Rural Estates Newsletter Spring 2021 - Flipbook - Page 9
2–G
reenfield development – accessing tenanted land
In Rees v Windsor-Clive the development in question covered a large area and the
planning consent carried a 20-year time limit. The whole site was clearly not going to
be developed immediately, instead over a number of phases. The exact time frames
had 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; the
arbitrator did not need to state the time frames over which the phases of development
might 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 land
but included earth moving, storage and other infrastructure works. The decision is
encouraging for landowners with large development sites where works will be phased
and may be dependent on initial infrastructure works to open up access to later
development stages. Yet it remains open to question whether land is ‘required’ if the
land for later phases is not needed straight away for infrastructure but could remain
undisturbed and in agricultural use for many years.
What does the future hold?
The increased emphasis on biodiversity net gain and environmental matters in planning
decisions means developers will need to expand their development plans accordingly
to secure greenfield sites. Under Case B, land must also be required for use ‘other
than for agriculture’. Lawyers continue to scratch their heads over what this might
mean for the provision of green infrastructure (especially if it is to be grazed) in urban
extensions, but case law seems to be moving in the direction of allowing for subsidiary
and ancillary agricultural uses within the area covered by a Case B notice.
Rural Estates Newsletter
Spring 2021
9
