Grammar School Hill development

Fri 20 Jan 2017, 12:34 (last edited on Fri 20 Jan 2017, 12:37)

On the 'precedent' issue - the basic legal principle is that applications should be decided in accordance with the development plan 'unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. It's also a basic rule that every application has to be considered on its own merits. So in other words, in any given case there may be considerations that allow for a decision that is an exception to the usual policies. The fact that an exception is made in one case in no way means it will or won't be in another. Without getting into the merits of the 3 cases mentioned or the way they were decided, there were some different considerations arising in each of them. I could say more but am biting my lip as I write…

It all gets more complicated when there is no up-to-date adopted Local Plan, as in West Oxfordshire, particularly in relation to housing. It's then that appeals may be allowed, sometimes seemingly contrary to local policies / opposition, often because of the emphasis currently placed by the government on the need for new housing and the apparent failure of a local authority to make sufficient provision for it. Inspectors 'stand in the shoes' (uncomfortably sometimes) of the Secretary of State and in these circumstances may attach greater weight to national policies than to out-of-date or yet to be adopted local ones.

Liz talks of 'the inspector getting it right for once' should there be an appeal in this case. As I used to be one, I can't let that pass without comment! I don't know what she bases hers on but it will be no fault of the appeal inspector that this district's adopted Local Plan was originally due to expire in 2011 and has yet to be fully replaced.

Perhaps Liz has in mind the July 2016 appeal decision at Milton, where permission was granted for 60 houses. The application, incidentally, was refused against officers' advice. Probably the most important factor which led to the appeal being allowed was WODC's then 'target' of 800 (which may now be increased to 1000) dwellings to be provided in their Burford/Charlbury sub-area between 2015-2031. So was the Inspector wrong to attach weight to WODC's own policies, even though unadopted? WODC could hardly say so. But I think so, if for a very different reason - they should not be setting such arbitrary targets within an AONB and I hope to argue that case at the forthcoming Local Plan Examination. Don't hold your breath - too much at stake!

Neither the time nor place to comment on other cases, the important thing here will be to address the arguments within any appeal made by Vanderbilt.

And if Pearl's right about WODC being abolished, who knows where we'll be!!