Bearing in mind the NPPF waxes lyrical about the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and the 'golden thread' of sustainability that runs through planning, it might appear crass to question what is meant by sustainable development. But I'll do it anyway.
Last year I was preparing for an appeal. I was reading through various planning committee reports and reviewing the well meaning, but ad-hoc analysis undertaken by the respective planning officers. They were inconsistent. They were unsubstantiated. They were absolutely open to scrutiny. I looked at my own analysis. I felt it was robust and capable of defence under cross-examination, but I was conscious that along with the planning inspector that would ultimately determine the appeal, all of the professional planners involved in the process would be applying their own interpretation to what is meant by the term sustainable development, and in turn, the presumption to be applied to the same. God help any members of the community looking on from the gallery.
One might initially say, so what? Well to my mind, it matters a great deal. The NPPF sets out to increase the pace and volume of development, albeit with the laudable caveat that it should be the right kind of development - sustainable development. The NPPF identifies the three strands of sustainable development - economic, social, and environmental, and references to these categories, and sustainable development in general, courses through the NPPF. But ultimately, it doesn't say what it is, or at what point (or level) the presumption is triggered. Is it about carbon neutral development? Is it about being close to public transport? Can you be sustainable if you satisfy one of these credentials but not the other two?