buyer and seller of a second-hand building including fixtures to submit a formal ‘Record of Agreement’, showing how much of the purchase price is attributable to the fixtures (and notify this to HMRC within one or two years.)

If these changes do go ahead, buyers of plant and machinery fixtures will need to ensure that they notify HMRC of the expenditure within the required time limit in order to claim capital allowances. Also, the buyer and the seller will have to agree on the sale value of the fixtures within the requisite time period if the buyer is to be able to claim capital allowances in relation to the fixtures.

Draft legislation will be included in the Finance Bill 2012, with the changes expected to take effect from April 2012.

As a matter of urgency, if you have not yet claimed for fixtures, or believe that capital allowances might have been under-claimed, please contact either me at david.marsden@mablaw.com, or our property tax specialist Shimon Shaw at shimon.shaw@mablaw.com, as any additional claim should be made before the rules change in April 2012.

EPCs provide information on how energy-efficient a building is and make recommendations on how to reduce that building’s energy use and carbon dioxide emissions.

Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Government intends to make the following changes:

1. The duty to commission an energy performance certificate (EPC) before marketing a property will be extended to the sale and rent of residential and non-residential buildings;

2. The current 28-day period within which an EPC should be obtained using “all reasonable efforts” will be reduced to 7 days. (However, there will be an additional 21-day period during which the EPC can be obtained if it has not been secured within the initial 7-day period);

3. The requirement to include an EPC with written particulars will apply to all residential and non-residential buildings, whether offered for sale or rent. It will not be possible to only include the asset rating;

4. The powers of Trading Standards Officers (TSOs) will be increased so that they can force estate agents and letting agents (and not just landlords or building owners) to prove that an EPC has been commissioned and to produce a copy of it for inspection. This will mean, for example, that TSOs will be authorised to require estate/letting agents to produce evidence that an EPC has been commissioned in circumstances where they are marketing a building without one;

5. An air-conditioning inspection report (if required) will have to be lodged on the central EPC register. (This will no longer be voluntary); and

6. Regulation 5 of the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 will be amended to make it clear that the provision of the EPC cannot be delayed until shortly before the parties enter into a contract for sale or rent.

These changes were supposed to have been implemented in two stages – on 1 July 2011 and 6 October 2011, so we will have to wait and see whether the Government sticks to its new April 2012 date. It certainly seems strange that the Government is pressing ahead with these changes in spite of their stated intention to reduce the burden of red tape on businesses.

The decision is important because it was Cala’s planning application that led to it launching a judicial review at the High Court against Eric Pickles’ decision to effectively abolish the Regional Strategies in 2010. Click here for full details.

Neither Cala Homes nor its lawyers have yet to make an announcement on the decision, but it could launch a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The guidance applies to high street and online estate agents, property auctioneers, buyers’ agents, and solicitors and online property sites which offer services that count as estate agency work.

The new guidance focuses on two important pieces of legislation: (1) the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which prohibit traders/estate agents from engaging in commercial practices that are unfair to sellers, buyers, potential sellers and potential buyers of residential property, and (2) the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, which prohibit traders/estate agents from using misleading marketing when they advertise services to potential business clients or market commercial property for sale.

The draft guidance seeks to clarify how these two Regulations apply to estate agency work. It contains examples of trading practices that could breach the Regulations, and offers practical steps that businesses can take to comply with the law when they do any of the following:

1. advertise for new business, including through flyers, websites, newspaper advertisements and verbal discussions;

2. provide advice to new clients and take new instructions;

3. market properties, including when property details are put on the Internet;

4. negotiate and make sales; and

5. deal with complaints.

Currently, if you are convicted of committing a criminal offence under the CPRs or BPRs, you could face a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum , which is £5,000 (if convicted in the Magistrates Court), or an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment for up to two years (if convicted on indictment in the Crown Court.)

Also, under the Estate Agents Act 1979, if the OFT deems a business to be unfit to engage in estate agency work, it can issue a prohibition order banning the business from doing so.

The deadline for responding to the consultation is 9 December 2011. After this date, the OFT will publish its final guidance and a summary of the responses received.

A ‘right to light’ is an easement that gives a landowner the right to receive natural light through defined apertures (e.g. windows) in buildings on their land. These rights are valuable, as they give landowners (and their purchasers) certainty that they will continue to enjoy natural light.

The review will look at whether the current law on how rights to light are acquired and enforced provides an appropriate balance between those landowners who benefit from the rights and those who want to develop in the vicinity of the land. It will also examine the inter-relationship between the planning system and rights to light, and whether the remedies available to the courts are “reasonable, sufficient and proportionate.”

The announcement of the review is good news for developers.

Developers have faced a lot of uncertainty since the September 2010 ruling in HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney, when the High Court awarded an injunction against a developer who had infringed the right to light of a neighbouring commercial property, despite the development having been completed. The Court held that the payment of damages was not necessarily an appropriate recompense for interfering with a landowner’s right to light; consequently, the removal of a structure, or part of a structure, is now possible. The ruling highlights how important it is that developers resolve any potential rights of light issues before commencing their development. 

However, it should be noted that the ruling didn’t change the law and, therefore, the decision in each case will always be dependent on its own facts. Further details of the ruling are here.

Whilst the review is welcome, any change to the law is some way off.

The review will begin in 2012, with a consultation paper expected to be published in 2013. A final report and draft legislation could be available by late 2014 or early 2015.

Greyfort Properties (G) had submitted an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development that would allow it to carry out the development of 19 flats on the site under a permission granted in 1974, without submitting a fresh planning application.

