The clear implication of the SoS call in decision issues today for Bishops Cleeve
the JCS is at a very early stage and little weight can be attached to it. The appeal proposals are necessary now to meet immediate housing need and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the Framework applies…the JCS is at a very early stage and little weight can be attached to it. The appeal proposals are necessary now to meet immediate housing need and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the Framework applies.
The inspector concluded
PSGP (paragraph 18) advises that where a DPD is at the consultation stage then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified. Some four years after the steer in the draft RSS EiP, the DPO is only in consultation draft form, without an agreed option to take forward. The JCS should not attract significant weight at this stage. By this definition, neither of the proposals would be premature.
The consultation on the draft joint core strategy proposed to focus development on Gloucester and Cheltenham, and also considered part of the area unsuitable in landscape terms. The SoS and the inspector considered the site in isolation and because of the NPPF gave little weight to landscape issues, issues of good strategic planning or protection of the countryside. The first major test of the NPPF where it has made a difference. The first major test and its weaknesses become apparent.
The issue is not about setting a precedent for prematurity – after all it turned on the pre NPPF PSGP (planning system general principles) but how little weight was given under the NPPF to the non-housing issues. Of course if Cheltenham had not placed its head in the sand blocking options on the edge of Cheltenham they would have had a preferred option by now and likely have won the appeal.
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions 