A Green Minister?
During his first question session at the dispatch box in his new role, Javid notably said that the green belt was "absolutely sacrosanct" and in a number of his early decisions, he has demonstrated that it is not only the green belt but environmental issues in general that are high on his list of priorities.
When refusing outline permission for a scheme that would have provided over 1,500 new homes in Buckinghamshire, Javid took the view that the "very significant adverse impact" that the development would have on the character and appearance of the landscape and the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land resulted overall in the scheme not amounting to sustainable development. This was despite the local authority being unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land.1
Similarly in Essex, when refusing two schemes that together would have provided 1,500 new homes, the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area and the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land featured in Javid's reasons for refusal.2
After its mauling in the Courts last year, Cheshire East no doubt felt vindicated when Javid refused an appeal against its refusal of a 189 home scheme on a site at Nantwich, contrary to the recommendations of the inspector. Here too he found that the harm to the character and appearance of the open countryside should carry considerable weight against the proposal.3
In another disagreement with the inquiry inspector, Javid refused permission for a 34.2 metre wind turbine. In noting that the PPG provides that the need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections, Javid took the view that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the landscape.4
When refusing permission for a solar park in the green belt that would have provided power for 1,500 homes and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 2,150 tonnes per year, Javid said that as noted in the Conservative Party manifesto, the green belt remains special and unless there are very exceptional circumstances, we should not be carrying out any development on it.5
However, in contrast, he did find that such circumstances existed in relation to proposals to develop a school in the green belt on the edge of Maidenhead. In that case, he agreed with the inspector that a compelling need for the school was demonstrated.6 Javid also recently supported Crest Nicholson's proposals in Haywards Heath for 40 new homes, despite the proposal being in conflict with two neighbourhood plans7 and Gladman Developments' 270 unit scheme in the Cotswolds, which the local authority had originally refused on the basis it would be of detriment to the rural character and appearance of the area.8
A Minister for Innovation?
Although we have seen him issue a number of refusals, we shouldn't assume Sajid Javid is anti-development.
As a co-signatory to last year's Productivity Plan, Javid stated that he is keen to boost housing supply and speed up its delivery with particular focus on brownfield land.
Indeed in his approval of a 1,000 home urban extension on the edge of Northampton, Javid's comments that the allocation of the site in the council's local plan "effectively amounts to an 'in principle' mandate for development" suggest that he will be ensuring that the foundations contained in the Housing and Planning Act relating to permissions in principle will be utilised to full effect.
Some initial thoughts
So what should we expect from Javid in the months to come? The green agenda is obviously a high priority and although the Tories are committed to increasing housing delivery, he has already demonstrated that this should not be at any price (see for example his recent refusal of a 400 unit scheme in Newmarket on the basis of the threat it would present to the long-term viability of the horse racing industry).9 We anticipate that Javid will be supportive of schemes in the right location and will be keen to look to innovative ways to speed up housing delivery (including higher density development in built up areas and around transport hubs associated with projects such as Crossrail and HS2), but, of course, we will get a better indication of Javid's priorities once we see to what use he will put his call-in powers.
There is also an interesting debate taking place between DCLG and the GLA concerning starter homes - should starter homes in London be treated as another form of affordable housing and if so, how will this impact on the negotiations concerning the local authority funding settlement and the ability of the GLA and London Boroughs to facilitate delivery of the wider policy aspiration of 50% affordable housing? There is a strong likelihood that Javid will be keen to find a pragmatic solution which works for London and which can then be replicated elsewhere in the country in places where prices are particularly high and which have an acute need for affordable housing.
We will find out more over the next few weeks.
Notes
1. Appeal ref: APP/J0405/A/14/2219574; Appeal by Hallam Land Management Limited, Land east of A413 Buckingham Road and Watermead, Aylesbury.
2. Appeal ref: APP/C1570/A/14/2213025; Appeal by LS Easton Park Investments Limited, Land west of Great Dunmow, Essex and appeal ref: APP/C1570/A/14/2219018; Appeal by Fairfield (Elsenham) Limited, Land north east of Elsenham, Essex.
3. Appeal ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2197532; Appeal by Muller Property Group, Land off Audlem Road/Broad Lane, Stapeley, Nantwich.
4. Appeal ref: APP/Y1138/A/14/2217719; Appeal by Mr Adam Westaway, Land at Stone Barn, Philham Farm, Chulmleigh, Devon.
5. Appeal ref: APP/G2245/W/15/3011499; Appeal by GEUK DIRECT Ltd, Land at Skinners Farm, Skinners Lane, Edenbridge, Kent.
6. Appeal ref: APP/T0355/V/15/3011305; Application of Beech Lodge School, Land at Henley Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire.
7. Appeal re: APP/D3830/W/15/3137838; Appeal by Crest Nicholson Operations Limited, Land north of Birchen Lane, Haywards Heath, West Sussex.
8. Appeal ref: APP/D3125/W/15/3005737; Appeal by Gladman Developments Ltd, Land at Burford Road, Witney, Oxford.
9. Appeal ref: APP/H3510/V/14/2222871; Appeal by Lord Derby, Land at Hatchfield Farm, Fordham Road, Newmarket.
