[2025] UKUT 312 (LC)

For the reasons we have given concerning design considerations, the height and massing of development on Moor Street Queensway, and the impermeability of the site, we conclude that the scheme proposed by Quintain is not likely to have obtained planning permission at the valuation date.

Had we been persuaded that Quintain’s scheme was acceptable in design terms, we would nevertheless have concluded that it would not have obtained permission without the inclusion of conditions requiring the delivery of a minimum level of residential development such as are proposed by the Secretary of State.

We have not concluded that the Secretary of State’s scheme, which is agreed to represent appropriate alternative development, represents the limit of permissible development of the Appeal Site. It may not do, but the evidence does not enable us to consider any of the other forms which it is agreed development might take.

There were few disagreements over the conditions and planning obligations appropriate either to Quintain’s proposal or to the Secretary of State’s. With the exception of the minimum floorspace condition these were not debated in the evidence, and we were not provided with a consolidated draft showing what was agreed and in dispute.

From the Schedules to the experts’ statement of issues we understand there to be an issue about the need for three bedroom accommodation as part of the Secretary of State’s scheme. Given the city centre location, we do not think that such a requirement is appropriate (a position which may have been agreed after the schedule was prepared).

The appropriate maximum floor space and parameters plan conditions are as proposed by Mr Adams.

We have explained why we consider a minimum floorspace requirement is necessary to define the development and to secure policy objectives. Mr Elvin KC criticised the minimum requirements proposed by Mr Adams and suggested that they lacked any policy justification. The justification offered by Mr Adams in the experts’ agreed statement of issues was that a requirement to deliver at least 80% of the maximum floorspace proposed for each use was necessary to ensure that the site is developed at a density appropriate to its city centre location and to make good use of previously developed land as required by, amongst other policies, GA1, PG1 and PG3. Why 80% was correct, or whether a different figure would be equally satisfactory, was not explored in evidence. In particular, Mr Rouse expressed no view on a minimum requirement in the event that we considered one was necessary, as we do. In any event, we are happy to accept Mr Adams’ judgment on that issue.

The planning experts did not agree on the need for prior approval of a phasing plan. The conditions proposed by Quintain assumed that the Appeal Site would be developed in phases and Mr Rouse again expressed no view on the phasing condition proposed by Mr Adams other than that it was not necessary. We consider that securing a comprehensive mixed use development and the avoidance of unacceptable impacts on the local neighbourhood and residential amenity do require that a condition be imposed preventing the completion of all the permitted PBSA before the commencement of other development. As Mr Rouse has expressed no view on the form such a condition should take, we adopt the form proposed by Mr Adams.

We have invited the parties to provide a draft certificate which should describe the Secretary of State's scheme which the parties have agreed is AAD and should include, in outline, such conditions as have already been agreed between them or determined by the Tribunal.