Does the
On a called-in application, notwithstanding the Planning Inspectors positive recommendation, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (SoS) has rejected planning permission for demolition and development of
Heritage
A significant consideration in the SoS's refusal, and one to which he gave "very great weight", was the harm of the new building to the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets. In particular, the proposed development "would be prominent and distracting from the Selfridge's façade".
In seeking to justify the development, much was made of the fact that the existing building was a non-designated heritage asset and had been rejected by
The weighting placed on the impact to heritage assets in the SoS's decision may encourage local planning authorities to err on the side of caution when considering the impact of an application on surrounding listed buildings. This has potential to impact a large number of applications where a non-designated heritage asset (which is the subject of the application) is in the vicinity of, and provides a backdrop to, other relevant heritage assets, a common occurrence in many
Sustainability
The SoS was of the view that the application failed to demonstrate that the products and materials of the current building had been "kept at their highest use for as long as possible" and to grant permission would therefore be contrary to planning policy.
Whilst the SoS's decision letter did state that this case turns on its own set of facts, it appears developers must now be able to demonstrate that the building can no longer be used in its current form, with the only option being demolition. Specifically, the SoS stated "he does not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that refurbishment would not be deliverable or viable and nor has the applicant satisfied the Secretary of State that options for retaining the buildings have been fully explored, or that there is compelling justification for demolition and rebuilding". This sets a high bar and must be given great consideration by applicants.
Following the SoS's finding that the development is "clearly not net-zero carbon" because of the substantial amount of embodied carbon that would go into construction, in the future, developers must not only set out alternative schemes (including why they are not appropriate or would use more carbon), but also consider the circular economy of whole life carbon and explore why the current building is not suitable for retrofit. In the case of
Previous manifestation of heritage and sustainability issues
Whilst this is the first call-in from the SoS which appears to have sustainability and heritage as its dual focus, it is not the first time we have seen these issues considered. Appeals, such as that for the Tulip development, considered similar issues in its rejection.
The inspector considered the development "would cause considerable harm to the significance of the
Similarly, the SoS agreed "that the extensive measures that would be taken to minimise carbon emissions during construction would not outweigh the highly unsustainable concept of using vast quantities of reinforced concrete for the foundations and lift shaft."
Outside of the application and appeal process, the chairman of the
The continued and strengthening application of these issues begins to signal the shift in planning policy.
Future considerations
Sustainability credentials and levels of embodied carbon will play an important role in the success of an application for demolition and redevelopment. Planning applications will need to consider the whole life cycle of a building as local authorities begin to actively implement their zero carbon policies and that contained in the London Plan, which increasingly impose stringent low carbon policies.
We have seen local authority movement towards this, with Westminster setting up a retrofit taskforce in late 2022 who "are working to create and deliver a detailed plan to drive forward work on retrofit of [their] existing building stock".
The independent review of the
This decision in the
This article was co-authored by Paralegal
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Macfarlanes
EC4A 1LT
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source