BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just Β£5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Medway Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 644 (Admin) (23 March 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/644.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 644 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
MEDWAY COUNCIL |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT and BYRNE ESTATES (CHATHAM) LIMITED and CHATHAM QUAYS RESIDENTIAL LIMITED and CHATHAM QUAYS COMMERCIAL LIMITED |
Defendant First Interested Party Second and Third Interested Parties |
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
WordWave International Limited
Trading as DTI
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Richard Turney (instructed by Trowers & Hamlins LLP) for the First Interested Party
The Defendant and the Second and Third Interested Parties did not appear and were not represented
Hearing dates: 10th March 2016
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE GILBART :
A. Procedural issues
B. The central issues for determination
C. The statutory and policy context, including the powers of the Secretary of State
D. The application in issue and the factual background
E. Conduct of the Appeal
F. The decision letter under challenge
G. The case for the Claimant authority
H. The position of the Defendant Secretary of State
I. The case for the First Interested Party
J. Discussion
K. Conclusions.
A PROCEDURAL ISSUES
B THE CENTRAL ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
i) the meaning of the word "development" in s 106 BA(13) :ii) whether an application could be made after the housing element of the development permitted had been completed;
iii) whether the Inspector properly addressed the Claimant's argument that the relevant completion related to the housing development, and its argument that the whole development had in fact been completed.
C THE STATUTORY AND POLICY CONTEXT, INCLUDING THE POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
"(1) This section applies in relation to an English planning obligation that contains an affordable housing requirement.(2) A person against whom the affordable housing requirement is enforceable may apply to the appropriate authority
(a) for the requirement to have effect subject to modifications,(b) for the requirement to be replaced with a different affordable housing requirement,(c) for the requirement to be removed from the planning obligation, or(d) in a case where the planning obligation consists solely of one or more affordable housing requirements, for the planning obligation to be discharged.(3) Where an application is made to an authority under subsection (2) and is the first such application in relation to the planning obligation
(a) if the affordable housing requirement means that the development is not economically viable, the authority must deal with the application in accordance with subsection (5) so that the development becomes economically viable, or(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply, the authority must determine that the affordable housing requirement is to continue to have effect without modification or replacement.(4) Where an application is made to an authority under subsection (2) and is the second or a subsequent such application in relation to the planning obligation (not relevant here)
(5) The authority may
(a) determine that the requirement is to have effect subject to modifications,(b) determine that the requirement is to be replaced with a different affordable housing requirement,(c) determine that the planning obligation is to be modified to remove the requirement, or(d) where the planning obligation consists solely of one or more affordable housing requirements, determine that the planning obligation is to be discharged.(6) A determination under subsection (5) (a), (b) or (c)
(a) may provide for the planning obligation to be modified in accordance with the application or in some other way,(b) may not have the effect that the obligation as modified is more onerous in its application to the applicant than in its unmodified form, and(c) may not have the effect that an obligation is imposed on a person other than the applicant or that the obligation as modified is more onerous in its application to such a person than in its unmodified form.(7) ..
(8) In making a determination under this section the authority must have regard to
(a) guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and(b) ..(9) The authority must give notice of their determination to the applicant
(a) within such period as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, or(b) if no period is prescribed under paragraph (a) (and subject to section 106BB(5)), within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the application is received, or such longer period as is agreed in writing between the applicant and the authority.(10) Where an authority determine under this section that a planning obligation is to have effect subject to modifications, the obligation as modified is to be enforceable as if it had been entered into on the date on which notice of the determination was given to the applicant.
(11) ..
(12) .
(13) In this section and section 106BC
"affordable housing requirement" means a requirement relating to the provision of housing that is or is to be made available for people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market (and it is immaterial for this purpose where or by whom the housing is or is to be provided);
"the appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 106A;
"the development", in relation to a planning obligation, means the development authorised by the planning permission to which the obligation relates;
"English planning obligation" means a planning obligation that
(a) identifies a local planning authority in England as an authority by whom the obligation is enforceable, and(b) does not identify a local planning authority in Wales as such an authority.(14)
(15) .
(16) ..
