More on the Court of Appeal

It wasn't just AudlemOnline's that was shocked by the appalling legalese in last week's article about the wording of the Court of Appeal's decision about planning which has resulted in Cheshire East Council going to the Supreme Court to try and overrule the Court of Appeal's judgement.

Another website asks: "How much in Legal Bills has been spent on working out what the 'Worst Ever Worded National Policy' means?"

On WordPress.com Andrew Lainton posted: "Para 49 NPPF: relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites".

"What is the object of this sentence?" he asks. "What was 'for the supply of housing' supposed to add to its meaning? Did it add anything? If it was supposed to mean anything why not rewrite it plain English, not in strangulated grammer with a passive tense, uncertain object and double negative."

The sentence we couldn't understand was: "It recognizes that the concept extends to plan policies whose effect is to influence the supply of housing land by restricting the locations where new housing may be developed -- including, for example, policies for the Green Belt, policies for the general protection of the countryside, policies for conserving the landscape of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, policies for the conservation of wildlife or cultural heritage, and various policies whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting development. It reflects the reality that policies may serve to form the supply of housing land either by creating it or by constraining it -- that policies of both kinds make the supply what it is."

It wouldn't be so bad if it were not for the fact that these appeals are costing local taxpayers lots of money and all the hard work on Neighbourhood Plans by many communities is being thrown into doubt.

Anyone who sat through the seven days of the Gladman appeal in 2014 about the Little Heath development will realise that the lawyers can interpret the National Planning Policy Framework, 5-Year Housing supply estimates and Local Plans in any way that suits them, with hardly a mention of the community affected by a planning decision.

In that Appeal it was a couple of days of legal wrangling before Audlem was even mentioned.

Doubtless, we will soon be heading down the same weary route with the Moorsfield and Tollgate development with the planning application refused by Cheshire East – impossible to do anything else after the council endorsed Audlem's Neighbourhood Plan so strongly – then an Appeal to the Planning Directorate and who knows what after that.

This article is from our news archive. As a result pictures or videos originally associated with it may have been removed and some of the content may no longer be accurate or relevant.