Consideration of Planning Refusal resubmission - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). So while you have done the sensible thing to address members concerns about over development a new application will have to start with the same underlying policy considerations. Guess in your case there is an in principle policy objection to new housing outside the built up area. This will have to be at least the starting point in decision making whether three houses or two. If members choose to set this aside for other reasons like they don't feel it would be too bad with fewer units they can do this, but planning officers are obliged in law to consider all relevant policies.

Craig- Andrew is right the starting point for the (re) consideration remains the development plan. However, i do feel you are right to consider that the previous decision of the Local Planning Authority (like an Inspector`s decision ) is a material planning consideration and if the officer`s report fails to address that and explain the weight that they feel should be given to that decision they have erred, big time! If they have addressed it then it is for you to convince members that like last time they should address the issue of overdevelopment rather than what appears to be an `in principle` objection to the residentuial development. Please tell me its not development on previously developed land in the open countryside?

Andrew/ Chris, Thank you for the responses. The site forms part of my father's garden. Rather strangley, the development boundary excludes garden to the side of the property (this is the application site in question). The officer has seeked to define this site as open countryside, however, via the house deeds, I have demonstrated that this land has formed part of the house's curtilage since the early 1800 and therefore clear is not open countryside. The committee agreed that the site is not open countryside on this evidence and resolved to refuse on over development. I would therefore conclude that the principle of development has been agreed, but unfortunately the officer does not share this view!

Craig garden land may be in the open countryside it depends whether its washed over on the Council`s local plan. I would sugest, if you have not already, that you get a competent planning consultant to advise you asap. His/her costs may well be small compared to the value of getting the permission through and he/she can properly address the issues in the officer`s report. Where are you located?

Craig, does the LPA have an up-to-date plan? If not, the 27th March could be an important date for you : from that date the NPPF may take precedence over various aspects of your local plan. Could be a whole new ball game - especially if the new dwellings are ultra-sustainable. Don't we live in interesting times?

East Northamptonshire have an up-to-date plan, adopted in 2011. Their Housing Land supply currently exceeds the 5 year requirement within both the Development Plans and NPPF. The refusal was wording as follows: The proposal in its current form would constitute overdevelopment of the site by virtue of the number of dwellings proposed. Subsequently, the density of the development would be too high and the design of the development would be harmful to the character of the village. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy 2 of the East Midland Regional Plan, Policy 13 (H and O) of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, and national planning guidance contained in the NPPF (paragraphs 60 and 64) which all seek to resist development which would result in hamr to the character and appearance of a settlement. The committee reason for refusal (above) differed significantly from that proposed by the officers report. In essence the committee resolved the refuse the application on the grounds of 'overdevelopment' rather that the officers view that the site was in the open countryside. The reasons put forward by the officer were as follows: 1. The proposal is for development outside of the settlement boundary (as defined by the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan), without there being any special circumstances or justification for the development of this plot as required by North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1. By virtue of its location outside of the village boundary, the development of the site for residential purposes would be harmful to the distinct rural character of the site and would extend the built form of the village into the open countryside. The development would then erode the existing transitional passage between the built form and the open countryside, and set a precedent for further unsuitable development. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies 1, 9 and 10 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy and national planning guidance contained in the NPPF which seek to resist residential development in the open countryside and direct residential development to sites within the confines of existing settlements. 2. The proposed development would not provide a mix of mainly 1 and 2 bedroomed dwellings. Furthermore, the most recent housing needs assessment shows that there is a need for smaller dwellings (1 and 2 beds) throughout the district. Therefore, the proposed development would not reflect local need as required by para 54 of the NPPF and it would be contrary to Policy 8 (3) of the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan. What I really want to understand is can they just restate the previous discounted reasons (as above) for refusal again without taking full consideration for the formal refusal reason within the decision making. Surely this must carry some weight?

Presumably the decision was in accordance with S38(6). I sympathise with the officer's position but it would be unreasonable to introduce a new reason for refusal on a resubmission unless there was a relevant change in circumstances.

Nick, So am I correct in my understanding that the office should recommend the application for approval, subject to me demostrating (which I think I have!) that the revised proposal does not overdevelop the site? Craig

I would caveat that in changing the scheme to reduce the number of units it is possible that new problems could arise. What I am saying is that on the face of it the LPA has decided that the site being outside the settlement boundary or not providing the right number of bedrooms in each house do not constitute reasons for refusal in respect of this development. You can reasonably expect that members will reach the same conclusions on these issues when determining your new application.

Nick, The application is outline, considering only access, all other matters are reserved. So we are basically trying to establish the principle of development and the access position from the highway. I have included an indicative block plan as part of the application, purely to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the number of units put forward. Interesting, the officer stated in the initial report that 3 units would be be acceptable, so the proposal for two units can not been seen as unacceptable one would hope. I think I am in a reasonable position, however I want to ensure the at least the committee report in balanced and fully acknowledges the reason for the previous refusal, but ideally that it's recommended for approval. I suppose the reason for posting this thread was to see whether the officer can approach the application as she has stated, which on the face of it appears she can not. I think a carefully constructed letter this weekend is needed!