District council launches challenges against two planning appeal decisions

Daventry District Council has launched legal proceedings in two cases where it originally refused planning permission, only later to see appeals allowed against its decisions.

On 9 October 2014, Daventry refused an application for 121 houses on land off New Street, Weedon.

This decision was appealed on 18 December 2014 and the appeal was allowed on 12 June 2015.

The council said it had now challenged this appeal decision based on how the inspector dealt with adopted Local Plan policies.

The second case arose out of Daventry’s decision on 31 July 2014 to  refuse an outline application for five houses on land off Kilsby Road, Barby.

The decision was appealed in November 2014 and the appeal was allowed on 13 May this year.

Daventry challenged this decision because the appeal Inspector concluded that the council did not have a five-year housing land supply and also considered it was unreasonable to request affordable housing for a development of five houses.

The council said its adopted policies, including the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy adopted in December 2014, require affordable housing for developments of five or more houses, so the Barby appeal decision impacted on its future ability to implement affordable housing policy.

It added that National Planning Policy Guidance at the time of the appeal stated that only developments of ten or more houses should include affordable housing.

However, Daventry said it had noted the High Court’s recent decision in favour of West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council that quashed relevant paragraphs in the guidance.

“The decision should be helpful to our legal challenge as the council’s case is that adopted Local Plan policy carries more weight than the (now revoked) Guidance,” Daventry claimed.

Cllr Chris Millar, Leader of Daventry District Council, said: “Having carefully studied the appeal documents relating to these applications and the reasons for overturning these original decisions we have taken counsel opinion and decided to legally challenge these two outcomes. We never take such action without due consideration of all the implications.”