We have talked before about the National Planning Policy Framework. It is a core part of Grainger’s pitch. It is thrown up as smoke screen to hide that their plans fall foul of SODC’s core strategy.

But the NPPF is a fickle friend of Grainger’s. Paragraph 66 of the NPPF states: “Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.”

Can Grainger demonstrate that they have worked closely with the community? Can their plans be looked on more favourably?

These two plans are of Grainger’s housing estate. The top one is from June. The bottom one is from September. They are almost identical. Two months where “feedback has been gathered and shared with the project team” has resulted in nothing substantive. Zilch.

Grainger claim in their Statement of Community Involvement that “the comments received have served to inform the content of the submission.” We have looked hard to see where the content has been changed to reflect the community’s views. And found nothing.

Perhaps we have looked too hard. Perhaps the change is clear to see. Faced with an overwhelming rejection of the their plan there has been a change – in their strategy. They have abandoned persuading SODC of the plan’s merits. Instead they have fallen back on ’presumption in favour of development’ and veiled threats of appeals and litigation.

We do not look “more favourably” on this change. And neither will SODC.