Legal Challenges to Interim Climate Change Policies

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Grŵp agored | Wedi dechrau - Gorffenaf 2012 | Gweithgaredd diwethaf - May

Former Member, Addaswyd 14 Years yn ôl.

Legal Challenges to Interim Climate Change Policies

Being a Council who are still a number of year away from adopting a Core Strategy or having any policies in place to address the climate change issue, we have adopted an interim climate change policy which reflects the regional plan as well as pps22 and pps1. On the back of the growing conerns to make development more energy efficient and sustainable we have drafted and consulted on a Climate Change SPD which provides guidance and information on how to implement not only the interim climate change policy but also existing saved policies on the local plan (which don't really say much about climate change) as well as regional and nation policy. I have a number of concerns that have come out of the the consultation responses that suggest we may be leaving the Council open to legal challenge by trying to adopt policies in the SPD rather than in a DPD (which I don't believe we are trying to do). However I would like to get other views on this. I have been reading a House of Commons publication on Carbon Budget setting (http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/item-maint.do?forumId=12886&mode=c) and it seems to suggest that we need to be taking action sooner rather than later to control the rise of average global temperatures above 2 degrees C by 2020, through the control of global carbon emissions. With such accepted climate change challenges out there how risky is it to adopt an interim policy stance on reducing carbon emissions and seeking percentages of renewable energy, particularly if you take feasibility and viability into account when determining applications based on interim policies? Does anyone have any experience of this or any comment to make?

Former Member, Addaswyd 14 Years yn ôl.

Re: Legal Challenges to Interim Climate Change Policies

Lisa Generally I expect PINS (at appeal) would interpret an SPD as having material weight if it is in conformity with the development plan (local and regional) and helps support national policy. Interim policy can also be used to make a planning decision as a material consideration to which the weight will depend on lots of factors, whether it is has been consulted on, adopted by full council, and backed up by evidence outside of the development plan. The evidence provided by PPS22/PPS1 and other Gov publications could be said to back up the approach you are taking. However SPD cannot make policy, but instead should explain it and implement it as guidance for either a site (e.g. standards expected of development in a planning brief) or an area as a whole. They should probably set expectations rather than requirements. If you are concerned about legal challenges, you should seek legal advice. It would be interesting to hear if anyone else uses SPD to support an interim planning policy on any topic.