Fabian Report Misses Key Reason Windfall Appeal Refusals Shoots Up

In carrying out any analysis of appeals you should always:

a) distinguish appeals before and after a change in national policy rather in arbitrary calender years

b) Distinguish between appeals decided by inspectors and those called in or recovered.

Yet another report, this time by the Fabians into Windfarms, fails to do this.

However the key shift was in 2013 when the courts held, in effect, that national policy in the NPPF on the setting of Heritage Assets was unlawful because it did not properly reflect the statutory duties of the LB & Conservation Areas Act, and in that case the Inspector seemed to have ignored national policy anyway.

Every single called in appeal since has had a rider referring to this case.

Now of course Pickles has used the case as an exclude to call everything in and refuse them, but inspectors have been recommending far more for refusal anyway because of the poor drafting of the NPPF on heritage matters.  So in a report on policy should you not be looking at policy and how it is applied?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s