note for inspector lyons regarding the application …apps.fdean.gov.uk/_assets/docs/allocations...

Forest of Dean Allocations Plan Note for Inspector Lyons regarding the application of the buffer to the shortfall


CONTENTS:

Page No:

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. APPROACH TO THE APPLICATION OF THE BUFFER 2

APPENDICES:

APPENDIX 1: JOINT APPEAL DECISIONS AT DROITWICH (APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 &

APP/H1840/A/13/2199085)

APPENDIX 2: APPEAL DECISION AT GRESTY LANE, CREWE (APP/R0660/A/13/2209335)

APPENDIX 3: EXTRACT FROM PAS FIVE YEAR LAND SUPPLY FAQS

APPENDIX 4: APPEAL DECISION AT LAND AT TILEHURST LANE, BRACKNELL

(APP/R0335/A/14/2219888)

APPENDIX 5: APPEAL DECISION AT LAND AT GOCH WAY, ANDOVER

(APP/C1760/A/14/2222867)

APPENDIX 6: WARWICK LOCAL PLAN: INSPECTOR’S FINDINGS REGARDING INITIAL

MATTERS

APPENDIX 7: APPEAL DECISION AT LAND OFF STATION ROAD, GREAT AYTON

(APP/G2713/A/14/2218137)

APPENDIX 8: AMBER VALLEY LOCAL PLAN: INSPECTOR’S LETTER

APPENDIX 9: WEST DORSET AND PORTLAND JOINT LOCAL PLAN: INSPECTOR’S FINAL

REPORT

APPENDIX 10: APPEAL DECISION AT LAND OFF TANTON ROAD, STOKESLEY

(APP/G2713/A/14/2223624)

APPENDIX 11: HEREFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY: INSPECTOR’S REPORT

APPENDIX 12: HORSHAM DISTRICT PLANNING FRAMEWORK: INSPECTORS REPORT


February 2016 | NT | CIR.H.0503 Page | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 At the hearing session of the Forest of Dean Allocations Plan on 2nd February

2016, Inspector Lyons requested the following schedule of Inspector’s decisions

(at S78 appeals and Local Plan examinations) which have supported the

application of the five year land supply buffer (identified in paragraph 47 of the

NPPF) to any shortfall which has accrued over the plan period to date.



2. APPROACH TO THE APPLICATION OF THE BUFFER

2.1 The appeal decision which is often cited on this matter relates to a joint appeal in

Droitwich, Wychavon District (APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 &

APP/H1840/A/13/2199085) in July 2014 (included as Appendix 1). In this

decision the Inspector identifies in paragraph 8.46 that “It is also clear that the

20% buffer should be applied to the entire 5-year requirement (including the

historic shortfall)”. This was supported by the Secretary of State in paragraphs 14

and 23.

2.2 However, in January 2015, the Secretary of State reached the opposite

conclusion in respect of an appeal at Gresty Lane, Crewe

(APP/R0660/A/13/2209335, included as Appendix 2), where he identified in

paragraph 14 that “he sees this as double-counting” contrary to the

recommendations of the Inspector.

2.3 Since this time, there have been many decisions supporting the application of a

buffer to the shortfall and these are summarised in the following schedule.

2.4 The PAS Five Year Land Supply FAQs also identifies that PAS “believe the

preferred approach is for the buffer to be applied to both the requirement and

shortfall. This is the most appropriate order because it ensures the buffer is

applied to the full requirement which represents all the need that exists. The idea

is that for every year you underprovide the amount adds onto the requirement to

be met in the next five years.” The full FAQ is included in Appendix 3.

2.5 At the hearing session, Mr Tiley identified that the JCS Inspector had supported

the application of the buffer to the shortfall. However, this observation was

provided verbally during the hearing sessions and there is no written record of

this.



Table 1: Schedule of decisions

Reference LPA Date Included as

Land at Tilehurst Lane, Bracknell:

S78 appeal decision

(APP/R0335/A/14/2219888),

paragraphs 93 & 94

Bracknell

Forest

2nd February

2015

Appendix 4

Land at Goch Way, Andover: S78

appeal decision

(APP/C1760/A/14/2222867),

paragraph 32

Test Valley 15th May

2015

Appendix 5

Warwick Local Plan: Inspector’s

findings regarding initial matters

and issues, paragraph 41

Warwick 1st June

2015

Appendix 6

Land off Station Road, Great

Ayton: S78 appeal decision

(APP/G2713/A/14/2218137),

paragraphs 31 & 32

Hambleton 10th July

2015

Appendix 7

Amber Valley Local Plan:

Inspector’s letter

Amber Valley 10th August

2015

Appendix 8

West Dorset and Portland Joint

Local Plan: Inspector’s Final

Report, paragraphs 85 & 86

West Dorset

and Portland

14th August

2015

Appendix 9

Land off Tanton Road, Stokesley:

S78 appeal decision

(APP/G2713/A/14/2223624),

paragraphs 41 to 47

Hambleton 7th

September

2015

Appendix 10

Herefordshire Core Strategy:

Inspector’s Report, paragraph 48

Herefordshire 29th

September

2015

Appendix 11

Horsham District Planning

Framework: Inspectors Report,

paragraph 49

Horsham 8th October

2015

Appendix 12

These represent a small sample of the decisions that post-date the Secretary of

State’s decision at Cheshire East. Pegasus Group would draw particular attention

to the findings of Amber Valley’s Inspectors letter (of 10th August 2015) which

draws specific reference to the validity of the two approaches.



APPENDIX 1

JOINT APPEAL DECISIONS AT DROITWICH (APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199085)

Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Planning Casework Division Department for Communities and Local Government 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU

Tel 0303 444 1626 Email [email protected]

Harris Lamb Limited 75-76 Francis Road Edgbaston Birmingham B16 8SP Mr Chris May Pegasus Group 5 The Priory Old London Road Canwell Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B75 5SH

Our Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 Your Ref: P484

Our Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 Your ref: Bir.3689 02 July 2014

Dear Sirs, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY BARBERRY DROITWICH LIMITED SITE AT LAND AT PULLEY LANE, NEWLAND ROAD AND PRIMSLAND WAY, DROITWICH SPA, (WYCHAVON DC) APPLICATION REF: W/11/01073/OU; and APPEAL BY PERSIMMON HOMES LIMITED AND PROWTING PROJECTS LIMITED SITE AT LAND NORTH OF PULLEY LANE AND NEWLAND LANE, NEWLAND, DROITWICH SPA, (WYCHAVON DC) APPLICATION REF: W/12/02336/OU 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the

report of the Inspector, Harold Stephens BA MPhil DipTP MRTPI FRSA, who held a public local inquiry between 28 January and 14 February 2014 into your respective clients’ appeals against decisions by Wychavon District Council (“the Council”):

Appeal A: to refuse outline planning permission for the development of land for up to 500 dwellings (Class C3); up to 200 unit care facility (Class C2); provision of mixed use local centre to include shop (Class A1); financial & professional services (Class A2); restaurants & café (Class A3); drinking establishment (Class A4); hot food takeaway (Class A5); offices (Class B1a) and police post; indoor bowls facility; means of access and estate roads; public open space; landscaping and infrastructure at Pulley Lane, Newland Road and Primsland Way, in accordance with application Ref: W/11/01073/OU; and

Appeal B: to refuse outline planning permission for the construction of a maximum of 265 dwellings with associated car parking, access, infrastructure provision and open space at land north of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane, Newland, in accordance with application Ref: W/12/02336/OU.

2. On 26 June 2013, both appeals were recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because they involve proposals over 150 units on sites of more than 5 ha which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable mixed and inclusive communities.

Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decisions

3. The Inspector recommended that both appeals be allowed and outline planning permission granted. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendations. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.

Procedural matters

4. In respect of Appeal B, the applications for costs by Barberry Droitwich Ltd and by Persimmon Homes & Prowting Projects Ltd are the subjects of decision letters being issued separately by the Secretary of State.

5. The Secretary of State notes (IR1.21) that, although the development did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment, an Environmental Statement was prepared to support the outline planning applications.

6. The Planning Inspectorate wrote to interested parties on 11 March 2014, following the publication of new planning guidance on 6 March, inviting representations on any implications for these cases. The representations received were forwarded to the Inspector who has taken them into account in writing his report.

Policy considerations

7. In deciding these appeals, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006 (WDLP) as well as the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy (November 2012).

8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework); the planning guidance referred to in paragraph 6 above; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended.

9. The Council is also working jointly with Malvern Hills DC and Worcester City Council to prepare a South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) (IR1.26-1.29). However, as work is still proceeding on that emerging plan and there are a number of

uncertainties outstanding (see paragraph 13 below), the Secretary of State gives it very little weight.

Main issues

10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in these appeals are those set out at IR1.4.

APPEAL A

Consistency with development plan and sustainability of development

11. The Secretary of State notes (IR8.10) that the reasons for refusal did not allege breach of WDLP policies and both main parties accept that bringing forward housing development in the context of the district’s housing needs inescapably creates tension in particular with WDLP policies SR1 and GD1. He also agrees with the Inspector at IR8.14 that, for the reasons at IR8.12-8.14, policies GD1 and SR1 are out of date and paragraph 14 of the Framework applies, triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Furthermore, for the reasons given at IR8.15-8.18, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that only limited weight can be given to policy ENV1 (IR8.15) He also agrees that the appeal scheme would not conflict with ENV8 (IR8.18).

12. Turning to the question as to whether the development is sustainable,, the Secretary of State notes the arguments set out at IR8.19-8.20 in relation to the interpretation and application of the presumption under paragraph 14 of the Framework in the case of William Davis. The Secretary of State also notes the recent decision in Dartford Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Landhold Capital Limited where Mrs Justice Patterson rejected elevating William Davis to a formulaic sequential approach to paragraph 14 of the Framework. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State finds the relevant policies for the supply of housing are out of date (IR8.24) and therefore the presumption applies and that the evidence before them both (IR8.21-8.23 )demonstrates that the Appeal A scheme is sustainable in terms of economic, environmental and social benefits..

Prematurity

13. Having regard to the arguments set out at IR8.25-8.30, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at IR8.30-8.36, granting permission for these appeal schemes cannot be seen as being likely to prejudice a local plan and so cannot be regarded as premature. In particular, the Secretary of State has taken account of the fact that the Council are proposing at least an extra 3,000 homes and have not yet decided where these should be located (IR8.30); that there are unresolved objections to the SWDP which dramatically reduce the weight that can be given to it (IR8.31); and that the appeal site has previously been under active consideration as a location for development (IR8.34).

Whether the appeal proposal is necessary to meet housing needs

14. For the reasons given at IR8.38-8.55, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR8.56-8.58 that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, so that the test in paragraph 14 of the Framework applies.

Character and appearance of the area

15. For the reasons given at IR8.59-8.72, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area and that the countervailing environmental benefits more than outweigh the limited harm caused by the loss of green field land. He therefore also agrees that the proposal would comply with the environmental policies of the WDLP and the emerging SWDP and with the relevant provisions of the Framework.

Effect on local highway infrastructure

16. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments at IR8.74-8.80, the Secretary of State agrees with him that the location of the appeal site, with good access to the centre by cycle and foot, would minimise the highways impact which any substantial development inevitably brings (IR8.81); so that it would not give rise to highway safety or the free-flow of traffic in accordance with the relevant development plan policy . (IR8.82).

Brine Run 17. For the reasons given at IR8.83, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that

there is no sound and robust evidence to suggest that the Brine Run could have any adverse implications for the appeal scheme so long as appropriate engineering measures to mitigate the risk of damage were agreed via the Council’s Building Control Department in advance of any development.

Conditions

18. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions and the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions thereon in respect of Appeal A (IR8.84-8.87), and he is satisfied that the conditions as proposed by the Inspector and set out at Annex A to this letter are reasonable, necessary and would meet the tests of paragraph 206 of the Framework and the planning guidance. However, he also agrees with the Inspector (IR8.87) that it would not be appropriate to attach a planning condition regarding a Brine Run Monitoring Report (IR8.87) since this is a matter covered through the Building Control regime.

Section 106 obligation

19. The Secretary of State has also considered the S106 Planning Agreement in respect of Appeal A submitted by the main parties at the inquiry (IR8.88) and, like the Inspector, he is satisfied that the provisions can be considered to be compliant with CIL Regulation 122 and paragraph 204 of the Framework and that full weight in support of the appeal proposal can therefore be given to the obligations.

Conclusion

20. For the reasons given at IR8.89, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, although the proposal would not be consistent with a strict interpretation of Policy GD1 of the WDLP, little weight can be afforded to that or to the other development plan

policies relied on by the Council because they are clearly out of date and significantly outweighed by the inability of the Council to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. Similarly, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR8.90 that the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area, with the countervailing environmental benefits more than outweighing the limited landscape harm caused by the loss of green field land. Overall, therefore, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the benefits of the Appeal A scheme are not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the alleged disadvantages.

APPEAL B

Consistency with development plan and sustainability of development

21. For the reasons given at IR8.91-8.96, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR8.96 that WDLP Policy GD1 is no longer fit for purpose and would not help the Council to meet its housing requirements in 2014 because land beyond the settlement boundary needs to be released for development in a manner which reflects the housing needs of the area and the terms of the Framework. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector (IR8.97) that, as WDLP policy SR1 is out of date, paragraph 14 of the Framework applies, thereby triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development. He further agrees with the Inspector (IR9.98) that the application of a Special Landscape Area (SLA) designation to the appeal site (IR8.98) has been superseded. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR8.99-8.100) that the situation represented by the out-dated WDLP has dramatically changed and can no longer be a sound basis against which to decide this proposal , therefore by default the appeal scheme needs to be considered against the provisions of the Framework.

Prematurity

22. Having regard to the arguments set out at IR8.101-8.110, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR8.111 that the Council’s reliance upon prematurity as a reason for refusal cannot stand as it is contrary to the weight of guidance, policy and judicial decisions and with no relevant precedent.

Whether the appeal proposal is necessary to meet housing needs

23. For the reasons given at IR8.112-8.126, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR8.127 that the Council does not have a 5-year supply of housing land and the appeal scheme is necessary to meet the housing needs of the district, including the need for affordable housing.

Character and appearance of the area

24. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments as set out at IR8.128-8.137, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusions at IR8.138 including his summary that these conclusions demonstrate that there is no logical basis to refuse the Appeal B scheme on the basis of landscape impact. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector at IR8.139 that, if both schemes were to be approved, the additional impact of the Appeal B scheme in landscape terms would be de minimis; and that the substantial provision of green infrastructure in connection with both schemes would

mean that the overall result of the proposals would bring benefits to clearly off-set the initial impact of the development. He also agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR8.140 that, although there would be changes to the visual effect of the development, there would be no significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and the scheme would comply with the pertinent WDLP and emerging SWDP policies.

Effect on local highway infrastructure

25. For the reasons given at IR8.141-8.143, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed development would not give rise to harm to highway safety or to the free flow of traffic, and that relevant WDLP policies would not be offended in this respect.

Conditions 26. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions and the Inspector’s

reasoning and conclusions thereon in respect of Appeal B (IR8.144-8.147); and he is satisfied that the conditions as proposed by the Inspector and set out at Annex B to this letter are reasonable, necessary and would meet the tests of paragraph 206 of the Framework and the planning guidance.


27. The Secretary of State has also considered the S106 Planning Agreement submitted by the main parties at the inquiry in respect of Appeal B and the Inspector’s comments on it (IR8.148-8.153). Like the Inspector, he is satisfied that the provisions can be considered to be compliant with CIL Regulation 122 and paragraph 204 of the Framework and that full weight in support of the appeal proposal can therefore be given to the obligations in the Agreement.

Planning balance and conclusion

28. For the reasons given at IR8.154-8.158, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions (IR8.159-8.161) that there is a need for the Appeal B site,wx which is suitable for the proposed development and which would bring about substantial and tangible benefits. The Secretary of State also agrees that there is no overall conflict with the development plan or the emerging SWDP or with the Framework. Instead, there is a strong positive case for the development of the Appeal B site to provide not only market housing but also much needed affordable housing.

Overall Conclusions 29. Overall, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the adverse impacts of granting

planning permission for both the Appeal A scheme and the Appeal B scheme would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, and he does not consider that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to justify refusing planning permission for either scheme.

Formal Decision 30. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the

Inspector’s recommendations he hereby allows your respective clients’ appeals and grants outline planning permission for:

Appeal A: the development of land for up to 500 dwellings (Class C3); up to 200 unit care facility (Class C2); provision of mixed use local centre to include shop (Class A1); financial & professional services (Class A2); restaurants & café (Class A3); drinking establishment (Class A4); hot food takeaway (Class A5); offices (Class B1a) and police post; indoor bowls facility; means of access and estate roads; public open space; landscaping and infrastructure, subject to the conditions set out at Annex A to this letter, at Pulley Lane, Newland Road and Primsland Way, in accordance with application Ref: W/11/01073/OU; and

Appeal B: the construction of a maximum of 265 dwellings with associated car parking, access, infrastructure provision and open space, subject to the conditions set out at Annex A to this letter, at land north of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane, Newland, in accordance with application Ref: W/12/02336/OU.

31. An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition of this permission for agreement of reserved matters has a statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State if consent, agreement or approval is refused or granted conditionally or if the Local Planning Authority fail to give notice of their decision within the prescribed period.

32. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Right to challenge the decision

33. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.

34. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Council. A notification e-mail / letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the decision.

Yours faithfully JEAN NOWAK Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

ANNEX A CONDITIONS APPEAL A - Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 Commencement and Phasing of Development 1) Application for approval of reserved matters for phase 1 (which will include a

minimum of 200 dwellings) shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 12 months from the date of this outline permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 12 months from the date of approval of the first reserved matters application.

2) No development shall take place within any phase of the development without

the prior approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto (save for the details of vehicular access into the site from Primsland Way and Pulley Lane) and the landscaping, including the provision of the on-site recreation/open play space, of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") which shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

3) No development shall take place until a Phasing Plan for the development

hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Phasing Plan shall include details of:

i) the timing of the provision of infrastructure to serve the proposed

development (including road improvements and drainage facilities) in relation to the provision of any new residential units;

ii) the timing of biodiversity, SUDS and strategic landscaping features; iii) the timing of the provision of on-site recreation/open play space in relation

to the provision of any new residential units; and iv) the timing of the provision of the local centre, bowls and sports facilities

and the care home.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.

Drawings and Plans 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans and associated documents:

- 9004 Rev C - Red line site location plan, reference no. (June 2012) - 9308 Rev H - Concept Masterplan, reference (June 2012) - 10154-63 – Proposed Improvements at Martin Hussingtree - 10154-64 – Newlands Road / Primsland Way Access - 10154-68 – A38 / Pulley Lane Improvement - 10154-69 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 2 - 10154-70 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 3 - 10154-71 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 4 - 10154-72 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 5

- 10154-73 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 6 - 10154-74 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 6 - 5090327/HWY/001 Rev C – Newland Road Bus Link Preliminary Design - P0371-DR5-0-010 Rev C – Illustrative Landscape Masterplan - P0152-DR5-010-012 Rev A – Newland Road Trees / Embankment Appraisal - P0152-DR-5-020-023 Rev A – Newland Road Cross sections - P0371-5-01-05 – Newland Road cross sections - Design and Access Statement (May 2011) - Design and Access Statement and Addendum (July 2012) - Supporting Planning Statement and Addendum (July 2012) - Drainage Strategy (May 2011) - Water Management Strategy (May 2011) - Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary (May 2011) - Flood Risk Assessment (May 2011) - Sustainability Appraisal (May 2011) - Transportation Assessment (May 2011) and Addendum (July 2012) - Technical note on water treatment matters by Atkins (July 2012)

5) All future applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be broadly in

accordance with:

i) the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the Design & Access Statement dated May 2011 and July 2012 addendum with regard to the general areas of development and approximate floor areas;

ii) amended Parameter Plan 3: Building Heights - Revision E dated December 2013; and

iii) the Landscape Design Strategy – Revision B dated July 2012 and drawing no. P0152 attached therein.

All reserved matters applications shall include a statement providing an explanation as to how the design of the development responds to the details submitted as part of the outline application.

Roads, Parking and Travel 6) No development, other than the proposed highway works listed below, shall

take place until details of:

i) the improvements, including the widening to 5.5m, to Pulley Lane (as indicated on DTA Drawings 10154-69/70/71/72 and 73) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented in accordance with those approved details;

ii) the improvements to the Pulley Lane/A38 junction (as indicated on DTA

Drawing 10154-68) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling;

iii) the bus, walk and cycle link to Primsland Way together with junction

improvements on Primsland Way (as indicated on DTA Drawing 10154-64) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority, and fully implemented prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling in accordance with those approved details; and

iv) the improvements to the A38/A4538 junction at Martin Hussingtree (as indicated on DTA Drawing 10154-63) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling in accordance with those approved details.

7) No development shall take place within each reserved matter until the

engineering details and specification of the proposed residential roads, cycle ways, footways, footpaths and highway drains have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the road works necessary to provide access from the publicly maintained highway to those dwellings have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

8) No development shall take place until a revised travel plan, including targets

for modal shift, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The revised travel plan should contain targets for mode share shifts in order to reduce car travel and increase travel by more sustainable transport modes. Such target must be achieved within 5 years of the first occupation of any property hereby approved. In the event of failing to meet these targets at the end of the 5 year period, a revised residential travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to address any shortfalls, and where necessary make provision for and promote improved sustainable forms of access to the site. The residential travel plan thereafter shall be implemented and updated in agreement with the Local Planning Authority.

9) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the individual vehicular accesses, entrance, turning areas and driveways/parking spaces have been constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those uses at all times.

10) No development shall take place within any phase until a scheme for the

provision of secure cycle parking for the apartments, commercial premises, leisure and care facility hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter shall be fully implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the first occupation of those uses and maintained thereafter in perpetuity.

Noise and Construction Management 11) No development shall take place until a noise mitigation scheme designed to

minimise the impact from road traffic such that the noise levels within the gardens of the proposed dwellings do not exceed the recommendations set out in BS8223:1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

12) No development shall take place within the phase of the development which contains the proposed local centre until a scheme for sound attenuation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved sound attenuation scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the commercial uses contained within the local centre.

13) No development, including demolition or construction activities, shall take

place until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan should include the following:

i) details of how to minimise the impact of noise, vibration and dust etc.

from construction and demolition activities and the traffic associated with this development, including a scheme for wheel cleaning;

ii) details of how to restrict the means of vehicular access for site operatives and construction traffic to the development from A38 and Pulley Lane only;

iii) details in relation to the prevention of pollution of waterways; iv) the provision of temporary drainage measures; v) details of all temporary contractors buildings, plant, storage of materials

and parking for site operatives; vi) delivery times; and vii) restrictions on burning.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved measures.

Contaminated Land 14) No development shall take place on any phase of the development until that

phase has been subject to a detailed scheme for investigation and recording of contamination of the land and risks to the development, its future uses and surrounding environment. A detailed written report on the findings including proposals and a programme for the remediation of any contaminated areas and protective measures to be incorporated into the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include proposals for the disposal of surface water during remediation. The remediation works shall be carried out and a validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the approved proposals and programme. If during the course of the development further evidence of any type relating to other contamination is revealed, work at the location will cease until such contamination is investigated and remediation measures, approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority have been implemented.

15) No development shall take place until full details of any soil or soil forming

materials brought on to the site for use in garden areas, soft landscaping, filling and level raising have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where the donor site is unknown or is brownfield the material must be tested for contamination and suitability for use on site. Full donor site details, proposals for contamination testing including testing

schedules, sampling frequencies and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to import on to the site. The approved testing must then be carried out and validatory evidence (such as laboratory certificates) submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any soil or soil forming materials being brought on to site.

Archaeology 16) No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the

implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Landscaping, Trees and Nature Conservation 17) Each application for reserved matters shall include:

a) An Arboricultural Impact Assessment in accordance with BS5837 and an Arboricultural Method Statement for the protection of trees and hedges during construction; and

b) A landscape scheme which shall include:

i) a plan(s) showing the planting layout of proposed tree, hedge, shrub and grass areas;

ii) a schedule of proposed planting - indicating species, size at time of planting and numbers/densities of plants;

iii) a written specification for root barriers and other measures to be used to ensure planting as outlined in the landscape strategy is achievable in relation to proposed built form;

iv) a written specification outlining cultivation and others operations associated with plant and grass establishment. This shall include details of soil crates for the planting of semi-mature street trees, or any tree planted in a location where its root run will be restricted;

v) proposed finished levels or contours; vi) means of enclosure and boundary treatments; and vii) a schedule of maintenance, including watering and the control of

competitive weed growth, for a minimum period of five years from first planting.

18) No development shall take place until full details of an Ecological Mitigation and

Enhancement Strategy based on up-to-date survey information is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:

i) updated ecological surveys including a dedicated bat survey; ii) a review of the site's ecological constraints and potential; iii) a description of target habitats and range of species appropriate for the

site;

iv) extent and location of proposed works; v) details of precautionary and protection measures to ensure protected

species and retained habitats are not harmed during and after construction;

vi) appropriate strategies for creating/restoring target habitats or introducing target species;

vii) method statement for site preparation and establishment of target features;

viii) sources of habitat materials (e.g. plant stock); and ix) timing of the works.

The Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the Nature Conservation Management Plan.

19) No development shall take place until a Nature Conservation Management Plan

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include:

i) description and evaluation of features to be managed; ii) ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence

management; iii) aims and objectives of management; iv) appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; v) prescriptions of management actions; vi) preparation of work schedule, including a 5 yearly project register, an

annual work plan and the means by which the plan will be rolled forward over a 25 year period;

vii) personnel responsible for implementation of the plan; and viii) monitoring and remedial/contingency measures triggered by monitoring.

The plan shall be carried out fully in accordance with the approved details.

20) No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental

Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include:

i) an appropriate scale plan showing 'ecological protection zones' where

construction activities are restricted and where protective measures will be installed or implemented;

ii) details of protective measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid impacts during construction;

iii) a Methodology Statement to demonstrate construction activities will be undertaken so as to avoid impact on those parts of the site subject to periods of the year when activities could be harmful, such as the bird nesting and other wildlife breeding or hibernation seasons in accordance with the Nature Conservation Management Plan; and

iv) persons/contractors responsible for:

(a) compliance with legal consents relating to nature conservation; (b) compliance with planning conditions relating to nature

conservation; (c) installation of physical protection measures during construction;

(d) implementation of sensitive working practices during construction; (e) regular inspection and maintenance of physical protection

measures and monitoring of working practices during construction;

(f) provision of training and information about the importance of 'Ecological Protection Zones' to all construction personnel on site.

The Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be carried out fully in accordance with the approved details.

Renewable Energy 21) Notwithstanding the information submitted with the application, no

development shall take place until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

i) details on how renewable energy measures are to be incorporated into

the proposed development; ii) details of measures to conserve and recycle water to be incorporated

into the proposed development; iii) details of energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the

proposed development; and iv) details of construction materials to be used in the proposed development

with the aim of minimising the use of primary non-sustainable materials.

The approved measures shall be implemented and incorporated into the approved development in line with an implementation timetable to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

Lighting 22) No development shall take place until details of a lighting scheme to serve the

proposed development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall be designed to reduce effects upon sensitive habitats to be retained/created on the site. The details shall include an implementation timetable and the approved lighting scheme shall be provided in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity and agreed implementation timetable.

Floor Space 23) The total retail uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and B1 (a) office floor space shall not

exceed 2,500 sq. metres.

Drainage and Flood Risk 24) No development shall take place until a phased drainage scheme incorporating

sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development in relation to the disposal of surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in

accordance with the approved details before development is first brought into use.

25) Each application for reserved matters shall include for the approval by the

Local Planning Authority details of proposed surfacing materials and surface water drainage including:

i) a plan showing proposed layout and types of surfacing, including

permeable paving in appropriate locations as an integrated part of an overall Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) for the development. The surfacing materials selected shall be of a design and quality appropriate to the location;

ii) a written specification of proposed surfacing materials and operations; iii) the range of SUDS components to be used at source, site and regional

control levels. These should be used comprehensively and appropriately in accordance with best practice as laid out in the CIRIA Guidance manuals, with consideration given in the first instance to utilising water management through soft features and at ground level;

iv) mechanisms to integrate the SUDS scheme with the Green Infrastructure proposals to maximise the potential for improved biodiversity, visual amenity and water quality; and

v) methods for the protection of SUDS and Green Infrastructure during each phase of construction to ensure that ‘soft SUDS’ are adequately established prior to bringing into beneficial use.

26) There must be no new buildings, structures (including gates, walls and fences)

or raised ground levels within 8 metres of the top of any bank of watercourse and/or of any side of an existing culverted watercourse either inside or along the boundary of the site.

ANNEX B CONDITIONS APPEAL B - Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 Commencement and Phasing of Development 1) Application for approval of reserved matters for phase 1 (which will include a minimum of

150 dwellings) shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 12 months from the date of this outline permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 12 months from the date of approval of the first reserved matters application.

2) No development shall take place within any phase of the development without prior

approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto (save for the details of vehicular access into the site from Newland Lane) and the landscaping, including the provision of the on-site recreation/open play space, of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") which shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

3) No development shall take place until a Phasing Plan including details of phasing for the

approved development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Phasing Plan shall include details of:

i) the timing of the provision of infrastructure to serve the proposed development

(including road improvements and drainage facilities) in relation to the provision of any new residential units;

ii) the timing of biodiversity, SUDS and strategic landscaping features; and iii) the timing of the provision of on-site recreation/open play space in relation to the

provision of any new residential units. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.

Drawings and Plans 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans and associated documents:

- Drawing no. P.0742_08 - Site Location Plan - Drawing no. P.0742_01D - Illustrative Sketch Masterplan - Planning Statement prepared by Pegasus Group (October 2012) - Design and Access Statement prepared by Pegasus Group (October 2012) - Landscape and Visual Appraisal prepared by Pegasus Group (October 2012) - Energy Statement/Carbon Analysis Report prepared by FES (October 2012) - Ecological Report prepared by Betts Ecology (November 2011) - Arboricultural Survey prepared by Betts Ecology (November 2011) - Heritage Assessment prepared by Cotswold Archaeology (December 2011) - Ground Conditions Report prepared by GRM (December 2011) - Noise Report prepared by Hoare Lea (October 2012) - Transport Assessment prepared by Travis Baker (November 2012) - Travel Plan prepared by Travis Baker (November 2012) - Flood Risk Assessment, including Drainage Strategy prepared by Travis Baker

(November 2012)

5) All future applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be broadly in accordance

with the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the Design & Access Statement dated October 2012 with regard to:

i) the general areas of development as outlined in the Indicative Masterplan; ii) the Buildings Heights Plan; and iii) the Landscape and Green Infrastructure Strategy Plan.


Roads, Parking and Travel 6) No more than 200 of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until details of

means to form a secondary emergency vehicular access to the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

7) No development, other than the proposed highway works listed below, shall take place

until details of:

i) the improvements, including the widening to 5.5m, to Pulley Lane have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented in accordance with those approved details;

ii) the improvements to the Pulley Lane/A38 junction have been submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling; and

iii) the improvements to provide pedestrian links between the eastern boundary of the

development site through Nightingale Close and Jackdaw Lane to Tagwell Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented prior to the occupation of the 75th dwelling in accordance with those approved details.

8) No development shall take place until the engineering details and specification of the

proposed residential roads, cycle ways, footways, footpaths and highway drains have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the road works necessary to provide access from the publicly maintained highway to those dwellings have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9) The Residential Travel Plan (RTP) hereby approved, dated November 2012 and produced by Travis Baker, shall be implemented and monitored in accordance with the regime contained within the RTP. The targets for mode share shifts set out in the RTP, in order to reduce car travel and increase travel by more sustainable transport modes, must be achieved within 5 years of the first occupation of any property hereby approved. In the event of failing to meet these targets at the end of the 5 year period, a revised RTP shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to address any shortfalls, and where necessary make provision for and promote improved sustainable forms of access to the site. The RTP thereafter shall be implemented and updated in agreement with the Local Planning Authority.


Noise and Construction Management Plan 11) No development shall take place until a noise mitigation scheme designed to minimise the

impact from road traffic such that the noise levels within the gardens of the dwellings do not exceed the recommendations set out in BS8223:1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

12) No development, including demolition or construction activities, shall take place until a

Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan should include the following:

i) details of how to minimise the impact of noise, vibration and dust etc. from

construction and demolition activities and the traffic associated with this development, including a scheme for wheel cleaning;


iii) details in relation to the prevention of pollution of waterways; iv) the provision of temporary drainage measures; v) details of all temporary contractors buildings, plant, storage of materials and

parking for site operatives; vi) delivery times; and vii) restrictions on burning.


Contaminated Land 13) No development shall take place on any phase of the development until that phase has

been subject to a detailed scheme for investigation and recording of contamination of the land and risks to the development, its future uses and surrounding environment. A detailed written report on the findings including proposals and a programme for the remediation of any contaminated areas and protective measures to be incorporated into the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include proposals for the disposal of surface water during remediation. The remediation works shall be carried out and a validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the approved proposals and programme. If during the course of the development further evidence of any type relating to other contamination is revealed, work at the location will cease until such contamination is investigated and remediation measures, approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority have been implemented.

14) No development shall take place until full details of any soil or soil forming materials brought on to the site for use in garden areas, soft landscaping, filling and level raising have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where the donor site is unknown or is brownfield the material must be tested for contamination and suitability for use on site. Full donor site details, proposals for contamination testing

including testing schedules, sampling frequencies and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to import on to the site. The approved testing must then be carried out and validatory evidence (such as laboratory certificates) submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any soil or soil forming materials being brought on to site.

Archaeology 15) No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a

programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.




i) a plan(s) showing the planting layout of proposed tree, hedge, shrub and

grass areas; ii) a schedule of proposed planting - indicating species, size at time of planting

and numbers/densities of plants; iii) a written specification for root barriers and other measures to be used to

ensure planting as outlined in the landscape strategy is achievable in relation to proposed built form;




17) No development shall take place until full details of an Ecological Mitigation and

Enhancement Strategy based on up-to-date survey information is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:

i) updated ecological surveys including a dedicated bat survey; ii) a review of the site's ecological constraints and potential; iii) a description of target habitats and range of species appropriate for the site; iv) extent and location of proposed works; v) details of precautionary and protection measures to ensure protected species and

retained habitats are not harmed during and after construction; vi) appropriate strategies for creating/restoring target habitats or introducing target

species; vii) method statement for site preparation and establishment of target features; viii) sources of habitat materials (e.g. plant stock); and ix) timing of the works.


18) No development shall take place until a Nature Conservation Management Plan shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include:

i) description and evaluation of features to be managed; ii) ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management; iii) aims and objectives of management; iv) appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; v) prescriptions of management actions; vi) preparation of work schedule, including a 5 yearly project register, an annual work

plan and the means by which the plan will be rolled forward over a 25 year period; vii) personnel responsible for implementation of the plan; and viii) monitoring and remedial/contingency measures triggered by monitoring.


19) No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include:

i) an appropriate scale plan showing 'ecological protection zones' where construction

activities are restricted and where protective measures will be installed or implemented;




(a) compliance with legal consents relating to nature conservation; (b) compliance with planning conditions relating to nature conservation; (c) installation of physical protection measures during construction; (d) implementation of sensitive working practices during construction; (e) regular inspection and maintenance of physical protection measures and

monitoring of working practices during construction; (f) provision of training and information about the importance of 'Ecological

Protection Zones' to all construction personnel on site.


Renewable Energy 20) Notwithstanding the information submitted with the application, no development shall take

place until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

i) details on how renewable energy measures are to be incorporated into the proposed development;

ii) details of measures to conserve and recycle water to be incorporated into the proposed development;

iii) details of energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed development; and

iv) details of construction materials to be used in the proposed development with the aim of minimising the use of primary non-sustainable materials.


External Lighting 21) No development shall take place until details of a lighting scheme to serve the proposed

development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall be designed to reduce effects upon sensitive habitats to be retained/created on the site. The details shall include an implementation timetable and the approved lighting scheme shall be provided in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity and implementation timetable.

Drainage and Flood Risk 22) No development shall take place until a drainage scheme incorporating sustainable

drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development in relation to the disposal of surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before development is first brought into use.

23) Each application for reserved matters shall include for the approval by the Local Planning

Authority details of proposed surfacing materials and surface water drainage including:

i) a plan showing proposed layout and types of surfacing, including permeable paving in appropriate locations as an integrated part of an overall Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) for the development. The surfacing materials selected shall be of a design and quality appropriate to the location;

ii) a written specification of proposed surfacing materials and operations; iii) the range of SUDS components to be used at source, site and regional control

levels. These should be used comprehensively and appropriately in accordance with best practice as laid out in the CIRIA Guidance manuals, with consideration given in the first instance to utilising water management through soft features and at ground level;



24) There must be no new buildings, structures (including gates, walls and fences) or raised

ground levels within 8 metres of the top of any bank of watercourse and/or of any side of an existing culverted watercourse either inside or along the boundary of the site.

Inquiry held on 28-31 January, 4–7 and 13-14 February 2014 Land at Pulley Lane, Newland Road and Primsland Way, Droitwich Spa (Appeal A) Land north of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane, Newland, Droitwich Spa (Appeal B) File Refs: APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426

Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Harold Stephens BA MPhil Dip TP MRTPI FRSA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date: 6 June 2014

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Appeal by Barberry Droitwich Ltd (Appeal A) Appeal by Persimmon Homes Limited & Prowting Projects Ltd (Appeal B)

Wychavon District Council

Report: Droitwich Appeals APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1

Inspector’s Report

CONTENTS

Section Subject Page 1 Background and Procedural Matters 2 2 The Case for Wychavon District Council 9 3 The Case for Barberry Droitwich Ltd 14 4 The Case for Persimmon Homes Limited & Prowting

Projects Ltd 45

5 The Case for Save Our Green Open Spaces (SOGOS) 61 6 Interested Persons who appeared at the Inquiry 68 7 Written Representations from Interested Persons 85 8 Conclusions 86 9 Recommendations 119

Appearances 120 Inquiry Documents List 121 Wychavon District Council’s Document List 121 Appellants’ Document List 122 SOGOS’ Document List 123 Interested Persons’ Document List 123

Annex Inspector’s recommended conditions 124



File Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 (APPEAL A) Land at Pulley Lane, Newland Road and Primsland Way, Droitwich Spa • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against

a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Barberry Droitwich Limited against the decision of Wychavon

District Council. • The application Ref W/11/01073/OU, dated 14 August 2012, was refused by notice dated

30 May 2013 • The development proposed is an outline planning application for the development of land

for up to 500 dwellings (Class C3); up to 200 unit care facility (Class C2); provision of mixed use local centre to include shop (Class A1); financial & professional services (Class A2); restaurants & café (Class A3); drinking establishment (Class A4); hot food takeaway (Class A5); offices (Class B1a) and police post; indoor bowls facility; means of access and estate roads; public open space; landscaping and infrastructure at Pulley Lane, Newland Road and Primsland Way.

Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed and planning permission be granted subject to conditions

File Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 (APPEAL B) Land north of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane, Newland, Droitwich Spa • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against

a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Persimmon Homes Limited and Prowting Projects Limited against

the decision of Wychavon District Council. • The application Ref W/12/02336/OU is dated 19 October 2012. • The development proposed is an outline application for the construction of a maximum of

265 dwellings with associated car parking, access, infrastructure provision and open space.

Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed and planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS

1.1 At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Barberry Droitwich Ltd and by Persimmon Homes and Prowting Projects Ltd against the Wychavon District Council. These applications are the subject of separate Reports.

1.2 The Inquiry was held at the Chateau Impney Hotel, Droitwich Spa into these two appeals on 28-31 January, 4–7 and 13-14 February 2014. I made accompanied site visits on 12 and 25 February 2014 to the appeal sites and other sites. I also visited other sites on an unaccompanied basis. I held a Pre Inquiry Meeting in connection with this Inquiry to discuss procedural and administrative arrangements. The Pre Inquiry Meeting was held at the Chateau Impney Hotel, Droitwich Spa on 6 November 2013.

1.3 The appeals were recovered by the Secretary of State (SoS) by a direction, made under section 79 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on 26 June 2013. The reason for this direction is that the appeals involve proposals for residential development of over 150 units or on sites over 5 hectares, which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.



1.4 On the information available at the time of making the direction, the statements of case and the evidence submitted to the Inquiry, the following are the matters on which the SoS needs to be informed for the purpose of his consideration of these appeals:

(i) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the development plan for the area and would deliver a sustainable form of development;

(ii) Whether the proposed development is premature in the light of the emerging SWDP and national guidance;

(iii) Whether the proposed development is necessary to meet the housing needs of the district bearing in mind the housing land supply position;

(iv) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the

area; (v) The effect of the proposals on local highway infrastructure;

(vi) Whether any permission should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take; and

(vii) Whether any planning permission granted should be accompanied by any

planning obligations under section 106 of the 1990 Act and, if so, whether the proposed terms of such obligations are acceptable.

1.5 There are two Statements of Common Ground (SoCG); one of these records the agreed position between Barberry Droitwich Ltd, Persimmon Homes and Prowting Projects and Wychavon District Council (WDC) on general planning matters1 and the other sets out the agreed position between Worcestershire County Council (WCC) and the Appellants on highway and transport matters.2 There are two Section 106 Planning Obligation Agreements,3 and a List of Suggested Conditions for each appeal.4 The Appellants, the Council and other parties have also provided a separate list of documents which each submitted to the Inquiry. Copies of all the proofs of evidence, appendices and summaries have been supplied to the SoS. The document lists are at the end of this Report.

1.6 On 6 March 2014 DCLG’s new Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was issued. This guidance supersedes the `beta mode’ emerging guidance published for consultation on 28 August 2013. The guidance was launched via a Written Ministerial Statement on local planning by Nick Boles.5 Also on 6 March 2014 DCLG cancelled the previous planning guidance documents that are replaced by the new guidance. The parties were invited to make comments in respect of the implications of the PPG on these appeals. I received responses from WDC, Harris Lamb and Pegasus Group. These are grouped together under the reference INQ4. I have taken into account the PPG as a material consideration

1 INQ3 2 BDL10 3 BDL5 and C3 4 C7 and C8 5 Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Planning



in these appeals together with the additional comments submitted by the parties in INQ4.

The Sites and Surroundings

1.7 The appeal sites are located to the south of Droitwich Spa, the largest town in Wychavon District by population, in an area known locally as Yew Tree Hill. A plan (drawing ref: P.0742.09) showing the relationship of the appeal sites to one another and their location in the context of the built up edge of Droitwich Spa can be found in Core Document E3.

The main points for each site are: 1.8 Appeal Site A is outside, but adjacent to, the development boundary of

Droitwich Spa. The site abuts residential development on its eastern, northern and western boundaries. There is also some sporadic development to the south of the site along Newland Lane. The southern boundary adjoins Pulley Lane and Appeal Site B. The red line plan submitted with the application shows the extent of the site boundary and this can be found at Core Document L20.

1.9 The appeal site consists of 34.63 hectares of greenfield land which is

predominantly in agricultural and equine use. The site is divided up into a number of parcels of land which are dissected by hedgerows, private tracks and public rights of way. Newland Road dissects the site on a north south axis. It was previously opened to two way traffic and provided a link to Droitwich Spa town centre. It is now untrafficked (by way of a Traffic Regulation Order which came into force in 1993) between the property known as Casa Colina and the junction with Primsland Way but it is open for pedestrians and cyclists.

1.10 The topography of the site is undulating. The existing residential development

to the north of the site is significantly lower than the appeal site but is separated by open space. The existing residential development to the east of the site is up to 76m AOD. The eastern parcel of Appeal Site A has ground levels that generally fall in a southerly direction towards the existing ditch and hedgeline which forms the common boundary with the Persimmon Homes site (Appeal Site B). Newland Road in places is set in a cutting due to the higher levels of the adjoining residential gardens, fields and land form. The highest part of the overall site is the land adjacent to the water tower. The parcel of land to the west of Newland Road is undulating with ground levels falling away to the north, west and south.

1.11 Land to the south of Newland Lane and Pulley Lane, excluding the

carriageways, is located in the Green Belt. The proposal includes works to sections of carriageway which involves land in the Green Belt. These works are relatively minor and can be undertaken on land within the Appellant’s control. They would not have any adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. No other development is proposed in the Green Belt. The appeal site is not constrained by any other nationally recognised designations such as Schedule Ancient Monuments, Conservation Area, Registered Parks and Gardens, Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The nearest listed building is a Grade II cottage in Hadzor which is about 480m to the east of the appeal site and along the eastern side of the M5. There is a



collection of listed buildings approximately 640m from the northern most part of the appeal site. The listed buildings would not be affected by the proposal.

1.12 Appeal Site B lies outside the development boundary of Droitwich Spa. A site

location plan is included at Core Document M15. The site abuts existing residential development on its eastern boundary, separated here by a narrow belt of public open space. Planning permission was recently granted by WDC for 39 dwellings on an adjoining site within the development boundary known as Newland Hurst (to the south-east of the site) which brings residential properties to the south eastern boundary of the appeal site. Newland Hurst is currently under construction. There is sporadic development to the south of the site along Newland Lane. A short section of the western boundary is defined by Newland Road. The northern boundary is well defined by a hedgerow and ditch, and the remaining boundaries are defined by hedges to the large gardens of adjoining properties.

1.13 The appeal site consists of 12.3ha of greenfield land which is currently in

agricultural and equestrian use. The site is divided up into two parcels of land which are bisected by a hedgerow. Newland Road runs to the west of the site and Newland Lane bounds the southern tip of the site. The site falls from the southeast to the northwest corner of the site, thus making the site entrance from Newland Lane the highest point of the site.

1.14 The appeal site is not constrained by any nationally recognised designations

such as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Conservation Area, Registered Parks and Gardens, Site of Special Scientific Interest, Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The nearest listed building is a Grade II cottage in Hadzor which is about 480m to the east of the appeal site and on the eastern side of the M5.

The Proposals 1.15 With regard to Appeal A the planning application was submitted in outline

form with all matters reserved except for access. A schedule of the application documents and plans on which the SoS is requested to determine the proposal is at BDL 13. The reader should note that the most helpful plan in this schedule is the Indicative Masterplan. The proposed development is described as including the following components:

• Up to 500 dwellings of which 40% (200 dwellings) will be affordable • A care facility (Class C2) comprising 200 units • A local centre comprising of a potential mix of uses including a shop

(Class A1), financial and professional services (Class A2), restaurant and café (Class A3), drinking establishment (Class A4), hot food takeaway (Class A5) and offices (Class B1 (a))

• A police post • An indoor bowls facility • Public open space including sports pitches and equipped children’s play

areas; and • Associated infrastructure

1.16 The proposed access arrangements include the following:



• A new priority junction providing primary access into the site from Pulley Lane

• Widening of the north south section of Newland Road to create a improved pedestrian and cycle route with a new bus and emergency vehicle access

• New signalised junction on Newland Road/Primsland Way including pedestrian crossing with cycle priority

• New signalised junction on Pulley Lane/A38 by the Copcut Elm Public House including pedestrian crossing with cycle priority; and

• Works to Pulley Lane comprising road widening and realigned in parts

1.17 It is envisaged that all off-site works would be carried out under a Section 278 Agreement in consultation and agreement with the Highways Authority. The proposal includes the principles of a landscape framework and landscape design strategy.

1.18 With regard to Appeal B the planning application was submitted in outline

form with all matters reserved except for access. A schedule of the application documents and plans on which the SoS is requested to determine the proposal is at P1. The reader should note that the most helpful plan in this schedule is the Indicative Masterplan. The development comprises the erection of a maximum of 265 dwellings of which 40% (106 dwellings) will be affordable, public open space and equipped children's play together with associated infrastructure.

1.19 The proposed accessing arrangements include the following:

• A new junction providing primary access into the site from Newland Lane;

• Provision of a secondary emergency access off Newland Road; and, • New signalised crossing on Pulley Lane/A38 by the Copcut Elm public

house including pedestrian crossing with cycle priority. 1.20 All off site works would be carried out under a Section 278 Agreement in

consultation and agreement with the Highways Authority. An illustrative Landscape Masterplan is also proposed for the development.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

1.21 The overall development falls within the description at paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 of the 2011 Regulations,6 being an urban development project on a site exceeding 0.5ha. A Screening Opinion was issued by the LPA to the effect the development would be unlikely to have significant impacts on the environment and therefore did not require an EIA. The SoS considered the matter and having taken into account the criteria in Schedule 3 to the above Regulations came to the same view that the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. I agree that the proposed development is not EIA development and therefore it does not require the submission of an Environmental Statement. Notwithstanding this decision, an Environmental

6 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011



Statement was prepared for the development in order to support the outline planning applications and to help inform the environmental design and mitigation for the development.

Planning Policy

1.22 The parties refer to national legislation and to a number of national planning policy documents which are listed at paragraph 4.2 of the SoCG.7 Of particular note is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012). This has the presumption in favour of sustainable development at its heart and this has three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. It is confirmed that applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one such material consideration. Paragraph 215 makes it quite clear that the NPPF can override development plan policy that is not consistent with its provisions. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF indicates that relevant policies for the supply of housing will not be considered up-to-date if the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF indicates that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a whole or unless specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted.

1.23 The development plan for the area includes the saved policies of the Wychavon District Local Plan (WDLP) (June 2006). The following saved policies are considered relevant to these appeals:

• GD1 – Location Strategy for New Development • GD2 – General Development Control • GD3 – Planning Obligations • SR5 – Minimising Car Dependency • SR7 – Green Belts • ENV1 – Landscape Character • ENV4 – Sites of Special Scientific Interest • ENV5 – Sites of Regional or Local Wildlife Importance • ENV6 – Protected Species • ENV7 – Protection of Wider Biodiversity • ENV8 – Protection of Hedgerows, Trees and Woodland • ENV18 – Development of Low to Medium Flood Risk • ENV19 – Surface Water Run Off • COM1 – Mix of Dwellings • COM2 – Affordable Housing • COM10 – Provision of Rural Community Facilities • COM12 – Provision of Public Open Space • SUR1 – Design • SUR2 – Landscape Design • SUR3 – Parking Provision

7 INQ3



1.24 Copies of all of these policies are set out in Core Document A6 and there is no need for me to repeat them here.

1.25 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (WMRSS) (January

2008) formed part of the development plan at the time of the determination of both planning applications. It was, however, revoked on 20 May 2013. Whilst the RSSWM no longer forms part of the development plan, the policies in the RSS Phase 2 Revision Draft Preferred Options document, and the accompanying Panel Report and its evidence base are material considerations in the determination of planning applications and appeals.

1.26 Wychavon District Council is currently participating in the preparation of the

South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP). The SWDP is being prepared by WDC, Malvern Hills District and Worcester City to form a joint Local Plan for the area. The SWDP has been submitted to the SoS for examination. The SWDP Inspector has decided to examine the SWDP in two stages. The stage one hearing sessions, where matters in relation to the proposed level of employment, housing and retail provision set out in the SWDP, were considered in October 2013.

1.27 The SWDP Proposed Submission Document January 20138 seeks to allocate

most new development in locations where there is good access to local services and where transport choice is maximised. The spatial strategy for residential development in the SWDP is outlined in Policy SWDP2 which identifies Droitwich Spa as a main town providing a comprehensive range of local services and employment opportunities and will consequently continue to be the focus of balanced growth.

1.28 For residential development, the SWDP proposes 6 allocations within the

existing Droitwich town boundary indicatively totalling 226 dwellings (Policy SWDP48. Policy SWDP49/1 seeks to allocate land at Copcut Lane for approximately 740 dwellings, 3.5ha of employment uses and a local neighbourhood centre incorporating a range of facilities. This site was granted outline planning permission in January 2013. Neither of the appeal sites is allocated for development in the latest iteration of the SWDP. Other policies in the SWDP include Policy SWDP5: Green Infrastructure; Policy SWDP25: Landscape Character and Policy SWDP29: Sustainable Drainage Systems.

1.29 The Inspector has now published his Interim Conclusions on Stage 1. Whilst

the Inspector has advised that the SHMA’s underlying methodology is essentially sound the three authorities have been advised that the housing target in the SWDP is subject to ‘three fundamental shortcomings’9 and is likely to be ‘substantially’ higher than the 23,200 dwelling figures proposed by the Submission SWDP.10 The Inspector sets out his view as to the method for deriving an objective assessment of housing needs in South Worcestershire and each of the three authorities therein.11 The Councils have commissioned

8 A9 9 CD A10 paragraph 15 10 CD A10 paragraph 40 11 CD A10 paragraphs 44-48



further work to establish a revised housing requirement to inform the SWDP. The draft SWDP and its evidence based documents, including the Inspector’s initial findings, are material considerations in the determination of the appeals.

Supplementary Planning Documents

1.30 The Council has issued a number of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD)

that are of relevance. These include: the Wychavon District Council Affordable Housing SPG (2002); the Wychavon District Council Developer Contributions towards Service Infrastructure SPG (2003); the Wychavon District Council Developer Contributions for Education Facilities SPG (2007); the Wychavon District Council Planning and Wildlife SPD (2008); the Wychavon District Council Water Management SPD (2009); the Wychavon District Council Water Recycling Strategy SPD (2010); the Wychavon District Council Residential Design Guide SPD (2010); and the Wychavon District Council Landscape Proposals – A guide for Developers 2005.

2. THE CASE FOR WYCHAVON DISTRICT COUNCIL (WDC) (Both Appeals) 2.1 In May 2013, the Planning Committee of WDC refused planning applications by

Barberry Droitwich Limited and Persimmon Homes Limited and Prowting Projects Limited on land north of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane, Droitwich Spa. A Special Meeting of the Planning Committee was arranged specifically to consider the two applications. This meeting, on the 16h May 2013, commenced at 1400 hours and finished at 1735 hours.

2.2 Each application was refused by the Planning Committee with the voting being

12 votes for refusal, 0 against and 1 abstention. In refusing the applications, Members of the Planning Committee exercised their own judgement on the merits of each individual case. A healthy and proper public debate was had for both applications. At the heart of the Committee’s consideration was the advice and guidance contained in the NPPF together with other material factors and considerations which were presented before them. The Council’s ability to demonstrate a robust supply of housing land for five years in accordance with the NPPF, together with the appropriate buffer (20%) was a significant and materially determining factor. The Planning Committee felt that the Council had the ability to demonstrate such a robust supply.

2.3 The development plan currently comprises only the saved policies of the

WDLP, the details of which are set out in the SoCG.12 On the Proposals Map, both of the Appeal Sites lie outside the defined boundary of Droitwich Spa and therefore policies for the open countryside apply. The strategy of the WDLP is to concentrate most development on existing settlements in the District to further sustainability objectives, to reduce the need to travel and to safeguard the countryside for its own sake. Policy GD1 is not out of date. Policy SR1 of the WDLP sets a target for housing provision up to March 2011 and allocates sites for that purpose. Four of the allocated sites which remain undeveloped are being carried forward in the emerging SWDP. In this respect it is still

12 INQ3



therefore a relevant policy. Policy ENV1 and ENV8 of the WDLP relate to protection and enhancement of the landscape and are also relevant. None of these policies are out of date. They are consistent with the NPPF.

2.4 The NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic,

social and environmental. Appeal A contains very little by way of employment creating land uses. Appeal B does not provide any employment creating land uses. There is an economic dimension, albeit not as much as might be generated by a truly mixed use development. There is a social dimension by the provision of jobs, the provision of housing, particularly affordable housing and by the provision of care facilities. As far as the environmental dimension is concerned, there would be some enhancement in terms of bio-diversity but on balance the impact upon the landscape overall is negative. It is clear that in 2012, the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. In those circumstances some WDLP policies were considered to be out of date and considerable weight was given to the benefits arising from development. The position has changed significantly in the last 18 months.

2.5 The NPPF identifies 12 core planning principles of the planning system which

should underpin both plan making and decision making. The appeal proposals are not in accord with the development plan nor the emerging SWDP and therefore both appeals are in conflict with the first bullet point which requires that planning should be genuinely plan led. The impact on the landscape is such that the proposed development would not enhance the place in which people currently live. The proposals would deliver homes. However, they would not deliver sufficient business and industrial opportunities such as to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development. Appeal A would not promote truly mixed use development and Appeal B contains no uses other than residential.

2.6 Neither of the Appeal Sites is well located in respect of walking or public

transport and for that reason the location is not sustainable. An attempt has been made with Appeal A to make it more sustainable by introducing a bus route and an indication of bus services but it would not be viable in the long term. Appeal A also includes a proposal for a local centre to provide a focus and to improve sustainability but it fails to achieve that objective. Both appeals conflict with many of the core planning principles set out in the NPPF.

2.7 The SWDP has been submitted to the SoS and the Examination in Public has

commenced and is therefore at an advanced stage. The Local Plan Inspector published some initial findings in which he has sought additional information from the LPAs and indicated that the housing land requirement may need to be increased substantially. The LPAs have indicated that they will respond to the Local Plan Inspector and it will then be for the Inspector to assess whether the modified proposals satisfy his concerns and to fix the housing land requirement. The Council’s intention to maintain the current spatial strategy would not necessarily require a significant increase in the level of housing in Droitwich Spa. Granting planning permission for either or both of these Appeals would defeat the plan led system. To allow either of the Appeals would pre-judge the outcome of the Examination in Public, particularly with regard to scale location and phasing of development.



2.8 In light of this, the good progress of the emerging SWDP, the substantial scale of the proposed development and the sensitivity of the local landscape to such significant change, the Planning Committee felt justified in refusing the applications. Influencing this judgement was the fact that the Council had worked, and continues to work, tirelessly towards approving suitable and sustainable forms of housing development where such sites would not prejudice the strategy of the SWDP. Since the Lioncourt Homes (Honeybourne) decision APP/H1840/A/12/2171339 was published in August 2012, the Council has listened to and acted upon the advice of the Inspector. Numerous housing proposals beyond the WDLP development boundaries have been approved. Details of these are contained within Mr Brown’s evidence.

2.9 Evidence has been submitted about the status and journey of the emerging

development plan which will replace the WDLP and provide a plan led approach to the south Worcestershire authorities of Malvern Hills, Worcester City and Wychavon. It is unusual for an emerging development plan to have a completely smooth and seamless journey through its various stages of preparation to adoption, particularly where it is a joint plan. The SWDP is no different in that regard. The Inspector has not found the plan unsound. He has merely requested additional information which the South Worcestershire Councils have duly provided. The Examination in Public reconvened on 13 March 2014. The housing requirement for the district is as yet undetermined and the precise outcome cannot be predicted – these are matters for the local plan process. The Council draws attention to the recent appeal decision at Kentford, Newmarket (November 2013) where the Inspector concluded that the proposal would be premature. That appeal was for a much smaller scale of development than Appeal Site B, the site was in a sustainable location and there was only 3.15 years supply of housing land.

2.10 It is agreed amongst all parties that it is not a matter for these Section 78

appeals to determine what the appropriate housing target is for the SWDP. The Council’s position is set out in a statement 13 submitted to this Inquiry. During the course of this Inquiry the Council has cooperated with both Appellants in an effort to agree various positions of common ground, including housing land supply, which it is believed will assist the Inspector in formulating his recommendations to the SoS.

2.11 It is a matter of fact that the Council has demonstrated that with permissions,

commitments and the inclusion of emerging sites, which are coming forward now so cannot be entirely discounted as suggested by the Appellants, it can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land with the relevant buffer. The evidence is set out in Mr Brown’s supplementary proof and Appendix A. In the light of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in the Hunston Properties case, the Council accepts that reliance on the WMRSS Phase 2 Panel figures in relation to the objective assessment of need is no longer appropriate, even though they remain the last publicly tested figures.

2.12 The housing figure relied on for the purposes of these appeals, is derived from

the 2008 household projections, as in the Council’s view these represent the

13 C11



most robust credible figures. Tested against these figures, the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land recognising that there is a lapse rate built into the supply calculations. Against a total requirement of 10,133 dwellings, equivalent to 422 dwellings per annum, the Council can demonstrate 6.76 years’ housing supply as set out at Appendix A of Mr Brown’s Supplementary Proof of Evidence. This includes a 2.6% vacancy rate and a 0.8% allowance for second homes. Previously against an annual requirement of 475 dwellings, set out in the WMRSS Panel Report, 5.65 years’ housing supply could be demonstrated. The Council has provided clear evidence to demonstrate that each of the components is `deliverable’ within the context of footnote 11 of paragraph 47 of the NPPF. It also supports the decision of Lang J in William Davis and others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others and her interpretation of paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

2.13 The PPG at paragraph: 031Reference ID: 3-031-20140306 provides advice on

what constitutes a 'deliverable site' in the context of housing policy. This advice is clear in that planning permission or allocation in a development plan is not a prerequisite for a site being deliverable in terms of the 5-year supply. If there are no significant constraints to overcome (for example infrastructure) sites not allocated within a development plan or without planning permission can be considered capable of being delivered within a five year time frame. The Council also relies on the results of a deliverability questionnaire sent out to all the promoters of the SWDP sites the response to which was positive.14

2.14 As is now commonplace with housing appeals, the Appellants have attempted

to discount various sites and label them as undeliverable for a variety of reasons. However, none of the Appellants' evidence demonstrates significant constraints to development on identified housing sites. Indeed the Council has omitted from its evidence sites where significant constraints exist. None of the sites presented to the Inspector in support of 5-year land supply have significant infrastructure or other constraints.

2.15 Both appeal sites lie in open countryside, outside the defined settlement

boundary, as set out in the Development Plan and are contrary to the development strategy of the WDLP Policy GD1. The impact of Appeal Site A is particularly significant in terms of harm to character and appearance of the area but also in visual terms. The existing openness would be eroded and the development, on elevated land, straddling the land to the east and west of Newland Road, would significantly encroach into the open countryside, which currently provides an attractive contrast to the urban built form of Droitwich Spa, lying to the north and east. The proposed development on Appeal Site A would be visually intrusive and have major/moderate adverse impacts on landscape character and in terms of visual impact, on a permanent basis, despite the mitigation proposed.

2.16 The proposals for Newland Road would be particularly damaging and would

turn a rural lane into an engineered, urbanised bus route, detracting significantly from the existing character and causing significant adverse visual

14 See MDB17 and MDB18



impact to those living nearby and those using the lane. The proposed open space areas within the scheme (Appeal A) needs to be considered in the context of a significant scale of housing development, arranged in blocks around the site, including development on the higher parts of it. The mitigation planting, whilst seeking to ameliorate the impact of the development, would not in the Council’s view, alter the fact that a very substantial development is being placed on the site, with the effect that Droitwich Spa would extend southwards, and one of the last remaining sections of this character type in this location (settled farmlands) would disappear. The adverse impacts on public rights of way would also be very significant indeed.

2.17 Taken in isolation, the scheme for Appeal Site B, would have less impact than

Appeal Site A, but it is still considered to be harmful, lying as it does close to the interface between two Landscape Character Areas (as set out in Ms Illman’s evidence), and clearly impacting on both. It would also give rise to significant adverse visual impacts (including the public rights of way), which are assessed as major/moderate adverse in the long term. The cumulative effect of both schemes in landscape character and visual terms would be manifestly significant and harmful.

2.18 The Council acknowledges the Leasowes Road and Laurels Road, Offenham

appeal decision - APP/H1840/A/13/2203924 - which was published during this Inquiry. Whilst that decision concludes that Wychavon does not have a sufficiently robust 5 year housing land supply, it also, typically, does not give any indication as to what level of supply the Council does have. The appeal decision does not set out what target the Council should be working to. It is important to note that it does not conclude that there is a chronic shortage of housing in the district, as is often read in appeal decisions across the country. The decision does recognise at paragraph 33 the fact that there has been an upturn in completions since 2009/10.

2.19 It is a fact that the Offenham decision is a material consideration in the

determination of this appeal. However, it is also a fact that this Inspector has heard different submissions from different witnesses on a matter which seemingly changes on a weekly basis. It is therefore apparent that the Inspector is entitled to make an independent judgement on these appeals based on the evidence he has heard and he is not bound by the decision at Offenham.

2.20 The Council also referred to the recent decision by the SoS at Forest Road,

Branston, Burton-on-Trent. It highlighted a number of points which distinguished the case from the appeals before this Inquiry. These included: (i) the appeal involved a different context in a different area; (ii) it involved 300 dwellings; (iii) work on the new East Staffordshire Local Plan had just commenced whereas the SWDP had progressed further (iv) the absence of a five-year housing land supply was common ground (v) landscape and visual harm formed the core of the Council’s case and the SoS agreed that any major adverse effects of the appeal proposal would be confined to the short term, in the long term, it would not have significant adverse effects on landscape character or visual amenity. The situation at Yew Tree Hill was very different. Overall the Council argued that very little weight should be given to this East Staffordshire decision.



2.21 Turning to the planning balance, it is submitted that should the Inspector find that the Council has a robust supply of housing land sufficient for 5 years, with the additional buffer, then the paragraph 14 presumption in the NPPF does not apply. Consequently, the weight attributed to the saved policies of the WDLP would be significant and these appeals, being contrary to those saved policies and recognised as causing significant and demonstrable harm to the local landscape character, should be dismissed.

2.22 The Council invites the Inspector to come to this conclusion and recommend to

the SoS that both appeals be dismissed.

3. THE CASE FOR BARBERRY DROITWICH LTD (APPEAL A)

3.1 These submissions are structured around the main matters set out by the Inspector at the Pre-Inquiry Meeting on 6 November 2013. Before addressing each in turn, it is important to set out the context for these appeals.

(i) The Honeybourne Appeal 3.2 On 24 August 2012 the Planning Inspectorate issued an appeal decision on

land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne.15 That decision involved this same LPA. It was made after the publication of the NPPF. The following key conclusions need to be taken from it: (a) the Sedgefield approach should be used in relation to this LPA; (b) this LPA is a 20% authority in relation to buffers; (c) a 10% lapse rate was appropriate; (d) the windfalls figure presented by the Council was not based on ‘compelling evidence’ the appropriate figure should be between 55 and 58 dwellings pa;(e) the Council did not have a 5-year supply. They could demonstrate between 1.9 and 2.76 years supply and ‘the Council has serious housing land supply problems’; (f) full weight could not be given to the saved policies of the Local Plan, any weight given would be dependent on their consistency with the NPPF, in accordance with paragraphs 214 and 215 NPPF; and (g) the policies relating to housing provision were time expired and out of date so limited weight could be given to them.16

3.3 Quite properly, the decision in Honeybourne affected the officer’s advice in his report to Committee. He stated: ‘…members will be aware of recent appeal decisions in Honeybourne such as APP/H1840/A/12/2171339 in which the Inspector concluded that in respect of paragraphs 214 and 215 of the Framework full weight cannot be given to the saved policies of the Local Plan because the plan was not adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and any weight that is given will depend on the degree of consistency with the framework. The Inspector further concluded that the housing provision policies outlined in the Local Plan were out of date so limited weight could be given to them.’17

15 Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne, APP/H1840/A/12/2172588, CD D12. 16 Ibid. paragraphs 19, 24, 36, 37, 41, 42 17 Officer’s Report to Committee, CD H1, under heading ‘Wychavon District Local Plan’ (WDLP).



3.4 BDL invites the Inspector to give significant weight to the findings of the Inspector in the Honeybourne appeal decision which remains relevant to this Inquiry and especially in relation to main matter (iii).

(ii) The recommendation and reasons for refusal (RFR)

3.5 The planning officer for WDC recommended approval of both schemes which have been considered at this Inquiry.18 Importantly, in relation to the Barberry scheme he reached the following conclusions:

‘it is advised that for the purposes of directing the location of new housing, saved Policy GD1 is out of date and should therefore be given limited weight in the decision making process.’ ‘However, it remains so that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land with the 20% buffer imposed by the Inspectorate and taking into account the need to meet the historical undersupply within the first 5 years (the Sedgefield Approach) against the WMRSS Panel Report or the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment.’

With regard to the 25 April 2012 Report on Wychavon’s Housing Land Supply it stated: ‘The report shows a shortfall of approximately 1.66 years against the WMRSS figure and 0.07 years against the SHMA figure. Consequently, significant weight must be given to paragraph 49 of the Framework and the Council’s lack of 5 year supply and the need to promote sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 14 and 7 of the Framework.’ ‘…in this instance the grant of planning permission would clearly impact on decisions to be made about the scale and location of development in and around Droitwich, but it does not have wider ramifications for the overall Development Plan process. On this basis it would be difficult for the Council to “demonstrate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process”’ ‘It should be borne in mind that in the planning balance and having regard to the principle of the development in planning policy terms, the harm to the landscape – bearing in mind the lack of any national designation or emerging local designation – is outweighed by the wider benefits of increased housing in the district and the contribution this proposal would make towards meeting the housing land supply requirement imposed by the Framework.’

3.6 The officer’s report concluded:

‘Overall, the proposed development is considered to achieve an economic, social and environmental role and therefore the proposal can be considered sustainable in line with paragraph 14.

18 CD H1



All other material planning considerations relevant to the proposed development have been carefully judged with the overall conclusion that on balance there would be no significant and demonstrable adverse harm to landscape, heritage assets, highway safety, residential amenity, nature conservation, flooding and drainage. Any harm acknowledged in this report would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme in assisting to meet identified housing need.’19

3.7 Despite the officer’s advice, the Committee refused planning permission for BDL’s scheme and gave four reasons for so doing. First, on the basis of prematurity. The second contended that Wychavon could not support the Sedgefield method of calculation and without it the LPA could demonstrate a 5-year supply. The third was an amalgamation of landscape impacts, prematurity and housing need. The final reason was given on the basis of the lack of a s106 Agreement.

3.8 Under Article 31(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 when refusing planning permission the Local Authority must ensure that the Decision Notice states ‘clearly and precisely their full reasons for the refusal, specifying all policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision.’ It is noted that the Council has not included any Local Plan policies in any of its non-section 106 related RFR. As such, it can be concluded that in so far as the Council has relied at this Inquiry on the alleged contravention of certain local plan policies by the proposal, this is an ex post facto exercise which did not form the basis for the original refusal.

3.9 Indeed, the refusal reasons should be afforded even less weight following the

insight which Cllr Jennings gave as to why these reasons were chosen. He stated that the reasons were drafted in outline prior to the Planning Committee meeting ‘in case they were needed’20 Under cross-examination it became clear that the Council had chosen the reasons on the basis that ‘they could be defended at appeal.’21 It seems that the reasons do not reflect what appeared to be the genuine concerns of the Council as stated by Cllr Morris: the capacity of a local sewage plant, health infrastructure, access, drainage and adequate education facilities. None of these issues have been raised by the Council at this Inquiry.

(ii) The Local Plan Context

3.10 Under s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 this decision

must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF reinforces this approach and highlights that the planning system is ‘plan-led’.22 The starting point therefore, is the Council’s development plan. The policies should be individually scrutinised in order to assess what weight can be afforded to each in

19 Ibid, section 7 20 Cllr Jennings cross-examination, 6 February 2013 21 Ibid 22 NPPF paragraph 196.



accordance with whether they are ‘out-of-date’ and/or consistent or inconsistent with the NPPF.23

3.11 It is material that the WDLP was only intended to run up until 2011. Further, the Saving Letter (written on 29 May 2009) made it clear that policies were being saved in the expectation that they would be replaced ‘promptly’.24 It also stated: ‘Following 23 June 2009 the saved policies should be read in context. Where policies were originally adopted some time ago, it is likely that material considerations, in particular the emergence of new national and regional policy and also new evidence will be afforded considerable weight in decisions. In particular, we would draw your attention to the importance of reflecting policy in Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments in relevant decisions.’25

3.12 Moreover, weight can only be given to each of the policies depending upon

their consistency with the NPPF’.26 The Inspector in the Honeybourne appeal decision recognised this on 24 August 2012 stating:

‘the policies relating to housing provision are time expired and are out of date so limited weight can be given to these policies. Any interpretation of policies within the WDLP which sought to restrict a ready supply of housing and therefore adversely impact on the NPPF requirement to “boost significantly the supply of housing” would clearly conflict with the NPPF.’ 27

3.13 During this Inquiry the Council has admitted that Policy SR1 is out of date.28

The Council also admitted that this, along with a lack of a 5-year supply, gives rise to the application of paragraph 14 NPPF.29 It is submitted that Policy GD1 is also out of date. As stated by Chris May30 in evidence two factors lead to this conclusion: the strategic context for this policy has disappeared and the policy clearly contains a date within it: it seeks to direct development only up to 2011. It is therefore ‘out of date’ on its own terms.

3.14 The prematurity reason for refusal relies upon the Council’s emerging plan, the SWDP formed jointly with Malvern Hills and Worcester City. This plan is in a state of disarray. The Interim Conclusions of Inspector Clews have often been referred to during this Inquiry. They state:

23 NPPF paragraphs 14, 49 and 215 24 ‘Saving Letter’, 29 May 2009, CD A16 25 Ibid 26 NPPF paragraph 215 and Anita Coleman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and North Devon District Council and other [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin) CD C4 27 Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne APP/H1840/A/12/2171339 28 Malcolm Brown Cross-examination 28 January 2014 29 Ibid 30 Examination-in-Chief, 6 February 2014



‘the analysis in the February 2012 SHMA does not provide a reliable basis for identifying the level of housing need in South Worcestershire over the Plan period.’31 They concluded: ‘…it appears from the evidence before me so far that the objectively assessed housing need figure for the Plan period is likely to be substantially higher than the 23,200.’32

3.15 During this Inquiry, the Council has submitted another figure to the

Examination Inspector (between 26,700 and 27,343 dwellings for the SWDP area.33 Anthony Bateman has provided a note to this Inquiry which highlights that the Council has not done what the EiP Inspector asked them to34 and raises concerns namely: that the Council has declined to use the previously produced SHMA which the Inspector considered had a sound methodology, the employment forecasts are not based on the 2011 household projections as required by the Inspector and the 2006 starting figure is not robust.

