Understanding Planning Policy in Decision Making

The Framework That Decides Your Planning Application

If you've ever been involved in a planning application or appeal, you've probably heard phrases like "it's contrary to the development plan" or "the NPPF supports this." But what do these terms actually mean? And more importantly, how do planners use them when deciding whether your project gets approved?

Let me demystify the planning policy framework for you. Understanding this isn't just academic—it's crucial to knowing whether your application stands a chance, or whether an appeal is worth pursuing.

The Starting Point: Section 38(6) and Why It Matters

Before we dive into specific policies, you need to understand the golden rule of planning decisions. It's found in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and it goes like this: planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

That's it. That's the legal foundation of every planning decision in England.

What does this mean in practice? It means the development plan is king. A planning decision-maker must start with the development plan and base their decision on it, unless there's something else (a "material consideration") that's important enough to justify a different outcome.

Think of it like a set of scales. The development plan sits on one side with considerable weight. Everything else—the National Planning Policy Framework, supplementary guidance, local concerns, economic benefits—these are material considerations that get weighed up on the other side. Only if they outweigh the development plan can you depart from it.

What Actually Is a Development Plan?

Here's where it gets a bit messy, because the answer depends on where you are and when the local plan was adopted.

In most of England (outside London), your development plan consists of:

• Any adopted development plan documents (taken as a whole)

• Neighbourhood development plans (if one exists for your area)

• In a very few cases, some retained Regional Strategy policies

In Greater London, add the London Plan to that list.

But here's the catch: we're in a transitional period. The planning system has evolved significantly over the past couple of decades, and what you'll actually find on the ground is often a patchwork of different documents.

The Historical Context (Bear With Me, This Is Important)

Before 2004, we had a simpler system: Structure Plans at county level and Local Plans below that (or Unitary Development Plans in unitary authorities). Then the 2004 Act replaced all this with Development Plan Documents—Core Strategies, Site Allocations, Development Management Policies, and so on—collectively forming a Local Development Framework.

Following reforms in 2012, the system shifted again. Now, local planning authorities should produce a single Local Plan for their area.

So what does this mean for you today? Well, you might find yourself dealing with:

• A shiny new post-2012 Local Plan (if you're lucky)

• A mixture of adopted Development Plan Documents from the 2004-2012 era

• "Saved" policies from old-style Local Plans or UDPs

• A Neighbourhood Plan

• In rare cases, even some old Structure Plan policies

The key question to always ask: which policies are actually part of the adopted development plan, and which have been superseded?

Enter the NPPF: The National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework—invariably called "the NPPF" or just "the Framework"—is national planning policy. First published in 2012, it's been updated several times since, most recently in December 2023.

Here's what you need to know about the NPPF: it's a material consideration, not statute. This is important. It doesn't override the development plan, but it carries significant weight.

How the NPPF Works Alongside the Development Plan

The NPPF itself acknowledges the primacy of the development plan. It states that its policies should be taken into account in decision-making and that development plans should be revised to reflect NPPF policies where necessary.

But here's the crucial bit: "due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF—the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given."

In other words, if a development plan policy is consistent with the NPPF, it carries full weight. If it conflicts with the NPPF, it may be considered "out-of-date" and given reduced weight.

This has huge practical implications. I've seen many appeals won on the argument that local plan policies were inconsistent with the NPPF and therefore shouldn't be given full weight. However, age alone isn't enough—you need to demonstrate actual inconsistency with the Framework.

The Presumption in Favor of Sustainable Development

Paragraph 11 of the NPPF introduces what's known as the "tilted balance" or presumption in favor of sustainable development. This is absolutely crucial in decision-making.

The presumption means that where the development plan is absent, silent, or out-of-date, permission should be granted unless:

• Specific policies in the NPPF that protect important assets provide a clear reason for refusal (things like heritage assets, Green Belt, flood risk), or

• Any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits

Notice the emphasis: adverse impacts must significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits. That's a high bar.

