Letter: Development decisions must be challenged to meet needs
I read your front page article 'We can't stop housing plans says Shropshire Council' – with mounting dismay.
You report that: "
. They said refusing applications would leave the council liable to having its decisions overturned on appeal, costing taxpayers' money through having to pay legal costs for developers." And this from a council that has racked up no end of legal costs without thinking.
It appears that no-one is actually reading the guidelines that they say are hampering their ability to make decisions.
The National Planning Policy Framework does not state that there has to be a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of a five year supply of housing land. What it does say – at paragraph 49 – is that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. The requirement to consider applications in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is an overriding one in any case.
However, as is made clear in the NPPF – paragraph 14: "For decision-taking, this means: where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or – Specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted."
Paragraph seven attempts to set out a definition of sustainable development, which demands that the planning system performs three key roles: economic, social and environmental.
I feel certain that residents would not mind some money being spent on challenges to decisions if this resulted in clarity and housing that meets real needs rather than lining the pockets of developers.
Robert Hodge, Hopton Wafers