Growth at any cost? Excessive growth like this, is a cancer. It will destroy, and enhance nothing. Ne need to shout about 'Jobs!' either, as I expect a lot of this will be automated. Do better, NNC
Under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, planning decisions must be discharged by a planning committee, sub-committee, or delegated officer—not by the executive. This framework is reinforced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, ensuring that planning decisions are made within a statutory and lawful context.
Councillors are legally obligated to determine planning applications based solely on material planning considerations. These include the adopted local development plan, national planning policy (NPPF), and relevant factors such as traffic access, environmental impact, design and appearance, noise, privacy, amenity, flood risk, heritage, and infrastructure. Each of these considerations carries varying weight and must be carefully balanced in evaluating any proposal.
Decisions made outside this framework risk being deemed invalid and can carry significant consequences. Applicants retain the right to appeal, and if a refusal is found to be unreasonable, the local authority—such as North Northamptonshire Council (NNC)—may be held liable for costs. Furthermore, unjustified refusals can damage the council's reputation and lead to delays in development.
A recent Class B8 development was refused, and if memory serves correctly, the applicant is now pursuing an appeal on grounds of non-determination. Based on available information, it is highly likely that this appeal will succeed.
Cllr David Brackenbury being a very experienced Cllr and indeed previously an executive member of NNC would surely be aware of this outcome, raising questions as to why the then Conservative-controlled council failed to determine the application for nearly three years. Given Cllr Brackenbury's experience, and that of his colleagues, it would appear they recognised from a legal standpoint that they had no viable means to prevent these developments. The suggestion that the developments could be stopped appears to be misleading and may be politically motivated, particularly with an election in the not-too-distant future.
Growth at any cost? Excessive growth like this, is a cancer. It will destroy, and enhance nothing. Ne need to shout about 'Jobs!' either, as I expect a lot of this will be automated. Do better, NNC
Under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, planning decisions must be discharged by a planning committee, sub-committee, or delegated officer—not by the executive. This framework is reinforced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, ensuring that planning decisions are made within a statutory and lawful context.
Councillors are legally obligated to determine planning applications based solely on material planning considerations. These include the adopted local development plan, national planning policy (NPPF), and relevant factors such as traffic access, environmental impact, design and appearance, noise, privacy, amenity, flood risk, heritage, and infrastructure. Each of these considerations carries varying weight and must be carefully balanced in evaluating any proposal.
Decisions made outside this framework risk being deemed invalid and can carry significant consequences. Applicants retain the right to appeal, and if a refusal is found to be unreasonable, the local authority—such as North Northamptonshire Council (NNC)—may be held liable for costs. Furthermore, unjustified refusals can damage the council's reputation and lead to delays in development.
A recent Class B8 development was refused, and if memory serves correctly, the applicant is now pursuing an appeal on grounds of non-determination. Based on available information, it is highly likely that this appeal will succeed.
Cllr David Brackenbury being a very experienced Cllr and indeed previously an executive member of NNC would surely be aware of this outcome, raising questions as to why the then Conservative-controlled council failed to determine the application for nearly three years. Given Cllr Brackenbury's experience, and that of his colleagues, it would appear they recognised from a legal standpoint that they had no viable means to prevent these developments. The suggestion that the developments could be stopped appears to be misleading and may be politically motivated, particularly with an election in the not-too-distant future.