The planning blog Decisions Decisions Decisions had an item recently on how to use the National Planning Policy Framework to win planning appeals on big planning applications:
……here are my rules of thumb of cases where you may be likely to win an appeal.
1) Is it a case where the NPPF gives absolute protection? Such as protected species. Then it is a knockout not only does the presumption not apply but the weighing and balancing exercise allows the economic and other benefits of the scheme only to be considered in exceptional cases.
—–
2) Is it a case where the presumption in favour does not apply? The obvious example is Green Belt, there is still a weighing and balancing exercise but there will either be a presumption against (as in Green Belt) or no presumption but strict tests (as for building on flood plains).
—–
3) Is it a case where the NPPF gives relative protection? This includes issues such as ancient woodland, this is no absolute protection, as benefits can exceptionally overide harm but more appeals on this issue have been lost than won. The other obvious case is where the traffic impact of the development causes ?serious harm? where the SoS has refused two cases in the last year.
—–
4) Is an up to date local plan submitted with a 5 year+ supply? If so as at Seaton the inspector may judge any current undersupply as temporary as the market will quiclkly (bit not instantly) adjust to any increase in hhousing land through increase consents.
—–
5) Does the scheme cause visual or other harm? The NPPF does not protect bog standard fields but does protect ?valued landscapes? if these are protected by policy such as through gaps wedges etc policy then if you can demonstrate 4) above then the odds have swing in your favour.
——
6) Is a draft neighbourhood plan/pr allocation plan in line with an emerging local plan propose suggesting alternative superior sites? If the local plan is short on housing numbers then you will fall foul of the Tattenhall problem, but if it doesn?t then the odds have again swung in your favour and you can show you arent being Nimby you are being positive localists.
After witnessing what has happened locally it seems a complete waste of time to protest. I wonder nationally just how many developments have been shelved due to local objections, not many I bet.
I would tend to agree with you Oz, although I saw on the news earlier that a development planed for the floodplain in the Windsor area is not now going ahead. There are also calls from many areas for floodplain building to be completely banned at least in the short term.
Perhaps in the light of recent developments RDC might do the decent thing and change their minds, going instead for lower impact developments on brownfield sites that won’t cause flooding. I’m not holding my breath on that one though.
However, surely if other areas Core Strategies have been based around and accepted with buildings on flood plains and Councils now choose not to do this, or if central Government change their planning advice in the wake of recent problems, which does seem a possibility, then objections to the plans may stand a chance of working. Where in fact would this leave the whole Core Strategy programme, not just here but in the country overall.
Current rumour is that Lower Barn Farm ( currently spending 200 K on development)
have been told Compulsary Purchase Order in place by RDC and they knew nothing about it – cannot be true ( or can it ?).
Did any of their development need planning permission? If so and it was granted with a CPO in place I would think they could sue the whatsits off of RDC.