Re: NPPF Paragraph 15 and PINS "model policy" - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Woops the link above is broken its now http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/wps/portal/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gjtxBnJydDRwP3IA8LA0_ngJAALwt_YwMjI_1wkA6zeAMcwNFA388jPzdVvyA7rxwAdbWTjA!!/dl3/d3/L0lDU0lKSWdra0EhIS9JTlJBQUlpQ2dBek15cUEhL1lCSlAxTkMxTktfMjd3ISEvN18yRlRDQkIxQTAwNDgxMElJSFRWRk1PMTBDNQ!!/?PC_7_2FTCBB1A004810IIHTVFMO10C5000000_WCM_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/portal2liveenvironment/portal2site/planning/planninginspectorate/presumption Horrible long link Why does this need to be a policy at all.? The key good practice principles are policies should be about decisions not process so para 1 would normally be struck out Whilst development plan policies should not duplicate national policy so the rest of the policy would normally be struck out. However I imagine the reason is section 38(6) - to embed the decision taking rule from the NPPF into the plan led system. To my mind though this could be done by incorporating all of the model policy apart from the first para as a local plan policy (a final implementation policy maybe), and including the first para as supporting text - which scans better I think. Also the model policy has flaws in wording as it says 'the council will' Twice ever since the very first 'Better Local Plans' in 1997 that has been taboo - as policies should be written to apply to any decision maker or implementation body So perhaps it should bread 'then the decision maker will' to account for inspectors, SoS decisions devolved to parishes (not all parishes have parish councils but [parish meetings) etc. Any PINS, PAS views?

Rachel, You may be interested to know that the Inspector currently examining Reading Borough's Sites & Detailed Policies DPD is seeking views on whether the model policy should be included within this document. See http://www.reading.gov.uk/residents/planning/localplanningpolicy/localdevelopmentframework/sdpdexamination/

I should add the taker/maker distinction comes from French. Decision taking is the bureaucrat and the process, decision making is the final decisive act. In Spanish decision takers never get around to ever becoming decision makers. So decision maker is to be preferred. :)

Am I the only person who thinks this is bureaucratic nonsense? Surely it is the plan and its policies that need to be demonstrably in line with NPPF including the presumption? Including a model policy that is merely a repeat of national policy as the means of demonstrating compliance is highly questionable and very limited in its remit. For authorities which are close to finalising plans they will need to approve a major modification via their political processes, then advertise and consult (with cost and time delay consequences), all on something that adds nothing to their plans. And while of course I understand that the planning has to be seen as proactive I also think the opening paragraph goes beyond what is reasonable and fails to fully appreciate that we still have a plan led system (which the re-issued NPPF now more strongly supports). Specifically I have doubts whether we can or should “always” work to find solutions to approve an application (that is so completely contrary to the Local Plan) – circumstances where the NPPF is very clear we should refuse proposals unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Yes the get out clause “where possible” is included but appears a significant afterthought. I also have some concerns with the naivety in the second sentence in that not all development can necessarily improve economic, social and environmental conditions– hence the balancing act called planning. Still I understand all inspectors are being advised that the model policy or similar must be in each DPD, so it is clear include it or else you will not be found sound – so maybe we do it.

I'm preparing Development Management Policies for South Norfolk, very interested in this new 'model policy'. Our draft of last Autumn included the idea of such a Policy focussing on how the 'presumption' will be applied here. This was criticised by some as unnecessary so very interesting that we're now offered a 'model' policy! We're now working on an explanatory 'strategic' policy to rationalise the role of s38(6) and the 'presumption', including a diagramatic explanation in the RJ of the Policy to explain how marginal decisions will be made. 3x3 matrix (of course!) 3 dimensions of sustainability in three columns and 3 rows with degrees of positive impact (top), adverse impact and unacceptable impact (bottom) and shades inbetween. May help explain need to look at each dimension, the trading of positive / adverse impacts and 'show-stopper' impacts in the bottom row.

