Landmark Chambers

Decision-taking

NPPF 186-207


NPPF 196-198

Cash [2013] EWHC 2028 (Admin), John Howell QC

Katrina Yates appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State

“The unwary reader of this guidance, who simply assumes that sustainable development is development that has certain characteristic results, might see a tension between paragraphs 196 and 197 of the NPPF if sustainable development is not in accordance with the relevant development plan” [12].

 

Keith Langmead Ltd [2017] EWHC 788 (Admin), Lang J

John Litton QC and Graeme Keen appeared for the Claimant

Stephen Whale appeared for the Secretary of State

“There was some debate before me as to the interplay between NPPF 196 and 198. In my judgment, the general statement of law in NPPF 196 applies equally to all parts of the development plan, including neighbourhood plans. NPPF 198 does not give "enhanced status to neighbourhood plans as compared with other statutory development plans " (per Holgate J., in Woodcock Holdings , at [24], approved by Lindblom LJ in DLA Delivery Ltd at [11]). Nor does NPPF 198 merely re-state NPPF 196 insofar as it relates to neighbourhood plans - that would be pointless repetition. Under the heading " Determining applications ", the NPPF reiterates to the decision-maker some of the key principles and policies set out earlier in the NPPF which should be applied when determining an application. NPPF 196 re-states the statutory framework within which decisions must be taken. NPPF 197 reminds the decision-maker to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. NPPF 198 reiterates to the decision-maker the importance of the role accorded to neighbourhood plans in the policies of the NPPF, in particular at NPPF 17 and at 183 to 185.” [46]


NPPF 198

Woodcock Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin), Holgate J

Christopher Boyle QC appeared for the Claimant

“the Secretary of State accepts through Mr. Honey, that paragraph 198 neither (a) gives enhanced status to neighbourhood plans as compared with other statutory development plans, nor (b) modifies the application of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). Moreover, housing supply policies in neighbourhood plans are not exempted from the effect of paragraph 49 and the presumption in paragraph 14 of the NPPF (see paragraph 21 above).” [24]


R (Irving) v Mid-Sussex District Council
[2016] EWHC 1529 (Admin), Gilbart J

Robert Walton appeared for the Defendant

“the effect of s 38(6) PCPA 2004 is to the same effect as NPPF [198]”


NPPF 204

Oxfordshire County Council v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 186 (Admin), Lang J

Nathalie Lieven QC and Andrew Parkinson appeared for the Claimant

“There is nothing in the wording of the TCPA 1990 , the Planning Act 2008 , the CIL Regulations , the NPPF or the Guidance which suggests that authorities could or should claim administration and monitoring fees as part of planning obligations.” [45]


NPPF 206

R (Frack Free Balcolme Residents Association) v West Sussex County Council [2014] EWHC 4108 (Admin), Gilbart J

James Maurici QC appeared on behalf of the Council

“The occurrence of past breaches is of course relevant to the policy tests which apply to the imposition of a condition- such as necessity and enforceability (see NPPF paragraph 206) but as planning permission runs with the land, it is very hard to justify a refusal based on past breaches unless they go to the issue of enforceability.” [110]