Yesterday we reported
While there is no cap in the BNDP, and no obvious corollary of the site allocation policy HP1 (i.e. that land not allocated is not supported), the larger housing sites, representing both the acceptable location and level of housing, are specifically identified and allocated in the BNDP. Both larger sites and the smaller windfall sites being confined to within the settlement boundary (HP7). The application site, being both unallocated and outside the settlement boundary, falls within neither category above and, as a consequence, the Secretary of State considers the proposals are not policy compliant.
Today a correspondent sent me LAND AT BOREHAM ROAD, WARMINSTER, BA12 9JP APPLICATION REF: 13/06782/OUT
The Secretary of State notes that the Warminster Neighbourhood Plan has now been made, however it makes no change to the existing limits of development for Warminster shown in the WCS and makes no specific reference to the appeal site (IR15).
How do you square that? This is pickles level inconsistency (which is saying something). Opposite conclusions on same issue within 2 days – lawyers will be sharpening their pens. In the Buckingham case the SoS made no conclusion to harm to openness of countryside, at Warminster he said it would cause no harm. So there might have been a basis for a distinction, if the logic of the decision letters hadn’t been so appalling.