It’s “office”ial! Office to resi permitted development rights here to stay

The government has recently confirmed that certain permitted development rights (PDRs) enabling offices to be converted into new homes - originally intended to be a temporary measure - will now be made permanent, with further PDRs to follow.
This will be a welcome announcement for developers who no longer need to complete such conversions by May 2016, but may result in additional work - without fees - for local planning authorities (LPAs).

What changes have been announced?

Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis has announced new measures that will make it easier to turn underused office buildings into new homes, namely:

  • to make permanent, temporary permitted development rights to enable offices to be converted to new homes without having to apply for planning permission. The temporary rights were introduced in May 2013 and were set to expire on 30 May 2016
  • those who already have permission to convert offices into residential will have three years in which to complete the change of use
  • in future, to allow the demolition of office buildings and new building for residential use, subject to limitations and prior approval by the LPA
  • to introduce new permitted development rights to enable the change of use of light industrial buildings and launderettes to new homes, subject to prior approval by the LPA

Why are the changes being made?

The government’s key aims  are to boost house-building, make the best use of existing buildings, including some that are underused and neglected, and protect the green belt.

What does this mean for developers?

Increased certainty

Under the temporary right, developers who failed to complete any unfinished conversions and get them occupied by May 2016 would have been in breach of the conditions attached to it, leaving them at risk of enforcement. Developers will undoubtedly welcome the change in status of the PDR from temporary to permanent.

Obtaining “prior approval” for qualifying developments

Developers will still need to apply for “prior approval” from the LPA, to confirm that specified elements of any qualifying development are acceptable before work can proceed.

The process is essentially comprised of:

  • submitting information to the LPA;
  • the notification of consultees, followed by a consultation period; and
  • consideration of any objections (if objections are raised, this can of course delay the approval).

Nevertheless, the statutory requirements relating to prior approval are still much less prescriptive than those relating to planning applications.

What are the implications for LPAs?

Planning departments have to prioritise applications for prior approval, even though they do not receive a fee for them. This is because if the application is not considered within six weeks, it is deemed to have been approved.

Under the rules for the householder extension permitted development right, LPAs must notify neighbours of applications for prior approval. Where objections are made, LPAs must decide whether the impact on the amenity of all adjoining properties is acceptable.

There are areas in 17 LPAs in England that are currently exempt from the rights, mainly in London. These exemptions will remain in place until May 2019, providing time for the LPAs to consider making an Article 4 direction to remove the rights and require a planning application for any proposed change of use.

What are the potential disadvantages of the permanent rights?

The government was initially reluctant to extend the permitted developments rights .

In an explanatory note, it stated that the consultation revealed concern on the future availability of business premises, the impact on surrounding businesses and the quality of the new dwellings.

However, it appears that ultimately, the political drive to boost housing numbers outweighed these concerns.

 

Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
It’s “office”ial! Office to resi permitted development rights here to stay

September 2015 Lexis®PSL Property Highlights

To receive next month’s edition by email please register your details using the form on this page

Welcome to this month’s update by Lexis®PSL Property!

In this month’s edition, we look at seven cases to find the answers to these questions:

Who owns a Banksy mural on the wall of a commercially tenanted property?

What is the relationship between contractual obligations to use “all reasonable endeavours” to obtain planning permission and clauses setting out specific parameters for certain actions to be taken as part of that process?

Does bad/incomplete advice alone constitute professional negligence? What else must a claimant show?

Can time be of the essence where the date for performance/completion is not fixed by the contract?

What is the effect on the freeholder of a property where a (third party) landlord has purported to create a lease over that property without sufficient interest to do so?

How should mixed use buildings be treated for insurance purposes when seeking contributions to the premium from tenants of purely residential areas?

Is service charge certification is simply part of the service charge machinery or a condition precedent to payment?

Find all of the answers in this month’s highlights!

