The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling stating the presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) should not be interpreted broadly to include proposals in conflict with local plans.
Lord Justice Lindblom dismissed an appeal by Barwood Strategic Land II LLP against a 2016 High Court decision quashing a planning permission for 150 homes at Burton upon Trent, which had been granted by an inspector despite the development being in conflict with the area’s local plan.
The inspector had granted planning consent on the basis that he considered he was able to apply a broader presumption in favour of sustainable development, and Barwood had argued that he was correct to do so.
Lord Justice Lindblom said: “What is the scope of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF)? That is the basic question in this appeal. Judges in the Planning Court have differed in their answer to it.”
However, he said that he had the advantage of being able to approach it in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017] UKSC 37; [2017] PLSCS 105.
Dismissing Barwood’s appeal, he said that the court should “accept as correct” the essential conclusion of Mr Justice Green in the decision below that “the inspector misdirected himself as to the policy for the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ in the NPPF”.
That, he said, must be fatal to the inspector’s decision, and the court should not exercise its discretion to decide not to grant relief.
But, by way of guidance for future cases, he added: “I would, however, stress the need for the court to adopt, if it can, a simple approach in cases such as this. Excessive legalism has no place in the planning system, or in proceedings before the Planning Court, or in subsequent appeals to this court. The court should always resist over-complication of concepts that are basically simple.
“Planning decision-making is far from being a mechanical, or quasi-mathematical activity. It is essentially a flexible process, not rigid or formulaic. It involves, largely, an exercise of planning judgment, in which the decision-maker must understand relevant national and local policy correctly and apply it lawfully to the particular facts and circumstances of the case in hand, in accordance with the requirements of the statutory scheme.”
In this case, the secretary of state elected not to defend the inspector’s decision – and in fact made submissions in support of East Staffordshire Borough Council’s challenge, arguing against the broader interpretation of paragraph 14.
To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@egi.co.uk or tweet @jessharrold or @estatesgazette
