How a draft should handle an unresolved policy conflict

A policy conflict in a planning statement is a drafting problem with a clear boundary. A draft can identify both policies, quote them accurately, set out which facts engage each one, and say where the proposal complies and where it does not. What it cannot do is decide which policy prevails, because that is planning judgement applied to a specific set of circumstances by someone who will answer for the conclusion. A draft that smooths the conflict into a sentence saying the proposal accords with the development plan as a whole has done the opposite of its job.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the determination to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. That duty assumes someone has read the plan and formed a view.

Why conflicts arise in a plan

Plans are assembled over years by different teams, examined, modified and then partly superseded. Conflicts are normal rather than exceptional.

The patterns repeat. A housing delivery policy encouraging brownfield development runs against a heritage policy protecting the character of the same area. A site allocation sits over a landscape or open space designation. A saved policy from an earlier plan is retained alongside a newer one that says something different. A design policy requiring active frontages meets a highway policy requiring visibility splays that remove them. And a parking standard contradicts a sustainable transport policy printed twenty pages later in the same document.

Where two development plan documents conflict, section 38(5) of the 2004 Act gives precedence to the policy in the document adopted later. That resolves a narrow class of conflict. It does nothing for two policies inside one adopted plan, which is where most arguments sit.

What a draft can and cannot do with one

A retrieval exercise over policy text can do a surprising amount accurately. It can find both policies, reproduce their wording, identify which is more specific to the proposal, note the adoption dates, and list the material considerations each one brings into play. It can also set out the national policy position and the relevant statutory duties.

What it cannot do is assign weight. Weight is not in the policy text. It comes from the degree of harm on these facts, the quality of what is being lost, the public benefit on offer, the authority's housing land supply position, and the decision maker's judgement about the balance. Our note on what drafts get right about structure and wrong about evidence makes the same point about site-specific facts, and the problem here is the same in a different place.

Setting out both policies fairly

The structure that works puts the conflict in the open and keeps the assessment symmetrical. For each policy:

1. Quote the policy reference and its operative wording, with the plan name and adoption date.
2. State what the policy requires in plain terms.
3. Set out the facts of the proposal that engage it.
4. Say whether the proposal complies, complies in part, or conflicts, and why.
5. Identify the evidence that supports that assessment, naming the technical document.

Then a separate section that states the conflict directly: these two policies pull in different directions on these facts, for these reasons. No conclusion yet.

Symmetry matters more than it sounds. A draft that gives the supportive policy four paragraphs and the restrictive policy one line reads as advocacy before anyone has reached the argument, and officers discount it accordingly.

Where the balance has to be argued by a person

Three situations put the weighing beyond any drafting tool.

The first is the heritage balance. Where a designated heritage asset or its setting is affected, the statutory duties in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require special regard to the desirability of preserving the asset, and the courts have held that considerable importance and weight attaches to that. It is not a neutral balance, and describing it as one is a legal error rather than a stylistic choice. A Heritage Statement has to establish significance and the degree of harm before any balance can be struck.

The second is the planning balance where the authority's housing land supply or delivery position affects how policies are applied. That turns on figures and on the current national policy wording, both of which change.

The third is a judgement about the quality of a specific thing: whether this hedgerow is important, whether this view matters, whether this frontage contributes to the street. Our piece on where site judgement cannot be drafted in a design statement covers that category.

An illustrative housing and heritage example

Illustrative example. A plan allocates a town centre car park for housing and includes a policy requiring development to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area that covers the northern third of the site. The scheme is 48 flats in four storeys, with the taller element on the allocated part and three storeys on the conservation area frontage.

What the draft can establish: the allocation reference and its stated capacity, the conservation area policy wording, the area's appraisal and what it identifies as contributing to character, the heights of the buildings adjoining, the degree of harm described in the heritage assessment, the daylight results for neighbouring windows, and the housing numbers proposed against the allocation.

What a person has to do: decide whether the harm identified is less than substantial and where it sits within that range, attach the statutory weight to the preservation duty, identify the public benefits with enough precision to be weighed rather than asserted, and reach a conclusion on whether those benefits outweigh the harm. That paragraph is the one the committee will read twice, and it cannot be assembled from policy text.

Flagging rather than papering over

The failure mode is a confident sentence that hides the problem. Phrases such as the proposal accords with the development plan read taken as a whole, offered without any analysis of the conflicting policy, invite the officer to write the balance themselves and to write it against you.

PlanScope's drafting inserts a TO BE CONFIRMED marker where a site-specific fact is missing, and the same discipline applies to an unresolved balance. Leave the conflict visible, with a clear note of what has to be decided and by whom, so that the reviewer can see the gap and fill it. A draft that flags an open judgement is useful. A draft that resolves it silently is a liability, because nobody knows the judgement was made.

Finishing the argument yourself

Before the statement is submitted, work through five checks.

Confirm every policy reference against the adopted plan rather than against a summary. Check whether a later-adopted document supersedes either policy under section 38(5). Verify the national policy position against the current published Framework, stating the edition, because paragraph numbers from older editions no longer apply. Write the balance paragraph yourself, naming the harm, the benefit and the weight you attach to each. And name the person who formed that judgement.

Where the balance involves a technical discipline, send the draft for review rather than signing it off. A reviewer from the professional directory can take the heritage or landscape judgement, and the Planning Statement then carries a conclusion that someone stands behind.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.