Countryside V Green Belt in the NPPF - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

See Clause 55 of the NPPF. The definition of the word 'isolated is key - and it can be defined by the LPA as they see fit on a case-by-case basis. However it is clear - to me at least - that capricious definitions of the word 'isolated' by the LPA intended to unfairly block or unfairly approve applications would be at best unwise. Additionally note that the NPPF seeks 'sustainable' developments so the LPA can easily block non-sustainable applications. See also the PAS topic on Agricultural Dwellings for additional (too much?) information. So: projects which are truly 'isolated' and/or which are clearly 'unsustainable' can be blocked by LPAs without too much effort. The flip side is that clearly 'sustainable' and not really 'isolated' proposals are liable to be approved without argument, especially if no local plan is in place and the local housing targets cannot be met. Is this a Bad Thing? Not really : the nation needs more truly sustainable homes - both in urban and rural areas. Rural regeneration has been blocked by 'rural gentrification' for far too long so a (small) influx of younger and more dynamic rural residents would be helpful ... although the current rural residents will use their above average education, spare time and financial resources to fight vehemently any change. Note: Be aware that 'sustainability' as discussed in the NPPF is a complex metric. Home-made or simplistic definitions of 'sustainablity' aren't really valid - a multi-dimensional metric as discussed in the Brundtland Report is required. How a typical planning applicant can address this aspect is beyond me ...)

Addendum: I forget to mention that Lord Taylor's recent review of the NPPF and related guidance contained no recommendation to reinstate PPS7 in any form - despite lobbying by pro-countryside pressure groups.

Richard thank you for that (esp the bit about Lord Taylor) I hear what you say about the word isolated but the wording of Para 55 says `...Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: ...` and then lists examples of special circumstances. Surely if a scheme meets one of those tests or examples then it is still in accordance with the policy, similar to the tests of `appropriate development ` under PPG2 and PPS 7 ? It seems to me that LPA`s are trying to say well its `isolated` consultant says` but its a re-use of a redundant building and therefore is a special circumstance allowed by the NPPF` LPA says ...`buts its isolated becasue its on the edge of a hamlet`.....and round and round we go! To me the key word is `unless` if a scheme meets those tests of `special circumstances` regardless of whether it is `isolated` or not ( and define isolated ) then it meets the `acceptability ` test in the NPPF......?

OK, let's look at Clause 55. Firstly, note the use of the phrase "such as". This suggests that an LPA can approve ANY rural application if they are so minded. For example, a new home associated with an important astronomical telescope in the middle of a field might win approval as being a desirable special case. * Agricultural & rural worker dwellings: this has been discussed in the other thread. * Heritage assets : special case * Redundant building reuse : probably the most common option. * Buildings of excellence : This route is for those who can afford to subvert the planning system by throwing money at the problem. In fact, fewer than 50 PPG7/PPS7 "exceptional houses" have obtained approval since 1997, with maybe only 50% actually being built. Most of the examples I have seen have been very expensive : the cheapest was around £350k - it started off at £250k but the LPA demanded more and more "excellence" thus pushing up the price. Having read (too) many planning applications, it seems to me that historically some LPAs seem to have got into the habit of being a bit careless with the reasoning related to planning refusals. LPAs have had the power to do what they liked without much in the way of oversight - but the arrival of the NPPF and the current pressure to free up building has changed things. LPAs will now need to provide well presented cases for refusal in order to satisfy an Appeal Inspector. As for the case you mention, it sounds like the LPA is being logically inconsistent. I am not saying that their intentions are misguided - but they might need a clearer and more logically sound argument to block the development should they really feel that it is inappropriate. IF the LPA continues to use the 'isolated' argument AND if they have no up-to-date-plan AND if they can't meet their housing targets AND if the proposal is for reuse of a redundant building AND if the new building is truly sustainable THEN I would expect the Appeal Inspector to have little choice but to recommend approval. However if the LPA modified their refusal argument on well-reasoned sustainability or design grounds then they might have a valid case. Why do you think that the LPA is against the proposed development? Is it a mismatched huge executive home? General muse: I have a dark suspicion that some LPAs are heartily sick of being forced into approving massive new estates. The LPAs might need to show that they still have teeth by over-enthusiastically disallowing smaller developments. Applicants for small developments will probably need to present very well structured cases in order to avoid over-keen refusals. In fact, the arrival of the NPPF etc could result in both LPAs and applicants having to present very clear cases : not a bad outcome if it means that 'back of a fag packet' applications and unclear refusals/approvals become less common.