>> And while of course I understand that the planning has to be seen as proactive I also think the opening paragraph goes beyond what is reasonable and fails to fully appreciate that we still have a plan led system (which the re-issued NPPF now more strongly supports). Specifically I have doubts whether we can or should “always” work to find solutions to approve an application Having read the NPPF I have found in the Ministerial Forward and in the body of the text a strong 'theme' that pre-NPPF planning decisions are too slow to make, and have tended to say "NO" too often and that LPA processes may have become too process oriented and thus are somewhat detached from 'reality'. Whatever the truth of the matter, it's becoming clear than planning decisions are now expected to be made more quickly, with more flexibility and with more creativity than before. LPAs may for a variety of reasons be unwilling or incapable of aligning themselves to the aims and detail of the NPPF - but applicants and their agents will surely be on the case in due course. PS Inculcation of 'flexibility' and 'creativity' in one's staff is going to be fun! I foresee many training courses appearing on this topic.

>>> We're now working on an explanatory 'strategic' policy to rationalise the role of s38(6) and the 'presumption', including a diagramatic explanation in the RJ of the Policy to explain how marginal decisions will be made. 3x3 matrix (of course!) 3 dimensions of sustainability in three columns and 3 rows with degrees of positive impact (top), adverse impact and unacceptable impact (bottom) and shades inbetween. Interesting. As a consultancy, we have come to the conclusion that mathematical approaches to the 'sustaiinability' íssues in the NPPF will be important. Plannng applications could soon contain significant amounts of mathematical analysis.

We are currently in a written reps examination into an area action plan and were recently told by the Inspector to include the model policy otherwise the plan would be unsound. So relunctantly we have included the policy (slightly amneded) and are consulting on it from Fri for 2 weeks. We tried to leave out some parts from the model policy that we did not agree with but were told to put them back in.

PINs is not a policy-making body and this is not a policy statement - it is simply an information note that could be stamped at the front of Local Plans if that were thought helpful. The NPPF is a material consideration whether the 'policy' is inserted or not. There is no merit in LPAs deliberating on whether or not to adopt it. Unfortunately it also gives the impression that there is a quick fix to conformity with the NPPF. Is this what PINs thinks? A lot of plans will be over-riden by the NPPF within a few months, unless unprecedented progress is made with reviews. That fact cannot be avoided by a sticking plaster solution. The effects of paragraphs 214 and 215 are not yet clear in practice. Paragraph 214 already applies to plans adopted under the 1990 Act, including those that were adopted after the 2004 Act was enacted, but under the transitional arrangements. We may eventually discover the difference between 'full weight' and 'due weight' in practice. Another cause for concern is that, in the absence of more detailed 'guidance' from the Government on how to apply the NPP, there will be a rash of guidance from PINs and others: conceived in private, published obscurely and revised or withdrawn at will. Government has made it plain that decions should be taken on their merits with reference to a much more limited set of policy statements and guidance. Isn't that a good thing?

n my previous comment, I meant paragraph 215 applies

This policy really is a load of old nonsense. Unfortunately PINs have authorities that are at examination a bit over the barrel over this. However I don’t think this policy is just PINs doing but was cobbled together between them and DCLG. We have just commenced a partial review of our fully adopted MWDF and do not intend putting this so-called policy in our reviewed plan. By the time we get to examination in about 20 months time this policy will hopefully have died a death- however, just in case, I suppose we need to rattle a couple of cages: i'd better write a couple of letters to PINs and GOEM at some stage questioning why such a policy is needed and ask for any rationale as to why a plan that doesn't include it could be considered 'unsound'.

My thoughts on the model policy - unfortuntely my italics have been lost from the original. I don't see the need for a policy, but you should check what is compromised by adding it. Also as others have said, brief the inspector and take a sounding when they are appointed/ pre-hearing meeting. Re the text - "When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that ..... [The Council - could be non-specific - "A positive approach will be taken when considering... the Council is relevant in the 'work proactively' bit] "Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with polices in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. [without delay - This is a process matter - is it possible/ necessary / sound(!?!) in a policy? ] "Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:....." This part could be valid in that it accounts for dealing with unknowns - however - I still think it repeats NPPF - no - it actually DOES repeat NPPF. Of course, it raises the possibility of arguments that policies are out-of-date...but NPPF raises that anyway. It could be improved by something like - "Where relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision (and no neighbourhood plan policies apply) then decisions will be made in the light of how or whether appropriate up-to-date evidence affects the intention of the relevant policy, in the context of the NPPF. Where there are no policies relevant to the application then ... as original wording