3.16 The re-submitted figures will now have to be examined by the Inspector. This,

together with the rest of the Local Plan process will involve:

(a) Assessment of the approach and new figures offered to the Inspector by the Council together with the consideration of objectors’ comments therein and alternative approaches;

(b) The confirmation of an adequate housing figure; (c) A political ‘sign-off’ process by the SWDP Local Authorities whereby

each agrees to accept additional amounts of development; (d) A future site search process to find where to place the additional

housing; (e) Public consultation on those sites; (f) Strategic and Environmental Impact assessments of the sites; (g) An examination of the new sites by the Inspector; (h) If these are found to be sound, implementation of the plan.35

It is inevitable that this plan will take a lot longer to come to fruition than is currently projected. Mr Brown accepts that the SWDP will not be adopted until 2015: it may be longer than that. Clearly, the SWDP can be given very little weight in this s78 appeal.

3.17 Finally, in relation to the plan which has been submitted, the Inspector is also

asked to note the following:

(a) The SWDP allocates sites outside of settlement boundaries – offending Policy GD1;

31 Malcolm Brown Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5, paragraph 41 32 Ibid paragraph 49 33 Amion Consulting , January 2014, CD C6 page 25 34 Note by A C Bateman 4 February 2014, BDL 19 35 Chris May, Examination in Chief, 6 February 2014.



(b) Worcester City and Malvern Hills (with whom this Council is entering into a joint plan) are both severely constrained in terms of where they can accept development. It is BDL’s case that `Wychavon will end up having to take the lion’s share of the additional housing36

(c) Current and proposed policy in Wychavon steers housing direction to Droitwich, Evesham and Pershore. There is no longer any priority afforded to Evesham over Droitwich;

(d) By reason of (a)-(c) above Droitwich is a prime candidate for future selection and the appeal site is one of the few unrestricted areas available.

Main matter (i): The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the development plan for the area and would deliver a sustainable form of development;

A. Consistency with the development plan 3.18 As noted above, the reasons for refusal did not allege the breach of any local

plan policies as a result of this proposal. During this Inquiry, in an ex post facto effort, the Council has relied upon Policies SR1, GD1, ENV1 and ENV8. Each policy is addressed below. It is acknowledged that bringing forward housing required by the 5 year supply obligation inescapably creates tension with Policy SR1 and Policy GD1. However, these policies ought to be considered out-of-date and afforded limited weight in this decision in accordance with the terms of the Saving Letter.

3.19 This development falls to be considered under paragraph 14 of the NPPF by

virtue of two reasons. First, it is BDL’s case that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply (this is dealt with under Main Matter 3). Accordingly, paragraph 49 of the NPPF applies. It states:

‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’

As such, the Council’s policies which are relevant for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. It is contended that these must include Policy SR1, Policy GD1 and Policy ENV1 as will be considered further below.

3.20 Secondly, paragraph 14 applies because ‘relevant policies are out-of-date.’ The most important out-of-date policies would be those relating to housing provisions: there are none for the period post 2011. As paragraph 14 states:

‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. …

36 Put to Malcolm Brown in Cross Examination, 28 January 2014



For decision-taking this means:

• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Policies SR1 and GD1

3.21 The LPA has admitted that Policy SR1 is out-of-date.37 BDL’s case is that Policy

GD1 is also out of date. The LPA has misunderstood the concept of a policy being out-of-date and so rely upon the fact that Inspector Stephens afforded some (if limited) weight to that policy at Honeybourne.38 This argument is based on a false reading of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The statutory requirement in s38(6) PCPA 2004 obliges the decision maker to address the development plan. This requirement is found in various places in the NPPF. The task for the decision maker is to assess each policy, determine the extent to which it is out-of-date and then weigh it accordingly. As such, the Planning Committee report, and the decisions in Honeybourne and Offenham are completely reconcilable.

3.22 In order to assess the extent to which the relevant policies are out-of-date one

has to understand the following:

(a) The basis upon which these policies were saved; (b) The extent to which the planning context has changed since they

were adopted/saved; (c) Whether they are time-expired on their face; and (d) How far they are consistent with NPPF policies.

3.23 First, it has been highlighted above that the relevant Local Plan policies were

only saved on the basis that they would be replaced ‘promptly’39. Further, the Local Plan was adopted pursuant to PPG3, following which PPS3 represented a step-change towards the delivery of housing. This change is continued in the relevant provisions of the NPPF. Clearly, the LPA’s reliance on Policy GD1 which seeks to constrain development within 2005 boundaries is not listening to what the Saving Letter has said. That letter also stated that the LPA should have regard to more up to date advice. This is consistent with the NPPF’s paragraph 215 requirement that Local Plan policies should be weighed in accordance with their consistency with that document. As the Inspector said at Honeybourne ‘it

37 Malcolm Brown Cross Examination, 28 January 2014 38 Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne, APP/H1840/A/12/2172588, CD D12. 39 ‘Saving Letter’, 29 May 2009, CD A16



is simply not good enough to regard saved policies as an opportunity to refuse rather than grant planning permission.’40

Policy ENV1

3.24 In order to understand whether policies are consistent with the NPPF, one has

to understand the purpose/purposes of the policies. Indeed, some Local Plan policies have more than one purpose. In so far as it seeks to protect the countryside, Policy ENV1 can be said to be consistent with the NPPF. However, in so far as it seeks to halt necessary development, it cannot be said to be consistent. This much is clear from the case of Anita Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others.41 In that case the court considered restrictive landscape policies similar to Policy ENV1. The judge concluded:

‘These policies are, in my view, on their own express terms very far removed from the “cost/benefit” approach of the NPPF. The policies as such do not permit any countervailing economic or similar benefit to be weighed in the scales. A submission that such benefits may be implicitly taken into account would be immediately rejected as running directly contrary to both the language and rationale of the relevant policies.’42

3.25 The cost/benefit approach of the NPPF is evident from the three-strand nature

of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.43 As paragraph 8 of the NPPF makes clear: ‘[T]hese roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent…Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.’44

3.26 As in the Anita Colman case, where Policy ENV1 is used to restrict housing, it cannot be seen to be consistent with the cost/benefit approach of the NPPF. As such it must be afforded limited or no weight in this decision-making process. Policy ENV8

3.27 Policy ENV8, however, is more flexible and can be considered as consistent with the cost/benefit approach in the NPPF. It states:

‘Development proposals requiring planning permission will not be permitted where they would have an adverse impact on hedgerows, trees or woodland, their setting or their wider habitat, where such features are considered to be important for their visual, historic or ecological value of the area.

40 Honeybourne CD D12 paragraph.31 41 [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin), CD C4 42 [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin) per Parker J at paragraph.22, CD C4 43 NPPF, paragraph 7 44 NPPF, paragraph 8



Removal of hedgerows, trees or woodland will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will benefit the visual, historic or ecological value of the area. All proposals affecting trees, hedgerows or woodland will need to be accompanied by an assessment that justifies the approach taken.’

3.28 It is BDL’s contention that this proposal does not conflict with Policy ENV8. The proposal brings a net positive gain of 1,385 metres of hedgerow.45 There would be a net positive gain of 2 hectares of scrub and woodland mosaic46 and 0.9 hectare of orchards.47

B. Is the Development Sustainable?

3.29 This development falls to be considered under paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The

Inquiry has heard argument from the Council that a strained interpretation of the paragraph 14 presumption should be applied. The Council has stated that it will rely upon the judgement of Mrs Justice Lang in William Davis and others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others48 where the judge added an extra ‘gloss’ on paragraph 14 NPPF. At paragraph 37 of that judgement she ruled that a development must be found to be sustainable before the presumption applies. It states:

‘In my judgement, the Inspector and the Secretary of State directed themselves correctly by asking the question whether the proposed development was “sustainable development”. At the Inquiry, the Claimants did not dissent from the Inspector’s analysis that the fourth main issue was “whether the appeal scheme represents sustainable development, to which the Framework’s “presumption in favour” should apply” (paragraph 317)…I accept Mr Maurici’s submission that paragraph 14 NPPF only applies to a scheme which has been found to be sustainable development. It would be contrary to the fundamental principles of NPPF if the presumption in favour of development in paragraph 14 applied equally to sustainable and non-sustainable development.’

3.30 It is submitted that this is an incorrect interpretation of that paragraph. First, the wording of paragraph 14 itself does not support this view. The paragraph states: ‘where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless;

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’

45 Patrick Downes, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 6 46 Ibid 47 Ibid 48 [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin), CD C6



The paragraph clearly relates to all ‘development proposals’ it does not qualify this with an extra test of sustainability. It is therefore wrong to read such a test into the paragraph. The test also ignores the balancing exercise in paragraph 14. It is that exercise which determines whether or not development is sustainable. In the ‘Lang’ interpretation there is no identified means by which sustainability can be assessed.

3.31 Secondly, the weight of High Court authority runs contrary to Lang J’s view.

Three judgements from Mr Justice Hickinbottom at Stratford49, Mr Justice Males at Tewkesbury50 and Mr Justice Parker in North Devon51 demonstrate the correct reading of paragraph 14. In the Stratford case Mr Justice Hickinbottom stated at paragraph 12: ‘If the authority cannot demonstrate a five-year plus buffer supply of housing land at the time of a planning application for housing development, then that weighs in favour of a grant of permission. In particular, in those circumstances, (i) relevant housing policies are to be regarded as out-of-date, and hence of potentially restricted weight; and (ii) there is a presumption of granting permission unless the adverse impacts of granting permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or other NPPF policies indicate that development should be restricted in any event.’

3.32 In the Tewkesbury case Mr Justice Males agreed, stating at paragraph 20: ‘Accordingly both before and after the issue of the NPPF, the need to ensure a five year supply of housing land was of significant importance. Before the NPPF the absence of such a supply would result in favourable consideration of planning applications, albeit taking account also of other matters such as the spatial vision for the area concerned. After the NPPF, if such a supply could not be demonstrated, relevant policies would be regarded as out of date, and therefore of little weight, and there would be a rebuttable presumption in favour of the grant of planning permission. All of this would have been well understood by local planning authorities. An authority which was not in a position to demonstrate a five year supply of hsouing land, would have recognised, or ought to have recognised, that on any appeal to the Secretary of State from a refusal of permission there would be at least a real risk that an appeal would succeed and permission would be granted.’ Further, at paragraph 49: ‘…(2) the need for a five year housing supply was a material (and in fact the most important material) consideration; (3) Tewkesbury was unable to demonstrate such a supply in this case; (4) accordingly a presumption in favour of granting permission applied…’

49 Stratford on Avon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2074 (Admin) CD C2 at paragraph 12 50 Tewkesbury Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2013] EWHC 286 (Admin) CD C3 at paragraphs 20 and 49 51 Anita Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin) CD C4



3.33 In North Devon (the case of Anita Colman) Mr Justice Parker also agreed, at paragraph 5: ‘Paragraph 14 of the NPPF refers to a presumption in favour of “sustainable development” as a central feature of the NPPF in relation to both plan-making and decision-taking. In the context of decision-taking, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is given expression in two ways. The first is by approving development proposals that accord with the development plan. The second is to grant permission where the development plan is absent, silent or where relevant policies are “out-of-date” unless any adverse impacts of granting permission for the proposed development “would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the [NPPF] taken as a whole”.’

3.34 Thus, three High Court judges have disagreed with Lang J. Given this, together with the clear wording of paragraph 14, it is submitted that this Inspector should prefer the view that there is no extra test of sustainability included in paragraph 14, not least because the other three judges’ interpretation enables sustainable development to be measured within the balance of paragraph 14.

3.35 In any event, even if one followed Lang J’s interpretation of the paragraph 14 test, it is submitted that this scheme is indeed sustainable. Mr Downes’ proof of evidence and also his Appendix 6 demonstrates this. In summary:

(a) The scheme offers a number of economic benefits foremost among

these is the amount of jobs the scheme would create. In terms of house building the evidence states that for every new home built two new jobs would be provided for a year.52 It is expected that there would be 190 construction personnel on site at any one time.53 The Care Facility would also provide jobs, not only in construction but also in order to run the centre. Patrick Downes estimates this to be between 105 and 125 jobs.54 Finally, it is expected that the local centre would provide 40 jobs.55

(b) The scheme also offers a number of environmental benefits. The

development has been landscape-led and affects no international or national designations. There would be a net positive gain in terms of hedgerows, field margins, ponds, broadleaf woodland, scrub, orchards and wetland.56 These habitats would lead to a net positive gain in invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, farmland birds and bats.57 The only species resulting in a neutral/minor negative effect is the badger. However, mitigation measures can be provided to create replacement setts in order to minimise the potential impact.58

52‘Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England’, November 2011, Executive Summary paragraph.11, CD A3 53 Economic Statement, paragraph 5.7.5, CD L17 54 Patrick Downes, Proof of Evidence, para.7.93 55 Economic Statement paragraph 5.7.5, CD L17 56 Patrick Downes, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 6 57 Ibid 58 Ibid



(c) The proposal offers a number of social benefits. These include: the

provision of the local centre and the bowls facility which has been requested by the Council. The provision of the care facility would also meet an existing need in the district. The Worcestershire Extra Care Housing Strategy details that there is a need for 2,600 units.59 Finally, the contribution of this scheme to meet some of the affordable housing deficit in the area cannot be underestimated. The importance of this will be dealt with in detail under Main matter 3.

(d) In conclusion on main matter (i), it is significant that no development

plan policy was referred to in the reasons for refusal as such the Council did not at the time of the refusal take the view that this scheme offended any Local Plan policies. Secondly, the policies as they relate to the supply of housing land are out of date, both because Wychavon cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply and because the policies are time limited to 2011 and are being applied in a manner inconsistent with the NPPF. As such the paragraph 14 presumption applies to this scheme. The scheme is indeed sustainable as all of the aforementioned factors demonstrate.

Main matter (ii): Whether the proposed development is premature in the light of the emerging SWDP and national guidance; 3.36 The starting point in approaching a prematurity argument is the guidance

contained in ‘The Planning System: General Principles’.60 The relevant parts state: ‘In some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity where a DPD is being prepared or is under review, but it has not yet been adopted. This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD. A proposal for development which has an impact on only a small area would rarely come into this category. Where there is a phasing policy, it may be necessary to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity if the policy is to have effect.’61 ‘Otherwise, refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will not usually be justified. Planning applications should continue to be considered in the light of current policies. However, account can also be taken of policies in emerging DPDs. The weight to be attached to such policies depends upon the stage of preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached. For example:

59 EiP Inspector Interim Conclusions, Malcolm Brown Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5, paragraph 73 60 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, ‘The Planning System: General Principles’, paragraphs 17-19 61 Ibid. Paragraph 17



• Where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question.

• Where a DPD has been submitted for examination but no representations have been made in respect of relevant policies, then considerable weight may be attached to those policies because of the strong possibility that they will be adopted. The converse may apply if there have been representations which oppose the policy. However, much will depend on the nature of those representations and whether there are representations in support of particular policies.’62

3.37 Finally, it states: ‘Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the planning authority will need to demonstrate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process.’63

3.38 The NPPF confirms the ‘General Principles’. Paragraph 216 states: ‘From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

● the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

● the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and

● the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).’

3.39 The Beta Guidance takes a very similar stance. It states: ‘While emerging plans may acquire weight during the plan-making process, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework – and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development – arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than in exceptional circumstances (where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account). Such circumstances are likely to be limited to situations where both:

62 Ibid. Paragraph 18 63 Ibid paragraph 19



(a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or neighbourhood plan; and

(b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but has not yet been

adopted.’64

3.40 Two High Court decisions last year have also provided guidance as to how a prematurity reason is to be approached. The cases demonstrate that very substantial development can be permitted within the exercise of planning judgement without falling foul of the prematurity principle. In Tewkesbury Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others65 the judge considered two developments amounting to one thousand homes in total. In that decision Males J decided that the SoS’s conclusion that developments were not premature was correct and gave the following guidance on prematurity arguments. At paragraph 64 he concluded that the Framework does not:

‘cast any doubt on the fact that, pending the adoption of local development plans, individual planning applications will continue to be dealt with, where appropriate by the Secretary of State, applying existing principles.’

3.41 At paragraph 69 he confirmed that the Localism Act has done nothing to change the long-recognised principles of prematurity. He stated: ‘But quite apart from the fact that no such conclusion can be drawn from the generalised policy statements on which he relies, such a case would amount, apparently for the first time in English planning law, to laying down as a rule of law a requirement as to the weight to be given to the views of the local authority rather than leaving such matters to the planning judgement of the Secretary of State or his inspector. This would contradict what Lord Hoffmann described as a fundamental principle of planning law (see [50] above). The Localism Act contains nothing which could be regarded as enacting such a radical change and in my judgment it is inconceivable that any such change was intended to be brought about by the policy statements which accompanied the Act.’

3.42 The case of Bloor Homes v Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government and Stratford District Council66 is also instructive. Mr Justice Hickinbottom considered the SoS’s decision in respect of a development of up to 800 dwellings at Shottery. He rejected the prematurity argument raised by those seeking to challenge the decision and in doing so stated: ‘The mere fact that a change is proposed to the development plan of course does not mean that all applications for development have to be put on hold. Given the propensity for change in policy and plans, that would bring the

64 National Planning Practice Guidance (Beta format), ‘Determining a planning application’ as at 9 February 2014 65 [2013] EWHC 286 (Admin), CD C3 66 [2013] EWHC 2074 (Admin), CD C5



entire planning system to an effective halt. As the Inspector put it (in paragraph 505 of his report), whilst acknowledging the consultation obligations in European law, “…it is important to avoid unreasonable holding up proposals on the basis of conflict with another process which has an uncertain outcome”. A planning decision is therefore still required; but that has to be put into the balance with all other material considerations. That balancing exercise, so well-known in European law, is how the planning regime deals with the tension which I have described.’67 He went on to state, at paragraph 64 that paragraphs 17-19 of the ‘Planning System General Principles’ set out the correct approach to approaching a prematurity argument.

3.43 It is now necessary to apply the above guidance, policy and judicial decisions to the facts of this case. The Inspector is asked to note the following factors:

(a) When the Planning Committee refused the application in question they did so on the basis that they wrongly believed they had a 5-year supply. This erroneous belief was arrived at principally through ignoring the officer’s advice as to the Sedgefield approach and rejecting what Inspector Stephens had said about it in relation to Wychavon in 2012.68

(b) Reliance upon prematurity as a reason for refusal is completely

untenable in a situation where the Examination Inspector’s Interim Conclusions have said that the figure of 22,300 dwellings is not enough and that substantially more will be required.69 The Council is now proposing at least an extra three thousand homes.70 The Council has no idea where these are going to be located. Therefore allowing permission for this scheme cannot prejudice a Local Plan in relation to which there is not even a preferred option identified where the additional development might go.

(c) On top of the concession that an extra three thousand houses are

required, there are unresolved objections to the Emerging Plan. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF dictates that ‘unresolved objections’ should result in less weight being given to the Emerging Plan. This much was admitted by Mr Brown in cross examination.71 As such, the objections dramatically reduce the weight which can be given to the assertion that the development will prejudice the Emerging Plan.

(d) The Council must ‘clearly demonstrate’ the harm which this

development would cause to the emerging development plan. The Council has neither asserted nor demonstrated any harm during this Inquiry. Instead, it has merely prayed in aid two cases whose facts

67 Ibid. paragraph .63 68 Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne, APP/H1840/A/12/2172588, paragraph 36 69 Malcolm Brown, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5, paragraph 49 70 Report by Amion Consulting, January 2014, C6 ES11 71 Malcolm Brown, Cross-examination, 28 January 2014



are completely at odds with the development before this Inquiry. The decision in Moreton-in-Marsh72 concerned one of nine major settlements in the Cotswold District where Cirencester was the main town and principal target for growth (accepting 63% of development73). That left 37% to be located at the other nine principal settlements.74 If the proposal in question had been approved, Moreton-in-Marsh would have been accepting a quarter of this.75 In these circumstances a conclusion that the Emerging Plan would be prejudiced was not unreasonable. Further, the Inspector is asked to note that this decision was made pre-Framework and also prior to the decisions in Shottery and Tewkesbury. It cannot be guaranteed that the same conclusion would be reached on the same facts today.

(e) Similarly, the decision relating to Kentford in Newmarket involved

development at a primary village.76 It had a very poor range of services.77 Those decisions are incomparable to the situation here. As addressed above, Droitwich is one of the three main towns in Wychavon. It is a specified as a suitable location for development both in the Local Plan and in the emerging SWDP.

(f) Indeed, it is impossible for the Council to demonstrate harm. Even on

its own account there are over three thousand additional homes to be found. The EiP Inspector has found that Worcester City and Malvern Hills are constrained.78 This means that Wychavon is a prime candidate for locating the extra development. Within Wychavon, Droitwich along with Evesham is the obvious place for the development to go. Evesham has already accepted a disproportionate amount of development and therefore it is time for Droitwich to play its part in contributing to the district’s housing supply.79 Further, the evidence base for the Emerging Plan has shown that the appeal site has been under active consideration as a location for development. Most significantly in 2005 when it was only left out of the plan in favour of Copcut Lane. Now that Copcut Lane has been allocated and granted permission Yew Tree Hill is an obvious next choice for necessary housing development.80

(g) The Council has erroneously advanced its prematurity reason for

refusal on the apparent premise that it is necessary for BDL to show that the Council in its Emerging Plan would inevitably choose the appeal site. No such test exists. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires a

72 Todenham Road, Moreton in Marsh, Gloucestershire, APP/F1610/A/10/2130320, CD D7 73 Ibid. paragraph 202 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid and paragraph 17 76Malcolm Brown, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 8, Extract from decision in Land at Bury Road, Kentford, Newmarket, APP/H3510/A/13/2197077, para.37. 77 Ibid. para.38 78 Malcolm Brown, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5, paras 82 and 84. 79 Malcolm Brown, Cross Examination, 28 January 2013 and Patrick Downes, Proof of Evidence, p.58, table 7.1. 80 Extract from the Inspector’s Report in respect of Yew Tree Hill, October 2005 CD A7



planning balance to be performed. The development plan pedigree of the site alongside the evidence that the Inspector has heard here demonstrates that this site is a good choice for development.

(h) Finally, this application has been considered at a 10 day inquiry. The

Council’s case and that of objectors in relation to this site has been given a full airing. Clearly, this long process is far longer than would be afforded to this site during the Examination process. There can be no complaint that this site has not properly been scrutinised and the public afforded a full opportunity to express its views about the development of the appeal site.

(i) Clearly, for all of the reasons outlined above, the Council’s reliance

upon prematurity as a reason for refusal cannot stand. It is contrary to the weight of guidance, policy and judicial decisions and no relevant precedent has been provided for it. It is noteworthy that Cllrs Jennings and Pearce did not obtain any legal advice to see whether the decision to reject the officer’s advice on prematurity was justified or even defensible. Had they done so they would have been told the officer’s advice was sound. The failure to revisit the reliance upon prematurity after the rejection of the housing figures at the EiP is completely indefensible and unreasonable.

Main matter (iii): Whether proposed development is necessary to meet the housing needs of the district bearing in mind the housing land supply position (Note to reader: the submissions on Main matter 3 are joint submissions made by BDL and Persimmon and Prowting Projects Limited). 3.44 As a preliminary matter, the Inspector is requested to note the very recent

decision of Inspector Fox in a planning appeal at Offenham.81 In relation to Wychavon’s five-year supply, the Inspector concluded the following:

(a) ‘It was therefore clear from the detailed discussion and questioning of evidence during the Inquiry that several of the sites without planning permission which were advanced by the Council to be available and deliverable within five years were not supported by robust evidence to that effect.’82

(b) ‘the Council’s track record shows that it has failed consistently to meet

the RS required average requirement of 475dpa, despite an upturn in completions since 2009/10. This is compounded by the relatively low percentages of affordable housing provision during this period…’83

(c) ‘the appellant’s evidence shows conclusively that the recent significant

increase in Wychavon’s average house prices and relatively small

81 Land between Leasowes Road and Laurels Road, Offenham, Worcestershire, APP/H1840/A/13/2203924 C13 82 Ibid. para.31 83 Ibid. para.33



proportion of rented properties and low delivery of affordable housing have resulted in an increasingly unaffordable local housing market.’84

(d) ‘Taking into account all the above considerations, it is my view that

the Council’s case, that it has just over 5 years’ housing land, is unconvincing in the light of: (i) the revocation of the RS as a basis for assessing housing need; (ii) the likelihood of an increased housing requirement for Wychavon to emerge during the SWDP Examination; (iii) the over optimism of some of the Council’s assumptions of deliverable housing supply over the next 5 years; (iv) the Council’s ambitious housing targets in relation to its track record; and (v) the evidence of current market signals in relation to housing under provision and inaffordability.’85

(e) ‘I therefore conclude, in relation to the first main issue, that although

the proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policy GD1, this has little weight for the reasons stated and it is significantly outweighed by the inability of the Council to robustly demonstrate a 5 years’ housing land supply for Wychavon.’86

3.45 The rejection of the Council’s case on the existence of a 5-year land supply on

the bases of: insufficient target, unrealistic delivery assumptions and its poor past track record could not be clearer. The Council, through its Deputy Leader Cllr Pearce, was invited to revise its reason for refusal based on an alleged 5-year supply.87 Cllr Pearce refused to do so. This serves to demonstrate the Council’s continuing stubborn unreasonable refusal to face the facts in relation to its 5-year supply position. It is further irrefutable evidence of an inability to accept the independent adjudication of the Planning Inspectorate.

3.46 Turning now to the evidence which has been heard by this Inquiry in relation

to these schemes, these submissions are divided into two parts. First, the correct target figure for Wychavon and, secondly, the supply figure.

Requirement

3.47 Under paragraph 47 of the NPPF, in order to boost significantly the supply of housing LPAs should ‘use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.’ Wychavon’s Local Plan does not contain any figure within it.

3.48 Paragraph 159 of the NPPF requires LPAs to:

‘have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area. They should:

84 Ibid. para.34 85 Ibid. para.36 86 Ibid. para.37 87 Cllr Pearce, Cross-examination, 13 February 2014.



• prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs…The Strategic Housing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:

- meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change;

- addresses the need for all types of housing… - caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply

necessary to meet this demand; • prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to establish

realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period.’

3.49 Paragraph 218 of the NPPF demonstrates that the RSS phase II review figure

is an appropriate starting point for assessing the housing needs of an area but that this should be ‘supplemented as needed by an up-to-date, robust local evidence.’88

3.50 The most recent objectively assessed evidence is that contained within the

recent 2011 Interim Sub National Household Projections (SNHP).89 These state that they should be used for a 10-year period, but beyond that there is a need to determine whether household formation trends are likely to continue.90 After the ten year period, following the advice of the EiP Inspector, and reflecting the need to revise household representations rates (HRR) due to an improving economy, the more optimistic 2008 SNHP HRRs should be used.91 This approach accords with the Holman Paper, the conclusions of the Inspector in relation to the Lichfield Core Strategy92 and also current planning policy which aims to ‘plan for growth’.93 This is the approach Mr Bateman has followed.

3.51 However, the Council seeks to use and defend the 2008 figures for the entire

plan period. These are out-of-date. This is made clear in the last sentence of the 2011 projections which state that they replace the 2008 projections from November 2010.94 Given the chronology of the production of the figures this is hardly surprising. Indeed, this is echoed by the EiP Inspector who has asked the LPA to calculate the supply figure using the latest population projections combined with Nathanial Lichfield and Partners’ approach.95

3.52 When calculating the appropriate target figure it is also crucial to start with the

correct base date population figure. The Council has used the figure of 49,000

88 NPPF, pargraph.218 89 Anthony Bateman, Proof of Evidence para.6.12 90 Ibid page 19 91 Malcolm Brown, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5. 92 CD I2, Local Plan Inspector’s Report, Lichfield District Council Local Plan Examination 93 The Plan for Growth, 2011, CD A11 94 Anthony Bateman, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 1 95 Malcolm Brown, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5, paragraph 44



for 2006.96 The SHMA demonstrates that this is incorrect. At page 135 it demonstrates that the correct figure is 47,32297 as argued for by Mr Bateman.

3.53 The Hunston98 judgement is concerned with the proper understanding of how

to determine full objectively assessed need in circumstances where, as here, there is a policy vacuum. It requires the identification of a “policy off” figure. Policy is the “varnish” which the Court of Appeal refers to: the application of “varnish” is what happens in the forward planning process but is an exercise which cannot be assessed in the context of a s78 appeal. The Council’s contention that “unvarnished” means arriving at a figure which doesn’t take into account migration or economic considerations is neither consistent with the judgment, nor is it consistent with planning practice for deriving a figure for objectively assessed need to which constraint policies are then applied.99 Their approach is clearly wrong. The only mention of the word ‘unvarnished’ in the Court of Appeal’s judgement is in paragraph 29 of that judgement, it states:

‘But there may be other factors as well. One of those is the planning context in which that shortfall is to be seen. The context may be that the district in question is subject on a considerable scale to policies protecting much or most of the undeveloped land from development in exceptional or very special circumstances, whether because such land is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Park or Green Belt. If that is the case, then it may be wholly unsurprising that there is not a five year supply of housing land when measured against the unvarnished figures of household projections. A decision-maker would then be entitled to conclude, if such were the planning judgement that some degree of shortfall in housing land supply, as measured simply by household formation rates, was inevitable.’100

3.54 Clearly, where the judgement refers to ‘unvarnished’ figures it means

environmental or other policy constraints. There is nothing in this judgement which suggests that it is not perfectly proper to take into account migration, economic considerations, second homes and vacancies. Indeed, this is what the EiP Inspector has asked for.101

3.55 It is also clear that the 20% buffer should be applied to the entire five-year

requirement (including the historic shortfall). Mr Brown, could not point to any provision in policy or previous decisions which supports his contention that the 20% should not apply to the historic shortfall.102 It is instructive to note that the Council itself has been calculating its five-year supply by adding the 20% to the whole figure. This is clear from the Council’s report to Committee dated 10 October 2013 included in Mr Brown’s own evidence.103

96 Malcolm Brown, Proof of Evidence, paragraph 2.1 97 SHMA, CD B10, page 135. 98 Hunston Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and St Albans City and District Council [2013] EWHC 2678 (Admin) CD C1 99 Malcolm Brown, Cross Examination, 29 January 2014 100 Hunston Properties, CD C1, paragraph 29 101 Malcolm Brown, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5, paragraphs 45-46 102 Malcolm Brown, Cross Examination, 29 January 2014 103 Malcolm Brown, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 9



3.56 The Inspector is asked to take particular note of the affordable housing need which exists in Wychavon. Under cross examination Mr Brown admitted that substantial weight should be given by the Inspector to the affordable housing to be provided by this proposal.104 The weight of the issue in Wychavon is severe. Some 1,153 households are currently on the waiting list for an affordable home in Wychavon.105 Further, Droitwich is the most unaffordable place for housing in Wychavon.106 The LPA is drastically underperforming in terms of supplying affordable housing. The 2009 Annual Monitoring Report demonstrates that from 2005-07 only 182 affordable units were produced and only 47 from 2008 to 2009.107 The LPA provided no affordable units in 2009-10 and only 57 in 2010-11.108 Indeed, under cross-examination Mr Brown admitted that the LPA had failed to deliver even ¼ of the 268 affordable dwellings per annum that is required of it during the last 8 years.109

3.57 For all of the aforementioned reasons the LPA has not undertaken a robust

calculation in order to arrive at its housing requirement for this Inquiry. This is in stark contrast to the methodology used by Mr Bateman which is robust and well justified. As such, Mr Bateman’s figure for a requirement of 14,263 dwellings between 2006 and 2030 should be preferred.110

3.58 Before moving on to supply, the Inspector is asked to note that in its recent

submission to the EiP, the Council has neglected to do what was asked of it by the Inspector. Even on the method the Council has chosen to use the Council accepts a need for an extra 3-4,000 houses which will be required during the plan period.111 As will be demonstrated at the EiP, the Council’s approach is flawed because:

(a) it has not used the 2011 projections; (b) it has not based its calculations on the correct starting point; and (c) questions remain as to the economic activity rates used.112

As such, the figure as submitted does not appear to be robust and very little weight can be given to it in these appeals. In a choice between the Council’s figure and Mr Bateman’s of about 14,000, it is clear for reasons set out above that it has been demonstrated that Mr Bateman’s figure is to be preferred.

Supply

3.59 As for the supply figure it is necessary to address here a number of points of

principle.

104 Malcolm Brown, Cross Examination, 28 January 2014 105 Worcestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, 2012, CD B10 paragraph 5.74 106 CD B10 figure 5.31, page123 107 Wychavon DC Annual Monitoring Report 2009, CD B20 page19 108 CD B20 page 79 paragraph 7.55 109 Malcolm Brown, Cross Examination 29 January 2014 110 Anthony Bateman, Proof of Evidence, paragraph 7.71 111 Report by AMION Consulting dated January 2014, C6 112 Note by A C Bateman 4/2/14, BDL 19



3.60 The LPA includes within its supply a number of sites which have permission but are very unlikely to come forward within five years. For example, Land off Banks Lane, Badsey. BDL’s evidence shows that this site is not in the hands of a developer and that there is no evidence of viability.113 The Inspector is invited to note other examples included in the ‘Housing Land Supply Position Statement – Difference between Wychavon District Council and the Appellants’. It is not intended to address them all here. However, the Inspector’s observations in the Offenham appeal are relevant to these considerations.

3.61 The LPA relies upon a Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of land as a touring

caravan and camping site. Under cross-examination it became clear that the LPA were not clear of the basis for planning permission. As the Inspector pointed out these are likely to have a ‘seasonal occupancy condition’114 and therefore cannot be considered as dwellings to count towards the LPA’s five year supply. The Council has produced no additional material to clarify this position.

3.62 The LPA seeks to include all of its SWDP allocated sites. The only safe

conclusion using the authority of Wainhomes115 is that not all of them will be deliverable. Each case must be assessed on a fact sensitive basis. Objections to each site must be taken into account as must the fact that most are outside existing development boundaries – one of the reasons the Council has rejected the development of these sites according to its evidence to the Inquiry. In the context of paragraph 216 of the NPPF only limited weight can be given to sites in respect of which there are unresolved objections. It is also relevant that the SWDP is now in a state of disarray. As already highlighted, it will be a long time before the non-strategic sites will actually be allocated at Stage two of the Examination process if and when the SWDP is eventually brought into force. Clearly their inclusion in a Local Plan in disarray cannot lead to a robust conclusion that they are deliverable.

3.63 In order for the LPA to include windfalls in its supply there has to be

compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available.116 This evidence has not been made available to the Inquiry. Indeed, most recently, the EiP Inspector concluded that the large level of windfalls currently proposed should not be accepted and that there is a need for further information.117 The Inspector is invited to accept Mr Bateman’s evidence on this matter and conclude that his figure of 43 dwellings based on completions of 82 per annum, and allowing for windfalls which already have permission, is robust.118

3.64 The LPA also seeks to rely on C2 care units as adding to the 5-year supply.

These cannot be included in the supply. These units have a range of communal indoor facilities, including communal dining. The institutional form and also the

113 Housing Land Supply Position Statement, Table 1 114 Malcolm Brown, Cross Examination, 29 January 2014 115 Wain Homes (South West) Holdings Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and local Government and Wiltshire Council and other [2013] EWHC 597 (Admin) CD C7 116 NPPF, paragraph 48 117 Anthony Bateman, Proof of Evidence, paragraph 8.29 118 Anthony Bateman, Proof of Evidence, paragraph 8.36



occupational age limit renders them unsuitable for being included as ‘dwellings’ in the housing land supply. Indeed, it is telling that developers are not asked to make an affordable housing contribution on these units (as can be seen from BDL’s application). As such, it is clear that Council policy is not to treat them as ‘dwellings’.

3.65 A 10% lapse rate should be applied to the Council’s supply. This approach is

supported by the ‘Housing Land Availability’ paper by Roger Tym and Partners.119 The approach was accepted by the Inspectors at Moreton in Marsh,120 Moat House Farm,121 Honeybourne122 and Tetbury.123 A 10% lapse rate was affirmed in the High Court decision at Tetbury.124 Given the previous shortfalls of delivery in this Local Authority, a 10% lapse rate is entirely reasonable and should be applied here in order to ensure a robust 5-year supply figure.

3.66 Taking all of the above points of principle into account, it is clear that based

upon the expert evidence of Mr Bateman and Mr Downes, WDC cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply. If the Appellants’ case is accepted on both requirement (i.e. Chelmer with employment’) and supply the figure will only 1.83 year’s supply.125 This can be seen from Mr Bateman’s table below.126 Even if the Council’s supply figures are used the supply is between 2.83 and 3.76 years (with or without the SWDP sites).

Wychavon Housing Requirement 1st April 2013

District 1.

2011 SNHP

2. Chelmer

with employment

3. SWDP

4. RS

Panel Report

Annual requirement (from Table 4) 5year requirement (annual x 5) 20% NPPF Buffer Annual requirement

744

3,720

4,464

893

1,083

5,415

6,498

1,300

516

2,580

3,096

619

779

3,897

4,676

935

119 Roger Tym and Partners, Housing Land Availability DOE, Planning and Research Program Paper, 1995 cited in Anthony Bateman Proof of Evidence at paragraph 8.13 120 CD D7, paragraph 178 121 CD D35, paragraph 8 122 CD D13, paragraph 49 123 CD D36 124 CD C5 125 Anthony Bateman Proof of Evidence paragraph 11.14 126 Anthony Bateman, Proof of Evidence, table 6



Appellant Supply Years Supply Shortfall Shortfall (5 years + 20%) Years Supply 5yr + 20%

2,374

3.19

1,346

2,090

2.66

2,374

2.19

3,041

4,124

1.83

2,374

4.60

206

722

3.83

2,374

3.04

1,523

2,302

2.54

LA Supply Years Supply Shortfall Shortfall (5 years + 20%) Years Supply 5yr + 20%

+SWDP

4,886

6.56

- -

5.47

-SWDP

3,682

4.95

38

782

4.12

+SWDP

4,886

4.51

529

1,612

3.76

-SWDP

3,682

3.4

1,733

2,816

2.83

+SWDP

4,886

9.47

- -

7.89

-SWDP

3,682

7.13

- -

5.95

+SWDP

4,886

6.27

- -

5.23

-SWDP

3,682

4.73

215

994

3.94

The Consequence of No 5-Year Supply

3.67 In conclusion, it is crystal clear that the LPA does not have a 5-year supply.

This Inquiry has demonstrated this to be the case and the recent Offenham decision serves as a useful consideration of this deficit.

3.68 If there is no 5-year supply then Policy GD1 and Policy SR1 must be

considered to be out of date as they are policies relevant to the supply of housing.127 This means that the paragraph 14 NPPF test must be applied to these applications. The contention that the absence of a 5-year supply renders settlement boundary policies out of date is further reinforced by the very recent decision of the SoS at Forest Road, Burton on Trent.

3.69 However, in the unlikely event that this Inspector concludes that Wychavon

can demonstrate a 5-year supply, the paragraph 14 test still applies. This is because relevant policies are out-of-date. As explained above the housing supply policies are time-limited, were saved on a basis that was subject to the caveats in the Saving Letter. The old Local Plan was drawn up against the background of an entirely different national policy context. All extant policies should therefore be afforded little weight in these appeals and the paragraph 14 presumption should be applied.

127 See Lewis J in Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and other [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) at paragraph 72 CD C5



3.70 It may be contended on the basis of the case of William Davis v SoS [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin) that Policy GD1 is not a housing policy and that therefore it is not out of date by virtue of paragraph 49 of the NPPF. There is now, of course, conflicting authority to this decision in the form of the judgment of Lewis J in Cotswold DC v SoS [2013] EWHC 3719. The issue arises as to which interpretation of the NPPF is to be preferred. The Appellant contends that it is beyond a peradventure that the interpretation of Lewis J is correct. Quite apart from the fact that it is consistent with the approach of many Inspectors’ decisions the interpretation accords with a common sense, purposive application of the policy for the following reasons.

3.71 If the only policies which were out of date, triggering the application of the

presumption in favour of sustainable development, were those containing a housing requirement, and the settlement boundary or other constraint policies were of continuing validity how would the mischief to be addressed by the provisions of paragraph 49 of the NPPF, namely insufficient housing, be cured? The answer is that it would not and therefore the interpretation is absurd. The correct interpretation is that in the absence of a 5-year supply of housing the policies (other than those contained in Footnote 9) which are constraining the supply of housing like settlement boundaries and SLA’s are out of date and in order to deal with the shortfall of housing land the planning balance needs to be shifted firmly in favour of the grant of consent in accordance with provisions of paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

3.72 In this case the evidence on this issue is clear. The Council does not have, and

has not had, a 5-year supply for a very substantial period of time. No amount of conjuring with the figures or resolute denial in the teeth of the overwhelming factual material can gainsay this. It has to face both a planning balance which clearly favours the grant of consent in this appeal alongside an undisputable need for further provision for housing to be made.

Main matter (iv): The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area 3.73 This scheme has been ‘landscape-led’ from its inception. The site has been

thoroughly investigated over four years.128 This process has included detailed meetings with people at all levels at the Council.129 The meetings also included a site visit with Planning Officer Eileen Marshall on 21 June 2010.130

3.74 Indeed, the Council was fully supportive of the scheme and its officers had no

issue with it and stated:

‘…there would be no significant and demonstrable adverse harm to the landscape, heritage assets, highway safety, residential amenity, nature conservation, flooding and drainage.’131

128 Alison Potterton, Proof of Evidence, paragraph 9.2.1 129 Appendix 3, Alison Potterton, Proof of Evidence 130 Appendix 3, Alison Potterton, Proof of Evidence 131 Planning Committee Report, Chapter 7 CD H1



3.75 They concluded:

- ‘the indicative layout shown on the proposed masterplan would represent an acceptable form of development

- the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of other residences to justify refusal

- subject to implementation of a suitable landscaping scheme the development can enhance the bio-diversity value of the site

- the proposed development will include satisfactory drainage facilities to deal with surface water run-off and will not therefore exacerbate flood risk

- the proposed development will not cause demonstrable harm to the character/appearance of the landscape.’132

3.76 It is therefore somewhat surprising that this Inquiry has had to consider a

landscape reason for refusal. However, the minutes of the Committee Meeting of 16 May 2013 and the evidence in chief of Cllr Jennings give some insight into why this reason was given.133 The meeting minutes do not refer to any discussion on landscape. They state that discussion centred upon the expectation that that development at Droitwich would be either at Copcut Lane or at Yew Tree Hill. As Copcut Lane has now been permitted it seemed, in Cllr Jennings’ view, justifiable to refuse this application. Indeed, Cllr Jennings who had made that argument before the Committee stated in cross examination that he had the reasons for refusal drafted prior to the Committee meeting.134 The reasons were drafted on the basis that they could be defended at appeal.135 Indeed, that there was no discussion of landscape matters at the Committee, and no landscape policies were cited in the reasons for refusal, this reason appears to be a ‘straw-clutching attempt’ to ensure no more development at Droitwich. It will also be noted that reason for refusal three has three parts of which landscape is only one third and as has been demonstrated above, the other two are unjustified.

3.77 The Council has sought to defend the landscape reason for refusal through the evidence of Sue Illman. Ms Illman’s evidence is somewhat tainted by events which took place in 2012. As Ms Potterton explains in her proof of evidence,136 Ms Illman’s first assessment of the LVIA was based upon incomplete information. She was missing the table which assessed in detail the landscape and visual effects of the scheme.137 Indeed, the damning nature of her opinion drew some surprise from the Council’s Landscape Officer.138 Once provided with the full information, Ms Illman failed to correct a number of the errors in her report. Indeed, it is submitted that those errors and assumptions have bled into her evidence before this Inquiry.

132 Planning Committee Report, Conclusion CD H1 133 Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting, 16 May 2013, CD H4 134 Cllr Jennings, Cross-Examination, 6 February 2014 135 Ibid 136 Alison Potterton, Proof of Evidence, paragraphs 7.3.1 - 7.3.14 137 Alison Potterton, Evidence in Chief, 31 January 2014 138 Email from Eileen Marshall to Neil Pierce, 17 October 2012, Alison Potterton, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5



3.78 The Inspector is asked to note that despite the damning initial view of Sue Illman, which was based upon incomplete evidence, she nevertheless wrote to Planning Officers Neil Pearce and Eileen Marshall stating:

‘If the scheme went to appeal, then I think I would spend a lot of time discussing semantics over the lack of a good LVIA, but then conceding that the scheme was actually ok in the main.’139 Ms Illman’s evidence has indeed been ‘semantic’ as promised and the Inspector is invited to agree with her initial impression that the ‘scheme is actually ok in the main’.

3.79 Ms Illman’s evidence has relied very strongly upon her use of the Landscape Character Area (LCA) flowchart. This approach is clearly nonsense for the following reasons. First, the Council itself has not followed that approach. The LPA has allocated and given consent to the development at Copcut Lane which lies in the same LCA as Yew Tree Hill. If the LCA was the litmus test which Ms Illman suggests it is, then permission would not have been granted.

3.80 Clearly, the Council is not purporting to use the flowchart in the way that Ms Illman states it should be used. Under cross-examination Ms Illman attempted to explain this and claimed that the chart is used in a different way when you are looking at allocations rather than applications.140 Ms Illman effectively suggested that a review of all potential sites should be done before developing in this LCA.141 However, it is noted that she could not point to any requirement in the NPPF for undertaking this process. Indeed this requirement does not exist in either legislation or policy and should be regarded as nonsense.

3.81 Secondly, the document itself does not purport to use the landscape character

flowchart as an absolute bar to development. It states: ‘The emphasis on the appropriateness of a development in a landscape, and the landscape’s resilience to change (or ability to accept that development without undue harm) can only be partially assessed through the LCA. Site visits and the need for detailed visual assessments are also a vital part of both strategic land use planning and development control.’142 Indeed, this was admitted by Ms Illman in cross examination.143

3.82 As stated above, the assessment of the appropriateness of development at

Yew Tree Hill has been assisted by detailed visual assessments and site visits. Further, the scheme itself has been designed so as to enhance consistency with the Landscape Character Parcel. This can be seen through the use of linear woodland, the bolstering of hedgerows and the provision of orchards.144

139 Alison Potterton, Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5 140 Sue Illman Cross-Examination, 29 January 2014 141 Ibid 142 Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Guidance, paragraph 5.3.12 CD J2 143 Sue Illman Cross Examination 30 January 2014 144 Alison Potterton Examination in Chief 31 January 2014



3.83 Ms Illman has also made much of her use of Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). However, in response to the Inspector’s question as to whether when Ms Illman stated that the developments would be visible, whether she meant ‘partially’ or ‘entirely’, she responded ‘[W]e can’t be that sophisticated, you would see some of it.’145 Ms Illman also admitted that landscaping proposals had not been taken into account as part of her assessment.146 Any landscape appraisal which fails to take account of mitigation planting is clearly deficient. Any suggestion that the ZTVs are somehow superior to Ms Potterton’s LVIA must be rejected. Even if they were superior, they are only aids to understanding which are subservient to what the Inspector will have seen for himself on the site visits.

3.84 The differences between Ms Illman and Ms Potterton in terms of the LVIA are

essentially matters of judgement. It is the case that only Ms Potterton has provided a full LVIA, Ms Illman’s evidence is but an assessment of Ms Potterton’s work. The Inspector is asked to note that the test of acceptability cannot be either: (i) the visibility of the development or (ii) its effect on openness. As this Inquiry has heard, it is inevitable that any substantial new development at Droitwich would have to be on the periphery. It is therefore inevitable that it would be visible, because any new development would be visible. Further, it is also inevitable that any new development would be on greenfield land. The Emerging Plan makes it clear that the area has exhausted its supply of previously developed land.147 This development cannot therefore be criticised on that basis.

3.85 The Inspector is also asked to take particular note of the development

constraints which exist at Droitwich. Yew Tree Hill is one of the few locations where the development required to meet housing and affordable housing need is capable of being accommodated. Further, although Yew Tree Hill was subject to a Special Landscape Area (SLA) designation, it is not proposed to continue this designation forward into the Emerging SWDP and it can be afforded little weight.148

3.86 The Inspector is also invited to note the substantial environmental advantages

that this development offers. These are set out clearly in Appendix 6 to Patrick Downes’ proof of evidence. They include: a net positive gain of 1,385m of hedgerows, a net positive gain of 1,598m2 of field margins, 2 hectares of scrub/woodland, 0.9 hectare of orchards and new park/open space areas. All of these would serve as suitable habitats for wildlife.

3.87 Even if the Inspector’s conclusion is that this development would give rise to a

significant adverse effect, he is asked to note the SoS’s decision in Burgess Farm, Worsley149 which demonstrates that even clearly harmful development can represent sustainable development when it is weighed against a substantial shortfall of housing land.150

145 Sue Illman, Examination in Chief, 29 January 2014 146 Ibid 147 South Worcestershire Development Plan Submission Document, May 2013, CD A9a, paragraph 30 148 Ibid 149 Land at Burgess Farm, Hilton Lane, Worsley, Manchester, APP/U4230/A/11/2157433, CD D2 150 Ibid paragraph 21



3.88 Finally, the Inspector will note the complete failure of Ms Illman’s evidence to acknowledge that the environmental role is but one of three roles. She steadfastly and erroneously failed to acknowledge that her conclusions which argued for dismissal on the grounds of adverse environmental impact alone is completely at odds with the requirement in paragraph 8 of the NPPF to consider all three strands together. She simply could not understand that absent consideration of the economic and social roles she could not recommend refusal of planning permission.

Main matter (v): The effect of the proposals on local highway infrastructure 3.89 The effect of the proposals on local highway infrastructure does not represent

a reason to recommend the refusal of this planning appeal. For a refusal to be justified on this basis, any problems associated with the development must be ‘severe’.151 Further, it is common sense that the traffic proposals should be safe. Having identified the correct tests this Inquiry should be clear that the tests are not, amongst others: changes in terms of traffic patterns or an increase in traffic along a particular road.

3.90 Road safety is primarily the responsibility of the Highway Authority. It has carefully considered these proposals over a long period of time152 and has no objection to them. The proposals cannot be regarded as potentially having an adverse impact on the trunk road/motorway network as the HA’s formal position is one of non-objection. As planning authority, Wychavon has a responsibility to ask itself whether the development is safe and has concluded that it is. Highways and transport did not form the basis/part of any reason for refusal.

3.91 It is against the aforementioned background that the objections raised by

SOGOS have to be considered. It also worth bearing in mind that Mr Pettitt has not considered himself constrained by paragraph 187 of the NPPF: the duty to look for solutions and not problems. The approach of SOGOS has been entirely the opposite. The late delivery of the expert evidence from Messrs Pettitt and Stoney was clearly unprofessional and apparently deliberately delayed to inconvenience the Appellant.

3.92 As for forward visibility and side roads, the critical issue between the Appellant

and SOGOS is whether Manual for Streets (MfS) or Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) should be used. Mr Pettitt argues for DMRB for entirely self-serving reasons which are not supported by MfS. It is correct that at one location the major road distance is 59m.153 The evidence of Simon Tucker and Philip Jones explains why this is sufficient.154 Their views are consistent with table 7.1 of MfS1, one can even go below that figure if one uses MfS2. Indeed it is true that the risk of accidents is not necessarily heightened by a shortened visibility distance.155 It is clear that there no unacceptable risk associated with either junctions or forward visibility. It is worth noting that when this scheme

151 NPPF paragraph 32 152 Transportation Statement of Common Ground, BDL 10 paragraph 1.1 153 Simon Tucker, Examination in Chief, 4 February 2014 154Simon Tucker, Examination in Chief, 4 February 2014, Phil Jones, Examination in Chief, 6 February 2014 155 Manual for Streets 2 (2010) CD B4, page 77



gets to the detailed design stage design features would be used to reduced speed such as signage/gateway features.

3.93 This scheme would bring benefits to the Pulley Lane/A38 junction. The junction

would become a two lane signalled junction. This measure needs to be set against the additional traffic which would be generated by the development. In any event, some queuing at traffic lights is part of everyday suburban life and this cannot be considered a ‘severe’ problem in the context of paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

3.94 As for Newland Road, up until 1993 it was a two-way road with houses on

either side. Any objection based on disruption to this road has to be considered with the road’s history in mind. The route has been carefully considered by the Appellant’s highway engineers.156 Clearly, there is no need for a gabion wall which would encroach on third party land. Mr Tucker has demonstrated that it would be possible to use sheet piling without the risk of trespass. Once engineered, the route would become a very attractive walk and cycle route for most of the day with the occasional bus. Indeed, the bus element would be of benefit to both new and existing residents not well served by existing services.

3.95 SOGOS’ complaints regarding fire engines and buses on Primsland Way is pure

mischief making. Neither of these vehicles would need to turn left or right. The fire engines would be going straight ahead as indeed would the buses. If, on the off chance, an emergency vehicle did need to turn, then it could cut over the white lines with its sirens blazing.

3.96 Inevitably, any substantial development would bring about highway impacts.

The location of this site with good access to the centre by cycle and foot would minimise its adverse effects. None of the highway effects of this development can be said to be ‘severe’ in terms of paragraph 32 NPPF.

Main matters (vi) and (vii) – Conditions and S106: 3.97 Appropriate conditions and s106 contributions were dealt with on day nine of

the Inquiry (13 February 2014). BDL confirms that it is happy with the conditions as agreed with the Council. It also takes no issue with the s106 obligations and accepts the Council’s CIL Compliance Statement.

Other – Brine Run 3.98 The Appellant relies upon the notes provided to the Inquiry, the evidence of Mr

Williams and the fact that WDC does not object to the proposal on this basis. WDC has a long history of familiarity with dealing with problems created by Brine Runs and there is no reason to believe that this development would not be similarly controlled. All the statutory consultees support the development. 157 There is no sound and robust evidence to the contrary. Experience suggests

156 Atkins drawings, Alison Potterton Proof of Evidence Appendix 1 157 See CD F1-F14



that similar development to that proposed in this appeal has taken place by experienced developers within Zone A in the past.

Conclusion 3.99 This proposal cannot be tested against an up-to-date Local Plan. The

development plan system in Wychavon has failed to make adequate housing provision despite the warning of the Saving Letter some 5 years ago. The Emerging Plan has far to go before its adoption after making an uncertain start.

3.100 It is clear, even to the LPA, that thousands more homes than are catered for in the SWDP – as presently cast - are required. This should have led the LPA to accept that its objection to this site on grounds of 5-year supply and prematurity are completely indefensible.

3.101 The presumption in favour of a grant of planning permission applies in this

case for a variety of reasons:

(a) the inadequacy of the 5-year supply; (b) ‘absent’ provision in saved Local Plan policies for provision of housing

post-2011; and (c) out-of-date policies.

Only one door needs to open into paragraph 14 for the presumption in favour of development to apply.

3.102 Once the inappropriate reasons for refusal relating to prematurity and 5-year supply are put to one side only the Council’s case on landscape effect stands between the Appellant and a grant of planning permission. Issues raised by SOGOS have all been properly addressed by statutory consultees whose conclusions have not been demonstrated to be wrong at this Inquiry. Indeed the evidence has demonstrated the opportunistic nature of the objections. Any residual matters of detail would be adequately controlled by the imposition of conditions and/or the reserved matters application process.

3.103 The exercise of the paragraph 14 balance demonstrates that the benefits of

the scheme are not ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweighed by the alleged disadvantages not least because, stripped of the untenable prematurity and 5-year supply arguments, there is only landscape impact on the debit side of the equation. Any fair-minded person can see that this balance can only have one result.

3.104 We invite the Inspector to recommend the grant of planning permission to the

SoS. The LPA must be told again that it has no 5-year supply and that even if it did the presumption in favour of granting planning permission will continue to apply until such time as it adopts its new SWDP.

3.105 One final word of thanks to the residents who oppose this scheme: they have

listened patiently and politely to all the evidence for and against the scheme. The Appellants are grateful to them for this.



4. THE CASE FOR PERSIMMON HOMES LTD (APPEAL B) 4.1 This Inquiry has provided a forum in which the objectors to these proposals

have been able to fully ventilate their concerns in relation to the development proposals. That process has done nothing more than expose those concerns as being utterly without substance. The Inquiry has also afforded the opportunity for the validity of the objections to be tested. Upon testing, they have been established to be illusory, assertive, inchoate and unsupported by evidence. The longer the Inquiry went on, the clearer that that picture has become.

4.2 The evidence which is before the Inquiry shows that the old guidance

represented by the 2006 Local Plan which expired in 2011 can no longer hold. The emerging SWDP requirements are very substantial and reveal how redundant the old 2006 Local Plan has become.

4.3 The RFR stated that the Council could demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing

land. However, it has become painfully apparent in this Inquiry that the Council is unable to provide a robust evidential basis for this assertion. The Council has not progressed matters since Inspector Clews’ Interim Conclusions on the emerging SWDP.158 The latest work which has recently been published is taking the Plan preparation process backwards rather than forwards as the material does not properly engage with the task that the Inspector set.159 We are no wiser than we were in October 2013 when he concluded that the requirement is likely to be substantially greater than the Council’s estimate of 23,000 as the SHMA had fundamental shortcomings.160 Those shortcomings have not been remedied and the Council cannot enjoy a 5 year land supply.161

4.4 The housing land supply position in Wychavon is critically short, and the NPPF

requires the identification of deliverable sites. The Council’s delivery record is “very poor”162 and there is no sensible justification for such failure. The Framework requires that objectively assessed needs are met as one of the facets of sustainable development, and the fact that it may be challenging is not identified as an excuse. The failure to release suitable and deliverable sites in these circumstances cannot therefore be justified.

4.5 It has become obvious that the Council was well-advised by its Officers that it

would be difficult to sustain plausible reasons for refusing permission, and that the benefits which it would bring in terms of employment opportunities, improved accessibility, landscape enhancement, whilst releasing a site to meet an urgent and significant shortfall in market and affordable housing, are not significantly or demonstrably outweighed by any harm caused by the proposal.

4.6 The approach to applications under section 38(6) in the context of the NPPF

was set out by the High Court in the case of R(oao Hampton Bishop Parish 158 CD A9 159 Mr May, Examination in Chief; and Supplementary Note from Mr Bateman 160 CD A9, paragraph 49 161 CD C13, Inspector’s Decision: Land between Leasowes Road and Laurels Road, Offenham, Worcestershire, 7 February 2014, paragraphs 31, 36, 37 and 58 162 CD D13, Inspector’s Decision: Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne, Worcestershire, 24 August 2012, paragraph 32



Council) v Herefordshire Council163: development plan policies are not to be read in isolation, but rather through the prism of the NPPF which is a sophisticated exercise.

4.7 Against that background the main issues which were raised at the Pre-Inquiry

meeting will be canvassed, and then against that analysis, examine how the planning balance should be struck in this case.

Main matter (i): The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the development plan for the area and would deliver a sustainable form of development 4.8 In addressing this issue, namely the question of compliance with the

development plan, it is important to focus upon those policies which it is claimed that the development may be contrary to. The development plan consists solely of the WDLP, adopted in 2006 and in place until 2011. In substance, only four policies are relied upon by the Council and the objectors within the development plan as giving rise to issues of consistency. These are Policies GD1, SR1, ENV1 and ENV8.

4.9 Policy GD1 expressly and unconditionally applies to “new development to 2011”164. It was plainly not designed to meet housing needs in 2014 and is redundant in today’s changed policy, economic and legal context. Despite the unequivocal wording in Policy GD1, the Council has persisted in arguing that significant weight should be afforded to it. Closer examination illustrates why that is absurd.

4.10 Reference to the “sequential approach… to the re-use of previously developed land and buildings”165 implements a previous sequential policy from the RSS and the old PPG/PPS3; it is not replicated in the NPPF or the emerging SWDP in connection with sustainable development.166 Further, the prioritizing of Evesham in the wording of Policy GD1 does not survive the SWDP.167 These changes reflect a deliberate shift in policy to loosen restrictions on urban extensions and greenfield land.

4.11 The Saving Letter168 made clear that the preservation of the policies was intended to be temporary, that there was a clear requirement to press on with the preparation of the replacement plan and that in the meantime the old policies should be approached bearing in mind new policy material in national Government advice. There has been a great deal of water under the bridge since then. An instructive lesson on the impact of the policies of the NPPF is to be obtained from the Honeybourne decision, in which the Inspector noted that using the old WDLP policies was not good enough and that the housing provision policies were out of date.169 But perhaps most tellingly, when

163 CD P4, R(oao Hampton Bishop Parish Council) v Herefordshire Council [2013] EWHC 3947 (Admin) 164 CD A6, Wychavon District Local Plan, wording used in Policy GD1, page 9 165 Ibid, 2nd paragraph 166 CD A9, Track Changed Version of the Proposed Submission Document, South Worcestershire Development Plan, SWDP1, page 32 167 Ibid, SWDP2, page 35 168 CD A16, WDLP 2006- “Saving” letter, 29th May 2013 169 CD D13, paragraphs 31, 24



examined in August 2012, the policies were found to be “time expired and out of date so limited weight can be given…”

4.12 In paragraph 31, the Inspector wrote: “It seems to me that the “Saving Letters” make clear the contingent basis upon which the policies were saved, namely the requirement in the decision making process to have regard to up-to-date policies, such as the former PPS3, which required 5 year land supply. These “material considerations” now include the NPPF, which means that it is simply not good enough to regard saved policies as an opportunity to refuse rather than grant planning permission. The Council’s approach is at odds with the requirement in the Saving Letters. Relevant policies in the WCSP and the WDLP must be viewed in the context of paragraph 215 of the NPPF.”170 A similar approach can be found in the Bishops Cleeve decision in which the SoS further reinforced that Localism required local communities and Councils to face up to the hard choices in relation to the provision of development and if they did not and they failed to make provision for necessary development then decisions would inevitably need to be taken to provide it on appeal.171

4.13 Policy GD1 is no longer fit for purpose. It was formulated in a world and in a context very different to one we find ourselves in today. It is not based on the full objectively assessed needs in 2014.172 Applying the restraints in Policy GD1 will not help the Council meet its housing requirements because land beyond the settlement boundary needs to be released for development: a sequential approach will not deliver the urgently needed housing in Wychavon and it is not consistent with the NPPF. This was further identified in the Inspector’s decision at Humberstone, endorsed by the SoS.173

4.14 Mr Brown’s refusal, against this evidence, to accept that Policy GD1 is out of date is simply untenable. The Council’s argument collapses further in light of the contradiction at the heart of their case: that Policy SR1 was out of date, but Policy GD1 was not. Mr Brown’s acceptance that the two policies should be read together on the one hand, but that one is out of date and the other not, indicates the convoluted nature of the Council’s inconsistent and indefensible position.174

4.15 Whatever view one takes of the policies, as it is accepted that Policy SR1 is out of date, paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies thereby triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

4.16 The other policy is ENV1, which applies a Special Landscape Area (SLA) designation to the site. The Inspector in the Tenbury appeal concluded that Policy ENV1 was also a housing supply policy which should be set aside absent a 5 year supply.175 This again triggers the paragraph 14 presumption.

170 Ibid, paragraph 31 171 CD D3, Ministerial Appeal Decision: Land at Bishops Cleeve, Gloucestershire, 16 July 2012 172 CD D41, Inspector’s Decision: Cheltenham Road, Evesham, Worcestershire, 24 July 2013, paragraph 8 173 CD D 37, Ministerial Decision: Land South of Humberston Avenue, NE Lincolnshire, 28 November 2013; and Inspector’s Report, 4 November 2013 174 Mr Brown, XX 175 CD D41, Inspector’s Decision: Land of Cheltenham Road, Evesham, 24 July 2013, paragraph 11



4.17 The wording of Policy ENV1176 demonstrates that the SLA designations are not determinative and that the policy must be read in the context of other policy documents. These include the 2011 Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (as anticipated in the reasoned justification of Policy ENV1), which becomes a new yardstick by which to measure landscape impact. The policy is therefore no more than a general policy in relation to protection of the landscape, and the SLA designation has, in accordance with the provisions of the Plan, been superseded by the publication of the 2011 LCA (if not by earlier such documents).

4.18 Other relevant policy includes “A New Look at Landscape of Worcestershire” in 2004 and “Planning for Landscape in Worcestershire, 2008”.177 But it is agreed that the 2011 LCA prevails over the SLA designations, the origin of and justification for which is now lost in the mists of time.

4.19 On any reading, the Council relies on an out of date plan, evidenced primarily by the express wording of the old policies, previous Inspector’s findings, and underlying it all, the fact that the evidence and policy context for the old WDLP has dramatically changed and can no longer be a sound basis for any meaningful application to this proposal. By way of default the NPPF applies.

4.20 It follows from this that whilst as a bald fact the proposals are contrary to Policy GD1, once the exercise required by the High Court decision in Hampton Bishop is undertaken and the policy is viewed through the prism of up to date consideration and in particular the NPPF little weight indeed can be attached to that fact. For the reasons set out below the proposals comply with Policy ENV1 and the other policies relating to landscape resources. Given its antiquity the development plan in reality has little to say which will be determinative of this appeal.

Main matter (ii): Whether the proposed development is premature in the light of the emerging SWDP and national guidance 4.21 The relevant policy framework to determining this issue is set out in The

Planning System: General Principles, 2005 and relates to the scale of proposals, where we are in the plan-making process and the significance of alternative options.

4.22 It should also be noted that in two High Court decisions, prematurity arguments identical to the ones in this appeal failed.178 Those judgments made clear that there was nothing in the Localism Agenda which required the plan making process to be completed before decisions could be made.

4.23 On the first point of where we are in the plan-making process, it is clear that the SWDP process has been stalled: the methodology for the housing calculation has been found in no uncertain terms to be “unreliable” not providing a sound basis for the planning of housing provision in the area, with

176 CD A6, Wychavon District Local Plan, page 38, paragraph 4.2.3 177 Mr Peachey’s Proof of Evidence, paragraph 5.7; and CD J2 178 CD C2, Stratford on Avon DC v SOSCLG (“Shottery Expansion”) [2013]EWHC 2074 (Admin); CD C3 Tewkesbury BC v SOSCLG (“Bishops Cleeve”) [2013] EWHC 286 (Admin);



“three fundamental shortcomings”,179 resulting in an order that further analysis be undertaken to derive an objective assessment of housing need.180

4.24 Mr May correctly maintained that the SWDP was in a “parlous state”181 in light of the extensive work still required. There will be a need for further assessment of future allocations and subsequent consultation (to be supported by a SEA). This needs to be settled by 3 authorities at a time when there is clearly no political appetite for further housing provision anywhere.182 Consequently, there is little hope that the process will be completed before 2015.183

4.25 Despite the Council’s submission of additional information on housing at this Inquiry, there is still no new housing requirement figure. Indeed, the SWDP appears to be going backwards rather than forwards. We are not at an advanced stage of the plan. We are in fact at a state where further land is likely to be required. There are correctly doubts in the Council’s mind as to the integrity of the plan making process at present in the light of the fact that the Inspector in March 2014 will not have any proposed modifications containing an alternative figure before him. How therefore the future progress of the plan is to be handled even procedurally is a mystery at present.

4.26 Mr Brown argued prematurity in terms of location and phasing but not in terms of scale.184 This is misconceived because the three elements cannot be disaggregated, especially in light of the status in the extant and emerging plan that Droitwich Spa enjoys as one of the higher tier settlements.185 The fact is that the scale of both proposals is not such as to prejudice decisions about distribution of development: as the Report to Committee pointed out, taken together, the proposals represent a mere 16.9% increase in households in the parish of Droitwich Spa over the plan period.186

4.27 The Council further relies on the appeal at Kentford.187 But in that case Kentford’s Village status was a primary village with a poor range of services- completely different to Droitwich Spa, which has a full range of facilities and sufficient infrastructure for further development.

4.28 The Council’s stance on prematurity is even more difficult to understand in light of its decision to grant permission for 740 dwellings at Copcut Lane. Yet again, another contradiction which fatally undermines the Council’s argument.

4.29 The weakness in the Council’s position on RFR 1 and prematurity is patently clear on any analysis. It should never have been put forward as a RFR and does not withstand scrutiny. The Council’s own officer observed that it would

179 CD A10, Inspector’s Interim Conclusions, 28th October 2013, paragraph 15 180 Ibid, paragraph 44 181 Mr May, in XiC 182 Cllr Jennings, XX 183 Mr May, XiC, XX and Re-X 184 Mr Brown’s Proof of Evidence, paragraph 6.12 185 Mr May, XiC, XX 186 CD H2, Planning Officer’s Report to Planning Committee, 8 May 2013, Section 7 187 Mr Brown’s Proof of Evidence, tab 8, page 8, paragraph 37



be “difficult for the council to demonstrate clearly how the grant of planning permission would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process.”188

4.30 Once the status of Droitwich Spa in the hierarchy is acknowledged the simple fact is that in Droitwich Spa there are few if any alternative options which have not already been deployed in the SWDP.189 The reality is that Yew Tree Farm was only rejected because the Committee preferred Copcut Lane. That option no longer exists. Droitwich Spa is a sustainable settlement and at the top of the settlement hierarchy in SWDP48.190 Within Droitwich Spa, being constrained by the greenbelt, floodplain and historic environment, Yew Tree Farm is the only option left without imperiling those critical environmental constraints. There is no evidence, let alone any appetite, which would justify the contention that development needs should be met in that way.

Main matter (iii): Whether the proposed development is necessary to meet the housing needs of the district bearing in mind the housing land supply position 4.31 The short answer to this question is yes. The Council officers are agreed that

the Council does not enjoy a 5 year land supply and therefore cannot satisfy the requirement of paragraph 47 of the NPPF. In accordance with an approach previously outlined to the Inquiry detailed joint submissions in respect of this issue will be made in the closing submissions on behalf of Appeal A. (See paragraphs 3.44 – 3.72 above). What follows are points of further context.

4.32 The first point to observe is that part and parcel of the 5 year land supply calculation is that the Council has failed for a considerable period of time to deliver their housing requirement. That leads to their acceptance that in this case a 20% buffer is appropriate in relation to the housing land supply assessment.191 The evidence therefore demonstrates that there is a long-standing chronic problem with housing delivery in South Worcestershire and Wychavon. The same was noted in the Interim Conclusions.192

4.33 The position is far worse than the Council’s assessment thus far has suggested. The SWDP Inspector made no bones about the “three fundamental shortcomings” in the SHMA used by the Council to calculate housing need. These were: firstly, the failure to use household representative rates (HRR) drawn from the 2008-based DCLG projections or any other official population or household statistics;193 secondly, the Council’s use of the unreliable Cambridge Economics as a basis for predicting job growth and resultant household growth194; and thirdly, the lack of evidence to support the assumed increased in older peoples’ economic activity, based on unclear assumptions.195

188 CD H2, Report to Planning Committee, Persimmon, 8 May 2013, Section 7 “Officer Appraisal” 189 Mr May’s Proof of Evidence, Appendix 5 190 CD A9, page 181 191 CD H2, Report to Committee,8 May 2013 Section 7 192 CD A10 193 Ibid, paragraphs 16, 17 194 Ibid, paragraph 19 195 Ibid, paragraph 21



4.34 The Inspector therefore concluded that the objectively assessed housing need figure for the plan period “is likely to be substantially higher than the 23,200 figure identified in the submitted plan” and that further work was required to rectify this calculation.196

4.35 He advised that this further work should be combined with the NLP “index” approach and should be carried out using the latest official population projections to translate those projections into future household numbers.197

4.36 One is able to take an educated guess as to the region of how much higher the additional housing need is likely to be. The range canvassed by the Inspector included the following: 34,000 (Barton Wilmore, not supported by the Inspector);198 32,000 (by NLP, assessed as methodically sound, albeit caveated);199 26,800 (PSL, considered to be “illuminating”, but the adjustments were insufficiently reliable);200 and between 23,700-27,000, with a mid-point of 25,850 (by Pegasus, the mid-point found to be insufficient because it did not include the employment adjustments).201

4.37 Thus a housing requirement of substantially more than 23,200, and most probably in the region of 34,000 seems likely. This is, in the main, because unless the new figure is in this region, there are unlikely to be unresolved objections, a key factor affecting the weight to be attached to the emerging plan, as paragraph 216 of the NPPF makes clear. This represents an additional need for a minimum of 8,800 dwellings.

4.38 The question which then arises is as to the likely location of the additional housing. 8,800 homes, as a joint figure for the 3 authorities to meet, must be distributed. The evidence overwhelmingly proves that Wychavon is the least constrained authority: Worcester City’s built-up area is tightly contained inside its boundaries and there is insufficient space in the City’s administrative area to meet all its needs for development, especially housing;202 Malvern Hills has limited ability to accept new development due to its natural and environmental constraints.203 This leaves Wychavon, with fewer constraints than Worcester City or Malvern Hills, as the natural destination for the lion’s share of the additional 8,800 homes bearing in mind in particular the duty to co-operate. Mr Brown sought to dispute this on the basis that constraints are not fixed but it is difficult to see how the AONB in Malvern Hills might change in the future, for example.204

4.39 Zooming in further to identify the best location within Wychavon, one cannot ignore that Droitwich Spa is the prime candidate town, when compared against Evesham or Pershore. Growth in Droitwich Spa, between 2006 and 2013, was the smallest of all 3 towns, with a population increase of only 5.6% in this

196 Ibid, paragraphs 44, 49 197 Ibid, paragraph 44 198 Ibid, paragraph 36 199 Ibid, paragraph 33 200 Ibid, paragraph 39 201 Ibid, paragraph 37 202 Ibid, paragraph 82 203 Ibid, paragraph 84 204 Mr Brown, XX



period.205 Some 750 homes would represent an increase from 5.6 to 8.9%. With Copcut Lane, that increases to 12%, still less than the % increases seen in Pershore or Evesham.206

4.40 The Council’s approach of directing development outside the conurbation boundaries no longer passes muster in the changed policy context of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The sea-change brought about by the NPPF recognises that development outside conurbations is appropriate in today’s climate of an under-supplied housing market.

4.41 The simple fact is that there is a serious need for additional homes. Within Droitwich Spa, Copcut Lane is insufficient on its own to meet those needs and Yew Tree Hill is the logical next step.

