“(6) If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
“(1) Any qualifying body is entitled to initiate a process for the purpose of requiring a local planning authority in England to make a neighbourhood development plan. (2) A ‘neighbourhood development plan’ is a plan which sets out policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land in the whole or any part of a particular neighbourhood area specified in the plan. (3) Schedule 4B to the principal Act, which makes provision about the process for the making of neighbourhood development orders, including— (a) provision for independent examination of orders proposed by qualifying bodies, and (b) provision for the holding of referendums on orders proposed by those bodies, is to apply in relation to neighbourhood development plans (subject to the modifications set out in section 38C(5) of this Act). (4) A local planning authority to whom a proposal for the making of a neighbourhood development plan has been made— (a) must make a neighbourhood development plan to which the proposal relates if in each applicable referendum under that Schedule (as so applied) more than half of those voting have voted in favour of the plan, and (b) if paragraph (a) applies, must make the plan as soon as reasonably practicable after the referendum is held.” (a) provision for independent examination of orders proposed by qualifying bodies, and (b) provision for the holding of referendums on orders proposed by those bodies, (a) must make a neighbourhood development plan to which the proposal relates if in each applicable referendum under that Schedule (as so applied) more than half of those voting have voted in favour of the plan, and (b) if paragraph (a) applies, must make the plan as soon as reasonably practicable after the referendum is held.”
“8(1) The examiner must consider the following— (a) whether the draft neighbourhood development order meets the basic conditions (see sub-paragraph (2)), (b) whether the draft order complies with the provision made by or under sections 61E(2), 61J and 61L, … (2) A draft order meets the basic conditions if— (a) having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the order, … (d) the making of the order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development, (e) the making of the order is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area), (f) the making of the order does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations, and (g) prescribed conditions are met in relation to the order and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the order.” (a) whether the draft neighbourhood development order meets the basic conditions (see sub-paragraph (2)), (b) whether the draft order complies with the provision made by or under sections 61E(2), 61J and 61L, … (a) having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the order, … (d) the making of the order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development, (e) the making of the order is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area), (f) the making of the order does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations, and (g) prescribed conditions are met in relation to the order and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the order.”
“12(1) This paragraph applies if an examiner has made a report under paragraph 10. (2) The local planning authority must— (a) consider each of the recommendations made by the report (and the reasons for them), and (b) decide what action to take in response to each recommendation. (3) The authority must also consider such other matters as may be prescribed. (4) If the authority are satisfied— (a) that the draft order meets the basic conditions mentioned in paragraph 8(2), is compatible with the Convention rights and complies with the provision made by or under sections 61E(2), 61J and 61L, or (b) that the draft order would meet those conditions, be compatible with those rights and comply with that provision if modifications were made to the draft order (whether or not recommended by the examiner), a referendum in accordance with paragraph 14, and (if applicable) an additional referendum in accordance with paragraph 15, must be held on the making by the authority of a neighbourhood development order. (5) The order on which the referendum is (or referendums are) to be held is the draft order subject to such modifications (if any) as the authority consider appropriate. (6) The only modifications that the authority may make are— (a) modifications that the authority consider need to be made to secure that the draft order meets the basic conditions mentioned in paragraph 8(2), (b) modifications that the authority consider need to be made to secure that the draft order is compatible with the Convention rights, (c) modifications that the authority consider need to be made to secure that the draft order complies with the provision made by or under sections 61E(2), 61J and 61L, (d) modifications specifying a period under section 61L(2)(b) or (5), and (e) modifications for the purpose of correcting errors. (7) The area in which the referendum is (or referendums are) to take place must, as a minimum, be the neighbourhood area to which the proposed order relates. (8) If the authority consider it appropriate to do so, they may extend the area in which the referendum is (or referendums are) to take place to include other areas (whether or not those areas fall wholly or partly outside the authority’s area). (9) If the authority decide to extend the area in which the referendum is (or referendums are) to take place, they must publish a map of that area. (10) In any case where the authority are not satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (4), they must refuse the proposal. (11) The authority must publish in such manner as may be prescribed— (a) the decisions they make under this paragraph, (b) their reasons for making those decisions, and (c) such other matters relating to those decisions as may be prescribed. (12) The authority must send a copy of the matters required to be published to— (a) the qualifying body, and (b) such other persons as may be prescribed.” (a) consider each of the recommendations made by the report (and the reasons for them), and (b) decide what action to take in response to each recommendation. (a) that the draft order meets the basic conditions mentioned in paragraph 8(2), is compatible with the Convention rights and complies with the provision made by or under sections 61E(2), 61J and 61L, or (b) that the draft order would meet those conditions, be compatible with those rights and comply with that provision if modifications were made to the draft order (whether or not recommended by the examiner), (a) modifications that the authority consider need to be made to secure that the draft order meets the basic conditions mentioned in paragraph 8(2), (b) modifications that the authority consider need to be made to secure that the draft order is compatible with the Convention rights, (c) modifications that the authority consider need to be made to secure that the draft order complies with the provision made by or under sections 61E(2), 61J and 61L, (d) modifications specifying a period under section 61L(2)(b) or (5), and (e) modifications for the purpose of correcting errors. (a) the decisions they make under this paragraph, (b) their reasons for making those decisions, and (c) such other matters relating to those decisions as may be prescribed. (a) the qualifying body, and (b) such other persons as may be prescribed.”
