2–G reenfield development – accessing tenanted landIn Rees v Windsor-Clive the development in question covered a large area and theplanning consent carried a 20-year time limit. The whole site was clearly not going tobe developed immediately, instead over a number of phases. The exact time frameshad yet to be finalised.The arbitrator did not specify when the various parcels of land would be required.When the tenant challenged this, the court upheld the arbitrator’s decision; thearbitrator did not need to state the time frames over which the phases of developmentmight occur, as the arbitrator had made a general finding of a ‘present requirement’for the land. This present requirement was not directly for building over all the landbut included earth moving, storage and other infrastructure works. The decision isencouraging for landowners with large development sites where works will be phasedand may be dependent on initial infrastructure works to open up access to laterdevelopment stages. Yet it remains open to question whether land is ‘required’ if theland for later phases is not needed straight away for infrastructure but could remainundisturbed and in agricultural use for many years.What does the future hold?The increased emphasis on biodiversity net gain and environmental matters in planningdecisions means developers will need to expand their development plans accordinglyto secure greenfield sites. Under Case B, land must also be required for use ‘otherthan for agriculture’. Lawyers continue to scratch their heads over what this mightmean for the provision of green infrastructure (especially if it is to be grazed) in urbanextensions, but case law seems to be moving in the direction of allowing for subsidiaryand ancillary agricultural uses within the area covered by a Case B notice.Rural Estates NewsletterSpring 20219
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