4.42 If the position in relation to the overall supply of housing demonstrated a general district-wide requirement for further housing, that requirement becomes critical and the need overriding in relation to the provision of affordable housing. The most recent analysis in the SHMA (found to be a sound assessment of affordable housing needs207) demonstrates a desperate picture bearing hallmarks of overcrowding, barriers to getting onto the housing ladder and families in crisis. There are nearly 5,000 households on the waiting list,208 35% of whom are families with children. Over a fifth of those have a local connection and are in priority need.209 The SHMA indisputably records that affordability is at crisis point.210 Without adequate provision of affordable housing, these acute housing needs will be incapable of being met. In terms of the NPPF’s requirement to create inclusive and mixed communities in paragraph 50, this is a disaster of catastrophic proportions. Needless to say these socially disadvantaged people are unrepresented at the Inquiry, and require the objectivity of the planning appeal to acquire a voice and for that to be heard. Addressing the needs of the homeless and over-crowded families and children in the District is surely an imperative of any civilized planning system.

4.43 These bleak and desperate conclusions are thrown into even sharper focus by an examination of the current circumstances in Wychavon itself. Over the whole of the District’s area there is presently a need for 268 homes pa.211 These are real people in real need now.

4.44 Worryingly, there is no early prospect of any resolution to this problem. Firstly, the 2009 AMR recognizes that between 2005 and 2009, a woeful 229 affordable homes were delivered, an average of 55 pa.212 Over the following 8 year period, between 2009 and 2013, some 501 were delivered, or an average

205 Mr Downes’ Proof of Evidence, Table 7,1, page 58 206 Accepted by Mr Brown, XX 207 CD A10, paragraph 50 208 CD B10, Worcestershire SHMA (2012), page 41, paragraph 3.32; and pp 109-110 209 Ibid, page112 210 Ibid, page 244, paragraphs 9.32 and 9.33; and page 123 211 Ibid, page 183, paragraph 7.30 212 CD B20, Wychavon DC Annual Monitoring Report 2009, page19



of 62 p.a. over a whole economic cycle.213 One would be forgiven for characterizing the Council’s approach to this key issue as complacent.

4.45 Secondly, although SWDP15 (and supporting text) 214 notes that 657 dwellings are needed over the next 5 years, a solution still remains a relatively distant prospect given the state that the forward-planning process finds itself in at present.215

4.46 The information shows that the delivery of affordable housing in Wychavon has been pitiful.216 There are no allocations for housing purposes which would begin to address the significant housing crisis in Wychavon. Furthermore, none of the permissions identified are capable of addressing the need. There is thus no solution identified by the Council to even begin to address the crisis in housing provision for the substantial number of households living with housing need which the Council can identify. And as the map made clear, those living in Droitwich Spa are amongst the unluckiest as it is one of the most unaffordable places for housing.217

4.47 Mr Brown has almost totally ignored the affordable housing need in his evidence. He also overlooked the paltry delivery record by the Council. His planning balance is struck without any apparent consideration being given to one of the most important reasons why housing in Droitwich Spa is needed. This is inexcusable. This Inquiry has brought the facts to light and they must attract very significant weight in any proper exercise of the planning balance.

Main matter (iv): The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area 4.48 It is important to recall the benefits of the landscape-led approach to the

masterplan. It proposes several benefits and was endorsed by the Council officers. The strategy retains the elevated southern part of the site as open space and development is proposed to be restricted to at or below the 73.5m contour generally with planting proposed to the elevated southern part of the site to provide a vegetated backdrop to the development when viewed from the north. Proposed development is concentrated on the central and northern part of the site where there is a greater degree of visual containment but set back from the public footpath to the north to create a green corridor which also incorporates provision for SUDS.218

4.49 Perimeter hedgerows/trees and the existing hedgerow that subdivides the site

are to be retained and new hedgerows introduced to create a series of development “cells”. This network of hedgerows is intended to reflect the local landscape character and provide elements of visual containment.219

213 CD B21,WDC AMR 2010, page 79; CD B22, SW Housing Lane Monitor, April 2011; Mr Bateman’s Proof of Evidence, page 63 214 CD A9, page 91, paragraph 3 215 CD B10, SHMA, p112, paragraphs 5.72, 5.69, 5.74, 5.23 216 Mr Bateman’s Proof of Evidence, page 63 217 CD B10, SHMA, figure 5.31, page 123 218 Mr Peachey’s Proof of Evidence, Appendices 2 and 3; CD H2, Planning Officer’s Report to Planning Committee, 8th May 2013 219 CD P2, Green Infrastructure Analysis, Persimmon



4.50 There are two aspects to the Council’s case in relation to landscape effects and the impact on the visual amenity of the area. The first is the question of policy context and the second concerns the assessments.

4.51 The historical context of the SLA needs to be borne in mind when assessing

the weight to be given to it. The 1993 Local Plan Inspector concluded that this parcel of land should be excluded from the Green Belt and that the shallow valley of the appeal site should be examined as a plausible candidate for future development. This was reiterated in the 1995 PTP Report with the note that Pulley Lane and Newland Lane should form the boundary of the Green Belt and provide a firm boundary in the long term for the settlement.220 By delineating a boundary in this way, allowance was being made for future development needs. Even in 1993 and 1995, this site was identified as a potential area for development.

4.52 As housing needs increased, one can catalogue the evolution of development

in the area.221 Although Ms Illman asserted that nothing has changed since the 1995 Report222 the facts indicate that significant elements of development have occurred around the site: additional housing to the east and the Bellway Homes site have clearly changed the immediate context of the site. Furthermore, nothing has been done to advance any proposal for a country park, which was in reality a pipe-dream.223

4.53 This is the context from which the SLA designation emerged and thus its

application must be caveated: the conclusions would only hold until 2011 or else no option for Droitwich to expand would be available;224 and the SLA was to be integrated into the LCA as set out above.225

4.54 The Purple Book226 further indicates that special landscape designations are to

carry less weight in the context of LCAs. As such the LCA prevails over the SLA and is incorporated into the plan.

4.55 However, it is not good enough to assume that the LCA is determinative.

Further assessment must be carried out to properly determine the landscape impact of the scheme on the site. It is a starting point, as set out in the Purple Book, which seeks to move away from the mechanical approach or applying perfunctory assessments. Similarly, the flowchart relied on by Ms Illman has no support in the Purple Book as the assessment method of landscape impact. Rather, it is a tool that provides some perspective.227 The document itself observes that having considered the flow-chart one should then undertake the necessary site work required to formulate a proper assessment of the detailed character of the landscape of a site and the effects upon it.

220 CD B32, page 52, 53, paragraph 6.3.1 221 Mr Peachey’s Proof of Evidence, Figure 4 222 Ms Illman’s Proof of Evidence, page 17, paragraph 2.8.2 223 Ibid, page 18, paragraph 2.8.4 224 CD A7, Inspector’s Local Plan Report, pp 18-19, paragraphs 38.14.23 225 CD A6, Local Plan explanatory text, page 38, paragraph 4.2.3 226 CD B7, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, 2013 227 Ibid, page 83, paragraph 5.27; and Ms Illman’s Proof of Evidence, page 15, paragraph 2.7.3; and page 16



4.56 That approach is reflected in the fact that notwithstanding the Settled Farmlands with Pastoral Use description, the Bellway Homes and Copcut Lane developments are both within this designation.228 Had the approach that Ms Illman advocates been applied to those proposals, they would have probably been refused.

4.57 Reading the LCA as a whole, one observes that landscape is only one aspect of

decision-making;229 and that meeting the need for sustainable development on the edge of sustainable settlements is also an important factor. All this is important context which is unfortunately absent from Ms Illman’s proof.

4.58 Droitwich Spa has at its edge either Settled Farmlands with Pastoral Use or

Principal Timbered Farmlands,230 the latter being less suitable for development than the former in terms of resilience to development, and the lower lying land contained therein.231 Therefore, the Landscape Character Area in which the site is located is the best option for Droitwich Spa in landscape character terms measured against the LCA.

4.59 Turning to the quality of the assessment carried out it is apparent from Ms

Illman’s initial Illman Young Report232 that she was not instructed to provide any assessment of the site of Appeal B. Why that is has not been explained.233 What is clear is that the assessment of the Council’s own landscape expert was supportive of the scheme which had been designed and did not conclude that the landscape impacts were unacceptable.234

4.60 That lack of thoroughness is exemplified further in the absence in her evidence

of any explanation of the methodology carried out to reach her conclusions. Nowhere does she set out any calibration, any analysis or any rationale for her judgments. Contrasted with Mr Peachey, whose evidence follows a logical flow and describes in detail how and why he reached his conclusions on the landscape impact, the difference is stark.235 The same can be said about Ms Illman’s assessment of the visual effects of the scheme. Her starting point has been to obtain a ZTV but this approach was exposed as painting a misleading picture of the visibility of the site.236 Ms Illman’s Table C237 fails to make the connection between her observations and her conclusions: nowhere is there a description or definition of the significance of change and the magnitude of impact; nowhere is there any description of the individual effects, leaving this Inquiry in the dark as to her understanding of terms such as “large” and “major” when describing the impact.

228 Mr Peachey’s Proof of Evidence, Appendix 2, Figure 4 229 CD J2, Worcestershire Landscape Character Assessment (LCA, November 2011), page 29 230 Ibid, Fig 11, map; and page 42, Figure 9; CD P3 231 Ibid, page 24, paragraph 4.3.2; and page 29 232 CD J5 233 Ms Illman, XX 234 Mr Peachey’s Proof of Evidence, Appendix 3 235 Mr Peachey’s Proof of Evidence, page 32 onwards 236 Mr Peachey, XX; for example, Ms Illman’s Figure 7, Target 3, SE quadrant Appeal B suggests areas of visibility with obstructions but Figure 8C Target 3 Appeal A & B show that the site is less visible 237 Ms Illman’s Proof of Evidence, page 41



4.61 The conclusions to be reached in relation to this issue on the evidence are as follows. Given the scale of the overall Landscape Character Area of this type the effect of the proposals are not significant. When one examines the more local Landscape Description Unit (LDU) it is clear that the character of the landscape has had its rurality eroded by the recent development in the vicinity. As a result the impact on the LDU landscape character will also be acceptable. Turning to the issue of visual effects there are very limited views of the site from the wider landscape.238 Whilst there will be some change to very local views firstly, these are views in which the urban form of Droitwich Spa is already evident and, secondly, as a result of the careful siting of the development on the lower lying land the extent of visual effect is minimised. In summary, there is no sensible basis to refuse the proposals on the basis of landscape impact.

4.62 It is necessary to consider the potential impacts in the event that both

schemes were to be approved. In reality the additional impact of Appeal B in landscape terms if Appeal A is approved is de minimis. Mr Peachey and the other landscape witnesses have approached this issue on the basis of considering the effect of both sites together as a single entity. Again, as the rigorous and transparent evidence of Mr Peachey demonstrates whilst the impact on landscape character and visual effect would be greater, again it would not amount to a basis for refusing the schemes. The proposals sit within the same LCA and LDU, and the assessment of the LDU shows that it is relatively resilient to change. Coupled with the substantial provision of green infrastructure the overall result of the proposals would bring benefits to clearly off-set the initial impact of the development.

4.63 There would be changes to the visual effect of the development but still no

impact upon the wider landscape. More development would be seen from the closer views but again the magnitude of change, given the existence of views of development already in these views moderates the possible extent of the impact and demonstrates that the development, akin to the other recent developments around the sites, can be properly assimilated into views back towards Droitwich Spa from the wider countryside.

Main matter (v): The effect of the proposals on local highway infrastructure 4.64 The proposal before the Inquiry, as explained by Mr Jones,239 includes

provisions for public transport and road widening which would enhance the accessibility of the site both by slow modes and by public transport. These provisions have been accepted not only by WCC but have passed an independent safety audit providing the necessary assurance that the site would be safe and accessible.240 Whilst points have been made in relation to the present position of the site in terms of the impact on traffic flows, those fall away in light of the fact that the flows used have been derived from an independent model and Pulley Lane has an adequate design and capacity to

238 Mr Peachey’s Proof of Evidence, Appendix 2, Figure 8 site sections 239 Mr May’s Proof of Evidence, Appendix 8 (Statement from Mr Jones); and CD P7, Additional Calculations from Mr Jones 240 Travis Baker Transport Assessment,



cope with the additional flows.241 The use of percentages is obviously misleading when the existing flows on this link are so low. The forecast flows are well within the design capacity of the road and pose no difficulty in engineering terms.

4.65 With regard to the site access works, Mr Jones explained in his calculations that the point about the visibility splay is based on using a standard of deceleration from trunk roads and motorways to a road which would be residential in character.242 Using realistic speeds and deceleration rates the visibility splay would be acceptable, a point endorsed by WCC and the safety audit. Using Manual for Streets and after speeds have been managed as a result of the Section 278 works, the visibility splay would function. There is no accident history of safety problems on this highway network.243

4.66 The extent of the public transport contribution would secure a long term future for the bus service. It is to be noted that Messrs Tucker and Jones and WCC have designed the bus service to pick up a number of residential areas in addition to serving the site so as to provide ridership and support for the revenue stream generated by the service. The bus service would necessarily improve the current service and provide a strong linkage both to the town centre and appeal site, providing therefore an appropriate and sustainable alternative to the use of the private car. These proposals would therefore bring about a wider public benefit to the existing community in the form of enhanced public transport.244

4.67 It is further important to reinforce that the junction arrangements at Pulley Lane/A38 which are proposed would not only assist in resolving existing highway safety issues but also in terms of providing an acceptable design solution.

Main matter (vi): Whether any permission should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take 4.68 Appropriate conditions have been agreed after discussion between the parties.

SOGOS’ enthusiasm for the Brine Run does not extend to Appeal Site B. There is no basis on which to restrict development on Appeal Site B. Even development on Zone A is a matter which is principally to do with foundations and therefore a matter for Building Regulations not planning.

Main matter (vii): Whether any planning permission granted should be accompanied by any planning obligations under section 106 of the 1990 Act and, if so, whether the proposed terms of such obligations are acceptable 4.69 The Appellant and the Council have entered into a s106 Agreement by virtue

of which £207,529.45 is payable as the “Worcester Transport Strategy Contribution.”245

241 Mr Jones, XiC and XX 242 CD P7 243 Mr Jones, XiC and XX 244 Mr Tucker, XiC and XX 245 Planning Obligation Deed, 11th February 2014, Schedule 4



4.70 Pursuant to clause 5.3 of the Deed, the obligation “shall not apply and shall not be enforceable by the Council and the County Council if the person appointed to determine the Appeal states clearly in the decision letter granting Planning Permission that such obligations, or any of them, are unnecessary or otherwise fail to meet the statutory tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 PROVIDED THAT if any obligations are determined by the decision maker to be unnecessary or otherwise fail to meet the statutory tests it shall not affect the lawfulness of the balance of covenants and obligations in this Deed which continue to be enforceable.” It is submitted that Schedule 4 is not compliant with the legal tests in light of the clear conclusions in the Appeal Decision at Ronkswood Hospital246 and that, pursuant to clause 5.3, Schedule 4 is unenforceable.

4.71 In that appeal, where the main issue was the compliance of the s106 Transport contribution with the Regulation, the Inspector scrutinised the Worcester Transport Strategy (WTS) as the policy basis for the contribution.247

4.72 In order to be “CIL-compliant”, Regulation 122 requires that an obligation be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

4.73 The Inspector concluded that the WTS, which consists of a package of infrastructure and service schemes, was too general and there had been no evidence to demonstrate how any of those schemes directly related to the development.248 In those circumstances, and unsupported by any development plan policy, the contribution calculated by reference to the WTS was not CIL-compliant.

4.74 The same applies in this appeal. Firstly, the WTS still includes a very general list of schemes with no direct relation to this proposal. Secondly, the contribution has been calculated using the WTS Technical Note, which gives a total WTS cost of £145.5million and equates to £689.7 per additional SWDP trip (using the SWDP household figures). This is then multiplied by the TRICS figure for the number of daily trips per residential unit, and the resulting figure has been negotiated down as a result of the reduced travel demand due to the Travel Plan.249 However, as was the case in Ronkswood, this Technical Note has not been subjected to public consultation and the SWDP figures are subject to almost certain change through the Examination process. On that basis therefore, little weight can be afforded to them and the contribution sought through the obligation cannot be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

4.75 The contribution in this instance has been calculated on exactly the same basis as in Ronkswood and there has since been no change in policy or data to remedy the failings identified by the Inspector.

246 CD D42, Inspector’s Decision: Former Ronkswood Hospital, Newtown Road, Worcester, 10 January 2014 247 Ibid, paragraphs 20-26 248 Ibid, paragraphs 24-26 249 Planning Obligation Compliance Statement “Folder”, Appendix 7, “Yew Tree Village WTS Briefing Note”, 21st January 2014



PLANNING BALANCE 4.76 In the light of the conclusions reached earlier it is necessary to draw the

factors together and feed them into the equation provided by paragraph 14 of the NPPF in circumstances where the principal policies are out of date. The effect of applying the presumption is that the fulcrum of the planning balance shifts in favour of the grant of consent. Only if the Council is able to demonstrate harm which “significantly and demonstrably” outweighs the benefits of the development should consent be refused. Thus harm simpliciter will not do; harm must be of sufficient gravity to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The reason for that significant shift in the fulcrum of the planning balance is that it is a key policy objective of the NPPF under paragraph 47 to ensure that a 5 year supply of housing land is in place and that old plans with outdated constraints are not deployed to frustrate development.

4.77 That exercise requires one to start with a careful examination of the benefits of

the proposal. Unfortunately there is little, if any, evidence in the proof of Mr Brown, and none in that submitted by third parties, to indicate an understanding of the significant benefits which this scheme would deliver.

4.78 Obviously, firstly there is the 5 year housing land supply requirement which

needs to be met. The requirement figure is not set but we know that it is greater than 23,200 and is likely to be an additional 8,800. It is the position of both Appellants that the Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable 5 years supply.

4.79 Jobs would be created by the development. Government Guidance in Laying

the Foundations250 and the Honeybourne decision251 both acknowledge the direct and indirect employment flowing from housing construction. Not only would approximately 190 personnel be employed in construction on site252 but that figure would increase to 120-205 general personnel.253 Both appeals together would provide 40 jobs at the retail centre and between 105-205 jobs at the extra care facility.254 Mr Brown struggled to dispute these numbers to any significant degree.255 His quibble in respect of the rates of development depended on the GL Hearn Report which itself shows that higher rates of development (up to 170 per annum) are capable of sustaining in Droitwich Spa more than one outlet, at the Copcut Lane site as well as outlets at the appeal sites. He was unable to explain GL Hearn’s conclusion in the light of their own empirical evidence.256

4.80 The development would make a positive contribution to the social dimension of

sustainable development, particularly through the provision of new homes to address the significant affordable housing needs. Droitwich Spa is a very

250 CD A3, Laying the Foundations, Executive Summary, paragraphs 2, 11 251 CD D13, paragraph 44 252 Appeal B, Transport Assessment, L12, Page 31,para 5,7.5, 253 Ibid, page 50, paragraph 6.2.23 254 Mr Downes’ Proof of Evidence, paragraph 7.9.3; and page 69 255 Mr Brown, XX 256 Mr Brown, XX



sustainable settlement and a good location for new development with a full range of facilities, services and public transport connections. The site location is sustainable with the ability for high quality footpath and cycleway connections to be made to adjoining residential areas and to bus services there and to the adjoining Appeal Site A.

4.81 The proposals would involve change in relation to the loss of fields in

agricultural and equestrian use and the development of areas of land currently undeveloped. Off-setting environmental benefits in the form of accessible open space, landscaping and habitat creation would mitigate this change and the proposal has been carefully considered to minimize the impact on the landscape. The area of open space on the eastern boundary of the proposal would connect well to the adjoining, existing informal open space and provide connections for existing residential communities to Newland Lane and Newland Road and wider footpath and cycleway networks.

4.82 To the extent that harm has been identified, it is limited. It is focused on

landscape issues in circumstances where the sites are essentially the only candidates for expansion in Droitwich Spa and the detailed evidence demonstrates that landscape and visual effects are in substance limited to the sites themselves and their immediate surroundings. It raises allegations of prematurity when the SWDP is going backwards rather than forwards, its housing requirement is going up rather than down, and there is an acceptance that further sustainable sites would be required. Any harm is certainly not of a degree of significance so as to outweigh the clear benefits in relation to sustainable development the proposals would provide either substantially or demonstrably or at all.

CONCLUSION 4.83 Having examined the evidence before the Inquiry it is clear that the Council’s

officers were absolutely correct in recommending to members on 8 May 2013 that planning permission should be granted for the appeal proposals. The officers’ independent endorsement of the need for this site and its suitability as set out above carries significant weight in the consideration of this appeal.

4.84 Measured against the fact that the proposal would bring about substantial and

tangible benefits, the Council’s case is incoherent and has been motivated by the objections of local residents to a large extent. The lack of substantive evidence put forward by SOGOS or the third parties only highlights that fact. The democratic process is not just about popularity. The rule of law applies in planning cases to ensure that they are determined properly and independently. Overall, the Council’s case lacks any reasoning.

4.85 There is on analysis no substance in the reasons for refusal which the members imposed. Instead there is a strong positive case for development of the appeal site and one which would bring about significant benefits in terms of addressing housing requirements for all people in South Worcestershire and Wychavon. That is not simply in relation to the need for market housing but the development also addresses the needs of those who are unable through their own socio-economic circumstances to meet their housing requirements and are currently forced to live in unsuitable and unsatisfactory homes. The



proposals would assist in providing jobs. In the light of the material before the Inquiry, there is no sensible basis to do other than recommend to the SoS that planning permission should be granted.

5. THE CASE FOR SAVE OUR GREEN OPEN SPACES (SOGOS) Introduction

5.1 It is necessary to explain the presence of SOGOS at this Inquiry. SOGOS is giving evidence at this Inquiry as its objections to these appeals are only partially mirrored in the Council’s case. It should be pointed out that SOGOS fully supports the Council’s case on the unacceptable adverse landscape and visual effects of the proposed developments and agrees with the Council that the cumulative scale of the proposed appeals would prejudice the emerging SWDP. However, the concerns about the unacceptable transport impact, the uncertainty as to the surface drainage of the sites, and the simple fact that the Appellants’ own consultants have labelled a large portion of one of the sites as “undevelopable” compelled SOGOS and its representatives to attend in order to seek answers to these points which go to the very heart of the principle of developing these sites.

5.2 It cannot be ignored that the local highways authority, WCC, does not object

to the appeals. However, the information on which WCC based its decision has been demonstrated by SOGOS to have dramatically underestimated the actual transport impacts of the developments. In addition, elements of the proposals relied on by the Appellants have been demonstrated to be wrong through the very simple exercise of looking at a map showing property boundaries. The fact that neither WCC nor the Appellants had picked this very basic fact up is highly indicative of the lack of care applied to these proposed developments.

5.3 It is also clear from the decision in Waddington Road, Clitheroe (SOGOS/3)

that highways authorities can get it very badly wrong, and that when this occurs - even in the context of a highly sustainable site, no landscape concerns, no 5 year housing land supply and no objections by the Council - an Inspector is free to depart from the statutory consultee’s opinion when transport concerns have not been adequately dealt with. It should be noted that this approach was later fully endorsed by the SoS in his decision. It was not the lack of a Road Safety Audit which led to the Inspector’s recommendation: it is clear from paragraph 247 that his decision was based on the (as stated in paragraph 244) “hideous geometry” of the junction alone, which the Inspector judged for himself led to a severe transport risk when considered with the proposed development. The Inspector is invited to compare the junction shown in SOGOS/4 with the blind bend along Pulley Lane: it is pointed out that the only mitigation proposed for this equally “hideous” stretch of road is signage.

5.4 The evidence from SOGOS is structured as follows. Firstly, the general

planning principles which are applicable in these cases are examined. Secondly, the evidence submitted by both Appellants in support of their contention that the appeals satisfy these principles will be examined. Finally, the evidence supporting these principles will be examined to demonstrate that



the Appellants are unable to establish that their proposals meet these requirements on any basis.

General Planning Principles 5.5 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF brings localism to the forefront of the planning

process: the planning system should facilitate local people’s ability to shape their surroundings. This includes input into the decision-making process, for the very sensible reason that they know the circumstances and the land about which the decision will be made far better than anyone else. Planning decisions should also improve and enhance peoples’ lives: rather than merely coping with immediate problems it should seek creative, long-term and holistic solutions with future generations in mind.

5.6 How decision-makers are to put the above principles into practice is succinctly

phrased in paragraph 9:

“9. Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to): … ● improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure”

Transport Impacts Must Not Be Severe 5.7 Paragraph 10 of the NPPF says that decision-makers need to take local

circumstances into account. This is reflected in paragraph 32, which places an obligation on decision-makers to consider the impacts of the proposed development on the local transport network:

“…decisions should take account of whether: ● the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up

depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

● safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

● improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

Developments Must Be Deliverable: Certainty as to Surface Drainage 5.8 This is important not only as a point of general principle – that permission

should only be granted for developments that are deliverable, a point which Mr Downes agreed with in cross-examination – but also because the unique nature of these sites means that particular care must be applied to considering their development.



5.9 It cannot be denied that the sites are elevated – the very name of the combined sites, Yew Tree Hill, belies any arguments to the contrary, as does any glance at a topographic map. This is a concern in terms of landscape impact, which was covered by Ms Illman for the Council. It is also a concern in terms of drainage as the steep slopes mean the site is not conducive to on-site storage during extreme weather events. The situation is compounded due to the impermeable nature of the sites – the latter being agreed by the Appellants’ consultant, Mr Engledow. This means that on-site storage in the form of ditches, swales, and underground attenuation systems on their own is simply impossible. Yet this is precisely what is still being proposed for the requisite on-site storage and the only answer provided was that a solution would be “engineered”.

5.10 This is simply not good enough in this context. The evidence from Mr Brass’

video of the flooding on Isaacs Way and his photographs of his son kayaking along the lane show precisely what can happen if drainage is not comprehensively thought through prior to allowing development to take place. This serial deferral of considered solutions – a theme in both appeals - incorporates inherent risks into the proposed development and cumulatively these risks have the potential to pose much greater problems in time.

Developments Must Be Deliverable: Ground Conditions & Subsidence 5.11 A further unique feature of the area is its geology in respect of the local brine

runs, where there is geotechnical evidence in Persimmon’s own documents based on research conducted by the recognised experts on this issue which states that based on current evidence a large proportion of Appeal Site A cannot be developed.

5.12 Zone A is the area at the highest risk of significant subsidence, which all

parties agree runs roughly through the centre of the combined development site, as set out in the brine map (CD/B29) and the GRM Phase 1 Appraisal (CD/M10). The evidence set out in Appendix H to CD/M10, the Johnson Poole and Bloomer report, demonstrates that this area has regularised its rate of subsidence following cessation of brine pumping to a rate of 1 metre subsidence over 60 years and a 1:57 maximum tilt over the same time period (CD/M10, Appendix H, paragraph 5.6).

5.13 Of further concern is the fact that at the margins of Zone A there is the

greatest risk of significant subsidence (CD/M10, Appendix H, paragraph 4.4.4). As Zone B is at a much lower risk of subsidence (CD/M10, Appendix H, paragraph 4.4.5) the resultant differential subsidence rates carries the risk that infrastructure spanning both zones is, over time, at risk of rupture.

5.14 The Appellants have put forward three arguments in response to these

concerns: first, that the risk can be adequately dealt with through construction techniques; secondly, that this is a building control matter and thirdly, they rely on the fact that the Council has already permitted development in Zone A.

5.15 The first point relied on by the Appellants is shortly answered. No pipe can

withstand a short-distance 1:57 tilt, or a 1 metre drop, which is the predicted effect of the subsidence over 60 years by the acknowledged experts in this



field. The only answers provided to the Inspector were that this would be studied and, yet again, a solution would be “engineered”.

5.16 In response to the second point, this is of course true. But we are concerned

here today with the principle of developing these sites and whether or not they can be constructed at all is obviously relevant to the Inspector’s recommendation. The experts are very clear on this point: they themselves use the phrase “undevelopable” (CD/M10, page 9). If the site is not deliverable, it should not be sterilised in perpetuity through a useless planning permission. Permission should not be granted until it is certain that the proposed residential use can even take place on Appeal Site A.

5.17 Finally, in response to the third point, this is obviously a great concern that

thankfully does not trouble us much today, though it may be very troubling to members of the public who live in this area. The Appellants did not put forward any evidence that demonstrated that the Council had arguments based on the underlying brine run and risk of subsidence before them when they granted permission for development elsewhere in Zone A other than referring to Johnson Poole and Bloomer’s annual reporting to the Council on the status of the brine run. What is clear and what is before the present Inquiry, however, is the fact that the relevant studies (commissioned in 2009 and 2011) which considered Zone A for development had the fact that earlier development had proceeded in Zone A fully in mind yet went on to state that, nonetheless, Zone A was undevelopable. What is also clear is that the subsidence timeframe is long-term – the rate was characterised as “slow” and “consistent”, at a rate of mere millimetres per year. The development in Zone A has only been there since the late 1990’s. It is too early and we simply do not know enough to draw any conclusions at all from the existing development in Zone A.

The Impact on Transport & Highways Must Not Be Severe 5.18 It is evident that there are serious issues with the mitigation measures

proposed by the Appellants, as demonstrated by the evidence of Mr Richard Pettitt. Mr Pettitt identified a number of crucial deficiencies in the Appellants’ cases both in the Transport Assessment dated May 2011 (CD/L17), the Addendum dated July 2012 (CD/L22) and Appeal B’s Transport Assessment and Travel Plan dated November 2012 (CD/M12).

5.19 In contrast to the Appellants’ evidence, Mr Pettitt – using the Appellant’s own

data – demonstrated that traffic rates would increase 873% along this narrow country road. Notably Mr Tucker did not put forward any explanation for the figures used in his Transport Assessment and instead pointed to a third study, that which Halcrow prepared for WCC (CD/L17, Appendix L). However, this document is of extremely limited use as it itself recognises it can only be used for indicative purposes (paragraph 2.7), that further detailed analysis was necessary (paragraph 5.18), and failed to reach a conclusion of the actual impact on the most critical junction it purportedly studied, that of the A38 and Pulley Lane (Table 4). We must turn to the Halcrow models found at CD/L17, Appendix M, scenarios 3 and 4 to learn that this junction would become oversaturated under certain conditions. Therefore it is clear is that there is no margin of error and calculations have to be precise, accurate, and prudent.



5.20 The same is true of Pulley Lane, presently a narrow country road. Yet the only mitigation proposed is regularisation to its current maximum width of 5.5 m and widening some visibility splays. As demonstrated by Mr Pettitt, these proposals are not in accordance with applicable design standards and lead to significant safety concerns, particularly at the bend.

5.21 Mr Jones for Appellant B acknowledged that the design manual which was

used, MfS2 (CD/B4) is designed for urban areas. SOGOS submits that this is wholly inappropriate when considering that these are rural country roads to start with. It cannot be right that highways can be designed backwards, based on what would be developed. One must take the roads as one finds them, and design mitigation measures accordingly. This means the DMRB ought to have been used to ensure the proposed mitigation measures are safe and appropriate for these roads. It is clear that they are not.

5.22 The most concerning consequence of using the wrong guidance is the access

proposed to both sites, but particularly to Appeal B’s site. Evidence was given by both transport witnesses that reduced visibility splays actually increase driver safety as justification for not meeting the design standards (in the case of Appeal A, for failing to meet even the minimum applicable (the erroneous drawing 10154-74)). It is only the heightened awareness of risk that makes this true. Drivers coming down a crested hill are not going to expect that the only access point to a major development lies at the foot of the hill. Simply put, the access proposed for Appeal B is not safe. In these appeals issues regarding access are not reserved matters and thus cannot be engineered away down the line.

5.23 Further, the Appellants’ over-optimistic figures also give rise to serious

concern that the already congested roads would become unusable, leading to significant rat running along wholly inappropriate rural country lanes, one of which includes a narrow humpbacked canal bridge which leads down straight into a 90 degree blind turn.

5.24 In addition to having misjudged the boundary lines along Newland Road,

Appellant A has assumed that when open to traffic in the past this road carried similar levels of traffic to Pulley Lane (see Simon Tucker’s proof of evidence, paragraph 5.3). It is clear from the evidence of Mr Bowler that this was never the case as is clear from his proof of evidence, paragraph 1.3.1.

5.25 In any event, the steep slopes along Newland Road would require some form

of retaining wall. The most visually, acoustically and environmentally favourable option, gabion walls, would significantly intrude into private gardens. Nor – even if this widening was possible using sheet piling – would bus or emergency vehicles be able to safely access the road from any direction other than straight across the junction with Primsland Way due to the narrowness of the turning radius.

5.26 The sustainability proposals put forward by the Appellants are wholly without

merit. The re-routing proposal for cyclists has them negotiating a five-armed roundabout. The main pedestrian re-routing proposal is along an isolated, fenced in, and unwelcoming stretch of woods which users simply would not use in the dark or when they are alone. The alternative is through a modern



residential estate or the overcrowded and dangerous Pulley Lane. Neither of these proposals can be considered a genuine benefit in terms of the amenity of the user nor the sustainability credential of the sites.

Planning Balance 5.27 Allowing these appeals would have significant effects on the local economy.

That is beyond dispute. However, SOGOS disputes the extent to which these effects can be categorised as positive. Appended to the proof of evidence of Mr Stephen Stoney was a letter from E.S. Hill & Sons, an important local employer who has been farming over 242 hectares of the area for three generations. Their landholdings are bisected by the A38 and they rely on Pulley Lane to access the site adjacent to the recently approved Copcut development. It is clear on any view that an increase in traffic of 873% is incompatible with the farm traffic which currently uses this road.

5.28 Further, there are two equestrian facilities which currently use these quiet

country lanes for horse riding: this activity would be rendered incompatible with the vast increase in traffic as well.

5.29 The proposed developments would impede the ability to carry on his business

to such a severe degree that Mr Hill states that he is concerned for his farm’s economic future. It is clear that being unable to safely ride out beyond the stables themselves would considerably reduce the attractiveness of these facilities and thus have an adverse economic impact.

5.30 In contrast, the only benefits to the local economy which the Appellants put

forward are the jobs provided through construction, the care facility and the employment facilities. Firstly, there is no doubt that this quantum of housing would have to be provided within South Worcestershire over the plan period in any event. Therefore, refusal of these appeals would only mean that construction jobs are relocated. They would not be lost. Secondly, again, there is no doubt that further care facilities are needed. There is doubt that they need to be located on greenfield land with a subsidising development of 500 homes. Moreover, refusal of Appeal A only means the facility would be located to a more appropriate location. Finally, no evidence has been offered to the Inquiry which demonstrates that a facility located 1.2 to 1.5 miles distant from the town centre would be economically viable.

5.31 It follows that only very limited weight ought to be given to the Appellants’

arguments that the developments represent sustainable economic development.

5.32 Having regard to environmental sustainability, the letters appended to Mr

Stoney’s proof of evidence and the evidence provided by third parties demonstrates the importance of the greenfield use of the sites for the amenity of existing residents, the protection of which is a core planning principle in paragraph 17 of the NPPF. In this case the amenity of local residents does not limit itself only to the existing use and appearance of the land itself: the rural nature of the area and the agricultural use of the sites contribute to peaceful enjoyment of the local road network for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. These uses would be severely hindered if not rendered impossible if these sites



were to be developed. It is not merely that a pleasant walk and lovely views would be destroyed: local residents simply would not be able to live their daily lives in the manner which they have enjoyed to date if these developments proceed. Therefore, in addition to the landscape impacts identified by Ms Illman, the significant impacts to residential amenity mean great weight should be afforded to arguments that the developments are not environmentally or socially sustainable.

5.33 Further, and overlapping with environmental considerations, the sites are

clearly not sustainable in transport terms. This decreases the accessibility of local services and does not support the health, social and cultural well-being of the community. The sites are between 1.2 and 1.5 miles distant from the town centre, with an incline on any return journey. It is clear that for the sites to be sustainable public transport must be provided. Yet the sites are not well integrated into the public transport network and each site would only be served by a single bus route. The proposed benefit in terms of the enhancement of public transport options put forward by the Appellants is not sufficient to make either development truly sustainable, and thus the developments are not sustainable in transport terms. This reduces any weight to be given to the socially sustainable element of these appeals.

Opposition to the Developments 5.34 The strength of local opposition to these proposals is demonstrated in a

number of ways. There is the evidence of the vote of the Planning Committee itself: it is significant that, despite the officer’s report recommending approval of the applications, every single member of the Committee who voted, voted against the proposals. Then there is the petition signed by over 3,470 local residents who oppose the development of these sites (SOGOS/1). The criteria for signing this petition were rigorous and signatures were carefully monitored for duplication. There can be no doubt that 3,470 is an accurate figure. Therefore, at all stages where a democratic process prevailed the response was unanimously against both proposals.

5.35 Though the concept of the common good is ever-narrowing, people’s ability to

shape their surroundings remains an unshakable core principle within the democratic process. This is recognised by the NPPF, though so too is the need to find a solution to the nation’s housing problems. Decision-making in a democracy is messy and goals cannot be achieved with laser-like precision. We do not live in a dictatorship. There can be no doubt that if these appeals are allowed this is because they have been imposed on the residents of Droitwich Spa in the face of an astonishing level of local opposition. Even if the significant issues with the appeal sites are disregarded, it is simply unacceptable that the need for new housing can outweigh this level of local opposition.

Conclusion 5.36 SOGOS was not formed merely to turn up to planning inquiries to voice

objections to all development in Droitwich Spa. SOGOS fully supports development, provided it is sustainable. In order to demonstrate that both Appeal A and Appeal B are not sustainable, SOGOS has raised funds for two



consultants who have demonstrated that SOGOS’ concerns are fully warranted.

5.37 There remains unacceptable uncertainty as to drainage and subsidence issues,

and the local road network is not capable of absorbing this cumulative quantum of development. There are serious safety and congestion issues in relation to both sites, and SOGOS has provided cogent evidence that the proposed mitigation measures would not alleviate these concerns. Plainly, from the site visit, this is a special area of land significantly elevated above the rest of the developed area which is well-used and much loved by local residents. Local knowledge is an essential supplement to the evidence of expert consultants when making planning decisions if they are to be made properly and this local knowledge demonstrates without doubt that these sites are simply not appropriate locations for such a scale of residential development.

5.38 It is not the role of this Inquiry to investigate whether other sites are better

suited to meet the identified housing need of the Council: it is clear the Council is addressing this through the progression of the joint development plan. The role of this Inquiry is to interrogate the suitability of these sites for these developments. It is clear from carrying out a thorough planning balance that the developments do not represent sustainable development and that the adverse impacts of granting permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This is enough to warrant dismissal of the appeals in its own right, but there is much more which must be considered as, even if permission is granted, there is no certainty that the developments are deliverable as both sites must await the final results of the brine run surveys. Appeal B has commenced this work (P8), but the final results for the full site are not due for another 18 months. Appeal A has yet to even commence this work and as it stands, a large proportion of this site is in Zone A. There is no information other that normal development in Zone A is prohibited for all but specialist buildings (CD/M10, Appendix H, paragraph 5.7).

5.39 Further, even if the Inspector was not minded to recommend that the

significant and demonstrable harm outweighs the benefits of allowing the appeals, and even if the Inspector determined that SOGOS’ arguments on the certainty of the deliverability of these developments does not demonstrate that these concerns ought not to be left to the reserved matters stage, there is clear and cogent evidence that the appeals are independently unacceptable in planning terms due to the severity of their impact on the transport network.

6. INTERESTED PERSONS WHO APPEARED AT THE INQUIRY 6.1 Mr Richard Giugno, a local resident, made a number of points in relation to

housing demand in Wychavon. These are briefly summarised below but the reader should also refer to his statement at IP1. The ONS sub national population projections 2011 (published April 2013) show a material dependency on Net International Migration for Wychavon over the next 10 years of 300 p.a. The mid-2012 population data published in August 2013 shows a net 191 international migrants into Wychavon for 2012. Previous DCLG housing forecasts have been shown to be too optimistic with current household forecasts now downgraded by 10% to 384 units p.a.



6.2 The latest updated objective assessment report submitted to the Inspector reviewing the SWDP indicates an average annual housing need of 416 for 2012-2030 which includes a catch-up from 2006 spread over the next 18 years. Some 66% of the assumed growth is not local to the district. Almost all the growth (97%) is non local for Wychavon with almost half from international migration. Previous year projections of 2011 households for Wychavon have been slightly over optimistic. The international migration projection is a net 300 p.a. Household forecasts are expected to be lower. Wychavon’s forecast housing needs are projected down 10.5% with run rates forecasted at 384 p.a.

6.3 Mr Mike Bowler, a local resident, has lived at 49 Yew Tree Hill, Droitwich since May 1989. Mr Bowler explained the history of the development of his property and how it was built sideways on to Newland Road where Yew Tree Hill itself bends towards the lane. He submitted evidence and provided various plans to explain the history and evolution of development at Newland Road from 1947-2014. He provided comments on the statements made by the developers in their proofs of evidence suggesting that the daily use of Newland Road when it was open to traffic was about 12-15 vehicles per day.

6.4 He referred to bus usage pointing out that WCC are currently in the process of consulting the population of the County with a view to cutting bus services, including the 19A/19C routes, and the S1/S2 routes to the Blessed Edward School which run along Primsland Way. He argued that the proposed road width where Newland Road meets Primsland Way is only some 4.50 m wide with limited visibility. As buses could easily be meeting head on when crossing Primsland Way, he suggested that this was too narrow and far too dangerous to mix buses with cyclists and pedestrians.

6.5 He referred to DTA’s Transport Assessment Addendum, diagram TP2, which shows a green line indicating a proposed East-West cycle route. He said that Pulley Lane itself is barely wide enough today to allow a car to pass a cycle so two-way traffic would not be able to flow along this lane if cyclists use it as they do today. He highlighted that as well as cyclists, there have been several accidents on the Copcut Roundabout which would suggest that this five arm roundabout is dangerous without the possibility of adding a cumulative more 3,000 cars from the Copcut Lane and Yew Tree developments. He disagreed with Mr Tucker’s evidence when he said that Pulley Lane would not be used for much in the way of HGV traffic. He considered the proposed development would be detrimental to residential amenity as buses running alongside the back gardens would be an intrusion of privacy.257

6.6 Mr Tony Miller is a District Councillor and County Councillor.258 He has

resided in the area from a schoolboy to living in his present location for 34 years. He is opposed to the development for several reasons. He said that the Council started looking at the suggested development sites 5 years ago. Yew Tree Hill was one site and Copcut Lane was the other site in this location. It was obvious that the infrastructure could not support both locations. The Yew Tree site has very poor access and Pulley Lane is not wide enough to support

257 IP2 258 IP3



the amount of vehicle movements and neither can it support a footpath. This is without looking at all the known problems in this location with movement in the land due to the brine run.

6.7 The land required for the alterations to Pulley Lane is not in the ownership of

the developers and the owner Mr Price has informed him that he is not going to give this land away. The Copcut Lane site was severely limited with Copcut Lane being too narrow even though it has a footpath. It was decided that the only way this site could be served was to have the main entrance off the A38. The Council was aware of the impact this development would have on peak hour traffic flows. Around 700 houses could mean 1,400 cars coming from Yew Tree village.

6.8 He said that there were foul water sewage problems at the Ladywood STW

because it could not cope with the present capacity. When there is excessive rainfall, Severn Trent is allowed to discharge partially untreated sewage into the River Salwarpe which enters the River Severn. In times of flood this foul sewage water flows into the residential properties alongside the River Severn. Furthermore, he argued that the impact on the health system of 1,500 houses from these two locations would be daunting. There would be implications on the local hospitals where problems already exist coping with the amount of people using the facilities e. g. there are not enough midwives. The WCC is cutting bus subsidies, so he wanted to know how many years the developers would maintain the bus route. Finally, he wanted to know where the children would be going to go to school.

6.9 Mr Ken Jennings is a Town Councillor for Droitwich Tagwell Ward in which

ward the majority of appeal sites is located.259 He is leader of the majority group on Droitwich Spa Town Council. He is also a District Councillor and he represents Droitwich South East on WDC. This is the ward in which both of the appeal sites are located. He is Vice-Chairman of the District Council’s Planning Committee. In addition to speaking on his own behalf as a Town and District Councillor, he was appointed to represent and speak on behalf of the Droitwich Spa Town Council. He registered both his own and the Town Council’s objections to these planning applications and he requested that both of the appeals be dismissed.

6.10 He said that the draft SWDP, produced in partnership between WDC,

Worcester City Council and Malvern Hills District Council has now been submitted to the SoS and is undergoing public examination. It is the hope of everyone that the plan will be approved by the Inspector, Roger Clews, and that WDC will be in a position to adopt it early in 2015. Once that plan is in place there would be no need for debate on speculative planning applications such as these. He said that the planning process in this country is plan led.

6.11 Until such time as the SWDP is formally adopted, he considered that paragraph

17 of The Planning System General Principles applies in determining these applications. This has been supported by a statement made by Planning Minister, Nick Boles, in the House of Commons on 8th January 2013.

259 IP4



6.12 When the SWDP was first being drafted, it was accepted, albeit reluctantly by the people of Droitwich, that to meet the town’s anticipated local growth needs in the period to 2030, an urban extension would be required. There were two candidates for the siting of such an extension, Copcut Lane and Yew Tree Hill. Whilst not happy about either choice, the people of Droitwich agreed with the selection of the Copcut Lane option as being the least worst alternative. Outline planning permission has already been granted on this site for 750 houses and 14,000 sq ms of industrial space. He said the town’s planned urban extension needs for the next 17 years have already been met.

6.13 The people of Droitwich were promised categorically that only one site would

be required to meet all the needs of the town. It was an ‘either or’ situation. Clearly, however, this has not stopped those behind the Yew Tree Hill proposal submitting these speculative planning applications. These have nothing to do with the future needs of Droitwich, or Wychavon, or the SWDP. Rather predictably it comes down to money. One projection he has heard is that the joint developed value of these two sites is somewhere north of £300 million. Clearly, the Yew Tree Hill proposers were not going to take their rejection lightly. These applications are not in accordance with the draft SWDP. These are not preferred development sites. These applications are clearly premature and are so substantial as to prejudice the SWDP and paragraph 17 clearly applies in this case.

6.14 The Town Council has heard many times that the District Council must approve

planning applications as it needs to demonstrate the provision of a 5 year housing land supply due the requirements of the NPPF. In calculating our 5 year land supply position when the planning applications were considered and refused by the Wychavon Planning Committee, Councillor Jennings took the view that the West Midlands RSS Panel Report was given too much weight in decision making. He explained to the Committee that the RSS had been revoked and that the data behind the plan was becoming increasingly out of date. He considered the data to be unreliable. His preference was for reliance on the locally assessed figures set out in the Council’s own draft SWDP – a figure which was based from data in the up-to-date SHMA.

6.15 However, he appreciated that since the decision to refuse these planning

applications, the world has moved on and an initial assessment of the SWDP housing figure has been made by the Examination Inspector, Mr Clews. He has asked for further information. In addition there has been an important Court of Appeal decision (St Albans v Hunston Properties Ltd) which goes to the heart of the issue as to what evidence should be used to assess a Council’s 5 year land supply position. Further to this, the Council has made significant improvements in its land supply position. As set out in the evidence submitted by the Council, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that it would not be appropriate to use the RSS figures – given that the plan has been revoked and that the policies within these plans do not necessarily represent ‘an objective assessment of housing need’. The Council has set out in its statement that the decision from the Court of Appeal means that it would be wrong for a planning appeal Inspector “to use a housing requirement figure derived from a revoked plan (such as the WMRSS) even as a proxy for what the local plan process may produce eventually”.



6.16 He said that on this basis the Council has set out a position which confirms that for the purposes of calculating the Council’s 5 year land supply the most appropriate figure to use would be from the DCLG’s 2008-based SNHPs (2010). He understood that this equates to a figure of 10,133 dwellings in Wychavon or 422 dwellings p.a. Against this target the Council can demonstrate 6.76 years’ housing supply. In fact, if the out of date RSS figures were used, he understood that with an annual requirement of 475 dwellings, the Council would still have 5.65 years’ housing land supply. This shows that the Council has taken difficult decisions to grant planning permissions for new housing development where the benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm. Whilst the Council may wish to continue to improve this position and ensure robustness, it is in a position to consider this balance very carefully and does not have to approve all housing developments which come before it. He said WDC had fully discharged its duty to provide a 5 year housing land supply.

6.17 He also said that the Town Council has no doubts about the weight that can be

given to an emerging development plan such as the SWDP, when planning applications are to be determined. Given that the new SWDP is already under inspection, the WDC, as the decision makers in this case, must surely give it substantial weight in its decision making. WDC, Worcester City Council and Malvern Hills District Council have spent a lot of time, effort and Council Taxpayers’ money in producing a plan that would guide the development of all three Districts for the better part of the next 20 years. The draft SWDP therefore must undoubtedly carry great weight in decision making.

6.18 He pointed out that the NPPF makes great play on the need for sustainability

and therefore serious consideration needs to be given to the sustainability of the proposed developments. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF advises that there are three dimensions to sustainability - economic, social and environmental. He argued that the proposals were isolated developments on the edge of town which were not environmentally sustainable. Much of the appeal sites were in an area prone to major settlement. Moreover, siting so many houses off what is basically a cul de sac and the small rural farm track that is Pulley Lane, should surely have raised some concerns among highways officers. He also referred to the Clitheroe case where the SoS agreed with the Inspector and dismissed the appeal on highway grounds.

6.19 Mr Richard Morris is a Droitwich South East Ward Member along with Cllr

Jennings. He made the following points in relation to both appeals. Cllr Morris was unable to attend in person, but his statement to the Inquiry was read out by Cllr Jennings.260 He urged careful assessment of the arguments. He said both appeals should be seen as essentially one proposal as the same arguments exist for both. He said that SOGOS had been formed to “Save Yew Tree Hill” and has operated terrifically over time. SOGOS has completed two petitions with over 2,500 signatures on each and petitions have also been handed over to the Council from Droitwich Spa High School youngsters and High Street traders. The view that this is not the right site for development comes from right across Droitwich. Droitwich does not want this site to be developed.

260 IP5



6.20 In the SWDP the Yew Tree Hill site was rejected as less sustainable with more landscape and other issues than the development at Copcut Lane nearby which has been approved. If the SoS now approved the Yew Tree proposals, which combined is such a large site outside the SWDP, it would upset the balance of what the policies in the SWDP are trying to achieve and in effect would make a mockery of our local plan and decision making.

6.21 In Nick Boles’ letter to the Droitwich Planning Chairman, Cllr Roy Murphy

(22.4.13) he said:

“The Government has always been clear that proper consideration should be given in the planning process to emerging local plans....it is for the decision-taker to decide how much weight to give to an emerging plan.”

6.22 Surely it is clear from this that the SWDP should be the main source to

determine our local requirement especially when Nick Boles MP also says:

“I am pleased to report that the Government has taken the decision to revoke the Regional Strategy for West Midlands and we will lay an order to this effect in Parliament shortly after the Easter recess”.

6.23 This means that the top down figures have now effectively gone as Nick Boles

says:

“This Government does not set top-down Whitehall housing targets”. 6.24 Mr Boles also said that we must ensure “sustainable development” and that we

can refuse on the grounds of cumulative development and the lack of sustainability.

“The Framework is also clear that the cumulative impact of development, alongside the need for infrastructure to support development, can be material considerations in deciding whether development is appropriate.”

6.25 With a development of 720 houses already approved at Copcut Lane and also

in the south of Droitwich and both Yew Tree applications contributing a further 965 (including a 200 bed care facility), this would have a massive impact on local infrastructure. With other developments already underway there is over a 12% increase in the town’s population which amounts to a massive effect on local services such as doctors, dentists, schools and police. The SWDP has a sustainable plan so why do we need these two developments outside of the plan?

6.26 There is potential for cumulative impact with the Copcut Lane development on

roads and the transport network. Cllr Morris questioned whether the transport study was carried out during peak hours. He said it is during peak hours that the Copcut roundabout had endless queues and the aggregate impact, with the 720 house Copcut development, would cause gridlock.

6.27 He also referred to the issue of Pulley Lane access. He said that any

development would necessitate Pulley Lane being widened and straightened. It would therefore no longer appear as a country lane. He



said the highways report seems to lack depth in considering some of the key issues around this area. Brine runs, and potential subsidence are other issues with these sites. We already have a retainer wall at Rebekah Gardens which had to belatedly be included in the last development to protect housing. The report says that some of the land is affected by brine runs. Local experience says that much of the planned area is affected by brine runs and who knows the level of vulnerability of this land running over fluid brine runs.

6.28 Cllr Morris quoted from a British Geological Survey paper from 2001 which

urged caution with the ending of most near surface mining and brine extraction in the area as the hydrological system has or is in the process of rebalancing itself and subsidence problems may occur.

6.29 He considered that these developments would create a detached satellite

village at the far south of the town cut off from the Droitwich centre. They would not help the economy of Droitwich town centre. Traders have said the developments would be in the wrong place. The report says the plan would support the wider economy but certainly not the town economy as the land is over 1.5 miles from the Droitwich centre. The Worcester suburb of Warndon and Worcester City Centre would prove better propositions. He said that development nearer Droitwich town centre was needed.

6.30 He said that the Yew Tree development would not be sustainable. The size of

these developments would be devastating for Droitwich. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is top down whilst the SWDP is local and sustainable. He preferred the proposals in the emerging SWDP. He noted that the Coalition Government espouses Localism but is forcing LPAs to plan for national figures. He said that the proposals would destroy Droitwich on the basis of the NPPF which could be so different tomorrow. He said we cannot tear concrete up and recreate natural habitats and green fields. He urged the SoS to refuse these appeals which were from opportunist developers. The proposals would do nothing for Droitwich

6.31 Barbara Meddings is chairman of the Hindlip, Martin Hussingtree & Salwarpe

Parish Council.261 The Parish Council (PC) represents the residents in the rural community of Salwarpe Parish. She said the proposals in these appeals do not recognise or consider the role of Salwarpe Rural Parish; its local character and history that reflect the identity of the local community. The fundamental issues are as follows: (i) the developments on both sites would extend beyond the Droitwich Town development boundary. It is perceived as unacceptable that the proposals are not able to be accommodated within the defined development boundary and would require expansion into the open countryside.

6.32 She said that the Parish of Salwarpe already has to accommodate the

permitted urban extension at Copcut Lane less than 1 km to the west after extensive public consultation. These appeals set out to establish a second urban extension duplicating many facilities with the main access points outside

261 IP6



the town boundary. The character and integrity of the network of rural lanes and their settings within the landscape are considered of value to local people.

6.33 Beyond the urbanisation of Droitwich, the rural character of the parish

community with patterns of dispersed settlements has evolved through gradual change. Pulley Lane is the main connecting route for the rural community to access the village of Salwarpe. Within the southern approaches of the parish, there is a distinct clear transition from town to countryside and a robust physical limit to the spread of Droitwich Town.

6.34 She said that Pulley Lane has changed little since the earliest Ordnance Survey

map of 1883; and its existence under the original name of ‘Pullheye’ can be traced back to 1274. The road boundary hedges and hedgerow trees remain intact. Pulley Lane and its southern boundaries define both the parish and Green Belt boundaries. To provide vehicular routes for both appeal sites would require the removal of sections of historic, ancient hedgerow on the southern side of Pulley Lane and Newland Road.

6.35 She stated that of greatest significance is the immediate setting of the

entrance to Appeal Site A and the creation of a new junction. This would result in the removal of hedgerows and re-alignments of the lane thus diverting Pulley Lane into the site, effectively cutting off the historic local route. The widening of the lane and re-aligning of the bends would severely compromise Pulley Lane. The entrance into Appeal Site A due to the natural topography would be a major visible feature in the landscape. This would be particularly noticeable during winter months. The entrance to Appeal Site A would impact on the visual features of the historic Oakley Woods. Egress from Appeal Site B would create a permanent opening onto Newland Lane to access the surrounding rural lane network. There would be potential dangers from the increase in traffic for the wide range of people who enjoy rural pursuits, as well as those living and working in the vicinity of both appeals sites.

6.36 With regard to safeguarding the historic character of the area she said that the

parish of Salwarpe consists of dispersed settlements and clusters of housing with working farms and equine establishments. These are surrounded by agricultural and pastoral fields whose primary characteristics are strong hedgerow patterns. The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 protects ancient and important hedgerows and are designed to reduce direct damage. The important features of the Pulley Lane hedgerows in relation to these Regulations are: (i) they mark the boundary of a parish; (ii) they form an integral part of the Green Belt boundary; (iii) they run alongside a road used as a public path; (iv) they have banks supporting the hedgerow; (v) they visibly relate to features such as the historic Oakley Woods and the SSSI site of Oakley Pool; (vi) they have a number of connections with other hedgerows, woodlands or ponds and (vii) they run alongside a footpath or bridleway.

6.37 Concerns were also expressed about surface water drainage from Appeal Site

A, to be piped under Pulley Lane and directed onto the SSI site of Oakley Pool, potentially overwhelming the natural balance of the pool.

6.38 In conclusion it is argued that proposals for Appeal Sites A and B must: (i)

safeguard the natural character of the rural lane; (ii) relate to the sensitivity of



the surrounding open countryside in a wider context; (iii) recognise that removal of the hedgerows would destroy their visual historic and ecological value; (iv) recognise that the cumulative effects of the changes to the rural lane along with access proposals of both Appeal Sites A and B should not overwhelm and destroy the distinct inherent character of the rural Parish of Salwarpe; (v) be aware that the process that should be adhered to in respect of changes in the parish boundary have not been adhered to by the developers or its agents in respect of diversion of Pulley Lane into Appeal Site A and in respect of alterations to the boundary along sections of Pulley Lane.

6.39 Mrs Judy Pearce is Deputy Leader of WDC and Executive Board Member for

Housing, Planning and Infrastructure. The Ward she represents is Wychbold and she is well aware of the sites which are subject to these planning appeals. A full site visit of both the appeal sites was carried out by the Committee.

6.40 She said that one of the Council’s long-standing mottos is ‘Team Wychavon’

whereby members and officers working closely together. The Planning Committee works closely with officers to improve the 5 year land supply in Wychavon. Against considerable opposition from local residents and parish councils numerous applications have been approved and followed officer recommendations in all but a handful of cases. As a result, even if other parties try to argue we don’t have a 5 year land supply, we would maintain that we do. Nevertheless, because it is such a difficult figure to nail down with any certainty, we have followed officer advice and continue to grant permission to any applications before us where we can see no demonstrable harm greater than the benefit of granting permission. She said that officer advice is honest, measured and cautious and the reason that sites are approved is to improve the robustness of the figures.

6.41 She said that national appeal decisions are followed closely by officers and the

implications of significant decisions are explained by officers without delay. The Committee has a half hour training session before regular planning meeting which permits a regular ‘slot’ for any such updates. When it comes to the calculation of the 5 year land supply, we receive regular updates at intervals of no more than three months. These are published as public reports in the Planning Committee agenda papers. Starts and completions on major sites are monitored closely. WDC officers are in regular contact with developers to ascertain progress and the ability to satisfy delivery within 5 years. Building start and completion numbers in the last 12 months are as high as they have been for many years. More affordable housing is being delivered through market sites than all the other districts in Worcestershire put together. From the information submitted to the Government in respect of New Homes Bonus a total of 221 affordable homes are recorded in the year up to October 2013. Tight time implementation conditions are imposed on the full and outline planning applications which are granted to encourage developers to get on site. In short, everything possible is done to boost significantly the supply of housing. WDC can approve applications as fast as possible, but it cannot physically build houses for the developers.

6.42 Cllr Pearce referred to her notes of the Planning Committee meeting of the 16

May 2013. The meeting commenced at 1400 hours and concluded at 1735 hours as recorded in the minutes. Only the two planning applications subject



to these appeals were considered at this meeting. An extensive officer report was published prior to the meeting and a further written update was made available in advance of the meeting. The officers presented the two planning applications as separate items. The Committee received two officer presentations, two separate public speaking sections and had two separate discussions on the merits of the individual items. The first application for Barberry did take longer than the second to consider but that is not surprising given that some things were common to both sites and fully debated on the first application. Representatives from both developers were there and raised no objections or queries about the way the decisions were taken following the meeting. Both planning applications were given extensive consideration by the Planning Committee. Both applications were refused; voting was 12 votes for refusal, 0 against and 1 abstention. The conditions imposed were similar, but not identical, to reflect the different identities of the two sites.

6.43 Regarding the prematurity refusal reason, the Planning Committee felt that

two approvals for such a vast site alongside the Copcut site, which was proposed to be allocated in the SWDP and where outline planning permission for 740 dwellings, local facilities and an employment land allocation had been granted on 8 January 3103, would have been detrimental to the strategic thrust of the SWDP. One of the prime aims of this is to strengthen Worcester’s position as a vibrant centre, so it can compete with other large towns in the area, hence the need to allocate a good deal of housing in the City and its immediate environs. After that development is to be directed to the main towns, then the more sustainable villages. The SWDP was about to be submitted to the Inspectorate after considerable public consultation and engagement on the location of development. The Committee felt that the size of these proposals would prejudice the SWDP by predetermining the scale and location of development. At the time of the determination of the applications, the proposed allocations within the SWDP were sufficient to meet what was considered then to be our housing needs. These sites were not needed.

6.44 The Planning Committee, however, continues to give approvals on sites which

only a few years ago would not have been considered small even if they have not been allocated in the SWDP, so long as they are satisfied that they could be successfully integrated socially, economically and environmentally into the surrounding neighbourhoods. Some villages have already seen numerous applications which will increase their size by over 20% or more in the next 5 years or so – Badsey, Wychbold and Honeybourne for instance. The Planning Committee felt that one huge monolithic site at Droitwich, especially with another very large site so near with outline planning permission was unacceptable and contrary to the SWDP. It was on this basis that the prematurity reason for refusal was included in relation to these two applications. The Council considers that a wide variety of smaller sites across the whole district would not prejudice the overall SWDP strategy.

6.45 In relation to the 5 year land supply, the Council is not in the position of

Tewkesbury Borough at Bishops Cleeve or Stratford District at Shottery. At the time of the determination of the planning applications and in fact up until (1) receiving the Examination in Public Inspector’s report following the first part of Stage 1 and then (2) an understanding of the implications of the Court of Appeal judgement in relation to Hunston, the Council has been using both



the West Midlands RSS report as well as the housing level set out in the pre-submission SWDP as a target to measure our 5 year land supply. The Committee felt that progress was being made against these targets and that it was reasonable to give this progress weight. Cllr Pearce shared the view of the Committee that the Sedgefield approach does not necessarily mean that such a level of housing can physically be delivered, but she accepted that the need to adopt a Sedgefield approach has been repeatedly endorsed by the Inspectorate in order to boost significantly the supply of housing and that officers have been using the Sedgefield approach in their calculations.

6.46 Cllr Pearce fully supported the landscape reason for refusal. She recognised

that the Copcut and Yew Tree Hill sites have the same technical land character designation. But it is also obvious that the topographical differences of the two sites cannot be ignored. One, Copcut, is fairly gently undulating, whilst Yew Tree Hill, as its name implies, is just that, and presents significant challenges by way of changes in elevation. This is obvious, for instance, from the proposed ‘potential attenuation area’ on the Pulley Lane side of Appeal Site B, where the gradient is so steep that it is suitable only for cheese rolling or grass skiing and consequently has never been designated as POS. She considered that the landscape impact of the development would be so detrimental as to significantly outweigh any benefits of the development.

6.47 Since the determination of the planning applications Cllr Pearce’s initial

concerns about the development expressed within the reasons for refusal have grown. She has spent a number of hours listening to the points made at the Inquiry and she echoed some of those matters. Her main concerns are based on highways, the visual impact of the proposed solution for the sides of the northern end of Newland Road serving the bus access and finally about the delivery of the sites and their contribution towards the 5 year land supply.

6.48 The Committee had significant concerns about the highway accesses to the

site, but reluctantly followed the officer advice that without an objection from the Highways Authority, it would be difficult to sustain a highways refusal reason at appeal. Cllr Pearce’s personal concerns on highways remain, and she was most grateful that the Inspector has chosen to make highways one of his 7 areas of investigation at this Inquiry. At the Committee site visit there was considerable difficulty negotiating Pulley Lane in the small coach because of oncoming traffic. She realised that it has not yet been improved to 5.5m in width along its whole length, but there are obviously challenges which go beyond width improvements. There are two almost right angle bends, where the proposals show that visibility would not be anything like up to full standard. Cllr Pearce listened to the evidence presented on highways matters and kept thinking that there must be a limit to where a 5.5m wide road with no pavements or cycle lanes and a 40 mph speed limit, can try to slow traffic down to make things safer, and where pure danger and volume of traffic kick in to make the situation downright perilous rather than safe.

6.49 She referred to an email262which she had recently received in response to an

enquiry about an application in Evesham which was appearing on the next

262 See IP7 Appendix 1



Planning Committee agenda of 30 January 2014, in which it is stated that a width of 5.5m is only suitable to serve up to 300 houses. At Committee she questioned the WCC highways officer, who confirmed that this advice was taken from the County Council’s recommendations in its own design manual. She questioned whether it could really be sensible, satisfactory or sustainable for a road to be at more than double its recommended capacity at the outset, before even considering the present traffic flows along it.

6.50 The proposed entrances to both sites are counter-intuitive, being on the

southern side of Appeal Site A and the eastern side of Appeal Site B, both make getting to the centre of Droitwich Spa for shopping, the station, the health centres and other facilities more long winded and less sustainable. The proposed bus service may or may not help, but for the weekly supermarket shop and getting to the doctors if you are ill, it won’t. As yet it is unclear which first school children might attend, but the bus service would not help at all, whichever present one might be designated, whether St Peter’s or Chawson. Parking is already a problem at both. Widening and improving Pulley Lane would entail encroachment into the Green Belt. The Council was advised by an independent consultant’s study of Green Belt of the South Worcestershire Districts for the SWDP that no boundary changes were necessary and paragraph 7 of the NPPF specifically mentions safeguarding it.

6.51 Because of these capacity issues, and the almost grid lock conditions along the

A38 at peak times, especially regularly on the A38 south of the site towards Martin Hussingtree, many residents could be tempted to take the route through Tibberton to reach Worcester and Junction 6 of the M5. The built up area of Tibberton, with cars parked along the road and a very narrow hump backed canal bridge on a right angle bend make this rural route unsuitable for any more rat running. The Inspector should examine the proposal and the capacity of Pulley Lane very carefully during his site visit, and respectfully suggest travelling the route through Tibberton may be instructive, as would trying to get to M5 Junction 6 via the A38 and Pershore Lane at peak times. The Highways Agency has placed a further holding direction on the present two live re-applications for both appeal sites on traffic density grounds. This has prevented any further consideration of the applications.

6.52 There has been considerable discussion about the challenges presented by the

proposed bus and emergency access through Newland Road at the north of the site. It seems to have been agreed that profiled piling along the bank sides is the only way of dealing with this to achieve the required width without third party land. Cllr Pearce questioned whether this was the right solution in an edge of town suburban situation. She suggested it would be more suitable for an inner city canal embankment or motorway cutting. Aesthetically it would be a terrible solution for this rural location and would have a drastically harmful effect on the immediate environment by totally destroying all biodiversity in its path and preventing any reforming.

6.53 It would considerably reduce the amenity of nearby houses by providing hard

surfaces which would magnify rather than absorb any noise as the earth banks do now. The pile driving would shake nearby houses to their very foundations. In short it would be a sinister, unsustainable intrusion. Development of this kind on Yew Tree Hill would change the face of Droitwich irreparably and for



ever. Any development having to resort to such solutions cannot be considered sustainable. Many parts of the combined sites would also be visually intrusive from distant views. Since social and economic factors in the way expressed in the NPPF are almost givens, the environmental factor must be the one which plays the deciding role most prominently in most cases, and definitely in this one, but social harm to amenity as outlined must also be given significant weight in this instance.

6.54 In the officer’s report to the Planning Committee, the Appellants stated

delivery rates were considered ‘optimistic’. There are two issues here of concern. First, housing on the appeal sites would be likely to be competing with the already approved urban extension at Copcut Lane. It is known that any housing market area can only sell so many houses a year, and she has seen on other large sites in the District that developers are still only building when a purchaser has been signed up. Very little speculative building is taking place, except on small windfall sites. By approving these applications permission would be given for a far greater number of houses than would ever be built out in 5 years.

6.55 When the inevitable delay that monitoring the brine runs would entail is

factored in, Cllr Pearce started wondering how giving permission for two such large sites would actually boost significantly the delivery of housing at all in the district in the first 5 years, or even boost the 5 year land supply. For the first 3 years it may well be that nothing would be delivered. She had experience of brine runs in Wychbold. Seventeen houses on part of the Bloor Estate at Junction 5 were held up for nearly 10 years, primarily for the monitoring of brine run A. The Wychbold Hall Site has also suffered delays of about 3 years. This site is over both A and B brine runs.

6.56 In conclusion Cllr Pearce said that it was not often that the Committee

disagrees with the officers’ recommendations. The Committee knows that in doing so, reasonable grounds for taking the decisions need to be set out and those grounds must be defendable. Whilst there was considerable opposition from local residents, she believed that the Committee made the decision based on the facts presented by these planning applications. The cases raised specific issues of concern and the Committee felt that the size of the schemes would be prejudicial to the SWDP. It is reasonable to recognise the improvements in the 5 year land supply. Members were well aware that a scheme needs to be ‘sustainable’ and that a planning balance needs to be made by weighing up the harm and benefits. The Committee were well aware that the absence of a 5 year land supply and a development’s contribution to reducing it is a very weighty benefit. The Committee was fully aware too that in refusing the application, the ‘harm’ was capable respectably of significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits of a scheme. These are articulated in the reasons for refusal. Cllr Pearce’s view is that these areas of harm are sufficient to justify the Committee’s concerns and their decisions.

6.57 Mr John Brass said that he and his family live at 16 Isaacs Way, Droitwich.

He has lived at this address for more than 12 years. As a local resident who would be directly affected by the proposals to build a foul water sewer less than 1m from his lounge, he was deeply worried by these plans. His knowledge as a chartered engineer serves to strengthen his worries. In his



view the proposals for a new sewer adjacent to his house would neither be safe nor sustainable.

6.58 Within the planning application documents for Appeal Site A, there is a

document entitled “Drainage Strategy”. On page 14 in section 5.1.2 there is a proposal for a foul sewer connection in Isaacs Way designed to pass between numbers 14 and 16 on the south side of Isaacs Way “along an existing footpath with agreement of the landowner”. On the Severn Trent Water website there is an advice document titled “The Consequences of a Water or Sewerage Undertaker’s Assets Passing Through Land”. According to this document they require a minimum 5.0m “Protected Width Strip” for access and maintenance to buried sewers. In fact, an easement of this width was completed on the directly opposite (north) side of Isaacs Way when the houses were originally built.

6.59 Mr Brass has taken his own measurements of the width available at the

footpath between numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs Way and they are as follows: (a) building to building about 4.17m; (b) boundary to boundary about 1.30m. It is therefore apparent that there is insufficient width between numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs Way for this sewer proposal; firstly to allow working space to construct a sewer without encroaching on private land; and secondly to provide sufficient easement for Severn Trent to maintain the sewer without encroaching on private land. No approach has been made to him by the developers for permission to encroach on his land.

6.60 In document BDL3, three possible alternatives to a foul water outfall into

Isaacs Way are offered, and two of them involve a pumping station. Without prejudice to the outcome of this Inquiry, he wondered if a condition could be applied such that there are sufficient measures at the pumping station to prevent overflow during a period of breakdown until repairs were completed. He said that if foul water overflow does occur at this north-west corner of the proposed development, then the foul water may drain away by gravity towards Isaacs Way along the footpath between numbers 14 and 16 in the same way that surface water currently does. Without prejudice to the outcome of this Inquiry, he wondered if a condition could also be applied to mitigate the noise from the pumping station, especially during night-time pumping.

6.61 Within the planning application documents for Appeal Site B, there is a

document entitled “Phase 1 Appraisal”. On page 106 of the PDF file there is a drawing derived from the British Geological Survey with the title “Ground Dissolution Soluble Rocks Map (BGS)”. This map shows that the house at 16 Isaacs Way and the proposed foul sewer route adjacent to it are in an area of brine run risk where “construction work may cause subsidence”. Document BDL2, on page two, claims that this phrase is misleading. The phrase is taken directly from the map on PDF page 106 of the “Phase 1 Appraisal” report which forms part of the Persimmon planning application.

6.62 Within the conveyance documents for his house Mr Brass has a letter from

Johnson Poole and Bloomer dated Oct 2000 which confirms that 16 Isaacs Way is within Zone B of the brine run risk area.



6.63 On page 119 of the PDF file, the “Phase 1 Appraisal” document there is a report from Johnson Poole and Bloomer which in section 5.8 discusses foundation design for Zone B. Section 5.8 c) recommends “reinforced semi-raft or ring beam type foundations” with a minimum span of 3m.

6.64 Mr Brass said that the existing foundations at 16 Isaacs Way were not

designed or built with this future sewer in mind, and that the construction of the proposed sewer between 0.9m and 1.3m from the foundations of his house would damage those foundations. His foundations were specially designed for Zone B, and not for a future drainage trench parallel to a main structural wall and within such close proximity. He also submitted that such a sewer, buried into the unstable ground of Zone B, would be at a higher risk of fracture and create a potential maintenance, leakage, and public health problem for the neighbourhood. BDL2 points out that measured Zone B ground movements are “only minor”, but he questioned why Zone B is defined at all unless there is a higher risk than in non-zoned areas.

6.65 Given these facts Mr Brass submitted that a new foul water sewer (or a surface

water drain) in this location between numbers 14 and 16 Isaacs Way would not be safe or sustainable, and that its construction should not even be attempted. Mr Brass also referred in his statement to the site visit locations and what was seen at these locations.

