natco

Blogs

Professional Standards And Advocacy

The blog by Nigel Pearce yesterday, see below, has created something of a Twitter storm around the issue of just how objective should a planning consultant be when working for a client in support of scheme. Well, it would be easy to say that you never hear of a consultant telling a client their sche...

Posted by Jon Reeds on 18 June 2018

Structural Dishonesty In The Planning System

Underneath the topsoil of local councils and developers in England, and presumably elsewhere in the UK, lies a substratum of consultants, both national and international, who are making a great deal of money out of the planning system. When developers employ consultants to carry out sustainability ...

Posted by Nigel Pearce on 17 June 2018

Why Land Squandering Goes On And On And On

One of the great mysteries of planning in this country is why the most densely populated country in Europe goes on squandering its land with the lowest residential density development in Europe. I must apologise to readers outwith England here, as it-apos-s England I-apos-m referring to, though land...

Posted by Jon Reeds on 02 June 2018

go back

Supreme Court quashes AONB housing consent

Added on 06 December 2017

The Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal decision to quash planning consent for more than 600 homes in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The Court agreed with CPRE Kent that Dover District Council did not give adequate reasons for approving the homes despite acknowledging the significant harm to a protected landscape. The Court of Appeal quashed the consent for the Farthingloe Valley in 2016.

“This case is not just important to the people of Dover but for the principles of planning law,” said CPRE Kent director Hilary Newport. “AONBs merit the highest possible level of protection. Today’s judgment confirms that not only was the decision flawed, but so was the planning committee’s decision-making process.”

Kristina Kenworthy of Richard Buxton Environmental and Public Law said the decision would bring much needed clarity to the need for public authorities to give reasons for their decisions.

“The Supreme Court has confirmed that planning is not a special case: the need for transparency and scrutiny means that people are entitled to know what has been decided and why, and if necessary enable effective recourse to the courts,” she said. “This decision should lead to more rigour, better planning &ndash and less argument.”

CPRE Kent

go back  |  top