G had obtained planning permission in 1974 for the development. However, the planning permission included a condition that “before any work is commenced on the site, the ground floor levels of the building hereby permitted shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing.” The planning permission stipulated that work had to begin within five years. In 1978 – four years from the date of the permission – G carried out some access work, and argued that this work amounted to commencement of the development, meaning that the planning permission remained in force (and therefore a fresh application would not be needed.) However, the planning inspector said that the access works had been carried out in breach of the planning condition, and that the works did not amount to commencement of the development. The planning inspector’s decision was upheld by the High Court.

G appealed this ruling at the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that, although preparatory works relating to access for the development were carried out on the site in 1978 within the five-year time limit, these works did not implement the planning permission because the ground levels’ condition had not been satisfied.

The usual rule is that development must commence within three years of the grant of planning permission. Typically, if a developer didn’t want to actively proceed with a development, but wanted to ensure that the planning permission did not expire, they would dig a few holes, maybe lay some foundations and ask the planning officer to write a letter stating that development had commenced.  They could then ‘mothball’ the site until there was a good commercial reason to proceed.

During the recession, I expect some developers have been delaying commencement of developments. This decision reminds us that it is not just a matter of physically commencing development before the end of the three-year period that is important, but that the pre-commencement conditions must also be dealt with before commencement of building works. It can take some months to have the pre-commencement conditions approved, so any developer sitting on a planning permission should not leave it until the last minute to look into this.

Organising utility connections is often cited by property developers as the main reason for delays in construction projects. A 2008 survey by National Federation of Builders showed that 87.9 per cent of development sites had experienced problems with utility companies.

Whilst more efficient working practices by utility companies are required, the BPF believes that developers and contractors can do more to help themselves, and this new guide sets out to provide more information on the framework governing utility connections and the pitfalls that need to be avoided. The guide intends to:

1. Explain the current system for obtaining new connections to gas, electricity and water services;

2. Describe the role of the major players involved in the connection process; and

3. Set out the problems most commonly experienced by developers, and the ways in which developers can seek to mitigate them.

The problems highlighted by the guidance (and the aforementioned 2008 survey) include poor communication; lack of competition in the provision of connections; lack of transparency in costs; the length of time it takes utility providers to issue quotations (an average of 12 weeks) and then to agree a supply; failure by the utility companies’ contractors to adhere to agreed programmes; and the use of outdated procedures by many connection providers.

However, the guide also recognises that developers are not faultless in the process and can help themselves by improving the lines of communication; ensuring that they complete application forms correctly; ensuring that site personnel are available when site visits are arranged with utility providers; and improving their planning, by finding out what infrastructure already exists, carrying out feasibility studies, allowing for complexity in large schemes, and not hugely overestimating loads by using data that takes no account of load coincidence and diversity.

The Government wants to remove uncertainty from the planning system for local people by ensuring that every planning application is dealt with as quickly as possible.

Under the proposals, local people will be able to see how their councils perform against the ‘guarantee’ by using information provided by the councils. Currently thousands of planning applications are held up in the planning system, leaving local householders, companies and developers “in planning limbo.” For example, between April 2010 and April 2011, approximately 3,200 planning applications took longer than 52 weeks to be decided – a statistic that the Government wants to eradicate.

The Government also intends to create more openness, by requiring councils to publish details of their planning performance on at least a quarterly basis, so that local people can see whether their council is meeting the requirements of the planning guarantee. The Department for Communities and Local Government will also publish a regular report on the performance of individual councils.

The Planning Minister, Greg Clark, has already written to local authorities signalling the Government’s intentions.

The next step

1. The Government will provide full details of how the planning guarantee will work in a consultation paper, which is likely to be published in autumn 2011.

2. The Government will publish a further consultation paper later this year on reducing the amount of information required to accompany all planning applications.

Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 provides that anyone can apply to register land as a town or village green where “a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years.” In the past, those who have objected to a development on open land have been able to delay it (or even prevent it) by making an application to have the land registered as a town and village green (TVG application).

Under the proposals, the criteria for registration would remain the same, but new restrictions would be placed on land that can be the subject of a TVG application.

Defra’s proposals include the following:

1. Giving the registration authorities (RAs) the power to reject TVG applications at an early stage if insufficient evidence has been submitted, or if there is strong evidence that the application would fail to satisfy the criteria for registration;

2. Allowing landowners to make a statutory declaration, registrable with the RA and renewable every ten years, that any use of land is with their permission. This would prevent any use of land “as of right”;

3. The introduction of a ”character” test, so that only land which is unenclosed by fencing, open (i.e. not covered in dense scrub, trees and vegetation) and uncultivated would be eligible for registration;

4. Taking into account whether the land that is the subject of the TVG application is in the planning system. Land which is subject to a planning application or planning permission, or which was designated for development (or as a green space) in a local or neighbourhood plan, could not be registered as a TVG; and

5. Requiring applicants to pay an application fee. Each registration authority would be able to set its own fee, subject to a prescribed ceiling of £1,000. Fees could be refundable if the application were granted. This may deter some applications that are simply designed to delay developments.

The proposals in the consultation will not prevent the protection of any existing registered greens, and any changes to the registration system will not bring the designation of new greens to an end. However, the restrictions will be welcomed by landowners and developers, who have had to put up with costly delays when faced with TVG applications.

The consultation closes on 17 October 2011 and applies to England only.

The High Court has agreed with H. In fact, H succeeded on another point, so the decision on the meaning of good faith is only persuasive rather than binding. However, the Court said that the contractual duty of good faith meant that the parties had to disclose all material facts to each other. CAL’s failure to mention that it needed to obtain funding from a third party were material facts and denied H the opportunity to make an informed decision. Although CAL had acted honestly, it still breached the clause. The Court added that it was not actually necessary to decide whether full disclosure would have altered H’s decision. The duty had still been breached and that was enough.

