I was indeed being serious. The NPPF text does indeed seem to suggest that 'sustainable development' applications should be looked on with great favour. Indeed, it may not in reality be possible .. but if you read the NPPF you do get a very strong sense of the preference to be given to such 'sustainable developments'. I do agree that some applications will be very clearly 'sustainable' whilst doubts or vagueness about the degree of 'sustainability' may exist in many other cases. If you have two similar sized planning applications of similar complexity sitting on your desk, one of which is clearly strongly sustainable' and one which is clearly not then the NPPF suggest/hints/instructs/whatever that the sustainable application gets favoured treatment. Even if approval isn't guaranteed, the NPPF suggests that the 'sustainable' application should at least be reviewed promptly .. which might in practice mean that it goes to the head of the queue. I'm sure that few planning departments will change their processes despite what the NPPF says ... but the NPPF message seems clear enough. I'm sure that there WILL be cases which are so clearly 'sustainable' that the NPPF requirements re flexibility/proactive assistance/12-month transition window will be activated. Maybe these case will be rare - but LPAs should be prepared to handle them accordingly. Failure to do so will be a de facto refusal to recognise or use the NPPF - a national policy document.