“19. As soon as possible after deciding to make a neighbourhood development plan under section 38A(4) of the 2004 Act or refusing to make a plan under section 38A(6) of the 2004 Act, a local planning authority must— (a) publish on their website and in such other manner as they consider is likely to bring the decision to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area— (i) a statement setting out the decision and their reasons for making that decision (“the decision statement”); (ii) details of where and when the decision statement may be inspected; and (b) send a copy of the decision statement to— (i) the qualifying body; and (ii) any person who asked to be notified of the decision.” (a) publish on their website and in such other manner as they consider is likely to bring the decision to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area— (i) a statement setting out the decision and their reasons for making that decision (“the decision statement”); (ii) details of where and when the decision statement may be inspected; and (b) send a copy of the decision statement to— (i) the qualifying body; and (ii) any person who asked to be notified of the decision.”
“(4) A local planning authority to whom a proposal for the making of a neighbourhood development order has been made— (a) must make a neighbourhood development order to which the proposal relates if in each applicable referendum under that Schedule more than half of those voting have voted in favour of the order, and (b) if paragraph (a) applies, must make the order as soon as reasonably practicable after the referendum is held.” (a) must make a neighbourhood development order to which the proposal relates if in each applicable referendum under that Schedule more than half of those voting have voted in favour of the order, and (b) if paragraph (a) applies, must make the order as soon as reasonably practicable after the referendum is held.”
“(8) The authority are not to be subject to the duty under subsection (4)(a) if they consider that the making of the order would breach, or would otherwise be incompatible with, any EU obligation or any of the Convention rights (within the meaning of theHuman Rights Act 1998 ).”
“(1) A court may entertain proceedings for questioning a decision to act under section 61E(4) or (8) only if— (a) the proceedings are brought by a claim for judicial review, and (b) the claim form is filed before the end of the period of 6 weeks beginning with the day on which the decision is published.”
“The objective of this Directive is to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuring that, in accordance with this Directive, an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.”
“(h) an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information.”
“…the reasons for choosing the plan or programme as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with.”
“Proportionate, robust evidence should support the choices made and the approach taken. The evidence should be drawn upon to explain succinctly the intention and rationale of the policies in the draft neighbourhood plan or the proposals in an order.”
“The strategic environmental assessment should identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on environmental factors using the evidence base … reasonable alternatives must be considered and assessed in the same level of detail as the preferred approach intended to be taken forward in the neighbourhood plan (the preferred approach). Reasonable alternatives are the different realistic options considered while developing the policies in the draft plan … the strategic environmental assessment should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected, the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives … the development and appraisal of proposals in the neighbourhood plan should be an iterative process with the proposals being revised to take account of the appraisal findings. This should inform the selection refinement and publication of the preferred approach for consultation.”
“Policy 1: A Spatial Plan for the Parish. The Neighbourhood Plan defines the Built Up Area Boundary of Henfield and Small Dole, as shown on pages 22 and 23. Development proposals located inside these boundaries will be supported, provided they accord with the other provisions of the Neighbourhood Plan and the Horsham development plan. Development proposals outside of these boundaries will be required to conform to development plan policies in respect of development in the countryside. Proposals will be resisted if they adversely affect the setting of the South Downs National Park or if they result in the loss of Grade 1/2/3a agricultural land. Only proposals for minor development of an appropriate scale will be supported on land west of the Downs Link, or on the southern escarpment of Henfield village. ”
“The key criteria for determining the right spatial strategy of the plan focused on sites within the Henfield boundary first, then identifying only sites that immediately adjoin the eastern boundary of the village, which is considerably closer to the majority of village services located on and around High Street. All other sites in the Horsham Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and/or that responded to the Parish Council’s call for sites have been excluded from further assessment if they did not meet these criteria (see the separate Site Assessments Report in the evidence base).”