On 1 July 2011, the High Court ruled that developer HelioSlough could build a large rail freight interchange on green belt land in Radlett, despite opposition from the Council and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Full details of the ruling and background to the dispute are here.

The Council had been set to appeal the ruling, but changed its mind after the Secretary of State announced that he would not seek leave to appeal.

However, this isn’t necessarily the end of the line for this legal dispute. The Council, which has reportedly spent nearly £1m in trying to thwart this scheme, is still opposed to it, and the matter will now be referred back to the Secretary of State who will have to re-examine his earlier findings.

If the Secretary of State’s decision goes against the Council, it may still decide to launch another legal appeal.

This is an important decision for local people affecting a proposed large scale development near Stevenage.

The claimant local authorities challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (SoS) to grant planning permission to build 3,000 homes and the associated infrastructure  on land to the west of Stevenage.

The SoS granted permission subject to a section 106 agreement, including various obligations such as the provision of schools. The developer and the local authorities were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of the section 106 agreement and, as such, the developer submitted a section 106 undertaking which in its view met the inspector’s requirements. The undertaking included provisions concerning a temporary schools accommodation strategy (“Strategy”) which provided education to pupils occupying the first dwellings before the creation of permanent schools.  The effect of these provisions was that there would be a bar on development until the Strategy had been submitted to the local authority, and either this had not been approved within 4 months or it had been approved but subject to conditions which were unacceptable to the landowners.

There was no time limit on the bar, but equally no positive obligation on the developer to submit the Strategy. Where the Strategy was not agreed, a different bar to development came into effect until statutory proposals had been published or approved, although if no proposals were published or approved within 18 months after the grant of planning permission, the bar on development would cease. The SoS granted permission subject to conditions.

The local authorities claimed that the SoS had erred by:

1. Ignoring a policy on renewable energy (ENG1) and which has been included in the East of England Plan (EEP) requiring developments of more than 10 dwellings to obtain 10 per cent of their energy from decentralised and renewable sources; and

2. Considering the developer’s undertaking relating to the Strategy as adequate.

Decision

The local authorities had to prove that the SoS had ignored ENG1 and that the absence of reference to the policy was not sufficient evidence that it had been ignored. There was a general reference to the EEP, but it was clear from the conditions imposed that the SoS had not taken it into account. The terms of the conditions had only been tweaked so that these would not meet the targets of the ENG1 policy. On the evidence, the SoS had ignored ENG1 and this was sufficient basis to quash the planning permission.

Making the date on lifting the bar to development relate to the grant of planning permission rather than the submission of the Strategy meant that there was a gap in which the developer could avoid its obligations (i.e. by putting in a Strategy which was not agreed.) The SoS had misunderstood the effect of the proviso, the purpose of which was to protect the developer from delays  by the local authority. The permission would be quashed on this reasoning also.

This ongoing legal battle began in August 2006, when HelioSlough submitted its original planning application to St Albans City and District Council. The Council rejected the planning application in 2007 and again in 2009, citing that the scheme was an inappropriate development on green belt land and that the developer had failed to show that the scheme could be built sustainably.

Although HelioSlough successfully appealed the decision, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, overruled the appeal in July 2010 on the grounds that the rail freight terminal could be built at an alternative site at Colnbrook in Slough, which would have less impact on green belt land.

In June 2011, HelioSlough launched judicial review proceedings in the High Court to challenge this decision.

The High Court handed down its decision last week (1 July 2011), ruling in favour of HelioSlough. This means that the decision to refuse planning permission has been overturned, essentially on a “legal technicality.” HelioSlough will now re-apply for planning permission and has publicly urged Eric Pickles to support it.

However, this may not be the end of the road for this long-running legal battle. Eric Pickles and St Albans City and District Council have until 11 July 2011 to challenge the decision.

UPDATE: St Albans City and District Council has announced that it will not appeal the High Court ruling. Click here for more details.

Mr Shapps said that by Autumn 2011, every Government department with significant landbanks will publish plans to release thousands of acres of previously-developed land to housebuilders.

And to make sure that these housebuilding projections are met, the Public Expenditure Committee will carefully scrutinise each government department’s plans, to make sure every possible site is made available for housebuilding. The Government will also encourage local councils to also make their unused land available for development.

This announcement follows the launch of the Government’s ‘Build Now, Pay Later’ initiative in March this year. Under this scheme, developers will be able to build homes on Homes and Communities Agency sites without paying for the land in advance. The first six sites being developed under this new scheme are in Hemel Hempstead, Basingstoke, Tower Hamlets, Northampton, Rushcliffe and Telford. It is anticipated that these developments will create up to 3,000 new homes.

The Government’s announcement is to be welcomed by housebuilders. As the Government holds a huge amount of land, it is right that it is now freeing this land up to help alleviate the housing shortage. It is hoped that the ‘Build Now, Pay Later’ scheme will also help struggling housebuilders to get their developments up and running.

After this date there will be a significant reduction in the annual investment allowance for qualifying expenditure which potentially could result in lost 100% up-front tax relief.

Claiming on the balance not covered by AIA at rates applicable to the general, special or short-life asset pools spreads the claim for tax relief over much longer periods.

Here is an example I’ve seen from accountants Smith & Williamson:

Using an example of a 30 June 2012 year end, the table below shows the effect of delaying expenditure until after 1 April 2012 or 6 April 2012 on the maximum amount of AIA claimable for that year.

Businesses need to consider more than just the availability of allowances when incurring expenditure, however this change in allowances is significant enough to justify very careful consideration of when to incur qualifying expenditure.

For more information, please email me on shimon.shaw@mablaw.com.

Cala had claimed that the Government’s intention to revoke the Regional Strategies could not be a lawful material consideration for local authorities when making decisions on planning applications. The Court of Appeal has rejected this claim.

