Paul Tucker QC was recently featured in Planning Resource’s ‘Legal review 2017 – Ten 2017 court rulings you need to know’.
An excerpt of the article can be seen below. Alternatively, you may follow this link to the full article.
“1. Judgment sets out clear limits on scope of obligations
Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Ltd; [2017] UKSC 66
Paul Tucker QC
Can a planning obligation restrict commencement of development pending a financial contribution towards infrastructure unconnected to the development? Alternatively, can an obligation require payment into a pooled fund without stipulating that the development concerned cannot start until off-site works to be paid for by the money are complete? The Supreme Court was clear that such obligations would be unlawful, warning against an approach that might lead to perceptions of developers buying permissions or allowing councils to haggle with developers for “planning gain”. The court reaffirmed the “threefold test” for planning conditions and set down straightforward authority against the propositions above. It confirmed that, where an obligation has only a trivial connection to a site, then it is not a material consideration in decision-making, even if a local plan policy says such a contribution would be sought. Finally, the ruling makes clear that decision-makers must have regard to relevant guidance, but can exercise their judgement not to follow it without fear of intervention by the courts.
Paul Tucker QC, Kings Chambers”
