Guidance must not be inconsistent with development plan
Where their decision is attacked for being inconsistent with the relevant development plan, a planning authority may argue that they have adhered to the supplementary planning guidance (SPG) that they themselves have issued. The question in such a case is whether, as a matter of interpretation, the SPG itself is consistent with the policies set out in the plan.
Although such an argument was accepted by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and others v Oxford City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1116; [2002] PLSCS 190 (an affordable housing matter), Martin Edwards and John Martin have drawn particular attention to the words of Pill LJ, who warns that an SPG must not be used as a device to avoid legitimate public scrutiny of local planning policies: see
Guidance must not be inconsistent with development plan
Where their decision is attacked for being inconsistent with the relevant development plan, a planning authority may argue that they have adhered to the supplementary planning guidance (SPG) that they themselves have issued. The question in such a case is whether, as a matter of interpretation, the SPG itself is consistent with the policies set out in the plan.
Although such an argument was accepted by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and others v Oxford City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1116; [2002] PLSCS 190 (an affordable housing matter), Martin Edwards and John Martin have drawn particular attention to the words of Pill LJ, who warns that an SPG must not be used as a device to avoid legitimate public scrutiny of local planning policies: see Court sounds warning bells, Estates Gazette, 17 August 2002, p93.