This ruling is the latest in the long-running legal dispute between Cala and the Government, which stretches back to last year. Click here for full details.

Although Cala lost the appeal, the Court of Appeal praised the clarification that the case has brought to this contentious issue. Also, whilst finding that it would be wrong to say that the intention to revoke the Regional Strategies could never be a lawful material consideration when considering planning applications, the Court of Appeal qualified this by saying that it would only be in extreme cases when the intention to revoke would constitute a material consideration.

The ruling, therefore, leaves the door open for housebuilders to launch appeals over some planning decisions.

The Zero Carbon Homes standard will apply to the building of all new homes that are started after 2016. However, the Housing minister Grant Shapps has made clear that housebuilders will only have to ensure that emissions from the homes themselves (e.g. those from heating, ventilation, hot water, fixed lighting and building services), as covered by the Building Regulations, are reduced to zero; housebuilders will not be responsible, as had been suggested in the past, for emissions from household appliances used in the house  - or, as Mr Shapps said, housebuilders “should not be responsible for the amount of television the families who buy their homes watch or the number of cups of tea they make each day.”

Mr Shapps also said that in order to “deliver a realistic and effective approach to zero carbon”, the Government would:

1. Include “tough” standards for fabric energy efficiency (e.g. insulation, glazing) in any future changes to the Building Regulations;

2. Consult on the Zero Carbon Hub’s recommendations on the levels for other on-site carbon reduction levels; and

3. Work with the housebuilding industry on options for a regime for off-site measures (e.g. community energy schemes.)

Mr Shapps concluded his announcement by saying that the Government had succeeded in “nail(ing) down a definition for zero carbon homes”, whilst not “piling unfair costs on housebuilders.” 

Although there is still more work to be done on the definition of “zero carbon homes”, it is thankfully becoming clearer. Housebuilders will welcome the Government’s decision to exclude emissions from domestic appliances.

The 12-month Planning Guarantee, which is designed to speed up development and cut bureaucracy, will cover the “entire planning process”, including appeals made to the Planning Inspectorate.

According to the Home Builders Federation, it took on average 15½ months for housebuilders to be granted planning permission in 2008, so the Government is keen to reduce this timescale.

Mr Shapps also announced yesterday that the final details on the definition for ‘zero-carbon home’ will be made available shortly, and that the Government will not be creating a local standards framework, which would have allowed local authorities to choose their own local planning policies. This decision follows fears that devolving control to local authorities may actually increase regulation – something the Government is actively trying to cut across all sectors.

Cala Homes is challenging the Government’s claim that its intention to abolish the Regional Strategies should be considered by local planning authorities when ruling on planning applications.

Cala Homes, which successfully won a judicial review back in November 2010, was defeated in the High Court in February 2011 (click here for full details), but given permission to appeal the ruling.

The appeal began on 5 May and was expected to conclude today (6 May), with the decision reserved until a later date. I will post full details of the ruling in due course.

The consultation paper, Relaxation of planning rules for change of use from commercial to residential, includes proposals to amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, so that it will be permissible to allow a change of use from Class B (business and industrial uses) to Class C3 (dwelling houses) without having to obtain planning consent.

Under these proposals, more land would become available for housing, by permitting empty commercial buildings to be converted into new homes. This move follows the Chancellor’s announcement in his recent Budget that the Government would consult on proposals to increase the categories of changes of use that can be made without the need to apply for planning permission.

The consultation paper seeks views on a number of areas, including:

1. Whether a change from use class B1 (offices, research and development, and light industry) to C3 (dwelling house) should be allowed without express planning permission (subject to effective measures being put in place to mitigate the risk of homes being built in unsuitable locations);

2. Whether a change of use from classes B2 (general industrial use not within class B1) and B8 (storage and distribution) to C3 should be classed as permitted development (subject to effective measures being put in place to mitigate the risk of homes being built in unsuitable locations); and

3. Whether current permitted development rights that allow a change from class A1 (shops) and A2 (financial and professional services) to a mixed use (including one residential flat) should be widened to allow for more than one dwelling.

The consultation paper also asks for comment on whether the Government has identified all the possible problems/issues that could arise from widening permitted development rights, and what measures might be needed to mitigate against those problems.

The closing date for responses is 30 June 2011.

This environmental assessment will be “voluntary”, but the Government intends to produce one environmental report per region. It will then be consulted on, in line with the process laid down in the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, in order to help local authorities identify issues relevant to their areas and policies or initiatives in the regional strategies which are no longer in effect.

The Government intends to abolish the regional strategies through the Localism Bill, and the environmental assessment process will be carried out during the Bill’s parliamentary progress.

The reforms, which were unveiled in the Localism Bill (click here for more details), are designed to give local people more of a say in the way their neighbourhoods are developed. Through local parish councils or neighbourhood forums, local people will be able to decide which types of development should be given automatic planning permission through a ‘Neighbourhood Development Order’ (NDO). If approved by a local referendum, a council will have to adopt a neighbourhood plan, providing it is line with the council’s wider ambitions for growth in the area.

Local authorities will work with community groups and parish councils in the 17 pilot neighbourhood areas to prepare draft plans and NDOs. These documents will be prepared under the current legal and policy framework, ahead of the new provisions for neighbourhood planning that will be introduced by the Localism Bill when it is enacted. (It is thought that the Bill will be enacted in late 2011 and will come into force in early 2012.)