Written transcript:

Download the September transcript here

Video (with supporting slides, mp4):

To receive next month’s edition by email please register your details using the form on this page –>


 

Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
September 2015 Lexis®PSL Property Highlights

“Who will speak for the trees?” — MoJ “Costs Protection in Environmental Claims” consultation

“Who will speak for the trees?” — MoJ “Costs Protection in Environmental Claims” consultation

lone tree in mist

“The Lorax: Which way does a tree fall?

The Once-ler: Uh, down?

The Lorax: A tree falls the way it leans. Be careful which way you lean.”

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) recently launched its consultation on reforms to the costs-capping rules in environmental challenges. In this post we consider the changes being put forward and what they may mean for the future of environmental litigation.

What prompted these reforms?

Three main factors appear to have sparked the touchpaper for this latest round of reforms.

  1. According to the consultation paper, there remains scope for greater clarity and certainty following both domestic and European judgments[1] that the pre-2013 environmental costs regime failed to satisfy the ‘not prohibitively expensive’ requirement of the Public Participation Directive or the Aarhus Convention.
  1. There have been continued Government efforts to tackle the ‘growth in unmeritorious judicial review’, most recently in funding.
  1. The headlines of the delayed implementation of several major infrastructure projects arising from legal challenges with HS2, London Garden Bridge, and Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to name but a few.

What is being proposed?

The proposals fall into four main areas:

  • the scope of the regime in terms of the types of cases that are eligible for costs protection and whether the regime should be extended to apply to certain reviews under statute;
  • the types of claimant eligible for costs protection;
  • the levels of costs protection available and whether they should remain fixed or should be variable; and
  • the factors which courts consider when deciding whether cross-undertakings in damages for interim injunctions are required in cases which fall within the scope of the regime.

Scope

‘Aarhus Convention claims’ (judicial review claims made under the Aarhus Convention’s provisions) are eligible under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 45.41(2) for the Environmental Costs Protection Regime (ECPR).

The proposals suggest amending Practice Direction (PD) 52D to include specific statutory reviews in Aarhus Convention claims. This means appeals against enforcement decisions relating to unauthorised development under sections 289(1) and (2) Town Country Planning Act and section 65(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings Conservation Areas) Act 1990 would be eligible for the ECPR, dependent on their subject matter.

Claimants

The proposals suggest amending CPR 45.43 so that only a claimant who is a ‘member of the public’ can be entitled to costs protection. This would exclude proceedings brought by public authorities from the scope of the ECPR. In addition, the proposals float the idea that costs protection should only be granted once permission to apply for judicial or statutory review (where relevant) has been given.

Levels of costs protection

This is where the most significant changes are proposed. Among them are:

  • A requirement for claimants to file and serve a schedule of their financial resources with their claim form, which includes details of any financial support from others;
  • Increasing the current caps for individual claimants and other claimants respectively to £10,000 and £20,000;
  • Reducing the cap for defendants to £25,000;
  • A separate costs cap for each individual party in cases with multiple claimants or defendants;
  • Giving courts the power to vary or remove any caps in appropriate cases (so long as any variation is in line with the Edwards principles, and not make the costs ‘prohibitively expensive’); and
  • Changing the assessment of costs for defendants who challenge a claimant’s ECPR eligibility from indemnity to standard basis.

Factors for cross-undertakings in damages

Three amendments are proposed to PD25A. These are:

  • for courts to apply the Edwards principles, when considering if continuing with proceedings would be ‘prohibitively expensive’;
  • to take into account the combined financial resources of claimants in a multi-claimant case;
  • and to clarify that the provisions relating to cross-undertakings in damages in Aarhus Convention claims apply only to an applicant for an interim injunction who is a member of the public.

Comments

In Dr Seuss’ children’s tale, the titular ‘Lorax’ who ‘speaks for the trees’ warns the Once-ler of the environmental consequences that a preoccupation with industry and economic growth may lead to.

Although the changes extend the scope of ECPR beyond judicial reviews, other potential restrictions on claimants are worrying. There is substantially increased financial scrutiny and burden on claimants. The paper expressly acknowledges that this could deter claimants from bringing a claim. Environmental activist groups have already expressed concerns which have not gone unnoticed by the Aarhus Clearinghouse newsroom.