6.66 Mr Patrick Davies presented a statement on behalf of Droitwich Spa Civic

Society.263 He said the Society is committed to the improvement of the town, including the protection and preservation of its historic core. The Society is not anti-development as this facilitates economic growth and can create new jobs and homes. The Society strongly believes that these proposals would not meet the Society’s aspirations for the town. The objections are as follows: (i) The proposals are considered premature, since the need for housing in this location has not been established. The site was ruled out as an allocation in the SWDP and nothing has changed since that decision. (ii) The shape of the Green Belt around Droitwich influences its pattern of growth in a southerly direction and does not create sustainable communities. The development proposals are some 2.6 miles from the town centre and would not underpin the town’s economy. Residents of any new homes would be drawn to Warndon and Worcester with its higher order shopping facilities. The proposals therefore fail the tests of sustainability. (iii) The proposals would exacerbate major infrastructure problems particularly in the south going to Worcester and the motorway network. There would be significantly increased traffic through the village of Tibberton and on the narrow country lane leading to the motorway through Newland Common, Smite and Offerton. (iv) The site currently offers a highly valued recreational asset to the town providing a range of habitat for wildlife as well as spectacular views of the surrounding Worcestershire countryside providing intrinsic beauty and character. The proposed development would destroy this.

6.67 Mr Robert Brewer is a student at Droitwich Spa High School’s Sixth Form

Centre and a resident of Droitwich. He is the Wychavon member on

263 IP9



Worcestershire’s Youth Cabinet. In this elected role it is his responsibility to represent the views of local young people on a wide range of issues that affect them, specifically to decision makers. He values the green open space provided by the Yew Tree Villages site. He said that the south of Droitwich has already seen much development and consists of 3 major housing developments – The Ridings, The Primsland Estate and Tagwell Heights. There is no need for further housing at the expense of Yew Tree Hill green space.

6.68 He said there would be problems with accessibility and transport which makes

Yew Tree Hill unsuitable for development, particularly when considering the needs of young people most of whom are unable to drive. It would be difficult to walk to the services in the town centre including shops, health centre and library therefore any trade brought in by the development would be lost to out of town centres. He highlighted that the town has only one high school and two middle schools in its three tiered education system. The closest of these, Witton Middle School is around a 30 minute walk from the edge of the development site. The high school is about an hours walk away from the edge of the site, a journey of some 2.7 miles. This would mean reliance on cars and public transport which is unsustainable. The development could generate some 850 extra cars on the roads in the vicinity of the site. The Council has already approved one large scale development at Copcut Lane and that is a better option than the appeal sites. There are also many brownfield sites available closer to the town centre. The Yew Tree Hill development is largely unnecessary and unsuitable as a site. It should be adopted as a country park.

6.69 Mr Neil Franks is a local resident and a sustainability consultant in the

construction industry. He is opposed to the development and he highlighted his concerns in his statement. 264 He referred to the poor quality Sustainability Appraisal and the fact that there was no commitment to a sustainability certification standard. He was critical of the ES in terms of biodiversity and ecology, sustainable drainage, secure and accessible cycle storage, secure design and affordable housing. He raised numerous dwelling specific issues, for example in relation to day lighting, sound insulation and disability access. He was also critical of the Carbon Analysis Report which gives details on how energy and carbon efficient the proposed dwellings would be. In his view the development would not be sustainable.

6.70 Mr Christopher Hartwright is chairman of Tibberton Parish Council. He said

that Tibberton was situated about 4 miles south of Droitwich but only about 3 miles from the proposed development at Yew Tree Hill. His concern related to the likely traffic increase using Tibberton as a “rat run” to Worcester, Worcester Royal Hospital, Junction 6 of the M5, Pershore and Evesham. He stated that the approach to Tibberton from Droitwich was by no more than a country lane and negotiation of a difficult canal bridge, which despite having weight restrictions placed upon it to protect the Listed Building status, regularly suffers damage from vehicles.

6.71 He said that the road through the village has experienced increases in traffic

most noticeably in recent years by the expansion of housing developments

264 IP11



locally and by the increase in motorway use. In 2008 a survey was taken which showed an increase of up to 2,000 vehicles per day. It is feared that the proposed development at Droitwich would create an unacceptable increase in vehicle movements in the village because the access onto the A38 would be unable to cope with commuter traffic at peak times causing the obvious alternative route through Tibberton to be used. The development of the Worcester Technology Park in Tibberton Parish would also encourage Droitwich residents to use this route to go to work.

6.72 He said that the road through Tibberton is the only way to reach the very well

supported First School, with many pupils sourced from Droitwich and Warndon all brought by car. The proposed increase in traffic would therefore present added danger to schoolchildren. The well used village shop is also on this busy road and the danger to customers, particularly the elderly having to cross the road from retirement bungalows on Hawthorn Rise, is evident.

6.73 Mr Philip Powell is a local resident. He was concerned about the proposed

traffic increase on Pulley Lane and Newland Lane. He said that there used to be a footpath on Newland Lane and he would like to see footpaths on both of these roads so that local people could enjoy the beautiful scenery. Without footpaths it would be dangerous for children to walk to schools. It would also be dangerous for horse riding. He said that Pulley Lane and Newland Lane would not be wide enough to cater for the development.

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

7.1 There were objections by local residents at both the application and appeal

stages.265 Generally the same points have been made to those that have been recorded above and these will not be repeated. Additional points include:

• A lack of infrastructure including doctors, dentists, schools and hospitals

to support further housing. • Disruption from construction activity. • The area is used by local residents as a recreational area and provides

homes for many species of wildlife. • Effect on the living conditions of nearby residents including loss of

privacy and noise from additional traffic. • The loss of a greenfield site when there are other brownfield sites that

could be built upon. A very large number of premises on the Berry Hill Industrial Estate are vacant. Some of this land could be developed for housing.

• Noise and light pollution are areas of concern. • Concern about tanker lorries parking on Pulley Lane to make deliveries. • Residents would need to travel a considerable distance to do a `main

shop’ either to Blackpole or Warndon in Worcester or to Droitwich Spa. • Walkers, joggers, cyclists and horse riders regularly use Newland Lane

and Pulley Lane. • Change in semi-rural character of Droitwich - an important feature of its

history and tradition.

265 See CDH1, CDH2 and INQ2



8. CONCLUSIONS

[In this section the numbers in superscript refer to the earlier paragraph numbers of relevance to my conclusions.]

8.1 Main matters (i) to (v) set out at paragraph 1.4 above relate to issues about which the SoS needs to be informed and cover the main considerations of prime significance in these appeals. The conclusions that follow are structured to address each of the main matters (i) to (v) in turn. I then proceed to examine conditions in main matter (vi) that might be imposed should the SoS determine that planning permission should be granted and then the issue of planning obligations under s106 of the 1990 Act in main matter (vii) before giving my overall conclusions and recommendations. [1.4] Introduction

8.2 Appeal Site A relates to land to the south of Droitwich Spa - the largest town in Wychavon by population – and is locally known as Yew Tree Hill. The site lies outside the development boundary of the town as defined in the adopted local plan but is contiguous with it. Consequently, the site abuts residential development on the eastern, northern and western boundaries. There is also a ribbon of development to the south of the site along Newland Lane. The southern boundary adjoins Pulley Lane and Appeal Site B.[1.8]

8.3 The site consists of 34.63 hectares of greenfield land which is predominantly in agricultural and equine use. The site is divided up into a number of parcels of land which are dissected by hedgerows, private tracks and public rights of way. Newland Road dissects the site on a north south axis. It was previously opened to two way traffic and provided a link to Droitwich Spa town centre. It is now untrafficked (by way of a Traffic Regulation Order which came into force in 1993) between the property known as Casa Colina and the junction with Primsland Way but it is open for pedestrians and cyclists. [1.9]

8.4 The topography of the site is undulating. The existing residential development to the north of the site is significantly lower than the appeal site but is separated by open space. The existing residential development to the east of the site is up to 76m AOD. The eastern parcel of Appeal Site A has ground levels that generally fall in a southerly direction towards the existing ditch and hedgeline which forms the common boundary with the Persimmon Homes site (Appeal Site B). The highest part of the overall site is the land adjacent to the water tower. The parcel of land to the west of Newland Road is undulating with ground levels falling away to the north, west and south.[1.10]

8.5 The planning application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved except for access. The Indicative Masterplan shows that the proposed development would comprise the following components: up to 500 dwellings of which 40% (200 dwellings) would be affordable; a care facility (Class C2) comprising 200 units; a local centre comprising of a potential mix of uses including a shop (Class A1), financial and professional services (Class A2), restaurant and café (Class A3), drinking establishment (Class A4), hot food takeaway (Class A5) and offices (Class B1 (a); a police post; an indoor bowls facility; public open space including sports pitches and equipped children’s play areas; and associated infrastructure. The development involves a list of



proposed highway works including the widening of Pulley Lane to 5.5m and improvements to the Pulley Lane/A38 junction.[1.15-1.16]

8.6 Appeal Site B also lies outside the development boundary of Droitwich Spa. The site abuts existing residential development on its eastern boundary, separated here by a narrow belt of public open space. Planning permission was recently granted by WDC for 39 dwellings on an adjoining site within the development boundary known as Newland Hurst (to the south-east of the site) which brings residential properties to the south eastern boundary of the appeal site. Newland Hurst is currently under construction. There is sporadic development to the south of the site along Newland Lane. A short section of the western boundary is defined by Newland Road. The northern boundary is well defined by a hedgerow and ditch, and the remaining boundaries are defined by hedges to the large gardens of adjoining properties.[1.12]

8.7 The appeal site consists of 12.3 hectares of greenfield land which is currently

in agricultural and equestrian use. The site is divided up into two parcels of land which are bisected by a hedgerow. Newland Road runs to the west of the site and Newland Lane bounds the southern tip of the site. The site falls from the southeast to the northwest corner of the site, thus making the site entrance from Newland Lane the highest point of the site.[1.13]

8.8 The planning application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved except for access. The Indicative Masterplan shows that the proposed development would comprise the following components: the erection of a maximum of 265 dwellings of which 40% (106 dwellings) would be affordable, public open space and equipped children's play together with associated infrastructure. The development involves a list of proposed highway works including a new junction providing primary access from Newland Lane and secondary emergency access off Newland Road.[1.18,1.19]

8.9. Both appeals have to be considered independently. However, as Appeal A has a common boundary with Appeal Site B particular regard must be given to the need to achieve a holistic approach to the development. Where issues are common to both appeals, such as housing land supply, I deal with those matters jointly. I also deal with the cumulative impact of the development on various receptors, for example landscape, highways and drainage and the way in which each proposal interacts with each other. I start with Appeal A and then later I deal with Appeal B.

Appeal A - Land at Pulley Lane, Newland Road and Primsland Way, Droitwich Spa

Main matter (i) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the development plan for the area and would deliver a sustainable form of development;

8.10 The development plan for the area includes the saved Policies of the Wychavon

District Local Plan (WDLP) (June 2006). The Council relies upon Policies SR1, GD1, ENV1 and ENV8 of the WDLP. However, it is noteworthy that the reasons for refusal did not allege breach of any of these WDLP policies as a result of this proposal. Both main parties accepted that bringing forward housing



development in the context of the district’s housing needs inescapably creates tension in particular with Policy SR1 and Policy GD1 of the WDLP.[1.23, 2.3, 3.18]

8.11 Policy GD1 of the WDLP defines development boundaries for settlements within

the district. Whilst the appeal site lies outside the defined development boundary of the town it lies contiguous with it. Policy GD1 sets out the location strategy for new development to 2011 within the district and states that most new development will be accommodated within the main built up areas. The policy focuses development on the three main towns in the district and sets out a sequential preference first, to the re-use of brownfield sites, second to urban greenfield land (with no significant recreational/amenity use) and third to land, but only at Evesham, adjacent to the development plan boundary. Policy SR1 sets out housing land supply provision within the district in the period April 1996 and March 2011. The Council argues that the proposal is contrary to the development strategy of the WDLP Policy GD1 as it lies outside the defined settlement boundary.[2.3, 2.15]

8.12 Whilst I accept that the appeal site is beyond the settlement boundary it is

clear to me that Policy GD1 applies to new development to 2011. Plainly it was not designed to meet housing needs in 2014. It is out of date on its own terms and in the context of today’s changed policy, economic and legal context. It is not based on the full objectively assessed needs in 2014. It cannot therefore be afforded weight in the context of this case because it is no longer fit for purpose. In my view it should be given very little weight.[3.23]

8.13 The Council accepted that Policy SR1 was time expired and out-of-date but

argued that limited weight could be afforded to Policy GD1 based on the Honeybourne decision. The Council’s acceptance that the two policies should be read together on the one hand, but that one was out of date and the other not, indicates an inconsistent and untenable position. It seems to me that paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies here because relevant policies (Policy GD1 and Policy SR1) are out-of-date. Plainly, the most important policies are those relating to housing supply but there are none for the period post 2011.[2.3, 3.21]

8.14 The SoS should be aware of the context here. First, it is clear that the relevant

WDLP policies were only saved on the basis that they would be replaced ‘promptly’. Secondly, the WDLP was adopted pursuant to PPG3, following which PPS3 represented a step-change towards the delivery of housing. Thirdly, the Council’s reliance on Policy GD1 which seeks to constrain development within 2005 boundaries is not listening to what the Saving Letter has said. That letter also stated that the Council should have regard to more up-to-date advice. This is consistent with the NPPF’s paragraph 215 requirement that Local Plan policies should be weighed in accordance with their consistency with that document. As was made clear in the Honeybourne case it is simply not good enough to regard saved policies as an opportunity to refuse rather than grant planning permission. Policy GD1 and Policy SR1 are out of date and paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.[3.23]

8.15 In terms of Policy ENV1, in so far as it seeks to protect the countryside, this

policy can be said to be consistent with the NPPF. However, in so far as it seeks to halt necessary development, it cannot be said to be consistent. This is



clear from the case of Anita Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others. In that case the Court considered restrictive landscape policies similar to Policy ENV1. The judge concluded that these policies were very far removed from the “cost/benefit” approach of the NPPF. They do not permit any countervailing economic or similar benefit to be weighed in the scales. The cost/benefit approach of the NPPF is evident from the three-strand nature of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. In my view, where Policy ENV1 is used to restrict housing, it cannot be seen to consistent with the cost/benefit approach of the NPPF. Therefore only limited weight can be given to Policy ENV1 in this case.[3.24-3.26]

8.16 Policy ENV1 applies a Special Landscape Area (SLA) designation to the site.

The Inspector in the Tenbury appeal concluded that Policy ENV1 was a housing supply policy which could be set aside absent a 5 year supply. Policy ENV1 indicates that proposals for development must demonstrate that they are informed by and sympathetic to landscape character. The policy also confirms that development proposals that would adversely affect the landscape character of an area will not normally be allowed. The policy is a general policy in relation to protection of the landscape, and the SLA designation has, in accordance with the provisions of the Plan, been superseded by the publication of the 201l Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). I assess the impact of the development on the landscape under main matter (iv) below.[1.23, 2.3, 2.15]

8.17 Policy ENV8 is more flexible and can be considered as consistent with the

cost/benefit approach in the NPPF. It states:

‘Development proposals requiring planning permission will not be permitted where they would have an adverse impact on hedgerows, trees or woodland, their setting or their wider habitat, where such features are considered to be important for their visual, historic or ecological value of the area. Removal of hedgerows, trees or woodland will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will benefit the visual, historic or ecological value of the area. All proposals affecting trees, hedgerows or woodland will need to be accompanied by an assessment that justifies the approach taken.’ [2.3, 3.27]

8.18 I consider this proposal does not conflict with Policy ENV8. It would bring a net positive gain of 1,385 m of hedgerow. There would be a net positive gain of 2 ha of scrub and woodland mosaic and 0.9 hectare of orchards.[3.28]

8.19 Turning to the question as to whether the development is sustainable, given

that Policies SR1 and GD1 are out of date and time expired I consider this development falls to be considered under paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The Inquiry heard argument from the Council that a strained interpretation of the paragraph 14 presumption should be applied. The Council stated that it relied upon the judgement of Mrs Justice Lang in William Davis and others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others where the judge added an extra ‘gloss’ on paragraph 14 NPPF. At paragraph 37 of that judgement she ruled that a development must be found to be sustainable before the presumption applies.[2.3, 2.12, 3.29]



8.20 In my view this is an incorrect interpretation of that paragraph. First, the wording of paragraph 14 does not support this view. The paragraph clearly relates to all ‘development proposals’ it does not qualify this with an extra test of sustainability. It is therefore wrong to read such a test into the paragraph. The test also ignores the balancing exercise in paragraph 14. It is that exercise which determines whether or not development is sustainable. In the ‘Lang’ interpretation there is no identified means by which sustainability can be assessed. Secondly, the weight of High Court authority runs contrary to Lang J’s view. The judgements at Stratford, Tewkesbury and North Devon demonstrate the correct reading of paragraph 14. Three High Court judges have disagreed with Lang J. Given this and the clear wording of paragraph 14, I consider that there is no extra test of sustainability included in paragraph 14, not least because the other three judges’ interpretation enables sustainable development to be measured within the balance of paragraph 14.[3.30-3.34]

8.21 The Council, SOGOS and others consider that the proposed development would not be sustainable and that the benefits claimed would not outweigh the adverse impacts associated with proposals that are not plan-led. However, from the evidence that is before me this scheme is indeed sustainable. Plainly, the scheme would offer a number of economic benefits foremost among these is the amount of jobs the scheme would create. In terms of house building the evidence states that for every new home built two new jobs would be provided for a year. It is expected that there would be 190 construction personnel on site at any one time. The Care Facility would also provide jobs, not only in construction but also in order to run the centre. Mr Downes estimates this to be between 105 and 125 jobs. Finally, it is expected that the local centre would provide 40 jobs.[1.22, 2.4-2.6, 3.35, 5.27-5.35, 6.18, 6.20, 6.69]

8.22 The scheme would also offer a number of environmental benefits. The

development has been landscape-led and would affect no international or national designations. There would be a net positive gain in terms of hedgerows, field margins, ponds, broadleaf woodland, scrub, orchards and wetland. These habitats would lead to a net positive gain in invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, farmland birds and bats. The only species resulting in a neutral/minor negative effect is the badger. However, mitigation measures could be provided to create replacement setts in order to minimise the potential impact.[1.22, 2.4, 3.35, 5.32, 6.20]

8.23 The proposal would offer a number of social benefits. These include: the provision of the local centre and the bowls facility which has been requested by the Council. The provision of the Care Facility would also meet an existing need in the district. The Worcestershire Extra Care Housing Strategy details that there is a need for 2,600 units. Finally, the contribution of this scheme to meet some of the affordable housing deficit in the area cannot be underestimated. I deal with this under Main matter (iii).[1.22, 2.4, 3.35, 5.30, 6.18]

8.24 In relation to main matter (i), I conclude that no development plan policy is

referred to in the reasons for refusal and as such the Council did not at the time of the refusal take the view that this scheme offended any Local Plan policies. Secondly, the policies as they relate to the supply of housing land are out of date, both because the policies are time limited to 2011 and are being applied in a manner inconsistent with the NPPF. As such the paragraph 14



presumption applies to this scheme. The scheme is indeed sustainable as all of the aforementioned factors demonstrate. I have to consider the proposal in the context of the other main matters which have been identified before coming to an overall conclusion in relation to the development plan.[2.4-2.6, 3.35, 5.27-5.33, 6.18]

Main matter (ii) Whether the proposed development is premature in the light of the emerging SWDP and national guidance;

8.25 The Council argued that granting permission for this proposal now would

significantly prejudice the strategy of the SWDP. Councillors Jennings and Pearce together with Patrick Davies supported that view claiming that two approvals of such a vast site alongside the Copcut Lane site would be detrimental to the strategic thrust of the SWDP. It was argued that the size of these proposals would prejudice the SWDP by predetermining the scale and location of development and that these sites were not needed. Several written representations endorsed this view. The Appellant submitted evidence in relation to prematurity in the guidance contained in ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ and the Beta Guidance. However, that guidance has been cancelled by the PPG issued on 6 March 2014. The Appellant also referred to recent case law where prematurity was at issue. [2.7-2.9, 6.17, 6.43, 6.66]

8.26 Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states: ‘From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

● the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

● the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and

● the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).’ [1.22]

8.27 Paragraph 14 of the PPG takes a very similar stance to the NPPF. It states:

“Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework explains how weight may be given to policies in emerging plans. However, in the context of the Framework and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development – arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both:



a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or Neighbourhood Planning; and

b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process” [1.6]

8.28 It is noteworthy that two High Court decisions last year have also provided

guidance as to how a prematurity reason is to be approached. The cases demonstrate that very substantial development can be permitted within the exercise of planning judgement without falling foul of the prematurity principle. In Tewkesbury Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others the judge considered two developments amounting to one thousand homes in total. In that decision Males J decided that the SoS’s conclusion that developments were not premature was correct. At paragraph 64 of the judgment he concluded that the NPPF does not cast any doubt on the fact that, pending the adoption of local development plans, individual planning applications will continue to be dealt with, where appropriate by the SoS applying existing principles. At paragraph 69 he also confirmed that the Localism Act has done nothing to change the long-recognised principles of prematurity.[2.7-2.9, 3.40-3.41]

8.29 Furthermore, the case of Bloor Homes v Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government and Stratford District Council is also instructive. Mr Justice Hickinbottom considered the SoS’s decision in respect of a development of up to 800 dwellings at Shottery. He rejected the prematurity argument raised by those seeking to challenge the decision. He indicated that the mere fact that a change is proposed to the development plan does not mean that all applications for development have to be put on hold. Given the propensity for change in policy and plans, he argued that approach would bring the entire planning system to an effective halt.[2.7-2.9, 3.42]

8.30 Bearing in mind the above guidance, policy and judicial decisions it is plain to me that when the Planning Committee refused the application in question they did so on the basis that they wrongly believed they had a 5-year supply. This erroneous belief was arrived at principally through ignoring the officer’s advice as to the Sedgefield approach and rejecting what had been said in the Honeybourne decision in relation to Wychavon in 2012. Reliance upon prematurity as a reason for refusal is completely untenable in a situation where the Examination Inspector’s Interim Conclusions have said that the figure of 22,300 dwellings is not enough and that substantially more will be required. At the Inquiry the Council’s position is to propose at least an extra



3,000 homes. The Council has no idea where these are going to be located. Therefore allowing permission for this scheme cannot prejudice a Local Plan in relation to which there is not even a preferred option identified where the additional development might go.[2.7-2.9, 3.43]

8.31 Moreover, on top of the concession that an extra 3,000 homes are required,

there are unresolved objections to the emerging SWDP. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF dictates that ‘unresolved objections’ should result in less weight being given to the emerging SWDP. This much was agreed by the Council. As such, the objections dramatically reduce the weight which can be given to the assertion that the development would prejudice the emerging SWDP.[2.7-2.9, 3.43]

8.32 The Council must ‘clearly demonstrate’ the harm which this development

would cause to the emerging development plan. The Council has neither asserted nor demonstrated any harm during this Inquiry. Instead, it cited support from two cases whose facts are completely at odds with the development before this Inquiry. The decision in Moreton-in-Marsh concerned one of nine major settlements in the Cotswold District where Cirencester was the main town and principal target for growth (accepting 63% of development). That left 37% to be located at the other nine principal settlements. If the proposal in question had been approved, Moreton-in-Marsh would have been accepting a quarter of this. In these circumstances a conclusion that the emerging plan would be prejudiced was not unreasonable. The SoS should note that this decision was made pre-NPPF and also prior to the decisions in Shottery and Tewkesbury. It cannot be guaranteed that the same conclusion would be reached on the same facts today.[2.7-2.9, 3.43]

8.33 Similarly, the decision relating to Kentford in Newmarket involved development

at a primary village. It had a very poor range of services. Those decisions are incomparable to the situation here. As addressed above, Droitwich is one of the three main towns in Wychavon. It is a specified as a suitable location for development both in the Local Plan and in the emerging SWDP.[2.9-2.10, 3.43]

8.34 Indeed, it is impossible for the Council to demonstrate harm. Even on its own

account there are over 3,000 additional homes to be found. The SWDP Examination Inspector has found that Worcester City and Malvern Hills are constrained. This means that Wychavon is a prime candidate for locating the extra development. Within Wychavon, Droitwich along with Evesham is the obvious place for the development to go. Evesham has already accepted a disproportionate amount of development and therefore it is time for Droitwich to play its part in contributing to the district’s housing supply. Further, the evidence base for the emerging SWDP has shown that the appeal site has been under active consideration as a location for development. Most significantly in 2005 when it was only left out of the plan in favour of Copcut Lane. Now that Copcut Lane has been allocated and granted permission Yew Tree Hill is an obvious next choice for necessary housing development. [2.7-2.9, 3.43]

8.35 The Council has erroneously advanced its prematurity reason for refusal on the

apparent premise that it is necessary for the Appellant to show that the Council in the emerging SWDP would inevitably choose the appeal site. No such test exists. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires a planning balance to be performed. The development plan pedigree of the site alongside the evidence



submitted to the Inquiry demonstrates that this site is a good choice for development.[2.7-2.9, 3.43]

8.36 Finally, the proposed development has been considered at a 10 day Inquiry.

The Council’s case and that of objectors in relation to this site has been given a full airing. Clearly, this long process is far longer than would be afforded to this site during the Examination process. There can be no complaint that this site has not properly been scrutinised and the public afforded a full opportunity to express its views about the development of the appeal site.[3.43]

8.37 On main matter (ii) I conclude that, for all of the reasons outlined above, the

Council’s reliance upon prematurity as a reason for refusal cannot stand. It is contrary to the weight of guidance, policy and judicial decisions and no relevant precedent has been provided for it.

Main matter (iii) Whether the proposed development is necessary to meet the housing needs of the district bearing in mind the housing land supply position;

8.38 At the outset on this matter the SoS should be aware of the recent planning

appeal decision at Offenham (dated 7 February 2014) as it relates to Wychavon’s 5-year housing land supply. The SoS should note that the Inspector concluded: (a) “It was clear therefore from the detailed discussion and questioning of evidence during the Inquiry that several of the sites without planning permission which were advanced by the Council to be available and deliverable within five years were not supported by robust evidence to that effect.” (b) “… the Council’s track record shows that it has failed consistently to meet the RS required average requirement of 475dpa, despite an upturn in completions since 2009/10. This is compounded by the relatively low percentages of affordable housing provision during this period.” (c) “the Appellant’s evidence shows conclusively that the recent significant increase in Wychavon’s average house prices and relatively small proportion of rented properties and low delivery of affordable housing have resulted in an increasingly unaffordable local housing market.” (d) “taking into account all the above considerations, it is my view that the Council’s case, that it has just over 5 years’ housing land, is unconvincing in the light of: (i) the revocation of the RS as a basis for assessing housing need; (ii) the likelihood of an increased housing requirement for Wychavon to emerge during the SWDP Examination; (iii) the over optimism of some of the Council’s assumptions of deliverable housing supply over the next 5 years; (iv) the Council’s ambitious housing targets in relation to its track record; and (v) the evidence of current market signals in relation to housing under provision and inaffordability.”

(e) “I therefore conclude, in relation to the first main issue, that although the proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policy GD1, this has little weight for the



reasons stated and it is significantly outweighed by the inability of the Council to robustly demonstrate a 5 years’ housing land supply for Wychavon.” As a preliminary matter therefore it is very clear to me that as recently as February 2014 the Council’s case on the existence of a 5-year land supply was firmly rejected by an Inspector on the bases of: insufficient target, unrealistic delivery assumptions and its poor past track record. [3.44]

8.39 I turn first to the question of the housing requirement. Paragraph 47 of the

NPPF states that in order to boost significantly the supply of housing LPAs should ‘use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.’ The WDLP does not contain any figure within it.[3.47]

8.40 Paragraph 159 of the NPPF requires LPAs to have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area. They should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) to assess their full housing needs. The SHMA should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change; addresses the need for all types of housing; and caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand. They should also prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period.[3.48]

8.41 Paragraph 218 of the NPPF states that LPAs can continue to draw on evidence

that informed the preparation of the RS as a starting point for assessing the housing needs of an area but that this should be supplemented as needed by an up-to-date, robust local evidence.[3.49]

8.42 As I perceive it the most recent objectively assessed evidence is that

contained within the recent 2011 Interim Sub National Household Projections (SNHP). These state that they should be used for a 10-year period, but beyond that there is a need to determine whether household formation trends are likely to continue. After the 10-year period, following the advice of the SWDP Examination Inspector, and reflecting the need to revise Household Representations Rates (HRR) due to an improving economy, the more optimistic 2008 SNHP HRRs should be used. This approach accords with the Holman Paper, the conclusions of the Inspector in relation to the Lichfield Core Strategy and also current planning policy which aims to ‘plan for growth’. I note that this is the approach Mr Bateman has followed.[3.50, 6.1-6.2]

8.43 However, the Council and others, seek to use and defend the 2008 figures for

the entire plan period. In my view these are out-of-date. This is made clear in the last sentence of the 2011 projections which state that they replace the 2008 projections from November 2010. Given the chronology of the production of the figures this is hardly surprising. Indeed, this is echoed by the SWDP Examination Inspector who has asked the LPA to calculate the supply figure using the latest population projections combined with Nathanial Lichfield and Partners’ approach.[2.12, 3.51, 6.16, 6.45]



8.44 When calculating the appropriate target figure it is also crucial to start with the correct base date population figure. The Council has used the figure of 49,000 for 2006. The SHMA demonstrates that this is incorrect. At page 135 it demonstrates that the correct figure is 47,322.[3.52]

8.45 At the Inquiry there was some debate about the Hunston judgement. In my

view it is concerned with a proper understanding of how to determine full objectively assessed need in circumstances where, as here, there is a policy vacuum. It requires the identification of a “policy off” figure. Policy is the “varnish” which the Court of Appeal refers to: the application of “varnish” is what happens in the forward planning process but is an exercise which cannot be assessed in the context of a s78 appeal. The Council’s case that “unvarnished” means arriving at a figure which doesn’t take into account migration or economic considerations is neither consistent with the judgment, nor is it consistent with planning practice for deriving a figure for objectively assessed need to which constraint policies are then applied. Plainly the Council’s approach is incorrect. Clearly, where the judgement refers to ‘unvarnished’ figures (paragraph 29) it means environmental or other policy constraints. There is nothing in the judgement which suggests that it is not perfectly proper to take into account migration, economic considerations, second homes and vacancies.[2.11, 3.53]

8.46 It is also clear that the 20% buffer should be applied to the entire 5-year

requirement (including the historic shortfall). The Council could not point to any provision in policy or previous decisions which supports the contention that the 20% should not apply to the historic shortfall. It is instructive to note that the Council itself has been calculating its 5-year supply by adding the 20% to the whole figure. This is clear from the Council’s report to Committee dated 10 October 2013 included in Mr Brown’s evidence.[2.11, 2.21, 3.55]

8.47 From the evidence that was submitted to the Inquiry the SoS should take particular note of the affordable housing need which exists in Wychavon. The Council accepted that substantial weight should be given to the affordable housing to be provided by this proposal. The weight of the issue in Wychavon is severe. Some 1,153 households are currently on the waiting list for an affordable home in Wychavon. Furthermore, Droitwich is the most unaffordable place for housing in Wychavon. The Council is seriously underperforming in terms of supplying affordable housing. The 2009 Annual Monitoring Report demonstrates that from 2005-07 only 182 affordable units were produced and only 47 from 2008 to 2009. The Council provided no affordable units in 2009-10 and only 57 in 2010-11. Indeed, Mr Brown admitted that the Council had failed to deliver even ¼ of the 268 affordable dwellings per annum that is required of it during the last 8 years.[2.4, 3.56]

8.48 For all of the aforementioned reasons it is clear to me that the Council has not

undertaken a robust calculation in order to arrive at its housing requirement for this Inquiry. The only robust evidence that is before me is the methodology used by Mr Bateman. This is clear, well reasoned and well justified. As such, Mr Bateman’s figure for a requirement of about 14,263 dwellings between 2006 and 2030 should be preferred.[2.12, 3.57]



8.49 In its recent submission to the SWDP Examination, the Council accepts the need for an extra 3-4,000 houses would be required during the plan period. However, I note that the Council has not used the 2011 projections; it has not based its calculations on the correct starting point; and questions remain as to the economic activity rates used. As such, the figure as submitted does not appear to be robust and very little weight can be given to it in these appeals. In a choice between the Council’s figure and Mr Bateman’s of about 14,000, it is clear for reasons set out above that it has been demonstrated that Mr Bateman’s figure is to be preferred.[2.12, 3.58]

8.50 Before considering the mathematical calculation relating to supply, it is

noteworthy that the Government is particularly concerned to ensure that there is a real supply of housing to meet local needs, both in terms of general housing and also in terms of affordable housing. The absence of a continuing supply of housing land has significant consequences in relation to people finding homes and is in direct opposition to the thrust of the NPPF, which is that everyone should have the opportunity of a wider choice of housing. Housing land supply is not just related to a mathematical equation, it is about ensuring that land comes forward early enough to meet real needs.[1.22]

8.51 The Council includes within its supply a number of sites which have permission but are very unlikely to come forward within 5 years. For example, Land off Banks Lane, Badsey. The Appellant’s evidence shows that this site is not in the hands of a developer and that there is no evidence of viability. Other examples included are included in Document C10. The Leedons Residential Park, Broadway is included among the large site commitments. Here the Council relies upon a Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of land as a touring caravan and camping site. At the Inquiry the Council was not clear about the basis of this planning permission. It is likely that a seasonal occupancy condition applies. It follows that the number of dwellings suggested by the Council cannot be considered as dwellings to count towards the 5-year supply. The Council has produced no robust evidence to clarify the position.[2.12-2.13, 3.60]

8.52 The Council seeks to include all of its SWDP allocated sites. The only safe

conclusion using the authority of Wainhomes is that not all of these will be deliverable. Each case must be assessed on a fact sensitive basis. Objections to each site must be taken into account as must the fact that most are outside existing development boundaries – one of the reasons the Council has rejected the development of the appeal sites according to its evidence to the Inquiry. In the context of paragraph 216 of the NPPF only limited weight can be given to sites in respect of which there are unresolved objections. It is also relevant to note that it will be a long time before the non-strategic sites will actually be allocated at Stage Two of the Examination process if and when the SWDP is eventually brought into force. Clearly their inclusion in the SWDP cannot lead to a robust conclusion that they are deliverable. In coming to this view I have considered the results of the deliverability questionnaire sent out by the Council to all the promoters of the SWDP sites. [2.12-2.13,3.62]

8.53 The NPPF allows the use of windfall sites in a 5-year calculation if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. This evidence has not been made available to the Inquiry. Indeed, most recently, the SWDP Inspector



concluded that the large level of windfalls currently proposed should not be accepted and that there is a need for further information. The Council’s figures for windfalls are not robust and involve double counting with permissions on small sites. The Appellant’s evidence on this matter is compelling and the figure of 43 dwellings based on completions of 82 per annum, and allowing for windfalls which already have permission, is robust.[2.12, 3.63]

8.54 The Council also seeks to rely on C2 care units as adding to the 5 year supply. These cannot be included in the supply. These units have a range of communal indoor facilities, including communal dining. The institutional form and also the occupational age limit render them unsuitable for being included as ‘dwellings’ in the housing land supply. Indeed, it is telling that developers are not asked to make an affordable housing contribution on these units. As such, it is clear to me that Council policy is not to treat them as ‘dwellings’.[2.12, 3.64]

8.55 Plainly, a 10% lapse rate should be applied to the Council’s supply. This

approach is supported by the ‘Housing Land Availability’ paper by Roger Tym and Partners. The approach was accepted by the Inspectors at Moreton in Marsh, Marston Green, Honeybourne and Tetbury. A 10% lapse rate was affirmed in the High Court decision at Tetbury. Given the previous shortfalls of delivery within this LPA, a 10% lapse rate is entirely reasonable and should be applied here in order to ensure a robust 5-year supply figure.[2.12,3.65]

8.56 Overall it is very clear to me that that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-

year supply. If the Appellant’s case is accepted on both requirement (Chelmer with employment) and supply the figure would only be 1.83 year’s supply. Even if the Council’s supply figures are used the supply would be between 2.83 and 3.76 years, with or without the SWDP sites.[2.12, 3.66]

8.57 I conclude on main matter (iii) that the Council does not have a 5-year supply.

This Inquiry has demonstrated this to be the case and the recent Offenham decision serves as a useful consideration of this deficit. If there is no 5-year supply then Policy GD1 and Policy SR1 must be considered out of date as they are policies relevant to the supply of housing. This means that the paragraph 14 NPPF test must be applied to these appeals. The contention that the absence of a 5-year supply renders settlement boundary policies out of date is reinforced by the SoS’s decision at Forest Road, Burton on Trent.[2.3, 3.67-3.68]

8.58 However, if the SoS concludes that Wychavon can demonstrate a 5-year

supply, then the paragraph 14 NPPF test still applies. This is because relevant policies are out-of-date. As explained above the housing supply policies are time-limited, were saved on a basis that was subject to the caveats in the Saving Letter. The WDLP was drawn up against the background of an entirely different national policy context. All extant policies should therefore be afforded little weight in this appeal and the paragraph 14 presumption should be applied. The Council contended on the basis of the case of William Davies v SoS [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin) that Policy GD1 is not a housing policy and that therefore it is not out of date by virtue of paragraph 49 of the NPPF. However, there is now conflicting authority to this decision in the form of the judgment of Lewis J in Cotswold DC v SoS [2013] EWHC 3719. The issue arises as to which interpretation of the NPPF is to be preferred. For the reasons given above I consider that the interpretation of Lewis J is correct. [2.12, 3.70]



Main matter (iv) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area;

8.59 At the outset on this matter the SoS should be aware that land to the south of

Newland Lane and Pulley Lane, excluding the carriageways, lies within the Green Belt. Given that two areas of highway improvement involve the acquisition of land to the south of the existing carriageway, technically a small part of the operational development falls within the Green Belt as shown on BDL14. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF confirms that engineering operations are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed realignment of the Pulley Lane carriageway is not considered to be an engineering operation that would lead to loss of openness. The new roadside hedge planting would also assist in preserving the visual amenity of the Green Belt.[1.11]

8.60 The proposed development did not require an EIA. A Landscape and Visual

Impact Assessment (LVIA) was required and this formed a chapter of the EIA volunteered by the Appellant. A second LVIA was prepared using the Landscape Institute 3rd edition guidelines. This included an assessment of both the landscape and visual effects of the scheme. In my view the site has been carefully and thoroughly assessed over a four year period. Comprehensive consultation was held throughout the development of the LVIA and development of the scheme. It is clear to me that the scheme has been ‘landscape-led’ from its inception.[1.21, 3.73]

8.61 Policy ENV1 confirms that development proposals that would adversely affect

the landscape character of an area will not normally be allowed. The site does not fall within a nationally recognised landscape area. However, it is covered by a local designation known as the Droitwich Special Landscape Area (SLA) and is identified as such on the WDLP Proposals Map. The site is elevated from the adjoining landform and is therefore relatively prominent in the local landscape. The water tower, which stands at 33.5m tall, is sited at the highest point on Yew Tree Hill and is therefore visible from long distances. The Council and others consider that the landscape impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits creating an unsustainable development contrary to paragraphs 7 and 14 of the NPPF. [1.10-1.11, 2.15, 2.1, 6.31-6.38, 6.46, 6.66, 7.1]

8.62 I note that the NPPF does not expressly recognise local landscape designations

but instead provides advice at paragraph 109. It says that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils. Paragraph 113 of the NPPF indicates that LPAs should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscapes areas will be judged. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF advises that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should also be prepared, integrated with assessment of historic landscape character, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.[1.22]

8.63 Nationally, the site lies within the Severn and Avon Vales Character Area.

Locally the landscape character of the site and its context fall into the Landscape Character Type of `Settled Farmlands with Pastoral Land Use’.



These are small-scale rolling lowland, settled agricultural landscapes with a dominant pastoral land use, defined by their hedged fields. These landscape types are further broke down into Landscape Description Units (LDUs) and Land Cover Parcels (LCPs). It is important for the SoS to note that although Yew Tree Hill is covered by a SLA designation, it is not proposed to continue this designation forward into the emerging SWDP and therefore it can be afforded little weight in this case.[2.16, 6.36]

8.64 It is also noteworthy that the Council’s officers had no issue with the scheme.

In the Planning Committee Report it is clear to me that they came to the overall conclusion that on balance there would be no significant and demonstrable adverse harm to the landscape, heritage assets, highway safety, residential amenity, nature conservation, flooding and drainage. Moreover, there was no discussion of landscape matters at the Planning Committee meeting and no landscape policies were cited in the reasons for refusal.[3.74]

8.65 The Council sought to defend the landscape reason for refusal through the

evidence of Ms Illman. However, this evidence was somewhat affected by events which took place in 2012. Ms Illman’s first assessment of the LVIA was based upon incomplete information. She was missing the table which assessed in detail the landscape and visual effects of the scheme. Once provided with the full information, she did not correct a number of the errors in her report. Indeed, those errors and assumptions appear to have influenced her evidence to the Inquiry. [3.77]

8.66 The Council’s evidence relied heavily upon the use of the LCA flowchart. In my view there are problems with this approach for the following reasons. First, the Council itself has not followed that approach. The LPA has allocated and given consent for the development at Copcut Lane which lies within in the same Landscape Character Area as Yew Tree Hill. If the LCA was the litmus test which Ms Illman suggests it is, then permission would not have been granted for the Copcut Lane development.[3.79]

8.67 Clearly, the Council is not purporting to use the flowchart in the way that Ms Illman states it should be used. At the Inquiry the Council attempted to explain this and claimed that the chart is used in a different way when you are looking at allocations rather than applications. The Council effectively suggested that a review of all potential sites should be done before development is contemplated in this Landscape Character Area. However, there is no requirement in the NPPF for undertaking this process. This requirement does not exist in either legislation or policy guidance.[3.80]

8.68 Secondly, the document itself does not purport to use the LCA flowchart as an

absolute bar to development. It says that the emphasis on the appropriateness of a development in a landscape, and the landscape’s resilience to change (or ability to accept that development without undue harm) can only be partially assessed through the LCA. Site visits and the need for detailed visual assessments are also a vital part of both strategic land use planning and development control. The Council agreed with this at the Inquiry.[3.81]

8.69 I am aware that the assessment of the appropriateness of development at Yew

Tree Hill has been assisted by detailed visual assessments and site visits.



Furthermore, the scheme has been designed using an iterative process to enhance consistency with the LCP. This is evidenced through the use of linear woodland, the bolstering of hedgerows and the provision of orchards. [3.82]

8.70 The Council also referred to the use of ZTVs. However, these are not critical in my view to the assessment of landscape impact because they are not sophisticated enough to answer the question whether the development would be visible, either partially or entirely. Ms Illman accepted that landscaping proposals had not been taken into account as part of her assessment. Any landscape appraisal which fails to take account of mitigation planting is clearly deficient. In my view ZTVs are only an aid to understanding whereas the Appellant’s LVIA approach is comprehensive and to be preferred. This, together with the evidence which I saw on my site visits, enables a well-considered and detailed assessment. [3.83]

8.71 The differences between the two landscape witnesses in terms of the LVIA are

essentially matters of judgement. It is the case that only the Appellant has provided a full LVIA, and the Council’s evidence is but an assessment of the Appellant’s work. In my view, the test of acceptability cannot be either: (i) the visibility of the development or (ii) its effect on openness. It is inevitable that any substantial new development at Droitwich would have to be on the periphery. It is therefore inevitable that it would be visible, because any new development would be visible. Furthermore, it is also inevitable that any new development would be on greenfield land. The emerging SWDP makes it clear that the area has exhausted its supply of previously developed land. This appeal proposal cannot therefore be criticised on that basis.[3.84]

8.72 The Appellant highlighted the development constraints which exist at

Droitwich. From the evidence that is before me it is clear that Yew Tree Hill is one of the few locations where the development required to meet housing and affordable housing need is capable of being accommodated. Moreover, I am aware that this development offers substantial environmental advantages. These are set out clearly in Appendix 6 to Patrick Downes’ proof of evidence. They include: a net positive gain of 1,385m of hedgerows, a net positive gain of 1,598m2 of field margins, 2 hectares of scrub/woodland, 0.9 hectare of orchards and new park/open space areas. All of these would serve as suitable habitats for wildlife.[3.85-3.86]

8.73 For all above reasons on main matter (iv) I conclude that the proposed

development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. The countervailing environmental benefits more than outweigh the limited landscape harm caused by the loss of green field land. The proposal would comply with aforementioned development plan and emerging plan policies including in particular Policy ENV1 and Policy ENV8 of the WDLP. It would also comply with the relevant provisions of the NPPF. If the SoS disagrees he is asked to note the decision in Burgess Farm, Worsley which demonstrates that even clearly harmful development can represent sustainable development when it is weighed against a substantial shortfall of housing land. It is important to note that there are three dimensions to sustainable development - economic, social and environmental. As paragraph 8 of the NPPF makes clear these roles should not be undertaken in isolation because they are mutually dependent.



Main matter (v): The effect of the proposals on local highway infrastructure

8.74 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF requires all developments which generate significant

amounts of movement to be supported by a Transport Assessment (TA). The appeal proposal is supported by both a TA and a Residential Travel Plan. Read together these demonstrate that the proposed development would take up the opportunities for sustainable transport modes, safe and suitable access to the site could be achieved and improvements are capable of being undertaken which would limit the significant impacts of the proposed development.[1.5]

8.75 It is important for the SoS to note that the effect of the proposals on local

highway infrastructure was not a reason for refusal of this planning appeal. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF also makes clear that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are ‘severe’. Furthermore, it is common sense that the traffic proposals should be safe. Having identified the correct tests, it is clear to me that the tests are not amongst others: changes in terms of traffic patterns or an increase in traffic along a particular road.[3.89, 5.2, 5.7]

8.76 Road safety is primarily the responsibility of the Highway Authority. The Highway Authority has scrutinised the submitted evidence. They have carefully considered these proposals over a long period of time and have no objection to them. The proposals cannot be regarded as potentially having an adverse impact on the trunk road/motorway network as the Highway Agency’s formal position is one of non-objection. As LPA, WDC has a responsibility to ask itself whether the development is safe and it has concluded that it is. Highways and transport did not form the basis or indeed part of any reason for refusal. It is against the aforementioned background that the objections raised by SOGOS have to be considered. It also worth bearing in mind that paragraph 187 of the NPPF encourages LPAs to look for solutions and not problems and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.[3.90-3.91, 5.3]

8.77 As I perceive it, the critical issue between the Appellant and SOGOS relates to

forward visibility and side roads, and whether Manual for Streets (MfS) or Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) should be used. Mr Pettitt argues for DMRB which are not supported by MfS. It is correct that at one location the major road distance is 59m. The evidence of Simon Tucker and Philip Jones explains why this is sufficient. Their views are consistent with table 7.1 of MfS1. I am aware that forward visibility can even go below that figure if one uses MfS2. Indeed, from the evidence submitted, it is true that the risk of accidents is not necessarily heightened by a shortened visibility distance. It is clear to me that there no unacceptable risk associated with either junctions or forward visibility. It is worth noting that when this scheme gets to the detailed design stage design features would be used to reduced speed such as signage/gateway features.[3.92, 5.18- 5.26 6.5, 6.7, 6.18, 6.26-6.27,6.48-6.51, 6.66, 6.70, 6.73]

8.78 SOGOS and others argue that Pulley Lane is presently a narrow country lane and the proposals would lead to significant safety concerns particularly at the bend. However, the regularisation to its current width of 5.5m and the widening of some visibility splays would be beneficial. Furthermore, the



scheme would bring benefits to the Pulley Lane/A38 junction. The junction would become a two lane signalled junction. This measure needs to be set against the additional traffic which would be generated by the development. In any event, some queuing at traffic lights is part of everyday suburban life and this cannot be considered a ‘severe’ problem in the context of paragraph 32 of the NPPF.[3.93, 5.18-5.26 6.5, 6.7, 6.18, 6.26-6.27, 6.48-6.51, 6.66-6.70, 6.73]

8.79 As for Newland Road, up until 1993 it was a two-way road with houses on

either side. Any objection based on disruption to this road has to be considered with the road’s history in mind. The route has been carefully considered by the Appellant’s highway engineers. Clearly, there is no need for a gabion wall which would encroach on third party land. Mr Tucker has demonstrated that it would be possible to use sheet piling without the risk of trespass. Once engineered, the route would become a very attractive walk and cycle route for most of the day with the occasional bus. Indeed, the bus element would be of benefit to both new and existing residents not well served by existing services. [2.16, 3.94, 5.18-5.26, 6.3-6.5, 6.7, 6.18, 6.26-6.27, 6.48-6.51, 6.66-6.70, 6.73]

8.80 SOGOS’ complaints regarding fire engines and buses on Primsland Way were not substantiated. Neither of these vehicles would need to turn left or right. The fire engines would be going straight ahead as indeed would the buses. If, on the off chance, an emergency vehicle did need to turn, then it could cut over the white lines with its sirens blazing.[3.95, 5.18-5.26]

8.81 Inevitably, any substantial development would bring about highway impacts. The location of this site with good access to the centre by cycle and foot minimises its adverse effects. None of the highway effects of this development can be said to be ‘severe’ in terms of paragraph 32 NPPF. [3.97, 5.18-5.26]

8.82 I conclude on main matter (v) that the proposed development would not give

rise to harm to highway safety or the free flow of traffic and that relevant development plan policy in the WDLP would not be offended in this respect.

Other Matters – Brine Run 8.83 Evidence was provided to the Inquiry by the Appellant on the Brine Run and its

implications on the proposed development. It is the case that there is a considerable body of knowledge about the implications of the Brine Run on development as a result of the Johnson Poole and Bloomer work commissioned by the Council and the situation is summarised in the officer’s report to the Planning Committee. Suffice it to say that the presence of the Brine Run has not prevented development of housing areas to the north east and west of the site during the 1990s or within other areas of the town. Engineering measures to mitigate the risk of damage caused by ongoing ground movements would be agreed via the Council’s Building Control Department in advance of any development. The Council does not object to the proposal on this basis. The Council has a long history of familiarity with dealing with problems created by Brine Runs and there is no reason to believe that this development would not be similarly controlled. All the statutory consultees support the development. There is no sound and robust evidence to the contrary. Experience suggests that similar development to that proposed in this appeal has taken place by experienced developers within Zone A in the past.[3.98, 5.8-5.17, 5.36-5.39, 6.55, 6.57-6.65]



Main matter (vi) Conditions: 8.84 There is an agreed list of conditions which were discussed in detail at the

Inquiry (Document C7). The conditions have been considered having regard to this discussion, advice in the Appendix A (model conditions) to Circular 11/95 and also the advice in the PPG. The comments in this section and the condition numbers referred to below support and reflect the list produced in the Annex of this Report.[3.97]

8.85 The scheme is being put forward on the basis that it would make a useful

contribution to short term housing needs. It is therefore reasonable to shorten the time period for approval of reserved matters for phase 1. Conditions 1 and 2 otherwise broadly reflect the wording in Appendix A of the Circular. Condition 3 is necessary to ensure the proposed development is constructed in such a way that any new units provided are adequately served by infrastructure and recreation facilities and to promote biodiversity on the site. Conditions 4 and 5 are necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, principles and parameters contained within the submitted documents. Conditions 6-10 relate to roads, parking and travel. They are required in the interests of highway safety and sustainable travel. I have deleted the suggested alternative wording to Condition 6 ii) so that the improvements to Pulley Lane/A38 junction are approved and implemented prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling (and not prior to the occupation of the 100th or 50th dwelling) to ensure the safe and free flow of traffic on the highway.[3.97]

8.86 Conditions 11-13 relate to noise and construction management and are

required to protect the amenities of existing and future occupiers of adjoining properties. Conditions 14 and 15 relate to contaminated land and are necessary to ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land, controlled waters, property and ecological systems are minimised. Condition 16 is necessary to ensure the proposed development does not cause avoidable harm to any features of archaeological interest. Conditions 17-20 relate to landscaping, trees and nature conservation. They are required to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the area and to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Condition 21 relates to renewable energy and is required to ensure the prudent use of natural resources. Condition 22 relates to lighting and is necessary to ensure the development does not cause unacceptable levels of light pollution. Condition 23 relates to limits on floorspace and is necessary to safeguard the vitality and viability of Droitwich Spa town centre. Conditions 24-26 relate to drainage and flood risk. They are necessary to reduce the risk of flooding and pollution, to ensure the provision of an adequate and sustainable drainage system and to maintain access to existing watercourses.[3.97]

8.87 Condition 27 relates to the submission and approval of a Brine Run Monitoring

Report. However, the PPG makes it clear that conditions requiring compliance with other regulatory regimes will not meet the tests of necessity and may not be relevant to planning. In the context of this guidance it would not be appropriate to attach a planning condition regarding the Brine Run since this is a matter covered through Building Control regime. I have deleted this condition.[3.97]



Main matter (vii) Planning Obligation: 8.88 A S106 obligation (BDL5) was submitted at the Inquiry and is agreed by the

main parties. It was discussed in detail at the Inquiry. Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL) indicates that any planning obligation entered into must meet the following tests: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. I was also provided with an agreed statement of compliance with the CIL Regulations 2010 (C2). From all the evidence that is before me I consider that the provisions of the S106 Agreement complies with paragraph 204 of the NPPF and meets the 3 tests of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. I accord the S106 Agreement significant weight and I have had regard to it as a material consideration in my conclusions. I conclude that the Appellant has made adequate provision for mitigating any adverse impact that the proposal would have upon local services and infrastructure. [3.97]

CONCLUSION

8.89 Having examined all the evidence before the Inquiry I consider that the proposal would not be consistent with a strict interpretation of Policy GD1 of the WDLP but little weight can be afforded to this because the policy is clearly out of date. Other housing supply policies such as Policy SR1 and ENV1 are similarly out of date and can be given little weight. I consider there is no overall conflict with the development plan. Any development plan conflict is significantly outweighed by the inability of the Council to robustly demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The Council has failed to make adequate housing provision despite the warning of the Saving Letter some 5 years ago. The emerging SWDP has far to go before its adoption after making an uncertain start and clearly many thousands more homes than are catered for in the draft SWDP will be required. The presumption in favour of a grant of planning permission applies in this case for a variety of reasons: (a) the inadequacy of the 5-year supply; (b) ‘absent’ provision in saved Local Plan policies for provision of housing post-2011; and (c) out-of-date policies.

8.90 With regard to landscape impact I found that the proposed development would

not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. The countervailing environmental benefits more than outweigh the limited landscape harm caused by the loss of green field land. Issues raised by SOGOS and others in relation to local highway infrastructure have all been properly addressed by statutory consultees whose conclusions have not been demonstrated to be wrong at this Inquiry. Any residual matters of detail would be adequately controlled by the imposition of conditions and/or the reserved matters application process. The exercise of the paragraph 14 balance demonstrates that the benefits of the scheme are not ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweighed by the alleged disadvantages. Overall I recommend the SoS to grant planning permission for the proposed development of Appeal A subject to the imposition of conditions.



Appeal B – Land north of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane, Droitwich Spa

Main matter (i) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the development plan for the area and would deliver a sustainable form of development

8.91 The Council argues that Appeal Site B lies outside the defined boundary of Droitwich Spa and that policies for the open countryside apply. It is claimed that Policy GD1 is not out of date and that the strategy of the WDLP to concentrate most development on existing settlements is still relevant. Other policies including Policy SR1, Policy ENV1 and Policy ENV 8 of the WDLP are also claimed to be still relevant and consistent with the NPPF. The Council says the proposal is contrary to the development strategy of the WDLP. It accepts that the development plan consists solely of the WDLP which was adopted in 2006 and in place until 2011. In substance, only 4 policies within the WDLP are relied upon by the Council and the objectors as giving rise to inconsistency. These are Policy GD1, Policy SR1, ENV1 and Policy ENV8. [2.3, 2.15, 4.8]

8.92 It is noteworthy that Policy GD1 expressly and unconditionally applies to `new

development to 2011’. It was plainly not designed to meet housing needs in 2014 and is redundant in today’s changed policy, economic and legal context. Despite the unequivocal wording in Policy GD1, the Council maintained that significant weight should be afforded to it. Closer examination illustrates why that is ill advised.[2.3, 2.15, 4.9]

8.93 The second paragraph of Policy GD1 includes a reference to the `sequential preference will be given first, to the re-use of previously developed land and buildings’. This implements a previous sequential policy from the RSS and the old PPG/PPS3; it is not replicated in the NPPF or in the emerging SWDP in connection with sustainable development. Further, the prioritizing of Evesham in the wording of Policy GD1 does not survive the emerging SWDP. These changes reflect a deliberate shift in policy to loosen restrictions on urban extensions and greenfield land.[2.3, 2.15, 4.10]

8.94 The SoS will be aware that the Saving Letter made clear that the preservation of the policies was intended to be temporary, that there was a clear requirement to press on with the preparation of the replacement plan and that in the meantime the old policies should be approached bearing in mind new policy material in Government advice. Furthermore, it was noted in the Honeybourne decision, that using the old WDLP policies was not good enough and that the housing provision policies were out of date. When examined in August 2012, the policies were found to be time expired and out of date so limited weight could be given to them.[2.3, 4.11]

8.95 A similar approach can be found in the Bishops Cleeve decision in which the SoS further reinforced that Localism required local communities and Councils to face up to the hard choices in relation to the provision of development and if they did not and they failed to make provision for necessary development then decisions would inevitably need to be taken to provide it on appeal.[2.3, 4.12]

8.96 Plainly Policy GD1 is no longer fit for purpose. It was formulated in a world and in a context very different to one we find ourselves in today. It is not based on the full objectively assessed needs, referred to in paragraph 47 of the NPPF.



Applying the restraints outlined in Policy GD1 would not help the Council meet its housing requirements in 2014 because land beyond the settlement boundary needs to be released for development: a sequential approach would not deliver the urgently needed housing in Wychavon and it is not consistent with the NPPF. This was further identified in the Inspector’s decision at Humberstone, endorsed by the SoS in November 2013.[2.3, 2.15, 4.13]

8.97 The Council did not accept that Policy GD1 is out of date but it ultimately accepted that Policy SR1 was out of date. The Council argued that the two policies should be read together but that one is out of date and the other is not. In my view that is an inconsistent and indefensible position. Notwithstanding this and in so far as the Council readily accepted that Policy SR1 is out of date, paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies thereby triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.[2.3, 2.15, 4.14-4.15]

8.98 Policy ENV1 applies a Special Landscape Area (SLA) designation to the site. However, I note that the Inspector in the Tenbury appeal concluded that Policy ENV1 was also a housing supply policy which should be set aside absent a 5 year supply. It is the evidence of the Appellant that the wording of Policy ENV1 demonstrates that the SLA designations are not determinative and that the policy must be read in the context of other policy documents. Logically these include the 2011 Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) which becomes a new yardstick by which to measure landscape impact. I recognize that Policy ENV1 is a general policy in relation to protection of the landscape and the SLA designation has, in accordance with the provisions of the WDLP, been superseded by the publication of the 2011 LCA. Other relevant policy includes “A New Look at Landscape of Worcestershire” in 2004 and “Planning for Landscape in Worcestershire, 2008”. The Council accepted that the 2011 LCA prevails over the SLA designations.[2.21, 4.16-4.18]

8.99 Drawing the above points together, the evidence demonstrates that the Council relies on an out of date plan, primarily through the express wording of the old policies, previous Inspector’s findings, and underlying it all, the fact that the evidence and policy context for the old WDLP has dramatically changed and can no longer be a sound basis for any meaningful application to this proposal. By way of default the NPPF applies.[2.3, 4.19]

8.100 Following on from that whilst as a bald fact the proposals are contrary to Policy GD1, once the exercise required by the High Court decision in Hampton Bishop is undertaken and the policy is viewed through the prism of up to date consideration and in particular the NPPF, little weight indeed can be attached to that fact. I have to consider the proposal in the context of the other main matters which have been identified before coming to an overall conclusion in relation to the development plan.[4.6]

Main matter (ii) Whether the proposed development is premature in the light of the emerging SWDP and national guidance

8.101 In the context of prematurity, the Council contends that given the good progress on the emerging SWDP, the substantial scale of the proposed development and the sensitivity of the local landscape to such significant change warrants refusal of the proposed development. It is argued that the proposal is counter to the strategy of the emerging SWDP. The position of the



Council at the close of the Inquiry was that the emerging SWDP may not yet be adopted but it has advanced to Examination stage and therefore carries greater weight than a pre-submission plan. Furthermore, it is pointed out that there is no suggestion that the underlying strategy of directing development to existing settlements is unsound. The Council, supported by local Councillors and other local objectors claimed that the proposal would significantly prejudice the strategy of the emerging SWDP and undermine the pattern of growth set out therein, by allowing large scale development, which would cause significant harm to the character of the area.[2.7-2.9, 6.17, 6.20, 6.43, 6.66]

8.102 The Appellant submitted evidence in relation to prematurity in the guidance contained in ‘The Planning System: General Principles’. However, that guidance has been cancelled by the PPG issued on 6 March 2014. I have already set out relevant guidance from the NPPF (paragraph 216) and the PPG (paragraph 14) at paragraphs 8.26 and 8.27 of this Report so there is no need to repeat it here.[4.21]

8.103 The SoS should also be aware that in two High Court decisions, prematurity arguments identical to the ones in this appeal failed. Those judgments made clear that there was nothing in the Localism Agenda which required the plan making process to be completed before decisions could be made. [2.7-2.9, 4.22]

8.104 With regard to the plan-making process, it is clear to me that the SWDP process has been significantly delayed: the methodology for the housing calculation has been found in no uncertain terms to be “unreliable” not providing a sound basis for the planning of housing provision in the area, with “three fundamental shortcomings”, resulting in an order that further analysis be undertaken to derive an objective assessment of housing need.[2.7-2.9, 4.23]

8.105 The position of the Appellant is that the emerging SWDP is in a “parlous state” in light of the extensive work that was still required. I accept that there will be a need for further assessment of future allocations and subsequent consultation (to be supported by a SEA). This needs to be settled by all 3 authorities at a time when there is clearly no political appetite for further housing provision anywhere. Consequently, there is little hope that the process would be completed before 2015. [2.7-2.9, 4.24]

8.106 Despite the Council’s submission of additional information on housing at the Inquiry, at the close of this Inquiry there is still no new housing requirement figure. Whilst the SWDP may have been submitted for Examination, I consider this is not an advanced stage of the Plan. We are in fact at a state where further land is likely to be required. There are correctly doubts in the Council’s mind as to the integrity of the plan making process at present in the light of the fact that the Inspector in March 2014 will not have any proposed modifications containing an alternative figure before him. How therefore the future progress of the Plan is to be handled procedurally has yet to be decided. [2.7-2.9, 4.25]

8.107 The Council argued prematurity in terms of location and phasing but not in terms of scale as the proposal for up to 265 dwellings was less than Appeal Site A. This is misconceived because the three elements cannot be disaggregated, especially in light of the status in the extant and emerging plan that Droitwich Spa enjoys as one of the higher tier settlements. The fact is that



the scale of both proposals is not such as to prejudice decisions about distribution of development: as the Report to Committee pointed out, taken together, the proposals represent a mere 16.9% increase in households in the parish of Droitwich Spa over the plan period.[2.7-2.9, 4.26]

8.108 The Council further relies on the appeal at Kentford. However, it is clear in that case Kentford’s Village status was a primary village with a poor range of services - completely different to Droitwich Spa, which has a full range of facilities and sufficient infrastructure for further development.[2.9, 4.27]

8.109 The Council’s stance on prematurity is even more difficult to understand in light of its decision to grant permission for 740 dwellings at Copcut Lane. I consider this inconsistency undermines the Council’s argument. The weakness in the Council’s position on RFR1 and prematurity is patently clear on any analysis. In my view this was an unreasonable RFR and does not withstand scrutiny. The Council’s own officer observed that it would be difficult for the Council to demonstrate clearly how the grant of planning permission would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process.[2.7-2.9, 4.28-4.29]

8.110 In my view once the status of Droitwich Spa in the hierarchy is acknowledged the simple fact is that in Droitwich Spa there are few if any alternative options which have not already been deployed in the SWDP. The reality is that Yew Tree Hill was only rejected because the Committee preferred Copcut Lane. That option no longer exists. Droitwich Spa is a sustainable settlement and at the top of the settlement hierarchy in SWDP48. Within Droitwich Spa, being constrained by the greenbelt, floodplain and historic environment, Yew Tree Hill is the only option left without imperiling those critical environmental constraints. There is no evidence, let alone any appetite, which would justify the contention that development needs should be met in that way.[4.30]

8.111 On main matter (ii) I conclude that, for all of the reasons outlined above, the Council’s reliance upon prematurity as a reason for refusal cannot stand. It is contrary to the weight of guidance, policy and judicial decisions and no relevant precedent has been provided for it.

Main matter (iii): Whether the proposed development is necessary to meet the housing needs of the district bearing in mind the housing land supply position

8.112 The Council’s evidence is that it can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing

land. It maintains that since the Honeybourne decision (August 2012) it has granted permission for a significant number of additional homes on several sites, where such development is regarded as sustainable and meets the other objectives of the NPPF. The Council’s position is that against a total requirement of 10,133 dwellings, equivalent to 422 dwellings per annum, it can demonstrate 6.76 years housing supply. This includes a 2.6% vacancy rate and a 0.8% allowance for second homes. The Council maintains that it has provided clear evidence to demonstrate that the sites in question are “deliverable” in the context of Footnote 11 of the NPPF and the advice contained in the PPG.[2.8-2.14]

8.113 Furthermore, the Council argues that at the present time the precise outcome in respect of housing figures cannot be predicted albeit the SWDP Inspector



has indicated in his Interim Conclusions that it may be significantly higher than the current figure. In the Council’s view the decision as to the quantum and spatial distribution of any additional housing requirement can only be made through the local plan process, where the constraints can and will be considered. However, the question of a 5-year housing land supply is disputed by the Appellant.[2.9]

8.114 As a preliminary matter the SoS should note that the Council officers are agreed that the Council does not enjoy a 5-year land supply and therefore cannot satisfy the requirement of paragraph 47 of the NPPF. In addition, the reader’s attention is drawn to paragraphs 8.40-8.60 of my Report above and in particular to paragraphs 8.58 and 8.59 where I have concluded in relation to Appeal A that the Council does not have a 5-year supply. There is no need to repeat the detail of the various components of housing needs and supply within Wychavon in relation to Appeal B as they have already been set out in my Report for Appeal A. However, there are several additional points which were raised in evidence and which need to be highlighted.[4.31]

8.115 The first point to note is that part and parcel of the 5-year land supply calculation is that the Council has failed for a considerable period of time to deliver its housing requirement. That leads to the acceptance that in this case a 20% buffer is appropriate in relation to the housing land supply assessment. The evidence therefore demonstrates that there is a long-standing chronic problem with housing delivery in South Worcestershire and Wychavon. The same was noted in the Inspector Clews’ Interim Conclusions.[2.8-2.14, 4.32]

8.116 In this case the position is far worse than the Council’s assessment thus far has suggested. The SWDP Inspector has made clear that there were “three fundamental shortcomings” in the SHMA used by the Council to calculate housing need. These were: firstly, the failure to use household representative rates (HRR) drawn from the 2008-based DCLG projections or any other official population or household statistics; secondly, the Council’s use of the unreliable Cambridge Economics as a basis for predicting job growth and resultant household growth; and thirdly, the lack of evidence to support the assumed increased in older peoples’ economic activity, based on unclear assumptions. [4.33]

8.117 The Inspector therefore concluded that the objectively assessed housing need figure for the plan period “is likely to be substantially higher than the 23,200 figure identified in the submitted plan” and that further work was required to rectify this calculation. He advised that this further work should be combined with the NLP “index” approach and should be carried out using the latest official population projections to translate those projections into future household numbers. The range of the additional housing need canvassed by the Inspector included the following: 34,000 (Barton Wilmore, not supported by the Inspector); 32,000 (by NLP, assessed as methodically sound, albeit caveated); 26,800 (PSL, considered to be “illuminating”, but the adjustments were insufficiently unreliable); and between 23,700-27,000, with a mid-point of 25,850 (by Pegasus, the mid-point found to be insufficient because it did not include the employment adjustments).[4.34- 4.36]

8.118 Therefore at the close of the Inquiry a housing requirement of substantially more than 23,200 and possibly up to 34,000 seems likely. This is, in the main,



because unless the new figure is in this region, there are unlikely to be unresolved objections, a key factor affecting the weight to be attached to the emerging SWDP, as paragraph 216 of the NPPF makes clear. The Appellant estimates that there is an additional need for a minimum of 8,800 dwellings. All parties are agreed that it is not for me determine what the precise figure should be. That is beyond the remit of these appeals and is a matter for the local planning process. Suffice it to say that significant number of additional dwellings will have to be provided for over and above the figure indicated in the submitted version of the SWDP.[2.8-2.14, 4.37]

8.119 The question which then arises is as to the likely location of the additional housing. The evidence overwhelmingly proves that Wychavon is the least constrained authority: Worcester City’s built-up area is tightly contained inside its boundaries and there is insufficient space in the City’s administrative area to meet all its needs for development, especially housing; Malvern Hills has limited ability to accept new development due to its natural and environmental constraints. This leaves Wychavon, with fewer constraints than Worcester City or Malvern Hills, as the natural destination for the lion’s share of the additional housing requirement bearing in mind in particular the duty to co-operate. Mr Brown sought to dispute this on the basis that constraints are not fixed but it is difficult to see how the AONB in Malvern Hills might change in the future, for example.[2.8-2.14, 4.38]

8.120 From the evidence that is before me the best location within Wychavon is clearly Droitwich Spa when compared against Evesham or Pershore. Growth in Droitwich Spa, between 2006 and 2013, was the smallest of all 3 towns, with a population increase of only 5.6% in this period. Some 750 homes would represent an increase from 5.6 to 8.9%. With Copcut Lane, that increases to 12%, still less than the % increases seen in Pershore or Evesham.[2.8-2.14, 4.39]

8.121 In my view, the Council’s approach of directing development outside the conurbation boundaries is no longer tenable in the changed policy context of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The sea-change brought about by the NPPF recognises that development outside conurbations is appropriate in today’s climate of an under-supplied housing market. The simple fact is that there is a serious need for additional homes. Within Droitwich Spa, Copcut Lane is insufficient on its own to meet those needs and Yew Tree Hill is the logical next step.[2.8-2.14, 4.40]

8.122 The SoS should be aware that a major plank of the Appellant’s evidence is the significant under provision of affordable housing set against the established need figure and the urgent need to provide affordable housing in Wychavon. If the position in relation to the overall supply of housing demonstrated a general district-wide requirement for further housing, that requirement becomes critical and the need overriding in relation to the provision of affordable housing. The most recent analysis in the SHMA (found to be a sound assessment of affordable housing needs) demonstrates a desperate picture bearing hallmarks of overcrowding, barriers to getting onto the housing ladder and families in crisis.[4.42]

8.123 There are nearly 5,000 households on the waiting list, 35% of whom are families with children. Over a fifth of those have a local connection and are in priority need. The SHMA indisputably records that affordability is at crisis



point. Without adequate provision of affordable housing, these acute housing needs will be incapable of being met. In terms of the NPPF’s requirement to create inclusive and mixed communities in paragraph 50, this is a very serious matter. Needless to say these socially disadvantaged people were unrepresented at the Inquiry.[4.42]

8.124 These bleak and desperate conclusions are thrown into even sharper focus by an examination of the current circumstances in Wychavon itself. Over the whole of the District’s area there is presently a need for 268 homes per annum. These are real people in real need now. Unfortunately, there appears to be no early prospect of any resolution to this problem. Firstly, the 2009 AMR recognizes that between 2005 and 2009, only 229 affordable homes were delivered, an average of some 55 per annum. Over the following 8 year period, between 2009 and 2013, some 501 were delivered, or an average of 62 per annum over a whole economic cycle. Given the continuing shortfall in affordable housing within the District, I consider the provision of affordable housing as part of the proposed development is a clear material consideration of significant weight that mitigates in favour of the site being granted planning permission.[4.43- 4.44]

8.125 Secondly, although SWDP15 (and supporting text) notes that 657 dwellings are needed over the next 5 years, a solution still remains a relatively distant prospect given the state that the forward-planning process finds itself in at present. The information shows that the delivery of affordable housing in Wychavon has been very poor. There are no allocations for housing purposes which would begin to address the significant housing crisis in Wychavon. Furthermore, none of the permissions identified are capable of addressing the need. There is thus no solution identified by the Council to begin to address the crisis in housing provision for the substantial number of households living with housing need which the Council can identify. And as the map made clear, those living in Droitwich Spa are amongst the unluckiest as it is one of the most unaffordable places for housing.[4.46]

8.126 It seems to me that the Council has largely ignored the affordable housing need in its evidence. The poor delivery record of the Council has also been largely overlooked. The Council’s planning balance is struck without any apparent consideration being given to one of the most important reasons why housing in Droitwich Spa is needed. From all evidence that is before me the provision of affordable housing must attract very significant weight in any proper exercise of the planning balance.[4.47]

8.127 On main matter (iii) I conclude that the Council does not have a 5-year supply and the proposed development is necessary to meet the housing needs of the district.