"(1) Where an authority other than the Secretary of State(a) fail to give notice as mentioned in section 106BA(9),(b) determine under section 106BA that a planning obligation is to continue to have effect without modification, or(c) determine under that section that a planning obligation is to be modified otherwise than in accordance with an application under that section,the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2) For the purposes of an appeal under subsection (1) (a), it is to be assumed that the authority have determined that the planning obligation is to continue to have effect without modification.
(3) (5)
(6) Subsections (3) to (8), (10) and (11) of section 106BA apply in relation to an appeal under this section as they apply in relation to an application to an authority under that section, subject to subsections (7) to (15) below.
(7) References to the affordable housing requirement or the planning obligation are to the requirement or obligation as it stood immediately before the application under section 106BA to which the appeal relates.
(8) ..
(9) Section 106BA (5) (d) (discharge of affordable housing requirement) does not apply in relation to an appeal under this section.
(10) Subsection (11) applies if, on an appeal under this section, the Secretary of State
(a) does not uphold the determination under section 106BA to which the appeal relates (if such a determination has been made), and(b) determines that the planning obligation is to be modified in accordance with section 106BA (5) (a), (b) or (c).(11) The Secretary of State must also determine that the planning obligation is to be modified so that it provides that, if the development has not been completed before the end of the relevant period, the obligation is treated as containing the affordable housing requirement or requirements it contained immediately before the first application under section 106BA in relation to the obligation, subject to the modifications within subsection (12).
(12) Those modifications are
(a) the modifications necessary to ensure that, if the development has been commenced before the end of the relevant period, the requirement or requirements apply only in relation to the part of the development that is not commenced before the end of that period, and(b) such other modifications as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient to ensure the effectiveness of the requirement or requirements at the end of that period.(13) In subsections (11) and (12) "relevant period" means the period of three years beginning with the date when the applicant is notified of the determination on the appeal.
(14) Section 106BA and this section apply in relation to a planning obligation containing a provision within subsection (11) as if
(a) the provision were an affordable housing requirement, and(b) a person against whom the obligation is enforceable were a person against whom that requirement is enforceable.(15) If subsection (11) applies on an appeal relating to a planning obligation that already contains a provision within that subsection
(a) the existing provision within subsection (11) ceases to have effect, but(b) that subsection applies again to the obligation.(16) The determination of an appeal by the Secretary of State under this section is to be final.
(17)- (18) "
"2. Unrealistic Section 106 agreements negotiated in differing economic conditions can be an obstacle to house building. The Government is keen to encourage development to come forward to provide more homes to meet a growing population and to promote construction and economic growth. Stalled schemes due to economically unviable affordable housing requirements result in no development, no regeneration and no community benefit. Reviewing such agreements will result in more housing and more affordable housing than would otherwise be the case.3. The Growth and Infrastructure Act inserts a new Section 106BA, BB and BC into the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. These sections introduce a new application and appeal procedure for the review of planning obligations on planning permissions which relate to the provision of affordable housing. Obligations which include a "requirement relating to the provision of housing that is or is to be made available for people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market" are within scope of this new procedure."
"10. The test for viability is that the evidence indicates that the current cost of building out the entire site (at today's prices) is at a level that would enable the developer to sell all the market units on the site (in today's market) at a rate of build out evidenced by the developer, and make a competitive return to a willing developer and a willing landowner.11. The developer will need to demonstrate to the planning authority, and to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal, that the affordable housing obligation as currently agreed makes the scheme unviable in current market conditions.
12. A viable affordable housing provision should be proposed. This should deliver the maximum level of affordable housing consistent with viability and the optimum mix of provision. The proposal may consider whether adjustments should be made to the affordable housing tenure and mix and, where relevant, phasing may also be considered. Timing and level of off-site affordable housing contributions may also be considered, as may any other aspect of the affordable housing requirement.
13. The developer will need to submit clear, up-to-date and appropriate evidence. Wherever possible, this should take the form of an open book review of the original viability appraisal and should clearly demonstrate, by reference to evidence, that the proposals are not viable in current market conditions. The "original viability appraisal" is that which is the most recently agreed by the local planning authority and developer.
14. In those cases where an original viability appraisal was not prepared prior to planning permission being granted, the developer must clearly demonstrate through evidence why the existing scheme is not viable. A proposal to bring the scheme into viability should be submitted.
