The NPPF: A Digest

Promoting healthy and safe communities

NPPF 92

R (Patel) v Dacorum BC [2019] EWHC 2992 (Admin), Timothy Mould KC

“65. However, as Ms Sheikh points out, the issue under this ground arises in the context of a distinct planning policy objective found in policy CS23 and paragraph 92 of the NPPF, that of seeking to protect existing community facilities. Of course it is true to say that the planning policy objective of safeguarding the vitality and viability of an existing town or local centre and the planning policy objective of protecting existing community facilities are to some degree interrelated. In many instances, it may well be that achieving the former objective will lead also to achieving the latter, since the health of the shopping centre and the community facilities within it are found to go hand in hand.

1. But it does not follow that is necessarily the case. It depends on the circumstances. The crux of Ms Sheikh’s submission, as I understood her, was that in the circumstances placed before the planning officer and the Committee in the present case, protecting the existing Post Office counter depended not on the impact of the proposed convenience store on the Village Centre as a whole, but rather on the diversion of trade away from the Nisa Local store. In my judgment, that submission is well founded. It follows that, in advising as he did in paragraph 9.2.21 of the report that “The key issue is the impact on the Markyate local centre as a whole, not the NISA store in isolation”, the planning officer begged the question as to the degree to which the proposed development was in accordance with national and development plan policy for the protection of community facilities such as (in this case) the Post Office.
   …

1. It is necessary to have in mind that policy CS23 and paragraph 92 of the NPPF have two distinct and complementary objectives. The first objective is to encourage the provision of new social and community facilities, whether in their own right or as a component of new development. The second objective is the protection of existing social and community facilities. …

NPPF 97

R (Day) v Shropshire Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1751, David Richards, Hickinbottom and Andrews LJJ
Alex Goodman appeared for the Appellant

The meaning of “open space” in the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906 should not be conflated with the meaning of the word in NPPF 97-98, given the definitional and conceptual differences [66].

NPPF 98

Malvern Hills DC [2021] EWHC 129 (Admin), Steyn J

An Inspector in substance applied NPPF 98 even though he had not expressly referred to it [28].

NPPF 99-101

R (Lochailort Investments Ltd) v Mendip DC [2020] EWCA Civ 1259, Lewison, Floyd and Asplin LJJ

“The ordinary meaning of “consistent” is “agreeing or according in substance or form; congruous, compatible”. What this means, in my judgment, is that national planning policy provides that policies for managing land within an LGS should be substantially the same as policies for managing development within the Green Belt. Accordingly, because paragraph 101 aligns management of development within an LGS with management of development in the Green Belt, it is also necessary to refer to what the NPPF says about the latter.” [10]

NPPF 101

R (Cooper Estates Strategic Land Ltd) v Wiltshire Council [2019] PTSR 1980, Lewison, Floyd, Henderson LJJ
Rupert Warren KC and Stephen Morgan appeared for the Council

“10. …land designated as a Local Green Space has a very high level of protection against development. But it is not as absolute as a registered [town or village green].”