Main matter (iv): The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area

8.128 The Council, supported by local objectors, maintains that the proposed

development would give rise to demonstrable adverse impacts to the overall landscape, including character and in terms of visual effects, thereby failing to achieve the environmental objectives of sustainable development. In the overall balancing exercise it is claimed, that the adverse impacts would be



significant enough to outweigh the benefits of the scheme and permission should therefore be refused. The Council accepts that taken in isolation Appeal B would have less impact than Appeal A but it is still considered harmful lying as it does close to the interface between two Landscape Character Areas and clearly impacting on both. It is argued that Appeal B gives rise to significant visual impacts, including public rights of way, which are assessed as major/moderate adverse in the long term.[2.15-2.17, 6.18, 6.30, 6.31-6.38, 6.46, 6.66, 7.1]

8.129 However, it is important for the SoS to note the benefits of the landscape-led

approach to the masterplan. It proposes several benefits and was endorsed by the Council officers. The strategy retains the elevated southern part of the site as open space and development is proposed to be restricted to at or below the 73.5m contour generally with planting proposed to the elevated southern part of the site to provide a vegetated backdrop to the development when viewed from the north. Plainly the proposed development would be concentrated on the central and northern part of the site where there is a greater degree of visual containment but set back from the public footpath to the north to create a green corridor which also incorporates provision for SUDS. [2.15-2.17, 4.48]

8.130 Furthermore, perimeter hedgerows/trees and the existing hedgerow that

subdivides the site are to be retained and new hedgerows introduced to create a series of development “cells”. This network of hedgerows is intended to reflect the local landscape character and provide elements of visual containment.[2.15-2.17, 4.49]

8.131 The position of the Appellant is that there are two aspects to the Council’s case

in relation to landscape effects and the impact on the visual amenity of the area. The first is the question of policy context and the second concerns the assessments. I agree that the historical context of the SLA needs to be borne in mind when assessing the weight to be given to it. The 1993 Local Plan Inspector concluded that this parcel of land should be excluded from the Green Belt and that the shallow valley of the appeal site should be examined as a plausible candidate for future development. I am aware that this was reiterated in the 1995 PTP Report with the note that Pulley Lane and Newland Lane should form the boundary of the Green Belt and provide a firm boundary in the long term for the settlement. By delineating a boundary in this way, allowance was being made for future development needs. It is clear to me that even in 1993 and 1995 this site was identified as a potential area for development.[4.50-4.51]

8.132 As housing needs increased, development in the area has evolved. Although the Council asserted that nothing has changed since the 1995 Report the facts indicate that significant elements of development have occurred around the site: additional housing to the east and the Bellway Homes site have clearly changed the immediate context of the site. Furthermore, nothing has been done to advance any proposal for a country park. This is the context from which the SLA designation emerged and thus its application must be caveated: the conclusions would only hold until 2011 or else no option for Droitwich to expand would be available; and the SLA was to be integrated into the Landscape Character Assessment as set out at paragraph 8.98 above.[4.52-4.53]



8.133 The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (Purple Book) further indicates that special landscape designations are to carry less weight in the context of Landscape Character Assessments. As such the LCA prevails over the SLA and is incorporated into the plan. However, it is clear to me that it is not good enough to assume that the LCA is determinative. Further assessment must be carried out to properly determine the landscape impact of the scheme on the site. It is a starting point, as set out in the Purple Book, which seeks to move away from the mechanical approach or applying perfunctory assessments. Similarly, the flowchart relied on by the Council has no support in the Purple Book as the assessment method of landscape impact. Rather, it is a tool that provides some perspective. The document itself observes that having considered the flow-chart one should then undertake the necessary site work required to formulate a proper assessment of the detailed character of the landscape of a site and the effects upon it. [2.15-2.17, 4.54-4.56]

8.134 That approach is reflected in the fact that notwithstanding the Settled Farmlands with Pastoral Use description, the Bellway Homes and Copcut Lane developments are both within this designation. Had the approach that Ms Illman advocates been applied to those proposals, they would have probably been refused. To my mind these decisions comprise a very clear inconsistency in the Council’s case.[2.15-2.17, 4.56]

8.135 As I perceive it reading the LCA as a whole, it is clear that landscape is only

one aspect of decision-making; and that meeting the need for sustainable development on the edge of sustainable settlements is also an important factor. This is an important context which is missing from the evidence provided by the Council. Droitwich Spa has at its edge either Settled Farmlands with Pastoral Use or Principal Timbered Farmlands, the latter being less suitable for development than the former in terms of resilience to development, and the lower lying land contained therein. Therefore, the Landscape Character Area in which the site is located is the best option for Droitwich Spa in landscape character terms measured against the LCA. [2.15-2.17,

4.57-4.58] 8.136 Turning to the quality of the assessment carried out it is apparent from the

initial Illman Young Report that there was no instruction to provide any assessment of Appeal Site B. Why that is has not been explained. What is clear is that the assessment of the Council’s own landscape expert was supportive of the scheme which had been designed and did not conclude that the landscape impacts were unacceptable.[2.15-2.17, 4.59]

8.137 The Council considers the impact of the proposed development on the landscape resource and visually would be sufficiently adverse to warrant dismissal of this appeal. I disagree for several reasons. First, there is an absence in the evidence of any explanation of the methodology carried out to reach those conclusions. Nowhere does the Council set out any calibration, any analysis or any rationale for those judgments. Secondly, by way of contrast, the Appellant’s evidence follows a logical flow and describes in detail how and why the conclusions on landscape impact are reached. Thirdly, the same can be said about the Council’s assessment of the visual effects of the scheme. Reliance is placed on obtaining a ZTV but this approach was exposed as painting a misleading picture of the visibility of the site. Table C in the Council’s evidence fails to make the connection between observations and



conclusions: nowhere is there a description or definition of the significance of change and the magnitude of impact; nowhere is there any description of the individual effects, leaving the Inquiry in the dark as to what is meant by terms such as “large” and “major” when describing the impact.[2.21, 4.60]

8.138 Drawing together the above points it seems clear to me from the evidence

submitted that the conclusions to be reached in relation to this issue are as follows. Given the scale of the overall Landscape Character Area of this type the effect of the proposals are not significant. When the more local LDU is examined it is clear that the character of the landscape has had its rurality eroded by the recent development in the vicinity. As a result the impact on the LDU landscape character would also be acceptable. Turning to the issue of visual effects there are very limited views of the site from the wider landscape. Whilst there would be some change to very local views firstly, these are views in which the urban form of Droitwich Spa is already evident and, secondly, as a result of the careful siting of the development on the lower lying land the extent of visual effect would be minimised. My site visits confirmed these conclusions. In summary, there is no logical basis to refuse the proposals on the basis of landscape impact.[2.21, 4.61]

8.139 It is necessary to consider the potential impacts in the event that both

schemes were to be approved. In reality the additional impact of Appeal B in landscape terms if Appeal A is approved is de minimis. The Appellant has approached this issue on the basis of considering the effect of both sites together as a single entity and this demonstrates whilst the impact on landscape character and visual effect would be greater, again it would not amount to a basis for refusing the schemes. The proposals sit within the same Landscape Character Area and LDU, and the assessment of the LDU shows that it is relatively resilient to change. Coupled with the substantial provision of green infrastructure the overall result of the proposals would bring benefits to clearly off-set the initial impact of the development.[4.62]

8.140 There would be changes to the visual effect of the development but still no impact upon the wider landscape. More development would be seen from the closer views but again the magnitude of change, given the existence of views of development already in these views moderates the possible extent of the impact and demonstrates that the development, akin to the other recent developments around the sites, can be properly assimilated into views back towards Droitwich Spa from the wider countryside. For all above reasons on main matter (iv) I conclude that the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area and the scheme would comply with pertinent development and emerging plan policies including in particular Policy ENV1 and Policy ENV8 of the WDLP and the relevant provisions of the NPPF.[4.63]

Main matter (v): The effect of the proposals on local highway

infrastructure 8.141 On this issue I have already set out the relevant NPPF advice above at

paragraph 8.75 and 8.76. The SoS should also be aware that there was no RFR on highway or transport grounds. The proposal before the Inquiry includes provisions for public transport and road widening which would enhance the



accessibility of the site both by slow modes and by public transport. These provisions have been accepted not only by WCC but have passed an independent safety audit providing the necessary assurance that the site would be safe and accessible. SOGOS and other local objectors have made points in relation to the present position of the site in terms of the impact on traffic flows. However, those fall away in light of the fact that the flows used have been derived from an independent model and Pulley Lane has an adequate design and capacity to cope with the additional flows. SOGOS also refers to significant increases in traffic flows on Pulley Lane but the use of percentages is obviously misleading when the existing flows on this link are so low. The forecast flows are well within the design capacity of the road and in my view would pose no difficulty in engineering terms. [4.64, 5.2-5.3, 5.7, 5.18,-5.26, 6.5, 6.7, 6.186.27,

6.35, 6.48-52, 6.70-6.72]

8.142 With regard to the site access concerns, the Appellant explained in evidence that the point about the visibility splay is based on using a standard of deceleration from trunk roads and motorways to a road which would be residential in character. Using realistic speeds and deceleration rates the visibility splay would be acceptable, a point endorsed by WCC and the safety audit. Using Manual for Streets and after speeds have been managed as a result of the Section 278 works the visibility splay functions. There is no accident history of safety problems on this highway network.[4.65]

8.143 It is noteworthy that the extent of the public transport contribution would secure a long term future for the bus service. Messrs Tucker, Jones and WCC have designed the bus service to pick up a number of residential areas in addition to serving the site so as to provide ridership and support for the revenue stream generated by the service. The bus service would necessarily improve the current service and provide a strong linkage both to the town centre and the appeal site, providing therefore an appropriate and sustainable alternative to the use of the private car. These proposals therefore would bring about a wider public benefit to the existing community in the form of enhanced public transport. It is further important to reinforce that the junction arrangements at Pulley Lane/A38 which are proposed would not only assist in resolving existing highway safety issues but also in terms of providing an acceptable design solution. I conclude on main matter (v) that the proposed development would not give rise to harm to highway safety or to the free flow of traffic and that relevant development plan policies in the WDLP would not be offended in this respect.

Main matter (vi): Whether any permission should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take

8.144 There is an agreed list of conditions which were discussed in detail at the

Inquiry (Document C8). The conditions have been considered having regard to this discussion, advice in the Appendix A (model conditions) to Circular 11/95 and also the advice in the PPG. The comments in this section and the condition numbers referred to below support and reflect the list produced in the Annex of this Report.[4.68]

8.145 The scheme is being put forward on the basis that it would make a useful

contribution to short term housing needs. It is therefore reasonable to shorten the time period for approval of reserved matters for phase 1. Conditions 1 and



2 otherwise broadly reflect the wording in Appendix A of the Circular. Condition 3 is necessary to ensure the proposed development is constructed in such a way that any new units provided are adequately served by infrastructure and recreation facilities and to promote biodiversity on the site. Conditions 4 and 5 are necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, principles and parameters contained within the submitted documents.[4.68]

8.146 Conditions 6-10 relate to roads, parking and travel. They are required in the

interests of highway safety and sustainable travel. I have deleted the suggested alternative wording to Condition 7 ii) so that the improvements to Pulley Lane/A38 junction are approved and implemented prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling (and not prior to the occupation of the 100th or 50th dwelling) to ensure the safe and free flow of traffic on the highway. Conditions 11 and 12 relate to noise and construction management and are required to protect the amenities of existing and future occupiers of adjoining properties.[4.68]

8.147 Conditions 13 and 14 relate to contaminated land and are necessary to ensure

that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land, controlled waters, property and ecological systems are minimised. Condition 15 is necessary to ensure the proposed development does not cause avoidable harm to any features of archaeological interest. Conditions 16-19 relate to landscaping, trees and nature conservation. They are required to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the area and to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Condition 20 relates to renewable energy and is required to ensure the prudent use of natural resources. Condition 21 relates to lighting and is necessary to ensure the proposed development does not cause unacceptable levels of light pollution. Conditions 22-24 relate to drainage and flood risk. They are necessary to reduce the risk of flooding and pollution, to ensure the provision of an adequate and sustainable drainage system and to maintain access to existing watercourses. There is no need to attach a planning condition regarding the Brine Run since it does not extend to Appeal Site B. It is principally to do with foundations and is therefore a matter for Building Regulations and not planning. [4.68] Main matter (vii): Whether any planning permission granted should be accompanied by any planning obligations under section 106 of the 1990 Act and, if so, whether the proposed terms of such obligations are acceptable

8.148 Document C3 is a signed and completed s106 Planning Obligation Agreement,

dated 11 February 2014 between the Appellant, the LPA and WCC. The Appellant and the Council have entered into a s106 Agreement by virtue of which £207,529.45 is payable as the “Worcester Transport Strategy Contribution.” Document C3 also contains a statement which provides a summary of the obligations contained in the Agreement and how each complies with the legal tests of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. [4.69]

8.149 The Appellant maintains that Schedule 4 of the s106 Agreement is not compliant with the legal tests in light of the conclusions in the Appeal Decision



at Ronkswood Hospital and that, pursuant to clause 5.3, Schedule 4 is unenforceable. In that appeal, where the main issue was the compliance of the s106 Transport contribution with the Regulation, the Inspector scrutinised the Worcester Transport Strategy (WTS) as the policy basis for the contribution. The Inspector concluded that the WTS, which consists of a package of infrastructure and service schemes, was too general and there had been no evidence to demonstrate how any of those schemes directly related to the development. He concluded that the contribution calculated by reference to the WTS was not CIL-compliant.[4.70-4.75]

8.150 In order to be “CIL-compliant”, Regulation 122 requires that an obligation be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The Worcester transport network is congested and subject to poor performance. Development projected in the emerging SWDP will create additional traffic, cumulatively causing severe network performance deterioration as shown by the Worcester Transport Model (WTM). The WTS will support the emerging SWDP by improving network performance. As 14.2% development traffic will route to congested sections of the Worcester network (allowing for travel measures), the impact of development traffic forms part of the cumulative impacts shown by the WTM, so mitigation secured by the s106 Planning Obligation is required to make the development acceptable. This is consistent with the approach used for the Copcut Lane development.

8.151 The WTS will mitigate the cumulative impacts, of which this development‘s

traffic forms a part, and the specific locations the contribution is to be dedicated to is that most used by development traffic routing to Worcester, so the Planning Obligation is directly linked to the development. The SoS should be aware that it is acceptable to the Council to dedicate the WTS contribution to improvements to the A38, Hurst Lane and Cotswold Way corridors as the element of the network most affected by the development traffic.

8.152 The WTS contribution is proportionately calculated according to the amount of

development traffic routing to the Worcester network so is reasonably related in scale. An original calculation was made, but following revision of this to cater for the 14.2% traffic routing to the WTS area the contribution was reduced to £207,529.45. The emerging SWDP Policies SWDP04 and 07 provide for development to contribute to infrastructure requirements. In my view that is consistent with the NPPF and should carry weight. The proposed contribution is therefore in conformity with the emerging policy. The contribution is also in conformity with the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) policies providing for development to contribute to infrastructure requirements and this is a material consideration of some weight in this case. I consider that there are material differences with the Ronkswood case and the WTS contribution sought in this appeal is more robustly and precisely justified. The WTS contribution complies with the requirements of Regulation 122 of CIL Regulations 2010.

8.153 Overall I consider that the s106 Agreement meets the 3 tests of Regulation

122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 and the criteria in paragraph 204 of the NPPF. I accord the s106 Agreement significant weight and I have had regard to it as a material consideration in my conclusions.



PLANNING BALANCE

8.154 In the light of my conclusions on the main matters it is necessary to draw the factors together and feed them into the equation provided by paragraph 14 of the NPPF in circumstances where the main policies are out of date. The effect of applying the presumption is that the planning balance shifts in favour of the grant of consent. Only if the Council is able to demonstrate harm which “significantly and demonstrably” outweighs the benefits of the development should consent be refused. The harm must be of sufficient gravity to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The reason for that significant shift in the planning balance is that it is a key policy objective of the NPPF under paragraph 47 to ensure that a 5 year supply of housing land is in place and that old plans with outdated constraints are not deployed to frustrate development.[4.76]

8.155 That exercise requires one to start with a careful examination of the benefits of the proposal. There is little, if any, evidence in the Council’s evidence, and none in that submitted by interested persons, to indicate any acknowledgement of the significant benefits which this scheme would deliver. First, there is the 5 year housing land supply requirement which needs to be met. The requirement figure is not set but it is recognized by all parties that it is greater than 23,200 and it could be an additional 8,800. It is the position of both Appellants that the Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply.[4.77-4.78]

8.156 Secondly, jobs would be created by the proposed development. Government

Guidance in Laying the Foundations and the Honeybourne decision both acknowledge the direct and indirect employment flowing from housing construction. Not only would about 190 personnel be employed in construction on site but that figure would increase to 120-205 general personnel. Both appeals together would provide some 40 jobs at the retail centre and between 105-205 jobs at the extra care facility. The Council could not dispute these numbers to any significant degree at the Inquiry. The Council’s concern in respect of the rates of development depended on the GL Hearn Report which itself shows that higher rates of development (up to 170 per annum) are capable of sustaining in Droitwich Spa more than one outlet, at the Copcut Lane site as well as outlets at the appeal sites. The Council was unable to explain GL Hearn’s conclusion in the light of the empirical evidence.[4.79]

8.157 Thirdly, the development would make a positive contribution to the social

dimension of sustainable development, particularly through the provision of new homes to address the significant affordable housing needs. Droitwich Spa is a very sustainable settlement and a good location for new development with a full range of facilities, services and public transport connections. The site location is sustainable with the ability for high quality footpath and cycleway connections to be made to adjoining residential areas and to bus services there and to the adjoining Appeal Site A.[4.80]

8.158 Fourthly, the proposals would involve change in relation to the loss of fields in agricultural and equestrian use and the development of areas of land currently undeveloped. Off-setting environmental benefits in the form of accessible open space, landscaping and habitat creation would mitigate this change and the



proposal has been carefully considered to minimize the impact on the landscape. The area of open space on the eastern boundary of the proposal would connect well to the adjoining, existing informal open space and provide connections for existing residential communities to Newland Lane and Newland Road and wider footpath and cycleway networks.[4.81]

8.159 To the extent that harm has been identified by the Council and by many local

residents, it would be limited. It is focused on landscape issues in circumstances where the sites are essentially the only candidates for expansion in Droitwich Spa and the detailed evidence demonstrates that landscape and visual effects would, in substance, be limited to the sites themselves and their immediate surroundings. The proposed development may not be consistent with a strict interpretation of Policy GD1. However, due to its accordance with all other policies, I conclude there is no overall conflict with the development plan or the emerging SWDP or with relevant provisions of the NPPF. The proposal raises allegations of prematurity but the emerging SWDP is in a state of disarray at the close of this Inquiry, its housing requirement is going up rather than down, and there is an acceptance that further sustainable sites will be required. Any harm is certainly not of a degree of significance so as to outweigh the clear benefits in relation to sustainable development, which the proposals would provide, either substantially or demonstrably or at all.[4.82]

CONCLUSION 8.160 Having examined the evidence before the Inquiry it is my view that planning

permission should be granted for the appeal proposal. The evidence before me shows the need for this site and its suitability. Measured against the fact that the proposal would bring about substantial and tangible benefits, the Council’s case is not well made and it has been bolstered by the objections of local residents to a large extent. The lack of substantive evidence put forward by SOGOS or by other local objectors only highlights that fact.

8.161 The evidence put forward by the Council was substantive but not persuasive.

In my view upon analysis the Council’s evidence did not support the RFR which the members imposed. Instead there is a strong positive case for development of the appeal site and one which would bring about significant benefits in terms of addressing housing requirements for all people in South Worcestershire and Wychavon. That is not simply in relation to the need for market housing but the development also addresses the needs of those who are unable through their own socio-economic circumstances to meet their housing requirements and are currently forced to live in unsuitable and unsatisfactory homes. The proposals would assist in providing jobs. Overall in the light of the evidence before the Inquiry, I recommend the SoS to grant planning permission for Appeal Site B subject to the imposition of conditions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 I recommend that Appeal A be allowed and planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

9.2 I recommend that Appeal B be allowed and planning permission be granted subject to conditions.



APPEARANCES FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Miss Nadia Sharif of Counsel Instructed and assisted by Ian Marshall Solicitor

to Wychavon District Council

She called Malcolm Brown FRICS MRTPI Sue Illman BA DipLA Grad Dip (Cons) AA and PLI

HonFSE Heather Peachey – Projects & Development Officer WDC Pritpal Singh-Swarn - Solicitor - Wright Hassall Karen Hanchett - Worcestershire County Council

FOR APPELLANT A: Mr Jeremy Cahill QC Instructed by Patrick Downes, Harris Lamb Assisted by Victoria Hutton

He called Anthony Bateman BA (Hons) TP MRICS MRTPI MCMI MIOD FRSA

Alison Potterton BA DipLA CMLI Simon Tucker BSc (Hons) MCIHT Patrick Downes BSc (Hons) MRICS Richard Engledow I Eng ACIWEM Mark Williams BSc (Hons) CEng MIMMM

FOR APPELLANT B: Mr Ian Dove QC Instructed by Chris May, Pegasus Group Assisted by Suella Fernandes

He called Jeremy Peachey BSc (Hons) M.LD CMLI Philip Jones BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MCHIT MITE

FIHE Chris May BA (Hons) MRTPI

FOR SAVE OUR GREEN OPEN SPACES (SOGOS) Miss Nina Pindham of Counsel Instructed by SOGOS

She called Richard Pettitt BSc CEng CWEM FICE FCIHT MCIWEM

Stephen Stoney BA (Hons) MRTPI



INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mr Richard Giugno Local Resident Mr Mike Bowler Local Resident Mr Tony Miller District Councillor and Ward Member Mr Ken Jennings District Councillor and Ward Member Mr Richard Morris District Councillor266 Barbara Meddings Salwarpe Parish Council Mrs Judy Pearce District Councillor and Deputy Leader of WDC Mr John Brass Local Resident Mr Patrick Davies Droitwich Spa Civic Society Mr Robert Brewer Worcestershire’s Youth Cabinet Mr Neil Franks Local Resident Mr Christopher Hartwright Tibberton Parish Council Mr Philip Powell Local Resident INQUIRY DOCUMENTS INQ1 Notification Letter INQ2 Written representations submitted following the issue of the SoS's Direction

to recover the applications INQ3 Statement of Common Ground on General Planning Matters INQ4 Additional comments received from WDC, Harris Lamb and Pegasus Group

following the issue of DCLG’s new Planning Practice Guidance on 6 March 2014

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF WYCHAVON DISTRICT COUNCIL C1 Opening Statement C2 CIL Compliance Statement (Appeal A) C3 CIL Compliance Statement (Appeal B) including s106 Agreement final signed

version dated 11 February 2014 C4 Site visit route plans C4a Site visit itinerary C5 Letter to Inspector Clews dated 31 January 2014 (SWDP additional

information) C6 Report by AMION Consulting dated January 2014 (SWDP additional

information) C7 Suggested Conditions (Appeal A) C8 Suggested Conditions (Appeal B) C9 South Worcestershire Development Plan – Droitwich Spa Proposals Map

January 2013 C10 Housing Land Supply Position Statement between Wychavon District

Council, Barberry (Appellant A) and Persimmon Homes (Appellant B) C11 SWDP Position Statement C12 Costs Rebuttal C13 Leasowes Road and Laurels Road, Offenham Appeal Decision (Ref:

2203924) dated 7 February 2014

266 Councillor Morris was unable to attend the Inquiry so his statement was read out by Councillor Jennings



C14 List of attendees at site visit (Part 1) on 12 February 2014 C15 Closing Submissions ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS Appeal A – Barberry Droitwich Ltd BDL1 Ecological update by Countryside Consultants Limited BDL2 Brine Run letter by Atkins dated 27 January 2014 BDL3 Foul Water letter from Adkins dated 24 January 2014 BDL4 Archaeology letter from Adkins dated 27 January 2014 BDL5 Section 106 final signed version dated 14 February 2014 BDL6 Schedule of Application Documents and Plans BDL7 Addendum Proof of Evidence from Simon Tucker BDL8 Opening Statement BDL9 Letter to PINS dated 28 May 2013 regarding the SWDP EiP submission BDL10 Transportation Statement of Common Ground BDL11 Extract from Worcestershire County Council Landscape Character

Assessment – Primsland Settled Farmlands with Pastoral Land Use BDL12 Droitwich Spa Walking and Cycling Map BDL13 Schedule of Plans submitted with the application BDL14 Green Belt Plan in relation to the appeal site BDL15 Hybrid Masterplan (for use during site visit) BDL16 Note from Mr Bateman in response to Mr Giugno’s evidence on population

statistics/projections BDL17 Distribution of development proposed by the SWDP BDL18 List of allocations in the SWDP – relationship to Local Plan settlement

boundary BDL19 Note from Mr Bateman responding to Interested Person’s comments on

housing demand and Wychavon District Council’s C5 and C6 documents BDL20 Costs Application BDL21 Closing Submissions BDL22 Atkins witness details Appeal B - Persimmon Homes Ltd P1 List of plans and documents submitted with the planning application P1a List of plans and documents submitted after the planning application P2 Green Infrastructure analysis P3 Landscape character areas document P4 Hampton Bishop Parish Council High Court decision P5 Opening Submissions P6 Section 106 final version dated 11 February 2014 P7 Calculations in respect of safe stopping distances P8 Letter dated 30 January from GRM Development Solutions regarding Brine

Runs P9 Appeal decision and cost decision from East Staffordshire Borough Council

(ref: 2193657) dated 12 February 2014 P10 Costs Application P11 Closing Submissions P12 Joint Closing Submissions on Main Matter 3



ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY SOGOS SOGOS1 Petition with 3,470 signatures SOGOS2 Opening Submissions SOGOS3 Clitheroe Appeal Decision dated 23 January 2014 SOGOS4 Photographs and map of highway junction in relation to the Clitheroe

Appeal Decision SOGOS5 Calculation of major road stopping sight distances inc. plan SOGOS6 Letter of instruction for Stephen Stoney SOGOS7 Letter from PINS confirming agreed deadline for submission of

statements SOGOS8 Letter of instruction for Richard Pettitt SOGOS9 Table of housing permissions since appeal proposed submitted SOGOS10 Closing Submissions INTERESTED PERSONS’ DOCUMENTS IP1 Statement/presentation by Mr Giugno IP2 Statement by Mr Bowler IP3 Statement by Councillor Miller IP4 Statement by Councillor Jennings IP5 Statement by Councillor Morris (read by Councillor Jennings at the

Inquiry) IP6 Statement by Barbara Meddings, Salwarpe Parish Council IP7 Statement by Councillor Mrs Pearce IP8 Statement by Mr Brass IP9 Statement by Mr Davies, Droitwich Spa Civic Society IP10 Statement by Mr Brewer IP11 Statement by Mr Franks IP12 Statement by Mr Hartwright, Tibberton Parish Council



ANNEX - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS APPEAL A - Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 Commencement and Phasing of Development 1) Application for approval of reserved matters for phase 1 (which will include a



the prior approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto (save for the details of vehicular access into the site from Primsland Way and Pulley Lane) and the landscaping, including the provision of the on-site recreation/open play space, of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") which shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

3) No development shall take place until a Phasing Plan for the development

hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Phasing Plan shall include details of:



ii) the timing of biodiversity, SUDS and strategic landscaping features; iii) the timing of the provision of on-site recreation/open play space in relation

to the provision of any new residential units; and iv) the timing of the provision of the local centre, bowls and sports facilities

and the care home.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.



- 9004 Rev C - Red line site location plan, reference no. (June 2012) - 9308 Rev H - Concept Masterplan, reference (June 2012) - 10154-63 – Proposed Improvements at Martin Hussingtree - 10154-64 – Newlands Road / Primsland Way Access - 10154-68 – A38 / Pulley Lane Improvement - 10154-69 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 2 - 10154-70 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 3 - 10154-71 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 4 - 10154-72 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 5 - 10154-73 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 6



- 10154-74 – Pulley Lane Road Improvements Section 6 - 5090327/HWY/001 Rev C – Newland Road Bus Link Preliminary Design - P0371-DR5-0-010 Rev C – Illustrative Landscape Masterplan - P0152-DR5-010-012 Rev A – Newland Road Trees / Embankment Appraisal - P0152-DR-5-020-023 Rev A – Newland Road Cross sections - P0371-5-01-05 – Newland Road cross sections - Design and Access Statement (May 2011) - Design and Access Statement and Addendum (July 2012) - Supporting Planning Statement and Addendum (July 2012) - Drainage Strategy (May 2011) - Water Management Strategy (May 2011) - Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary (May 2011) - Flood Risk Assessment (May 2011) - Sustainability Appraisal (May 2011) - Transportation Assessment (May 2011) and Addendum (July 2012) - Technical note on water treatment matters by Atkins (July 2012)

5) All future applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be broadly in

accordance with:

i) the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the Design & Access Statement dated May 2011 and July 2012 addendum with regard to the general areas of development and approximate floor areas;

ii) amended Parameter Plan 3: Building Heights - Revision E dated December 2013; and

iii) the Landscape Design Strategy – Revision B dated July 2012 and drawing no. P0152 attached therein.


Roads, Parking and Travel 6) No development, other than the proposed highway works listed below, shall


i) the improvements, including the widening to 5.5m, to Pulley Lane (as indicated on DTA Drawings 10154-69/70/71/72 and 73) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented in accordance with those approved details;

ii) the improvements to the Pulley Lane/A38 junction (as indicated on DTA

Drawing 10154-68) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling;

iii) the bus, walk and cycle link to Primsland Way together with junction

improvements on Primsland Way (as indicated on DTA Drawing 10154-64) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling in accordance with those approved details; and



iv) the improvements to the A38/A4538 junction at Martin Hussingtree (as indicated on DTA Drawing 10154-63) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling in accordance with those approved details.

7) No development shall take place within each reserved matter until the

engineering details and specification of the proposed residential roads, cycle ways, footways, footpaths and highway drains have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the road works necessary to provide access from the publicly maintained highway to those dwellings have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

8) No development shall take place until a revised travel plan, including targets

for modal shift, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The revised travel plan should contain targets for mode share shifts in order to reduce car travel and increase travel by more sustainable transport modes. Such target must be achieved within 5 years of the first occupation of any property hereby approved. In the event of failing to meet these targets at the end of the 5 year period, a revised residential travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to address any shortfalls, and where necessary make provision for and promote improved sustainable forms of access to the site. The residential travel plan thereafter shall be implemented and updated in agreement with the Local Planning Authority.


10) No development shall take place within any phase until a scheme for the

provision of secure cycle parking for the apartments, commercial premises, leisure and care facility hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter shall be fully implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the first occupation of those uses and maintained thereafter in perpetuity.

Noise and Construction Management 11) No development shall take place until a noise mitigation scheme designed to

minimise the impact from road traffic such that the noise levels within the gardens of the proposed dwellings do not exceed the recommendations set out in BS8223:1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

12) No development shall take place within the phase of the development which

contains the proposed local centre until a scheme for sound attenuation has



been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved sound attenuation scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the commercial uses contained within the local centre.











15) No development shall take place until full details of any soil or soil forming

materials brought on to the site for use in garden areas, soft landscaping, filling and level raising have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where the donor site is unknown or is brownfield the material must be tested for contamination and suitability for use on site. Full donor site details, proposals for contamination testing including testing schedules, sampling frequencies and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment) must be submitted to and



approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to import on to the site. The approved testing must then be carried out and validatory evidence (such as laboratory certificates) submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any soil or soil forming materials being brought on to site.






i) a plan(s) showing the planting layout of proposed tree, hedge, shrub and grass areas;






18) No development shall take place until full details of an Ecological Mitigation

and Enhancement Strategy based on up-to-date survey information is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:


site; iv) extent and location of proposed works;



v) details of precautionary and protection measures to ensure protected species and retained habitats are not harmed during and after construction;






has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include:














conservation; (c) installation of physical protection measures during construction;



(d) implementation of sensitive working practices during construction;

(e) regular inspection and maintenance of physical protection measures and monitoring of working practices during construction;








proposed development; and iv) details of construction materials to be used in the proposed

development with the aim of minimising the use of primary non-sustainable materials.


Lighting 22) No development shall take place until details of a lighting scheme to serve the

proposed development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall be designed to reduce effects upon sensitive habitats to be retained/created on the site. The details shall include an implementation timetable and the approved lighting scheme shall be provided in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity and agreed implementation timetable.

Floor Space 23) The total retail uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and B1 (a) office floor space shall not

exceed 2,500 sq. metres.

Drainage and Flood Risk 24) No development shall take place until a phased drainage scheme incorporating

sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development in relation to the disposal of



surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before development is first brought into use.













RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS APPEAL B - Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 Commencement and Phasing of Development 1) Application for approval of reserved matters for phase 1 (which will include a



prior approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto (save for the details of vehicular access into the site from Newland Lane) and the landscaping, including the provision of the on-site recreation/open play space, of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") which shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

3) No development shall take place until a Phasing Plan including details of

phasing for the approved development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Phasing Plan shall include details of:



ii) the timing of biodiversity, SUDS and strategic landscaping features; and iii) the timing of the provision of on-site recreation/open play space in

relation to the provision of any new residential units. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.



- Drawing no. P.0742_08 - Site Location Plan - Drawing no. P.0742_01D - Illustrative Sketch Masterplan - Planning Statement prepared by Pegasus Group (October 2012) - Design and Access Statement prepared by Pegasus Group (October 2012) - Landscape and Visual Appraisal prepared by Pegasus Group (October 2012) - Energy Statement/Carbon Analysis Report prepared by FES (October 2012) - Ecological Report prepared by Betts Ecology (November 2011) - Arboricultural Survey prepared by Betts Ecology (November 2011) - Heritage Assessment prepared by Cotswold Archaeology (December 2011) - Ground Conditions Report prepared by GRM (December 2011) - Noise Report prepared by Hoare Lea (October 2012) - Transport Assessment prepared by Travis Baker (November 2012)



- Travel Plan prepared by Travis Baker (November 2012) - Flood Risk Assessment, including Drainage Strategy prepared by Travis

Baker (November 2012)

5) All future applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be broadly in accordance with the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the Design & Access Statement dated October 2012 with regard to:

i) the general areas of development as outlined in the Indicative

Masterplan; ii) the Buildings Heights Plan; and iii) the Landscape and Green Infrastructure Strategy Plan.


Roads, Parking and Travel 6) No more than 200 of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until

details of means to form a secondary emergency vehicular access to the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

7) No development, other than the proposed highway works listed below, shall


i) the improvements, including the widening to 5.5m, to Pulley Lane have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented in accordance with those approved details;

ii) the improvements to the Pulley Lane/A38 junction have been submitted

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling; and

iii) the improvements to provide pedestrian links between the eastern

boundary of the development site through Nightingale Close and Jackdaw Lane to Tagwell Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and fully implemented prior to the occupation of the 75th dwelling in accordance with those approved details.

8) No development shall take place until the engineering details and specification

of the proposed residential roads, cycle ways, footways, footpaths and highway drains have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the road works necessary to provide access from the publicly maintained highway to those dwellings have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



9) The Residential Travel Plan (RTP) hereby approved, dated November 2012 and produced by Travis Baker, shall be implemented and monitored in accordance with the regime contained within the RTP. The targets for mode share shifts set out in the RTP, in order to reduce car travel and increase travel by more sustainable transport modes, must be achieved within 5 years of the first occupation of any property hereby approved. In the event of failing to meet these targets at the end of the 5 year period, a revised RTP shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to address any shortfalls, and where necessary make provision for and promote improved sustainable forms of access to the site. The RTP thereafter shall be implemented and updated in agreement with the Local Planning Authority.

10) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the individual

vehicular accesses, entrance, turning areas and driveways/parking spaces have been constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those uses at all times.

Noise and Construction Management Plan 11) No development shall take place until a noise mitigation scheme designed to

minimise the impact from road traffic such that the noise levels within the gardens of the dwellings do not exceed the recommendations set out in BS8223:1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.













14) No development shall take place until full details of any soil or soil forming materials brought on to the site for use in garden areas, soft landscaping, filling and level raising have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where the donor site is unknown or is brownfield the material must be tested for contamination and suitability for use on site. Full donor site details, proposals for contamination testing including testing schedules, sampling frequencies and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to import on to the site. The approved testing must then be carried out and validatory evidence (such as laboratory certificates) submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any soil or soil forming materials being brought on to site.






i) a plan(s) showing the planting layout of proposed tree, hedge,

shrub and grass areas;








17) No development shall take place until full details of an Ecological Mitigation

and Enhancement Strategy based on up-to-date survey information is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:


site; iv) extent and location of proposed works; v) details of precautionary and protection measures to ensure protected

species and retained habitats are not harmed during and after construction;






shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include:
















conservation; (c) installation of physical protection measures during construction; (d) implementation of sensitive working practices during

construction; (e) regular inspection and maintenance of physical protection

measures and monitoring of working practices during construction;








proposed development; and iv) details of construction materials to be used in the proposed

development with the aim of minimising the use of primary non-sustainable materials.




External Lighting 21) No development shall take place until details of a lighting scheme to serve the

proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall be designed to reduce effects upon sensitive habitats to be retained/created on the site. The details shall include an implementation timetable and the approved lighting scheme shall be provided in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity and implementation timetable.

Drainage and Flood Risk 22) No development shall take place until a drainage scheme incorporating

sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development in relation to the disposal of surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before development is first brought into use.











RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT

These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000). The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed. SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS; The decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act). Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act Decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged under this section. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date of the decision. SECTION 2: AWARDS OF COSTS There is no statutory provision for challenging the decision on an application for an award of costs. The procedure is to make an application for Judicial Review. SECTION 3: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the report of the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government



APPENDIX 2

APPEAL DECISION AT GRESTY LANE, CREWE (APP/R0660/A/13/2209335)

Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Planning Casework Division Department for Communities and Local Government 3rd Floor, Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London, SW1P 4DF

Tel 0303 444 1626 Email [email protected]

Mr Stephen Bell GVA Norfolk House 7 Norfolk Street Manchester M2 1DW

Our Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 Your Ref:

19 January 2015

Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY HIMOR GROUP LIMITED LAND BOUNDED BY GRESTY LANE, ROPE LANE, CREWE ROAD AND A500, CREWE - APPLICATION REF: 13/2874N 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the

report of the Inspector, Geoffrey Hill BSc DipTP MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 22 July and 27 August 2014 into your clients’ appeal against the failure of Cheshire East Council (“the Council”) to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline permission for residential development, retirement/care village, local centre, community building, primary school, public open space, allotments, structural landscaping, access arrangements and demolition of existing structures in accordance with application ref: 13/2874N, dated 12 July 2013.

2. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 17 December 2013, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because it involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.

Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision

3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed, and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.

Procedural matters

4. An application for costs by HIMOR Group Ltd (IR1.1) is the subject of a decision letter being issued separately by the Secretary of State.

5. As recorded by the Inspector at IR1.3, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Planning) wrote to him on 14 July 2014 asking him to give special attention to the evidence put forward by the parties on the five year housing land position across Cheshire East (see paragraphs 13-14 below).

6. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 in respect of the planning appeal (IR1.4). Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State is content that the ES complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the appeal proposals.

Matters arising after the close of the inquiry

7. The Secretary of State has had regard to the correspondence received from Andy Gracie, Mrs S Harrison, R J Taylor and Jayne Puller, which was submitted too late to be considered by the Inspector. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these representations but, as they do not raise new matters that would affect his decision, he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties. However, copies can be made available on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. The appellants’ agents also wrote to the Secretary of State on 28 November and 11 December 2014 concerning the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan (CELP -see paragraph 9 below) and expressing concern that the Council had not responded to their correspondence on the matter. The Secretary of State did not consider it necessary to circulate that correspondence as he is fully informed of the developments on the CELP (see paragraph 9 below).

Policy considerations

8. In deciding this appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 (BCNRLP), which was adopted in 2005.

9. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELP) (IR3.3). This was submitted for formal examination in May 2014 Hearing sessions took place in late September and early October 2014. However, following an adjournment of the hearings in October 2014 the Development Plan Inspector provided his views on the soundness of the submitted CELP. The examination has been temporarily suspended, while the Council undertake additional work to address the findings. The plan process is ongoing and the Secretary of State has taken this into account in the determination of this appeal as set out in the reasons below.

10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework – March 2012) and the subsequent planning guidance (2014), as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended.

Main issues

11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR10.1.

Development Plan and sustainable development

12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most relevant Development Plan policies are those referred to at IR10.4-10.11. He also agrees with the Inspector’s “interim” conclusion at IR10.12 that the appeal scheme does not accord with the saved policies of the BCNRLP. However, for the reasons given at IR10.13-10.17, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR10.17 that, whereas the BCNRLP housing supply figures and, by association, policies to restrict the extent of built-up area, are now out-of-date, this does not mean that all policies of BCNRLP must be considered out-of-date but that they should be taken into account according to their “fit” with the Framework.

13. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider carefully the Inspector’s findings on the various elements of sustainability: development in the countryside (IR10.19-10.24); Green Gap (IR10.25-10.32); best and most versatile agricultural land (IR10.33-10.34); historic hedgerows (IR10.35-10.39); and accessibility/provision of facilities (IR10.41-10.42). Overall, he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR 10.43 that, for the most part, the appeal scheme is unlikely to be any more harmful to the countryside than any other scheme around the periphery of Crewe and that it would fulfil the social, economic and environmental roles of sustainability as identified in the Framework. However, the Secretary of State also shares the Inspector’s reservation (IR10.44) about the extent to which the proposed scheme intrudes into the present Green Gap (see paragraph 17 below).

Five-year housing land supply

14. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of full, objectively assessed housing need (FOAN) at IR10.45-10.64, the requirement for a buffer (IR10.65-10.71) and the Inspector’s analysis of the backlog (IR10.72-10.79), the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR10.63 that, for the time being, it would be reasonable to accept that the FOAN for Cheshire East should be that given in the CELP, with the application of a buffer of 20%. However, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s approach of including the allowances for each year’s backlog in the overall sum to which the buffer should be applied as he sees this as double-counting. He considers that it would be more appropriate to add the figures for the backlog once the figure for each year’s need has been adjusted to include the buffer. This would result in a slightly lower total requirement for each year but, nevertheless, one to which he considers that a 20% backlog should be applied.

15. Turning to the Inspector’s analysis of housing supply (IR10.80-10.93), the Secretary of State notes that the Council’s estimates are inconsistent, and he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR10.91 that the Council’s understanding of whether there has been a persistent under-supply is not well founded. He therefore also agrees with the Inspector (IR10.92) that, adopting a 20% buffer, the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of available sites in accordance with the expectations of the Framework and guidance: and he further agrees that the appropriateness of a 5% buffer and of the Council’s view of the number of building sites currently available are contentious. However, the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector (IR10.93)

that, before deciding whether it is appropriate to allow the appeal, it is also necessary to consider whether the scheme represents sustainable development.

Effect on surrounding road network

16. For the reasons given at IR10.94-10.104, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR10.105 that, although the proposed scheme would have some negative impacts on the local highway network, the residual cumulative impacts would not be sufficiently severe to justify refusal of planning consent on those grounds.

Prejudice to identification of housing sites and Green Belt extension in emerging CELP

17. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments at IR10.106-10.115, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR10.116 that the appeal scheme would be acceptable on the proposed site but for the loss of part of the Green Gap that lies between Crewe and Shavington. The Secretary of State acknowledges the Council’s view that growth should not overwhelm the independent character of Crewe, including the desirability of maintaining a separate identity for its satellite villages (IR10.117-10.119). The Secretary of State agrees that it remains the case that the CELP Green Belt proposals are the subject of an examination and now subject to further work, so that the principle of an enlarged Green Belt and the extent over which restrictions should apply are far from settled. However, as the Inspector sets out in IR10.121, the Green Belt proposals seek to maintain and carry forward the policy of separation which has been embodied in the Green Gap policy; and he agrees (IR10.120-10.121) that the Green Gap policy has successfully achieved that, with local support, since 2001. Therefore, having taken full account of all the remaining points set out by the Inspector at IR10.122-10.126, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR10.127 that allowing this appeal in advance of the resolution of the Green Belt issue through the CELP, would undermine the plan-making process.

Planning balance

18. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments at IR10.141-10.148, the Secretary of State agrees with him that, as identified at IR10.143-10.144, there are a number of benefits deriving from the scheme as well as other aspects which would not be unacceptable. However, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR10.145) that most of these benefits would not be unique to the appeal site and, like the Inspector, he has gone on to weigh them against the arguably premature loss of part of the Green Gap between Crewe and Shavington (IR10.146). Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State acknowledges that the Green Gap has been part of a long established and well-recognised local policy which forms a part of sustainable development (IR10.147). Therefore, while he accepts that the idea of an extended Green Belt around Crewe may be uncertain, he also agrees (IR10.148) that a decision to allow development on the appeal site could reasonably be seen to pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the Local Plan Examination.

Conditions

19. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions set out in the Appendix to the IR and the Inspector’s comments on them at IR9.1-9.13. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector as bring appropriate if he were to grant permission are reasonable and necessary and would meet the tests of

the Framework and the guidance. However, he does not consider that these overcome his reasons for refusing the appeal.

Obligations

20. The Secretary of State has considered the terms of the Planning Agreement and Unilateral Undertaking as described at IR9.14-9.25, and he agrees with the Inspector that, subject to the caveat at IR9.24, these could be regarded as meeting the Framework tests and complying with the CIL Regulations. However, he does not consider that these overcome his reasons for refusing the appeal.

Overall Conclusions

21. Overall the Secretary of State considers that whilst the proposed scheme can be seen as sustainable development providing much needed housing, deferring a commitment to the reduction of an Area of Green Gap in advance of the resolution of that matter through the Local Plan Examination also represents a sustainable approach to development in accordance with the terms of the Framework. Whereas the scheme does have many benefits, the adverse impacts of approving the development resulting in the premature permanent loss of part of this Green Gap area outweighs the presumption in favour of sustainable development that might otherwise pertain.

Formal Decision

22. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. He hereby dismisses your clients’ appeal and refuses planning permission for residential development, retirement/care village, local centre, community building, primary school, public open space, allotments, structural landscaping, access arrangements and demolition of existing structures at land bounded by Gresty Lane, Rope Lane, Crewe Road and the A500 road, Crewe, in accordance with application ref: 13/2874N, dated 12 July 2013.

Right to challenge the decision

23. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.

24. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Council. A notification e-mail / letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the decision.

Yours faithfully

Jean Nowak JEAN NOWAK Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

Inquiry held 22 July – 27 August 2014

Land bounded by Gresty Lane, Rope Lane, Crewe Road and A500, Gresty, Crewe

File Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335

Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Geoffrey Hill BSc DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date: 27 October 2014

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

CHESHIRE EAST COUNCIL

APPEAL BY

HIMOR GROUP LTD.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page ii

CONTENTS

Page

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

iii

Case Details and Summary of Recommendation 1

1 Procedural Matters 1

2 The Site and Surroundings 2

3 Planning Policy 4

4 The Proposals and Putative Reasons for Refusal 4

5 The Case for Cheshire East Borough Council 6

6 The Case for HIMOR Group Ltd 32

7 Points Raised by Interested Persons 56

8 Written Representations 57

9 Conditions and Obligations 58

10 Conclusions 62

11 Recommendation

90

List of Appearances 91

List of Documents 92

List of Plans

105

Appendix: Planning conditions 107

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page iii

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BMV Best and most versatile agricultural land (ie Grades 1, 2 and 3a)

BCNRLP Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011

dpa Dwellings per annum

CELP Cheshire East Local Plan (ie the draft Local Plan)

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

ES Environmental Statement

FOAN Full, objective assessment of need

GBSOG Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps (as proposed in CELP)

ha Hectare

HLS Housing Land Supply

HMP Housing Market Partnership

LVIA Landscape Visual Impact Analysis

m metres

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

ONS Office for National Statistics

para paragraph

PPG Planning Practice Guidance

RS Regional Strategy for the North West

SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

TA Transport Assessment

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


File Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 Land bounded by Gresty Lane, Rope Lane, Crewe Road and A500, Gresty, Crewe • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against

a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission.

• The appeal is made by HIMOR Group Ltd., against Cheshire East Council.

• The application Ref 13/2874N is dated 12 July 2013.

• The development proposed is described as “residential development (up to 880 units), retirement / care village (Use Class C1, C2, C3), local centre (Use Classes A1 – A5; D1-D2; B1), community building, primary school, public open space, allotments, structural landscaping, access arrangements and demolition of existing structures”.

Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed.

1. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

1.1 An application for costs was made by HIMOR Group Ltd., against Cheshire East Borough Council. That application is the subject of a separate Report.

1.2 The appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State by a direction made under Section 79 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, dated 17 December 2013. The reason for the direction is that the appeal involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units, or on a site of over 5 hectares, which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and crate high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.

1.3 The then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Planning) – Nick Boles MP – wrote to me on 14 July 20141, asking that I give special attention to the evidence put forward by the parties on the five year housing land supply position across Cheshire East.

1.4 The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES). Responses from statutory consultees are included in the pre-appeal correspondence submitted with the appeal questionnaires and in any subsequent correspondence and the evidence given to the inquiry. This information, together with other evidence submitted to the inquiry, constitutes the environmental information which meets the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 20112 .

1.5 No statement of common ground had been concluded between the parties by the time the inquiry opened; either before the 4 week period specified in the

1 Letter on Appeal file 2 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011: SI 2011

No.1824

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Inquiry Procedure Rules, nor subsequently in the weeks between that date and the opening of the inquiry.

1.6 The inquiry was held at the South Cheshire College, Dane Bank Avenue, Crewe. The inquiry opened on 22 July and sittings were held for eight days, with an adjournment on Friday 1 August. The inquiry was adjourned so as to allow time for the parties to conclude two planning obligations made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I made an accompanied visit of the site and it surroundings on 4 August.

1.7 The completed planning obligations were submitted by post on 27 August and I was able to close the inquiry in writing on the same day.

2. THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application site is shown on Plan A.1 (CD 2.3). It comprises some 43.44 hectares (ha) of mainly agricultural land to the south of Crewe. The site is about 1½ miles from the central area of Crewe.

2.2 The site is bounded on the north by Gresty Lane, a narrow road of a generally rural character, with well-established hedges across the site frontage. The western side of the site is alongside Rope Lane, and the eastern edges are hedged field boundaries, set back one field from Crewe Road (B5071). To the south, the site is set back from the A500 generally by the width of one field.

2.3 The site is mostly flat. Swill Brook runs south-north in a shallow valley across the western part of the site. The site is currently mostly down to agricultural use, either grazing or the growing of a cereal crop. The site is divided by well-established hedges into several fields, with gaps of 3-4 metres (m) in the hedges in places to allow agricultural access between the fields. Across part of the southern edge of the site is a small wooded area or copse. Mature trees stand within the hedges and as individual trees in some of the fields. Brook Farm is the only built development on the site; this is approached by a short, tree-lined drive off Gresty Lane. There are four small – medium sized agricultural barns or implement sheds in front of a bungalow, which is the farm house.

2.4 Around the site, adjacent to the north-east corner is a group of commercial or industrial buildings, which accommodate building contractors and a garden and pet centre business. To the west of this is a group of houses or cottages fronting Gresty Lane. Further to the west along Gresty Lane is a bridge over Swill Brook. On the western side on the Rope Lane frontage, protruding into the site is Green Farm, which comprises a group of agricultural buildings and a house. A day nursery business (Rope Green Farm Day Nursery) occupies some of these buildings. Adjacent to the south-east corner of the site is the Alexandra Soccer Centre; a coaching facility for footballing, with covered accommodation and all-weather pitches surrounded by high fences and with floodlighting on columns.

2.5 In the immediate surroundings adjacent to the north-west corner of the site, at the junction of Rope Lane and Gresty Lane, is a bridge which carries Rope Lane over the railway line. The bridge is narrow and traffic is controlled to alternate flow working by traffic lights. At this point Rope Lane stands above

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


the level of the surrounding land and views can be had down into the site and over land to the north-east and south-west.

2.6 Along the western side of Rope Lane opposite the appeal site - from north to south – there is a modern medical centre, a sports or leisure centre, with all-weather pitches, high fences and lighting columns some 12 m high, and Shavington High School – a modern school building. Rope Lane has a semi-urban character along this length, with a relatively straight carriageway between curbs, footways and a signed cycleway, and grassed verges. In the vicinity of the school entrance are lengths of railings (to prevent pedestrians straying onto the carriageway) erected along the edge of the footways and on an island in the centre of the road.

2.7 Travelling south, Rope Lane rises up gently on to a bridge over the A500. The A500 is a modern two-lane dual carriageway, acting as a southern by-pass for Crewe. The A 500 is in a cutting at this point, with well-established trees on the sides of the cutting. The A500 continues eastwards, generally parallel to the southern site boundary. For the most part the road is in cutting, except where it crosses the course of Swill Brook, where it is at approximately on the same level as the adjacent land.

2.8 The A500 passes under a bridge which carries Crewe Road (B5071) over the dual carriageway. The A500 is in cutting at this point, with trees on the sides of the cutting and adjacent to the bridge. Travelling north along Crewe Road from the bridge is a triangular field on the western side, which lies between the road and the eastern boundary of the appeal site. There is mature hedge some 3 m or so high along this frontage. On the opposite side of Crewe Road is generally continuous built development of mid-20th century housing, with a large public house at the point where Crewe Road meets Gresty Lane and Crewe Road turn to the east.

2.9 Parallel to Gresty Lane, a railway line runs east-west, which is in places raised on embankments, notably to cross Swill Brook. North of the railway line is the southern edge of the main built-up area of Crewe, with relatively modern housing estates and an area of railway sidings and workshop buildings.

2.10 From the public house noted above, Crewe Road continues east and then turns north to pass under the railway line at Gresty Bridge. Here the B5071 is known as Gresty Road. North of the railway, Gresty Road passes between industrial buildings, railway workshops and houses, About 200 m south of the Nantwich Road (A534) Gresty Road forks off to the right, and the A5020 continues as South Street to meet the Nantwich Road.

2.11 Shavington village lies to the south of the A500. Late 20th century housing and bungalows stand on the west side of Rope Lane right up to the bride over the A500. Land on the east side of Rope Lane is currently being developed for housing. South and east of this development site is the main body of Shavington, which is a substantial village with a range of shops and services and a primary school.

2.12 In the wider area, features which are referred to in this appeal include the A534 corridor as it passes east-west through the centre of Crewe. To the east of the Gresty Road junction with Nantwich Road is Crewe railway station,

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


where the road crosses the railway line on a bridge. The road at this point is known locally as Station Top. To the east of Station Top is a modern roundabout (known as the Crewe Arms Roundabout) which forms a junction with Macon Way, Weston Road and the eastern arm of the A534. To the west of the Gresty Lane junction, Nantwich Road is an urban shopping and commercial street.

2.13 East of the appeal site on the north side of the A500 is farmland either side of extensive railway sidings at Basford. This is an area known as Basford West. An access route into this land (the Basford West Spine Road) is currently under construction from a roundabout on the A500. To the east of the sidings is another roundabout on the A500, which has an as yet unused north facing ‘tail’ into the land adjacent to the railway sidings (Basford East). This will be the junction with the Crewe Green Link Road South. Appendix 1 of Document JT 2(i) is a plan showing main road routes and junctions.

3. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The development plan for the area comprises the saved policies of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 (BCNRLP), which was adopted in 2005 (CD 4.1, Proposals Map Document CEC 21). The Secretary of State’s Saving Direction is dated 14 February 2005 (CEC 24). This indicates that the BCNRLP policies for the purposes of this appeal are ‘saved’ polices. Relevant polices are referred to in this report.

3.2 The policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are relevant to read alongside the BCNRLP, as is the advice in the government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

3.3 The Council is preparing a replacement for BCNRLP - the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CD 6.1). This replacement local plan was submitted in March 2014 for formal examination. This local plan is referred to in this report as the CELP.

4. THE PROPOSALS AND PUTATIVE REASONS FOR REFUSAL

4.1 The planning application is for outline planning permission, with all matters except access reserved for subsequent consideration. The scheme is supported by a Spatial Design Code and illustrative Masterplan and Phasing Plan. The original application plans and supporting documents are listed at the end of this report as Plans A.1–A.8

4.2 The illustrative plans were revised after the application had been made to Cheshire East Council – as detailed in the covering letter to The Planning Inspectorate of 12 May 2014 (CD 3.1). At the inquiry the revised documents were accepted as the revisions would not materially affect the interests of relevant landowners or other interested persons.

4.3 The plans and supporting design code which form the subject of the application are Plan A.1 (Site Location Plan), Plan A.2 (Application Site Plan), Plan A.9 (Outline Parameters Plan Rev E), Plan A.10 (Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming General Arrangement Rev A), Plan A.11 (Crewe Road Access

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


General Arrangement RSA Amendments) supported by Plan A.12 (Illustrative Masterplan Rev D) and A.13 (Spatial Design Code May 2014). All application plans are found amongst the Core Documents – as noted in the List of Plans appended to this Report.

4.4 The Illustrative Masterplan (Plan A.12) shows an access point on Crewe Road close to the Alexandra Soccer Centre and a second access point on Rope Lane, north of Green Farm. A spine road runs through the site, between the two access points. Up to 880 houses are proposed arranged around squares and residential roads off the spine road. Small parks, greens and playing fields are shown adjacent to, or amongst, the residential areas. A primary school and associated playing fields are shown in the south-western corner of the site, and a community hall, public house and retail centre are shown in the north-west corner of the site. The area of woodland along part of the southern boundary of the site is shown to be retained, as is much of the present network of hedgerows. An area either side of Swill Brook as it runs across the site is shown to be kept free of built development.

4.5 The appeal is against the Council’s failure to issue a decision on the application within the prescribed period. However, the Council resolved that, had it been able to determine the application, it would have been refused for the following reasons:

1 The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside, where according to Policies NE.2 and RES.5 of the adopted Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan there is a presumption against new residential development. Such development would be harmful to its open character and appearance, which in the absence of a need for the development should be protected for its own sake. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land supply in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. Consequently, there are no material circumstances to indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan.

2 The proposal would result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and given that the Authority can demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for the development, which could not be accommodated elsewhere. The use of the best and most versatile agricultural land is unsustainable and contrary to Policy NE.12 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework

3 The proposal is located within the Green Gap and would result in erosion of the physical gaps between built up areas as well as adversely affecting the visual character of the landscape, and given that there are other alternatives sites, which could be used to meet the Council's housing land supply requirements, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy NE.4 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and the emerging Core Strategy.

4 The proposal would involve the removal of an "important" hedgerow as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Policy NE5 of the local plan states that the Local Planning authority will protect, conserve and enhance the natural conservation resource where, inter alia, natural futures such as hedgerows are, wherever possible, integrated into landscaping schemes on

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


development sites. In the absence of overriding reasons for allowing the development and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NR3 of the adopted Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011.

5 The proposed development would not represent economically and socially sustainable development as there is no identified local need for the care provision. There is already an over-supply of such care provision in the locality which exceeds the needs for the current and future generations. The development would therefore be considered contrary to NPPF paras 7, 17 and 50.

6 The applicant has failed to demonstrated a safe and satisfactory means of access to the site, contrary to the provisions of Policy BE3 (Access) of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 The Transport Assessment submitted with the application under-estimates the likely traffic impact of the development, which in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority would have a severe residual impact on the local road network, contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8 Due to its scale the proposed development would impact on a wide area and is considered to be so substantial, and significant, that granting permission could prejudice the emerging Local Plan by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the Plan. It is also located in an Area of Search for proposed Green Belt in the emerging Local Plan and would predetermining decisions in respect of that policy. It is therefore contrary to advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and The Planning System: General Principles.

4.6 Prior to the inquiry, the Council accepted that not all of its putative reasons for refusal could be maintained and agreed that two of these - Reasons 5 and 6 - should be withdrawn (see Document CEC 7).

5. THE CASE FOR CHESHIRE EAST BOROUGH COUNCIL

The appeal site

5.1 Forty-three hectares is a large area of land. The site lies in open countryside beyond the settlement boundary of Crewe, to the north of the Crewe-Nantwich railway which itself lies to the north of Gresty Lane. The site is in productive agricultural use, for both arable and livestock farming. It has a very good network of hedgerows and a significant number of mature trees. The site contains ‘important’ hedgerows protected by the Hedgerow Regulations.

5.2 The site shares key characteristics identified in the National Character Assessment, Cheshire Landscape Character Area and the Lower Farms and Woodlands Landscape Character Type within LWF: 7 Barthomley Character Area. Those characteristics are: gently undulating land, fields with hedged boundaries and occasional hedgerow trees.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


The emerging Local Plan Strategy

5.3 The Examination of the CELP is scheduled to begin its hearings on 16 September 2014. This follows extensive public consultation on various iterations of options, alternative strategies, and range of potential sites. The appeal site has never been a preferred option in any of the consultation stages.

Whether the proposed scheme could be regarded as sustainable development

5.4 The Council takes the view that the proposed development would not represent a sustainable form of development when tested against the saved policies of the Local Plan as a whole or the NPPF as a whole. BCNRLP already expressly embraced the principles of sustainable development (referred to as “prosperity”, “quality of environment” and “quality of life”3), now referred to in the NPPF as the “three dimensions” of sustainability (respectively, economic, environmental, social).4

5.5 The saved policies support housing development within settlements. But they do restrict development in the open countryside, and do seek to prevent it in the Green Gap where the proposed built development and/or change of use of land would erode the Gap or adversely affect the visual character of the landscape, unless there is no alternative. Further they do restrict it on ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land where there are alternative locations of lower quality.

5.6 Paragraph 215 of NPPF advises that, in respect of development plan policy in the circumstances pertaining in this case, “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

5.7 The objective of protecting the character and amenity of the open countryside, which underpins BCNRLP Policy NE.2 is consistent with one of the core planning principles of NPPF5. The appeal site lies within the Green Gap identified in BCNRLP Policy NE.4. The Green Gap policy is also consistent with the NPPF which acknowledges different roles of different areas, supporting communities within rural area6, the adopted plan provides “clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where”7, and identifies “land where development would be inappropriate”8. BCNRLP Policy NE.12 is consistent with paragraph 112 of the NPPF and the PPG (Natural Environment).

3 CD 4.1 paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 4 Paragraph 1.11 5 NPPF Paragraph 17, bullet point 5 6 NPPF paragraph 17

7 NPPF paragraph 154


Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


5.8 The proposed housing development, albeit not economic development itself, will support economic growth and provide affordable housing in a location which is accessible to the services and facilities of Crewe. However, the existence of a 5 year supply of deliverable housing, and the existence of alternative sites outside of the Green Gap, means that there is no need to permit development in the open countryside or on best and most versatile agricultural land, let alone in the Green Gap.

5.9 NPPF advises that Local Plans should “identify land where development would be inappropriate”9 – which the Council has consistently done in respect of Green Gap policy. NPPF also advises that the exceptional circumstances required to justify the extension of the North Staffordshire Green Belt to the south of Crewe may be demonstrated, for example, where “normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate” 10. Here there is an overlap with the purpose of Green Gap policy. The fact that development pressure persists, indeed is occasionally successful (e.g. the site in Rope Lane allowed on appeal) shows that Green Belt policy is needed to emphasise that the proposed development of the appeal site is wholly inappropriate.

5.10 A Green Belt would help to check what would otherwise result in the unrestricted sprawl of Crewe, preventing merger of Crewe and Nantwich and Crewe and Shavington, as well as safeguarding the countryside from encroachment11. Both the Green Gap and a proposed Area of Search for Green Belt are supported by independent consultants Envision; their report forms part of the evidence base of the CELP. This is all to be tested through the Local Plan examination process, but none of the foregoing suggests that the proposed development constitutes sustainable development. Moreover, the prematurity of this appeal cuts directly across advice in the PPG.

5.11 The highways impact would also be severe, contrary to para 32 of the NPPF. Ironically, the impact of the proposed development on top of nearby allocated Basford East - an important part of the justification for government funding of the Crewe Green Link Road - has not been assessed in detail in the Transport Assessment (TA).

5.12 Looking at the development plan as a whole and the NPPF as a whole, the proposed development is not considered to constitute sustainable development.

5.13 Turning now to the relationship between sustainable development and paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Paragraph 6 of the NPPF states that the policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system.

5.14 In William Davis Ltd v. SSCLG12 Lang J accepted Treasury Counsel’s submission on behalf of the Secretary of State and concluded that


10 NPPF Paragraph 82 11 NPPF Paragraph 80 12 [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin) 11th October 2013

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


“[i]t would be contrary to the fundamental principles of [the] NPPF if the presumption in favour of development in paragraph 14 applied equally to sustainable and non-sustainable development.”

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by Sullivan LJ on 24 February 2014. It was not stated by the learned judge that Lang J’s finding and interpretation of paragraph 14, as recorded above, was incorrect. Contrast the position in Hunston where Sullivan LJ granted permission to appeal, not because he thought that the appeal had real prospects of success but because important issues of interpretation of paragraph 47 of the NPPF were involved. Paragraph 14 is of course of importance to decision-making.

5.15 For the appellant, a number of High Court decisions were referred to, but none expressly dealt with the point before the Court, and decided, in Davis.

5.16 The decision of Patterson J (Dartford) became available at the inquiry on 30 July. The decision had been noted in the Droitwich decision but it appears that the judgment had not been formally published until 30 July. Patterson J, whilst rejecting the elevation of the dicta in Davis to a formulaic approach, said:

“I agree with Lang J in her conclusion that it would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the NPPF if the presumption in favour of development, in paragraph 14, applied equally to sustainable and non-sustainable development. To do so would make a nonsense of Government policy on sustainable development.”

5.17 Thus it is still necessary to consider whether development is sustainable. It may be noted that Treasury Counsel submitted that

“sustainable development is about seeking an overall net positive contribution to economic, social and environmental gains together.”

An overall net positive contribution involves a weighing of harm and benefit rather than a paragraph 14 test (significantly outweigh). Whatever the precise test is, the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development whichever test is applied, for the reasons set out above and in Mr Haywood’s evidence.

5.18 Those reasons include the fact that the site is located within a Green Gap. Lindblom J observed in Bloor13 that:

“On any sensible view, if the development would harm the Green wedge by damaging its character and appearance or its function in separating the villages of Groby and Ratby, or by spoiling its amenity for people walking on public footpaths nearby, it would not be sustainable development within the wide scope drawn for that concept in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF.”

5.19 Turning now to the particular sub-topics identified:

Green Gap

5.20 The appellant contends that no adverse view was expressed by the Local Plan Inspector in 2003 14 so far as concerns the appeal proposal. The Inspector

13 CD 10.7 14 CD 4.4

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


simply left detailed boundaries and adequacy of separation to another day when housing need required such issues to be considered. A proper reading of the report shows that these are mistaken contentions. The Inspector was reviewing Green Gap Policy (as he noted at p.182, para 115.2.3). The conclusions of that review are set out in chapter 14 of the report (pp 13 and ff).

5.21 The objections to the Green Gap policy fell into 3 main categories: (1) extend the area of Green Gap (2) objection to principle of Green Gap policy (3) exclude specific areas (see p.14 para 14.2.1). The justification for the policy and the extent of the Green Gap is set out in paragraphs 14.2.2 – 6.

5.22 It was noted that the post-war growth of Crewe had engulfed small villages (14.2.2). There was still a visible openness between the two towns but action was necessary to prevent the erosion of the gap. The Council was right to seek a tighter level of control than that afforded by open countryside policies, but instead of requiring “very special circumstances” to be shown to justify a breach of policy, the wording was changed to be “no loss of Green Gap land except for necessary development which cannot be located elsewhere” (page 3, para 2.3, final Recommendation).

5.23 The Council was right, the Inspector said, not to look in detail at “the edges of the built-up areas” i.e. to include land up to the settlement boundary – those edges should not be allowed to be “nibbled away” otherwise the edges would soon lead to the gap being eroded cumulatively. If there were a specific need to consider the detailed edge along the settlement – if there were a housing need – then the detailed edge could be looked at in the context of ensuring that an adequate separation remained. (14.2.5). He was satisfied that the general extent of the Green Gap had been correctly identified in the vicinity of (inter alia) Green Farm, Rope Lane (14.2.6).

5.24 He recommended the following addition to the reasoned justification:

“the building of principal traffic routes through the narrow gaps between the settlements has the potential to increase pressure for new development up to and along these routes. That pressure is already manifest in the Green Gaps, justifying a stricter level of development control to ensure continuing separation of the settlements.”

5.25 The appeal site constitutes far more than a “nibble”: far more than a small amount of development on the edge of the settlement boundary. The appeal site, which comes up to the A500 near Rope Lane, would plainly have been inconsistent with all of the above and would not have been considered acceptable.

5.26 The Inspector returned to the issue of Green Gap when addressing objection sites for housing. Specifically with regard to the part of the Green Gap with which this appeal is now concerned (limiting this area further to between Rope Lane and Crewe Road) the Inspector commented (para 115.2.3 on page 182) that “virtually every single piece of open land either side of the A500 bypass is the subject of objection”. The Inspector recommended that no modification be made to the Plan:

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


“... I believe the Green gap Policy (NE.4) to be a most important part of the Council’s strategy, and I agree with the Council that the site is within one of the more sensitive areas of Green Gap between Shavington and Crewe. The proposal to include the land as a residential allocation would, in my view, result in a significant intrusion into the open countryside between the two settlements. It is also an area under intense pressure for development ... I do not accept that other areas of Green gap are not contained to the extent that this site is ... (p.172 para 106.2.2)

5.27 The Local Plan Inquiry Inspector clearly did not think that the A500 would provide adequate separation. He also clearly took the view that a 6 ha site (compared to the current appeal site of 43 ha) would be a significant intrusion into open countryside even though a contained site.

5.28 Other sites in this vicinity were also considered at the Local Plan Inquiry. One was a site of nearly 8 ha on the northern edge of Shavington for approximately 230 dwellings (p.180 para 114.2.2). There were views across the site from several viewpoints, including part of an established employment area:

114.2.3 “I consider that sites within the Green Gap should only be considered if land cannot be found elsewhere to meet the CRSP housing requirement ....”

He went on to consider the effect of development on the Green Gap.

“If this were to be permitted, there is little to prevent further pressure, leading to the whole area up to the A500 being built over. This is precisely why the Green Gap Policy is, in my view, an essential component of the Plan’s strategy. For these reasons I do not support the allocation of this site for residential development.” (114.2.4).

5.29 Another site was land to rear of 187A Crewe Road, Shavington. This was part of the larger objection site above (see 115.2.1). Part of that site already had planning permission for residential development. Here the Inspector supported Green Gap policy (115.2.2):

“development should not compromise the separate identity of villages to the south of Crewe town, and I am particularly concerned that there is considerable pressure between Shavington and Crewe ...” (ibid)

“[T]he recent opening of the A500 bypass ... will increase pressure in the vicinity of its junction with the Crewe Road. That much is clear from the fact that virtually every single piece of open land either side of the A500 bypass is the subject of objection ...it is my conclusion that this part of the Green Gap is particularly fragile, and vulnerable to development pressures.... (115.2.3)

“The objectors argue that the site is not readily visible ... This is true ... However, this is not in itself a reason for recommending a residential allocation in this vulnerable location. It could lead to further development pressure on adjacent land, leading ultimately to the A500 bypass forming the northern limit to Shavington. This would not accord with the general thrust of policy at local and structure plan level, which seeks to maintain the separate identity of Shavington.”

5.30 That is, the conclusion that inappropriateness of release from the Green Gap was separate from, and irrespective of, housing need; the A500 bypass was considered to be an entirely inappropriate separation and would not maintain the separate identity of Shavington.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


5.31 For the appellant at this inquiry, reference was made to two objection sites considered by the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector at Sydney Road15 and Land north of Crewe Green roundabout16 on the Haslington side of Crewe. The Council contend that these areas of land are not directly comparable to the land between Crewe and Shavington.

5.32 It is important to note that Green Gap policy has a separate function to that of countryside protection policy; namely, the maintenance of the separation of Crewe from nearby villages and Nantwich, and thus the openness of the gaps between. This function has been supported by the previous Local Plan Inspector, and particularly with reference to the part of the Green Gap with which this inquiry is concerned (i.e. Crewe/Shavington). As already mentioned, where there is erosion of this Gap and/or harm to the visual character of the landscape, the policy is that exceptions should only be made where it can be demonstrated that no suitable alternative location is available. Although there may be the need to accommodate further housing outside settlement boundaries, this does not mean that it must be permitted on this Green Gap site. Other sites exist; CELP shows that there are many alternative locations outside the Green Gap.

5.33 In the very recent Hunters Lodge Hotel appeal decision17 (in the Haslington Green Gap) the Inspector found the openness and undeveloped character of the area to be visually important and of a distinct physical area even though not of exceptional landscape quality in its own right.18 Further,

“even though the actual percentage reduction in the distance of the edge of the built up area of Crewe to that of Haslington may not be high, I conclude that the physical form of the development would make the open area materially narrower and would add to coalescence.” 19

5.34 The Inspector noted the Council was proposing to permit development on two sites in the Green Gap but he observed that this was part of work taken within a plan-led process, and that the appellant had not put forward a case that there was no suitable alternative location available.20

5.35 It is not correct to accept that Policy NE.4 should be regarded as out-of-date if NE.2 is out-of-date. This is not only because of NE.4’s separate function but because Policy NE.4 is not a “housing supply policy” within the meaning of paragraph 49 of the NPPF.21 At the 2003 Local Plan Inquiry objection sites for housing were rejected on freestanding Green Gap grounds. The Davis22 and Barwood23 cases now show that it was also incorrect to characterise this

15 CD 4.4 page 173 and ff 16 CD 4.4 page 208 and ff 17 CEC 22. Note that this site is shown on HG 7 (plans of comparison sites) 18 p.5 para 23 19 Para 24 20 Para 26 21 BH 2 Appendix 6: Barwood (Ouseley J) and Appendix 7: Davis (Lang J) 22 BH 2 Appendix 7, para 47 23 BH 2 Appendix 6, para 47

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Green Gap policy as a housing supply policy in the context of para 49 of the NPPF and the then agreed lack of a 5 year supply (para 6).

5.36 The appellant seeks to rely upon the decision letter in Mountsorrel24 to argue that, since the Area of Local Separation policy in that case was considered to be a policy for the supply of housing, then the Green Gap policy in this case should likewise be considered. There are two important points to make concerning that decision. First, the point made by the Inspector in that report, and accepted by the Secretary of State, was that the particular policy represented “an absolute ban on open market housing in the ALS”25. NE.4 clearly allows for exceptions.

5.37 Secondly, and related to the first point, the Inspector was referred to Colman,26 but Bloor27 had not been decided at that point (and there is no reference in the Secretary of State’s subsequent decision letter to suggest that he was aware of it when the decision letter was issued only a few weeks later). Here Policy NE.4 does permit countervailing benefits to be weighed (so too does NE.2). Lindblom J, in Bloor puts the Colman dicta in their proper context. It is submitted that the Mountsorrel decision does not support the appellant’s case here.