15. At appeal, if the developer is unwilling to proceed on an open book basis, general evidence of changes in costs and values since permission was granted can be submitted; however developers must consider whether this approach will provide sufficient evidence for the Planning Inspectorate to make a robust, impartial decision on viability."
"22. Revised affordable housing obligations, in line with current market conditions and based on the test of viability in this Guidance, should incentivise developers to start building.
23. Section 106BC ensures that if an Inspector modifies an affordable housing obligation on appeal, that modification is valid for 3 years. If the development is not completed in that time, the original affordable housing obligation will apply to those parts of the scheme which have not been commenced. Developers are therefore incentivised to build out as much of their scheme as possible within 3 years. It will not be sufficient to commence one part of the development to secure the revised affordable housing obligation for the whole scheme. If developers are concerned about the viability of their scheme at the end of the 3 years, they can seek to modify the agreement again. This could be done through voluntary renegotiation or by making a new application under Section 106BA.
24. This 3 year period, and the need to secure as much development as possible in that period, should incentivise developers to build out. Local planning authorities may wish to make similar time-limited modifications or conditions when considering an application under Section 106BA.
25. It should be noted that Sections 106BA and 106BC prevent the outcome of the first application in relation to a planning obligation being more onerous for the applicant than the existing obligation. Care should be taken to ensure revised affordable housing requirements do not exceed the overall level of obligation required under the original agreement. Care must also be taken to ensure that any modified requirement meets the statutory and policy tests for planning obligations.
26. In the event of an appeal, the Inspector will consider all the evidence before them. Should the Inspector issue a new affordable housing obligation for a 3 year period, it will include provisions to reapply the requirements of the original agreement for the part of the site that remains uncommenced."
D THE APPLICATION IN ISSUE AND THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
"retail/restaurant/bar/gymnasium (Classes A3/A4/A1/D2) residential (Class C3) including a 17 storey and a 21 storey block of flats, public open space with associated new and modified accesses, pedestrian/cycle access and car parking "
(The Classes refer to the relevant Use Class in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987)
i) to pay £1,000,380 to Medway Council towards the provision of affordable housing in the Medway area, in three tranches:a) £333,453 before the first occupation of the 75th housing unit to be so occupied;b) £333,453 before the first occupation of the 153rd housing unit to be so occupied;c) £ 333,454 before the first occupation of the 229th housing unit to be so occupied;ii) To nominate an approved Registered Social Landlord for management of the affordable housing units on the site, which would remain in perpetuity as such units (subject to provisions which need not concern us in this judgement);
iii) Not to allow more than 60% of the private housing units to be occupied until the relevant lease had been granted or assigned to the relevant Registered Social Landlord.
"2.9 The Planning Obligations contained in paragraphs 2-9 (other than paragraphs 3 and 5) shall bind the Affordable Housing Units only.
2.10 The Planning Obligations contained in paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule and paragraphs 1 3 and 5 of the Fourth Schedule shall bind those parts of the land upon which the Housing Units will be constructed.
2.11 the Planning Obligation contained in Part 2 of the Third Schedule shall bind those parts of the Land used for retail and leisure purposes only.
2.12 the provisions contained in paragraphs 2-9 of the Fourth Schedule shall not bind or be enforceable against
2.12.1 any mortgagee of a Registered Social landlord to which the legal estate has been leased....which mortgagee is in possession thereof exercising the power of sale or against a person deriving title from such mortgage .
2.12.2 any person acquiring a shared ownership lease of an affordable housing unit
2.12.3 (a lessee exercising rights to buy)
2.12.4 (a mortgagee exercising the power of sale after a default on the mortgage
2.12.5 a purchaser of a single private housing units and his/her successors or mortgagees"
"in the light of the fact that the development has been completed the existence of the affordable housing obligation has not delayed the delivery of the housing. Accordingly there is no justification under section 106BA .for modifying the Section 106 agreement .by permitting the removal of the obligation to make an affordable housing contribution."
E CONDUCT OF THE APPEAL
i) An application could be made whether or not the development was completeii) An application could be made whether or not a development had "stalled."
i) " The Development2.6 The Scheme comprises two residential towers ..to the south of each tower .are lower rise buildings comprising residential or commercial accommodation.2.7 The Scheme comprises 332 residential units, 61,767 sq ft (5,738sq m) of commercial (retail and leisure space). The scheme can be split into the following four elements
- Marina Point East . comprising 96 residential flats ..
