Conclusion which SoS agreed with
I do not accept the Council’s contention that the proposal conflicts with BDP Policy PG1 or any other development plan policy. However, if such a conflict was to be found the benefits that I have listed above are material considerations in favour of the proposal. Having regard to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, I consider that these benefits would provide sufficient indication that permission should be granted notwithstanding the development plan conflict.
If, contrary to my finding, the SoS concludes that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5YHLS then NPPF paragraph 11d is engaged and the tilted balance in favour of a grant of planning permission applies. My clear judgement is that the limited adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting planning permission when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
Under all of these scenarios I consider that the appeal proposal constitutes sustainable development having regard to paragraph 8 of the NPPF. The circumstances of this case are, therefore, quite different from those in the Oundle appeal decision and that decision does not provide any precedent for the determination of this appeal. [8.37]
Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and that outline planning permission should be granted on the basis of the revised proposal for the development of the site for up to 800 dwellings.
This appeal is a must read as it tackles most of the matters of modern dispute in planning today such as the definition of windfall and deliverability. I think the inspector here is trolling the Oundle inspector the latter of whom concluded
However, paragraph 14 of the NPFF provides guidance on how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should apply to decision-taking, and only advises departure from determining proposals in accordance with adopted policies in situations where the Development Plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out of date. That is not the case here.
Which goes beyond the planning act and the law.