A legal challenge brought by climate change campaigners to the government’s proposed upheaval of planning regulations is going to court today.
The challenge is being brought by campaign group Rights: Community: Action, which calls itself a “coalition of campaigners, lawyers, planners, facilitators, writers and scientists, united by a shared commitment to tackle the climate emergency.”
They are seeking to overturn what, according to the government, are “the most radical reforms to our planning system since the Second World War”, which are being brought in via three statutory instruments that were lodged in July.
The campaigners, represented by law firm Leigh Day, say that the reforms were approved too quickly and without proper consideration of the potential damage they could do.
Specifically, the reforms make changes to development rights and changes of use, making it easier to build up, demolish and rebuild, and change the use of a property without needing to obtain planning permission.
The question at the heart of the legal action, according to the campaign group’s written argument is:
“Can the secretary of state for housing communities and local government, at a time when parliament is not sitting, push though what the government itself has described as the most radical changes to the planning system since the Second World War” without an adequate equality impact assessment, without “conscientious consideration of consult responses”, and in breach of an “explicit promise to reconsult” on changes to the demolition and rebuild rules.
The government “clearly has the right to carry out sweeping changes to the UK planning system,” they argue. “However, before doing so, the secretary of state is under various duties, set out in environmental law, to take into account all the potential impacts of such changes.
“The crux of this challenge is that the three [statutory instruments] were, in the secretary of state’s own words, brought in ‘at pace’, without lawfully due consideration of all the potential negative consequences: the environmental consequences, the equality consequences, and the other harmful social consequences – many of which were flagged by both consultees and their own appointed advisers.”
The government opposes the action. Its lawyers argue that the reforms are unlikely to have significant environmental impacts and say that it did consider the equality impact on affordable housing and accessibly. Lawyers also argue that there are “enormously important macro-economic and macro political issues” at stake.
The case has come to court quickly, according to David Wood, a senior associate at Hogan Lovells.
“The claim has been listed in very short order – the Planning Court presumably having in mind the practical complications that would face developers and planning authorities alike if any of the statutory instruments were quashed,” he said.
As the changes made by the statutory instruments have already come into effect, parties are relying on them. The challenge raises the prospect that works that have been lawful could yet cease to be so – introducing a lack of certainty at a time when developers and authorities need it most.”
The campaigners are asking the court to declare that the decision to put the statutory instruments before parliament was unlawful, and the the instruments themselves are unlawful. They are also asking the judges to quash the instruments. That would have the effect of destroying the legislation.
Alternatively, if the judges back the campaigners, they could tell the government to reconsider the plan which might have the effect of delaying, but not stopping the reforms.
The case is being is being heard in front of judges Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Holgate and is scheduled to run until tomorrow.
