In a time where the intergovernmental blame game fills the void left by political vision and leadership know-how, one dares to take the liberty of expecting that any concept brought forward by a constituent should be greeted with a presumption in favour — unless its implementation can be shown to significantly and demonstrably harm the public interest.

If “planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits — when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole” — then speculative development and landbanking are those adverse impacts.

They distort housing delivery, inflate land values, delay infrastructure, and exploit the absence of up-to-date local policies — all contrary to the NPPF’s wider goals of plan-led, sustainable, balanced development.

A Planning Position Statement (PPS) is urgently needed to identify and limit this organised abuse of national policy. Failing to act is not neutrality. It is silent permission — and it is against the public interest, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole.

1. Viability Assessments
2. Commuted Sums Instead of Homes
3. Salami Slicing
4. Delaying Detail Until Later Stages

“Affordable housing” is one of the most commonly used — and misunderstood — terms in planning and housing policy. It’s often used as a shorthand for “cheap homes,” but the reality is more complex and increasingly controversial.

If you lie to distort financial markets, you risk prosecution.
If you lie to distort planning decisions, you still get planning permission.

—
This proposal isn’t about punishing developers — it’s about rebuilding public confidence, enforcing truth in policy-making, and ensuring planning decisions are based on reality, not manipulation.

To build on the originally proposed offence of “Planning Fraud by Misrepresentation or Omission”, I now outline the following expanded structure:

Statutory Duty of Candour in planning submissions — applying to developers, landowners, agents, and consultants.

Criminal Offence for submitting material information that is false, misleading, or incomplete — where the party ought reasonably to have known its significance.

Mandatory Reporting protocols for Local Planning Authorities to refer suspected coordination or misrepresentation to a national enforcement body — akin to FCA Suspicious Transaction Reports.

Whistleblower Protections for planning professionals, consultants, and officers who identify systemic misconduct.

These proposals are rooted in existing legislative tools — particularly from financial law — and could be adopted without fundamentally altering the structure of the planning system.

Damian Hinds’ office responded supportively and offered to forward the submission to the relevant Minister for a response on whether a legal gap exists.

I’ve confirmed that I welcome this step — but have also asked Mr Hinds to share his personal stance on the matter and consider using the other Parliamentary avenues at his disposal to support action. This issue goes beyond ministerial delegation: it is about public integrity, enforceability, and preventing systemic abuse in planning across the country.

This is the first step in what I hope will become a wider campaign to close the legal gap around developer deception and protect communities from coordinated planning manipulation.

More updates will follow as the response progresses.

The Call for Reform
We prosecute individuals for stealing a phone — yet we allow organised networks of developers, consultants, and landowners to abuse land at scale through misrepresentation, coordinated applications, and legal fragmentation.

EHDC’s planning permission isn’t yet legally finalised; the crucial Section 106 Agreement remains outstanding, with deadlines set for April and October 2025.

Medstead Parish Council is proactively seeking free legal advice from a specialist planning barrister and HALC to review potential Judicial Review options.

Special thanks to Parish Councillor Patricia Hughes and Parish Clerk Mrs Julie Russell for their dedicated efforts.

Residents should stay alert, as the decision remains open to challenge.

You cannot transfer or reuse a screening opinion from one developer to another, or from one application to another, even on the same land.

Ignored the legal requirement that EIA screening opinions are non-transferable between applicants

Failed to apply the updated 2017 EIA Regulations, which clearly state that EIA screening opinions are only valid for three years

1. Refusal or Retrospective Screening
2. Judicial Review (JR) – Indirect Legal Exposure
3. Environmental offences under broader law
4. Challenge via Secretary of State (Call-in powers or EIA direction)

This is the category most relevant to residential developments. A project falls under Schedule 2 (so may require EIA) if it: Includes more than 1 hectare of urban development, OR Involves more than 150 dwellings, OR Has a site area exceeding 5 hectares If any one of those is true, then screening is … Continue reading Schedule 2, Category 10(b) – Urban Development Projects

An EIA screening opinion expires after 3 years from the date it was issued …

When forming an opinion as to whether development is EIA development, the relevant planning authority must take into account the selection criteria set out in Schedule 3.