- The Wharf . comprising 72 private residential flats .. and 44 shared ownership flats .
- Marina Point West . comprising 120 flats
- A 3-storey commercial building . Comprising 61,770 s ft (5,739 sq m) of accommodation for retail and leisure use.
2.8 In addition there are over 360 underground car parking spaces.3 CURRENT STATUS3.1 Construction of the residential element is now complete, although a proportion of the scheme remains unsold.3.2 (the status of the 332 residential units was described: some units were unoccupied)3.3 In terms of the 16 commercial units, at this point in time the following units are complete and let (they were identified)3.4 This means that there are still 10 commercial units, which due to the incomplete nature of the Landlord's works, were deleted from the rating list, as they are not capable of occupation, this equates to 34,908 sq ft (3,243 sq m) 57% of the commercial floorspace. With that said the 10 commercial units have been constructed to shell and core.6 FINANCIAL VIABILITY6.2 At a meeting on 3rd July 20-15 with Medway Council's advisors (sic), their Viability Consultant (GL Hearn) advised that in respect of the viability assessment submitted with the application, they did not dispute the conclusions raised by Savills' report; however they did have a few items for clarification (listed) .6.3 Subject to being comfortable with the above information, GL Hearn reiterated that they were in general agreement with the conclusions of the report.6.4 the requested information was provided to GL Hearn on the 16th July 2015. GL Hearn has now reviewed the additional information provided and is satisfied with the accuracy of the information."
F THE DECISION LETTER UNDER CHALLENGE
"1. The appeal is allowed. For a period of 3 years from the date of this decision the planning obligation . shall have effect subject to the modifications as set out in the Schedule at the end of this Decision.Main Issue
3. The main issue in this appeal is whether the affordable housing requirement means that the development is not economically viable and if so, whether the obligation should be modified.
Reasons
Background
4. The appeal site is a large area of recent development at Chatham Quays. The development comprises 332 residential units and about 5,700 sq.m of commercial floorspace (retail and leisure). Construction of almost all of the development is complete and agreed figures presented in the Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) indicates that, as of July 2015, of the 332 consented flats, 229 are sold, 44 shared ownership units have been sold to a RSL, 39 are rented out and 20 remain vacant. In relation to the 16 commercial units, 6 are complete and are let and 10 remain vacant with works outstanding before they can be occupied. The SOCG records that these 10 units are deleted from the ratings list as they are not capable of occupation, although they have been constructed to shell and core.
5. The relevant schedule of the Planning Agreement relating to the affordable housing contribution was structured such that one-third of the amount would be due after occupation of the 75th unit, the 153rd unit and finally the 229th unit. The issue of viability was discussed between the developer and the Council in 2010 when it was agreed that the staged payments would be deferred until near the end of the scheme upon occupation of the 300th residential unit, in the hope that viability improved. However, payment was not made at that stage and the full amount of the contribution remains outstanding.
Is the scheme viable?6. There is a great deal of information relating to the viability of the scheme. The short answer to this question is contained in the SOCG, wherein the Council agree with the appellants' figures and conclusion, that the scheme is not viable, with a projected loss of £12.35m. There is no evidence to contradict or cast any doubt over this figure. Therefore, I conclude that the scheme is not viable.
Has the scheme stalled?
7. The DCLG guidance 'Section 106 affordable housing requirements review and appeal' states that "unrealistic Section 106 agreements negotiated in differing economic conditions can be an obstacle to house building. The Government is keen to encourage development to come forward, to provide more homes to meet a growing population and to promote construction and economic growth. Stalled schemes due to economically unviable housing requirements result in no development, no regeneration and no community benefit."
8. There is no definition of what constitutes a "stalled scheme". The appellants point out that they continued with the construction of this major scheme in the face of considerable financial difficulties, when recognising that the scheme had become unviable. They negotiated difficult re-financing and proceeded with the loss making scheme as the alternatives of stopping and moth-balling the construction would have had damaging effects on them professionally and financially; plus the damaging effects on the locality would have been unacceptable. The point has now arisen where the appellants state that they are unable to complete the commercial units (notwithstanding that some works of 'tenants fit-out' would be undertaken by new occupiers). This would include any structural openings and modifications; it is also stated that their current position does not allow them to offer any of the common incentives of reduced rent for initial periods or assistance with fit-outs, that would encourage reputable and desirable occupiers.