In the case of Cheshire East BC v SSCLG (2016), Justice Jay explained that where the development plan is absent, silent, or out-of-date, paragraph 11 essentially teaches decision-makers how to reconcile tensions between different dimensions of sustainable development. It's the framework for deciding whether a proposal constitutes sustainable development.

However, and this is equally important, where a plan is not absent, silent, or out-of-date, the presumption simply means approving development that accords with it without delay. This was confirmed in East Staffordshire BC v SSCLG (2016)—if your development conflicts with an up-to-date plan, you can't rely on the presumption.

How Decision-Makers Actually Apply Policy: The Tesco Case

One of the most cited planning judgments is Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council (2012). Lord Reed's comments have become the touchstone for how policies should be interpreted.

He said: "policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in its proper context."

What does this mean? It means decison-makers can't make policies mean whatever they want them to mean. As Lord Reed memorably put it: "planning authorities do not live in the world of Humpty Dumpty: they cannot make the development plan mean whatever they would like it to mean."

But he also recognized reality: "development plans are full of broad statements of policy, many of which may be mutually irreconcilable, so that in a particular case one must give way to another."

This is why planning decisions involve judgment. Decision-makers must:

• Interpret policies objectively using the actual words

• Understand policies in their proper context

• Recognise when policies pull in different directions

• Decide which policies are more directly relevant

• Conclude on the development plan as a whole

You'll often see multiple policies cited in planning decisions, some supporting a proposal and others opposing it. The planning decision-maker's job is to weigh these up and reach an overall conclusion on whether the proposal accords with the development plan taken as a whole.

Emerging Development Plans: The Crystal Ball Problem

Here's a common scenario: the current development plan is old and doesn't allocate enough housing land. But there's a new local plan in preparation that would allocate your site for housing. Can you rely on that emerging plan?

The answer is maybe—it depends on how far advanced it is.

Policies in emerging plans aren't part of the statutory development plan under Section 38(6), but they are material considerations. The question is: how much weight should they get?

Paragraph 48 of the NPPF provides guidance. Weight should depend on:

• The stage of preparation of the emerging plan

• Whether there are unresolved objections

• The degree of consistency with the NPPF

The Devil Is in the Detail

A plan at early consultation stage (Regulation 18) deserves limited weight—there's too much uncertainty about whether it'll be submitted in the same form.

But once a plan has been submitted for examination (Regulation 19) and especially once the examining inspector has made interim findings or recommended main modifications, things change dramatically.

Here's the key insight: if an examining inspector has proposed main modifications to make a plan sound, you can reasonably conclude that aspects not proposed to be changed are very likely to be found sound. Those policies are close to adoption and should be given substantial weight.

The recent Worthing Borough Council v SSLUHC case (2022) hammered this home. An inspector granted planning permission for major housing development in the countryside. But the emerging local plan, which restricted such development, was at an advanced stage. The examining inspector had issued a post-hearing letter with no concerns about the key spatial policies. The High Court quashed the decision because these emerging policies should have been expressly considered and weighed in the balance.

The judge differentiated this from an earlier case (West Oxfordshire, 2018) where the emerging plan was marginal and didn't add anything new beyond existing policies and the NPPF. The Worthing policies were different—they represented a new balancing exercise in the context of the NPPF and would replace outdated policies. They had to be considered through a different lens.

The Right Question to Ask

When dealing with emerging policies, ask yourself: "What's the likelihood of this policy being formally adopted in its current form?"

If hearings have been held, the inspector has made positive interim findings, and main modifications don't affect the relevant policy, the answer is: very likely. Give it substantial weight.

If the plan hasn't been submitted yet, or the examining inspector has raised concerns, or main modifications are proposed to the relevant policy, the answer is: uncertain. Give it limited weight.

Prematurity: The "Wait and See" Argument

Sometimes councils refuse applications on the grounds of "prematurity"—arguing that granting permission would prejudice or undermine the plan-making process.

