THE NPPF: RECENT APPEAL DECISIONS

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "THE NPPF: RECENT APPEAL DECISIONS"

Samantha Christal Stephens
5 years ago
Views:

1 THE NPPF: RECENT APPEAL DECISIONS RELATING TO HIGHWAY MATTERS Presented by Christopher Young

2 The weight to be attached to existing development plan policies Para 12 - NPPF not changed statutory status of DP DP remains starting point for decision-making As a matter of law it could not do so. But NPPF is an important material consideration para 212

3 Paragraph 211 tells us policies in local plans should not be considered out of date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of this framework..

4 The obvious question: What happens when conflict between DP adopted plan policies and the NPPF? Two key paragraphs and 215 of Annex 1.

5 Paragraph full weight can continue to be accorded to policies adopted since 2004 which means policies adopted under the 2004 Act, NOT saved policies), even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework.

6 Paragraph 215 deals with policies adopted in local plans produced pursuant to the 1990 Act these are entitled to due weight for 12 months according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies and the plan to the policies of the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

7 Five Year Housing Land Supply (5YS) Constant 5YS of housing land is pivotal to the NPPF. Ministers - boost the supply of housing significant (para 47 NPPF). Post-NPFF decisions - saved policies attract very little weight if they seek to restrict development outside settlement boundaries. Such policies are not in conformity with the NPPF if no 5YS

8 Sellars Farm, Hardwicke, Gloucestershire - May 2012 The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy HN10 of the Local Plan is in significant conflict with the Framework because the preclusion on residential development outside the settlement boundary at Hardwick does not allow for a sustainable development which could help meet a shortfall in provision for the currently identified housing requirement. The advice in the Framework outweighs the inconsistency of the proposal with this element of the plan and justifies granting planning permission for development.

9 Honeybourne, Worcestershire - July 2012 any interpretation of policies within the Wychavon District Local Plan which sought to restrict a ready supply of housing and therefore adversely impact on the NPPF requirement to improve significantly the supply of housing would clearly conflict with the NPPF.

10 5YS and Highway Matters Why is this relevant to highways? Answer lies in overall balancing of various different factors Absence of 5YS can therefore have a bearing on whether other areas of objection can be overcome. Areas such as highway matters and in particular concerns about traffic congestion.

11 Shinfield West, Near Reading 1,350 units granted by SS Insp and SS accepted LPA s argument on flows Demand flows should be used rather than actual flows Modest amount of short term congestion identified Major new relief road to be built by 2026; SERR Inspector concluded - the congestion outweighed by lack of 5YS

12 Tithebarn in Preston SS decision SS rejected views of the Inspector on highways Insp had actually recommended refusal SS accepted that it had not been demonstrated that the development could take place without a detrimental impact on congestion SS took the view that, together with other transportation issues, the congestion weighed significantly against the scheme. But granted permission on the overall merits of the scheme.

13 NPPF paragraph 32 Whittingham Road, Longridge, Preston (August 2012) Chronic shortfall in 5YS But appeal was still dismissed on highway grounds Residential led, mixed use development of about 250 units plus a care home Suitability of the location for housing was confirmed But major problem at the Broughton Crossroads next to the M6.

14 Test the Inspector was considering was paragraph 32 of the NPPF: Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

15 Recommended for approval Junction was some 7 kilometres distant from appeal site Inspector Stuart Nixon, a very senior Inspector Also experienced highway engineer His view any more traffic would simply make a bad highway situation worse.

16 Refused permission: In summary, the key problem with the appeal proposal is that the residual cumulative highway problems would be extreme and this runs counter to the Framework Policy. Moreover, the committed development that would affect the same highways, and especially Broughton Cross, is destined to make the situation far worse, with the attendant dangers and delays and impedance to emergency vehicles and public transport.

17 Planning Obligations and Strategic Off-site Contributions Land at Audley Avenue, Newport Appeal for a 5,000 sqm food superstore A major contribution was offered in respect of off-site highway work Agreed between the LPA and the Appellant in SCG But the Inspector was unconvinced works met the CIL tests:

18 The Highways Contribution relates to off-site strategic highway works. These works include improvements to the capacity of the A41 in accordance with a scheme that has been commissioned by the Council and costed on the basis of pooled contributions from a number of major development schemes potentially coming forward. The problem is that it is not known whether these schemes will be approved or in what timescale. It is appreciated that there is a 10 year period after which the contribution would be paid back with interest, However, there is little certainty that these works will be carried out expeditiously or that the contribution would be proportionate if all the anticipated development do not come on stream In the circumstances I cannot conclude that the contribution is CIL compliant and it cannot therefore constitute a reason for granting planning permission. (paragraph 60)

19 The Manor site, Shinfield, Reading University of Reading agreed to forward fund the SERR Cost of 25m, including a new bridge over the M4 Provided contributions can be obtained from other development in the area. Most of the developers in the area are in a consortium

20 University proposal at the Manor are for 126 houses PDL inside the existing settlement boundary of Shinfield Wished to pay 747,000 towards the SERR But 126 houses had a negligible impact on the local road network LA refused the contribution

21 THE NPPF: RECENT APPEAL DECISIONS RELATING TO HIGHWAY MATTERS Presented by Christopher Young +44 (0)

Review of the Plaistow and Ifold Site Options and Assessment Report Issued by AECOM in August 2016.

Review of the Plaistow and Ifold Site Options and Assessment Report Issued by AECOM in August 2016. Our ref: CHI/16/01 Prepared by Colin Smith Planning Ltd September 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Colin Smith