The 17 ‘front-runners’ include both rural and urban areas. They are:

1. Birmingham City Council – Balsall Heath (Birmingham);

2. Bristol City Council – Lockleaze (Bristol);

3. London Borough of Southwark – Bermondsey;

4. London Borough of Sutton – Hackbridge;

5. North Tyneside Council – North Shields Fish Quay;

6. Wirral Borough Council – Devonshire Park;

7. Allerdale Borough Council – Cockermouth;

8. Blaby District Council – Blaby;

9. Cherwell Borough Council – Banbury;

10. Exmoor National Park Authority – Lynton;

11. Gedling Borough Council – Newstead;

12. Lewes District Council – Ringmer;

13. Northumberland County – Allendale;

14. Shropshire Council – Much Wenlock;

15. Teignbridge District Council – Dawlish;

16. West Dorset District Council – Cerne Abbas; and

17. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Bray.

Each of the 17 pilot areas will receive £20,000 towards developing their plan from a £1m fund.

The pilot areas will not be able to put their draft plans and NDOs into effect until the relevant provisions on neighbourhood planning in the Localism Bill come into force.

To address this, the Government announced in its Budget Report and Plan for Growth, which accompanied the Budget Report, that it will:

1. Introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development and planning applications (that comply with up-to-date planning policies at a national and local level) is ‘yes’. The Government is expected to publish details of the presumption in favour of sustainable development in May 2011, including how it will be integrated into national planning policy;

2. Localise choice about the use of previously developed land, removing nationally imposed targets, which specify the levels of development that should take place on previously developed land, while retaining existing controls on greenbelt land, sites of special scientific interest, and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Government views nationally imposed targets as preventing local communities from exercising choice in respect of local land;

3. Pilot a land auction model, beginning with public sector land. The Budget Report contains no details of the scheme but there are reports that it will involve local authorities asking landowners to submit a binding price at which they would be willing, for a fixed period of time, to sell their plot of land. The local authority would (1) have the right to buy that plot of land at the set price and grant planning permission, as appropriate, and then (2) auction the land to interested developers, whilst keeping any increase in the sale price. The Government intends to pilot the scheme on publicly-owned land within the next 12 months;

4. Introduce measures to streamline the planning applications and related consents regimes, removing bureaucracy from the system and speeding it up. This will include a 12-month guarantee for the processing of all planning applications, including any appeals. The Government will consult in summer 2011 on expanding permitted development rights to include further types of minor commercial development, and consult in autumn 2011 on further measures to streamline the information required to support planning applications. The Government will publish its first annual update on simplifying and streamlining measures in planning and development control in autumn 2011;

5. Ensure a fast-track planning process for major infrastructure applications through the Major Infrastructure Planning system. Major infrastructure applications will be determined within 12 months from the start of the inquiry to the decision; and

6. Consult on proposals to make it easier to convert commercial premises to residential. The Government will consult on a proposal to allow changes of use, without the need to apply for planning permission, to class C3 (residential) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 from class B1 (business); class B2 (general industrial); or class B8 (storage/distribution).

 Also, in the Government’s Plan for Growth, the Government announced that it will:

1. Introduce new powers so that businesses are able to bring forward neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders, which deem planning permission to have been granted for specific development or specified classes of development within all or part of a neighbourhood area;

2. Introduce, through legislation, a duty on local authorities and public bodies to require them to co-operate on planning issues;

3. Produce a national planning policy framework to attain more development in suitable and viable locations; and

4. Establish up to 21 new Enterprise Zones, where economic growth will be encouraged through financial incentives and a more relaxed planning regime.

We will of course be closely following the implementation of these proposals and will be posting further updates on our website throughout the year.

It is very likely that fashionistas go through the same when column inches get devoted to which shoes go with which handbags and doctors cry into their corn flakes when they read about medicine fads.  However, since I know nothing about fashion (as my wife will confirm) or health (as my Mum will confirm) it just flows over me. 

The story goes that if you purchase property in an overseas company, you can avoid stamp duty.  My comments:

1. For UK resident tax payers buying their homes, they lose out on the capital gains tax relief on the sale of their homes.  They will sell shares and pay tax on the gains.  28% CGT is a lot more bothersome than 4 or 5% stamp tax.

2. It saves stamp duty on the sale but that’s not going to help the company which is purchasing now.

3. This has the potential to make administration a nightmare and there are annual directors fees etc.

4. There can be income tax charges on the use of the property if a market rent is not paid.

5. Most UK based future purchasers won’t want to buy a company so you’ve restricted your ability to market the property in the future.  And if purchasers buy the property from the company - you’ve just wasted time and a shed load of money.

6. If you are borrowing to purchase the property, you’ll have a much harder time and the cost of finance will increase.

etc…..

So who should consider buying a property in a overseas company?

First point – don’t do this without speaking to your tax adviser (or me!).  Second this is mainly of use to wealthy overseas investors.  There is inheritance tax planning which can really benefit from a structure involving an overseas property.  But that’s not stamp tax planning.

What’s funny about the article is that tucked away at the end is a comment from a partner in KPMG with which I mostly agree ” for anyone [other than a overeas investor], it’s a ticking time-bomb”.   If they had spoken to him before writing the article, perhaps they wouldn’t have bothered.

A developer, Millgate Homes (M), had applied for planning permission from Wokingham Borough Council (W) to build 14 homes. W refused the planning permission after an Officer’s Committee Report concluded that the proposed development was inappropriate to the character of the surrounding area and would attract financial contributions to local infrastructure.

M entered into a unilateral undertaking, pursuant to s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, agreeing to make the necessary financial contributions. It then appealed the decision to the planning inspectorate.  

M’s appeal was successful and conditional planning permission was granted. However, the planning inspectorate noted that W had failed to show that financial contributions were necessary in order to satisfy planning policy. Consequently, M requested that W discharge the unilateral undertaking, but W refused, stating that the opinion of the inspectorate did not affect the enforceability of the undertakings. M sought a judicial review of W’s refusal to discharge.

The High Court, ruling in W’s favour, stated that M’s universal undertaking was legally enforceable: it had been entered into voluntarily, without any condition that the obligations should only take effect if a planning inspector indicated that the financial contributions were necessary to make the development acceptable.