The Government’s proposed ‘measured adjustments’ to the ECPR are unsurprising, in light of other policy developments and goals. The changes are intended to disincentivize ‘unmeritorious challenges to cause delay’ and so equalise the ‘uneven playing field’ for defendants.

This overlooks the fact that, in environmental litigation, there is often an imbalance of resources between claimants (typically members of the public or campaign groups) and defendants (typically a development company or government agency) from the outset. The proposals do little to quell this disparity and instead create real disincentives against members of the public pursuing Aarhus claims. If the reforms go through as currently drafted, there may be fewer voices willing or able to speak for the trees.

[1] Edwards v. Environment Agency (case C-260/11 [2013] and subsequent [2013] UKSC 78) and European Commission v. United Kingdom (case C-530/11; [2014] 3 WLR 853)

Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
“Who will speak for the trees?” — MoJ “Costs Protection in Environmental Claims” consultation

VW clouded by attempts to hide pollution levels

VW clouded by attempts to hide pollution levels

Volkswagen has been making the headlines recently after it was revealed that it has been bypassing emission standards by using ‘defeat devices’. Alan Andrews, air quality lawyer at ClientEarth, takes a look at some of the legal issues pertaining to the current scandal enveloping the prolific German carmaker.

What is a defeat device?

A defeat device is a mechanism that recognises when the vehicle is being tested and modifies the emission control system accordingly—the Emissions Regulation (EC) 715/2007, art 3(10) defines ‘defeat device’ as:

‘[…] any element of design which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system, that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use.’

This allows vehicles to achieve lower emissions levels during the laboratory test than in real driving conditions.

What is the extent of this dishonesty on the part of Volkswagen?

The use of defeat devices is explicitly prohibited by both European law and US federal laws.

The full extent of Volkswagen’s misconduct is not yet clear. What is clear so far is that:

  • Volkswagen is recalling around 482,000 diesel vehicles sold in the US
  • Volkswagen has admitted that 11 million cars worldwide are fitted with the software
  • the German transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt, has confirmed that vehicles in Europe were also fitted with defeat software

We do not know how many of the 11 million cars equipped with defeat devices are in Europe, but the figure could be high. Since 2009 (when Volkswagen admitted it started using defeat devices) over 40 million diesel cars have been sold in Europe. So far, only the following information on the number of vehicles fitted with defeat devices in Europe has been released:

  • 2.8 million vehicles in Germany
  • potentially, up to one million cars in Italy
  • 2.1 million Audis (Audi is part of the Volkswagen Group) affected worldwide, including 1.42 million in Western Europe

Could Volkswagen be subjected to investigations in other jurisdictions?

The prohibition of defeat devices is not unique to the US. International rules (for instance, Regulation No 83 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE)—Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements) and national rules usually contain similar constraints. The Emissions Regulation, art 5 expressly prohibits the use of defeat devices in the EU.

The legal responsibility to ensure car manufacturers comply with EU vehicle emissions regulations rests with the member states and, more precisely, with the national approval authorities.

Only models that comply with the relevant emission standards can be granted an approval certificate. National approval authorities oversee the laboratory test. They must also ensure that car manufacturers produce vehicles that conform to the certificate approved for each model. Finally, national approval authorities have the power to conduct investigations into the use of defeat devices.

Several EU member states (including Germany, France, Italy and the UK) have announced that they are launching investigations into whether car manufacturers manipulated emissions data in their country.

The Commission has called on all member states to investigate the use of defeat devices in Europe and report back, so as to ‘ensure that EU pollutant emission standards are scrupulously respected’.

Are there concerns such activities could have been adopted by other manufacturers?

According to Transport and Environment (Europe’s main environmental NGO campaigning on the environmental impacts of transport):

‘There is strong evidence to suggest that the same tricks used by VW in the US have been used in the EU. And not by VW alone, but by other manufactures too.’