This is actually quite a high bar. The Planning Practice Guidance explains that refusal on prematurity grounds is rarely justified except when:

• A development plan is at an advanced stage, and

• The proposal would determine a significant element of the plan (like housing delivery or infrastructure provision)

The Woodcock Holdings case (2015) provided an important lesson about prematurity and neighbourhood plans. The Secretary of State refused planning permission partly on prematurity grounds, arguing it would undermine the neighbourhood plan process. The court quashed the decision, noting that the Secretary of State failed to appreciate "the limited scope of the examination of a neighbourhood plan and the implications this undoubtedly has for reliance upon prematurity."

The government has since confirmed its commitment to neighborhood planning, asking inspectors to avoid appeal decisions close to a referendum to prevent influencing the outcome. But that's about timing of decisions, not a blanket prematurity policy.

In practice, prematurity arguments often fail unless the emerging plan is genuinely at an advanced stage and the proposal would significantly prejudice it.

Supplementary Planning Documents: The Supporting Cast

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) add detail to development plan policies but aren't part of the plan itself. They're material considerations—sometimes very useful ones.

SPDs might provide guidance on:

• Design standards

• Heritage conservation

• Affordable housing requirements

• Developer contributions

• Specific site requirements

The key questions for SPDs are:

• Do they add anything beyond what's in the development plan?

• Do they conflict with adopted policy? (If so, they're invalid)

• Does the proposal comply with their detailed guidance?

Here's an important point: SPDs often set out "requirements" like minimum room sizes or separation distances. If your proposal doesn't meet these, the planning decision-maker should consider whether this actually causes harm. Non-compliance with SPD guidance is an indication of potential harm, but it's not automatically fatal. The planning decision-maker must exercise judgment.

I've seen cases where proposals departed from SPD standards but the planning decision-maker concluded no significant harm arose because of the specific site circumstances. The SPD is guidance, not rigid law.

There's also older Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) from before 2004. This has even less statutory weight than SPD but can still be a material consideration if relevant.

Putting It All Together: The Balancing Act

So how does a planning decision-maker actually weave all this together when deciding your appeal?

They start with the development plan. They identify which policies are relevant to the main issues. They assess whether the proposal complies with those policies, interpreted objectively. They reach a conclusion on the development plan as a whole.

Then they consider material considerations:

• The NPPF and whether any development plan policies are out-of-date

• Emerging policies and the weight they deserve

• SPDs and whether the proposal complies with detailed guidance

• Other matters like economic benefits, design quality, highway safety, and so on

If the proposal accords with the development plan, it should normally be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If it conflicts with the development plan, it should normally be refused unless material considerations outweigh that conflict.

And if the development plan is out-of-date, the presumption in favor of sustainable development applies—which significantly shifts the balance in favor of approval.

Why This Matters for Your Planning Application or Appeal

Understanding this framework helps you in several crucial ways:

First, it tells you whether you've got a strong case. If your proposal clearly accords with an up-to-date development plan, you're in a strong position. If it conflicts with clear policies, you need compelling material considerations to outweigh that.

Second, it helps you spot opportunities. Is the local plan old and inconsistent with the NPPF? Are there emerging policies that support your proposal? These could be game-changers.

Third, it shows you where to focus your arguments. Don't waste time arguing policies are "bad" or "unfair"—decision makers still must apply them. Instead, argue about interpretation, consistency with the NPPF, or whether material considerations justify a departure.

Fourth, it helps you assess risk. If you're thinking about appealing a refusal, understanding the policy framework is essential to judging your chances. An experienced consultant can map the policy landscape and give you a realistic assessment of whether an appeal is worth the time and cost.

The planning policy framework can seem impenetrably complex, but it follows logical principles. The development plan is the starting point. Material considerations can outweigh it, but they need to be substantial. And throughout, the planning decision-maker must exercise objective judgment based on the actual words of policies, not what anyone wishes they said.

Understanding these principles won't guarantee planning permission, but it will help you navigate the system more effectively and make better-informed decisions about when to push forward and when to think again.

Author

Andrew Ransome is the planning director at ADP and is a chartered member of the RTPI, with over 22 years of town planning experience.

Andrew has extensive experience offering strategic planning solutions to challenging projects in both rural and urban settings. Follow him on Linkedin.

Get in touch