9. Whilst the scheme has obviously progressed to an advanced stage, there is no dispute that it is not complete and ready for occupation. Whilst the appellant has proceeded with this unviable scheme for some time, for reasons that I well appreciate, it cannot be argued that it is viable to proceed any further. I can understand the Council's concerns, that the scheme is significantly well-advanced and very little remains to be done in order to complete it. However, the agreed facts remain that it is not viable and it is not complete. In these circumstances, I agree that the scheme can be considered to have stalled and efforts should be made to make it more viable.
Conclusions
10. The stated aims of this provision within the Act are to not only boost housing and affordable housing, but also to promote construction and economic growth. Whilst the housing units have been provided, including 44 in shared ownership, the completion of the scheme must remain in doubt in this unviable situation.
11. I have considered the Council's concerns in relation to the fact that the relevant contribution should have been made when the 300th flat was occupied and that point has now passed. Whilst this is the case, the development is still on-going and not complete. In the circumstances of this case I do not see this as an impediment to allowing the appeal.
12. It is accepted that the modification that is applied for would not make the scheme viable as the sum involved (around £1.3M indexed to October 2014) would be insufficient to off-set the loss (around £12.3M), but I consider that it would improve the viability of the scheme and make its completion more likely.
13. As a consequence, the appeal is allowed for a period of 3 years from the date of this decision.
Schedule of Modifications to the planning obligation
PAGE 24, FOURTH SCHEDULE,
a. Delete paragraph 1."
G THE CASE FOR THE CLAIMANT AUTHORITY
Ground 1
Ground 2
H THE POSITION OF THE DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE
I THE CASE FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY
"4. This led to the alternative argument that the notice was out of time because the operations that must be substantially completed for the purpose of section 171B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 comprise the operations which constituted a breach of planning control, or (as it was put) the operational development, and not the whole operation of completing the dwelling house. The inspector's view was that the four year period did not begin until the whole operation of creating the dwelling house was substantially completed. He then held, treating the question as one of fact and degree, that the building in this case was not a substantially completed dwelling house. Here again the inspector's decision on the facts went against Mr Sage and the contrary is not longer arguable. The question which remains is whether the inspector was right when he said that the four year period did not begin until the whole operation of creating the dwelling house was substantially completed.
5. Mr Sage's argument is that the reference in section 171B(1) to the date "on which the operations are substantially completed" has to be read in the light of the wording of the other relevant sections in the 1990 Act, and that by tracing the language of that subsection back through section 171A(1)(a) the reader is required to bring into account the definition of "development" in section 55(1) of the Act, those operations which section 55(2)(a) says are not to be taken to involve development and the definition of the word "building" in section 336(1). If this approach is right the position is, as Keene LJ explained in paras 27 -31 of his judgment, capable of being resolved quite simply by saying that what have to be substantially completed are those operations which amount to a breach of planning control and that operations and works which do not amount to development because they fall within section 55(2)(a) are not to be taken into account. On this approach, it does not matter that the inspector did not think that the building was a dwelling house. All one needs to find is that there is a building which has been erected in breach of planning control.
6. I was initially attracted to this approach, as it seemed to me to be consistent with the language of the statute and to be unlikely, as Keene LJ said in para 32 of the judgment, to give rise to practical difficulties. But I have in the end been persuaded, with respect, that the language of the statute is open to a different interpretation and that it makes better sense of the legislation as a whole to adopt the holistic approach which my noble and learned friend has described. What this means, in short, is that regard should be had to the totality of the operations which the person originally contemplated and intended to carry out. That will be an easy task if the developer has applied for and obtained planning permission. It will be less easy where, as here, planning permission was not applied for at all. In such a case evidence as to what was intended may have to be gathered from various sources, having regard especially to the building's physical features and its design.
7. If it is shown that all the developer intended to do was to erect a folly, such as a building which looks from a distance like a complete building - a mock temple or a make-believe fort, for example - but was always meant to be incomplete, then one must take the building when he has finished with it as it stands. It would be wrong to treat it as having a character which the person who erected it never intended it to have. But if it is shown that he has stopped short of what he contemplated and intended when he began the development, the building as it stands can properly be treated as an uncompleted building against which the four year period has not yet begun to run.
