Paul G Tucker QC compares the approach and outcome in two appeals with very similar characteristics which give rise to a very different outcome as a result of residential appeals determined at the end of last year.
In the first, land at Cressing, Braintree, (Ref: APP/Z1510/W/20/3253661) Mr Inspector Jones allowed the appeal for outline permission for 250 homes on the edge of Braintree;
In the second dated 7th December 2020, Land at Grange Park, Northampton, (Ref: APP/Z2830/W/20/3251622) Mr Inspector Woolcock dismissed an appeal for 300 homes on the edge of Northampton.
Both appeals related to greenfield sites on the edge of a large conurbation which had an acknowledged shortfall in its 5 year supply, both adjoined the urban area but would bring development closer to a nearby village, each had some shortcomings in terms of relationship to non-car modes of transport. And yet appeal involving the site located in the Neighbourhood Plan Area which was recommended for refusal (Braintree) was allowed, and the scheme recommended for approval was dismissed.
Paul discusses the reasoning behind these outcomes, and why the cases different outcomes may very well have turned upon the oddities of where boundaries are drawn rather than old fashioned land use merits.
About the speaker
Paul G Tucker QC
Paul Tucker QC practices in the fields of planning, local government, environmental, CPO, CIL, logistics, infrastructure and highways. He is Head of Chambers and Head of the Planning Department at Kings Chambers.