Comment

It is common for a developer to submit a s.106 unilateral undertaking to the local authority as part of a planning application. This case shows that there can be some unintended consequences. Here the application was appealed. The Inspector was of the view that the s.106 undertaking was not needed and granted planning permission. The developer was still held to be liable to comply with the s.106 undertaking. 

This could lead to a Catch 22 situation: if the developer submits a s.106 unilateral undertaking before an appeal, then it may help in the grant of planning permission. However, if they do not submit one, they may still get planning permission without it and therefore be in a better position. Developers should satisfy themselves that what a council suggests should go in a s.106 undertaking is lawful; if in doubt, then they may like to consider having a s.106 unilateral undertaking prepared and signed, but not to actually submit it until the views of the Inspector are known.

The think tank Centre for Cities’ Cities Outlook 2011 study (which can be accessed here) identifies those cities that are bouncing back strongest from the recession, and those that are likely to continue to struggle for some time, by evaluating their performance on employment, population growth, skills and incomes.

The good news for Milton Keynes is that it is considered one of the top five cities in the UK for growth in 2011 based on, for example, unemployment figures and prospects for growth.

Matthew Arnold and Baldwin has always known that Milton Keynes was a good place to live and do business. It’s good to hear others agreeing.

Even last night (17 January), Labour MPs launched a motion to halt the Bill’s parliamentary progress. The motion was inevitably defeated and the Bill has now passed to the Committee Stage in the House of Commons - but the Bill is causing quite a stir and splitting opinions everywhere.

Local Government and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has called the Bill “a triumph for democracy over bureaucracy”, but, on the opposition benches, his opposite number Caroline Flint calls it a “massive missed opportunity.”

Opinion is certainly divided, inside and outside of Parliament.

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin’s head of Real Estate, David Marsden, has written extensively about the controversy surrounding the abolition of the Regional Strategies and the Bill’s implications for planning.

For those people who are wondering what all the fuss is about, the Department for Communities and Local Government has now published a useful plain-English guidance to the Bill, which summarises all of the main measures proposed in it under the following headings:

1. New freedoms and flexibilities for local government;

2. New rights and powers for communities and individuals;

3. Reform to make the planning system more democratic and more effective;  

4. Reform to ensure that decisions about housing are taken locally; and

5. The overall effect of the Bill

The guide translates the often complex legal language used in the Bill, so that everyone (and not just lawyers) can understand what the Bill proposes.

Now, that should be welcomed by everyone.

Clauses 94 and 95 of the Localism Bill deal with the proposed changes to the CIL, which allows local authorities in England and Wales to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area. The Bill proposes that:

1. Some of the CIL funds should be given back to the neighbourhood where the development is located;

2. CIL funds can be put towards the ongoing costs of infrastructure, as well as the provision of new infrastructure; and

3. Local authorities should be given more control over the setting of their own charging levels. However, Independent examiners will still decide whether the charging schedule is unreasonable, though the local authority in question will be able to decide how to make it reasonable.

In order to be selected for the CIL project (dubbed the ‘Front Runners Project’), the DCLG has said that interested local authorities should ideally:

1. Intend to submit their charging schedule for examination no later than Autumn 2011;

2. Have a proven track record of planning policy competence; and  

3. Have secured the necessary buy-in from corporate, finance and planning functions within the council.

The local authorities that are selected to take part will become some of the first to implement the revised CIL and will be expected to do it as soon as possible, though they will receive support from the Planning Inspectorate. These local authorities will then be encouraged to share learning and good practice across the local government sector.

The deadline for applications is 14 January 2011, with the Project expected to run until March 2011 (although the DCLG has suggested that this may be extended.)

The Bill, which aims to transfer more central government powers to local level, includes proposals to significantly reform planning law (see Part 5 of the Bill.)

This article looks at the Bill’s key proposals to shake-up planning law. Of course, the Bill is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so these proposals may change.

The main proposals are:

1. Abolishing the Regional Strategies. There has been a lot of confusion and contention surrounding this issue. Click here and here for further details;

2. Amending the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Local authorities will have more control over the setting of the CIL. They will have to allocate a proportion of the CIL revenues they receive from developers back to the local neighbourhoods where the development(s) have taken place. This will allow those most directly affected by development to benefit from it. For a related story on the CIL, please click here;

3. Restricting the role of the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate will be unable to re-write local plans, which guide development in local areas. Instead, the Inspectorate will be allowed to assess plans at a public examination, and will have to rule them “sound” before they can be adopted. Amendments will only be suggested at the request of the local authority. Local authorities will be able to suggest changes during the public examination, and will be forced to publish up-to-date information, so that local people can see what planning documents they are preparing;

4. Introduction of “neighbourhood plans.” The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be amended to introduce neighbourhood planning rights (“neighbourhood development orders”) that allow local communities to permit certain types of development without the need for planning permission. The idea is that parish councils and “neighbourhood forums” can come together to decide where new shops, offices or homes should be built in their area and what green spaces should be protected. All such developments will be voted on by local people in local referendums (more than 50 per cent of the vote is required to approve a development);

5. Abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). This will mean that government ministers will take decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as airports and wind farms;

6. Duty to co-operate. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 will be amended, so that local authorities and public bodies have to co-operate with each other in relation to the planning of sustainable development. This includes the preparation of development plan documents;

7. Pre-application consultation. Developers will be required to consult the local community before submitting a planning application for a large development – the Government has suggested that this could be, for example, a residential development of more than 200 units. Developers will have to take into account any opinions raised during this consultation before submitting their planning applications; and

8. Enforcement. Local authority planning enforcement powers will be improved. The Bill will tackle abuses such as making misleading planning applications, and running retrospective planning applications and enforcement appeals simultaneously. Other enforcement measures include increased financial penalties for planning-related offences, and the extension of time limits for taking action against people who conceal unauthorised development. 

