Is a consistent application of the NPPF mandatory? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Richard, The NPPF is out there and is now a material consideration. The policies in the local plan, whenever adopted, are also material considerations. The importance is the weight to be attached to them. The issues are: the age of the local plan policy and; how much the local plan policy being applied is consistent with the NPPF. If there is no or limited conflict and the policy is one adopted post 2004 under the 2004 Act (therefore 214 applies to it), then the local policy can be given full weight for 11 and a bit more months. If the policy is either an 'old policy' or a saved policy (and 215 applies), OR if the '214' policy is in 'greater than limited' conflict with the NPPF, then the NPPF policy is likely to carry more weight in that instance. My understanding would be that if a local authority has used a certain NPPF policy as a basis for refusal, they have done so because they do not believe their relevant local plan policy is up to date any more, and has been superseded by that policy in the NPPF. I don't believe this necessarily means any of their local plan policies cannot now be used. 211 reminds us that local plan policies are not rendered out of date simply because they were adopted prior to the NPPF. So I don't think it's a case of 'once you start to use the NPPF, you have to keep doing so'. It depends on the policy in question, and whether 214 or 215 applies to it. That's only my understanding. Any other thoughts?

Endorsing Adam's approach my take on this is: In relation to the determination of any particular application, it will be necessary to reach a decision balancing all of the material considerations. The foremost is clearly up to date local plan policies and the NPPF is one of the other material considerations (an important one). Nevertheless there may be other material considerations that relate to the circumstances of the application and these also need to be given weight as appropriate (and as we know, the weight to be accorded is up to the decision maker). It's important that the reasons for the decision are adequately explained so that the LPA avoids any allegation of capriciousness.

Presumably Richard would expect consistency of interpretation and avoidance of capriciousness to be similarly binding on planning consultants and consultancies, planning solicitors and law firms and planning barristers....

Hi Daniel, In my business we are working on mathematical methods in support of decision making. We simply need to know which laws are being applied in which contexts. If the NPPF is being ignored, fine. If it is being applied, fine. We can model either case. It becomes a bit trickier if a law is only applied if there is an R in the month or if it's a sunny day or if there are undocumented personal, departmental, organisational or political hidden agendas. Without fairly clean and stable input data and rules our software can run into problems.

I think that the question of whether it applies is clear. It became National Planning Policy and material to the consideration of planning applications upon publication and I can't see why there should be any inconsistencies from anyone on that point. Where there is far less clarity is on what it means. Because Government has confused brevity with clarity and washed its hands of interpretation, we are in for a prolonged period during which meaning is established through appeals and court cases. I'm afraid it will be a while before the NPPF can be applied by algorithm.

>> I'm afraid it will be a while before the NPPF can be applied by algorithm. Agreed - which is why our initial work is limited to a SDI (Sustainable Development Indicators) system which will 'score' the sustainability aspects of an NPPF proposal. Automated interpretation of the NPPF is another matter ....