core strategy....Local plan

[Big Jimbo]

Morning all,

My local council (Dacorum) Has a core strategy that runs from 2006 - 2031.... It does not have a current local plan, as it is currently under review. Any ideas how this may help me in my quest for Planning Permission..... Ie, am i able to use the fact that the local plan is being reviewed ???

Many thanks as always

[Temp]

Appeals Inspectors can take draft plans into account but they don't give them as much weight as a plan that has been out for consultation and is only waiting for final approval or indeed fully approved plans.

 

So yes by all means cite the draft plan if it helps your case.

[ToughButterCup]

Hello @Big Jimbo.

Here is the relevant section of our Planning Application arguing why we should be given permission:  Wyre Borough Council (our LPA) did not have a Local Plan at the the time. 

 

' ... It is pertinent here to consider the reasons for approval in terms of how this materially affects the development’s design to be considered in the reserved matters application. ...

 

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF requires that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. [...]  as the Council is unable to identify a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, NPPF paragraph 49 states that, "relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites." Development that assists in meeting housing needs is in accordance with the requisite policies of the NPPF and as such the Local Plan policies can, in this case, be given significant weight. In this instance, it is considered that the benefit of providing housing towards the 5 year supply can outweigh the lack of connectivity especially as the site is very close to the A6 and there roads are not particularly narrow. ... '

 

More simply put:  if an LPA can't demonstrate a five year supply of housing (evidenced by a Local Plan)  then  permission should be given because  we contend  that our house will help with the housing supply. 

 

Here is the full documentation (called a Planning Statement) , and for the sake of completeness here's all the other online documentation.

 

I am not quite sure about the extent to which a draft  plan or a plan that is under review   allows the same general argument to be made. My guess is that an unadopted plan, or one that is under review does not have the same status as a Local Plan.

Best of luck.

 

[Ferdinand]

@Big Jimbo @recoveringacademic

 

The way in which "relevant policies" in that 'presumption in favour of development' para are evaluated has been changed by Case Law since, and also by a famous "Ministerial Statemeny", following iirc a Supreme Court ruling.

 

Here is a commentary:

https://www.buckles-law.co.uk/site/library/planning-news/supreme-court-clarifies-paragraphs-14-and-49-of-the-nppf

 

What I think that means practically here, is that you should look for examples of wording more recent than @recoveringacademic's which is an application from a few years ago.

 

The commentary linked is turgid, but it does seem understandable (ish).

 

Ferdinand

Edited March 14, 2019 by Ferdinand

[ToughButterCup]

Indeed @Ferdinand so, its worth reproducing in re-formatted and slightly summarised form  here. (Wish I hadn't read your post ....? until later) The summary / Bowdlerisation  I supply here should not be seen as accurate. I encourage everyone to read the full text. 

https://www.buckles-law.co.uk/site/library/planning-news/supreme-court-clarifies-paragraphs-14-and-49-of-the-nppf

 

In respect of applications for planning permission where an LPA does not have a five year supply of land paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF are relevant. 

• Paragraph 49 is about  the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
• Paragraph 14 is about  the presumption in favour of sustainable development,  which means:

1. approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and
2. where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
3. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole or
4. specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted

Unless material considerations dictate otherwise (what's material and what isn't?)

 

Applying Paragraph 49 – the first stage

 Judges have adopted a narrow interpretation of what is meant by ‘policies for the supply of housing’. Namely, it is only housing supply policies that are to be considered ‘out of date’ in paragraph 49. 

 

The second issue was more simply a question of fact as to whether or not there was a five year deliverable land supply. If there was no such five year supply then paragraph 14 applies. The Supreme Court noted that it mattered not what policies caused the lack of five year supply.

 

Applying Paragraph 14 – the second stage

If there is no five year land supply then paragraph 14 is engaged. Paragraph 14 provides for what is commonly caused the ‘tilted balance’ in favour of granting planning permission. Namely, planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

 

Two issues are important to understand in relation to paragraph 14.

Firstly, the development plan (including the housing supply policies) retains its statutory force under section 38(6) but the focus shifts to ‘other material considerations’.

The ‘other material considerations’ will then be determined in accordance with the national guidance in paragraph 14.

 

Secondly, whilst the housing supply policies are to be considered out of date for the ‘other material consideration’ assessment (the narrow interpretation) planning weight may still be given to other policies in the development plan.

However, such weight must be considered on the ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ test founded on the golden thread of sustainable development. This ‘tilted balance’ test is a matter of planning judgement and the weight to be given to remaining local development plan policies is a matter for the decision maker.   

 

 The specific policies restricting development in the Framework remain applicable under paragraph 14 includes not only restrictive policies within the Framework itself but also development plan policies for which the Framework refers. The example given being greenbelt policies.  

 

Neighbourhood Planning – Written Ministerial Statement.

 

Though not mentioned in the Supreme Court decision, it is worth noting the effect of written ministerial statement of Gavin Barwell (Minister of State for Housing & Planning) on 12 December 2016 (“the WMS”). The statement provides as follows:

 

“This means that relevant policies for the supply of housing in a neighbourhood plan, that is part of the development plan, should not be deemed to be ‘out-of-date’ under paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework where all of the following circumstances arise at the time the decision is made:

• This written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the neighbourhood plan has been part of the development plan for 2 years or less;
• the neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and
• the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

While the WMS is currently the subject of legal challenge, its current effect is to preserve the neighbourhood plan policies as ‘up to date’ within the paragraph 14 ‘tilted balance’ assessment. Therefore, together with all of the other non-local plan housing supply policies, they will remain a material consideration to be weighed under paragraph 14 as part of the planning judgement of the decision maker.

 

Caution to challengers of planning judgement decisions

The Supreme Court also took the opportunity to re-enforce the role of the Courts in judicial challenges to planning decisions.

 

On matters of planning judgement the judges noted that the planning inspectorate should be considered analogous to that of expert tribunals and that Courts should not unduly intervene in policy judgements within their area of specialist competence.

 

This highlights the great difficulty applicants will face challenging planning judgement decisions solely on the Wednesbury reasonableness grounds (and especially those of the planning inspectorate).

 

The Court continued by noting the judges of the Planning Court ‘are entitled to look to applicants, seeking to rely on matters of planning policy in applications to quash planning decisions (at local or appellate level), to distinguish clearly between issues of interpretation of policy, appropriate for judicial analysis, and issues of judgement in the application of that policy; and not to elide the two’.

 

Lesson:

there are no real winners and losers in the Supreme Court’s clarification of the interpretation and application of paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF.

For local planning authorities the Court has helpfully retained the material relevancy of non supply of housing policies in the planning judgement of the decision maker. However, at the same time decision makers may likely attach less weight to such policies (as they affect the supply of housing) in their planning judgement under the ‘titled balance’ test in paragraph 14.    

[Ferdinand]

Quote

Indeed-doody..

8>< snip

... paragraph 14

 

 

A+ for the staff work ?

 

F