Events after the meeting of 8 December 2022
Events after the meeting of 8 December 2022
The claimant did not cease its opposition to the development. The Secretary of State decided on 5 May 2023 not to call in the application. Mr Grayson was in contact with the claimant in 2023. He sent an email on 15 May but I do not have a copy of it. In response, the claimant emailed back on 18 June 2023:
“… we request details of all outstanding agreements being drafted and discussed prior to the decision date on Chidswell & Heybeck.
Specifically, the S106 / S278 / Reserved Matters - and any other details which need to be agreed prior to determination.
It's our understanding these draft documents should already be published on the Planning Portal so we'd appreciate a timely response to this request.
We would also ask if you have a target completion date for these outstanding matters.”
The next day Mr Grayson replied:
“Thanks for your email.
To clarify – it is only the Section 106 agreements (one for each application: 2020/92350 and 2020/92331) that need completing prior to the council’s decisions (on the two applications) being released. Section 278 agreements relate to works to the highway. Reserved matters would be addressed in later applications which would be put to public consultation.
Section 106 agreements are being drafted. Their provisions will secure the Heads of Terms set out in the committee reports for the two applications. No drafts of the agreements are in the public domain (nor are they required to be). The completed agreements will be posted online along with the council’s decisions, when issued. As to when that will happen, I can’t confirm precisely, however later this summer is likely.”
But by March 2024, no section 106 agreements or drafts thereof had been published on the LPA’s planning portal; nor the delegated officer’s decision. On 13 March 2024, Ms Sally Naylor on behalf of the claimant left a voice message for Mr Grayson and then followed up with an email the same day:
“Further to my voice message left on your Kirklees' extension today, we would be grateful to know why applications 2020/92350 and 2020/92331 are no longer present on Kirklees' planning portal. We would be grateful to know:
The target date for completion of the S106 agreements and the release of the Council's decision; If you will be updating Kirklees' planning portal immediately at the point of completion of S106 agreements and release of the Council's decision?
We would request you to please notify ourselves to the CAG email as soon as the S106 agreements are completed and the Council's decision is going to be released.”
Mr Grayson responded the same day:
“Thanks for your messages.
Yes – there has been a problem with the council’s website today, affecting access to several applications. The council’s IT people are trying to resolve the matter.
As regards the Section 106 agreements, we had hoped to complete these by the end of this month. Whether or not that happens depends on various factors, including progress with National Highways.
Once the Section 106 agreements are completed, planning permissions are usually issued within a few days. For both applications, the decision letter and the Section 106 agreement should appear online at the same time (the day after the decision is issued, as the council’s website updates overnight).”
Extensive exchanges (as they were described in a later LPA officer’s note) took place between the LPA and the developer on the subject of the pre-commencement conditions. These were not made public. A final list of conditions was submitted to the developer by the LPA on 5 July 2024.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Facts
- Objections to the proposals
- The 8 December 2022 committee meeting
- Events after the meeting of 8 December 2022
- The Greenfields case at first instance
- The section 106 agreement
- The decision challenged
- Publication of the section 106 agreement
- Pre-action correspondence
- The present challenge
- The first supplementary planning obligation
- The order granting permission on the third and fourth grounds
- The second supplementary planning obligation
- The combined provisions of SPO (1) and SPO (2)
- The Greenfields case in the Court of Appeal
- The application to add a fifth ground of challenge
- The Issues, Reasoning and Conclusions
- Third ground: taking future ecological surveys into account without sight of the relevant condition; or that the ecology conditions which were imposed were ineffective
- Fourth ground: taking into account an inaccurate Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) assessment and/or issuing a decision notice without legally adequate provision to secure BNG
- Fifth ground (subject to permission to amend): failing to publish the section 106 agreement in accordance with article 40(3)(b) of the 2015 DMP Order, rendering the grant of planning permission invali
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LDS-000251 - [2025] EWHC 2256 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)