A number objections can lead to the conclusion that the harms outweigh the benefits and this is not a ‘sustainable location’.

This is the single most important hurdle the Berkeley needs to jump. The proposals must meet the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ (NPPF 7 to 14). It is worth noting what this means and trying to undermine it.

Definition: “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

3 objectives:

a)an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and

c) an environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

Argue that the benefits shown in the application are not as comprehensive as the applicant is claiming, and that harms outweigh any such benefits, in such a way that they undermine the concept of sustainability.