5.38 Development of the appeal site would leave only a sliver of undeveloped land between the appeal site and the houses on, and to be built on, Rope Lane. In effect only the A500 would separate Crewe from Shavington at this point. No one suggests that the A500 would provide an adequate Green Gap. It is difficult to see how this could, by contrast, justify a Green Belt designation in the remainder of the area between Crewe and Shavington. A permission now would inevitably preclude the land being included in the Area of Search for Green Belt.

5.39 The vulnerability of this part of the Green Gap is very evident. The arguments the appellant has presented to the inquiry were rejected by the Local Plan Inspector in 2003, and the vulnerability to which that Inspector referred has not lessened. It would be a serious mistake – and one for which future generations would rightly condemn us - to allow a huge ‘bite’ to be taken out of this vulnerable part of the Green Gap. Wistason and Rope now read as part of Crewe; the appeal scheme would effectively join Crewe and Shavington.

5.40 The alleged absence of housing land supply should make no difference to the application of Green Gap policy to the appeal site. Green Gap policy is that exceptions should only be made where there is no alternative. It was not suggested that areas outside the Green Gap did not exist which could accommodate 880 dwellings (or any part thereof). Plainly the Green Gap comprises a relatively small part of land which lies beyond the settlement boundary of Crewe (let alone other settlement boundaries).

24 CD 9.15 25 p42, para 8.19 26 CD 10.8 para 22 27 CD 10.7 para 186

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Loss of open countryside

5.41 BCNRLP Policy NE.2 treats all land outside settlement boundaries as open countryside and permits only restricted categories of development in the open countryside. RES.5 similarly restricts housing development in the open countryside. There is common ground that the proposed development would be in breach of these policies.

5.42 The objective of protecting the character and amenity of the open countryside is consistent with one of the core planning principles of NPPF (paragraph 17, bullet point 5); and this consistency has been recognised both in respect of BCNRLP policies and similar Congleton Borough policies in numerous decision letters in the past 2 years.28 The environmental objective does not cease simply because Policy RES.1 makes housing provision only for the period 1996-2011. There is no suggestion, either, that there has been any material physical change to the site since adoption of the Plan in 2005.

5.43 This site is not “open countryside” on a purely policy basis i.e. just because it lies outside the settlement boundary. It is, in large part, physically and aesthetically part of the open countryside.

5.44 The landscape witnesses at this inquiry differed as to the extent of the influence of Crewe on the appeal site. There is also a difference in view as to the extent to which, for example, development along Rope Lane has suburbanised the appeal site or this part of the Green Gap. Even if the view were taken that a “tipping point” has been reached, it hardly assists the appellant’s case to argue that the development of the appeal site tips that balance.

5.45 It is appropriate to consider the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed scheme. The development would have a significant adverse impact on a localised area of the much-wider LWF 7 Character Area. The principle that this can justify a reason for refusal is demonstrated by the Sandbach Road North, Alsager decision letter29. That decision also confirms that the fact that a site does not have a formal landscape designation does not mean that planning permission cannot be refused on landscape grounds. In this appeal the Green Gap policy, by reference to the criterion/test of adverse harm to the visual character of the landscape, includes this as an additional issue (where otherwise there is no other relevant landscape policy). The Landscape Visual Impact Analysis accepted that the designation as Green Gap increased the sensitivity of the landscape to development.30 Openness is key feature and characteristic of the Green Gap.

28 BH 1 and BH 2: Loachbrook Farm, Congleton (2012) para 9 (Appendix 7); Congleton Road,

Sandbach (2013) para 15 (Appendix 8); Sandbach Road North, Alsager (2013) para 16 (Appendix 9); Hassall Road, Alsager (2013) para 11 (Appendix 10); Crewe Road, Crewe (2014) para 18 (Appendix 11); The Moorings, Congleton (2014) paras 27-28 (Appendix 12); Rose Cottages, Brereton Heath(2014) para 9 (Appendix 13); Elworth Hall Farm, Elworth, Sandbach (2014) para 11 (Appendix 16). See now, too, Dunnocksfold Road, Alsager decision (14 July 2014) paras 18 and 30; 144 Audlem Road, Nantwich (25 July 2014) para 19; Close Lane, Alsager (29 July 2014) para 12.

29 CD 9.4 30 CD 2.10 page 11-23, para 11.88

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


5.46 There is common ground that the visual envelope of the site is relatively restricted: this necessarily increases the impact of the proposed development on that visual envelope, particularly where such a large proportion of the appeal site would be developed (and/or perceived to be developed). The appeal scheme would change arable and animal farming in the open countryside to a ‘garden suburb’ with housing, school (including its car parking, fenced grounds, lighting etc.), main distributor and other residential roads and pavements, retail shops, public house, allotments and their associated paraphernalia. This would be a significant change to the existing local landscape character.

5.47 It is acknowledged that there is some development on and around the site, for example on the west side of Rope Lane, but the proposed development will suburbanise this road further. If it is considered that a tipping point has been reached then that is a reason why permission should not be granted.

5.48 It is not correct to believe that the visual impact of the scheme would be limited. Views across the area would not be just hedgerows with the perception of openness beyond, but there would also be significant stretches with clear views of the developed area across the appeal site31; the view from either would substantially (and adversely) change. The significance of the degree of change would be “high”, rather than “medium” as claimed for the appellant. Similar points apply to Photo viewpoints 2, 3 and 4.

5.49 The site would also be seen from Crewe Road. The appeal scheme would leave an undeveloped parcel of land between Crewe Road and the appeal site. The hedgerow along this frontage has for the last few years been left unmanaged. This currently creates a more substantial screen for views towards the appeal site, but previously the hedge has been trimmed to a lower height (see the Google Streetscene view produced by Mr Gomulski32). Moreover, if the appeal site were granted permission there would be little purpose in the continued Green Gap designation on this area of land (only an east-west rather than north-south axis remaining).

5.50 There would be impacts of substantial/moderate significance and those impacts have been understated by the appellant. BCNRLP Policy NE.4 requires that development should be refused where there would be adverse harm unless there is no suitable alternative. It is common ground that there would be adverse harm and the appellant has not suggested that there were insufficient non-Green Gap sites such that it was necessary to accommodate 880 or any part thereof on this Green Gap site.

Best and most versatile agricultural land

5.51 The proposal would also involve the significant loss of ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (BMV), contrary to BCNRLP Policy NE.12, which is consistent with both the NPPF33 and the PPG.34 That is, land within

31 Mr Gomulski’s Viewpoint 1: Appendix 2 to JG 2. 32 JG 2 Appendix 2, final page 33 Para 112 34 8-026

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


agricultural land classification categories 2 and 3a. The appellant has not shown that there are no other sites of lesser agricultural quality or otherwise as required by Policy NE.12 and NPPF paragraph 112. It was accepted at the inquiry that land adjacent to the northern / north eastern quadrant of Crewe would be considered to be inferior in quality. The ES considered the loss of 12.5 ha BMV to be of medium significance,35 although that is on an assumption that 20 ha would be of high significance. The NPPF/PPG provide no guidance on this point.

5.52 38.7 ha of this land is farmed, and wheat is grown on the Grade 3b land. The fact that there are a number of tenants (and that the principal occupation of the occupant of some 24 ha is drainage work) does not in any way alter the fact that the land is in productive use, even though it is not all 3a or 2.

5.53 This putative reason for refusal is pursued on the basis that there is a 5 year supply of housing. If there is not such a supply it remains a material consideration to be weighed in the balance with other harms. The Council is prepared to weigh agricultural land value against wider needs, but here there is no such countervailing need to lose this Green Gap land from agriculture.

Loss of important hedgerows

5.54 There are important hedgerows running across the site. The importance derives from two separate bases, and not on the single basis (parish boundary) identified and assessed in the ES. One of the hedgerows on the appeal site marks the boundary between pre-1850 parishes or Townships. Other hedgerows are recorded on the Tithe Map 1839-4036 as an integral part of a field system. These are ‘important’ within the meaning of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, as the hedgerows have been in existence for 30 or more years. The fields form part of what the former Cheshire County Council’s Historic Landscape Characterisation Assessment described as ancient or post-mediaeval fieldscapes.37 Because the ES only assessed the parish boundary hedgerow it is considered that the impacts on important hedgerows are understated and are significant, such that their loss would be contrary to BCNRLP Policy BE.16 (man-made archaeology) and the reasoned justification to Policy NE.5 (landscape features).

5.55 It was accepted that that there would be some 17-18 breaches of the important hedgerows (of which 4 related to the parish boundary), with lengths varying between about 5m up to (in one instance) 20 m. Document HG 22 shows the extent of important hedgerow would need to be removed: over half a kilometre (520 m) of hedgerow comprising 34 breaches of the important hedgerows, even on an indicative plan which does not appear to show 880 dwellings.

5.56 These hedgerows have historical and to some extent archaeological interest (it is agreed that the distinction is necessarily blurred). The hedgerows have some communal and aesthetic interest. The fieldscape in large part dates

35 CD 2.10 Chapter 16, p.16-13 para 16.47 36 Environmental Statement Appendix 12, Figure 12.11 37 Ibid, Figure 12.2

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


back to 16th century. Although this may not be unique to the site, this does not undermine their importance within the Regulations. Whilst reference was also made to guidance for good management38, this guidance is predicated upon satisfaction first of the Hedgerow Regulations: “in addition to any statutory controls”. Thus future management does not justify their loss.

Whether there is a 5 year housing land supply

5.57 The Council believe that there is a 5 year housing land supply. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF advises that:

“Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

5.58 It follows that, if a 5 year supply can be demonstrated, paragraph 49 does not require relevant policies for the supply of housing to be considered not up-to-date.

5.59 The relevant part of paragraph 14 of the NPPF for the purpose of this appeal is:

“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; ...”

5.60 Lindblom J in Bloor Homes39 gave guidance on the interpretation of the meaning of the words “absent” and “silent” in this context. The development plan is plainly not absent: the saved policies of the CNBP are extant.

5.61 The development plan is not silent either in the sense that it “contains a body of policy relevant to the proposal being considered and sufficient to enable the development to be judged acceptable or unacceptable in principle”. It provides, for example, that housing development should generally take place within settlement boundaries and not in the open countryside beyond settlement boundaries and not in the Green Gap (see test in BCNRLP Policy NE.4).

5.62 Relevant policies are not out-of-date; for example the Green Gap policy. This is not changed by the fact that policy RES.1 does not make specific provision for housing post 2011. There is disagreement as to whether “relevant policies” means ‘all’ or ‘any’.

5.63 There are potentially 3 ways in which a policy could be out-of-date. (i) It could be time-expired, having an end date - but Policy NE.2 has no end date. Countryside protection continues. (ii) If the policy were not consistent with the NPPF – here policy NE.2 has consistently been held to be consistent with

38 CD 6.11, page 89 39 CD 10.7 - [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (19 March 2014) para 45 and ff

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


the NPPF (paragraph 17 bullet point 5). (iii) If there were no 5 year supply and the policy were a housing supply policy (paragraph 49) – here the Council is of the view that there is a 5 year supply so paragraph 49 is not engaged.

5.64 Even if it were engaged, NE.2 is a housing supply policy “to the extent that”, to use the phrasing both of Lewis J in Cotswold40, of Lindblom J in Bloor (2014) and the wording of the background document supporting the consent to judgment in the Sandbach Road North, Alsager case41, it sought to restrict the supply of housing, although Ouseley J in Barwood42 expresses the position more broadly.

5.65 In Cotswold Lewis J. (27/11/13) referred to (para 16) Policy 19 of the Local Plan. That restricted development, including housing development, outside existing development boundaries.

(para 72) “Thirdly, the Secretary of State did not err in disregarding Local Plan Policy 19. The second sentence of paragraph 49 of the Framework says that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply. Miss Sheikh submits that Local Plan 19 restricts development, including housing development, and so is not a housing policy for the purposes of paragraph 49 of the Framework. The short answer is that Local Plan Policy 19 is a policy relating to the supply of housing (amongst other developments). It restricts development, including housing, development. As the inspector correctly held, applying the Framework, Local Plan Policy 19 should be disapplied “to the extent” that it “seeks to restrict the supply of housing”: see paragraph 14.44 of the report in the Highfields appeal”.

5.66 It is acknowledged that if there is no 5 year supply, BCNRLP Policies NE.2 and RES.5 are out-of-date but only in terms of their geographical extent. But for Policy NE.4 the position is markedly different. In William Davis Ltd v. SSCLG and North West Leicestershire Council43 (11/10/13) (Lang J) said:

“52. Central to this Inquiry is saved policy E20, Green Wedge, which states that "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect or diminish the present open and undeveloped character of the Coalville-Whitwick-Swannington Green Wedge, identified on the Proposals Map. Appropriate uses in the Green Wedge are agriculture, forestry, minerals extraction and outdoor sport and recreation uses. Any built development permitted within the Green Wedge will be limited to minor structures and facilities which are strictly ancillary to the use of the land for these purposes. [underlining added]

47. [Note – this is the order of the numbered paragraphs as they appear in the judgment]

The Claimants sought to argue that Policy E20 should have been treated as one of the "[r]relevant policies for the supply of housing" within the meaning of NPPF, paragraph 49 because the restriction on development potentially affects housing development. I do not consider that this is a correct interpretation of paragraph 49. Paragraph 49 is located in the section of the NPPF dedicated to housing and it

40 CD 10.5 - [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) (27 November 2013) 41 CD 9.4 42 CD 10.3 - [2014] EQHC 573 (Admin) (10 March 2014) 43 High Court challenge to Secretary of State’s Decision on Appeal Ref: APP/G2435/A/11/2158154

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


refers to policies for "the supply of housing", of which there are many in local, regional and national plans. It was agreed that the housing policies in the Development Plan in this case, were out-of-date by virtue of paragraph 49 (see the DL, paragraph 22). However Policy E20 does not relate to the supply of housing, and therefore is not covered by paragraph 49. I was shown numerous Inspectors’ decisions in which paragraph 49 had been applied but these were distinguishable from this case because the policies related specifically to housing. There were a couple of exceptions, but insofar as Inspectors have applied paragraph 49 to policies which did not relate to housing, I respectfully suggest that they did so in error. In my view the implementation provisions in Annex 1 govern policies which are not specifically related to housing, not paragraph 49.”

5.67 In South Northamptonshire v. Barwood Land (10th March 2014)44 Ouseley J. was concerned with Policy EV2 which stated:

“planning permission will not be granted for development in the open countryside ...” (exceptions did not include residential development) (para 38)

5.68 The judge at paragraph 47 contrasted “such very general policies”, which he concluded were housing supply policies (without any qualification such as “to the extent that”)

“designed to protect specific areas or features, such as gaps between settlements, the particular character of villages or a specific landscape designation, all of which could sensibly exist regardless of the distribution and location of housing or other development.” (underlining added)

5.69 Consistently with both Davis and, now, Barwood, the Green Gap in the present case clearly as a matter of law and judgment must fall within the category of not being a “policy for the supply of housing” within paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Irrespective of countryside policy NE.2, the need to keep Crewe and Shavington separate stands. As contended above (paragraph 5.35) Policy NE.4 is not a policy for the supply of housing.

5.70 Even if paragraph 14 applies (on whatever basis) in this case the adverse impacts are considered significantly and demonstrably to outweigh the benefits and, on the same or lesser test, the proposal is considered to be unsustainable development.

5 year supply - summary of events

5.71 The issue of a 5 year supply has loomed large in Cheshire East at inquiries over the last 12 months, following the publication in March 2013 of the Council’s SHLAA (the base date of which was 31 March 2012).

5.72 In October 2013 Inspector Mr Major45 in two decisions took the view that a 5 year supply had not been demonstrated (on the basis of 1,150 dpa base requirement and post Hunston High Court decision46, and the need for an additional requirement of a 20% buffer) and allowed one appeal47 and

44 CD 10.3 45 Decisions in respect of Congleton Road, Sandbach (CD 9.3) and Sandbach Road North, Alsager. 46 See e.g. CD 9.3 page 4 footnote 2; 47 Now by consent agreed to be quashed

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


dismissed the other. It is interesting to note that a number of sites which he did not think appropriate to include in the 5 year supply are in fact coming forward as predicted.48 Little particularity was given and this gave rise to difficulties for all parties. The Secretary of State in respect of the Abbey Road site in Sandbach also issued a decision letter in October 201349, having redetermined a previously quashed decision following written representations (only). He ultimately expressed the requirement as a range, lying somewhere between a 5% and 20% buffer but again did not address sites in any detail.

5.73 The Council therefore properly and reasonably decided to reconsider its Housing Land Supply (HLS) position in the light of these decisions, to reassess each site and sought the input of the Housing Market Partnership (HMP), albeit against a background where the 2012 SHLAA had led to threats of a judicial review. Also, developers/land promoters who are active in the HMP are, in the real world, and on the evidence, necessarily both keen to talk up prospects of delivery50 of their sites when promoting them but also prone collectively to downplay the prospects of delivery when HLS is at issue, in the teeth of a rapidly improving economic outlook over the last 18 months.

5.74 On 12 December 2013 Inspector Mr Clark then issued a decision letter concerning Hassall Road, Alsager51. He considered that a 5% rather than a 20% buffer was appropriate but took the view that a 5 year supply had not been demonstrated. Some appellants have since suggested that the Inspector based this upon the existence of a contingency; but this is not how it is expressed. Very little detail was given in respect of sites.

5.75 In the meantime, i.e. pending the review from October 2013 to February 2014, the Council did not contest, for the purposes of five individual appeals only, that it could demonstrate a 5 year supply. A workshop with the HMP was held on 19 December 2013 and written representations were also subsequently received.

5.76 In February 2014 the Council published a HLS Position Statement (base date 31 December 2013) whose purpose was to reflect the Council’s reconsideration of its position in the light of the October decisions and in the light of current evidence and also to accompany the Plan’s housing trajectory.52 It sets out the 5 year supply position for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019 (not 1 January to 31 December in any year).

5.77 More recently, the Council has sought also to reflect the HLS guidance given in the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) published on 6 March 2014. Firstly, the PPG supports the use of Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) projections as a starting point to establish the housing requirement. Secondly, the PPG provides guidance, inter alia, that when assessing whether there has been a record of persistent under-delivery

48 e.g. Albion Chemical Works (para 38); Basford East (para 27) 49 CD 9.1 50 See CD9.3 para 24 51 CD 9.6 52 Submitted plan, p.414 Figure E.1

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


(within the meaning of paragraph 47 of the NPPF) it is indeed appropriate, as the Council has consistently argued, to consider more than the last 5 years, and to look at a longer period to reflect the peak and not just the trough (e.g. caused by the economic downturn) of the housing market cycle. This militates in favour of a 5% buffer in the circumstances pertaining to Cheshire East.

5.78 Thirdly, the PPG permits the counting of completions of housing for older people and students. Until receipt of the 144 Audlem Road, Nantwich decision53, the Council considered this had the potential to affect the amount of the housing backlog and therefore the housing requirement; as well as, again, supporting the Council’s contention that it does not have a record of persistent under-delivery of housing. Fourthly it permitted windfalls to be included.

5.79 At the outset of the present Inquiry, the PPG had only been considered briefly in two recent decisions. The first concerned Elworth Hall Farm, Elworth near Sandbach in the former Congleton Borough54. The decision letter is dated 11 April 2014. The PPG was published only after the inquiry had closed; written representations were subsequently required by the Inspector. Short written representations were made by both respective parties in respect of the PPG55. At that stage the Council had not been able to investigate at all the implications of the older persons/students accommodation and the implications of C2 and student accommodation, in terms of the overall reduction in backlog, and the requirement had not been assessed. The decision is the subject of challenge by the Council in the High Court.

5.80 The Inspector did, however, support the figure of 1,150 despite arguments that it should be higher. He also accepted that the particular windfall allowance was appropriate.

5.81 It should be noted that there have been numerous inquiries since the Elworth Hall Farm inquiry.56

5.82 The second decision concerned land off Dunnocksfold Road, Alsager dated 14 July 2014 (95 dwellings)57. The Inspector accepted, in the light of the PPG, that a 5% buffer was appropriate but concluded that a 5 year supply could not be demonstrated: unfortunately this latter view was reached on the assumption that a requirement of 1,350 dpa58 represented the Council’s view

53 HG 15 54 CD 9.5 55 GCS 1 Appendix 25 56 Weston Lane, Shavington inquiry (1-4 April). That inquiry is part-heard and resumes on 16

September 2014; subsequently at the Close Lane, Alsager inquiry (29 April–2 May); Land west of Audlem Road, Audlem (7 May - ); Hind Heath Road, Sandbach (3 June -); 144 Audlem Road, Nantwich (10 June–13 June); Moorfields (17 June - ); Crewe Road, Haslington (1 July - ); Shavington East, Crewe (13 July - ).

57 Appendix 3, Stock’s rebuttal proof of evidence (Document GCS 2) 58 Because of the proposed stepped housing provision, the figure of 1,350 is the proposed housing

requirement (reflecting the proposed policies) not the FOAN. The FOAN has not in any event been tested yet

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


of its full objective assessment of need (FOAN) (NPPF paragraph 47). In fact the FOAN figure for the plan period in the submitted Plan is 1,180 dpa.

5.83 Since the beginning of the inquiry, four further appeal decisions have been issued. Two of these are of particular relevance to the point at issue here, but do not give a consistent analysis of the situation. The decision relating to 144 Audlem Road, Nantwich59 expresses the views (i) that the FOAN is 1,350; (ii) that a 20% buffer is applicable; and that (iii) consequently a 5 year supply cannot be demonstrated. The decision on the Close Lane, Alsager inquiry accepted that the FOAN was 1,150, and 20% was applied. Mr Stock has prepared a note of matters which affect the views expressed/assumptions made in respect of supply60. When coupled with the evidence on lead-in times given to this inquiry Mr Stock is of the view that there is a 5 year supply.

Requirement

5.84 As regards the calculation of the 5 year requirement, as is clear from the various decision letters included in the various appendices of the witnesses, the view has hitherto been taken by the Secretary of State and his Inspectors that the Regional Strategy (RS) figure of 1,150 dwellings per annum (dpa) is the most appropriate figure to use at the present time when calculating the 5 year housing requirement base figure.

5.85 The Secretary of State in Abbey Road61 considered the RS figure to be appropriate: not only because that figure was the only figure that has been tested through examination but by reference, too, to the DCLG 2011 Interim Household Projections. Further, he considered that “the use of the RS figure will not undermine the Council’s aspirations for growth in its emerging LP.”

The Hunston judgment62

5.86 Hunston63 requires the decision-maker, where the Local Plan Strategy has not been adopted, to consider the FOAN of the area unaffected by policy considerations (upwards or downwards). This is referred to in South Northamptonshire Council v. SSCLG and Barwood Land and Estates Ltd [2014] EWHC 573 (Admin) (10 March 2014) (Ouseley J paragraphs 30-34)64.

“30. In my judgment the crucial point to take from the Hunston case is how to interpret paragraph 47 (i) of the NPPF, relating the requirement for a full objective assessment of housing needs in the housing market area to the subsequent qualification that that be done so far as is consistent with the policies in the Framework, before the Local Plan is produced, reconciling or balancing the two aims.

59 Document HG 15 60 Document CEC 27 61 CD 9.1 62 As Sir David Keene observed in the Court of Appeal (para 4): “Unhappily, as this case demonstrates,

the process of simplification [in the NPPF] has in certain instances led to a diminution in clarity.” 63 CD 10.2 64 CD 10.3

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


32. A revoked RSS is not a basis for the application of a constraint policy to the assessment of housing needs, because it has been revoked and cannot be part of the Development Plan. The same would be true of an out of date Local Plan which did not set out the current full objectively assessed needs. Until the full, objectively assessed needs are qualified by the policies of an up to date Local Plan, they are the needs which go into the balance against any NPPF policies. It is at that stage that constraints or otherwise may apply. It may be problematic in its application, but that is how paragraph 47 works.

33. In principle, what is said about full objectively assessed housing needs must apply where the revoked RSS figure was based on growth projections or policies which went beyond a full objective assessment of housing needs. In practice, it may be more difficult to judge the extent to which those objectively assessed needs in the housing market include or exclude a former growth strategy in a revoked or out of date plan. But that remains a planning judgment.”

(underlining added)

5.87 Gallagher65 is entirely consistent with Hunston. Hunston establishes the importance of considering FOAN in a s.78 inquiry where a local plan is yet to be adopted. It did not directly address the full meaning of FOAN because it was not an issue. In that case it may be observed that the 688 dpa figure was the DCLG projection. The figure Hunston argued for at the inquiry was for 720 dpa66 “to take account of vacancies, second homes and the like”. There is no reference to what Gallagher refers to as “policy on” considerations.

5.88 In Gallagher the judge was considering a challenge to the adoption of the Solihull Local Plan and it was argued that the housing provision made in the plan was not supported by any figure for FOAN (para 36).

5.89 Understandably and importantly the judge defined the relevant terms:

“As a preliminary point, it will be helpful to deal briefly with the different concepts and terms in play.

a. Household projections: These are demographic, trend-based projections indicating the likely number and type of future households if the underlying trends and demographic assumptions are realised. They provide useful long-term trajectories, in terms of growth averages throughout the projection period. However, they are not reliable as household growth estimates for particular years: they are subject to the uncertainties inherent in demographic behaviour, and sensitive to factors (such as changing economic and social circumstances) that may affect that behaviour. Those limitations on household projections are made clear in the projections published by the Department of Communities and Local Government (“DCLG”) from time-to-time (notably, in the section headed “Accuracy”).

b. Full Objective Assessment of Need for Housing: This is the objectively assessed need for housing in an area, leaving aside policy considerations. It is therefore closely linked to the relevant household projection; but is not necessarily the same. An objective assessment of housing need may result in a different figure

65 CD 10.4 Gallagher Homes Limited, Lioncourt Homes Limited v Solihull Metropolitan Borough

Council[2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) 66 CD 10.1 para 19 quotation from para 27 of Inspector’s decision letter

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


from that based on purely demographics if, e.g., the assessor considers that the household projection fails properly to take into account the effects of a major downturn (or upturn) in the economy that will affect future housing needs in an area. Nevertheless, where there are no such factors, objective assessment of need may be – and sometimes is – taken as being the same as the relevant household projection.

c. Housing Requirement: This is the figure which reflects, not only the assessed need for housing, but also any policy considerations that might require that figure to be manipulated to determine the actual housing target for an area. For example, built development in an area might be constrained by the extent of land which is the subject of policy protection, such as Green Belt or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Or it might be decided, as a matter of policy, to encourage or discourage particular migration reflected in demographic trends. Once these policy considerations have been applied to the figure for full objectively assessed need for housing in an area, the result is a “policy on” figure for housing requirement. Subject to it being determined by a proper process, the housing requirement figure will be the target against which housing supply will normally be measured. (underlining added)

5.90 The primary submission (paragraph 73) was that market and affordable housing needs should have been assessed - as required by paragraph 75 of NPPF. Here they have been67. At paragraph 81 the judge noted that the Inspector had confused ‘policy off’ housing needs with ‘policy on’ housing requirement targets. Thus, properly understood, Hunston, Barwood and Gallagher are consistent, and the Gallagher definition of FOAN is the law.

5.91 Reference was made to the Droitwich decision.68 Paragraph 8.45 of the Inspector’s report is consistent with the above analysis: migration and economic considerations etc., can be taken into account, but that case does not suggest that policy-on economic growth is relevant to FOAN.

5.92 It is wrong to refer to former RS policy as being policy constrained. Properly understood in context paragraph 1.3 of the CELP does not mean that it was. RS Policy was that the three boroughs which now comprise Cheshire East should provide for their needs (see e.g. RS Policy MCR3) and the CELP merely notes the Green Belt restraint to meeting policy-on growth.69 The RS figure of 1,150 dpa was thus not policy affected, whether upwards or downwards. As Mr Stock makes clear, ‘policy on’ growth was directed in particular to the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations rather than to the Green Belt in what is now Cheshire East.

5.93 In any event, para 3-030 of the PPG, properly interpreted, advises that where there is no robust (which must mean objective and tested) recent assessment of housing needs, the DCLG household projections should be used as the starting point. 1,150 dpa sits well with the 2011-based projections of 1,050 dpa. The 2013 2011-based interim household projections expressly replace the 2008 projections.

67 See eg CEC 19A page 22 and ff; and CEC 19B page 11 Figure 3.1, pp 43 and ff. 68 SB 4, Appendix 2 69 BH 2 Appendix 10, page 3

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


5.94 For the appellant, it is argued that reliance should be placed on the figure of 1,350, derived from the submitted Plan. However, this would not only be contrary to the Abbey Road decision, but would be a serious misapplication of Hunston. It is clear that that figure (or more accurately the figure of 1,200 to 2014/15, 1,300 thereafter to 2019/20)70 “also factors in the Council’s aspirations for employment led growth”71 and thus constitutes the (higher) housing requirement rather than the FOAN.

5.95 Applying the definitions provided in the Gallagher case to the figures in the CELP Background Paper on Population Projections and Forecasts (March 2014), it is clear that the ‘FOAN’ figure is in the Council’s view 1,050 to 2021; 1,180 over the whole plan period to 2030; and that the ‘housing requirement’ figure (i.e. the ‘policy on’ figure) is 1,200-1,300 for the relevant 5 year period with which this appeal is primarily concerned. The FOAN is not agreed by the Council to be 1,350.

5.96 The figures are not only untested and disputed (too high as well as too low) they are fundamentally also policy-affected: i.e. they reflect an economic growth policy which would require significant Green Belt release, which has yet to be upheld by the independent inspector, as well as actual growth and the delivery of significant infrastructure.

5.97 Moreover, the appellant disputes the validity of the CELP figures themselves. This inquiry is not the forum for that debate, as recognised both by the Launceston Inspector’s decision72 and, of course, by the Court of Appeal in Hunston73. The best objective evidence available at the moment is the figures derived from the DCLG.

5.98 The Council has put before the inquiry its response74 to questions raised by the CELP Inspector not because it seeks to argue the merits of the points but simply to show the current inquiry that the Council has points to make. Table 2.175 sets out the key FOAN assumptions76 and the document addresses all of the Inspector’s points including paragraph 2a-019 of the PPG. The Council has relied on the figure of 1,18077. The most recent decision (Close Lane, Alsager) takes the view that 1,150 is robust too.

5.99 As to backlog, the difference between the parties in terms of amount derives directly from the base requirement.

70 Policy PG1: CELP page 60 71 Ibid, Para 8.8, page 61 72 GCS 1, Appendix 11, para 49 73 Para 26 74 CEC 19A and CEC 19B 75 CEC 19A pp12-13 76 Note that they show why 2008 projections are not reverted to in this case for the post 2021 period:

the 2008 projections were pre economic downturn, only reflect the 2001 census and for the reasons set out on page 13, supported by Professor Holmans (another of his documents is relied upon by the Appellant)

77 GCS 1 Appendix 18, April 2014 document, the substance of which is consistent with Gallagher/FOAN but one needs to bear in mind the pre-Gallagher terminology.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


5.100 As to a buffer, the Council’s case is clearly supported by two recent appeal decision letters78 and by the PPG which expressly refers to peaks and troughs. It has to be noted that the PPG postdates Cotswold. An attempt was made to undermine the Dunnocksfold Road decision79 but the Inspector was correct to refer to “the historic and cumulative robust long term record of delivery.” The February Position Statement includes the table of annual completions since 200380. This shows that for seven consecutive years there was a cumulative surplus of completions over requirement.

5.101 A more appropriate view of the ‘peaks and troughs’ has to cover a period of some 10 years, to include allowance for the economic downturn, the problems of finance for developers and purchasers. Moreover, the evidence is that many thousands of dwellings have been permitted in the last four years alone. There is no shortage of choice and competition, indeed in the vicinity of the appeal site, there are the Basford West and Basford East sites, Shavington Triangle and Shavington East, Crewe Road, Crewe and another two sites in the Gresty area. In nearby Nantwich, Kingsley Fields also has resolution to grant permission (subject to s.106).

Supply

5.102 The parties have put before the inquiry various notes including a disputed sites paper.81 What is notable in this case is the search for certainty rather than realistic prospects (e.g. Gunco site, Chelford Cattle Market). Adherence to SHLAA 2013 lead-in times is applied to virtually every site in the teeth of the clear and dramatic evidence of market revival in the past 15 months or so, as evidenced in Mr Stock’s Table 8.182 The appellant’s approach is wholly unrelated to reality: e.g. Loachbrook Farm, Kay Metzeler – which have now actually commenced. Again, Basford East now has a planning application entirely in line with the progress the Council has correctly envisaged based on a thorough knowledge of all the sites. The 144 Audlem Road Inspector recognised83 that

“not only are significant efforts being made by the Council to address delays in dealing with reserved matters and agreements, but also that there is an increasing level of positivity and willingness among developers to build out housing sites; some optimism is reasonable.”

5.103 As regards build rates, there is common ground in respect of sites of up to 200 dwellings. The Council takes the position that where it has evidence that more than one developer (or builder outlet) is likely to develop the larger sites then the build rate should be higher than assumed for the 200 dwelling plus category.84

78 Hassall Road and Dunnocksfold Road 79 Para 52 80 Table 1, page following paragraph 1.25 81 CEC 13 82 GCS 1, page 17 83 Page 9, Para 51 84 See too CEC 17 p.28 paragraph 83 and footnote 48

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


5.104 Confidence in the delivery of sites where the Council has made a resolution to permit development subject to the conclusion of a s.106 planning obligation is demonstrated by how many sites have had the s.106 obligations signed since the February Position Statement. In respect of draft strategic sites, the Council has shown its continuing preparedness to grant permission for such sites85, and it only seeks to include contributions from a restricted number of (many) strategic sites within its 5 year calculation in defined circumstances set out in the Position Statement. In summary, the Council believes that it can demonstrate a 5 year supply.

The effect of the proposed development on the free flow of traffic on the surrounding road network

5.105 The proposed development is considered likely to give rise to severe traffic impacts, contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The principal concern is the impact of this development on junctions close to the railway station in the A534/Nantwich Road and Crewe Road/Gresty Road corridors.

5.106 The railway station is an important and busy destination. Six railways converge on Crewe which have resulted in restrictions for the circulation of traffic around Crewe. The restrictions (including height) caused by the Gresty Road railway bridge are apparent from the video evidence shown to the Inquiry86. At present there are queues of traffic on Gresty Road in the am peak, when it can take 8½ minutes to reach the A534 junction from the bridge. The situation is exacerbated by there being only a single lane each way over the bridge outside the station (known as ‘Station Top’) on Nantwich Road, and the short two-lane exit from the Macon Way/Weston Road (“Crewe Arms”) roundabout almost immediately narrowing to a single lane heading westwards. Compounding the traffic problems in this locality are two pedestrian crossings, bus stops and a taxi drop-off area. Only a few hundred metres to the west of the station entrance lies a ‘Y’ or triangular configuration of junctions: the Mill Street/South Street and A534/ Gresty Road junction(referred to at this inquiry as Junction 5) and the Gresty Road/South Street/Catherine Street junction at the centre of the ‘Y’ (referred to as Junction 4)87.

5.107 The Council has two main concerns. The first is that the Crewe SATURN traffic model (2006 base) did not validate well with traffic growth applied to 2013 against 2013 observed flows at these nearby junctions, and have had to be adjusted by the appellant for the 2015 base year to achieve validation, but the appellant has used the unadjusted traffic flows as the basis for the 2030 forecast year.

5.108 It is common ground that the model did not validate well against the GEH criterion and had to be manually adjusted in order to replicate the observed turning movements. The appellant argues that the TA88 did not use the

85 Position Statement: Stock, Appendix GCS 1 and Rebuttal proof 86 Document GM 3

87 See map appended to the back of Document HG 01, for locations of Junction 4 and 5 and to Plan Insp.1 for larger scale map

88 CD 2.11 Appendix 8 Transport Assessment Volume 1 Text and Plans, p.34 para 8.15

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


adjusted data for 2030 forecasting because of “the additional changes occurring within the period to 2030, particularly in relation to development assumptions, and the influence this will have on traffic movements.” However, both the 2015 and 2030 modelling include the – yet to be constructed - Crewe Green Link Road South scheme and the Basford West Spine Road. Apart from some more recent planning permissions (e.g. Crewe Road, Crewe and Shavington East) all other consented development is in the model.

5.109 The Council’s position is that there was no justification for not using the 2015 adjusted figures as the starting point for the 2030 forecasts. However, the 2006 base year flows are known to be in error (based on comparisons of the growthed 2006 base year to 2013 levels compared with 2013 observations). A forecast to 2030 based on these flows would not be reliable; it would be more robust to use the 2013 data. Moreover, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges89 clearly warns as to the dangers inherent in models based on data more than five to six years old and advises that a “present year validation should be presented” and obviously then used for future year forecasts.

5.110 The appellant referred to Table 4.5 of the 2011 Model Forecasting Report90 but readily accepted that this table concerns the growth within the matrix (groups of zones which form sectors) but does not tell us what the % figures translate to in terms of numbers and does not assign traffic to a particular junction or corridor – so it says nothing about how many vehicles will be using the Crewe Road/Gresty Road corridor. The Council’s approach has been to consider total trip ends (i.e. trips) for the whole model area (Crewe and Nantwich91) and this shows only low to moderate growth (9-10%) over 15 years (2015-2030) – i.e. not of particular significance.

5.111 Despite the concerns as to the modelling having been raised in the October 2013 draft consultation response, the appellant has not presented any sensitivity test i.e. run the model for 2030 on the basis of the 2015 adjustments. Moreover, the 2013 counts undertaken on behalf of the appellant in March 2013 at nine junctions were only of turning movements, not of queues and delays. The Council’s witness’s experience, based on four years’ highways advisory work for the Council in the Crewe area is that the queues and delays at junctions 4 and 5, the Station Top and Gresty Road corridor are much worse than assumed for 2015.

5.112 The 2015 modelling assumes that the Basford West Spine Road and Crewe Green Link Road South (CGLRS) are both open in 2015. The CGLRS will give some relief in the corridor – it is estimated this at 151 am movements and 126 pm movements as a result of the CGLRS. However, the corridor itself ought to be busier overall with Basford West traffic also being assumed in the

89 CEC 03, Volume 12 Section 2 Part i Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas, Appendix B Local Model

Validation Report, paragraph B9.1 90 CD 11.7, p.4.9 91 Note, for completeness, that the whole of Nantwich area is given only 2 zones, so that is why the

model is referred to, for the purpose of the A51 corridor, more accurately as a Crewe model.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


model. This ought to mean higher impacts on the Crewe Road/Gresty Road corridor than the relief offered by the CGLRS. Yet the 2015 junction modelling outputs presented by the appellant do not fully reflect congestion issues that are even now apparent.

5.113 The second of the Council’s main concerns is that the appellant’s modelled flows do not include all consented or likely flows and therefore impacts on the junctions are understated. The Council takes the view that the 2030 forecasts are light – i.e. they underestimate traffic – by some 84 am two-way traffic movements and 165 pm two-way movements.

5.114 Even leaving aside the Council’s two main concerns, the impacts in terms of delay are unacceptable and there are no adequate mitigation measures for these junctions.

5.115 Mr McKinney’s Tables (proof of evidence Tables 4-7 and Rebuttal proof Tables 1-8) are agreed92. These show that the proposed development would worsen traffic conditions and give rise to considerable delays. This is even without the use of adjusted 2015 traffic data as the basis for 2030 forecasts which it is believed would be likely to increase further the delays forecast.

5.116 Further, Mr McKinney’s analysis of the overall delay at the Mill Street/South Street/Nantwich Road junction (Junction 5), drawn from the Appendices accompanying the TA, was also not disputed. This shows that that junction would be the subject of delays of 128 seconds per vehicle93 (an increase of 50 seconds from 78 seconds94) in the 2015 am peak hour with development, compared to the 2015 pm peak hour base. This level of delay would be unacceptable.

5.117 If there were considered to be a solution, the Council would be seeking an appropriate financial contribution. The problem with the Gresty Road/Nantwich Road corridor is that physically there is little scope for improvement beyond the limited works at South Street which are already proposed and funded, and beyond the Scoot enhancement/UTMC measures already planned and taken into account.

5.118 In respect of Junction 4, the appellant’s witness admitted that there must be improvements but Mr McKinney’s Tables show that the junction has unacceptable impacts even before the signalling, and that the signalling makes things even worse.

5.119 For the appellant it was argued that the Council is implicitly prepared to put up with such levels at certain junctions (not, however, be it noted Junction 5) in its strategic modelling work (a more recently constructed Saturn model than used by Mr Thompson in his TA work) in order to accommodate the Local Plan Strategy. Therefore 128 seconds delay at Junction 5 should also be considered acceptable. Nevertheless, even that degree of delay is likely to be

92 GM 1 and GM 4 93 CEC 06 extract from TA Appendix M39 94 CEC 05 extract from TA Appendix L46

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


higher if the 2015 adjusted flow figures had been used as the basis of 2030 forecasts.

5.120 A number of development/distribution scenarios have been tested in respect of the emerging Local Plan Strategy. A scenario (No.2) including development of the appeal site (and additional land up to Crewe Road, totalling 1,261 dwellings) was considered but (a) this scenario is not being pursued (b) more importantly, development now permitted or likely to come forward in the Crewe Road corridor already equals that figure (and of course the lower figure of 261 assumed in other options). The Mitigation and Impacts95 report moreover notes that additional detailed modelling of specified junctions (including the Mill Street junction) may be necessary.

5.121 As mentioned the 1,261 (and 261) have already been permitted even before the current appeal site. Also, the 128 seconds delay per vehicle at that junction must be seen in context that further substantial development is yet to be permitted and represents more than a contribution of only about ⅛th of the total development tested in Options 2 and 5. It is not correct therefore to assert that the level of delay is implicitly acceptable.

Whether a grant of planning permission for the proposed scheme would unacceptably prejudice the preparation and adoption of the emerging Local Plan, with particular regard to distribution of housing sites and identification of a Green belt extension

5.122 The Local Plan Examination is scheduled to begin its hearings in September. This follows extensive public consultation. There has been an Issues and Options paper in 2010, a Place Shaping Consultation in 2011 followed by preparation and consultation on government-funded Town Strategies in 2012, consultation on Preferred Options (two documents entitled, respectively, Development Strategy and Emerging Policy Principles in February 2013; consultation on additional sites submitted by developers, land promoters or landowners in May 2013; consultation on a Pre-Submission Core Strategy in Autumn 2013, and consultation on the Local Plan Strategy submission document this Spring. The appeal site has never been a preferred option in any of the foregoing.

5.123 The appeal site is, without question, large – over 43 ha – and a significant amount of housing (and other development) is proposed: approximately three quarters of the annualised average housing figure of 1,150 dpa set out in the former RS. For the appellant is was agreed that it is their contention that the site should be allocated instead of preferred sites; not that the appeal site should only be in addition to the others. This should be tested at the Local Plan Examination.

5.124 Significantly, too, the appeal site falls not only outside the settlement boundary of Crewe96 but is within long-established Green Gap. Quite apart from obvious and inevitable landscape/visual impacts, this substantial

95 CD 11.21 and CD 11.22: Cheshire East Transport Models Review – Summary Highway Impacts and

Mitigation Proposals for Local Plan Strategy. May 2014 96 this runs to the north of the railway line and thus north and not on the edge of Gresty Lane

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


development would considerably erode, indeed further erode, the physical gap between Crewe and Shavington.

5.125 The submitted CELP includes the appeal site in an Area of Search for an extension of the North Staffordshire Green Belt to the south, west and east of Crewe. This current appeal seeks to pre-empt the outcome of the Examination. The issue as to whether the appeal site should be included in an Area of Search for Green Belt, or (the second preference) whether the appeal site should form part of a Strategic Gap, should be considered and resolved at the Examination, where all parties with an interest can have their views considered, not at a s.78 appeal. It is accepted for the appellant that the “necessary debate” on “the merits (or otherwise) of including the appeal site and adjoining land within an extended area of Green Belt” must take place through the Local Plan process.97

5.126 Prematurity has not been a reason for objection taken by the Council at the ten or more inquiries held since the receipt of the Secretary of State’s decision in the Abbey Road, Sandbach in October 2013.98 The PPG issued in March 2014 advises that a Plan which has been submitted for examination is to be regarded as at an “advanced stage” of the process. It is clear that the government wished to make it clear that local authorities in their discretion99 may refuse on the basis of prematurity since by this stage there will have been considerable public consultation and work. Even though there may be objections to the plan such that it may not attract substantial weight, the point is that weight is not the issue, it is the prejudging of a local plan inquiry which is the anathema of NPPF policy (paragraph 160). The Council consider, consistently with the PPG test100, that it is justified in this case in taking the prematurity objection. The proposed provision of 880 dwellings etc., in one location, and in this Green Gap/proposed Green Belt Area of Search, is so substantial that the plan-making process would be undermined by the predetermination now of the scale and location of new development which is central to the emerging Local Plan.

5.127 The Council takes the view that it can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing in accordance with government policy. But even if the view were taken that it could not, the granting of permission for this development on this Green Gap site, rather than elsewhere on sites outside the Green Gap, in advance of the imminent examination, is not considered to be justified.

5.128 The Council has acted both lawfully and reasonably in being prepared to grant planning permission for certain strategic sites in advance of the Local Plan. As regards the Kingsley Field site, when the officer’s report101 refers to the site being identified as a preferred site, “the development of the site is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle …” this is addressing the prematurity

97 IR 2, paragraphs 2.7 and 2.10

98 Paragraph 33: GCS 1, Appendix 2 99 Fox Strategic Land High Court decision: BH 1, Appendix 10 paragraphs 47-50

100 21b- 014

101 HG 20, Page 42 Conclusions section

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


concern, as members would be well aware of their own policy. In a plan-led system in the absence of adopted site allocations to grant planning permission on sites which have made it to an advanced stage of the local plan process is “the next best thing” and far preferable to ad hoc planning.

5.129 It was entirely inappropriate for this appeal to be brought to an inquiry. The CELP was submitted to the Secretary of State on 20 May 2014. For the appellant it was conceded that the necessary debate on the merits (or otherwise) of including the appeal site and adjoining land within an extended area of Green Belt must take place through the Local Plan process. This entirely supports the Council’s putative reason for refusal on this point alone.

The Planning Balance

5.130 The legal requirement is provided by s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase 2004 Act: the decision should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There is agreement that important policies are breached in the development plan. It cannot be said that the proposal is in accord with the development plan as a whole. There would be an important breach of Green Gap policy, and other sites outside the Green Gap exist in any event. CELP policy does not assist the appellant, nor does the highways issue (a reason for refusal in its own right) nor do the loss of best and most versatile land and loss of important hedgerows.

5.131 The appellant refers to benefits; and there are undoubtedly benefits in terms of the provision of needed affordable housing and other benefits (as opposed to necessary mitigation). However, the appellant was not able to say how many dwellings he would expect to have been completed by December 2018 (the end of his 5 year period). This hardly amounts to a compelling argument to grant permission to assist with the 5 year supply. There would be no harm, yet considerable benefit to the public interest and fairness to all those who invest in the local plan process, if the appellant were left to argue their case to be a strategic housing site rather than an Area of Search for Green Belt and instead of other sites, or to be allowed in addition.

5.132 Finally, a point was made that few members of the public had been present during the inquiry. Firstly, members of the public were encouraged to, and did all, speak on the first day. Secondly, a number of speakers drew attention to the significant level of opposition. The Chairman of Rope Parish Council also spoke and presented informed and considered evidence. There were other memorable contributions made on the first day by interested persons. Representatives of members of the public therefore did attend and it would be wholly wrong to assume that local people were supportive. The letters at application stage - and since - show that they are not.

6. THE CASE FOR HIMOR GROUP LTD.

6.1 The Council argued that the appeal scheme would breach the development plan policies, but there are many examples where the Council has either granted planning permission or allocated land in breach of BCNRLP Policies NE.2, NE.4, RES.5 and NE.12. In this appeal it was argued that the Council

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, but when the Council’s preferred sites in the emerging Local Plan are being considered the presence of a 5 year land supply has not prevented support for grant of planning permission; most recently at the Shavington Inquiry102.

6.2 The Council’s own traffic studies carried out to examine and justify sites selected in the emerging Local Plan (CELP) demonstrate that at the key junctions identified in this appeal, there would be a worse performance caused by the sites selected. The same work shows that Junction 5103 can handle without difficulty more traffic than is generated by this scheme. Here the Council argues that the appeal scheme would be premature, but this matter is not even addressed in a Committee Report supporting release of a site for 1,100 homes at Kingsley Fields104.

6.3 The reason for this apparent inconsistency is said to be that weight has been afforded to the as yet untested CELP. However, this also could be seen as profoundly unfair, and the Council’s criticism of the appeal scheme as hypocritical.

Development plan

6.4 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the BCNRLP. However, those policies are only saved by virtue of the Secretary of State’s Saving Letter105 and it is essential that those policies are read subject to the caveats set out in that letter. The letter expected a prompt adoption of a new Local Plan. This has not happened. Of greater importance is the requirement to have regard to up-to-date policy which in 2014 must include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). There is also Court authority on the correct interpretation of the NPPF, as is discussed below.

6.5 The statutory requirement in s.38(6) of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Act remains, but there are important material considerations in the form of up-to-date guidance which indicates that the decision needs to be made other than in accordance with the BCNRLP. NPPF para 215 requires policies of the development plan to be tested for consistency with the Framework and weight afforded to those policies according to the degree of compliance with the Framework. This was the issue before Kenneth Jones J in the Colman decision.106 In that case the court tested various development plan policies against what the learned judge called the “cost/benefit” approach of the Framework.

“16. For reasons that are apparent from the foregoing analysis it was common ground at the inquiry and in this appeal that the Inspector had first to identify and analyse the relevant policies in the development plan and, secondly, to determine the extent, if any, to which a relevant policy was consistent with the NPPF. The

102 HG 14 103 See plan attached to Document HG 1 104 HG 20 105 CEC 24

106 CD 10.8

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


central ground of challenge in this appeal is that the Inspector failed properly to analyse a number of relevant policies and also reached conclusions on consistency that were wrong. Also the challenge was presented under two separate heads. The points are closely interlinked, and I shall deal with them together. I shall look in turn at the relevant policies.”

“19. … ‘Policy SP CO1

Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness

The distinctive qualities and features of Devon’s Landscape Character Zones, illustrated in Map 5, should be sustained and enhanced … Policies and proposals within each part of Devon should be informed by and be sympathetic to its landscape character and quality.’ (My emphasis)”

“21. LP Policy ENV1 states:

‘Policy ENV1 (Development in the Countryside) Development in the countryside will only be permitted where:

A rural location is required.

It provides economic or social benefits to the local community: and

It protects and enhances its beauty, the diversity of its landscape and historic character, the wealth of its natural resources and its ecological, recreational and archaeological value.’”

“22. These policies are, in my view, on their own express terms far removed from the ‘cost/benefit’ approach of the NPPF. The policies as such do not permit any countervailing economic or similar benefit to be weighed in the scales. A submission that such benefits may be implicitly taken into account would be immediately rejected as running directly contrary to both the language and rationale of the relevant policies. Mr. Cocks QC sought to meet this formidable objection by submitting that such benefits, recognised as central to the NPPF, would always constitute a ‘material consideration’ relevant to the grant of development permission, and should, therefore, be ‘read into’ the relevant policies.

23. I reject that argument on two grounds. First, the NPPF in referring to ‘relevant policies’ is plainly directing the mind of the decision maker to the express terms of the relevant policies and requiring the decision maker to compare, for consistency, the express terms with the ‘cost/benefit’ approach of the NPPF. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is a fundamental and long established principle of planning law that something identified as a ‘material consideration’ (such as the putative economic and environmental benefit in the present context) is conceptually distinct from considerations in the development plan and does not ceteris paribus carry the same weight as an aim or consideration identified in the development plan itself. It is, therefore, essential, both analytically and in policy terms, to separate objectives or considerations specifically set out in the development plan from something else that can count only as another ‘material consideration’. Mr Cocks’ argument confounds elements that fall within different relevant categories, and which have a different character for planning purposes, and it cannot rescue the inconsistency that is obvious on its face between the relevant policies and the NPPF.”

6.6 It is necessary to carry out that exercise in relation to the BCNRLP policies relied upon to justify refusal in this case.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


6.7 However, the BCNRLP itself makes clear that is it not intended to guide development decisions after 2011. The plan explains at para 1.1107

“This Replacement Local Plan has been prepared by Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council in accordance with the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. The Plan covers the whole of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich and it relates to development up to the year 2011.”

It follows that the housing policies in the adopted BCNRLP are out of date. This has knock-on effects on policies NE.2 and RES.5 which were both written in the knowledge that there was sufficient land to accommodate housing development identified in the plan up to 2011. This is an express finding of the Close Lane, Alsager Inspector decided that these policies were out of date in so far as they constrain development108.

NE.2: Countryside and RES.5: Housing Provision in Countryside

6.8 These policies protected the countryside from unnecessary development. They were policies written in 2005 before Planning Policy Statement 3 was issued, (itself now superseded by NPPF), which created a step-change away from protecting greenfield land and towards an emphasis on housing delivery. Accordingly, the housing policies of the BCNRLP identified sufficient land to last until 2011 and policies NE.2 and RES.5 “closed the door” to prevent further release.

6.9 We are now beyond 2011 and these policies are out of date irrespective of the 5 year supply position (see Close Lane, Alsager decision, para 11)

“… As such, post 2011, these settlement boundaries and SZLs would have the effect of constraining development, including housing, within these settlements. The restrictions imposed upon development within the open countryside, outside the settlement boundaries, within Policies NE.2 and RES.5 of the Replacement Local Plan, are therefore clearly time expired and should be considered out of date. …”

6.10 However, the Inspector also rightly observed109, pursuant to the duty to assess policies for compliance with NPPF para 215 (as explained in Colman), that the part of the policies which sought to protect the character and amenity of the countryside was consistent with the Framework.

6.11 In this appeal, the appellants accept that the effect of the proposal on the character and amenity of the countryside is a factor which needs to be taken into account, but only as part of the overall balance that NPPF para 14 requires to be undertaken. The Burgess Farm decision demonstrates that even development which severely affects the character of the countryside can nevertheless be sustainable.110

107 Local Plan para 1.1

108 Appeal Decision 2203282 - Document HG 17

109 at para 12

110 CD 9.10 - see para 21 of Decision Letter

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


NE.4: Green Gap

6.12 The appeal site is within the defined Green Gap, as defined in BCNRLP Policy NE.4. Insofar as this policy seeks to prevent settlements merging it is consistent with the Framework. However, if the policy is interpreted without consideration of its effects and benefits to prevent any housing development in the Green Gap, then it would not be Framework compliant. It would be wrong to regard NE.4 as setting up an irrebuttable, in principle presumption against housing development within the Green Gap for the following reasons.

6.13 Firstly, the Rope Lane Inspector111 did not treat the Green Gap as an in principle “no go area” for housing. Secondly, the Council has itself granted planning permission for a total of no less than 345 dwellings on four separate Green Gap sites,112 so it cannot have regarded Green Gap as a “no go area”. Much has been made of the 2003 Local Plan Inquiry Inspector’s comments about “nibbling” of the Green Gap yet the Council has issued permissions or made allocations in the Green Gap despite what he said. This appears to be inconsistent on behalf of the Council. Thirdly, the Council intends to allocate a Strategic Site (150 houses) at Crewe Green at the narrowest part of the Green Gap between Crewe and Haslington.113 The BCNRLP Inquiry Inspector said this was one of the vulnerable Green Gap locations. This allocation materially narrows this vulnerable gap, yet it is regarded as acceptable by the Council.

6.14 The correct approach to a policy of this nature, which intends to keep separate two settlements, is as set out in the Rothley / Mountsorrel decision.114 In that case the relevant policy was an Area of Local Separation (ALS) Policy CT/4 – designed to keep Rothley and Mountsorrel separate. The proposal involved erection of 250 dwellings and the Inspector approached the policy in this way

“8.17 Therefore, I agree with the Council that Policy CT/4 does not clearly conflict with the NPPF and I give it due weight, even though the NPPF does not specifically refer to ALS. But that does not mean that all land within existing ALS in the Borough should be permanently sterilised from development; instead, I consider that each case for development within an ALS should be considered on its merits. Policy CT/4 cannot be given full weight because it represents an outright ban on open market housing within the ALS, without the possibility of any countervailing benefit outweighing the prohibition.” 115

6.15 The Inspector went to consider whether CT/4 was policy for the supply of housing and concluded that it was. The Inspector noted conflicting opinion on the matter in the Davis116 case and the Cotswold117 case and then reached this conclusion:

111 CD 9.17

112 BH 2 Appendix 13

113 see chart of applications / allocations

114 CD 9.15 115 CD 9.15 IR para 8.17 116 [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


“8.19 If a choice were essential, which it is not, the SoS is invited to prefer the approach in Cotswold because the control mechanism in Policy CT/4 is clearly very relevant to the supply of housing: it represents an absolute ban on open market housing in the ALS. The effect of Policy CT/4 is therefore very relevant to the supply of housing. The approach taken in Coalville is correct to point out that paragraph 49 of the NPPF is within the housing section. However, that section presumes that there will be adequate housing provision in the plan. This is clearly not the case here and paragraph 49 needs to be read with this in mind. Furthermore, the limits to development and ALS (and Green Wedge) boundaries were all drawn in the CBCLP 2004 reflecting housing needs up to 2006 only. Housing needs are obviously greater in 2013 and the emerging CS acknowledges that the ALS boundaries will have to be redrawn as part of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD process. This also serves to demonstrate the direct link between ALS and provision of housing.”118

6.16 At paras 11 and 13 of the Decision Letter the Secretary of State (SofS) agreed with this thought process:

“11. For the reasons given at IR8.10-8.22, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR8.24 that the appeal proposal would accord with a wide range of development plan policies but that there would be limited conflict with Policy CT/4 (development in Areas of Local Separation (ALS)) to which he gives some weight (see paragraph 13 below). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that, as agreed by the parties (IR8.23), the appeal site is in a sustainable location for housing development. “

“13. Like the Inspector (IR8.31), the Secretary of State accepts that, if the appeal succeeds, there would be a reduction in openness and the character of the existing ALS between Mountsorrel and Rothley would be changed. However, he also agrees with the Inspector at IR8.39 that, for the reasons given at IR8.32-8.38, the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area or undermine the planning purpose or overall integrity of the wider ALS. He also agrees that the countervailing environmental benefits, including those arising from the landscaping proposals in the appeal scheme master plan and the careful design of the relief road to include significant areas of new planting, more than outweigh the loss of ALS and the limited landscape harm caused by the loss of green field land.

6.17 The South Northamptonshire case was decided 10 March 2014119 and leaves this assessment untouched because this is an exercise of planning judgement by both the Inspector and the SofS:

“48. However, once the Inspector has properly directed himself as to the scope of paragraph 49 NPPF as he did here, the question of whether a particular policy falls within its scope, is very much a matter for his planning judgment. In this case, the policy clearly falls within the scope of the phrase and the Inspector was fully entitled to reach the conclusion on it which he did.”

6.18 The correct test therefore in this case is the test as approved by the SofS in the Charnwood case, i.e. will the appeal proposal:

117 CD 10.5 118 ibid para 8.19 119 BH 2, Appendix 6

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


“… significantly harm the character and appearance of the area or undermine the planning purposes or overall integrity of the wider ALS (Green Gap).”

This test must itself sit within the overall balancing exercise of NPPF para 14 such that any adverse environmental impacts would need to be weighed against any benefits including environmental, social and economic ones.

6.19 As to the impact of the proposed scheme on the Green Gap and the character and appearance of the landscape, that would be limited.

6.20 Putative Reason for Refusal No.3 contends that the proposed development of the appeal site would conflict with BCNRLP Policy NE.4 Green Gaps, and be contrary to (unidentified) parts of the Framework and the emerging Local Plan.

6.21 The appeal site is not now, has not ever been, and is not proposed to be defined in any development plan as an area of any acknowledged landscape quality. It forms part of a wider area on the southern edge of Crewe where current development plan policy seeks to restrict development in the open countryside generally and in the 'Green Gap' between Crewe and (inter alia) Shavington. These policies are proposed to be retained / reaffirmed in the CELP, which also advances the prospect of the extension of the extant Green Belt to include the appeal site and adjacent land. HIMOR have made representations in respect of these policies and have provided a critique of the CELP’s Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps (GBSOG) methodology and conclusions.

6.22 In terms of landscape character, the appeal site and the surrounding area is typified by the key characteristics of the Lower Farms and Woodland landscape type and the Barthomley Character Area (LFW 7) as defined in the Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment.

6.23 Where the parties differ is in respect of the assessment of landscape and visual effects. The Council contend that the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development have been underplayed primarily because a 'best case' has been assumed in relation to the retention and formation of landscape structure/ green infrastructure. The appellant contends that the submitted Landscape Visual Impact Analysis (LVIA) has set out clearly the 'worst case' in terms of the scale and nature of the proposed development and has then assessed realistically and objectively, on the basis of the submitted Illustrative Masterplan, the landscape and visual effects of that development, and indicates how the existing landscape structure / green infrastructure could be retained and developed.

6.24 Within the LFW7 area, the appeal site forms a discrete tract of land defined by Crewe to the north, Crewe Road to the east, Rope Lane to the east and Shavington to the south. The impacts of the development of the appeal site on landscape character would be limited, only be significant at the local level and only at certain development stages. The development of any other major site within LFW7 will be likely to have the same effects. Although the effect of the proposed development on landscape character would be evident and irreversible, this would be so for the development of any greenfield site on the edge of Crewe.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


6.25 On account of the physical proximity of the appeal site to the existing urban edge of Crewe, and the visual containment of the appeal site, it is well suited for development, as acknowledged in the most recent SHLAA for Cheshire East.

6.26 The submitted LVIA sets out, in text and tabular form, an assessment of the visual effects of development.

6.27 Development of the scale contemplated in the appeal application will inevitably have some visual effects. Those effects will be experienced on the immediate site edges, from Gresty Lane (between Rope Cottages and Rope Lane - some 860m) and from Rope Lane (between Gresty Lane and Rope Green Farm - some 250m). Details of the separation distances are given in Document IR2, Plan 3. The visual effects only arise from a limited area and from a limited number of viewpoints. Although the change in the views from sections of adjacent roads will be substantial, particularly in the early stages of site construction and development, this does not amount to a compelling objection to the appeal proposals.

6.28 The existing linear width of separation that obtains between the southern edge of Crewe and the northern edge of Shavington will be reduced, although that reduction will be limited in scale and, in terms of public perception will only arise in respect of the passage between the two settlements along Rope Lane (the passage along Crewe Road will be unchanged).

6.29 There is existing (and visually significant) built development on both sides of Rope Lane within the existing gap, which affects the perception of settlement separation. Whilst it is indisputable that the development of the appeal site would entail the southern edge of Crewe coming closer to Shavington, the development of the appeal site would not materially (or adversely) reduce the physical or perceived separation of Shavington and Crewe along Rope Lane. The residual gap that would remain would perform at least the same functions as the existing gap. Considered against the objectives sets out in the GBSOG, the residual green gap would:

• continue to protect the settings and separate identities of Crewe and Shavington;

• retain the existing settlement pattern and thus maintain openness (both actual and perceived) between the two settlements; and

• retain - and as a consequence of the proposed development enhance - the physical and psychological benefits arising from open land near settlements.

As a consequence development of the appeal site would not significantly adversely affect the functional effectiveness of the gap between Crewe and Shavington.

6.30 In respect of putative reason for refusal No.3 it is contended that there are no sustainable bases for objection to the appeal proposals.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


NE.12: Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land (BMV)

6.31 The appeal site includes areas of land within categories 2 and 3a, which Policy NE.12 seeks to safeguard. A breach of this policy cannot of itself justify refusal for several reasons. Firstly, because the Council has granted permission for 1,100 houses involving loss of 24 ha of BMV at Kingsley Fields. Secondly, appeal decisions show that BMV is to be considered within the overall balance and none of the appeal decisions have required (as the policy does) that land of a lesser quality is not available. The Council has not required the sites it prefers to pass this policy test. Thirdly, the expert evidence in this case shows that the eastern half of the site has no BMV at all; the western side has non BMV mixed in with BMV in every field, the BMV fields are small and affected by the hedgerows which affect their farmability, no present use of the land takes advantage of the BMV status (eg it is not used to grow maize or potatoes), and the site is not viable as an agricultural holding.

6.32 Accordingly, the effect of BMV is no more and no less than a consideration to be taken into account in the overall balance. The policy is not consistent with NPPF in so far as it represents an outright ban on development. The appellant has always accepted that BMV, as an “environmental” role, must be given weight in the decision making process. However, the expert evidence in this case shows that despite the substantial area involved, the practical value of the BMV in this case is very limited.

NE.5 / BE.16 / Hedgerows

6.33 The Council originally argued for a breach of NE.5 in its putative reason for refusal and switched to policy BE.16 in its Statement of Case.

6.34 The only expert evidence on the matter at this inquiry came from Mr. Morton. It is noteworthy that the Cheshire Shared Services has not objected120.

6.35 The hedgerows are not designated assets. As non-designated heritage assets the level of impact on them will be “low or negligible” and their significance will not be harmed. Housing will bring about inevitable change to the setting of the hedgerows. There would also be countervailing benefits with the appeal scheme. There would be public access to the heritage asset where none presently exists; the hedgerows would be managed, and there would be protection within the scheme of some of the marl pits121. This is a material environmental consideration. There will be some limited harm to the hedgerows but this must be counterbalanced first by the environmental advantages noted above, and thereafter by the social and economic advantages.

6.36 Turning now to the main considerations identified at the start of the inquiry.

120 CD 8.11 121 CD 6.11 at p 69

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Will the proposed scheme fulfil the three roles for sustainable development identified at para 7 of the Framework, having regard to relevant development plan policies

6.37 As noted at paragraph 8 of NPPF, the three mutually dependent roles of sustainable development are economic, social and environmental.

6.38 The Council’s case against this appeal scheme is principally based (its prematurity case apart) on allegedly unacceptable effects on the environmental role of sustainable development. In this respect there is little attempt to weigh the social and economic benefits: this is dealt with in one paragraph of Mr Haywood’s proof (para 10.24). This approach is not consistent with the advice in NPPF para 8, which requires all three strands to be considered together. This failure is a fundamental flaw in its analysis because, as noted above (paragraph 6.11), the Burgess Farm decision122 demonstrates that even serious environmental harm can be outweighed by countervailing benefits.

6.39 Not only is the Council’s approach flawed, it is inconsistent. It has issued planning permissions for several sites where the same breaches of development plan policy are over-ridden simply because the proposal is included in an as yet untested emerging Local Plan (CELP). The Council is using the saved BCNRLP policies in order to hold back development it does not want whereas “pet” sites pass through the development plan analysis process unscathed. This cynical use of saved development plan policies has been criticized elsewhere;

“It seems to me that the ‘Saving Letters’ make clear the contingent basis upon which the policies were saved, namely the requirement in the decision making process to have regard to up-to-date policies, such as the former PPS3, which requires a 5 year land supply. These ‘material considerations’, now include the NPPF, which means that it is simply not good enough to regard saved policies as an opportunity to refuse rather than grant planning permission. The Council’s approach is at odds with the requirement in the Saving Letters. Relevant policies in the WCSP and the WDLP must be viewed in the context of paragraph 215 of the NPPF. Importantly, there is an obligation to consider the development plan in the light of any absence of a 5 year supply which predated the NPPF and can be traced back to 2006.” 123

6.40 All of the development plan policies must first be assessed against the para 215 test and, as has been seen above, all are to a greater or lesser extent in conflict with NPPF. In terms of sustainable development, the operation of NPPF para 14 is obviously important in this case.

6.41 With the exception of Lang J DBE in the Davis case, it is clear that para 14 creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of grant of planning permission. Several judgments have established this:

Sales J Tewkesbury124 paras 20, 49 122 CD 9.10 123 CD 9.2 Appeal Decision in respect of Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne,

Worcestershire (APP/H1840/A/12/2171339) (24 August 2012) 124 CD 10.10

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Parker J Colman125 para 5

Lindblom J Bloor126 para 44

Patterson J Dartford127 para 52-54.

It will be noted that in the Dartford case the SofS was a defendant to a Local Planning Authority challenge to a permission issued by one of his Inspectors. His Counsel, Mr Honey, is reported at para 48 of the judgment as arguing against the interpretation of Davis - argued at that appeal by the Local Planning Authority and repeated by Cheshire East Council at this inquiry:

“The first defendant contends that the two stage test contended for by the claimant is misconceived”

6.42 It is clear that the SofS, despite arguing through Mr Maurici for the interpretation that he did in Davis, no longer wishes to suggest that para 14 involves a two stage test. The fact that the SofS expressly referred to the Dartford decision in the Droitwich decision letter (at para 12) puts the matter beyond (sensible) argument.128

6.43 The Council’s planning witness accepted that there is no vehicle within the Framework for separate assessment of sustainable development and the balancing exercise in para 14 itself would require all policies of the Framework to be considered – which is the obvious way to determine whether a development is sustainable or not. Paragraph 14 includes the requirement to consider the balance of how sustainable development is to be determined

6.44 The SofS is clearly not following the decision in Davis as evidenced by the Droitwich decision129. The Inspector’s Report says:

“8.19 Turning to the question as to whether the development is sustainable, given that Policies SR1 and GD2 are out of date and time expired I consider this development falls to be considered under paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The Inquiry heard argument from the Council that a strained interpretation of the paragraph 14 presumption should be applied. The Council stated that it relied upon the judgement of Mrs. Justice Lang in William Davis and other v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others where the judge added an extra ‘gloss’ on paragraph 14 NPPF. At paragraph 37 of that judgment she ruled that a development must be found to be sustainable before the presumption applies.

8.20 In my view this is an incorrect interpretation of that paragraph. First, the wording of paragraph 14 does not support this view. The paragraph clearly relates to all ‘development proposals’ it does not qualify this with an extra test of sustainability. It is therefore wrong to read such a test into the paragraph. The test also ignores the balancing exercise in paragraph 14. It is that exercise which determines whether or not development is sustainable. In the ‘Lang’ interpretation there is no identified means of which sustainability can be assessed. Secondly, the

125 CD 10.8 126 CD 10.7 127 HG 19 128 SB 4 Appendix 2: Droitwich 129 SB 4 Appendix 2: SofS Decision Letter and Inspector’s Report for Droitwich

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


weight of High Court authority runs contrary to Lang J’s view. The judgements at Stratford, Tewkesbury and North Devon demonstrate the correct reading of paragraph 14. Three High Court judges have disagreed with Lang J. Given this and the clear wording of paragraph 14, I consider that there is no extra test of sustainability included in paragraph 14, not least because the other three judges’ interpretation enables sustainable development to be measured within the balance of paragraph 14.

6.45 The SofS agreed with this analysis in his Decision Letter.

“12. Turning to the question as to whether the development is sustainable, the Secretary of State notes the arguments set out at IR8.19-8.20 in relation to the interpretation and application of the presumption under paragraph 14 of the Framework in the case of William Davis. The Secretary of State also notes the recent decision in Dartford Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Landhold Capital Limited where Mrs. Justice Patterson rejected elevating William Davis to a formulaic sequential approach to paragraph 14 of the Framework. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State finds the relevant policies for the supply of housing are out of date (IR8.24) and therefore the presumption applies, and that the evidence (IR8.21-8.23) demonstrates that the Appeal A scheme is sustainable in terms of economic, environmental and social benefits.”

6.46 In conclusion on this point, the reliance upon Davis is an unnecessary diversion.

6.47 The presumption in favour of sustainable development does apply here because firstly, relevant policies of the development plan are out of date; and secondly, there is no 5 year supply of housing land. The Council’s witness notes that

“Whilst some relevant Development Plan policies are out of date (importantly Local Plan Policy RES.1 which gives the housing requirement figures for the period to 2011), other very relevant policies – NE.2, NE.4, NE.12 and RES.5 – are extant and up to date and I consider this in more detail below.” 130

6.48 The witness argued that the word “all” should be read into this phrase so that para 14 only applies if “all relevant policies are out of date”. This cannot be right. It would involve an appellant having to identify each and every relevant policy (a finding which would doubtless be disputed by the Local Planning Authority). The operation of NPPF para 49 demonstrates that it is not necessary to allude to every relevant policy because if there is no 5 year supply then;

“Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date”

6.49 It is accepted that this means para 14 is put into play. It would be illogical if relevant policies other than housing being out of date should not have the same effect. It is also the fact that if the plan does not cater for housing beyond 2011 then its housing policies are obviously out of date on that basis too, irrespective of the 5 year position. The witness accepted that if it was found inappropriate to read into the wording of para 14 the word “all” before

130 BH 1 para 5.13

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


“relevant policies” (which it obviously is not least because it is not there) then the presumption would apply in this case.

6.50 The recent Close Lane decision131 has established that NE.2 and RES.5 are out of date. The Council’s witness accepted that the BCNRLP was out of date in that there was no policy to direct where the annual 1,000 plus (minimum) houses required in the CELP from 2010 onwards should be located. It follows that, irrespective of what the 5 year supply provision is, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies in this case.

Operation of NPPF para 14.

6.51 It is accepted that there are no “footnote 9” specific policies132 applicable in this case. Green Gap policy is not a “specific policy” in terms of footnote 9. This means that there is a presumption that permission should be granted unless the disadvantages of so doing clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.52 The disadvantages have been identified above by reference to the BCNRLP policies. To those must be added “Prematurity” which will be addressed below.

6.53 The benefits of the scheme are as set out in Mr Bell’s evidence133. These are: the creation of up to 880 new dwellings, 30% affordable homes, specialist accommodation for the elderly, the development would be accessible to Crewe urban area with its jobs and services, employment opportunities during the construction stage and thereafter in the local services, the creation of a new community focus, provision of play space and other green infrastructure, opportunities for enhanced biodiversity, the opportunity for a highly attractive development, additional educational opportunities at primary school level and finally an estimated £1.5 million per annum New Homes Bonus income. These represent benefits over all three strands of sustainability.

