Judicial Review on revocation of regional spatial strategies
The High Court has ruled that Eric Pickles’ decision to unilaterally revoke regional spatial strategies was unlawful. The government says that the judgment ‘changes very little’; later this month the Decentralisation and Localism Bill will abolish RSSs in any event
However, the decision has thrown up further ambiguity in a planning system already riddled with uncertainties. The effect of the High court ruling is that draft RSSs remain for the moment as material considerations, but the extent of their influence on current planning applications is far from clear. Local authorities will have to balance this consideration with the government’s announcement to abolish RSSs, which is also a material consideration.
Background
On 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles announced the revocation of regional spatial strategies with immediate effect.
Cala Homes argued that the revocation of the South East Plan would materially affect its case on appeal against the local authority’s refusal to grant permission for its proposal for 2,000 homes.
Issues
The claimant challenged the decision to revoke RSSs on two procedural grounds:
- the abolition was an abuse of power, undermining the policy that there should be regional strategies in place, and
- the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment to assess the environmental impacts of the revocation.
Judgment
The court agreed with the claimant on both grounds.
In relation to the first ground, the court held that the statutory purpose of the legislation was to create RSSs which would remain in place. The Secretary of State did not have the power to decide that RSSs should be dispensed with.
‘Parliament…has given no clear or sufficient indication that that principle may be set aside by virtue of a contrary policy judgment’. The court added that the power of revocation created by statute was never intended to allow RSSs to be abolished completely.
Since the claimant succeeded on the first ground, Justice Sales acknowledged that the second ground of claim did not arise. However, he stated that the second ground was well founded, on the basis that the Secretary of State failed to assess the environmental effects of the revocation and to put transitional arrangements in place.
He noted that
‘the revocation of a Regional Strategy may have as profound practical implications for planning decisions as its adoption in the first place’.
Government response
The government has confirmed that the revocation of RSSs will be announced in the Localism Bill, to be published later this month.
It advised that planners should still regard the revocation of RSSs as a material consideration in any current planning decisions.
Comment
The government’s primary reason for abolishing regional planning was to increase community involvement in local planning decisions. However, the localising of planning decisions seems to be stymying new development, particularly in the house building sector. The policy vacuum left by the absence of regional policies has created considerable confusion and uncertainty in the planning system.
Until RSSs are abolished in the Localism Bill, adopted RSSs will remain part of the Development Plan. Draft RSSs are material considerations. The Secretary of State’s announcement is also a material consideration, though it is unclear whether this should carry more weight than emerging or published RSSs. The judgment undoubtedly adds to the uncertainty, confusion and delay facing decision makers and developers and further undermines the government’s attempts to encourage new development.
