What the Government didn’t do was actually define this “presumption”, leaving it open to interpretation. All we knew was that if a council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, or if a local plan was absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date”, then planning applications must be determined in accordance with that presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning permission granted, unless the adverse impacts of granting the permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As more than 250 councils still have out-dated plans (or no plan at all) or cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, the question of what the presumption and sustainable development actually is has started to play a significant role in planning applications and appeals.

Of course, where legislators leave gaps, the Courts happily fill them with case law. Clarity of the Government’s position has been provided in a case in Dartford progressed through the Courts last year by the Secretary of State. The judgement in this case effectively summarises the correct approach as: If local plan policies are absent, silent or out of date then the decision-maker looks at the balance of benefits and disbenefits, and grants planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Simple, eh? In those cases, grant permission unless any adverse impacts are significantly and demonstrably greater than the benefits. The onus of proof is on the council; the bar set high with significant and demonstrable harm to be proven.

And so, with that judgement, as the fourth anniversary of the National Planning Policy Framework approaches, we now have a working definition of the presumption in favour of sustainable development which manages to avoid any mention of sustainable development. The law of unintended consequences, or an absolutely intended consequence?