PINS advice on NPPF - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Well spotted but as the developable phase must be allocated are not the two phrases logically equivalent?

Does the 20% requirement relate to the deliverable phase (second bullet in para 109 of draft NPPF) or developable phase (third bullet). Or both? Not entirely clear...

The draft NPPF is no doubt a material consideration but one that carries little weight in decision making. Where planing inspectors refer to it in I hope they will carefully expalin how the draft NPPF as a whole relates to their decision and do not cherry pick its policies. After all it covers all aspects of adevelopment. I am concerened about the intelligibility of PINS' advice about a "direction of travel" as that seems to advise such a cherry picking approach. Indeed we have received a decision which does that very thing but where there was no discrnible change in "direction of travel" in the drfat NPPF. The PINS advice on "direction of travel" is in my opinion too esoteric for anyone to reasonably follow and it will be interesting to see what legal challenges emerge as a result of it. I also question why PINS are wrting to LPAs asking for comments regarding the draft NPPF and every undecided appeal no matter how same in scale.. This sems to be done more from fear than from common sense or perhaps they are the same thing. The draft NPPF carries little weight compared to the development plan in making decisons. Section 38 (6) of the Planing and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 remains the law . The draft NPPF is not law and will never become law.. We may be in danger of losing sight of that fact in the rush to treat everything as a material consideration, and then we may faili to explain exactly how much weight we are giving to that material consideration and why.. As such the system now seems in danger of losing control let alone proper management..

David the 'direction of travel' phrase comes from caselaw on the weight to be given on a draft circular in the 1980s. Much as I agree with your sentiment it clearly comes from legal advice, and not, for once, ideological dogma.

Andrew, whist I fully appreciate that you would wish to have the comfort of legal precedent, I wonder how many ordinary people will be aware of the special significance of the phrase when pondering the weight to be given to the draft NPPF.. In his foreword to the draft NPPF, Geg Clark says "In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planing policy itself has become so elaborate and forbidding - the preserve of specialists, rather than people in communities." I think when we can usefully consider that point when we use the phrases of legal specialists including judges. And if we do choose to use them and also publish them, we can also try and explain what they mean and why we have used them. Food for thought perhaps.

David, The idea that the NPPF is usable by non-specialists is nonsense. You need to have a detailed knowledge of precedents and circulars going back 30 years to have much clue what a lot of it 'really' means. The 'practictioners' were like the cat that got the cream in terms of what they thought they could get away with Example 'unacceptably poor designs' only someone who sat through endless barristers interpreting it from circular 22/80 would know that it really means 'yes' to the shoddy, arguably poor, mediocre, naff, bad taste and derivative. Welcome to accessible planning. There are lots of other examples.

PINS have updated their guidance on the NPPF 5 year supply (see link below) which gives a different interpretation to the previous version. http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/advice_for_inspectors/nppf_consult.pdf

Since PINS and DCLG are now in a bitter row over why/who authorised the production of any PINS note it will be interesting to see how long it remains on the PINS site. GIven most useful advice on for calculating the 5 year supply was swept off the PINS site shortly after the coalition came into power...may not be too long. Response to Daily Telegraph article about guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate on our draft planning reforms Published 6 September 2011 A spokesperson for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: "The Department did not instruct the Planning Inspectorate to issue guidance about the draft National Planning Policy Framework. "Ministers have already asked Sir Michael Pitt, the chief executive, to come to see them tomorrow to make clear that in their work his Inspectors should respect the fact that this is a document out for consultation." Sir Michael Pitt said: "The Planning Inspectorate did not produce this guidance under instruction from the Department. It did so as a matter of normal procedure simply stating what always applies when draft policy is issued for consultation and to ensure common understanding for Inspectors." The clarification is interesting if as clear as mud. How does it work with the NPPF requirement for "rolling supply". Do you need to demonstrate the 20% for the first five years only? Is it an additional 20% of your 5 year requirement only (seemingly so)? Even if you have bigger strategic sites anticipated to come forward in years 5-10 because they take time, you may still be forced to release unacceptable sites in the earlier years to make up the additional 20%. In effect all trajectories have to start high regardless of the borough's land supply situation and this will of course be even worse where clearance is frontloaded.

Just a further clarification re 5 year supply. On reflection my comment about the trajectory having to be higher is incorrect. And it seems that PINS themselves are confused in this respect. The trajectory sets out anticipated delivery rates over the plan period. While this will reflect an understanding of how sites are anticipated to come forward the trajectory is not a measure of supply. The requirement on NPPF to demonstrate a 20% surplus of land supply over your 5 year requirement will have no effect on the trajectory. All this is doing is to ensure a larger pool of land early on to ensure delivery at your anticipated rate. While this may result in higher build rates the new requirement is nothing about completions and indeed the assumptions in the PINS note are that completions and overall total delivery remains the same over the plan period. So contrary to what PINS say the trajectory of projected development rates will not need to change as a result of the new 120% requirement.

Steve Quartermain drew a useful little sketch for me today to clarify when it means - in effect a rolling 6 year supply http://t.co/eJuch2t

Do you have a copy of said sketch? Its not on the link you posted I note that the PINS website is being incorporated into the DCLG website over the coming months which may or may not prevent the above spat from happening in the future...