The cumulation with other existing and/or approved development.
The environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by development.
Characteristics of the potential impact (e.g. size of area affected, magnitude of impact, resource use, pollution, risk of accidents).

This is a statutory instrument (SI 2015/595) that sets out how planning applications must be processed in England. It includes rules about validation, publicity, consultation, and decision-making. Relevant points about publicising an application: Under Article 15 of this Order, local planning authorities (LPAs) — like your council — must publicise planning applications in one … Continue reading The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015

Despite making up only 1.76% of the district’s population, Medstead absorbed 8.36% of all new housing in the 2011–2021 period.

This shows a development burden over four times higher than what would be expected if housing were distributed in proportion to population size.

This is strong, quantitative evidence that development in Medstead was not proportionate. It supports arguments about infrastructure strain, planning fairness, and unsustainable growth at the local level.

Experience with Tilted Balance Is Not a Badge of Honour. Someone should forward Nick Upton the memo

An interim position statement may be published when:

There is national control over the numbers, but not over the consequences or coordination. That’s why districts like EHDC are under pressure from targets they didn’t shape — without the tools or funding to deliver them properly.

When the AMR Becomes a Trigger to Cut Corners

Although the AMR is designed to promote transparency, it can also create perverse incentives when councils are under pressure to meet housing delivery targets. Because each AMR captures housing data up to 31 March, local authorities may feel compelled to approve marginal or windfall developments in the final months of the year — even in unsustainable locations — simply to boost their numbers before publication.
…
In such moments, settlements like Medstead — which have already absorbed high levels of growth — may be exposed to rushed or speculative approvals without cumulative safeguards, long-term infrastructure planning, or meaningful local scrutiny. The AMR, intended as a tool for accountability, can unintentionally incentivise short-termism and overdevelopment, particularly in rural communities that lack formal delivery caps.

The Council’s Leadership Cabinet, which is responsible for setting and resourcing strategic priorities.

The Planning Policy Team, for managing the process (though often under resourcing constraints).

Full Council, if they failed to adopt or fund a timely review when warned.

—

1. Early Evidence Gathering
2. Issues & Options / Draft Plan
3. Pre-Submission Plan
4. Submission to Inspector
5. Public Examination
6. Inspector’s Report
7. Adoption
8. Legal Challenge Period

• Developers pay for the entire process
• The NPPF allows and expects councils to strengthen safeguards locally
• EHDC has complete discretion to apply these checks based on local needs
• The only thing missing is the will to use the powers already available

Minimum Annual Housing Need = Baseline household growth + Uplift based on local affordability

On 24 March 2025, a formal request was submitted to Medstead Parish Council asking it to act as the Claimant in a Judicial Review (JR) of the recent planning permission granted for the Beechlands Road development.

The Parish Council has confirmed that the matter will be discussed at its next full council meeting on 9 April 2025.

Several consultees noted risks:

Flooding potential and drainage (EA + EHDC drainage)

Noise, air quality (Environmental Health)

Highways concern about cumulative impact (HCC Highways)

Medstead PC specifically objected due to cumulative development pressure and loss of open space/woodland

Critical Weakness in the Screening Decision: Cumulative Impact Was Dismissed

EHDC acknowledges that:

“The village has experienced rapid development pressures in the preceding short-term of 5–10 years but not on a scale likely to cause significant social issues…”

And:

“A full TA will be required… but crucially for the purposes of the 2011 Regulations only committed developments can be considered in screening.”

EHDC’s interpretation of “committed development” was narrow and conservative

They dismissed wider growth because the other SHLAA sites weren’t yet consented

They ignored local-scale saturation, even though HCC Highways and the Parish Council both warned about cumulative pressure

This means that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

The phrase “when assessed against the NPPF as a whole” means that any decision regarding whether the adverse impacts of a development outweigh its benefits should be made by considering the entire set of policies and principles outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

By understanding the key material planning considerations, you can identify and focus on the most critical issues that the planning authorities must address.

By grounding your arguments in material considerations such as local and national planning policies, environmental impact, traffic and access, and residential amenity, you enhance the credibility and impact of your objections.

This structured approach not only makes your case more compelling but also ensures that it is taken seriously by decision-makers who are legally bound to consider these factors.