Status of Core Strategy before adoption - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

The same question was raised at the RTPI's East of England LDF Conference in May 2007, to which the response from the panel, via PINS, was that whilst local plans used to work in this way, they were examined differently. It was objections that were being heard, not the Plan being tested overall and if objections were not received to a policy , a judgement could be made as to whether or not a policy could be applied by the LPA in its decision-making role. We were reminded that DPDs are however tested for their soundness and whilst objections are heard at Examinations – this is in the context of whether a particular policy proposal is unsound at Submission stage. It is therefore less likely that increasing weight can be given as the DPD progresses in its development. If the EIP has however already occurred, there have been no representations on an issue, PINS did not determine it as a major issue/consider it in the EIP – only then could consideration be given to applying further weight to a draft proposal. Hope this helps - if anyone else can enlighten on this subject - perhaps directly from PINS, I am sure most LPAs would be interested!

Thanks for all the responses so far - how about a definitive response from PINS? This is obviously some thing of some concern to Boroughs and is likely to be brought up increasingly at Appeals - we need your advice please!

Just to muddy the waters further and contrary to my previous contribution, I recently noticed that PPS6 para 3.6 states; 3.6 In considering planning applications for the development of sites proposed to be allocated in an emerging development plan document...the weight to be attached to the proposal will depend on the stage the development plan document has reached. This has been brought forward from the old PPG6 and is proposed for retention under the present review. Perhaps it's just been forgotten about.

The DCLG website contains "The Planning System: General Principles" under the PPS1 section, which contains the advice that the weight to be attached increases as you go through the stages, and that "considerable weight may be attached" to policies which have been submitted for examination and on which no objections have been received. Para 18. This doesn't appear to have been superseded, so I assume is still Government Policy.

Whilst "The Planning System: General Principles" is still applicable, you have to wonder whether it is fit for purpose? It was published by ODPM; it refers to future guidance on SA and SEA, which has now been published and are being applied in the LDF production; and the LDF system has been changed by CLG, since it was written. As it is PINS and not the Government, which examine LDFs for soundness, we can't assume that if there has been no objection to a policy, that it will not be found unsound, when the plan is examined as a whole. Just because the Government may not have voiced its objection to a policy, does not mean that it could not be found unsound.

I'd agree with Simon, with one proviso. While PPS1 does have its limitations no one has updated it yet, even when the Climat Change annexe was added. Some of the discussion seems a little confused. Of course a policy cannot be sound until the Inspector has ruled on it, but it can considerable weight in the ciorcumstances already described. The proviso, however is a recent Appeal Court case involving Blyth Vallery District Council and 3 housebuilders. Ostensibly this is about PPS3 and affordable housing but it also raises fundamental issues about the assumption that "the submittre plan is sound unless it is demonstrated to be unsound". I'm not sure where that leaves the debate but I'd recommend anyone to read it if they haven't already. The ruling on PS£ is an interesting one too. I attach a copy.