Material Planning Considerations

Material Planning Considerations 

The law requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  The development plan currently comprises the Exeter Local Plan (see later), the Devon Structure Plan and the Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG10, 2001)’

What is and is not a material consideration is ultimately a matter for the courts. lf a council takes into account a matter that is not a material consideration the decision could be challenged as unlawful and set aside.

The following material considerations are relevant in most planning applications:
– National planning policy and advice
– Draft policy
– The environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposal
– Access and provision of infrastructure for the site
– The design of the proposal
– The planning history of the site
– The views of organisations and individuals, in relation to relevant planning matters.

The following issues are not material considerations:
– Loss of views
– Competition between businesses
– Moral considerations (for example religious objections to licensed premises)
– Political or ideological opinions
– The cost of the development
– Issues covered by other legislation (for example Building Regulations)
– Whether or not the applicant owns the site

So it is clear, that planning permission CANNOT be refused simply because the local residents don’t want it, or that local residents do not like the look of it – planning permission can only be refused on legitimate planning grounds.

Love this phrase:
“We have real concerns, borne out of an intimate knowledge of area (and it is frustrating that an alternative, practical and cost-effective solution has been proposed, but no-one is able or willing to enforce this)”

And this one as well:
“We would be grateful if the Council would take our objections into consideration when deciding this appication”

It is essential to realise that consideration of a planning application is NOT a popularity contest – “we have X00 objections so you must turn it down.”

And what happens if the Planning Committee refuses an application?

First the Committee list the reasons with reference to the material considerations and policies.

If the developer feels aggrieved they can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, as happened over the Home Farm development in Pinhoe.

13/4802/01 OUTLINE Planning Permission forLand at Home Farm, Church Hill, Pinhoe, Exeter, EX4
The developer proposed 120 dwellings with associated infrastructure and open space (all matters reserved for future consideration apart from access)

Report presented to Planning Committee meeting of 13 January 2014

As well as the Officer’s report, the committee heard from local ward councillor Moira Macdonald who spoke for nearly 40 minutes – and highlighted the flood risk, concerns over capacity of foul sewage system and fears over the net loss of biodiversity (also expressed by Devon Wildlife Trust).

The Officer’s recommendation was for REFUSAL and the minutes of the meeting record:

(1)     outline planning permission for 120 dwellings with associated infrastructure and open space (all matters reserved for future consideration apart from access) be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1)      The proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policies CP1, CP4 and CP16 of the Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012, Saved Policies H1, H2 and LS1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011, and policies DD9, DD21 and DD30 of the emergingExeter Draft Development Delivery Development Plan Document 2013, because:

a) the proposal would harm the landscape setting of the city through development of protected land of particular importance to the setting of the city and of intrinsic landscape value in itself;

b) adequate information has not been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable in terms of access and impact on the highway network; and,

c) it would set an undesirable precedent for other nearby residential development proposals that individually, or collectively, would harm the character of the area;

2)      In the absence of a planning obligation in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, and which makes provision for a contribution towards affordable housing, the proposal is contrary to Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 Policy CP7, Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 Saved Policy H6 and Exeter City Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2013; and

(2)     the Assistant Director City Development be granted delegated authority to add any further reasons for refusal after research into the issues raised by the Councillor attending under Standing Order No 44.

DOWNLOAD:  Decision Notice
The developer [Waddeton Park Ltd & The R B Nelder Trust] lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.
Following an Inquiry held on 9,10 & 11 September 2014 and a site visit made on 11 September 2014, Lesley Coffey BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI (the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision) made a decision on 29 October 2014
The Planning Inspector’s decision letter runs to 100 clauses and concludes:

99. I have found above that the proposal would not harm the landscaped setting of Exeter and subject to the provisions of the Unilateral Undertaking would be acceptable in terms of its effect on highway safety and traffic. The proposal would deliver much needed housing within Exeter and would represent sustainable development.

100. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

DOWNLOAD:  Inspectors decision (0.2 MB)
In a separate judgment, the Planning Inspector awarded costs against Exeter City Council
As a result of this judgement, Exeter City Council sought a Judicial Review of the Planning Inspector’s decision

Pinhoe 100 homes plan due to be reviewed [Express &Echo, 09 December 2014]

Following a hearing on 8 June, a High Court judge dismissed ECC’s application to overturn a Planning Inspector’s decision to allow an outline planning application for 120 homes at Home Farm on Church Hill, Pinhoe.
The full judgement of Mr Justice Hickinbottom in Exeter City Council v (1) Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government, (2) Waddeton Park Limited, and (3) The R B Nelder Trust was published on Bailii [the database of England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions].
Hickinbottom J found that the Planning Inspector “was correct not to accede to the Council’s submission that all student accommodation supplied should or could be set off against the housing requirement.”
This summary points out that Hickinbottom J. accepted the Secretary of State’s and the developers’ submissions that even if the challenged aspects of the decision letter were wrong in law and the Inspector had found that the Council did have a five-year housing land supply, the outcome would inevitably have been the same given that the Inspector did not identify any harm that the development would cause other than the breach of a local plan landscape policy which she found to be out of date for reasons unassociated with the housing land supply situation, and therefore that the Court should in any event exercise its discretion not to quash in any event. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s