6.54 It is worthwhile to look in particular at the delivery of Affordable Housing. The CELP Examiner has noted that the annual requirement for Affordable Housing in Cheshire East Council is 1,401. The CELP cannot deliver anything like that amount. In those circumstances delivery of over 200 Affordable Housing dwellings is a very substantial matter. A moment’s reflection of what these figures mean in real terms to those hundreds of people who are in inadequate accommodation and in desperate wait for a decent home is worthwhile. This decision has the potential to be truly life changing for them.

6.55 Prematurity is discussed more fully below but the key question is what harm to the CELP process would be caused by a grant of permission now? Much of the Council’s case has turned on the alleged inability of the CELP / Site Allocations process to create new Green Belt if permission were to be granted. Even if it were legally permissible to create new Green Belt, the Envision work has demonstrated that a width of 275m between Basford West – Shavington

131 Document HG 17 132 Footnote 9 at paragraph 14 of NPPF 133 SB 1, p 115, para 16.13-16.15

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


is sufficiently wide for a new Green Belt. There is no reason, therefore, why the land left free from development could not be put in the Green Belt if Environ’s / Cheshire East Council’s approach were correct. As is argued below, it is not.

6.56 This is a proposal where the advantages are so substantial that they outweigh the disadvantages, most of which are inevitable disadvantages of development in the Crewe area (Policies NE.2, NE.12) and in so far as Green Gap is a constraint, it has been breached by other schemes when it suits the Council – for example at Crewe Green in the Crewe – Haslington Gap which, as is stated above, the 2003 Local Plan Inspector found to be a sensitive gap.

6.57 It is submitted that the proposal does represent sustainable development.

Is there a 5 year land supply?

6.58 The answer to this question is obvious to all but the Council. There is not a 5 year supply – as evidenced by three appeal decisions issued during July of this year; all of which confirmed that Cheshire East Council has no 5 year supply:

Site Hearing Date Appeal Decision

Dunnocksfold Road (Doc GCS 2 Appendix 3) February 2014 14 July 2014

Audlem Road (Doc HG 15) June 2014 25 July 2014

Close Lane (Doc HG 17) May 2014 29 July 2014

6.59 To conclude whether a 5 year land supply exists it is necessary to consider the constituent parts of the assessment procedure: i) what is the full, objectively assessed need (FOAN), ii) what buffer should be applied, and iii) what is the correct supply figure?

6.60 Before embarking on that consideration it is helpful to note what is agreed. Firstly, the backlog is to be addressed using the “Sedgefield” method and not the “Liverpool” method, i.e. within the next five years, rather than spread out across the whole plan period (see Document CEC 14). Secondly, C2 figures are no longer to be included in the equation (CEC 16).

FOAN

6.61 The Council’s case is set out in a matrix form in Document CEC 18 (b). It alleges that 1,180 is the FOAN and that it is only the economic adjustments which bring the figure up to 1,350 pa (averaged over the whole plan period). The Council bases its approach on its interpretation of Gallagher134 and Hickinbottom J’s reference to “policy off” and “policy on” and in particular his definition at para 37:

“(iii) Housing Requirement: This is the figure which reflects, not only the assessed need for housing, but also any policy considerations that might require that figure to be manipulated to determine the actual housing target for an area. For example, built development in an area might be constrained by the extent of land which is

134 CD 10.4

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


the subject of policy protection, such as Green Belt or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Or it might be decided, as a matter of policy, to encourage or discourage particular migration reflected in demographic trends. Once these policy considerations have been applied to the figure for full objectively assessed need for housing in an area, the result is a ‘policy on’ figure for housing requirement. Subject to it being determined by a proper process, the housing requirement figure will be the target against which housing supply will normally be measured.”

It is said that this “policy on” process is equivalent to the “economic adjustments” made in the decision matrix prepared for the CELP.

6.62 This approach to the FOAN is wrong for the following reasons. The above quotation - para 37 (iii) - is obiter dicta: it does not form part of the decision making process on this ground. Hickinbottom J expressly purported to be following, as he was obliged to, the Court of Appeal decision in Hunston135. That decision does not make a “policy off” or “policy on” distinction. Hunston simply says at para 25 that adjustment needs to be made to the FOAN, made necessary by footnote 9 policies or other policies in the Framework.

“… That qualification contained in the last clause quoted is not qualifying housing needs. It is qualifying the extent to which the Local Plan should go to meet those needs. The needs assessment, objectively arrived at, is not affected in advance of the production of the Local Plan, which will then set the requirement figure.”

The Court of Appeal decision therefore envisages a reduction and not an increase through the operation of “policies set out in this Framework”. Within the section of his judgement dealing with FOAN Hickinbottom J repeatedly refers to the operation of para 47 in the context of constraints (see paras 94, 99) despite what he refers to at para 37 (iii).

6.63 The full objectively assessed need ought to represent the full extent of what any Local Planning Authority intends to deliver by way of housing supply. That will be based on a wide range of factors, including: demographic projections, local vacancy figures, second homes, Affordable Housing needs, economic aspirations, migration (in or out), economic signals and Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMAA) data. This is not a complete list of factors which need to be brought into consideration. When all factors have been addressed, this figure will represent the FOAN. The flaw in the Council’s analysis is that it gives special status to just one element, namely economic growth: there is no justification within the text of NPPF for treating this as a separate process, the Council’s witness accepted.

6.64 It is the FOAN figure which must then be checked against policies in NPPF. The Court of Appeal describe what went wrong in Hunston:

“I have some sympathy for the inspector, who was seeking to interpret policies which were at best ambiguous when dealing with the situation which existed here, but it seems to me to have been mistaken to use a figure for housing requirements below the full objectively assessed needs figure until such time as the Local Plan process came up with a constrained figure.” 136

135 CD 10.2 136 CD 10.2 at para 26

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


In this case the Council does not propose to reduce the FOAN figure having regard to NPPF policies but to increase it. The Court of Appeal decision makes clear that this secondary process can only serve to “constrain” the figure.

6.65 Para 8.8 of the reasoned justification to Policy PG 1of CELP describes the additional 27,000 dwellings as meeting “the full objectively assessed needs”. In that declaration of what is the FOAN (which is now resiled from for 5 year supply reasons) the Council regards jobs growth as part of that process

“As a minimum, the Plan aims to meet the full objectively assessed need for an additional 27,000 dwellings that is predicted to arise in Cheshire East over the 2010-2030 period. This need is based on forecasting work using the latest Government projections and also factors in the Council’s aspirations for employment led growth, which seeks to deliver additional housing to enable a rate of jobs growth that averages 0.4% a year. …” 137

At this inquiry, the Council did not wish to abide by that statement, so as to avoid the consequences of admitting 27,000 is the FOAN in the context of a 5 year supply calculation at appeals such as this.

6.66 It is noted that the Close Lane Inspector138 declined to use the 1,350 figure because (a) it “has not yet been tested at a Public Inquiry” (para 31); (b) RS figures are “the only housing figures which have been subject to public scrutiny” (para 32); and (c) “The 2011-based Interim Housing Projections, projected forward to 2030, indicate that an average annual increase in dwellings of 1,180 over the plan period. This is not dissimilar to the figure of 1,150 in the RS. As such, despite the appellant’s concerns, I consider that the figure of 1,150 is representative of the objectively assessed housing needs within CEC at the present time…”.

6.67 This analysis falls into conflict with Hunston in the following ways – following each of the three steps above. Firstly, for development control purposes an Inspector at a s.78 appeal must arrive at a FOAN in the absence of the Local Plan process even though it will not have been objectively assessed other than by the Inspector carrying out the necessary development control role. This is the finding of Hunston para 26, and Gallagher para 88(ii). Therefore the fact that the 1,350 figure has not been tested at CELP Examination is not of itself relevant. It is correct that the RS figures were subject to public scrutiny but that does not obviate the requirement to calculate the FOAN in 2014.

6.68 The Household Projections are only part of the FOAN exercise as the Council’s own evidence at this inquiry accepted:

“This clearly suggests that objectively assessed need will not be too far from the household projections and may indeed be one and the same (albeit not automatically so). It does not suggest that the ‘elaborate’ processes associated with Local Plan housing requirements (such as economic modelling, market indicators and such like) are associated with such calculations.” 139

137 CD6.1, page 61 138 HG 17 139 GCS 1, para 6.19

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Furthermore, the figure put before the CELP Examiner is the Council’s case as to what the FOAN is. Others believe the FOAN is higher and that will be tested at the CELP Examination.

6.69 In conclusion on this point, the correct FOAN is at least 1,350 dpa until such time as the Local Plan Examiner reports, potentially with a higher figure. The thought process of the Audlem Road Inspector at para 34-36 is correct (save that the minimum figure of 1,260 is based on an as yet untested “stepping” policy). The Appeal Decision for land North of Moorfields (Document HG 24) also concludes that the FOAN is 1,350 140.

6.70 As advised by the Town and Country Planning Association, when calculating the housing need, it is necessary to go back to apply the 2008 household projections, and not simply carry forward the 2011 as the 2011 figures reflect a period of economic recession; the 2008 figures are a better reflection of economic prosperity and would balance the ‘trough’ of 2008 against previous ‘peaks’.141

6.71 If 1,350 is the FOAN then the Council accept they have no 5 year supply. The overall summary table shows that if 1,350 dpa is used then the 5 year requirement is 10,146 if a 5% buffer is seen to be appropriate, or 11,596 if a 20% buffer is applied. The Council’s highest supply figure is 9,652.142

Therefore, there is no 5 year supply even if 5% buffer is used and the Council’s supply figure is used without any reduction.

What buffer should be applied?

6.72 The buffer does not represent a penalty, nor does it impose additional housing requirements. It simply requires that housing should be “moved forward from later in the plan period.” Whether there has been a “record of persistent under delivery” is a finding of fact that needs to be made. Nearly all findings of fact in previous decisions (including the SofS’s at Abbey Road) have found 20% buffer to be appropriate.

6.73 The Council places much reliance upon the PPG and its reference to peaks and troughs. The following four decisions have addressed the issue of the correct buffer since PPG was issued:

Elworth Hall Farm CD 9.5

Dunnocksfold Road SB 4 App 7

144 Audlem Road HG15

Close Lane HG17

All of these Appeal Decisions addressed the PPG. Elworth Hall Farm, which was the first, expressly refers to PPG at para 22. All have decided that 20% was the correct buffer except Dunnocksfold Road. The Inspector’s thought process in that appeal is explained at paras 49-53. At para 52 she observed

140 HG24, para 22 141 HG 09 “New estimates of housing demand and need in England 2011-2031” 142 CEC 14

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


“I consider the current undersupply should be considered alongside the historic and cumulative robust long term record of delivery.”

6.74 However, this observation is contradicted by the facts. The CELP Inspector sets out the facts in his letter to the Council at para 1 (a) (v)143

“The 2012 AMR indicates that an average of 1,032 dwellings were completed between 2002-2012, compared with the former RSS requirement of 1,150/yr; …”

The long term record is therefore far from “robust” – it is a record of under supply even during the peak years following 2002.

6.75 The Dunnocksfold Road Inspector referred to improvements in recent years but consideration of the Council’s updated position statement on completions 25th July 2014144 shows that the figures have not increased to even RS levels. In 2013-14 there was a deficit of -487, and in 2012-13 there was a deficit of -498. Given this history of performance, the appropriate buffer is 20%.

What is the supply figure?

6.76 The Inspector in the Close Lane decision undertook a very detailed analysis of supply indeed from paragraphs 49-84. In these 8 pages of detailed analysis she explains why the supply figure is only 6,534 excluding student dwellings. Mr Bell (the appellant’s witness) has updated this figure having regard to recent permissions issued and other factors, and considered that the update figure would still be well below his own 7,903 which has convinced him that his estimate is very robust.

6.77 The Council’s approach is far removed from the interactive role between local planning authorities and the development industry which is promoted in PPG.145 The Council’s witness criticised the house building industry for failing to agree the Council’s figures, but it was the Council which moved the goalposts. It moved away from the position in the 2012 SHLAA to when it started losing appeals by reason of absence of a 5 year supply. By the simple expedient of reducing lead-in times, and presuming there would be more than one developer on the site, it could dramatically increase supply on paper (but not in reality). This process was noted and inherently disapproved of in the Abbey Road decision.146

“28. … The Secretary of State is also not persuaded by the evidence submitted to him that the Housing Market Partnership has endorsed the methodology and conclusions of the updated SHLAA. This further undermines his confidence in the updated SHLAA findings. Having considered these matters very carefully, the Secretary of State is of the view that the Council has not demonstrated a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites against even the most favourable assessment of the 5 year housing requirement. The Secretary of State finds this a factor weighing in support of the proposed development.”

143 SB 4 Appendix 5 144 CEC 16 145 see PPG 3 - 023 146 CD 9.1. Note that at this Inquiry CEC alleged it has a supply of 9,771 dwellings

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


6.78 The process was taken further by the Council in its Housing Position Statement which was considered and rejected in the Elmworth Hall Farm decision.147 The Close Lane Inspector (para 59) also expresses concern about CEC’s approach:

“59. Although it would appear that the Council’s approach set out in its Position Statement accords with the guidance in the PPG in that it includes indicative lead-in times and build out rates for the development of different scales of sites and makes an allowance on the largest sites for several developers to be involved, I am concerned that, on the basis of the evidence before me, these figures are not supported by local evidence of past lead-in times and build out rates or on substantial evidence of the involvement of 2 or more developers on larger sites, or by the experience of the local housebuilding industry. Indeed, in my opinion, they would appear to be a little over optimistic. Indeed, I consider that the lead-in times and build rates, put forward by the appellants would more accurately reflect past trends and those anticipated by the housebuilding industry. Furthermore, I concur with the appellants’ view that the inclusion of a higher build rate to reflect the presence of 2 or more developers on a site should only be applied where there is substantial evidence that this would be the case.”

6.79 The full details of the appellants’ case is set out in the evidence and within the boxes in the relevant tables. The overall conclusion which the SofS is invited to reach is one shared by every Inspector who has had to determine a contested 5 year housing land supply: the Council is exaggerating its supply. At Close Lane the Inspector found the difference between what she found to be the supply (6,534) was not hundreds but thousands below what the Council alleged it to be. For the purpose of this Inquiry Mr Bell’s figure of 7,903 is robust and conservative. Sniping at findings at particular sites simply avoids the big picture: an exercise such as this must take a balanced view and Mr Bell has said he has followed the approach previously agreed in the SHLAA process.

Conclusion on 5 Year Supply

6.80 The table at HG 13 demonstrates that the Council has a supply of between 3.4 (20%) to 3.9 (5%) year’s supply of available housing land. The Close Lane Inspector found it to be 3.45 years148 even when using the FOAN figure of 1,150. This being so, the presumption in favour of development is created in this case.

Free Flow of Traffic on the Highway Network

6.81 On this issue, as in others, The Council has applied different standards for the appeal scheme, than the standards it uses to gauge acceptability in relation to the CELP sites.

6.82 It is alleged that this proposal will cause unacceptable delays so as to be “severe” in terms of para 32 of NPPF. When the Junction Delay Plots in Appendix C of the Transport Models Review149 are studied it is apparent that

147 CD 9.5 148 HG 17 para 84 149 CD 11.21 and CD 11.22: Cheshire East Transport Models Review – Summary Highway Impacts and

Mitigation Proposals for Local Plan Strategy. May 2014

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


the Council is content for the purposes of its CELP to consider a 5 minute delay “broadly acceptable”:

“The residual impact on the highway network with the mitigation in place is considered to be broadly acceptable.”150

The delays referred to are colour coded. A delay of 30-120 seconds is coded green and 120-300 sec delay is orange. Only delays above 300 seconds (5 minutes) go into the red colours.

6.83 Even if the Council relies on the figures produced in their highway witness’s Rebuttal at Tables 1 to 8 (Document GM 4) the maximum delay on one arm of either Junction 4 or Junction 5 in only 185 seconds (Table 8). Most of the delays are less than 120 seconds, i.e. still “green”.

6.84 It is clear that, based on the standards against which the Council wishes to test its emerging CELP sites, as set out in CDs 11.21 and 11.22, the appeal proposal does not have unacceptable consequences on the highway network. These studies place particular importance on the performance of “key junctions.”151 If that is a suitable touchstone, not only is the impact of this development not “severe” it is at least “broadly acceptable”. It is probably better than “broadly acceptable” because Junctions 4 and 5 exhibit delays which are mostly within “green” as assessed by the Council.

6.85 This putative reason for refusal should never have been raised or maintained, which helps to explain the obfuscation and evasion which is subject of separate complaint in the costs application. The Council has not satisfied its duty under para 187 of NPPF at all. This expects

“Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning Authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.”

In this appeal the Council has taken the opposite course and looked for problems. Examples of this approach are noted below.

6.86 The Council has raised a persistent complaint about use of the transport model and the appellant’s witness’s over reliance upon it. This contrasts with CD 11.21 (part of the evidence base of the CELP) at page 8 where it is said:

“The 2006 base highway model was used to run the tests in order to be consistent with previous assessments. It should be noted that analysis of traffic count data collected between 2004 and 2013 indicates that there has been limited growth in traffic. The 2006 base model therefore adequately reflects the current situation.”

6.87 At the inquiry the Council sought to rely upon the video evidence showing existing traffic conditions. This is contradictory of the guidelines set out in its

150 CD 11.21 page 13 151 CD 11.21 page 12

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


own documentation which require planned infrastructure improvements to be taken into account152.

“… It is important to note that this ‘do minimum’ situation will therefore usually include improvements to the network compared to the existing situation. This ‘do minimum’ position is the appropriate position to compare the impact of the developments to, as these improvements would have happened regardless of any other considerations. …”

This is another example of the flawed approach taken by the Council in assessing the traffic implications of the proposed scheme.

6.88 Junction 5 is alleged to be a “problem” location (A534 Nantwich Road / A5019 Mill Street / B5071 South Street) and yet tests on this junction show no problems at all, or any other junctions in traffic from South Crewe / Rope – see Table 5.1 CD 11.22 p 28. In Option 6153 - which is characterised as “destruction testing” of the highway network in Crewe – this assumes a total of 2,391 new dwellings154 concentrated to the south of Crewe with traffic coming through Junction 5. However, whilst other junctions around it are all noted as “red”, Junction 5 remains green. If this is so, then why should it now be argued that Junction 4 would “collapse” were the appeal scheme to go ahead?

6.89 The Council’s letter155 in response to queries raised by the appellants in Document HG 08 is a further example of evasion of the simple truths contained in CD 11.21 and CD 11.22. That is, the letter does not accept, or even acknowledge, that a delay of up to 300 seconds is factored into the local plan transport modelling as being acceptable.

6.90 The appellant’s witness was criticised for not reality checking his work to 2030, only doing so to 2015. He says the 2015 test is justified because at that date all traffic from the site is put onto the network. This approach is acceptable on a trunk road and should be here, too

“27. Where the overall forecast demand at the time of opening of the development can be accommodated by the existing infrastructure, further capacity mitigation will not be sought.”156

Even if that approach were not acceptable, the Council has itself carried out forecasts to 2030.

“As noted previously patterns of movement are established for the existing situation ‘base year’ and for one or more future years ‘forecast years’. In this case a year

152 CD 11.21 page 3 153 CD 11.21 Table 2.1 page 3 154 370 dwellings at site Ref.3 – Basford West; 300 dwellings at Site Ref.9 – Shavington East; 360

dwellings at Site Ref. 10 Shavington Triangle; 1,361dwellings at Site Ref. 11 – South Crewe – Rope – see CD 11.22 Table 2.1 page 3.

155 CEC 33 156 HG 04 para 27

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


close to the final year of the Local Plan (2030) has typically been used for the forecasts.”157

6.91 Junction 4 is not a key junction in the Council’s testing, and the appellant’s witness has said more traffic would pass through that junction than Junction 5 - which is a key junction. Be that as it may, the s.106 unilateral undertaking offers a contribution of £250,000 towards new traffic lights. These will, it is accepted, cause some new delay but will improve the overall operation of the junction. The undertaking also allows the offered money to be spent on alternative traffic management measures to improve flow through this junction if traffic lights are not seen to be the preferred solution. Whether the Council chooses to do the work is a matter for them. It is the appellant’s contention that there is a workable solution to any problem that may arise at this junction.

6.92 The Council’s view is that traffic from south of Crewe creates insoluble problems at Junction 4. However, can this be right? Why did this not come up in the models for the CELP? Why were no solutions sought for such supposed problems? If there were to be such problems then Crewe would be “closed for business” for any development to the south.

6.93 The s.106 package is intended to address and mitigate the impacts. It has been confirmed through the Council’s CIL Regulations Compliance Statement (Document CEC 23) that the £955,000 offered for improvements to Crewe Green Roundabout is now regarded as necessary and CIL compliant.

6.94 This proposed development, together with its package of mitigations, will not cause unacceptable delays, still less severe delays on the adjacent highway system.

Prematurity

6.95 The Council’s case on prematurity essentially rests on two points: firstly, 880 is an excessively large amount of dwellings to come forward outside of the development plan process, and secondly that release of the site would prejudice consideration of the site for inclusion in the Green Belt.

880 too much?

6.96 The SofS decisions at Bishops Cleeve (two sites totalling 1,000) and more recently at Droitwich 158(two sites totalling 700 plus 200 bed care homes) demonstrate there is no upper limit to releases outside of the development plan process. Males J explained in Tewkesbury159why local planning authorities who do not have a 5 year supply should not be surprised if such releases occur:

“64. In my judgement these matters are capable of being read together as a coherent whole. They demonstrate that, for the future, development plans prepared by local planning authorities in accordance with the national policy principles set out

157 CD 11.21 page 2 158 SB 4, Appendix 2 159 CD 10.10

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


in the NPPF, including the provision of a five year housing land supply, will represent the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and that it may well be difficult to obtain permission for developments which are not in accordance with such plans. However, they do not suggest that greater weight should be accorded to the views of local authorities who do not have such a development plan (or during the one transitional period, a development plan produced in accordance with the PCPA 2004) over and above whatever weight would be appropriate pursuant to the long established prematurity principle. Nor do they cast any doubt on the fact that, pending the adoption of local development plans, individual planning applications will continue to be dealt with, where appropriate by the Secretary of State, applying existing principles.

6.97 HIMOR Group (the appellants in this case) has objected to the inclusion of some of the sites in the submitted CELP. However, HIMOR and others suggest that 27,000 new dwellings is insufficient by way of allocation and the figure should be higher by thousands. If these objections prove to be correct then the Council will need to seek additional sites. Crewe could be the starting point for identifying locations for such additional sites given the emphasis on its growth and the fact it is a major town in east Cheshire.

6.98 In any event, the Framework promotes the boosting of housing delivery and if it is found (as other Inspectors have) that the Council has no 5 year supply it follows that there is a need for additional supply now.

Green Belt

6.99 To argue prematurity on the grounds that the site is within an area identified as potentially being included in the Green Belt is completely misconceived for a variety of reasons. The CELP will not allocate Green Belt land, it only seeks to establish the principle of creation of new Green Belt. The CELP will only be able to do so if the Examiner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justifying the creation of new Green Belt exist.

6.100 The test of necessity is critical here: why is it necessary to have Green Belt now? The Council’s future aspirations are somewhat schizophrenic. The map showing the area for search for the new Green Belt in the CELP160 at page 73

clashes with the map at page 42 of Cheshire and Warrington Matters: A Strategic and Economic Plan for Cheshire and Warrington161, which shows an expanding Crewe, and the supporting text boasts

“Unconstrained land for growth - both homes and employment”

If the whole Green Belt Area of Search as promoted in CELP became Green Belt Crewe would effectively be straightjacketed against future development to the south, east and west by Green Belt. The Council cannot ride horses going in opposite directions at the same time.

6.101 In any event, the actual identification of Green Belt will not take place until the Site Allocations document is adopted. That process will not be commenced until after the CELP is adopted in (perhaps) September 2015. In

160 CD 6.1 161 CD 6.15

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


which case, the Site Allocations plan is too far off to be prejudiced by this proposal.

6.102 The Envision Study which put forward the suggested expansion of Green Belt expressly advises at 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 of the study162 that the existing narrow gaps between Crewe and Shavington are adequate for Green Belt purposes. Whilst it is accepted that the Green Belt could be extended further to the south in some locations, the gap between existing built development at Shavington and proposed development at Basford West (270 m) cannot be increased. The text says that this gap is wide enough for Green Belt purposes. If that is so, Mr Reid’s Plan 3163 demonstrates that a similar or wider gap can be maintained elsewhere. If planning permission is granted the allotments shown in the Masterplan (Inquiry Plan A.12) could be included within the Green Belt and a new Green Belt boundary produced if necessary.

6.103 If the area of search164 for Green Belt is compared with the development sites map (Document HG 7) it becomes clear that the Council is proposing development, or granting development, at not less than four locations within the proposed Green Belt Area of Search: Sydney Road, Crewe Green (which is also in a Green Gap), Shavington Triangle and East Shavington. This is excused on the basis that these are the Council’s preferred sites in an as yet untested plan.

6.104 Finally, there is the example of Kingsley Fields, a 1,100 dwelling development where Nantwich Town Council argued the scheme was premature.165 Not only did Cheshire East Council not refuse that proposal on the ground of prematurity, the Committee Report did not even address the topic of prematurity. This is seen as a display of double standards.

6.105 The appeal scheme is an appropriate, necessary and a timely opportunity to address a continuing shortfall in Cheshire East’s 5 year housing land supply. The allegation of prematurity is not made out on either of the two bases discussed above.

Additional matters raised by interested persons

6.106 A written response has been provided to matters raised by interested persons, both at the inquiry and in the written representations.166 For the most part, these objections were not supported by relevant statutory consultees. In some other instances the objectors are simply unaware of the details of the proposal. There is no justification for elevating any of these matters to main issues and such matters as have been raised should not prevent grant of planning permission.

162 CD 7.5 163 IR 3 164 CD 6.1 page 73 Fig. 8.2 165 HG 20 166 HG 21

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Overall Conclusions on the Appellant’s Case

6.107 This proposal enjoys the benefit in favour of grant of permission created by paragraph 14 of NPPF whether or not there is a 5 year land supply. There is no sound reason for withholding planning permission. If the SofS concludes that there is no 5 year supply, the case for release of necessary housing becomes compelling.

7. POINTS RAISED BY INTERESTED PERSONS

7.1 Below are additional points raised by interested persons at the inquiry.

7.2 Concern was expressed over the purpose of Mr Boles’s letter, addressed to the Planning Inspector. Housing figures should be examined and endorsed through the local plan process; it should not be the role of this planning inquiry to establish housing growth figures. The letter is seen as an unwelcome intervention in the process. There is a fear that the letter was written to bias the Inspector in favour of supporting development.

7.3 The Green Gap is a lung for the area and it should not be narrowed or reduced simply to the road corridor of the A500.

7.4 This is not one of the preferred sites in the emerging Local Plan. The Local Plan is being drawn up by local elected representatives and it should not be overruled through the appeal process. This is a very unpopular proposal locally; all local residents are opposed to it. Building in the Green Gap between Crewe and Shavington would create a continuous sprawl, especially if seen together with other developments in this area. It would overpower and destroy the existing village character of Shavington. The village would become more urban in character. If this scheme is allowed, it will be harder to resist increments, and the creation of an additional access on to Crewe Road.

7.5 The local roads are only narrow lanes and there should be no additional traffic, which would lead to insurmountable problems of gaining access into Crewe. There are long delays at present, particularly along Gresty Lane at Gresty Bridge and northwards to Mill Lane and South Street. Ideally, the bridge over the railway at Station Top needs to be widened to carry the greater traffic flows along the Nantwich Road corridor. However, this would cost some £10 million and could not be funded by this proposed scheme.

7.6 The additional traffic would increase the risk of accidents on the local roads, especially between vehicles and pedestrians on the narrow lanes, many of which do not have adequate footways. Pinch points on the carriageways often require vehicles to mount the footways so as to pass each other, which could put children walking to school at risk of injury. The risk would be all the greater if families on the proposed development took their children to school by car; thereby adding to the congestion and the chance of conflicting movements on the roads. Ideally the carriageways should be 6.7m wide to cope with the anticipated levels of traffic; here the lanes are in the order of 5m wide, or even narrower in places, such as 4m where Gresty Lane crosses Swill Brook.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


7.7 The diversion of Crewe Road through the proposed development would bring heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) through the new housing areas, which would not represent an attractive situation for the residents. Also, the proposed new junction on Crewe Road might not represent the easiest or safest design to accommodate private cars and the turning movements of HGVs.

7.8 Installing additional traffic lights on Rope Lane close to the existing lights at the bridge over the railway would lead to confusion and congestion. There ought to be a Pelican crossing over Rope Lane to link the proposed scheme with the schools on the opposite side of Rope Lane. Reducing speed limits would contribute to improving safety for pedestrians.

7.9 Additional traffic would add to air pollution.

7.10 Swill Brook runs across the site and into housing areas to the north, including through domestic gardens. Maintenance of the watercourse is a continuing problem for local residents, especially where the Environment Agency has limited resources to dedicate to this work. The river has flooded over local gardens in the past and some houses nearby are at risk of being inundated at times of high flood levels. There is concern that the proposed drainage and flood attenuation measures will not be effective. However, it is accepted that, subject to planning conditions, adequate safeguards could be put in place.

7.11 Services and utilities in the local area are at capacity at the moment and it is doubted if enhancements will come forward in time to serve the additional houses.

7.12 The proposed primary school should have its own directly associated parking area, which would not require parents to park on the roads. Also, the playing field ought to be more closely related to the school buildings.

8. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Further points are noted below which were raised in the written representations.

8.2 The site is Green Belt land. Brownfield land should be taken for development before green field sites such as this.

8.3 Local wildlife will be disturbed, including bats, owls, birds of prey, Great Crested Newts, badgers and foxes.

8.4 The site is within a flood plain and is regularly flooded by Swill Brook. This, in itself, makes the site inappropriate for built development. Hard surfaces within the new development will only make the situation worse, preventing absorption of surface water and directing it into overloaded watercourses.

8.5 There is a need to retain land for food production.

8.6 The construction works will bring noise, mud and dust to existing local residents.

8.7 The scheme will exacerbate problems of finding parking spaces at local centres and in Crewe town centre.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


8.8 There is no need for a retirement village – there is more than enough accommodation for elderly persons in the locality.

8.9 A new pub on the site is unlikely to be either necessary or viable.

9. CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS

Planning Conditions

9.1. In the event that the appeal is to be allowed, it will be necessary to attach planning conditions to the permission. Suggested conditions were discussed at the inquiry and an agreed list of draft conditions was submitted.167 I comment on the suggested conditions below, bearing in mind the advice and guidance contained in paragraph 206 of NPPF and Section 21a of PPG - Use of Conditions.

9.2. A list of recommended conditions is included as an Appendix to this Report. The list represents my considered conclusions on the suggested scope and wording of the suggested conditions aired at the inquiry.

9.3. It is necessary to attach conditions establishing the timescale for the commencement of development and the submission of details for subsequent approval (Conditions 1-3). It is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning (Condition 4).

9.4. The development is proposed to be constructed as a number of phases. It is necessary to ensure that the details of the development for each phase and the timing of implementation of such matters as landscaping in each phase are specifically considered to ensure a high standard of development (Conditions 5-7). In the interests of ensuring a high quality design and maximising sustainability, smaller details of the location and materials for the construction of walls and fences for the houses, and facilities for the management of domestic waste should be considered as integral to the design of the development (Conditions 37-38).

9.5. To ensure that properties both on the application site and in the neighbouring areas are properly protected from the risk of flooding from Swill Brook it is necessary to require prior consideration and approval of design details for surface water drainage and foul drainage, as well as finished floor levels for the buildings on the application site (Conditions 8-11).

9.6. It is possible that parts of the site have been subject to contamination in the past. In which case, it is necessary to require a scheme of investigation to be carried out prior to the commencement of development in any phase, and that appropriate remediation is carried out before any of the buildings are occupied (Condition 12). In the same vein, previous use of the site may have left archaeological evidence which should be identified, noted and properly recorded before construction works commence (Condition 27).

167 Document HG 16

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


9.7. The site can be approached via roads which pass through established residential areas, and construction works on the site have the potential to disturb existing residents, or new residents of the scheme as each phase is successively completed. It is therefore reasonable to require compliance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (Condition 13).

9.8. In order to encourage use of sustainable modes of transport, and to minimise the use of private cars, it is reasonable to require the submission of Travel Plans both for the residential elements of the scheme and for the commercial/business elements. Similarly, it is appropriate to facilitate and encourage the use of electric vehicles to minimise use of fossil fuels for transport. To encourage and facilitate safe walking and cycling, details of footpaths and cycle routes and associated signage should be subject to prior approval (Conditions 14-16, 31-32).

9.9. Local residents and businesses, both in the vicinity of the site and on the site as development progresses across the various phases, should be safeguarded from the risk of harm to their quality of life by reason of poor air quality and disturbance from excessive noise. It is reasonable to require the development to proceed in accordance with appropriate protocols (Condition 17).

9.10. The site is largely undeveloped countryside at present and there is the likelihood of wildlife interest on the site, notably along the course of Swill Brook, the marl pit ponds and in the hedgerows. In order to minimise the loss of such ecological interest and to safeguard and retain as much as possible, it is necessary to require details of schemes for works which would affect such interests to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in detail (conditions 18-22).

9.11. The scheme has been promoted on the basis that it would include a significant amount of open space, retained trees and hedgerows, and new landscaping planting. To ensure that proper safeguards are included for the trees and hedges to be retained, and that new planting is carried out in accordance with an agreed programme and schedule of species, it is necessary to require prior approval of detailed working practices and planting regimes for these aspects of the development, together with a programme for the creation and laying out of the amenity area, allotments and play spaces (Conditions 23-26).

9.12. To ensure that the shopping centre remains as a local facility, in proportion to the development which it is intended to serve and not impinging upon the vitality and viability of other retail developments in the locality, it is necessary to impose an upper limit on the amount of retail floor space (Condition36). The proposed commercial premises have the potential to be disturbing to those who occupy the houses near to these uses. It is necessary therefore to establish limits for noise emissions, smells and external lighting, to safeguard the living conditions of local residents (Conditions 33-35).

9.13. Only the main access arrangements for the development are submitted for approval at this stage. In which case, in order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with current standards of highway design and safety, it is necessary to require the submission of details of the construction of the access points (Condition 28). In order to minimise the risk of generating excessive traffic through junctions in the centre of Crewe, it is

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


necessary to impose thresholds on the extent of occupation of the site until particular strategic elements progress of wider highway network, as well access points into the site itself, have been completed and brought into use (Conditions 29-30).

Planning Obligations

9.14. Two planning obligations have been submitted, made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; one is a planning agreement (Document HG 29), the other a unilateral undertaking (document HG 30).

9.15. The planning obligations need to be assessed against the tests set out at paragraph 204 of NPPF.

Planning agreement

9.16. The Agreement offers funding for affordable housing, primary education and open space/recreation provision. These are matters which are directly related to the development being proposed and are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Indeed, having regard to the offered contributions for education provision and recreation provision, this directly corresponds with what is being proposed in the planning application.

9.17. The Council’s Compliance Statement (Document CEC 23) and subsequent correspondence (CEC 34) explain in detail what the development plan policy context is for requiring such contributions, and gives a justification for the amount being offered. The sums being put forward for the various elements are seen to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development, by reference to the Council’s published policies and standards on the proportion of affordable housing, costing of education provision and amount of recreation space for a new residential development. It is clear what the offered contributions would be used for.

Unilateral undertaking

9.18. The unilateral undertaking proposes six financial contributions. Again, the Council’s Compliance Statement addresses the relevance, need and scale of the offered contributions having regard to what is being proposed in the planning application and the likely implications of the scheme.

9.19. Four elements of the undertaking relate to off-site highway improvements; either physical works or traffic regulation orders. £590,000 is offered for works to Cheerbrook Roundabout and £955,000 for works to Crewe Green Roundabout168. The Cheerbrook Roundabout is to the west of the appeal site, where the A500 and A51 meet. This is part of the A51 corridor, where the transport modelling says traffic from the appeal site would exacerbate present delays at peak periods. Similarly, the appeal scheme would add to the traffic using the already heavily used Crewe Green Roundabout, to the east of the appeal site where the A534 and A5020 join. The offered contributions are therefore put forward as funding for amelioration to take account of the additional traffic generated by the appeal scheme over and above the

168 See Plan Insp.2

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


alterations to these junctions planned to accommodate the traffic impact associated with the growth allowed for in CELP.

9.20. In the same spirit of amelioration or mitigation, £15,000 is offered to fund the costs of promoting a traffic management scheme on Crewe Road, to address any possible highway safety implications of increased traffic in the vicinity of the appeal site. This could include a Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the present speed limit of 40mph.

9.21. £250,000 is offered for improvements to the South Street /Catherine Street / Gresty Road junction (Junction 4). The Council dispute whether any works are possible to this junction which would achieve a satisfactory amelioration for the additional delays which it says would be generated by the appeal scheme. Indeed, the Council’s Compliance Statement does not address this aspect of the offered contributions. Nevertheless, the sum is offered to be used flexibly; either for the installation of traffic lights, or any other measures which are likely to lead to an improvement.

9.22. In order to encourage use of alternatives to the private car for journeys, the undertaking offers a £150,000 annual subsidy for a bus service for the first 5 years of the development, as well as £80,000 towards the costs of supporting sustainable transport. Suggested Conditions 14 and 15 require the submission of Travel Plans for residential and commercial development on the scheme

9.23. If it is not possible to implement or enforce any of the elements of the offered contributions (in particular the £250,00 for the South Street/Catherine Street/Gresty Road junction – Junction 4), Clause 6.2 of the undertaking confirms that such a failure will not invalidate any other provisions of the undertaking.

9.24. Although the Council is unwilling to accept that the £250,000 offered for improvements to Junction 4 is appropriate, the evidence at the inquiry was that whereas the proposed scheme would be likely to exacerbate the current (or modelled) delays at this junction, some works would bring forward an improvement were the junction to be left as it is. If the Secretary of State accepts that this would be so, then all of the elements of the offered undertaking can be regarded as meeting the three tests of NPPF paragraph 204.

9.25. If the Secretary of State does not consider that the £250,000 contribution for works to Junction 4 is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, then Clause 3.3 of the undertaking states that excluding this would not negate the other elements of the offered undertaking.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10. CONCLUSIONS

Main Considerations

10.1 Taking into account the putative reasons for refusal, the evidence given at the inquiry and the written representations, there are four main considerations to be addressed in this appeal. These are:

1. Whether the proposed scheme would fulfil the three roles for sustainable development identified at paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework; in particular, having regard to the development plan policies relating to intrusions into a Green Gap, loss of countryside, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and loss of ancient hedgerows.

2. Whether there is a 5 year housing land supply in the local authority area and how this may impinge upon the applicability of current development plan polices.

3. The effect of the proposed development on the free flow of traffic on the surrounding road network.

4. Whether a grant of planning permission for the proposed scheme would unacceptably prejudice the preparation and adoption of the emerging Local Plan, with particular regard to distribution of housing sites and identification of a Green Belt extension.

10.2 Each of these main considerations is discussed in turn below. The numbers in square brackets [n.nn] are references to preceding paragraphs in this Report.

Introduction

10.3 As required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and acknowledged at paragraphs 11, 12 and 196 of NPPF, the starting point for determination of this appeal is to consider whether the proposed scheme accords with the development plan policies. The development plan for this area comprises the saved policies of the BCNRLP, which was adopted in 2005 [3.1].

10.4 Policy NE.2 categorises all land outside the defined settlement boundaries of Crewe and its satellite villages as open countryside [5.32]. In the open countryside Policy RES.5 seeks to restrict new house building to infilling within an existing built-up frontage, or housing which is considered essential to meet the needs of an agricultural or forestry worker [5.41].

10.5 The underlying objective of Policy NE.2 is to safeguard the countryside both for agricultural production, and for its character and attractiveness [5.7]. The appeal site is clearly separated from the present built-up area by the railway line running just to the north of Gresty Lane [2.9]. It is an area in active agricultural use, but perhaps not very intensively [2.3]. There are views into and across the site and it can be seen as part of the rural countryside, albeit with a major dual carriageway (the A500) to the south [2.7], some built development adjacent to its north-eastern corner[2.4], and a semi-urbanised character immediately to the west along Rope Lane [2.6].

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.6 It is agreed by both parties to the appeal that the site lies outside the settlement boundaries of Crewe and that the proposed scheme would not fall within the allowances of Policy RES.5 [5.41].

10.7 Policy NE.4 establishes Green Gaps in the open countryside so as to ensure the continued separation between Crewe and neighbouring towns and villages. The extent of the Green Gaps is defined on the Proposals Map (Document CEC 21). It is accepted by both parties that the appeal site lies within the defined Shavington / Weston / Crewe Green Gap [5.7, 6.12].

10.8 There is, therefore, no disagreement that the proposed scheme does not comply with these policies of the development plan.

10.9 The site includes some agricultural land which falls within categories 2 and 3a; which is the best and most versatile agricultural land [5.51, 6.31]. Policy NE.12 seeks to resist the loss of such land unless the need for it is supported in the Local Plan, that the development could not be accommodated on land of lower quality, and that on balance the benefits in terms of sustainability outweigh the loss of good quality agricultural land. Here the land is not identified for development in the Local Plan. Again, on the face of it, there is direct conflict with the policies of the development plan on this point [5.51, 6.31].

10.10 The site is crossed by several well-established hedgerows, one of which marks a township or parish boundary, and others are field boundaries from the 19th century which pre-date the Inclosure Acts (ie before 1845) [5.54]. These are, therefore, ‘important hedgerows’ in terms of the Hedgerow Regulations169. The Council’s putative reasons for refusal refer to Policy NE.5 and that policy’s wish to retain hedgerows, but that policy is primarily concerned with safeguarding nature conservation interest and habitats. At the inquiry it was agreed that the relevant BCNRLP policy is BE.16, which seeks to protect sites of known or presumed archaeological interest [6.33]. Where possible, the expectation is that (amongst other matters) the design of the development avoids unnecessary damage to the archaeological remains that are considered worthy of preservation in situ.

10.11 The hedges are not archaeological remains, nor are they designated heritage assets, and therefore, in simple terms, there is no conflict with either Policy NE.5 or Policy BE.16 [6.35]. However, and having regard to paragraph 135 of NPPF, this is not to disregard the significance of these as ‘important hedgerows’, and this is a consideration which will need to be weighed in the balance.

10.12 The interim conclusion to be reached at this point is that the proposed development does not accord with the policies of the development plan, and it is therefore necessary to consider whether there are material considerations which would justify making a decision otherwise. This leads into the first of the main considerations.

169 SI 1997 No.1160 Countryside: The Hedgerow Regulations 1997

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


1. Whether the proposed scheme would fulfil the three roles for sustainable development identified at paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework; in particular, having regard to the development plan policies relating to intrusions into a Green Gap, loss of countryside, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and loss of ancient hedgerows.

10.13 The primary point is the situation raised at paragraph 14 of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This establishes the principle of favourable consideration being given to sustainable development. Paragraph 14 goes on to say that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, then planning permission should be granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

10.14 In this case, the BCNRLP was written to guide development decisions up until 2011 [6.7]. The saving direction issued by the Secretary of State in 2005 recognised this and endorsed the role of BCNRLP as a development policy document, until such time as it was replaced, with the expectation that a replacement plan would be quickly prepared [6.4]. The Council is preparing the CELP as a replacement for BCNRLP, but this is at only a fairly early stage in the adoption process, it having now been submitted for formal examination, with the hearing sessions for the Examination programmed to begin in September 2014 [5.3].

10.15 Because BCNRLP was formulated to accommodate the planned level of growth up until 2011, policies to manage the distribution of new development around Crewe must now be considered out of date, both in terms of the amount of growth to be planned for, and the limits BCNRLP places on the extent of the built-up areas.

10.16 Paragraph 49 of NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development and “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. I turn to the matter of housing land supply in greater detail below but, if the Secretary of State accepts that there is not a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, this adds strength to the argument that at least some of the BCNRLP policies - insofar as they control the identification and release of land for housing development - cannot be regarded as up-to-date, and this would support the positive presumption put forward in NPPF paragraph 14.

10.17 Paragraph 215 of NPPF allows weight to be attached to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this case, whereas the BCNRLP housing supply figures and, by association, policies to restrict the extent of built up area, are now out of date this does not mean that all policies of BCNRLP must be considered to be out of date. The relevance of other policies can be taken into account, according to their ‘fit’ with NPPF.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.18 With these caveats in mind, the policy conflicts noted above are considered topic-by-topic below.

Development in the open countryside

10.19 The site is seen by the Council to be in the open countryside and hence Policy NE.2 should be applied. ‘Open countryside’ for the purposes of this policy is defined as the areas outside the defined limits of built-up development [5.41]. Because the housing supply figures and the associated limits of built-up are out of date, the corollary of this is that the area over which Policy NE.2 applies has to be seen to be flexible in order to accommodate the future planned growth for Crewe and the surrounding area [5.66].

10.20 In this context, as an area of land adjacent to the present limit of built development, the appeal site could be regarded as potentially one of the areas where the next period of planned growth for Crewe could take place. In the circumstances envisaged in NPPF paragraph 215, it would be rational to accept that the boundary of the area over which Policy NE.2 applies is no longer fixed. That is, if there is a justifiable need to release land for further development, NE.2 cannot be regarded as a bar to such releases. It would not be appropriate to dismiss this appeal solely on the basis that the proposed development would not meet the criteria for built development in the countryside set out in Policy NE.2 and RES.5.

10.21 Although the appeal site is seen as part of the countryside, it is relatively contained visually [5.46, 6.27]. It is not a prominent site in the landscape, and it is not seen in long-distance views. Development on this site would be seen from the adjacent roads – notably Rope Lane and Gresty Lane [6.27], but it would not be readily seen from the A500, and it would be separated from Crewe Road on its eastern side by an undeveloped field and hedges on the edge of the site and along the Crewe Road frontage [2.8]. It is proposed to retain as much as possible of the present hedgerows and individual trees on the site, and advance planting can be specified ahead of the commencement of development, to soften the visual impact of new buildings as they are introduced across the site.

10.22 This is not a designated or protected landscape [6.21]; it is not an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, nor has it been subject to any local landscape protection policies. It is within the LFW7 Barthomley Character Area, as identified in the Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment document [5.2, 6.22]. This character area extends widely around Crewe. As is the case with the consideration of the other likely effects of this scheme on the countryside, the landscape impact here would be little different – if at different at all – to that on other sites around Crewe [6.24]. The Council accept that other green field sites – also within the same landscape character area - will need to be taken for development to meet the levels of growth looked for in CELP [5.32].

10.23 The visual impact of this new development would be medium (the appellant’s view) or high (the Council’s view), [5.45, 5.46, 5.48]. The difference between the parties on the seriousness of the impact appears to be one of degree, rather than a fundamental disagreement. Both accept that the development would represent a loss of countryside and the new development would be seen. The main point is that the new development would be visible as an

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


urban extension, albeit one with carefully considered screen and landscape planting. It was accepted by the Council’s witness that new development does not have to be invisible. It is also agreed between the parties that whilst irreversible, the effect would be localised [6.24].

10.24 That being so, the degree of change in this context - next to the present urban edge of Crewe and with a semi-urbanised street scene in Rope Lane [2.6] - the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the countryside should not be an overriding objection if it is seen to be necessary to meet housing needs. This point is explored further below, under an examination of the 5-year housing land supply.

Green Gap

10.25 The proposed development would intrude into the present separation between Crewe and Shavington / Weston, which Policy NE.4 seeks to maintain [5.7, 6.12]. The Green Gap policy is more than a policy which seeks to restrict housing supply [5.32], and its purpose is not simply to safeguard the countryside – that is the purpose of Policy NE.2. This was accepted by the Secretary of State to be the role of similar Green Wedge policy as discussed in the Coalville, North West Leicestershire appeal170 [5.35, 5.66]. The objective of NE.4 is to prevent the merger of Crewe with (amongst other places) Shavington; to retain the separate identities of each of the settlements. In this case the Council, strongly supported by local residents [7.3, 7.4], wishes to ensure that Shavington is not merged into the urban area of Crewe and that the character of the village should be protected.

10.26 At the inquiry it was confirmed that there is no published report or study which analyses the character of Shavington, nor is there any published supplementary planning guidance which identifies key features of the village or its setting which have to be regarded as essential features to be safeguarded and protected.

10.27 Plan 3 in document IR 2 shows the separation distances [6.27], and Plan 1 in Document IR 1 shows the extent of the Green Gap which would exist, taking account of the appeal scheme and other development permitted nearby. The degree of separation at present varies between 860m and 250m [6.27]. At the western end, there is built development on the western side of Rope Lane almost right up to the bridge over the A500 [2.11].

10.28 North of the bridge over the A500, along Rope Lane are the school, the leisure centre and the Medical Centre which can be seen as semi-urbanising elements tenuously linking Shavington and the southern edge of Crewe [2.6], although the railway line and the bridge over the railway represent a distinct physical divide, and there is no obvious visual connection between the street scene of Rope Lane and the more intensive urban development north of the railway [2.9].

10.29 The proposed scheme would bring built development within 240m of the edge of Shavington on the eastern side of Rope Lane. This distance takes into

170 Appeal Ref: APP/G2435/A/11/2158154

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


account the planning permission granted on appeal on the eastern side of Rope Lane, adjacent to the present housing. The appeal scheme would be perceived as a southern advance of the Crewe built up area towards Shavington, and would almost halve the present separation in terms of liner distance.

10.30 Further east, the degree of separation is presently between about 809m and 890m, and this would be reduced to between 320m and 520m. Having said that, the A500 is an undeveloped (apart from the road itself) corridor between the two settlements, with the width of a field between the A500 and the southern edge of the proposed scheme, and a swathe of agricultural land approximately 150m – 300mwide between the northern edge of Shavington and the A500. There would also be established hedges along the edges of the cutting which the A500 runs through, as well as hedges and the small wood along the appeal site boundary, and hedges around the fields to the south of the A500 [2.3, 2.7]. This physical divide, together with the hedges, would maintain a level of visual separation between the appeal scheme and the present edge of Shavington.

10.31 In the north-east corner of the site, the proposed new development would come to within 280m of the nearest buildings in Shavington on Crewe Road. This should be seen in context of the proximity of Shavington to the Basford West development area, on the northern side of A500 and to the east of Crewe Road, Here the Council has recently approved development (February 2014)171 which would come to within about 270m of the northern edge of Shavington [5.101].

10.32 Taking these points together, the proposed scheme would not result in the built up areas of Crewe and Shavington being merged; there would be a degree of separation both in terms of measured distance, and visual separation because of the fields and hedges [6.28, 6.29]. The A500 corridor, although in cutting for most of its alignment in this locality, would also mark a divide between the two settlements. However, notwithstanding the measured separation distances, the tree and hedge screening and the linear divide of the A500, it is clear that the local residents consider that the proposed development would unacceptably erode the sense of separation between Crewe and Shavington [7.4]. It is this perception of separation which underlies the purpose of Policy NE.4. This point needs to be weighed in the overall planning balance.

Best and most versatile agricultural land

10.33 As noted above, parts of the site are within the higher agricultural land classifications of 2 and 3a. However, this is not of great agricultural significance. The higher grades are found across parts of a number of parcels or fields, and no one field is made up of land only in one or other of the higher grades. Farming practice is to select a crop which suits the lowest grade in any one field; there are practical difficulties of growing a higher performance crop on one part of a field, and another crop on the remainder.

171 Site CS2 in the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CD 6.1) pp191-194.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


In which case, for practical purposes, the appeal site cannot be regarded as overall representing greater than 3b grade land [6.31].

10.34 The appellant did not present evidence to demonstrate that all other options have been exhausted, to show that it is not possible to accommodate additional urban development at Crewe on land of a lower grade [5.51]. Having said that, the majority of land around Crewe is within the best and most versatile categories and it would be difficult not to use such land if the town is to develop and expand to the degree envisaged in the CELP. It would be unreasonable to argue that the appeal should be dismissed for this reason.

Historic hedgerows

10.35 The important hedgerows are not designated heritage assets [6.35], but their significance should not be disregarded. The hedges do have some historic and cultural significance in that one hedge crossing the site - approximately east-west and then turning southeast - marks an ancient parish boundary, and others delineate a field pattern which characterised the countryside prior to the Inclosure Acts [5.54].

10.36 Nevertheless, the hedges are not unique; they are fairly typical of the countryside hereabouts and it is highly likely that any land taken for urban expansion around Crewe would have a similar pattern of hedgerows with a similar cultural and historical significance.

10.37 It is proposed that as much of the hedgerows as possible should be retained within the development. The rationale for this is partly to retain and respect contribution the hedges make to the landscape, partly to give some structure to the scheme and to delineate phases of the development, and partly to provide screening and to visually break up the development. That is, the hedges would not be entirely lost and it would still be possible to follow their routes and to recognise and interpret their historical or cultural relevance, albeit in a different (urbanised) context [6.35].

10.38 Gaps will need to be created in the hedges to permit the construction of the main spine road through the scheme, and to form access points into the residential areas. Document HG 22 is a plan showing the present hedges superimposed on an outline of the illustrative Masterplan layout. This estimates that some 520m of hedge would be lost from an overall total of 4,022.93m – or 12.93% removed [5.55]. However, that calculation has seemingly not taken into account gaps which currently exist in the hedges at various points to allow access between fields [2.3]. But even allowing for that, and subject to the actual details and design to be considered as reserved maters, the scheme would probably result in the loss of some 10% of the existing hedges.

10.39 In view of the fact that development anywhere else around Crewe is likely to take land with similar hedges of similar age and significance, it would be disproportionate to regard this alone as justification for dismissing the appeal.

Other sustainability considerations

10.40 Should the scheme be thought to be acceptable in terms of the four topics discussed above, it would be relevant - whether following the Davis judgment

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


or not - to come to an overall view on whether the scheme could be regarded as sustainable development [5.14].

10.41 In terms of accessibility, the site is reasonably close to the centre of Crewe, which has a good range of shops and services. The residents on the site would have access to employment opportunities within Crewe on established and proposed industrial estates and business parks. Crewe station is within 1½ - 2 miles of most of the appeal site, and there are good rail services to other main centres in the Midlands and the North-West [2.1]. The scheme includes an obligation to support a local bus service and there is an obligation to produce Travel Plans for both the residential and commercial developments on the site which, amongst other matters, would encourage walking and cycling [9.22]. That is, the scheme offers realistic opportunities for access to a wide range of goods and services locally and without the need to rely upon use of private cars. This could be regarded as fulfilling an economic and an environmental role.

10.42 Within the scheme there are proposed to be a local centre for shops and a community hall. The Illustrative Masterplan also shows a public house and a primary school, plus a number of play areas and small greens or parks and community allotments [4.4, 5.46]. On the opposite side of Rope Lane – that is, almost immediately adjacent to the appeal site – are a secondary school, a modern sports or leisure centre and the Medical Centre [2.6]. The scheme thus offers the opportunity for the residents to form a community which could be self-sufficient for at least local social, recreational educational and cultural purposes. This could be seen as meeting the social role of sustainable development. The scheme would include some employment in the local shops and services and in the retirement / care village, and these shops and services would fulfil a social and an economic role.

10.43 Drawing together these elements of the first main consideration, on the basis that, for the most part, the proposed development is unlikely to be any more harmful to the countryside than any other scheme around the periphery of Crewe, and the CELP is anticipating growth which would inevitably require such areas for development, the appeal scheme cannot be dismissed for these reasons alone; the environmental harm the appeal scheme would cause to the countryside could be regarded as ‘neutral’ in this context. The appeal scheme is put forward as one where the principles of sustainable development underlie the design ethos and the scheme could be regarded as fulfilling the social, economic and environmental roles for sustainable development, as identified at paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

10.44 The one reservation is the extent to which the proposed scheme intrudes into the present Green Gap, which is perhaps not a concern about sustainability, but more a matter of strategic policy. This point is addressed below in an assessment of whether the scheme would be regarded as premature, having regard to the evolution of CELP.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


2. Whether there is a 5 year housing land supply in the local authority area and how this may impinge upon the applicability of current development plan polices.

Full, objectively assessed need

10.45 The first stage in considering whether the Council has a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites is to come to a view on what is the full objective assessment of need (FOAN).

10.46 In the absence of a figure for the FOAN which has been tested through a local plan Examination, it is necessary at a s.78 appeal to consider what the FOAN might be [5.86, 6.67]. Having said that, a s.78 inquiry is not able to give a thorough examination of competing claims as to what the FOAN actually is. To arrive at a definitive conclusion on the FOAN it is necessary to explore the validity or relevance of all of the various statistical inputs, assumptions and methodologies. From the evidence at this inquiry, it is disputed as to whether this should also take into account a plan’s economic strategy, employment forecasts and affordable housing needs - ie the ‘policy on’ influences.

10.47 Whatever factors have to be seen to be necessary to determine the FOAN, the full evidence base to support such competing claims, and the range of expertise needed to explore and test the claims was not present at the inquiry for this appeal. That discussion might also need to consider whether the CELP’s interpretation of what FOAN encompasses accords with the Hunston [5.86 etc., 6.62 etc.] and Gallagher judgments [5.88 etc., 6.61etc.]. Indeed, the Gallagher judgment indicates that arriving at the local plan requirement is a three-stage process starting with a forecast of need, progressing through to a calculation of the FOAN and then setting the requirement. The appropriate forum for that exercise is the local plan Examination, and it would be neither helpful nor adequately justified for a decision in this appeal to pre-empt the outcome of that Examination by coming to what might be regarded as the definitive figure for the FOAN (or perhaps the requirement) on the basis of the limited evidence and fairly narrow discussion heard at this inquiry.

10.48 The Gallagher judgment sets out three concepts or stages in determining the amount of housing which should be applied to establish a local plan’s housing strategy. According to Gallagher, the FOAN is not just a projection of household formation, it also has to take into account the likelihood of matters such as a major upturn in the economy. The FOAN is then the basis for further adjustments to take account of policies which could either constrain that figure, or reflect ambitions for growth over and above simple statistical projections, arriving at a requirement figure. Paragraph 47 of NPPF expects a local plan to meet only one of the three concepts – the FOAN. That is, whether the eventual local plan requirement figure may be greater (or lesser) than the FOAN is seemingly not relevant when applying the test of the first paragraph of paragraph 47. Having said that, it should be noted that the Gallagher judgment and its three-step concept post-dates the publication of the NPPF (and the submission of CELP for Examination) and has perhaps introduced an element of uncertainty as to which figure - ie the FOAN or the

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


subsequent requirement figure - should be used to address the expectations of paragraph 47.

10.49 Looking at what the FOAN figure might be, what the Council says itself is the FOAN in the recently submitted draft CELP should be pertinent. The Council has put that figure forward after proper consideration of the relevant factors and consultation with the various stakeholders, and the Council would be defending that figure at the Examination as one which is correct, justified and reliable. In these circumstances, it is hard to understand why the Council put forward evidence at this inquiry to disassociate itself from the figure promoted as the FOAN in its own draft local plan and, indeed, to actively argue against that figure being the one which has to be taken into account in this appeal.

10.50 Whilst the Council at this inquiry argued that the FOAN should be lower than the CELP figure, it is clear that others believe it should be higher [5.96]. This is shown in the questions which the Inspector conducting the local plan Examination has asked of the stakeholders in order to explore the differences of view172. Nevertheless, as noted above, it is necessary for the purposes of this appeal to come to a view on what should be regarded as the FOAN on the basis of the evidence presented at this inquiry.

FOAN for the purposes of this appeal

10.51 Reference was made to a number of High Court decisions and the Court of Appeal Decision in Hunston which – amongst other matters - looked at how to determine the FOAN [5.86].

10.52 The point made in Hunston is that, whereas the housing figures in the RS may be the ones which have been most recently tested at an examination, these are not necessarily the reliable basis for decision making – time has moved on since the RS examination and, indeed, the RS has been revoked [5.86].

10.53 For the purposes of this inquiry, the Council argued that the DCLG household projections for Cheshire East produce a figure of 1,050 dpa to 2021, and this should be taken as the FOAN [5.95]. However, that figure has to be open to question, not least because the CELP establishes a new strategic vision and puts forward housing and economic growth aims to meet that vision, which depends upon a greater housing provision than a simple statistical household projection.

10.54 Paragraph 47 of NPPF states that the Council should use the evidence base of the local plan to ensure that it meets the FOAN for market and affordable housing. The CELP still has to be scrutinised at Examination and therefore the figures put forward in the CELP cannot be accepted as conclusive at this stage; objections have been lodged that the figures are too great and – perhaps more significantly – the figures are not high enough173.

172 Document SB4, Appendix 5 173 The Inspector conducting the Examination has queried the justification for a figure of 1,350 per

annum, wondering whether this would be sufficient to meet the employment growth strategy of the

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.55 However, Strategic Priority 2 of CELP174 is a commitment to providing the FOAN for the Borough. The submitted CELP is based on a projected minimum requirement of 27,000 houses over a 20 year period 2010- 2030175, which is an average of 1,350 per year. Paragraph 8.8 of CELP plainly states that the 27,000 figure is the FOAN [6.65]. It is therefore curious – if not inconsistent – that having submitted the CELP for examination in May 2014 [5.129], the Council appeared at this inquiry (two months later) arguing that it is not correct to regard an annual figure of 1,350 as the FOAN for the purposes of this appeal.

10.56 Much discussion took place over whether the Council was putting forward a realistic alternative figure at this appeal. The Court of Appeal decision in Hunston determined that the housing need was an assessment to be made irrespective of the effect of other policies [5.86]. In that case (in St Albans) it was judged that when assessing the housing need figure the constraints Green Belt policy would impose on the ability to meet that calculated need should be disregarded. That is, housing need is the ‘policy off’ figure, and housing requirement would be the ‘policy on’ (ie constrained) figure.

10.57 The current advice at paragraph 2a-004 of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is that an assessment of need should not take constraints into account. This would correspond with the High Court judgment in Gallagher. That is, housing need is a ‘policy off’ figure [5.89, 5.90]. But Gallagher also says that a need figure which has been arrived at simply by applying household projections is not the FOAN.

10.58 The Council argued that the policy off figure for Cheshire East is 1,150 dwellings per year. This is the RS requirement which is the only figure which has been through a public examination [5.84]. It also corresponds closely with a projection of households up to 2030, based on the 2013 Office for National Statistics (ONS) household projections [5.93]. PPG notes that household projections is the appropriate starting point for calculating housing need, but the PPG goes on to note that the household projection-based estimate may require adjustment to take into account factors which are not reflected in past trends. PPG paragraph 2a-016 points out that ONS 2011 based projections only cover a period up to 2021; projections beyond 2021 would need to consider if different trends would be likely after that year. This would correspond with recent academic views published by the Town and Country Planning Association (Document HG 9) [6.70].

10.59 At this point it is appropriate to look at whether performance against the BCNRLP is a reliable indicator of what is required under current planning expectations (as given in in NPPF). The housing figures in BCNRLP were derived from the RS. The RS was based on a strategy which sought to focus or concentrate growth in the main urban areas of Merseyside and Greater Manchester [5.92], which inevitably resulted in a constrained figure for Crewe

plan and if it would produce the required number of affordable houses (see Document SB 4, Appendix 5, point vi).

174 CD 6.1 page 51 175 CD 6.1, Policy PG 1 and paragraph 9.4

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


and Nantwich which did not reflect the actual potential for growth and the associated need locally. The DCLG 2003 based projections for the RS period (after the draft RS had been submitted for examination) produced a figure of 1,300 private household per annum for Crewe and Nantwich Borough176. This supports the view that the 1,150 RS figure has to be seen as a constrained figure. That is, because past trends have been used as the basis for housing projections, the projections now need to be adjusted to take account of previous supressed demand.

10.60 At the inquiry the Council maintained that, because of economic conditions locally, it is appropriate to use the same assumptions used for the household formation projections up to 2021 into the period up to 2030. That may be so, but this is a point which is more appropriately argued at the Examination into the CELP, where the full range of views – and the data to support those views – would be before the Inspector. As commented above, it is not appropriate at a s.78 inquiry, where only two parties are represented, to come to firm conclusions on the assumptions made, methodology used and eventual reliability of the various projections.

10.61 Whereas, according to Hunston, the ‘policy on’ figure has to be regarded as the housing need, in practice this would seem to be a figure which has been arrived at by applying established or higher-level policies and which has the effect of supressing or constraining the requirement [6.62]. Following the advice in PPG, formulating a housing requirement for a local plan needs to take account of economic modelling, market factors etc., [6.63], and has to take account of previous ‘policy on’ constraints and how those have influenced past performance, before applying these factors and influences to arrive at a figure which reflects the needs of the local authority area.

10.62 The ‘policy on’ adjustment would only be applied at that stage, and – as was the case in Hunston – seemingly only where this is likely to lead to the need to adjust the need figure downwards to arrive at a requirement which would be achievable given the constraints. It would be inconsistent with paragraph 150 of NPPF - which says that local plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities - to accept that matters such as migration and demographic change, economic modelling, market factors, and growth aspirations are part of the ‘policy on’ stage of identifying the housing requirement. Such factors are part of the process of identifying the “vision and aspiration”. Gallagher says that ‘policy on’ could lead to a figure higher than the FOAN. In this case there are no overriding ‘policy on’ factors (such as Green Belt, National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designations) [6.51] which would require the housing need assessment to be adjusted downwards on the basis that it was not possible to accommodate the aspirations which have been factored into the preparation of the local plan. The CELP does envisage some adjustments to the Green Belt boundaries, but this is not perceived to be an overriding constraint affecting the ambitions of the Council.

176 Document SB4, Para 3.11

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.63 Taking account of the above, and in particular noting what the CELP itself says is the FOAN, until such time as the CELP figures have been tested at Examination and carried forward in to an adopted local plan, it would be reasonable to accept that the FOAN for East Cheshire is the figure given in the CELP; that is, an average of 1,350 dwellings per annum. Accordingly, this should be taken as the basis for assessing the 5-year housing land supply. To accept the lower figure of 1,150 would imply acceptance of, or possibly support for, a housing strategy outcome that is below one which is adjusted for historic economic downturns or supressed needs, and which would not reflect the aspirations of the local plan prepared by the Council.

10.64 If the figures in the CELP are to be taken as the basis of assessing whether the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply, Policy PG 1 and paragraph 8.19 of the CELP sets out a phased ‘ramping up’ of the housing supply provision, with 1,200 dwelling per year given as the figure for 2010-2015 [5.94]. With 27,000 as the overall 20-year aspiration, this would require a rate of supply increasing progressively from 1,200, to 1,300, then 1,400, and finally 1,500 per annum over four successive 5-year periods. However, this phased incremental strategy has not been tested at Examination and, it was noted at the inquiry, this approach is the subject of objections [5.96].

5% or 20% buffer

10.65 Paragraph 47 of NPPF requires a buffer of sites to be available, above the number of sites needed to satisfy the FOAN. This should be 5% where the availability of sites is sufficient to meet the FOAN. Where there has been a persistent under delivery of housing the buffer should be increased to 20%.

10.66 The housing supply (or delivery as it is termed in NPPF) is the number of completions over a given period. The approach in NPPF suggests that, even if sufficient sites had been made available, if these were not built out at a rate which corresponds with the FOAN, then the response to this is to make a greater number of sites available, giving a greater opportunity for sites to be completed and for overall performance not to be distorted or depressed by sites being left undeveloped, or built-out at a slower rate.

10.67 In this context, the 20% is not be interpreted as a penalty; as explained in NPPF, it would only draw forward allocations which would otherwise be programmed later into the plan period [6.72]. That is, it only seeks to boost the rate of supply within the planned FOAN, not to increase the total number overall.

10.68 The Council argued that housing construction has been supressed by economic recession and market conditions, and recent past performance does not necessarily indicate what can – or should – be achieved. It was argued that performance over a longer period should be taken as the indicator of what should be a realistic assessment of what can be achieved, in that this would even out troughs and peaks in the housing supply [5.77]. This would be consistent with PPG advice at paragraph 3-035.

10.69 It is true that the recent economic recession does not represent a typical period in the economy where finance to support house construction and purchases has been constrained. It may therefore, be unfair to treat the

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


period from 2009 – 2014 as representative of a ‘normal’ rate of completions in Cheshire East. A longer view would give a fairer indication.

10.70 Figures produced by the Council at the inquiry (Document CEC16) show that 10,400 houses were completed over the period 2005-2014, an annual average of 974. Looking at this performance on a year-by-year basis, the period 2003-2010 has to set against a delivery target of 1,150 – the figure set by the RS in BCNRLP - and thereafter against the delivery target of 1,350 in CELP. Taking the Council’s table CEC16 and applying the 1,350 figure against the relevant years gives the following results:

Table 1 – Performance against local plan housing numbers (CELP average)

Year

Completions

BCNRLP / CELP

Under/ over

provision

Cumulative % of plan figure

2003/04 1,264 1,150 114 114 110%

2004/05 1,287 1,150 137 251 112%

2005/06 1,498 1,150 348 599 130%

2006/07 1,295 1,150 145 744 113%

2007/08 1,365 1,150 215 959 118%

2008/09 741 1,150 -409 550 64%

2009/10 634 1,150 -516 34 55%

2010/11 466 1,350 -884 -850 34% 2011/12 535 1,350 -815 -1,665 39%

2012/13 652 1,350 -698 -2,363 48%

2013/14 663 1,350 -687 -3,050 49%

Total to 2013/14

10,400 13,450 -3,050 -3,050 77%

Average 974 1,223

10.70 From Table 1 it can be seen that the completions exceeded the development plan requirement over the period 2003-2008. Thereafter, performance dipped dramatically such that against the 1,350 figure between only 34% and 49% was completed in any one year. The drop in performance against the development plan expectation since 2008 can be explained by the impact of the recession, but even taking an average over the 11 year period recorded in the table above, only 77% of the development requirement has been delivered.

10.71 There has been a period of six consecutive years (2008-2014) where there has been a shortfall. Whereas these years correspond with the period of the economic recession, this is a continuous six-year period where delivery has been significantly below expectations (from 64% down to as low as 34%). This shows that the record of under-delivery has been consistent and therefore it would be appropriate to apply a buffer of 20%.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Backlog

10.72 To this calculated supply figure has to be added the backlog of dwellings not completed. Paragraph 3-035 of PPG acknowledges that a variety of factors may be relevant in assessing which buffer should be applied. Indeed, the guidance acknowledges that there is no universally applicable test or definition of under delivery, and hence there is scope for discretion over how this is to be assessed, depending on the circumstances and local history of delivery. With no firm guidance on methodology on how to conclude on whether the 5% or 20% buffer should be applied, it may be helpful to assess the situation by using the data in a variety of formulations.

10.73 The Council contend that the net backlog is 1,763 dwellings, based on performance since April 2003 – March 2013 and assessed against the RS requirement of 1,150 dwelling per year. Using the Council’s figures set out in Document CEC16, this figure rises to 2,250 by March 2014.

10.74 The appellant argues that the backlog is 2,913 dwellings, derived from shortfall against the CELP average figure of 1,350 dwelling per annum over the period the emerging local plan is intended to apply (April 2010 – December 2013 – 3 years, 9 months). The information on CEC16 allows that figure to be up-dated for four full years, which would come to 3,084.

10.75 Using Table 1 set out above, the backlog over the period used by the Council, but using the RS/BCNRLP figure of 1,150 until 2010, and the CELP figure of 1,350 thereafter, the backlog is 3,050 – a very similar figure to that argued by the appellant.

10.76 Document HG 13 (produced by the appellant) notes that the Council had claimed 487 completions as an allowance against C2 / student accommodation. The appellant does not accept this in their summary of housing land supply because to include it would not be consistent with the advice in PPG177 that an allowance can only be made for this type of accommodation if it is specifically factored into the local plan. At the inquiry the Council accepted that the local plan does not make specific allowance for C2 / student accommodation and it was not factored in to the July 2014 update of the Position Statement (Document CEC 16).

10.78 The approach favoured by PPG178 is that the shortfall should be made up in the first five years, rather than spread over the whole plan period. That is, the five year supply requirement is 1,350 x 5 = 6,750 + 3,050 = 9,800 +20% (1,960), gives a total 5 year requirement of 11,760. This represents 2,352 dwellings per year over the next five years.

10.79 Table 2 below sets out the same analysis, but applied to the CELP Policy PG 1 incremental approach. With 1,150 per year for 2009-2010 (the RS/BCNRLP period) and 1,200 per year for 2010-2014, the situation is not so severe, with completions of 10,400 against a total requirement of 12,850, which gives a cumulative backlog of 2,450 (10,400 would represent 81% of the reduced

177 PPG paragraph 3-037 178 PPG paragraph 3-035

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


requirement). This would still trigger the need for a 20% buffer as 2,450 would be a persistent (i.e. six consecutive years 2008-2014) shortfall during the 11 year period of 19%. The 5 year requirement would be 1,150 + (4 x 1,200) = 5,950 +2,450 = 8,400 + 1,680 (20%): a total 5 year requirement of 10,080. This would represent 2,016 dwellings per year over the next five years. However, because this incremental approach is subject to objections at the local plan Examination this alternative analysis has to be regarded with considerable reserve.

Table 2 – Performance against local plan housing numbers (CELP incremental strategy)

Year

Completions

BCNRLP / CELP

Under/ over

provision

Cumulative % of plan figure

2003/04 1,264 1,150 114 114 110%

2004/05 1,287 1,150 137 251 112% 2005/06 1,498 1,150 348 599 130%

2006/07 1,295 1,150 145 744 113%

2007/08 1,365 1,150 215 959 118%

2008/09 741 1,150 -409 550 64%

2009/10 634 1,150 -516 34 55%

2010/11 466 1,200 -734 -700 39%

2011/12 535 1,200 -665 -1,365 45%

2012/13 652 1,200 -548 -1,913 54% 2013/14 663 1,200 -537 -2,250 55%

Total to 2013/14

10,400 12,850 -2,450 -2,450 81%

Average 974 1,168

Housing supply

10.80 Paragraph 158 of NPPF says that housing need in a local authority area should be prepared in the context of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), and this should be used in conjunction with the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to establish realistic assumptions about the deliverability of potential sites to meet the identified need.