Awareness that diesel vehicles underperform significantly in real driving conditions dates back many years (see, for instance, Luc Pelkmans, Patrick Debal, Comparison of on-road emissions with emissions measured on chassis dynamometer test cycles, Transportation Research Part D 11 (2006) 233–241. The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) has measured real driving emissions and found that on-road emission levels of NOx are on average seven times higher than the certified emission limit for Euro 6 vehicles (see ICCT, Real-world exhaust emissions from modern diesel cars).

After reviewing independent studies covering more than 146 vehicles, Transport and Environment found that just one in ten cars meets the NOx emission limits on the road (see Transport and Environment, Don’t Breathe Here).

The use of defeat devices is just one of various techniques car manufacturers use to artificially lower the level of emissions during the laboratory tests. This includes both emissions of those pollutants which are harmful to human health (such as NOx) and carbon dioxide. In most cases these techniques take advantage of flexibilities and loopholes in the laboratory testing regime (see Transport and Environment, Don’t Breathe Here, pg 25).

Could Volkswagen be subject to any criminal charges if they were found to have defrauded consumers?

Volkswagen is already facing criminal investigations in the US, Germany and Italy.

Volkswagen may be exposed to criminal liability for the breach of the prohibition of use of defeat devices provided under the EU regulations. In particular, the Emissions Regulation requires member states to provide for penalties where manufacturers use defeat devices (Emissions Regulation, art 13). The details of the sanctions may differ among member states depending on the respective implementing rules.

Criminal liability may also arise under different types of legislation—such as consumer protection laws (in particular, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC). The behaviour of Volkswagen may constitute one of the unfair practices under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, arts 6 and 7, such as:

  • omitting or hiding material information (such as the use of a defeat device), or
  • providing misleading information on the main characteristics of a product or the results of tests

Member states must introduce effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for the infringement of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, art 13). National implementing provisions will vary between member states.

What are the potential ongoing implications of this scandal?

In the short-term, the scandal is triggering investigations into the use of defeat devices in many member states. The Commission invited ‘all member states to carry out the necessary investigations at national level and report back’. These investigations are not limited to Volkswagen, but will include diesel vehicles placed on the European market by all the manufacturers.

National approval authorities have broad powers to take action against the use of defeat devices. In particular, the Motor Vehicle Approval Directive 2007/46/EC, art 30(1) provides that the national approval authority ultimately has the power to withdraw type-approval. The withdrawal of the license prevents the production and sale of the affected model across the EU.

Before taking the decision to withdraw a license, the approval authority may take other actions, such as requiring the car manufacturer to return non-compliant vehicles.

If the approval authority that discovers the use of a defeat device is not the one that granted the license, it cannot withdraw the approval certificate. In such cases, the approval authority may ask the member state that granted the license to take the necessary corrective actions.

In the most serious cases, member states can prohibit the circulation of vehicles that they consider to constitute a serious risk to road safety or to seriously harm the environment or public health (Motor Vehicle Approval Directive, art 29).

More generally, the Volkswagen scandal proves that the current testing and surveillance system is outdated and vulnerable to abuse by manufacturers. The implementation of the EU emission standards regulations is left to self-regulation by car manufacturers.

The surveillance system is based on a network of national approval authorities which are paid by car manufacturers and compete for business with approval authorities in other member states, so there is a clear conflict of interest.

ClientEarth has expressed concern about the fact that the current inquiry into the use of defeat devices launched by the UK government will be carried out by Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA). As an industry-funded government agency, it is Client Earth’s position that the VCA lacks the necessary independence to conduct a credible investigation.

It is therefore evident that, in the long term, fundamental reform at the European level is needed. In particular, the Commission and the member states should:

  • bring forward the introduction of a rigorous and ambitious real driving testing procedure, and
  • establish a pan-European enforcement agency equipped with adequate inspection and enforcement powers, including the power to issue fines against vehicle manufacturers

Interviewed by Alex Heshmaty.

The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.

Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
VW clouded by attempts to hide pollution levels