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 As the relevant policies were out of date, the weight to be given to them depended on their consistency with the NPPF.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.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
Animal welfare: recent EU conference — mid-term review of the strategy for the welfare of animals 2012–15
The conference on the achievements of the EU strategy for the welfare of animals 2012–15: mid-term review took place on 12 February 2014.
In a decision in January, the Information Commissioner’s Office found that the Financial Conduct Authority had breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Analysis from The Lawyer
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