Development plan policies: Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

This case concerns the way in which local development plan policies should be considered alongside other material considerations in determining a planning application.

It was argued that since material considerations arising out of the NPPF would always be relevant to the grant of development permission, they should be ‘read into’ the relevant polices in the local development plan. The applicant thereby sought to establish that there was no inconsistency between the local development plan and the NPPF. As the relevant policies were out of date, the weight to be given to them depended on their consistency with the NPPF.

The judge rejected this argument on the basis that ‘it is a fundamental and long established principle of planning law that something identified as a “material consideration” … is conceptually distinct from considerations identified in the development plan and does not ceteris paribus carry the same weight as an aim or consideration identified in the development plan itself. It is, therefore, essential, both analytically and in policy terms, to separate objectives or considerations specifically set out in the development plan from something else that can count only as another “material consideration”.’…

If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.

Briefings from Mills & Reeve

View more briefings from Mills & Reeve

Analysis from The Lawyer

  • head1

    LPOver and out?

    The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why

Overview

Fountain House
130 Fenchurch Street
London
EC3M 5DJ
UK
http://www.mills-reeve.com

Turnover (£m): 70.90
No. of Lawyers: 335

Jobs

View all jobs from this firm