Hi Richard No the building is a blockwork and render panel over a steel portal frame former workshop of 71m2 footprint with an asbestos crinckly tin roof of no aeasthetic merit on the edge of a 9 dwelling hamlet. The only thing the LPA has is a 5 year supply, nothing else....it also has granted a pp for re-use as holiday let which has never been implemented! Why?......because they still cant` let go of re-use for economic purposes aka PPS 7! pre- app discussions have indicated they think its contrary to PAra 109 because it will introduce domestic bits and pieces ......!!

As with all planning apps it gets murky once the fine detail is reached. The nuances, history, personalities etc start becoming key. Only an Inspector can determine which parts of the NPPF, old plan, emerging plan, RSS (if still active) etc are relevant in any specific case. If you have already submitted an application I hope that it is sufficiently well structured and detailed to allow the Inspector to assess your case easily. If you haven't yet submitted an application, write it for the Appeal and not for the LPA.

it is being done like that and i`m pulling more and more appeal cases in which back my point of view! in the pre-apps I asked the LPA if they had anything to back their view up......silence, so I asked again......and i received a `curt` `....no they didn`t think there was enough evidence out there yet...` lol ps (new head of dc - change in philosophy according to case officer)

'As such, without up to date Local Plan policies an LPA is basically `rudderless`' I think it's important to remember than in spite of all the rhetoric, the development plan is still the first consideration. What makes the Local Plan 'not up to date' is not merely the age of the plan, or the existence of the nppf. You don't state how old the plan is, but if the policies are still relevant and not rendered out of date by a new central government policy, then I would expect that considerable weight will be attached to them. In this instance, as the building is, I think, a modern agricultural building, you need to work on the extent to which the proposal would (as para 55 of nppf) 'lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting'. I would expect that the lpa will lpa argue that a small hamlet is an isolated location, which i wouldn't argue with personally. Also I note that the nppf does accept that conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to commercial uses will support the rural economy (para 28). If the lpa has development plan policies to the effect that commercial uses of redundant agricultural buildings will be prefered to residential use, then the fact that nppf is 'silent' on this preference does not in my opinion render this development plan policy ('preference') out of date. You need to argue that the holiday letting use of the building doesn't contribute significantly to the local economy and that the quasi residential use will likely have the same impact on the garden ('introducing domestic bits and pieces) as a convential residential use.

>> If the lpa has development plan policies to the effect that commercial uses of redundant agricultural buildings will be prefered to residential use, then the fact that nppf is 'silent' on this preference does not in my opinion render this development plan policy ('preference') out of date. Excellent point. The NPPF does NOT sweep away all elements of an out-of-date plan - it simply gives priority to those elements which exist both in the NPPF and in the old plan. If a policy exists in the old plan and it does not clash with the NPPF in detail or in spirit and it does not rely on the deleted/revoked PPS policies then I assume that due weight can be given to such a policy. The degree of weight to be given is however open to question : I doubt that a very sustainable development which ticks all/most of the NPPF boxes could be derailed by a 'random' local policy in an out-of-date plan.

Good points and for info.....the old 2003 Local Plan policies are at odds with the NPPF because they state a `preference` for re-use for economic purposes whereas para 28 does not state a preference, they just ignored that in their pre-app response, despite me attaching an appeal decision where the Inspector said as much. They also accept their local plan is out of date, and not NPPF compliant. Yes i agree there is an enhancement of the setting, huge improvements and that is quite evident, and the arguments about the garden bits and pieces do equally apply to a holiday let, and again they have been told this......they are just being stubbon ( and that`s never a good quality)