Exempted Development in UK Law

The very concept of a framework, rules, criteria or policy, which guide the outcome of an application for development consent, as a plan which requires SEA even before development project EIA, presupposes that the plan will have an effect on the approach which has to be considered at the development consent stage, and that that effect will be more than merely persuasive by its quality and detail, but guiding and telling because of its stated role in the hierarchy of relevant considerations.

(e) Where there are no comparable sales resort may be had to the residual value method. This should be reserved for exceptional cases and will not be applied where the open market value is otherwise ascertainable by such assessments as a spot valuation: Cripps on Compulsory Acquisition of Land, 11 ^th ed (1962), para 4-200. As the Lands Tribunal stated in Perkins v Middlesex CC (1951) 2 P & CR 42:

That the safeguarding directions do not constitute a "framework of planning policy" – the concept referred to by Lord Sumption in paragraph 122 of his judgment in the previous proceedings – is simply a matter of fact. They do not alter the provisions of any development plan document, or any statement of government policy or guidance. Neither in form nor in substance do they amount to a framework of policy.

I realise that what takes place on the ground cannot be conclusive and agree with Ms Robinson's submission that caution has to be exercised because landowners may choose not to implement the whole of a planning permission, and may carry out development in breach of planning control. But if the documentary evidence is sparse, I do not see why the purported implementation of a planning permission on the ground, if done without any complaint over many years, should be altogether ignored.