The Bill raises a huge number of issues (and questions) and will have significant implications for local authorities and developers.

Although the Government says that the Bill is not a “Nimbys’ charter”, developers will need to get local people to embrace development in their areas.

In light of the proposed new local referendums and pre-application consultations, developers will need to be able to influence local residents, persuading them of the merits of their schemes and proposals. Developers may also find themselves having to collaborate with third parties on the design of a development.

It will be interesting to see how the definition of “neighbourhood” in the Bill develops, as it could constitute a small or large number of people, meaning that a vote on a potential development may be decided by only a few local people.

The Second reading of the Bill is scheduled to take place in the House of Commons on 13 January 2011. We will update you with any significant developments during the Bill’s parliamentary progress.

Robert Davis, the Deputy Leader of Westminster City Council, has written a letter to the Decentralisation Minister, Greg Clark, calling on the Government to allow local authorities to charge for listed buildings applications. Seven other local authorities from across the UK are signatories to the letter.

The eight local authorities (which have the largest number of listed buildings in the UK) are concerned that the Government’s proposals will exclude the charging of fees for listed building and conservation area consents – areas which they argue require a lot of expertise and take the most time to handle due to their complexity. Faced with having to make significant savings over the next few years, the local authorities have warned that unless they are able to recover their costs from handling such complex planning applications, they may have to make cuts to the historic building maintenance services.

Westminster City Council has claimed that their campaign has won the backing of many leading figures in the property industry, and that developers have said they are willing to pay more money to ensure their developments are not jeopardised by cuts to the planning service and skills shortages.

In the consultation paper, the Government proposes to:

1. Decentralise the setting of planning application fees, so that the responsibility is passed to local planning authorities (LPAs); and

2. Widen the scope of planning application fees, so that LPAs can charge for more of their services.

Under these proposals, LPAs would be able to:

1. Set their own fees;

2. Charge higher fees for retrospective applications; and

3. Charge for resubmitted applications following withdrawal or refusal.

But they will not be able to make a profit on fees (though they will be able to recover the actual cost of submitting a planning application.)

The decision to consult on this issue stems from concerns that local authorities are unable to recover the true costs of planning applications because of the fixed fee charging system, which is set by the Government. This has meant that, in a number of cases, taxpayers’ council tax bills have risen, as local authorities try to make up any shortfall.

The consultation closes on 7 January 2011.

If the proposals are taken forward following the consultation, local authorities will be able to set their own fees from April 2011, with a six-month transition period until October 2011. During the transition period, local authorities will be able to use the current fees set by central Government, though these will be withdrawn in October 2011.

The owner of land with the benefit of a right of light against other land is entitled to an injunction against someone committing a wrongful act which interferes with the right of light. A court has discretion to award damages in lieu of an injunction.

This case involved a Grade II listed former bank, which had five floors and was owned by the dominant owner (O) having a right of light. A building across the road from the bank  was erected in about 1980 (Building A) and originally built with six floors. This building was owned by a developer (D) who wanted to build two additional floors on top of Building A. D was advised that the proposed development would cause an actionable loss of light to the bank, and that D should negotiate with O that O would not bring a claim against D.

Negotiations were unsuccessful and, during this time, O threatened to apply for an injunction, although no proceedings were issued. The redevelopment of Building A  was completed in July 2009.

In August 2009, D applied for a declaration that it was free from any liability to O. O counterclaimed for an injunction or damages. The parties agreed that:

●        O had a right to light.

●        D had interfered with O’s easement.

●        O was entitled to a remedy.

The issue to be determined was what remedy O was entitled to: an injunction requiring D to cut back the works to Building A, or damages?

Decision:

O was granted an injunction. In reaching its decision, the court looked at the principles set out in the cases of Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company [1895] 1 Ch 287, and Regan v Paul Properties Ltd and others [2006] EWCA Civ 1319:

●        A claimant is, prima facie, entitled to an injunction against a person committing a wrongful act interfering with a legal right.

●        The person committing the wrongful act cannot ask a court to sanction his actions by buying out the legal right by the payment of damages assessed by the court.

●        The ability to award damages in lieu of an injunction, does not mean that the court should act to “legalise wrongful acts” because a defendant is willing to pay damages.

●        The judicial discretion should not be exercised in a way that deprives a claimant of his legal right “except in very exceptional circumstances”.

It was relevant to consider whether:

1 the injury to the claimant’s legal rights was small;

2. the injury could be estimated in money;

3. the injury could be adequately compensated by a small money payment;

4. it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction;

5. the claimant had indicated that he only wanted the money;

6. the conduct of the claimant rendered it unjust to give him more than financial relief; and

7. there were any other circumstances that justified the refusal of the injunction.

The court followed Jacklin v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2007] EWCA Civ 181, by stipulating that, in order to avoid the grant of an injunction, a defendant must show that all four of points 1 to 4 above had been satisfied.  The court decided that not all four points were satisfied:

The court accepted that although the injury to O was not small, good light was relatively more important in a home than in industrial or commercial premises. However, the character of the bank, the investment made in restoring it and the extent that the works had reduced the flow of light to the bank together showed that real damage had been suffered.

The court held that O’s loss was capable of being calculated in monetary terms.

The court stated that it would have assessed damages at £225,000, which it did not consider to be a small amount.

The court held that it would not be oppressive to grant an injunction, since:

- The infringement was not trivial.

- The infringement was carried out in the knowledge that it was actionable.

- The infringement was carried out with a view to profit, not necessity.

- It would have been wrong for the court to sanction what had been done by compelling O to take monetary compensation which O did not want.