“One alternative was to confine development within the existing settlement boundaries and allocate no new sites on the edge of the village, which resulted in too few new homes being allocated, though scoring well on a range of environmental measures. Another was to confine allocations to all the edges of the village and to allow for greater development at Small Dole but not to allocate land inside the boundary at Henfield. In this option, the scale of negative impact on environmental measures outweighed the benefits of delivering housing and, in any event, would very likely put at risk the chance of securing a majority vote at referendum. The remaining alternative was to favour sites on the western boundary of the village that consolidate the recent consent at West End Lane. This too scored badly overall as any further significant development in that area, which lies furthest from the village centre, would place unsustainable pressure on the local road system.”
“Sites in Henfield closer to the village services on its eastern edge would have less of an impact in terms of traffic movements generated by new residents (but marginal in terms of commuting, shopping, leisure trips).”
“The SA/SEA demonstrates its policies will have no significant social, economic or environmental effects. I am satisfied that the proposals have been significantly assessed and raise no negative impact in either summary (as per Table 3: Summary Assessment of Objectives) nor in the detail of the assessment.”
“There had been no subsequent alterations to the European Convention on Human Rights under European Union obligations to impact upon this NDP … I am satisfied that the neighbourhood plan does not breach nor is in anyway incompatible with the ECHR. …the SA/SEA demonstrates the revised NDPs policies will have no significant social, economic or environmental effect … I am therefore satisfied that the neighbourhood plan is compatible with EU obligations and, as modified, will meet the basic conditions in this respect.”
“Concern is raised about failing to assess housing needs for local and wider community and providing a sufficient allocation of land for housing and unfair exclusion of land on the western side of the village, no objective assessment to support the evidence of 137 unit allocation is correct in terms of numbers, need to provide an opportunity to revisit the other candidate sites to make up the shortfalls. Most of these points were raised on the previous plan. …the rationale for not supporting development on the western boundary is clearly stated in NDP para 4.19. The rationale for supporting or otherwise is clearly stated in the site allocation paper and there is no reason to reopen these issues with no conflicts arising with meeting the basic conditions.”
“66. Such comparisons with other cases can, however, only be of limited assistance: what is of more importance is to seek to identify the relevant principles. In Bradleyat para 70, Sir John Chadwick did just that and suggested that there were five applicable propositions. At least for present purposes, I would reformulate and encapsulate those propositions in the following two sentences. In order to decide the extent to which a decision-maker is bound by a conclusion reached by an adjudicative tribunal in a related context, regard must be had to the circumstances in which, and the statutory scheme within which, (i) the adjudicative tribunal reached its conclusion, and (ii) the decision-maker is carrying out his function. In particular, the court will have regard to the nature of the conclusion, the status of the tribunal and the decision-maker, the procedure by which the tribunal and decision-maker each reach their respective conclusions (eg, at the extremes, (i) adversarial, in public, with oral argument and testimony and cross-examination, or (ii) investigatory, in private and purely on the documents, with no submissions), and the role of the tribunal and the decision-maker within the statutory scheme. 67. Although Sir John expressed his propositions so as to apply to “findings of fact”, it seems to me that they must apply just as much to opinions or balancing exercises. The issue is much the same on an appeal or review, namely whether the tribunal was entitled to find a particular fact or to make a particular assessment. Anyway, it is clear from Powergenthat an assessment as to whether an access onto a highway would be safe fell within the scope of his propositions. Indeed, the ombudsman’s decision in Bradleyitself seems to me to have involved issues as to which she had to make assessments or judgements, such as whether the department concerned should have done more and whether some failures amounted to maladministration – see at para 27 of Sir John’s judgment.”
“It was open to the parish council and the examiner to determine where development should go and to rule out development to the west on the basis that the community felt ‘it would place unsustainable pressure on the local road system and infrastructure’ based upon the following: 1. The western side of the village is further from the High Street as a matter of facts; 2. Although some facilities are to the west of the High Street, these are all on the eastern side of the village bar one; 3. Those travelling from the west would therefore be less likely to travel on foot and more likely to come by car; and 4. Travel by car from the western side of the village is more likely to cause pressure because of pinch points in the road system. This was discussed at length at the planning workshop in7 July 2014 and at the site visits thereafter and the essence of this reasoning appeared in many residents’ representations.”
“2. The environmental report prepared pursuant to paragraph 1 shall include the information that may reasonably be required taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan or programme, its stage in the decision-making process and the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in that process in order to avoid duplication of the assessment.”
“The essential thing is that likely significant effects of the plan or programme when the alternatives are identified, described and evaluated in a comparable way. …it is essential that the authority … responsible for the plan as well as the authorities and public consulted are presented with an accurate picture of what reasonable alternatives there are and why they are not considered the best option.”
“However, qualitative does not mean ‘guessed’. Predictions need to be supported by evidence, such as references to any research, discussions or consultation which helped those carrying out the SEA to reach their conclusions.”