The NPPF and the substance of planning policy

The High Court has confirmed that the National Planning Policy Framework did not change the substance of planning policy, and has clarified what information must be advertised for EIA. Vincent Fraser QC explains the ruling.

In R (oao Corbett) v Cornwall Council and REG Windpower Limited [2013] EWHC 3958 (Admin) the High Court dismissed a challenge to a planning permission granted to REG Windpower Limited by Cornwall Council for the erection of a wind farm.

The challenge raised a number of grounds including claims that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had marked a change in planning policy so that it had been necessary for a council to reconsider its resolution to grant planning permission and that information provided during the course of the application came within the scope of the EIA Regulations so as to require publicity.

The council had resolved in September 2011 to grant planning permission subject to completion of a satisfactory section 106 obligation. The obligation was not completed until April 2012 by which time the NPPF had been published.

The claim alleged that in the circumstances it was necessary for the council to reconsider the matter on the grounds that NPPF amounted to a material change in policy. In dismissing this ground of claim the court confirmed that it was clear that the change from the various Planning Policy Statements to the Framework was not intended to bring about a change in the substance of planning policy either generally, or specifically, in relation to developments intended to secure renewable energy.

A further ground of claim related to the publication of various documents provided during the course of the application. In dismissing this ground the court emphasised the need to keep clear that the different regimes have different definitions of environmental information and different requirements – some merely require access to certain types of information whilst others require publication of receipt of the information.

In considering in particular the requirements of the EIA Directive and Regulations the court concluded that any other information for the purposes of regulation 19 must be read in the context of further information within the regulation and that it comprised substantive information provided by the applicant to ensure that the authority is provided with the information required for inclusion within an environmental statement as required by Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations. Accordingly information provided during the course of a planning application to address various points made by third parties was not any other information for the purposes of the EIA Regulations.

Vincent Fraser QC is a barrister at Kings Chambers. He acted on behalf of REG Windpower Limited in successfully resisting the application. His clerk can be contacted on 0161 819 8800 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..