The case involved a preliminary issue in respect of claims for certificates of appropriate alternative development (CAADs) arising from the acquisition of four separate sites close to the Birmingham HS2 terminus. The Respondents were the four previous landowners.
The preliminary issue concerned whether in determining an application for a CAAD, the decision-maker may take into account the development of other sites in respect of which there is an application for a CAAD or a CAAD decision in connection with the HS2 scheme.
The Court of Appeal had previously upheld the Lands Chamber’s decision that applications for, or grants of, CAADs are not to be treated as notional applications for, or grants of, planning permission or as material planning considerations. The Court of Appeal further held that, contrary to the Lands Chamber's decision, it is an inevitable consequence of the cancellation assumption that no CAAD applications on other sites could have been made, with the effect that the issue of CAADs on different sites must be entirely disregarded.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal and Lands Chamber that applications for, or grants of, CAADs are not to be treated as notional planning applications for, or grants of, planning permission or as material planning considerations. By the time of the Supreme Court hearing, the Secretary of State had in fact abandoned his argument on this point.
The Supreme Court however disagreed with the Court of Appeal that CAAD applications or decisions on different sites must be entirely disregarded as a consequence of the cancellation assumption. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal on a very limited basis, which results in the restoration of the order made by the Lands Chamber.
The Supreme Court judgment can be found here.
The Press Summary can be found here.
Richard Glover KC acts for the Fourth Respondent (Birmingham City University), instructed by Peter Seaborn at Mills & Reeve.