status of emerging ldf policies - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi Viv I am not sure there is a definitive answer - as you say LPA's take different approaches. But the supplement to PPS1 - might shed some light. See para. 18 of the document: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147396.pdf Hope this helps. Suzanne

Presumably if the application were for development of a site that is proposed for allocation and which was subject to objection, then surely it would have to be determined in accordance with the current development plan policy (and possibly be refused?) because of the risk that the emerging DPD might be found to be unsound ?

Suzanne/Peter thanks for the comments. One of the difficulties with para 18 of PPS1 is that if for whatever reason a DPD is found to be unsound the entire DPD fails as I understand it. Even if there may be individual policies which have not been objected to once the whole DPA has been rejected for unsoundness grounds we continue with the old (existing) statutory Development Plan documents until such time as a new sound DPA is put in place. Really appreciate your thoughts on this

We took the line that until the Inspector’s Report into our Core Strategy was published we had to treat the policies in it that would replace the ones in our Waste and Minerals Local Plans as having no status. This is because the Core Strategy could be found unsound at examination. We therefore made no reference to pre-submission/submission Core Strategy policies in committee reports as a consequence, although as part of an assessment of a proposal we could have referred back to the evidence base if this was a means to not place as much weight on a Local Plan policy as its adopted status warranted. We also did this in relation to our site-specific waste and minerals DPDs. However as we were not aware of any Development Management DPD being thrown out for being unsound, following submission we starting quoting from our Development Management DPD in committee reports and using it as a material consideration.

The Chief Planning Officer provided advice to Westminster on this subject in April 2009 - letter attached.

Please see paragraph from an appeal decision dated 29th March 2010 - Refs A) APP/Y2810/A/2071504 & APP/M9570/A/2071505; B) APP/M9570/A/08/2082894; C) APP/Y2810/A/08/2083322 & APP/M9570/A/08/2083327 (Inspectors report attached) Paragraph 13.38 The EJCS is not expected to be adopted until January 2011 [3.50]. There are also doubts as to whether this timetable can be achieved [3.47-3.51]. However, a degree of weight can be placed upon the EJCS even at this stage of the procedure in view of the amount of investigation and publicity given to its evolution so far. The EJCS at this point was a non-statutory consultation following Issues and Options, but prior to Pre-Submission. However, paragraph 12 of the Secrertary of States decision letter confirms that a degree of weight can be attached - see below. The emerging Joint Core Strategy (EJCS) is still at an early stage and is not now expected by the local planning authorities to be adopted until December 2011. The EJCS has been informed by, among other studies, the Daventry Strategic Development Options Study, Daventry Infrastructure Studies, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and the Interim Draft Daventry Master Plan. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that a degree of weight can, nonetheless, be placed on the EJCS even at this stage, in view of the amount of investigation and publicity given to its evolution so far (IR13.38).

thanks everyone for some really useful responses. Much appreciated

As others have said, there is no clear answer to this. On the basis that a DPD can be found unsound by the Inspector, a safety-first approach would be to give policies/ allocations no weight at all until the Inspector's Report has been received (finding the DPD sound). This would apply even if there are no objections to a particular policy/site (because the Inspector is not restricted to considering only polices/sites with outstanding objections from consultees). However, as the Examination progresses, it may become clearer (from the Inspector's questions to the LPA) whether he/she appears to harbour any serious doubts about the overall soundness of the DPD. It does appear that Inspectors are seeming now to rein back from taking the nuclear option, doing all they can to find DPDs sound (even if this involves making some pretty substantial changes that a couple of years ago might have led to a finding of unsoundness or a 'suggestion' to withdraw the DPD), so my view would be that if a particular policy/site is not a fundamental bone of contention, some considerable weight could be applied to it. It is more tricky for contentious policies/sites, particularly if there are concerns from a statutory consultee (such as the Environment Agency), and also in cases where objections seem to be mainly NIMBY-based (i.e. not supported by sound planning reasons). My view is that in most cases, where a policy/site has been subject to several rounds of public consultation, there are no sound objections, and the LPA is satisfied that the evidence base behind it is strong and robust, it could probably be given fairly significant weight. For more controversial sites, the weight applied would clearly be less. It is a balancing act but a good argument could probably be made that an emerging policy/site should carry quite a bit of weight, particularly if the Local Plan is wildly out-of-date. Adam Nicholls Senior Planner Norfolk County Council

In Wales we have considered the weight to be attached to an emerging draft local development plan prior to adoption; last year we issued amended guidance in "Planning Policy Wales" - para 2.6.2 says: "In development control decisions the weight to be attached to an emerging draft LDP will in general depend on the stage it has reached, but does not simply increase as the plan progresses towards adoption. When conducting the examination, the appointed Inspector is required to consider the soundness of the whole plan in the context of national policy and all other matters which are material to it. Consequently, policies could ultimately be amended or deleted from the plan even though they may not have been the subject of a representation at deposit stage (or be retained despite generating substantial objection). Certainty regarding the content of the plan will only be achieved when the Inspector publishes the binding report. Thus in considering what weight to give to the specific policies in an emerging LDP that apply to a particular proposal, local planning authorities will need to consider carefully the underlying evidence and background to the policies." web link: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/policy/ppw/?lang=en Elaine Ancrum Senior Planning Manager Welsh assembly Government

As I understand it, DPDs carry more weight as they progress through the preperation process. So, an Issues and Options document has little material weight as it is just the authority's early thinking on a subject; a Draft or Submission document will carry much more weight as it is a strong indication of the authority's policy. Obviously it is not yet adopted policy, and the DPD could be found unsound, but I would hope that the general thrust of the spatial strategy would remain, even if elements of it need to be amended. n fact, I'm pretty certain Keith Holland from PINS had a similar argument in relation to the Localism Bill, saying that it will gain weight in decision making as it progresses through Parliament and becomes closer to being enacted. Unless any significant changes are proposed, it will be clear that the general thrust of the bill will need to be given more weight as it goes through the process. The same approach was used for RSS. As RSS moved from draft plan, to panel report, to proposed changes, it was given more and more weight, until, finally, upon adoption, it formed part of the development plan.