PCC fails in bid to have planning permission for 4,250-home development quashed

A High Court judge has rejected a Police and Crime Commissioner’s bid to have the outline planning permission for a new 4,250-home community quashed.

Blaby District Council’s development control committee resolved in November 2012 to grant outline planning permission for the development at Lubbesthorpe, subject to conclusion of a s. 106 agreement to secure the provision of infrastructure.

Negotiations on the s. 106 agreement were concluded in December last year. The council, the final signatory, signed the agreement on 13 January 2014 and issued the outline planning permission the next day.

In Police And Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire, R (On the Application Of) v Hallam Land Management Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 1719 Sir Clive Loader, PCC for Leicestershire, did not challenge the principle of the proposed development at Lubbesthorpe, nor was the potential amount of the provision of funding for police services by the developers in issue.

However, he was concerned by:

  • an alleged inadequate provision of certain aspects of such funding at appropriate times during the course of the development; and
  • a lack of a clear commitment in the section 106 agreement (to which the PCC was not a party) that anything would in fact be paid by the developers for premises required by the police in order to serve the community created by the development.

The Commissioner argued that there were procedural deficiencies in the final stages of the s. 106 agreement process and that this left the police out of the relevant negotiations.

Mr Justice Foskett rejected the claim. He said: “Looked at objectively, there are features of the way the police contribution in this case was dealt with in the section 106 agreement that are not very satisfactory and…. some legitimate criticisms seem to me to be open to the formulation of the trigger mechanism.

“I rather suspect that, irrespective of the outcome of this case, the issue of the timing of the police contributions will have to be re-visited before the development proceeds too far to ensure that those who are considering purchasing properties on the development will have the reassurance that it will be properly and efficiently policed. However, that does not amount to, or evidence the need for, a conclusion at this stage that what was agreed between the defendant [Blaby District Council] and the developers was irrational or that there was anything unfair about the way the defendant dealt with the issue.”

Blaby’s Leader, Cllr Ernie White, welcomed the ruling. He said: “We are delighted that the judge Mr Justice Foskett made a very clear decision when he found in favour of Blaby District Council….

“Lubbesthorpe will deliver over £159m of much needed infrastructure including 4,250 new homes of which at least 25% will be affordable homes, 1,530 new jobs, extensive (205 hectares) public open space, three new schools, transport infrastructure and improvements, community facilities and over £1.6m to Leicestershire Police to pay for vehicles, communication equipment and premises.”

He added: “Blaby District Council is saddened that the PCC chose to take this action. It has cost the local taxpayer a lot of money, delayed the delivery of much needed homes and jobs and wasted everyone's time and energy.

“Despite the recent legal action taken by the PCC the council has continued to enjoy excellent working arrangements with the operational teams at Leicestershire Police.”

Responding to the High Court ruling, Sir Clive Loader said he respected the judge’s opinion concerning his legal position in this matter. 

“Unfortunately, the fact remains that the schedule of payments towards policing the Lubbesthorpe development amounts to nothing less than a reckless disregard for community safety across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland,” he argued.

Sir Clive highlighted the section of the ruling in which Mr Justice Foskett suggested that the timing of the police contributions would have to be re-visited before the development proceeded too far.

He also noted the judge’s comments that:

  • “Those who, in due course, purchase properties on this development, who bring up children there and who wish to go about their daily life in a safe environment, will want to know that the police service can operate efficiently and effectively in the area.”
  • He (the judge) was “inclined to the view that if a survey of local opinion was taken, concerns would be expressed if it were thought that the developers were not going to provide the Police with a sufficient contribution to its funding requirements to meet the demands of policing the new area; lawlessness in one area can have effects in another nearby.”

Sir Clive said: “I…. remain firmly of the view that, both ethically and morally, we were right to take action in an attempt to redress the situation caused by the Lubbesthorpe development. I can only hope now that Blaby District Council and the developers, having read Judge Foskett’s judgment, will reconsider their position – as we have repeatedly asked them to do in our requests for mediation.”

He added: “I am certain that I am not alone in thinking that taxpayers should not be expected to suffer a reduced policing provision as a result of such developments. Frankly, developers’ cash-flow plans should neither become my problem nor affect the safety of our communities.”

Simon Cole, Chief Constable for Leicestershire, said he fully supported the PCC’s comments – “just as firmly as I encouraged him to seek the judicial review in the first place”. 

Cole added: “He and I, together, are charged with the safety of all of our communities; no one should be in any doubt that we will pursue every possible avenue – including legal recourse – as we strive to fulfil that public duty.”