DLBP are referenced in the context of the Gracechurch Group’s research on the brownfield land register featured in an article by Planning magazine –
‘Why a fifth of councils missed the brownfield land register deadline’.
Read more here:
Cabinet Reshuffle: Housing Highlights
A number of personnel, roles and departments have been reshuffled and rebranded as part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s cabinet overhaul. In relation to housing in the UK, the following appointments and changes were made:
Alok Sharma, who had been in the role of Housing and Planning Minister for nearly seven months, was replaced by Dominic Raab while Sharma is now Employment Minister. Raab will have more prominence in his new role following the rebranding of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) which is now called the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The inclusion of the word ‘housing’ emphasises the government’s ambition to build 300,000 homes a year, an ambition DLBP wholeheartedly agrees with.
Sajid Javid, who will remain in his current post as Secretary of State, believes that “the name change for the department reflects this government’s renewed focus to deliver more homes and build strong communities across England”.
Redefining the term ‘isolated homes in the countryside’
The Court of Appeal has granted permission to the Council to appeal a recent planning appeal regarding the meaning of ‘isolated homes in the countryside’ – Braintree DC v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin).
Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF) states that “Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances”. The appeal case revolves around the meaning and interpretation of ‘isolated homes’ within paragraph 55.
The claimant (the Council), applied to quash the decision of the Inspector where he allowed an appeal by the applicant against the Council’s reasons for refusal regarding an application to erect two detached single-storey dwellinghouses.
The claimant challenged the appeal claiming that the Inspector had incorrectly applied paragraph 55, and the meaning that should be giving to ‘isolated homes’ was “homes which were remote from services and facilities”.
However, Mrs Justice Lang agreed with the Inspector’s interpretation of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, stating that when applying paragraph 55 of the NPPF, the word ‘isolated’ should be given its ordinary objective meaning – “far away from other places, buildings or people; remote” – as set out in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal the decision of Mrs Justice Lang in order to consider the meaning of ‘isolated homes in the countryside’.
This will allow the Court of Appeal to scrutinise the interpretation of ‘isolated homes in the countryside’ and decide whether to agree with Mrs Justice Lang and take a narrow interpretation (making it easier to develop in the countryside) or to agree with the Council and take a broader interpretation (making it more difficult to develop in the countryside).
This controversy has been brewing for some time, having been the subject of two recent appeals where the meaning and influence of the ‘settlement boundary’ were considered. We have used these decisions in a recent application to build a wonderful new house in a National Park.
Councils have been seeking to apply a restrictive interpretation of the meaning of ‘isolated’ to mean ‘outside the settlement boundary’, a position which now looks increasingly untenable.
If you are seeking to develop or re-develop a property in the countryside or have been refused planning permission on the grounds of an ‘isolated home’ argument, contact DLBP so we can help you to get the planning consent you need.