Neighbourhood Planning remains a political priority and is one of the areas for which Planning Policy Guidance has recently been updated. Following the Woodcock Holdings decision, relating to the Husterpoint and Sayers Common 2031 Neighbourhood Plan, the recommended approach to Neighbourhood Plans emerging before up to date Local Plans are in place has been clarified.
In Sayers Common, the Secretary of State dismissed an appeal despite his Inspector’s recommendation to allow it. He concluded that the proposal would conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, formally made after the Inspector’s report. Permission was refused as the proposal would conflict with a requirement to enhance the existing settlement pattern, and was considerably in excess of the 30-40 dwellings the Neighbourhood Plan considered could be accommodated during the plan period.
However, this was quashed when Woodcock Holdings Limited successfully challenged the decision, on the basis that the Secretary of State had failed to identify the nature and extent of the conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, had not applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the PPG guidance (that permission would seldom be refused for a pre-examination draft plan had not been complied with), and that the NPPF policy regarding weight to be afforded to an emerging plan had not been followed. The judgment did conclude that a neighbourhood plan could come forward ahead of a Local Plan, but the legal challenge was allowed on all grounds (see our blog on the detail).
Back to the future
The planning application has been re-determined by the Secretary of State, who again refused permission on the basis that it was not in accordance with the Local Plan or the now-made Neighbourhood Plan, to which he gave “careful consideration”. He also gave the emerging Local Plan “very limited weight”, and reached the same conclusions regarding conflict with the policies as before.
As discussed previously in relation to the DLA Delivery Limited case, which challenged a Neighbourhood Plan prepared in accordance with an emerging local plan (rather than the existing expired core strategy), there has been debate on the treatment of Neighbourhood Plans which come forward in the absence of an up to date Local Plan. Recent updates to the Planning Policy Guidance clarifies the Government’s position where a Neighbourhood Plan comes forward in advance of a new Local Plan. The Guidance states that:
- Neighbourhood Plan policies “may become out of date, for example if they conflict with policies in a Local Plan that is adopted after the making of the neighbourhood plan. In such cases, the more recent plan policy takes precedence“.
- communities may decide to update all or part of their Neighbourhood Plans where they have become out of date, which will require a fresh examination and referendum, putting a considerable burden on Neighbourhood Plan steering groups.
The best way to avoid this is to ensure that Neighbourhood Plan policies either do not interfere with meeting Objectively Assessed Needs or, more difficult where there is no proper assessment of needs on the table, that any restraint policies are consistent with maintaining a 5 year housing land supply. The PPG update does not suggest that a Neighbourhood Plan that is immediately out of date at adoption – because its policies thwart a 5 year Housing Land Supply – should be given more weight than the policy imperative to maintain housing land supply and meet OAN.
In Woodcock Holdings the relevant parts of the Neighbourhood Plan were held to be inconsistent with the NPPF in this sense and so unlikely to survive either examination or allow a finding of prematurity. The latest Sayers Common decision does not explain how an out of date set of NP settlement policies could be given overriding importance relative to national policy requirements in that sense.