"23. When an application for planning consent is made for permission for a single operation, it is made in respect of the whole of the building operation. There are two reasons for this. The first is the practical one that an application for permission partially to erect a building would, save in exceptional circumstances, fail. The second is that the concept of final permission requires a fully detailed building of a certain character, not a structure which is incomplete. This is one of the differences between an outline permission and a final permission: s.92 of the Act. As counsel for Mr Sage accepted, if a building operation is not carried out, both externally and internally, fully in accordance with the permission, the whole operation is unlawful. She contrasted that with a case where the building has been completed but is then altered or improved. This demonstrates the fallacy in Mr Sage's case. He comes into the first category not the second.
24. The same holistic approach is implicit in the decisions on what an enforcement notice relating to a single operation may require. Where a lesser operation might have been carried out without permission or where an operation was started outside the four year period but not substantially completed outside that period, the notice may nevertheless require the removal of all the works including ancillary works: Ewen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1980] JPL 404, CA; Howes v Secretary of State for the Environment [1984] JPL 439, Hodgson J; Somak Travel v London Borough of Brent [1987] JPL 630 Stuart-Smith J. The first of these upheld a requirement that the whole of an embankment be removed. In the second the inspector had directed himself that the removal of a hedge and the creation of an access was "a continuous operation and each step in the work prolong[ed] the period for serving the enforcement notice as regards every earlier step of the development": the judge upheld the notice. The third case involved an unauthorised change of use case from residential to commercial use. The notice not only required the cessation of the commercial use but also the removal of an internal staircase which had been put in to facilitate that use though in itself the staircase had not required permission.
25. These decisions underline the holistic structure of planning law and contradict the basis upon which the Court of Appeal reached its decision in favour of Mr Sage.
26. Finally, it was argued for Mr Sage that the inspector should have had express regard to an inspector's decision letter reported in [1972] JPL 385 where the facts bore some similarity to those of the present case and he had held the enforcement notice to be out of time. However that decision was based upon the finding by the inspector that "the appeal building had become a viable building more than four years before [the] service of the notice and that in the form which it then took it [was] immune from enforcement action". The inspector's finding in the present case was that the structure was best described as a dwelling in the course of construction. The inspector was right to think that the 1972 decision did not help; indeed it was adverse to Mr Sage's case.
27. Accordingly the inspector's decision was correct. The Notice had not been served after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the building operations were substantially completed. Indeed they had still not been substantially completed at the date of the Notice. The appeal should be allowed and Mr Sage's CPR Pt.8 proceedings dismissed and the orders of the judge and the Court of Appeal set aside, including the costs orders made in favour of Mr Sage."
J DISCUSSION
i) in the real world of development and especially that related to regeneration such as this one, mixed use schemes are commonplace, so that one may often get housing elements and commercial elements;ii) no developer of a mixed scheme would consider the important questions of investment, cash flow, return or valuation, without considering the scheme as a whole;
iii) the markets for different kinds of development fluctuates, and the market conditions for one kind may show a different pattern from another;
iv) a developer seeking to find commercial occupiers (be they tenants or purchasers) may well not proceed beyond shell and core stage until he is aware of the occupier's requirements. He may also decline to finish off a building when he has found no prospective occupier;
v) it is in the interest of local planning authorities, both in terms of proper planning, but also in terms of their own finances, that there is a measure of certainty about the effect of obligations to which they are a party;
vi) it is in the interest of promoting the availability of housing to those that require it that it is assisted by the provision of affordable housing;
vii) the purpose of the making of a payment towards the provision of affordable housing is that in that way the developer is able to pass on a policy obligation he would otherwise have had to fulfil by building a greater percentage of affordable units within his scheme.
""the development", in relation to a planning obligation, means the development authorised by the planning permission to which the obligation relates"
i) Mr Coppel QC is right to say that the Guidance as drafted is directed to housing schemes where the houses promised have not yet been built. But that apparent omission or assumption cannot alter the statutory test. I express no view on its significance or relevance otherwise;ii) I do not have to determine Mr Turney's submission that an application can be made after the development has been completed. The Act appears to be silent on the point. I shall not decide on his submission in the absence of argument from the Secretary of State.
K CONCLUSION