Trackers

Law Commission launches consultation on reforms to compulsory purchase laws

The Law Commission has published a consultation paper as part of its review of current compulsory purchase and compensation laws in England and Wales. Building on its reports from the early 2000s, the paper seeks to address the fragmented and outdated nature of the legal framework. This follows a request from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with the Commission tasked with drafting a Bill to consolidate, codify, and modernise the existing legislation. The paper is divided into three key sections, comprising 106 questions. The first section, Chapters 2-5, examines procedural aspects of compulsory purchase, the second section, Chapters 6-11, focuses on compensation-related issues, and the final section, Chapters 12-15, addresses supplementary matters. The consultation closes on 31 March 2025.

Chief Planner’s second planning update newsletter for December 2024 published

The Chief Planner, Joanna Averley, has published a second planning update newsletter for December 2024, written for the chief planning officers at local planning authorities (LPAs). The newsletter contains details of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)'s publication of a working paper proposing a new approach to development and nature recovery, suggesting that developers contribute to a 'Nature Restoration Fund' to meet their environmental obligations more effectively. Additionally, the MHCLG published an updated Criteria Document for improving planning performance, reducing the assessment period for decision-making speed from 24 months to 12 months. The MHCLG also announced grant funding to support the implementation of recent National Planning Policy Framework changes, with over £14.8m available to support local authorities with local plan delivery and Green Belt reviews. Expressions of interest for this funding are due by 17 January 2025. The newsletter also highlights ongoing initiatives, such as Public Practice's recruitment support for LPAs and a new Regional Design and Place Advocates programme. LPAs are also reminded to update their brownfield land registers by 31 December 2024.

CIC responds to publication of revised NPPF

The Construction Industry Council (CIC) has welcomed the publication of the government's revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), announced by Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, on 12 December 2024. The CIC expressed support for the new immediate mandatory housing targets, requirements for councils to review greenbelt boundaries, and the introduction of 'golden rules' for new developments. CIC Policy and Public Affairs Manager, Matt Mahony, acknowledged the government's efforts to address the housing crisis but emphasised that these measures are only part of a broader solution. He highlighted ongoing challenges in affordability, quality, safety, and sustainability, and called for the government to capitalise on opportunities for improved spatial planning and ambitious standards for future homes and buildings to enhance quality of life.

Court of Appeal confirms the considerations and requirements for re-determination of a previously quashed approval of a DCO (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site v Secretary of State for Transport)

Planning analysis: In Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site v Secretary of State for Transport, the court had to consider whether the process of redetermining a development consent order (DCO) previously quashed by the court had been conducted fairly and properly. It confirmed that public decision making involved in the DCO procedure is not a form of litigation. As such, the statutory process and common law principles of procedural fairness do not dictate that issues must always be considered by an inquisitorial process. Where there is not a statutory requirement for an inquisitorial process (such as on redetermined DCOs), claimants need to demonstrate that there was a particular need for evidence to be interrogated such as between independent experts on the issues under further consideration. Moreover, for claimants to prove procedural unfairness they must show that they have suffered material prejudice. Neither were established in this case.