THE INSPECTOR SAYS


A column of extracts from the planning press prepared and annotated by John Bishton.


Reversal of Wealden


District Council's loss A recent copy of ASHTAV NEWS carried a report of the decision by the High Court to support appellant developers in their demand that the District Plan Review be carried to its conclusion, whereas the Council had decided to abandon that procedure in favour of preparation for an L.D.F. The new construct will, of course, be guided by more recent Government guidance, and therefore likely to produce some different results. The consequences of that decision for all authorities could have been very serious, in expenditure and in out of date decisions. However, Wealden has taken the case to the next stage, the Court of Appeal. The High Court ruling has been overruled. Lord Justice Mummery said: "The council had a discretion to withdraw the local plan review when it did and for the reason's that it did. It acted in a way that was consistent with the aims of planning legislation." The cabinet member for sustainable development welcomed the decision thus: ''The Court of Appeal upheld the council's decision to adopt an economical and sensible approach to the logjam that was developing in the strategic planning process.


The developers were refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. That does not prevent them petitioning the law lords directly for an appeal hearing, if they think it worthwhile. It may be argued that the Court of Appeal's


ruling amounts to an interpretation of Government's intention in making new law, and does not rest on quotation of codified law. There have been other occasions when the Courts have taken the opposite line, when appellants have attempted to rely on in-preparation, unadopted plans, and other occasions when the appeal rested on emergent Government guidance, even a White Paper, and the Court has preferred to base its judgment on existing, adopted plans.


It would be uncharitable to rejoice too much at the Court's conclu- sions. Any business must plan ahead. Despite accusations that there would be less of a housing shortage if there was a smaller landbank, the financial implications for firms involved in acquiring land and the timing of its release, already controlled to a large extent through plans, could be serious. Some land already bought may now not qualify, with criteria having been changed, and much land will have to be worked a lot harder at less profit. (It is also why windfall sites are so often at appeal.)


Nevertheless, it would be impossible to move planning forward to meet new imperatives, such as sustainability and the sequential test, preference for use of brown-field, affordable housing, and climate change, if the principle enunciated by the Court of Appeal did not hold, and developers were able to rely on holding councils to out of date plans. Many other authorities must have been awaiting this judgment with trepidation and


16


be relieved that it has been brought forward so swiftly. It even appears that we have seen some joined-up departmental thinking. And It boils down to whether of not to have planning. The quality of life would be better for everybody - absolutely everybody- if planning legislation did not come along like the legendary London buses.


Nearly, but not quite


An inspector has ruled that an appeal against a council's refusal of permission for 12 affordable dwellings must fail because it did not provide sufficient guarantees that the rents would remain affordable. Two sites outside an Essex village were available. One failed at appeal because the council had not evaluated the appeal site in question. However, errors and in- consistencies he perceived in the proposed planning obligation offered for the appeal site, and the advanced stage of the other, though it was more distant from the village and more visible, and the involvement of a registered social landlord offering greater prospect of the houses remaining available to local people in housing need, rendered the alternative preferable.


This sort of competition is thoroughly undesirable; one of the purposes of Planning should surely be the prevention of such costly time-wasting. Are there not formats that applicants can use to prepare an application before it can be considered? Could not failure to follow such a format be grounds for refusal to process? One of these mistakes is perhaps forgivable in rushed planning offices. How did the other one arise?


DCS: N0100038743


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24