This positive judgment follows on from our successful quashing of a previous appeal decision in Lancaster, where an Inspector wrongly considered a lack of sequential test was of itself terminal – you can read more on that case here.
Together with the recent judgment regarding an appeal in Yatton, the Courts have now provided considerable clarification on the correct approach to decision making when the sequential test is not passed, but where the development as constructed would not be at risk of flooding.
The judgment is also one of the first to consider the change to the wording of NPPF footnote 7 from ‘clear’ to ‘strong reason’ for refusal:
- The Judge notes ‘strong’ represents a higher test than ‘clear’ [70] and finds decision makers can take into account the nature of the harm in determining what constitutes a strong reason as a matter of planning judgment [60].
- This underlines that the mere presence of a factor within Footnote 7 is not a knockout, something which is of relevance to site selection during plan making as well as deciding if the tilted balance is disengaged.
Kevin Waters led Gladman’s successful defence, instructing Guy Williams KC and Emily Williams. The Judgment also upholds the excellent work at the appeal by Laurie Lane, Helen Ball and Colin Whittingham.
After the delay caused by this legal challenge, Simon Wilson and Phil Mussell are looking forward to selling the site, to bring forward this much needed development.
For more details on the Faversham judgement, please click the link below.
