QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
The Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Birmingham B4 6DS
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
| PERSIMMON HOMES NORTH MIDLANDS LTD
|- V -
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1HP.
Official Court Reporters.
Telephone: 020 7067 2900 Fax: 020 7831 6864
MS. SARAH-JANE DAVIES of counsel instructed by Treasury Solicitor appeared for the Respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PURLE, QC
"122. Limitation on use of planning obligations:
(1) this regulation applies where a relevant determination is made which results in planning permission being granted for development;
(2) a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, (b) directly related to the development, and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development."
"(8) The appeal proposal goes some way towards meeting the identified infrastructure requirements, including the provision of an extended bus service, traffic calming on existing roads, foot and cycle paths and on-site recreational space, contributions are also made towards several public services. However, other requirements, including those relating to the wider highway network, educational facilities and improved utility services have not been included.
The council claim that it is not possible to calculate contributions for the overall infrastructure scheme in view of the preliminary nature of the proposals for the SUE [as the sustainable urban extension was referred to for short]. There is also a concern that a number of the contributions that have been offered would not meet the CIL Regulations test through lack of supporting evidence. The deficit would be likely to result in a greater burden on later development, conflicting with the integration concept of the urban extension and raising the prospect of a shortfall in the funding of necessary infrastructure or reduced commercial viability."
"The test of the reasonableness of seeking a planning obligation for an applicant for planning permission depends on whether what is required (1) is needed to enable the development to go ahead … or (2) in the case of financial payment will contribute to meeting the cost of providing such facilities in the near future or (3) is otherwise so directly related to the proposed development and to the use of the land after its completion that the development ought not to be permitted without it."
"(9) Whilst it is recognised that some of the contributions being offered with this scheme represent a significant proportion of the total costs of the facilities being provided, in the absence of an infrastructure plan, it is not possible to conclude that these would represent a fair proportion of the overall costs nor may significant weight be given to the possibility that the council would benefit from the contribution from the new home development scheme; there being no indication that this is intended as a substitute for necessary infrastructure provision."