Comment:

Developers should not consider such rights lightly and should resolve these issues before commencing any development, since this decision challenges the accepted view that it is difficult to obtain an injunction once a development has been completed. This decision is likely to cost the developer greatly in having to remove the top two floors of the building.

See my article on the Act published in the Director of Finance magazine in March 2010. The article focusses on two important areas for corporates – hospitality and maintaining adequate procedures to prevent bribery.

The credit crunch came along and there were delays by BDW, culminating in Gold purporting to accept BDW’s repudiatory breach of the contract. The High Court agreed with Gold. However, BDW alleged that Gold’s refusal to agree to renegotiate the deal including the minimum prices (to allow the contract to continue after the credit crunch) amounted to a breach of the duty of good faith. The High Court said that was not what was intended by the good faith obligation. Good faith required parties to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing and faithfulness to the agreed common purpose and consistent with the justified expectations of the other party. It did not require one party to renegotiate a contract because the other had made a bad bargain. The duty did not require Gold to give up a freely negotiated financial advantage. The contract also expressly stated that neither party would increase their profits or reduce their losses at the other’s expense.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: ‘With the economic downturn, we have seen a lot of people want to get out of agreements that had been entered into in the good times but which did not seem quite so good when the economic climate deteriorated. This is the latest in the line of cases where the courts have shown an unwillingness to interfere to help someone get out of what had become a bad bargain. In another recent case, the Court refused to allow the economic downturn to be a justification to refuse to perform under force majeure. For more on that case, click here: http://www.mablaw.com/2010/01/economic-downturn-not-a-justification-reason-to-invoke-force-majeure-provisions-%e2%80%93-tandrin-aviation-v-aero-toy-store-high-court/.’

Well, one housebuilder has now launched a legal challenge against the Government.

CALA Homes has asked the High Court for a judicial review of the Government’s decision to abolish the Regional Strategies, claiming it was unlawful because (1) the move required primary legislation to be laid down in Parliament, and (2) no transitional arrangements were put in place, which, in the words of Graham Cunningham, managing director of CALA Homes (South), has created a “policy vacuum.”

CALA Homes’ legal challenge centres on a long-running development dispute. Its application for planning permission to build 2,000 homes in Winchester was rejected by the local council in June (following the abolition of the Regional Strategies), but it argues that its appeal against the refusal cannot take place while there is an absence of government planning policy.

CALA Homes is not alone. The number of development schemes being abandoned or put on hold by local councils since the abolition of the Regional Strategies is growing; in fact, according to research published by Tetlow King Planning on behalf of the National Housing Federation in July, plans for 85,000 homes in England have been dropped since the abolition. In a further development, an alliance of nearly 30 organisations, including property groups, engineering bodies and environmental charities, have all signed a letter this month calling for an urgent meeting with Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to discuss how to replace the Regional Strategies. Pressure on the Government is mounting.

Coincidentally, the Government has now announced details of its ‘New Homes Bonus Scheme’, whereby local councils will be given extra money for every new home built in their area. For the next six years, the Government will match the council tax revenue raised on each new house, thus encouraging local councils to build more homes. Housebuilders, though, who are still unhappy at the decision to abolish the Regional Strategies, urgently require more details of the Scheme. However, with a consultation on the Scheme not due to be published until after the Government’s Spending Review on 20 October, housebuilders may unfortunately have to wait a bit longer.

UPDATE (Feb 2011): Cala Homes (South) Ltd has lost its High Court challenge against the Government’s claim that its intention to abolish the Regional Strategies should be considered by local planning authorities when ruling on planning applications. Click here for full details.

The High Court noted that reasonable endeavours and best endeavours fell short of an absolute obligation to do something. Two recent conflicting court decisions were cited as to whether all reasonable endeavours meant something that was the same as best endeavours or whether it was a middle ground between reasonable endeavours and best endeavours. The Court here decided that it was a middle ground. Unlike best endeavours, all reasonable endeavours does not always require the person giving that obligation to sacrifice its own commercial interests. This particular case was even clearer, because of the use of the words ‘but commercially prudent’, which made it absolutely clear that a decision should be made without foregoing its own commercial interests. It should have taken all reasonable steps to secure the planning permission as long as those steps were commercially prudent. The High Court added that the clause would only allow the parties to consider the commercial interests rather than its other interests such as its political interests.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: ‘There are lots of uses of different endeavours wording in commercial contracts. What they actually mean depends a lot on their own particular commercial context. The difficulty comes for parties trying to interpret those terms in that particular context. This is exacerbated by court decisions that seem to say something a bit different in each case. The broad principle is that reasonable endeavours is to do what someone in your position should reasonably do, and best endeavours involves going further than you might want to. The grey area comes in the middle, and in particular where exactly ‘all reasonable endeavours’ sits on the spectrum. This case says that it is somewhere in between.

‘I recently had to advise on a contract that said ‘best reasonable endeavours’. I gave a practical suggestion around the particular issue, because who knows what a court would make of that one?!’

Pat yourself on the back if you spotted that the increase in the rate of VAT to 20% will mean a corresponding increase in stamp duty land tax on commercial property transactions where VAT is charged.  

On a £1m purchase not only will there will be  £25,000 more VAT but there will also be £1,000 more stamp duty to pay.

If you would like to know more about VAT on commercial property, please feel free to contact me.

The thinking behind this is that the rate is (relatively speaking) low at 5% compared to 17.5% VAT, which is what is already charged on certain types of insurance, such as travel insurance.  We also charge less IPT than some other EU countries.

The other thing which can’t have escaped notice is that premiums are already rapidly increasing and once people have forgotten about the budget they’ll probably blame their insurers.

The only people who are likely to benefit from this are meerkats.