10.81 The Council’s latest assessment of the supply position is shown in document CEC 15. This gives a figure of 9,652 sites either with planning permission, under construction, allocated sites likely to come forward within the next five years (ie the SHLAA sites) and an allowance for windfalls. However, this assessment has not been arrived at in discussion and agreement with the industry through the Housing Market Partnership [6.79].

10.82 Evidence given by the appellant was that there has been no agreement on matters such as the realistic build-rate on sites with permission or likely to come forward, either on account of the number of builders who might be

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


working on a larger site, or the rate of construction on other sites. The 2013 SHLAA applied a build rate of 50 dwellings per annum on sites of over 200 dwellings, or 30 dwellings per annum where only one builder is involved. For 2014 the Council has unilaterally adopted different assumptions about lead-in times and build rates.

10.83 The Council’s evidence (Document GCS 1, paragraph 8.1) gives the Council’s view of build rates – which is an average of 13 completions per year for sites of 10-49 dwellings, 26 per year for sites of 50-100 dwellings, and 30 per year for sites of over 100. However, the Council’s 2014 Position Statement has been prepared using rates which are higher than this. The support for this is seen in the views of developers at recent planning inquiries, where start dates and build rates have been much more optimistic. Looking at other large sites across the north-west, higher build rates have been achieved in places such as Warrington and Chorley, where (for instance) there may be a larger overall market demand.

10.84 The stance taken at this inquiry differs from the Council’s December 2013 Position Statement on both build rates and lead-in times. The latest rates agreed between the industry and the Council are given in the 2013 SHLAA. Up-dating the 2013 SHLAA, and using the same assumptions, the appellant comes to a supply figure of 7,903 sites. The appellant characterises this as “more realistic yet still ambitious”.179 Against the annual requirement of 2,352, 7,903 represents 3.36 years land supply. If the Council’s assessment of supply of 9,652 is used, this would represent 4.10 years land supply.

10.85 If the CELP incremental approach is taken as the basis for assessing the situation then there is an annual requirement of 2,016 (10,080 over 5 years). In which case, 7,903 represents 3.92 years and 9,652 represents 4.78 years.

10.86 The Council’s latest view on the number of available sites has to be treated with some caution. Firstly, developers appearing at inquiries are likely to be more optimistic about start dates and rates of completions if they are seeking permission in areas where it is thought that the completions rate has fallen below the local plan requirement or the SHMA assessment. They may be keen to promote the view that their site would be available to make an early and significant contribution to the shortfall. Secondly, the market condition in other locations (Warrington and Chorley are referred to in the Council’s evidence) may not be comparable to Cheshire East. The SHLAA process is intended to produce an agreed estimate of availability, and the value of a unilateral interpretation has to be limited or questionable. Having said that, it is not a predictive process, but does no more than produce a ‘best guess’ based on experience, local knowledge and past performance.

10.87 Even allowing for the fact that performance on particular sites can vary from the SHLAA base assumptions in any one year, and evidence showing that specific sites in Cheshire East have recently had short lead-in times for the commencement of development, the Council’s unilateral stance is contrary to the advice in PPG which states that the preferred approach to assessing housing land availability should through the mechanism of the SHLAA. This

179 (Document SB 4, paragraph 5.17).

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


being so, and using the figures based on the SHLAA put forward by the appellant, at the time of this inquiry there was a shortfall of 3,857 available sites (11,760 – 7,903). Even with the alternative incremental approach the shortfall would be 2,177 (10,080 – 7,903).

10.88 There are two scenarios which would be seen as giving a 5-year supply within Council’s availability figure of 9,652. The first is based upon the up-dated Position Statement which the Council presented at the inquiry (Document CEC 16). That relies upon the RS/BCNRLP figure of 1,150 remaining as the requirement throughout and applying a 5% buffer. That calculates as 1,150 x 5 = 5,750 + 2,450 = 8200 + 410 (5%) = 8,610, or 1,722 per annum. Against that, 9,652 represents 5.6 years supply.

10.89 The second scenario is if the incremental strategy of CELP is used and a 5% buffer is applied. That scenario would give a figure of 5,950 + 2,450 = 8400 + 420 (5%) = 8,820, or 1,764 per annum. Against that, 9,652 represents 5.47 years supply.

10.90 The appellant’s supply figure of 7,903 - which has been derived by a methodology in line with the PPG approach - would leave a shortfall of 707 (or 4.58 years supply) against the first scenario and 917 (or 4.48 years supply) under the second.

10.91 However, for the reasons set out above, the RS/BCNRLP figures are not relevant after 2011 and the CELP incremental approach should be regarded with a degree of caution. Also, the Council has been selective in accepting the PPG guidance in how it justifies its view of availability; whereas it accepts that it should not now include an allowance for C2 housing, it does not accept that it should follow the SHLAA agreed approach to assessing availability. Furthermore, it would be quite a flexible interpretation of the NPPF and PPG advice to regard six consecutive years of shortfall, and an overall performance over an 11 year period of between 77% and 81% against requirement, as anything but persistent under-supply. In my view, the Council’s position on housing supply has been inconsistent in how it conforms with NPPF and PPG guidance, and its understanding of whether there has been a persistent under-supply is not well founded.

10.92 That is, on the basis that whatever figure given in the CELP is used (1,350 or the incremental 1,200), under either approach and adopting a 20% buffer, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of available sites in accordance with the expectations and guidance of NPPF and PPG. This would trigger the presumption in favour of sustainable development given at paragraph 49 of NPPF. Two scenarios – where a 5% buffer is applied – could meet the Council’s estimate of presently available sites; but there are considerable doubts about whether 5% is the appropriate buffer and whether the Council’s view of the number of currently available building sites is justifiable. In my view, neither of these contentions is robust.

10.93 The paragraph 49 presumption reinforces the situation discussed above that the relevant adopted policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. However, whether it is appropriate to allow the appeal and grant planning permission also requires consideration of whether the

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


scheme represents sustainable development. It also needs to be considered against the caveat in paragraph 14 of NPPF noted at paragraph 10.13 above.

3. The effect of the proposed development on the free flow of traffic on the surrounding road network.

10.94 The appeal site lies to the south of Crewe. Access to the town would be, at least in part, via Crewe Road and Gresty Road (B5071), to where it joins the Nantwich Road (A534) in the centre of the town, close to the railway station. Traffic would also disperse onto the wider road network along the A500 and A51 towards Nantwich, and to the east towards the M6 along the A534 and A5020. At the inquiry it was accepted that, with contributions offered through s.106 planning obligations, improvements could be made to junctions on the A51 / A500 (Cheerbrook Roundabout) and the A534 / 5020 (Crewe Green Roundabout) to accommodate the traffic generated by the appeal scheme. The submitted undertakings include such contributions [9.19]. However, what remained at dispute was whether the B5071 corridor (Gresty Road/South Street) could accommodate the additional traffic without creating unacceptable delays for road users.

10.95 No development plan policy was cited in the putative reason for refusal (No.7), but paragraph 32 of NPPF is referred to. The relevant part of paragraph 32 requires that where new development is being proposed consideration should be given as to whether improvements could be made to the transport network to cost effectively limit significant impacts of development. It goes on to say that only where the residual cumulative impacts are severe should development be prevented.

10.96 Gresty Road is a typical urban road, with one lane of traffic in each direction for most of its length. As it approaches Nantwich Road, Gresty Road forks off to the right at a point opposite the junction with Catherine Street (referred to as Junction 4 at the inquiry), with the main flow of B5071 northbound traffic (as indicated by road markings) continuing along South Street to its junction with Nantwich Road / Mill Street – (referred to as Junction 5 at the inquiry) [5.106].

10.97 There is a degree of disagreement over how the relevant traffic model has been calibrated to portray traffic in 2030. This has given rise to disagreement over how much additional traffic would pass along Gresty Road. However, it is accepted by the appellant that the proposed scheme would increase the traffic flow along B5071 and through the two junctions. The disagreement is fundamentally as to whether the residual additional delay – after taking into account all other alterations to the traffic network around Crewe – would be so severe as to be unacceptable.

10.98 These junctions are heavily used at present – as confirmed by local residents either at the inquiry or in the written representations [7.5]. Along the Nantwich Road traffic is also congested in the vicinity of Junction 5 – slowing the free-flow of traffic out of South Street / Gresty Road. Nantwich Road traffic is notably slow because of the width of the A534 over the railway at the station (known locally as Station Top) and the amount of traffic passing through the Nantwich Road / Macon Way / Weston Road roundabout (known as the Crewe Arms Roundabout) immediately to the east of Station Top

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


[2.12]. It can take 8½ minutes to travel the ½ mile northwards from the Gresty Bridge (where the B5071 passes beneath the railway line) to the Nantwich Road in the morning peak [5.106]. Understandably, local residents do not want their journey times unreasonably extended as a consequence of the appeal scheme.

10.99 Considerable changes are due to be introduced to the local highway network in advance of committed or planned new development. Construction has just started on the Basford West Spine Road, and work is due to start in the foreseeable future on the Crewe Green Link Road South, which will link the A500 east of the railway line to the present Crewe Green Link Road (A5020) at Crewe Green Roundabout [5.108]. The design of these new roads has not taken into account the possibility development on the current appeal site, but they will offer some alternative routes for journeys into Crewe from the south; thereby potentially relieving some of the traffic from Gresty Road.

10.100 The Council calculate that, allowing for the completion of Basford West Link Road and Crewe Green South Link Road the appeal scheme would result in delays in the order of 128 seconds per vehicle at Junction 5 – which is an increase of 50 seconds over the present 78 second delay noted in the Transport Assessment which supported the planning application. This, it argues, would not be acceptable [5.116].

10.101 However, this position would be inconsistent with the Cheshire East Transport Models Review Highway Impacts and Mitigation study which is one of the inputs to the preparation the CELP. This modelled the traffic impact of various distributions of development around Crewe, to test if the highway network could cope. Key junctions across the network were identified and the impact of additional traffic was graded from dark Green (up to 0-30 seconds delay), light Green (30-120 seconds delay), Yellow (120-300 seconds delay), Orange (300-600 seconds delay) and Red (more than 600 seconds delay.

10.102 Option 2 included 1,261 houses at south Crewe /Rope (including the appeal site), and Option 6 was seen to be “testing the network to destruction”, with the traffic for 2,391 dwellings to the south of Crewe through the B5071 corridor. The modelling identified Junction 5 as a key junction (but not Junction 4). The results of the modelling showed that the effect on the B5071 corridor would be up to 120 seconds (ie a ‘light Green’ categorisation) [6.82, 6.83].

10.103 That modelling was for strategic purposes and might be regarded as too coarse to assess the impacts on specific junctions. More detailed evidence was presented at the inquiry, which addressed the likely impact on Junctions 4 and 5. This shows that the maximum delay on one arm of Junction 5 would be 185 seconds, with other arms experiencing 177 and 174 second delays (the present maximum delay is 108 seconds). 185 seconds would be more than a 3 minute delay on a junction which has a modelled two minute cycle time. However, taking account of the Impact and Mitigation study, the Council has accepted that delays of up to 5 minutes (300 seconds) would be acceptable [6.82, 6.89].

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.104 The appellants acknowledge that the additional traffic would exacerbate the delays at the Junction 4, but contend that traffic lights – or, if traffic lights are not seen to be beneficial, some other means of traffic management - would offer some improvement. The Council disagree that traffic management at this junction would be sufficient mitigation to justify withdrawing its objections to the appeal scheme. However, in the event that the appeal is allowed, the appellants have offered a contribution towards the installation of traffic lights, or an alternative type of management, such that delays are minimised [6.91]. In any event, even with delays of 185 seconds, this would be within what the Council regard as “acceptable” for local plan purposes [6.82, 6.89].

10.105 Drawing these points together, allowing for the relief to local traffic conditions which would be introduced by Basford West Link Road and Crewe Green South Link Road, the residual impact of the proposed development would be additional delays to traffic at junctions in Gresty Road. Nevertheless, the junction which is said to be most affected (Junction 4) is not seen to be a key junction for traffic modelling purposes in the Impacts and Mitigation study. That is, although the proposed scheme would have a negative impact on the free flow of traffic through Junctions 4 and 5, the residual cumulative impacts would not be severe, and accordingly permission should not be refused on the grounds of an unacceptable impact on the local highway network.

4. Whether a grant of planning permission for the proposed scheme would unacceptably prejudice the preparation and adoption of the emerging Local Plan, with particular regard to distribution of housing sites and identification of a Green Belt extension.

10.106 The matter of prematurity is addressed at paragraph 21b-014 of PPG.

10.107 As noted above, the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan (BCNRLP) was written to cover the period up to 2011 [10.15]. The plan is therefore, for structural and strategic purposes at least, out of date and has to be replaced. Cheshire East Council has commenced preparation of the Cheshire East Local Plan (CELP). The CELP has been through several stages of drafts and public consultation and has reached the point where a draft has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination [3.3]. That Examination has now commenced, with hearing sessions due to commence in September.

10.108 NPPF emphasises that the planning system should be “genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings”180. It goes on to say that local plans should reflect the vision and aspirations of local communities181. The expectation is that local plans should “indicate broad locations for strategic development”182 and “identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental or historic significance”183. That is, the initiative for identifying locations for new

180 NPPF paragraph 17: 1st bullet point. 181 NPPF paragraph 150

182 NPPF paragraph 157: 4th bullet point 183 NPPF paragraph 157: 7th bullet point

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


development and, just as importantly, where development should not take place, ought to lie with the local community. There is no neighbourhood plan either adopted or in preparation for Shavington and the surrounding area, and thus it is CELP, as endorsed by the democratically elected Members of the Council, which represents the most up-to-date expression of local preferences and intentions – albeit only as a draft plan going through Examination.

10.109 There is a tension where there is no adopted up to date local plan – as in this present case. In this appeal I have come to the view that the Council cannot demonstrate that it has a 5-years supply of deliverable housing sites, which would trigger the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at paragraph 49 of NPPF.

10.110 The key phrase here is the need to assess whether relevant policies of the BCNRLP (my emphasis) can be considered out of date. With BCNRLP housing numbers intended to carry forward the intentions of the Regional Strategy, and then only until 2011 that aspect of the plan is clearly out of date and so too are any policies which identify areas for new development and – as a corollary – those areas where development should be resisted.

10.111 However, it would not be correct to consider these restrictive policies wholly irrelevant. Whereas Policy NE.2 is a policy which seeks to resist development in the open countryside, that is still an objective which is in accordance with the core planning principles of NPPF184. That is, the restrictive urban boundary will have to be pulled back to allow more development to take place in appropriate locations where it is justified by an assessment of need and supply. In those locations Policy NE.2 would no longer apply. But beyond those new development locations, Policy NE.2 would, having regard to paragraph 215 of NPPF, remain relevant.

10.112 The Council recognises this circumstance and has itself allowed significant new development in locations which are covered by Policy NE.2. The most significant of these which was referred to at this inquiry was a planning permission for 1,100 new dwellings at Kingsley Fields [5.101]. Similarly, a number of housing developments have been allowed on appeal recently by Planning Inspectors in places which had been subject to Policy NE.2 protection. That is, neither the Council - nor Planning Inspectors - have adopted an ‘in principle’ embargo on new development until such time as the CELP has been adopted. Neither would it be correct to do so in view of the lack of a 5-year land supply, and the possibility that, in response to representations made against the CELP, modifications may have to formulated, publicised and examined before a final version of the Plan could be adopted. When that might be is not known, but it is clearly going to be several months into the future.

10.113 I have come to the view that development of the proposed site would not result in unacceptable harm to the countryside – if only on the basis that the site is no more and no less prominent or sensitive than perhaps many, if not most, other urban fringe locations around Crewe. The Council is keen to

184 NPPF paragraph 17: 5th bullet point

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


promote Crewe as a centre for economic growth [6.65] and hence – in general terms - the loss of peripheral sites such as this is inevitable, however much local residents may wish it were not so.

10.114 For similar reasons I have also come to the view that the consequent loss of some of the best and most versatile agricultural cannot be a bar to permitting development in this sort of location. And I come to the same view on the potential of the proposed scheme to change the context of, and the permanent loss of a proportion of, the ‘important hedgerows’. Again, such changes may be matters for regret and should, if at all possible, be avoided if there are other sites which can meet the immediately identified need.

10.115 The proposed scheme would have an impact on the capacity and free-flow of the local highway network but this can, for the most part, be mitigated by off-site works along the A51 and A534. There is likely to be a noticeable adverse impact on the free-flow of traffic through junction 4 and 5 (as discussed above), but this too can be at least ameliorated by traffic management works. In any event, the degree of additional delays would be within what the Council have acknowledged to be “acceptable” in the work which has contributed to the evolution of the Local Plan.

10.116 All of the above would point to it being acceptable to permit the appeal scheme – but for the one reservation noted at paragraph 10.44 above: the loss of part of the Green Gap which lies between Crewe and Shavington.

10.117 The CELP is portrayed as a plan which seeks to promote Crewe as a priority growth centre [6.65], but the Council holds the view that growth should not overwhelm the recognisable independent character of Crewe. This philosophy extends to the towns and villages around Crewe, where the CELP seeks to retain and maintain a degree of separation between Crewe and its satellite settlements. This would be for urban design (or countryside protection) reasons, and for social or cultural reasons where those living in the satellite areas wish to maintain a separate identity; they do not wish to see their village absorbed into a larger urban area [7.4].

10.118 To support this aim, CELP includes a draft policy which would maintain and strengthen the separation. It is proposed that the Green Belt to the south east of Crewe (ie the North Staffordshire Green Belt around Stoke on Trent) should be extended so that it includes a wide swathe of land to the south and south-west of Crewe, and to the east [5.125]. This would prevent Crewe and Nantwich merging together, and would also place villages, including Shavington within the Green Belt. This is included in CELP only as a proposal for an Area of Search for Green Belt extensions: no proposed Green Belt boundaries are included in CELP. As paragraph 8.54 of CELP explains, this seen to be a matter for the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document. This is set out at Policy PG 3 of CELP and Figure 8.2 (document CD 6.1).

10.119 At present, the divide between Crewe and its satellite settlements is maintained by the Green Gap policy of BCNRLP (Policy NE.4), the extent of

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


which is shown on the BCNRLP Proposals Map185. CELP Policy PG 3 effectively seeks to convert these Green Gaps into an integral part of the Green Belt, thereby strengthening the policy objective of maintaining separation.

10.120 At the inquiry it was made clear that the CELP Green Belt proposals are the subject of representations to be considered at the CELP Examination. Furthermore, the CELP is only seeking to establish an area of search at this time. That is, both the principle of an enlarged Green Belt and the extent over which such restrictions should apply are far from settled. It may be that the exceptional circumstances that paragraph 83 of NPPF requires to justify a change in the Green Belt boundaries will not be demonstrated [6.99]. In which case, in view of the draft status of the CELP and the uncertainty over the viability of the Plan’s wishes for an extended Green Belt, let alone the precise extent, this cannot be given much weight in this appeal.

10.121 However, as noted above, the Green Belt proposals seek to maintain and carry forward the policy of separation which has been embodied in the Green Gap policy (BCNRLP Policy NE.4). That policy has an established pedigree in that both the principle and its boundaries were endorsed by the Inspector who conducted the Local Plan inquiry in 2001. It is a popular policy locally and one which has – for the most part – been supported and applied since at least 2001.

10.122 The Green Gap policy is not simply a housing restraint policy. It is a policy which seeks to retain a sense of separation between settlements which is more than just preventing built development; it is, to a large degree, a policy which seeks to satisfy a social, cultural or even psychological desire held by residents in the satellite settlements. Accordingly, Policy NE.4 need not be considered out-of-date in the terms of paragraph 14 of NPPF; its objectives and purpose are still valid and the Council seek to carry this forward into the CELP (albeit as a proposed Green Belt policy). Such an objective (if not the actual policy) is in accordance with paragraphs 154 and 157 of NPPF. In this context it would be premature to release Green Gap sites to meet an arguably short-term shortfall in housing land supply as it would result in the permanent loss of the present sense and extent of separation. The status, retention and geographical extent of the Green Gaps are for the CELP Examination to assess.

10.123 There is no consistent width for the Green Gap as it is defined around Crewe on the BCNRLP Proposals Map (Document CEC 21). The degree of separation between Shavington and Basford West (shown as allocation site E.3.1 on CEC 21) is in the order of 250 m; which is similar to the degree of separation which would remain should the appeal scheme be developed. That is, a Green Gap of this width is not seen to be incompatible with the objectives of Policy NE.4.

10.124 It is relevant to note that the Council has itself agreed to permit development in advance of the adoption of CELP, and on sites where there has been local opposition and where representations have been made. The

185 Document CEC 21

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


most blatant of these is at Kingsley Fields for 1,100 houses [5.101]. The Council did not feel constrained to resist or withhold a decision on that scheme on grounds of prematurity [6.104]. Also, CELP proposes development on land which is presently within a Green Gap – at Sydney Road [6.103]186 - and hence development in a presently defined Green Gap is not wholly unacceptable to the Council.

10.125 Inspectors have allowed on appeal development on Green Gap sites, including one on Rope Lane, Shavington187, south of the A500 which is in the Green Gap in the vicinity of this appeal site; but it should be noted that that appeal decision pre-dates the submission version of CELP. Development has been allowed on appeal more recently (1 August 2014) on land north of Moorfields, Willaston – also within a Green Gap188. That is, release of significant areas of land for housing which are not in accord with BCNRLP, and may, or may not, accord with draft proposals of CELP have been approved by the Council and Inspectors.

10.126 Whereas other sites in the Green Gaps have been granted planning permission, either on appeal or by the Council, these have been mostly for smaller scale schemes and which would not have such an obvious impact on the scale and purpose of the Green Gaps on those localities as the present appeal scheme.

10.127 To conclude on this fourth main consideration, it is my view that to allow the appeal and permit the proposed development would undermine the plan-making process insofar as it concerns the proposed Green Belt (and the interim retention of Green Gap policy NE.4), in that it would predetermine the location of new development (or its corollary - prevent the confirmation of an area where development will not be permitted) which could be seen to be central to an emerging local plan which has been submitted for examination. Whether reducing the width of the Green Gap here, to match that in other locations around Crewe, would be acceptable in principle should be a matter for the CELP Examination. In which case, planning permission for the appeal scheme would be premature.

Other Matters

10.128 Interested persons raised a number of points, either at the inquiry or in written submissions. I comment below on those which have not already been addressed in this Report.

10.129 It was claimed that the site is within the Green Belt [8.2]. The site is accepted by all parties to the appeal to be in a Green Gap, but it is not in the North Staffordshire Green Belt. That is, it is not covered by Green Belt policies nor do the particular considerations set out at paragraphs 79-92 of NPPF apply in this case.

186 Document CD 6.1, Site CS 5, pp 207-209 187 Document GCS 1, Appendix 3 188 Document HG 24

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.130 It was argued that the Green Gap between Shavington and Crewe is a lung for the area [7.3]. Other than it being undeveloped at present, the appeal site does not have public access for recreation or even walking on public footpaths. The site’s value as a ‘lung’ is therefore limited, for practical purposes, to only it being part of a visual break between Shavington and Crewe.

10.131 Any increase in traffic has the potential to add to air pollution. Crewe is being proposed as a centre for growth in the CELP and an increase in air pollution attributable to the expansion of the urban area could be an inevitable consequence of that strategy. If that is a supportable strategy overall – and it is one being actively promoted by the Council – then an increase in air pollution cannot be regarded as an overriding objection.

10.132 The highway concerns relating to the width of, and pedestrian safety on, the roads close to the appeal site expressed by local residents are not supported by the Council’s highway evidence. The proposed scheme takes into account the likely increase in traffic on local roads and provision is made for improvements to matters such as footpaths in the vicinity of the school.

10.133 The developer is aware of the potential flood risk associated with Swill Brook and the scheme is designed to avoid exacerbating present problems. Planning conditions on a planning permission for the scheme can require the prior consideration of details of flood protection on the site and the need to avoid any potential consequent impacts in the wider area.

10.134 Service providers were consulted as part of the application process and these had the opportunity to point out if they would not be able to support the proposed scheme, or that developer contributions would be required to accommodate any increased demand. No specific evidence – in terms of current capacity and numbers of users - was brought to the inquiry by those raising these points to demonstrate which services are at capacity.

10.135 The application is only in outline and details such as proximity to the school of parking areas and playing fields are matters which can be addressed at detail stage.

10.136 The opportunity to take brownfield sites before a greenfield site will be explored at the Local Plan Examination. Having said that, it is unlikely that all of the development needs within the CELP area could be met solely on brownfield land. The loss of greenfield land per se cannot be regarded as an overriding objection to the proposed scheme.

10.137 The appeal site is open countryside at present and it is highly likely that it supports some wildlife. The applicant is aware of that possibility and has made accommodation for appropriate mitigation of both legally protected and unprotected species as part of the scheme. This can be reinforced through planning conditions.

10.138 A planning condition can be attached to a planning permission for the scheme to ensure minimal disturbance to local residents arising from works associated with the construction phase.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.139 More development in and around Crewe will almost certainly bring an increased demand for goods and services in the town. The capacity of town centre car parks to adequately meet that increased demand is not a matter for this planning application; that is a general concern which the Council would have to keep under review having regard to its expressed support for a growth strategy for Crewe.

10.140 Whether a pub or retirement village is needed is a commercial judgement for the developer. It is not a planning matter if it is thought that the scheme includes what some think to be commercially unviable elements.

Planning Balance

10.141 Whereas paragraph 49 of NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of a 5-year land supply, that presumption has to be considered in the context of the caveat given at paragraph 14 of NPPF, which says that, where the relevant development plan policies are out-of-date, then permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the polices in the Framework as a whole.

10.142 The Council has been prepared to permit development on other sites identified in the draft CELP and those decisions could also be seen to be premature. However, the sites have been consulted upon and gained support – albeit many are still the subject of unresolved representations. The appeal site is not included as a preferred site in CELP, and therefore does not have the same degree of support locally.

10.143 As noted above, I consider that the proposed scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to the countryside and ‘important hedgerows’, no unacceptable loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, and the traffic impact would be acceptable, allowing for the offered mitigation. Whereas the scheme would narrow the present separation between Crewe and Shavington, more than 200m separation would remain, with the visual and psychological separation reinforced by the route of the A500 dual carriageway.

10.144 Particular benefits claimed for the proposed scheme are noted in Document SB 1 at paragraph 16.13. In summary, these are a contribution to the supply of deliverable housing sites within the 5 year period, so as to help address the shortfall. There would be between 231 and 264 affordable homes – of which there is a notable shortfall in Cheshire East. There would be specialist accommodation for the elderly. The development would be close to Crewe and would minimise journeys for access to goods, employment and services; all of which would be supported by a subsidised bus service. The scheme would include facilities to support the community on the development, including shops, a pub, a primary school, recreation provision, allotments and some employment in a care village. The public would have access to what are categorised as ‘important hedgerows’. The scheme would generate a New Homes Bonus income of £1.5 million per annum [6.53].

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.145 Many of these points would indeed be benefits, but these would not be unique to this location. That is, houses, affordable homes, community facilities and associated jobs could be the outcome of development on almost any large site around Crewe. Some of the claimed benefits are simply support for needs arising from the development itself, or mitigation for harm which would only arise if the development is permitted. If the development is not permitted then no mitigation would be necessary.

10.146 The benefits, however extensive they are, have to be weighed against the arguably premature loss of part of the Green Gap between Crewe and Shavington, which might be best considered in the context of the overall strategy of the CELP and its proposal to at least retain the Green Gaps, or possibly upgrade them as part of a Green Belt extension around Crewe.

10.147 The idea of an extended Green Belt around Crewe may be very uncertain at this stage, but the Green Gap has been part of a long established and well-recognised local strategic policy shaping the area in which people live, and establishing areas where it is not appropriate to build. That principle is included in NPPF as being part of sustainable development. CELP does not propose significant re-drawing the Green Gap boundaries in order to release land for development – unlike the circumstances at Rothely / Mountsorrel [6.14, 6.15].

10.148 The question remains of whether the shortfall in housing land supply is so acute that it justifies the premature permanent reduction of this area of Green Gap at this time. The retention, role and extent of the Green Gaps and possible extension of the Green Belt are points which are to be explored at the current Local Plan Examination. A decision to allow development here could reasonably be seen to pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the Local Plan Examination. Having said that, it cannot be overlooked that the Council itself has allowed development elsewhere around Crewe on Green Gap sites [6.13].

Overall Conclusion

10.149 Drawing all of the above points together, the proposed scheme can be seen to be sustainable development. The social role would be represented by more housing, including affordable housing, community facilities and play areas. The economic role would be represented by jobs and investment during the construction phases and the provision of shops and services thereafter. The environmental role would be represented by good accessibility, minimal landscape intrusion, provision of additional landscape planting, maintenance of important hedgerows and management of the flood risk from Swill Brook. But deferring a commitment to the reduction of an area of Green Gap in advance of the conclusion of the Local Plan Examination could also represent sustainable development, according to paragraphs 154 and 157 of NPPF, in the context of what is said at paragraph 6 of NPPF.

10.150 Whereas the scheme can be seen to include many benefits, it is my view that these do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the adverse impacts of approving the development.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


10.151 The balance is very close and can be reduced quite simply to a choice between the premature permanent loss of part of this Green Gap area and the rejection of an opportunity to address a shortfall in housing land supply. In my view, for the reasons set out above, it would be in accordance with both the NPPF and PPG to regard a planning permission for this proposed development as premature and the appeal should be dismissed.

10.152 If the Secretary of State disagrees with this view, then planning conditions – as discussed at Section 9 of this report and listed in the Appendix – should be attached to a planning permission.

10.153 As noted above [9.24, 9.25] the Section 106 unilateral undertaking includes a contribution of £250,000 for improvements to Junction 4. Whereas installing traffic lights may not be the appropriate response to managing increased flows through this junction, it is very likely that other management measures could be designed to minimise delays and improve traffic flows, and it would be reasonable and related to the development being permitted if the offered contribution were endorsed by the Secretary of State.

11. RECOMMENDATION

File Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335

11.1 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

Geoffrey Hill INSPECTOR

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


APPEARANCES

For the Local Planning Authority:

Mr Richard Humphreys QC Instructed by Borough Solicitor

He called:

Mr Gerard McKinney BA(Hons) MSc MCILT

assisted for video evidence by Mr Andrew Sellors

Director: PTB Transport Planning Ltd.,

Principal Transport Planner: Jacobs

Mr Jan Gomulski BA(Hons) BA MTP

Principal Landscape Architect

Mr Graham Christopher Stock BA(Hons) MA MRTPI AIEMA

Partner: Deloitte

Mr Ben Haywood BA(Hons) MA MBA MRTPI MCMI

Major Applications Team Leader

Mrs P Evans Solicitor for Cheshire East Council

Mr J Cullen Solicitor for Cheshire East Council

For the Appellant:

Mr Jeremy Cahill QC Instructed by Stephen Bell, Turley Planning

He called:

Mr John Thompson BEng MIHT CMILT

Project Director: SK Transport Planning Ltd

Mr Iain Reid DipTP DipLD MRTPI MLI

Director: Iain Reid Landscape Planning Ltd

Mr David Richard Lewis Hughes BSc(Hons) FBIAC

Managing Director: David Hughes Agricultural Consultancy Ltd

Mr Richard Morton MIfA Principal Heritage Consultant: Cotswold Archaeology

Mr Stephen Bell BA(Hons) MTPL MRTPI

Director: Turley Planning

Interested Persons: Sir Philip Craven Local resident

Mr George Ray Local resident

Mr B Silvester Councillor, Cheshire East Borough Council

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Mr D Brickhill Councillor, Cheshire East Borough Council

Mr B Squirrell Chairman, Rope Parish Council

Mr R Farrington Local resident

DOCUMENTS

PROOFS OF EVIDENCE

For Cheshire East Borough Council witnesses

Mr Gerard McKinney

GM 1 Proof of evidence including an “Executive Summary”

GM 2 Volume of appendices to proof of evidence

GM 3 2 x DVDs of morning and evening peak traffic movements

GM 4 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices

Mr Jan Gomulski

JG 1 Proof of evidence

JG 2 Volume of Appendices to proof of evidence

JG 3 Summary proof of evidence

Mr Graham Christopher Stock

GCS 1 Proof of evidence including summary and appendices

GCS 2 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices

Mr Ben Haywood

BH 1 Proof of evidence

BH 2 Volume of Appendices to proof of evidence

BH 3 Summary proof of evidence

BH 4 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices For HIMOR Group witnesses

Mr John Thompson

JT 1 Proof of evidence

JT 2 (i) (ii) 2 Volumes of appendices to proof of evidence

JT 3 Summary proof of evidence

JT 4 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices

Mr Iain Reid

IR 1 Proof of evidence including Summary and Conclusions

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


IR 2 Volume of appendices to proof of evidence

IR 3 Supplementary (rebuttal) proof of evidence with appendix

Mr Richard Morton

RM 1 Proof of evidence including Concluding Statement

Mr David Richard Lewis Hughes

DH 1 Proof of evidence including Conclusions

Mr Stephen Bell

SB 1 Proof of evidence

SB 2 Volume of appendices to proof of evidence

SB 3 Summary proof of evidence

SB 4 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices

SUBMITTED TO THE INQUIRY AS CORE DOCUMENTS

Section CD 1. EIA Scoping

CD 1.1 Request for a EIA Scoping Opinion (GVA, 4 March 2013)

CD 1.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (GVA, March 2013)

CD 1.3 Cheshire East Council Formal Scoping Response (Cheshire East Council, 7 June 2013)

Section CD 2. Original Application Documents (July 2013)

CD 2.1 Application Covering Letter to Cheshire East Council (GVA, 12 July 2013)

CD 2.2 Application Forms, Certificates and Notices (12 July 2013)

CD 2.3 Site Location Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P001)

CD 2.4 Application Site Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P002)

CD 2.5 Outline Parameters Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P031 Rev D)

CD 2.6 Indicative Phasing Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012-019-P034)

CD 2.7 Spatial Design Code (e*SCAPE, July 2013)

CD 2.8 Illustrative Masterplan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P021 Rev C)

CD 2.9 Indicative Phasing Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P034)

CD 2.10 Environmental Statement: Volume 1 – Main Text (GVA, July 2013)

CD 2.11 Environmental Statement: Volume 2 – Technical Appendices (GVA, July 2013)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CD 2.12 Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary (GVA, July 2013)

CD 2.13 Planning Statement (GVA, July 2013)

CD 2.14 Statement of Community Involvement (GVA, July 2013)

CD 2.15 Design and Access Statement (e*SCAPE, July 2013)

CD 2.16 Sustainability and Climate Change Statement (RSK, 5 July 2013)

CD 2.17 Outline Utility Strategy (WSP, July 2013)

CD 2.18 Officer’s Report to the meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on 5 March 2014

CD 2.19 Minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on 5 March 2014

Section CD 3. Amended Application Documents (May 2014)

CD 3.1 Covering letter to Planning Inspectorate (Turley, 12 May 2014)

CD 3.2 Outline Parameters Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no 012-019-P031 Rev E)

CD 3.3 Illustrative Masterplan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012-019-P021 Rev D)

CD 3.4 Gresty Oaks Spatial Design Code – May 2014 (e*SCAPE ref. 12/019/004/Final)

CD 3.5 Covering letter to Planning Inspectorate (Turley, 22 May 2014)

CD 3.6 Stage 1 Road Safety Audit: Proposed Accesses Crewe Road and Rope Lane, Crewe (Waterman Aspen, April 2014)

CD 3.7 RSA Stage 1 Designer’s Response (SK Transport Planning, May 2014)

CD 3.8 Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming Arrangement (SK Transport Planning drawing no. SK21220-004 Rev A)

CD 3.9 Crewe Road Access General Arrangement RSA Amendments (SK Transport Planning drawing no. SK21220-010)

CD 3.10 Addendum to the Environmental Statement (Turley, June 2014)

Section CD 4. Development Plan

CD 4.1 Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 – Written Statement (February 2005)

CD 4.2 Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 – Proposals Map (February 2005)

CD 4.3 Secretary of State’s Saving Direction (Government Office for the North West, 14 February 2008)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CD 4.4 Inspector’s Report of Public Local Inquiry into Objections to the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 (Planning Inspectorate, 5 November 2003)

Section CD 5. National Policy Documents and Guidance

CD 5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (Communities and Local Government, March 2012)

CD 5.2 Extracts from Planning Practice Guidance (Communities and Local Government, March 2014)

CD 5.3 ‘Planning for Growth’ Written Statement to Parliament, The Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State for Decentralisation (23 March 2011)

CD 5.4 Laying the Foundations: a housing strategy for England (Communities and Local Government, 21 November 2011)

CD 5.5 ‘Housing and Growth’ Written statement to Parliament, The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Communities Secretary (6 September 2012)

CD 5.6 HS2 Plus: A Report by David Higgins (March 2014)

CD 5.7 Plan for Growth (HM Treasury, March 2011)

Section CD 6. Other Local Documents

CD 6.1 Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Submission (Cheshire East Council, March 2014)

CD 6.2 Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Policies Map (Cheshire East Council, March 2014)

CD 6.3 Interim Planning Policy: Release of Housing Land (Cheshire East Council, February 2011)

CD 6.4 Interim Planning Statement on Affordable Housing (Cheshire East Council, February 2011)

CD 6.5 Crewe: High Growth City Prospectus, September 2013

CD 6.6 Vulnerable and Older People’s Housing Strategy (Cheshire East Council, May 2014)

CD 6.7 North West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (Government Office for the North West, September 2008)

CD 6.8 The North West Plan: Submitted Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of England – Technical Appendix (North West Regional Assembly, January 2006)

CD 6.9 Cheshire East Housing Strategy: Moving Forward 2011-2016 (Cheshire East Council

CD 6.10 Ambition for All: Cheshire East’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2010 to 2025 (Cheshire East Council, 2010)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CD 6.11 The Cheshire Historic Landscape Characterisation (Cheshire County Council and English Heritage, November 2007)

CD 6.12 Shaping our Future: A Development Strategy for Jobs and Sustainable Communities (Cheshire East Council, 2013)

CD 6.13 Cheshire East Local Plan – Pre-Submission Core Strategy – Schedule of Representations by HIMOR Group Ltd (December 2013)

CD 6.14 Representations on behalf of HIMOR Group in respect of Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Submission (April 2014)

CD 6.15 Document IR 3 (Cheshire and Warrington Enterprise Partnership, March 2014)

CD 6.16 Mr Adrian Fisher’s Rebuttal Evidence to Audlem Road inquiry (PINS ref. APP/R0660/A/13/2204723) (undated)

CD 6.17 Appendices to Mr Adrian Fisher’s Rebuttal Evidence to Audlem Road inquiry (PINS ref. APP/R0660/A/13/2204723) (undated)

CD 6.18 Officer’s Report to the meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on 9 December 2013 in respect of Land to the north east of Sydney Road, Crewe (LPA ref. 13/2055N)

Section CD 7. Evidence Base Documents

CD 7.1 Draft Crewe Town Strategy (Cheshire East Council, August 2012)

CD 7.2 Cheshire East Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 Update (September 2013)

CD 7.3 Draft Core Strategy & CIL Viability Assessment (NCS, October 2013)

CD 7.4 All Change for Crewe: High Growth City (Cheshire East Council, September 2013)

CD 7.5 New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gap Study (Envision, September 2013)

CD 7.6 Cheshire East Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Update (Cheshire East Council, February 2013)

CD 7.7 Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement (Cheshire East Council, December 2013)

CD 7.8 Local Plan Strategy: Housing Background Paper (Cheshire East Council, March 2014)

CD 7.9 Local Plan Strategy Background Paper: Population Projections and Forecasts (Cheshire East Council, March 2014)

CD 7.10 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Cheshire East Council, March 2014)

CD 7.11 Green Infrastructure Action Plan for Crewe (TEP for Cheshire East Council, 2013)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CD 7.12 All Change for Crewe: A Prospectus for Crewe (Cheshire East Council, March 2012)

Section CD 8. Correspondence

Pre-Application

CD 8.1 CPRE Cheshire Letter of Support (CPRE, 7 January 2013)

CD 8.2 Local Planning Authority Pre-Application Advice (Cheshire East Council, 17 April 2013)

CD 8.3 Places Matter! Design Review Report (Places Matter!, 28 May 2013)

Post-Application

CD 8.4 Local Planning Authority Receipt of Application (Cheshire East Council, 16 July 2013)

CD 8.5 Places Matter! Design Response (Places Matter!, 19 July 2013)

CD 8.6 Crewe Town Council (29 July 2013)

CD 8.7 Cheshire East Council Landscape Architect (26 September 2013)

CD 8.8 Cheshire East Council Public Rights of Way (1 August 2013)

CD 8.9 Cheshire East Council Greenspace (7 August 2013)

CD 8.10 Councillor Brian Silvester, Willaston & Rope Ward UKIP Councillor (9 August 2013)

CD 8.11 Cheshire East Council Archaeologist (13 August 2013)

CD 8.12 Natural England (14 August 2013)

CD 8.13 Cheshire East Council Environmental Health (15 August 2013)

CD 8.14 Willaston Parish Council (20 August 2013)

CD 8.15 Environment Agency (21 August 2013)

CD 8.16 Rope Parish Council (22 August 2013)

CD 8.17 Shavington Cum Gresty Parish Council (26 August 2013)

CD 8.18 Cheshire East Council Countryside Access Officer (28 August 2013)

CD 8.19 Cheshire East Council Trees & Forestry (4 September 2013)

CD 8.20 Environment Agency (23 September 2013)

CD 8.21 Cheshire East Council Strategic Highways and Transport Manager (16 October 2013)

CD 8.22 Cheshire East Council Education (17 October 2013)

CD 8.23 Applicant response to Consultee Comments (GVA, 18 October 2013)

CD 8.24 Applicant response to Draft Consultation Response of the Strategic Highways and Transportation Manager (SK Transport Planning, 21 October 2013)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CD 8.25 United Utilities (29 November 2013)

CD 8.26 Cheshire East Council Nature Conservation (undated)

Section CD 9. Relevant Secretary of State / Appeal Decisions

CD 9.1 SoS Decision in respect of Land off Abbey Road and Middlewich Road, Sandbach, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/10/2141564) (17 October 2013)

CD 9.2 Appeal Decision in respect of Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne, Worcestershire (APP/H1840/A/12/2171339) (24 August 2012)

CD 9.3 Appeal Decision in respect of Land north of Congleton Road, Sandbach, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/13/2189733) (18 October 2013)

CD 9.4 Appeal Decision in respect of Land off Sandbach Road North, Alsager, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/13/2195201) (18 October 2013)

CD 9.5 Appeal Decision in respect of Elworth Hall Farm, Dean Close, Sandbach, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/13/2196044) (11 April 2014)

CD 9.6 Appeal Decision in respect of Hassall Road, Alsager, Stoke-on-Trent (APP/R0660/A/12/2188001) (12 December 2013)

CD 9.7 Appeal Decision in respect of Land at Crewe Road, Crewe, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/12/2170820) (29 January 2014)

CD 9.8 Appeal Decision in respect of Land at Gresty Green, Gresty Green Road, Shavington, Crewe (APP/R0660/A/12/2194875) (3 February 2014)

CD 9.9 Appeal Decision in respect of Land off The Moorings, Congleton, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/12/2188/604) and Land off Goldfinch Close and Kestrel Close, Congleton, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/12/2188605) (3 February 2014)

CD 9.10 SoS Decision in respect of Land at Burgess Farm, Hilton Lane, Worsley, Manchester (APP/U4230/A/11/2157433) (16 July 2012)

CD 9.11 Appeal Decision in respect of Land opposite Rose Cottages, Holmes Chapel Road, Brereton Heath, Congleton (APP/R0660/A/13/2192192) (12 February 2014)

CD 9.12 Appeal Decision in respect of Land between Leasowes Road and Laurels Road, Offenham, Worcestershire (APP/H1840/A/13/2203924) (7 February 2014)

CD 9.13 Appeal Decision in respect of Land South of Moira Road, Ashby-de-la-Zouch (APP/G2435/A/13/2192131) (30 May 2013)

CD 9.14 SoS Decision in respect of Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire (APP/F1610/A/11/2165778) (13 February 2013)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CD 9.15 SoS Decision in respect of Land off Mountsorrel Lane, Rothley, Leicestershire (APP/X2410/A/13/2196928 and APP/X2410/A/13/2196929) (8 April 2014)

CD 9.16 Appeal Decision in respect of Land East of Wolvey Road, Three Pots, Burbage, Leicestershire (APP/K2420/A/13/2202261) (3 January 2014)

CD 9.17 Appeal Decision in respect of Rope Lane, Shavington, Crewe, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/12/2173294) (28 November 2012)

CD 9.18 Report to the SoS for Transport relating to Cheshire East Borough Council (Crewe Green Link Road South) Compulsory Purchase Order 2013 (DPI/R0660/13/14) (3 September 2013)

Section CD 10. Relevant High Court / Court of Appeal Judgments

CD 10.1 High Court judgment in respect of Hunston Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and St Albans City and District Council [2013] EWHC 2678 (Admin) (5 September 2013)

CD 10.02 Court of Appeal judgment in respect of Hunston Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWCA Civ 1610 (12 December 2013)

CD 10.3 High Court judgment in respect of South Northamptonshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Barwood Land and Estates Limited [2014] EQHC 573 (Admin) (10 March 2014)

CD 10.4 High Court judgment in Gallagher Homes Ltd and Lioncourt Homes Ltd v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) (30 April 2014)

CD 10.5 Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Fay and Son Limited; Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hannick Homes and Development Limited; The Queen on the application of Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Hannick [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) (27 November 2013)

CD 10.6 Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Cornwall Council [2012] EWHC 914 (Admin) (4 April 2012)

CD 10.7 High Court judgment in respect of Bloor Homes East Midlands Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (19 March 2014)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CD 10.8 High Court judgment in respect of Anita Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, North Devon District Council, RWE Npower Renewables Limited [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin) (9 May 2013)

CD 10.9 South Northamptonshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Robert Plummer [2013] EWHC 4377 (Admin) (10 December 2013)

CD 10.10 Tewkesbury Borough Council v SoS, Comparo Limited, Welbeck Strategic Land LLP [2013] EWHC 286 (Admin) (20 February 2013)

Section CD 11. Traffic and Highways Documents

CD 11.1 Guidance on Transport Assessment (Department for Transport, 2007)

CD 11.2 Local Sustainable Transport Fund Bid (Cheshire East Council)

CD 11.3 From Rail Town to High Speed Rail City: A Vision for Crewe (Cheshire East Council, July 2012)

CD 11.4 North West Sustainable Checklist (North West Development Agency)

CD 11.5 Local Transport Plan 3: 2011 – 2026 (Cheshire East Council, 2011)

CD 11.6 Travel Planning Guidance (Cheshire East Council)

CD 11.7 Forecasting Report: Crewe Green Link Road South Transport Model (MVA, 2011)

CD 11.8 Local Authority Major Schemes Development Pool: Expression of Interest – Crewe Green Link Road South (Cheshire East Council)

CD 11.9 Crewe Green Link Road South: Best And Final Funding Bid (Cheshire East Council, 2011)

CD 11.10 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD42/95 Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions (Department for Transport, January 1995)

CD 11.11 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD50/04 The Geometric Layout of Signal Controlled Junctions and Signalised Roundabouts (Department for Transport, November 2004)

CD 11.12 Manual for Streets (Department for Transport, 2007)

CD 11.13 Manual for Streets 2 (Department for Transport, 2010)

CD 11.14 Making Residential Travel Plans Work (Department for Transport, 2005)

CD 11.15 Smarter Choices: Influencing the way we travel (Department for Transport, 2005)

CD 11.16 Making Personal Travel Planning Work: Case Studies (Department for Transport, 2007)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CD 11.17 Providing for Journeys on Foot (Institution of Highways & Transportation, 2000)

CD 11.18 Planning for Public Transport in New Developments (Institution of Highways & Transportation, 1999)

CD 11.19 TRICS Good Practice Guide (JMP, 2012 and 2013)

CD 11.20 National Travel Survey Table NTS0502 (Department for Transport, 2012)

CD 11.21 Cheshire East Transport Models Review: Summary Highway Impacts and Mitigation Proposals for Local Plan Strategy – Final (Cheshire East Council, May 2014)

CD 11.22 Crewe: Cheshire East Local Plan Impacts and Mitigation Strategy – Final (Cheshire East Council, May 2014)

CD 11.23 Crewe Station Car Park Transport Assessment (MVA)

CD 11.24 Update Report to the meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on 6th November 2013

CD 11.25 Technical Note 1: Trip Generation and Assignment (SK Transport Planning, 5th March 2013)

CD 11.26 Technical Note 2: Revised Trip Generation Method (SK Transport Planning, 27th March 2013)

CD 11.27 Basford West Residential Transport Assessment (Waterman Transport & Development Ltd, January 2013)

CD 11.28 CEC Officer’s Report to Strategic Planning Board meeting on 14 August 2013 in respect of Basford West

CD 11.29 Extracts from ARCADY 6 User Guide (for drive-on-the-left) (TRL Limited, 2004)

Section 12. Landscape and Visual Impact Documents

CD 12.1 Extracts from Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013)

CD 12.2 Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland (The Countryside Agency / Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002)

CD 12.3 National Character Area Profile 61: Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain (Natural England, April 2014)

CD 12.4 Extracts from Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment in respect of Lower Farms and Woodlands (LFW) Landscape Character type and LFW 7: Barthomley Character Area (Cheshire County Council, November 2008)

CD 12.5 National Infrastructure Planning Advice Note 9: The Rochdale Envelope (Planning Inspectorate, 2012)

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Section CD 13. Appeal and Inquiry Documents

CD 13.1 Appeal Form

CD 13.2 Appellant’s Statement of Case (GVA, November 2013)

CD 13.3 LPA’s Statement of Case (Rule 6 Statement) (Cheshire East Council, undated)

CD 13.4 Appellant’s Supplementary Statement of Case (Turley, March 2014)

HIMOR GROUP DOCUMENTS

HG 1 Mr Jeremy Cahill QC Opening Statement

HG 2 Draft s.106 Unilateral Undertaking (superseded by Document HG 23)

HG 3 Draft s.106 Agreement (superseded by Document HG 18)

HG 4 Department for Transport Circular 02/2013

HG 5 Note confirming application plans and supporting documents

HG 6 Copy of circular letter of Councillor B Silvester

HG 7 Plans of comparison sites

HG 8 Letter sent to Local Plan Examination team 23/07/14

HG 9 Paper from Town and Country Planning Association – “New estimates of housing demand and need in England 2011-2031”

HG 10 DCLG updating household projections to 2011 base

HG 11 6 plans identifying heritage assets, landscape features, historic field boundaries

HG 12 Schedule of 5 year housing land supply

HG 13 5 year housing land supply summary

HG 14 Appeal decision: Crewe Road, Shavington - 2210660

HG 15 Appeal decision: 144 Audlem Road - 2204971

HG 16 Draft planning conditions

HG 17 Appeal decision: Close Lane - 2203282

HG 18 Certified copy of s.106 Agreement (superseded by Document HG 29)

HG 19 High Court decision – Dartford Borough Council [2014] EWHC 2636 (Admin)

HG 20 Committee report relating to Kingsley Fields application

HG 21 Written response to written representations made by interested persons prior to the inquiry opening

HG 22 Plan of hedgerows across site and potential areas of loss

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


HG 23 Draft s.106 Unilateral Undertaking (superseded by Document HG 30)

HG 24 Appeal Decision: Land North of Moorfields – 2211721

HG 25 Mr Reid’s note in response to Mr Gomulski’s post-completion assessment (Document CEC 31)

HG 26 Mr McKinney’s technical note

HG 27 Mr Thompson’s response to Mr McKinney’s note (Document HG 26)

HG 28A Appeal Decision: Land off Hind Heath Road – 2212992

HG 28B Costs Decision on application by Richborough Estates Partnership LLP, for Appeal 2212922

HG 29 Certified copy of s.106 Agreement

HG 30 s.106 Unilateral Undertaking

CHESHIRE EAST BOROUGH COUNCIL DOCUMENTS CEC 1 Mr Richard Humphreys QC opening statement

CEC 2 Core Document CD 2.11 extract: Environmental Statement Volume 2 Technical Appendices (GVA 2013) - Appendices H, I, J, K

CEC 3 Extract from Design Manual for Road and Bridges (appendix B – Local Model Validation Report)

CEC 4 Identity of extracts from Mr Mc Kinney’s DVD clips identifying times and locations

CEC 5 Extract from Transport Assessment appendix L

CEC 6 Extract from Transport Assessment appendix M

CEC 7 Letter withdrawing putative reasons for refusal 5 and 6

CEC 8 Sites of objections to 2003 Local Inquiry Plan

CEC 9 Extract from Short Titles Act 1896

CEC 10 Copy of Hedgerow Regulations Guidance 1997

CEC 11 Hedgerow Regulations 1997: S1-1997-1160

CEC 12 Summary of Council’s Housing Land Supply Position 25th July 2014

CEC 13 Schedule of disputed sites: agreed note 25th July 2014

CEC 14 Summary of Council Land Supply position 25th July 2014

CEC 15 Summary of Council Land Supply position 25th July 2014; tables 90, 91 and 100

CEC 16 Updated position statement on completions 25th July 2014

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CEC 17 Closing submissions on appeal 2204971 on behalf of CEBC (R Humphreys QC)

CEC 18 Closing submissions on behalf of the appellant for 144 Audlem Road (V Fraser QC)

CEC 19A Response to CEBC local plan Inspector’s request for further information 18th July 2014

CEC 19B Annex to go with 19A

CEC 20A Correspondence relating to Bovis Homes and Richborough Estates (Build Rates)

CEC 20B Correspondence relating to Bovis Homes and Richborough Estates (Build Rates)

CEC 20C Correspondence relating to Bovis Homes and Richborough Estates (Build Rates)

CEC 21 Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 Proposals Map

CEC 22 Appeal Decision 2203883 – Hunter’s Lodge Hotel

CEC 23 CIL Statement

CEC 24 Saving Direction for Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan policies

CEC 25 Extracts from 2003 Local Plan Inspector’s Report identifying objection sites

CEC 26 Written response to HIMOR Group’s application for costs (filed in the Costs Application folder on the Appeal File)

CEC 27 Note prepared by Mr Stock on Close Lane decision

CEC 28 Noted prepared by Mr McKinney and Mr Thompson on traffic modelling

CEC 29 Note prepared by Mr Stock on unimplemented planning permissions

CEC 30 SHLAA period 4-year schedule – which includes an element of double counting

CEC 31 Mr Gomuilski’s post-completion landscape impact assessment of the proposed scheme

CEC 32 Plan showing application for proposed next phase of Rope Lane development.

CEC 33 Response to Letter sent to Local Plan Examination team 23/07/14 (Document HG 08).

CEC 34 Letter of 22 August 2014 explaining the justification for the figure included in the s.106 Agreement for the primary school.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


CORRESPONDENCE and DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PERSONS

3P 1 Letter from Ivan Rowley with 4 photographs

3P 2 Letter from Ian Rowley

3P 3 e-mail from Sue Higgins

3P 4 e-mail from John Hancock

3P 5 Letter from Mr Squirrell – Rope Parish Council

3P 6 Lancashire Residential Road Guide put in by Mr G Ray

PLANS

Plans A.1 – A.13 are found in Section 2 of the Core Documents – as noted in the list below.

Initial Application Plans CD No.

Plan A.1 012_019_P001 Site Location Plan CD 2.3

Plan A.2 012_019_P002 Application Site Plan CD 2.4

Plan A.3 012_019_P031 Rev D Outline Parameters Plan (superseded by Plan A.9)

CD 2.5

Plan A.4 SK21220-004 Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming General Arrangement (Plan 4) (superseded by Plan A.10)

Plan A.5 SK21220-002 Rev A Crewe Road Access General Arrangement (Plan 5)

Illustrative documents supporting the application

Plan A.6 012_019_P021 Rev C Illustrative Master Plan (superseded by Plan A.12)

CD 2.8

Plan A.7 012_019_P034 Indicative Phasing Plan CD 2.9

Plan A.8 Spatial Design Code July 2013 (superseded by Plan A.13) CD 2.7

Amended drawings (not part of original application)

Plan A.9 012_019_P031 Rev E Outline Parameters Plan CD 3.2

Plan A.10 SK21220-004 Rev A Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming General Arrangement Plan

CD3.8

Plan A.11 SK21220-010 Crewe Road Access General Arrangement RSA Amendments

CD 3.9

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


Amended illustrative documents supporting the application

Plan A.12 012_019_P021 Rev D Illustrative Master Plan CD 3.3

Plan A.13 Spatial Design Code, May 2014 CD 3.4

Plans prepared by the Inspector to identify locations referred to in this Report

Plan Insp.1 Extract from Google Maps of A534 corridor through central Crewe, identifying Junction 4 and Junction 5.

Plan Insp.2 Ordnance Survey map extract identifying Crewe Green Roundabout and Cheerbrook Roundabout

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


APPENDIX

PLANNING CONDITIONS

General

1. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the Reserved Matters") shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

2. Application for approval of the Reserved Matters for the first phase of the development shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission and, for the remainder of the development hereby permitted, not later than five years from the date of this permission.

3. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or no later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the Reserved Matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the following plans and documents, unless other conditions on the permission indicate otherwise:

Drawing No. Title

012-019-P001 Site Location Plan

012-019-P002 Application Site Plan

012-019-P031 Rev E Outline Parameters Plan

SK21220-004 Rev A Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming General Arrangement

SK21220-010 Crewe Road Access General Arrangement RSA Amendments

012-019-P021 Rev D Illustrative Masterplan

Spatial Design Code May 2014

Phasing, Levels and Materials

5. The first Reserved Matters application shall include a scheme of phasing for the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless amended by a subsequent Reserved Matters application. The phasing scheme shall identify those areas of structural landscaping to be implemented within each phase, and the timing of such implementation relative to the construction of the built development within that phase.

6. No development within a phase shall commence until details of existing ground levels, proposed ground levels and the level of proposed floor slabs for that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


writing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

7. No development within a phase shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of boundary treatments and the external surfaces of the dwellings / buildings to be erected as part of that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Drainage

8. No development within a phase shall commence until such time as a scheme to limit the surface water runoff generated by that phase and to manage the risk of flooding from overland flow of surface water has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented for each phase of development prior to the first occupation of that phase.

9. No development within a phase shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of foul water from that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. For the avoidance of doubt, surface water must drain separately from the foul and no surface water will be permitted to discharge directly or indirectly into the existing public sewerage system. The approved scheme shall be implemented for each phase of development prior to the first occupation of that phase.

10. The development shall not cause any alteration in existing ground levels within the 1 in 100 year flood outline as shown in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by Enzygo dated July 2013 ref SHF.1026.001.R.001.A), without prior authorisation of the local planning authority

11. No development within a phase shall commence until details of the finished floor levels of all proposed dwellings / buildings within that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The finished floor levels are to be set at a minimum of either;

a. the 1 in 100 year flood level including an allowance for climate change and 600mm freeboard to account for uncertainty; or

b. the 1 in 100 year flood level including an allowance for climate change and 30% blockage of the railway line culvert

whichever is the greater, based upon the flood level at the corresponding cross section (as detailed in Table 6.9 and 6.10 of the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Enzygo dated July 2013 ref SHF.1026.001.R.001.A).

Development shall take place in accordance with the approved scheme for that phase.

Environmental protection

12. No development within a phase shall commence until a Phase II contaminated land investigation for that phase has been carried out and the results submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


If the Phase II investigation for that phase indicates that remediation is necessary, then a Remediation Statement for that phase shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Remediation Scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

If remediation is required within any phase of development, prior to the first use or occupation of any part of that phase of development a Site Completion Report detailing the conclusions and actions taken at each stage of the works, including validation works, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

13. No development within a phase shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The plan shall include details of:

a. the hours of construction work and deliveries;

b. area(s) for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

c. area(s) for the loading and unloading of plant and materials;

d. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

e. wheel washing facilities;

f. any piling required including, the method (best practicable means to reduce the impact of noise and vibration on neighbouring sensitive properties), hours, duration, prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affected properties;

g. the responsible person (e.g. site manager / office) who could be contacted in the event of complaint;

h. mitigation measures in respect of noise and disturbance during the construction phase including vibration and noise limits, monitoring methodology, screening, a detailed specification of plant and equipment to be used and construction traffic routes;

i. a scheme to minimise dust emissions arising from demolition / construction activities on the site. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development;

j. waste management.

There shall be no burning of materials on site during demolition / construction.

Development shall take place in accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan for that phase.

14. No dwelling within a phase shall be occupied until a Residential Travel Plan has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Travel Plan shall include, inter alia, a timetable for implementation and provision for monitoring and review. The measures contained within the approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented, in accordance with the approved scheme of monitoring and review, as long as any part of the development is occupied.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


15. No commercial building shall be occupied until an Individual Travel Plan for that building / occupier has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Travel Plan shall promote alternative / low carbon transport options for staff and shall include suitable and measurable targets with the aim to reduce transport related emissions. The approved Travel Plan(s) shall be monitored and enforced throughout the use of the development.

16. No development within a phase shall commence until details of the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure to be installed within that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved infrastructure relating to that property has been fully installed and is operational. The approved infrastructure shall be installed in accordance with the approved details thereafter be retained.

17. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Air Quality Impact Assessment and Noise Assessments, submitted as Chapters 9 and 10 of the Environmental Statement (GVA, July 2013).

Ecology

18. No development within a phase that will adjoin Swill Brook or Valley Brook, or ponds to be retained, shall commence until a scheme for the provision and management of buffer zones alongside Swill Brook (8-metre wide), the un-named tributary of Valley Brook (5-metre wide) and the retained ponds has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include:

(i) plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone(s), including cross-sections clearly showing the water, buffer zone and development;

(ii) details of any proposed planting scheme in proximity to the watercourses;

(iii) details demonstrating how the buffer zone(s) will be protected during the course of development and construction, and how the zone(s) will be managed / maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and a named body responsible for management and the production of detailed management plan;

(iv) details of any proposed footpaths and boundary treatments.

Thereafter the development of each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme(s) and any subsequent amendments shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

The buffer zone(s) shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping.

19. Notwithstanding the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) chapter 15 Ecology, any future Reserved Matters application shall be supported by a revised Ecological Mitigation Strategy including updated surveys for barn owls and bats, which shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the ES. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved revised Strategy.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


20. No clearance of trees, shrubs or hedgerows in preparation for (or during the course of) development shall take place during the bird nesting season (1 March -31 August inclusive) unless a nesting bird survey has been carried out by a suitably qualified person and the results submitted to the local planning authority. Should the survey indicate the presence of any nesting species, then no development shall take place within 4 metres of the nests during the period specified above.

21. No development within a phase which may affect Great Crested Newts and / or their habitat (by reference to the findings of the Environmental Statement, July 2013), shall commence until a detailed Great Crested Newt mitigation strategy for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved strategy for that phase, with any amendments agreed in writing.

22. Application(s) for approval of Reserved Matters for each phase of the development shall include a Protected Species Mitigation Method Statement for that phase. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved Method Statement for that phase.

Trees, landscape and open space

23. No development within a phase shall commence until a detailed landscaping scheme for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include the positions of all existing trees and hedgerows within and around the site, indications of any to be retained together with measures for their protection during the course of development, also the number, species, heights on planting and positions of all additional trees, shrubs and bushes to be planted. The scheme shall define the timing of implementation relative to the construction of the built development (including advanced planting) and include a management method statement for the completed landscaping.

24. Subject to the provisions of condition 23, all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the landscaping scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

25. No development within a phase shall commence (including any tree felling, tree pruning, demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction and/or widening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery) until a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Method Statement(s) shall include details of the following:

a. a scheme (hereinafter called the approved Protection Scheme) which provides for the retention and protection of trees, shrubs and hedges growing on or adjacent to the site, including trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order currently in force, or are shown to be

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


retained on the approved layout, which shall be in place prior to the commencement of work;

b. the implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved Protection Scheme. The approved Protection Scheme shall be retained intact for the full duration of the construction of the development hereby permitted and shall not be removed without the prior written permission of the local planning authority;

c. a detailed Treework Specification and details of the implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved Treework Specification;

d. the implementation, supervision and monitoring of all approved construction works within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected. No excavations for services, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles, deposit or excavation of soil or rubble, lighting of fires or disposal of liquids shall take place within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the approved Protection Scheme;

e. the timing and phasing of arboricultural works in relation to the approved development.

Development shall take place in accordance with the approved Method Statement for that phase.

26. The first Reserved Matters application shall include an Open Space Scheme showing all areas of open space to be provided within that phase including, where relevant, allotments, public amenity open space and equipped children’s play area. The scheme shall also include details of the location, layout, size, timing of provision, proposed planting, location and specification of boundary structures, play equipment and materials.

Archaeology

27. No development within a phase shall commence until a written scheme of archaeological investigation for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme for that phase.

Highways

28. Prior to the commencement of the development, construction details of the proposed access points from Crewe Road (as set out on drawing no. SK21220-010) and Rope Lane (as set out on drawing no, SK21220-004 Rev A) shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

29. Construction of the access to the site from Crewe Road (as shown in outline on drawing no. SK21220-010) shall not commence until such time as the Basford West Spine Road has been completed and brought into use.

30. No more than 350 dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until the Crewe Road access (as shown in outline on drawing no. SK21220-010) has been constructed and brought into use.

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


31. No development within a phase shall commence until details of pedestrian and cycle signage for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include signage for shared routes for pedestrians and cyclists through the site and a timetable for implementation. The approved scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable for that phase.

32. As part of the Reserved Matters applications for phases of development fronting Gresty Lane, details of the proposed pedestrian / cycleway accesses on Gresty Lane, and of any new, altered or closed access to Gresty Lane shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of the relevant phase of development hereby permitted.

Commercial uses

33. Prior to the occupation of any of the commercial uses hereby permitted, a scheme identifying noise emission limits for external fixed plant based on BS4142:1997 shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. All external fixed plant shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved scheme.

34. No commercial uses which would involve the handling, preparation and cooking of food shall become operational until a scheme of odour / noise control detailing the filtration and extraction system to control the discharge of odours and fumes arising from food handling, preparation and cooking has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved control measures shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter.

35. Prior to installation, details of any external lighting to be installed on the commercial premises hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the location, height, design and luminance of any lighting and minimise potential harm to amenity caused by light spillage on adjoining properties. The lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.

Retail floorspace

36. The total gross floorspace to be used for the purposes of uses within Class A1 (retail) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) shall not exceed 2,500 sq metres (gross).

Other matters

37. No development within a phase shall commence until details of the proposed bin storage facilities for that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The details shall ensure that bins are stored securely, and provide facilities for both recyclable and household waste storage. No dwelling shall be occupied until the bin storage facilities for that property have been constructed and are available for use in accordance with the approved details.

38. No development within a phase shall commence until details of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected within that

Report: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335


phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. No dwelling within that phase of the development shall be occupied until the boundary treatment relating to that dwelling has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. The approved boundaries shall thereafter be retained as approved.

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT

These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000). The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed. SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS; The decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act). Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act Decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged under this section. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date of the decision. SECTION 2: AWARDS OF COSTS There is no statutory provision for challenging the decision on an application for an award of costs. The procedure is to make an application for Judicial Review. SECTION 3: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the report of the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-

government



APPENDIX 3

EXTRACT OF PAS FIVE YEAR LAND SUPPLY FAQs

17. Where an authority has persistently under-delivered in recent years, at what point in the

calculation should the extra 20% be added? Should it be added to the backlog or not?

We believe the preferred approach is for the buffer to be applied to both the requirement and

shortfall. This is the most appropriate order because it ensures the buffer is applied to the full

requirement which represents all the need that exists. The idea is that for every year you

underprovide the amount adds onto the requirement to be met in the next five years. In

reverse any over provision which would count as completions and could be taken off the

requirement, to which the buffer is then applied. The idea of the buffer is to ensure that there

is flexibility to provide sites and meet the needs that exist.

The buffer is not an additional amount added on, rather it is bought forward from later in the

plan period. The idea of it is to provide choice and flexibility. The five year supply is best

thought of as a 7-8 year supply as only having 5 years' worth of sites will render you

vulnerable within a very short period.

- See more at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/-

/journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE#sthash.ffFGq30k.dpuf



APPENDIX 4

APPEAL DECISION AT LAND AT TILEHURST LANE, BRACKNELL (APP/R0335/A/14/2219888)

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 11-14 November and 8 December 2014

Site visit made on 13 November 2014

by L Rodgers B Eng (Hons) C Eng MICE MBA


Decision date: 2 February 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/R0335/A/14/2219888 Land at Tilehurst Lane, Binfield, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 5NJ

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Bloor Homes and JPP Land Ltd. against the decision of Bracknell

Forest Borough Council. • The application Ref 13/00746/OUT, dated 27 August 2013, was refused by notice dated

20 December 2013.

• The development proposed is an outline application for the demolition of Toll House and the erection of 72 no. dwellings (71 net) together with new vehicular and pedestrian

access from Church Lane and pedestrian access from Tilehurst Lane.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural matters

2. The application was submitted in outline with only the matter of access to be

determined at this stage. Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale

were all reserved for future determination and I have dealt with the appeal on

the same basis.

3. The site address above has been commonly used by the parties to the appeal

and reflects that on the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form.

Although vehicular access to the site would be taken from Church Lane, and

the application itself refers to ‘Land at Church Lane’, I consider the above

address sufficient to identify the site location - which in any case is confirmed

by the submitted drawings.

4. Although the Council considered the application, and in particular the access,

against Drawing No. 0624/SK/001D, the Appellants confirmed at the Inquiry

that they wished to substitute Drawing No. 0624/SK/021B. Notwithstanding

that this would constitute a change to the basis on which the Council

considered the application there can be occasions where amendments could be

made to a scheme without prejudice to the delivery of a fair system. Where

amendments are proposed, those amendments should be considered in light of

the ‘Wheatcroft’ judgement (Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd vs SSE [JPL, 1982 P37])

which established that “the main, but not the only, criterion on

which….judgement should be exercised is whether the development is so

changed that to grant it would be to deprive those who should have been

Appeal Decision APP/R0335/A/14/2219888

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

consulted on the changed development of the opportunity of such

consultation”.

5. Compared to the scheme initially proposed the later scheme involves a slightly

simpler form of junction. However, I do not see that this constitutes a

fundamental change to the access in that its location is similar and it would still

serve the same number of properties. The Council has had an opportunity to

examine and comment on the revised proposals and as a result no longer

sustains an objection to the access arrangements, a matter reflected in the

Highways Statement of Common Ground (HSOCG). Whilst a number of third

parties still object on highway grounds the proposed changes would have little

effect on those objections and no substantive objections to the changes were

raised at the Inquiry. I therefore consider that no party would be prejudiced if

I was to base my determination on the revised access proposals –which are not

so significant as to preclude them being secured by condition. Accordingly, I

have based my assessment on Drawing No. 0624/SK/021 Rev B.

6. The Appellants have submitted a planning obligation dated 13 November 2014

pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This is a

material consideration which I have taken into account in my decision.

7. Notwithstanding that the Council cited 8 reasons for refusal, it was confirmed

that, following submission of the revised access proposals and the s106

obligation, the Council no longer wished to pursue Reasons for Refusal Nos. 2,

3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Main Issues

8. In light of the procedural matters above I consider that the main issues are the

effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the

area and whether the development should be regarded as sustainable having

particular regard to its location and the Council’s housing land supply.

Reasons

Character and appearance

9. The Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) records that the appeal site, which

lies to the north of Tilehurst Lane, extends to around 3.37ha. It comprises the

residential curtilage of Toll House and an area of largely undeveloped land.

10. Tilehurst Lane forms the site’s southern boundary. There are residential

properties on the opposite (southern) side of Tilehurst Lane which also

represents the settlement boundary of Binfield. The eastern boundary of the

site fronts onto Church Lane, whilst the northern boundary abuts some kennels

and their access. The Stag & Hounds Public House is located to the south east

of the site and the western boundary abuts an area of pasture and trees to the

south-east of Binfield Park Farm. There are a number of, mostly deciduous,

trees within and adjacent to the appeal site. In particular the site's southern

and eastern boundaries are defined by mature landscape buffers as is the

boundary furthest to the west, close to Tilehurst Lane.

11. The existing development along the southern side of Tilehurst Lane exhibits a

number of suburban characteristics. However, those characteristics are

tempered by the presence of the trees along the lane and by the glimpses



through the trees to the open countryside to the north. Seen as a whole, I

consider that the lane has a semi-rural ambience.

12. Although there is already some development, the appeal site is mostly open

and more or less contiguous with the swathe of open countryside to the north.

Whilst in part appearing as somewhat of a transition between the development

on Tilehurst Lane and the more rural and open countryside to the north it is

clear that the site contributes to the rural setting of this part of Binfield – albeit

that appreciation of that setting is more in views out from the village rather

than in views towards it. Indeed, views of Binfield with the appeal site in the

foreground are very limited due to the landform and tree cover.

13. The proposed development would be outside the settlement boundary and

would constitute an encroachment into the countryside. Notwithstanding the

outline nature of the proposals and the Appellants’ view that the development

would be partly rural and visually soft, I consider it almost inevitable that the

quantum of housing being proposed would result in the introduction of an

overtly suburban development into a largely pastoral landscape. That, in

consequence, is bound to detract from the current rural setting of Binfield and

compromise the semi-rural character of Tilehurst Lane. As such I consider that

the development would be materially harmful to the existing character and

appearance of the area.

14. The core principles laid out in the NPPF make it clear that planning should take

account of the different roles and character of different areas, should recognise

the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and should contribute to

conserving and enhancing the natural environment; at a local level there is also

a range of policies which seek to protect or enhance the character of an area.

These include Policy CS1 of the Bracknell Forest Core Strategy 2008 (CS),

which seeks to protect and enhance the character and quality of local

landscapes and the wider countryside and CS Policy CS9 which states that the

Council will protect land outside settlements for its own sake - particularly from

development that would adversely affect the character, appearance or function

of the land.

15. In addition, Policy EN8 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan 2002 (LP)

notes that the countryside will be protected for its own sake and that outside

development boundaries, development will be permitted only where it would

not adversely affect the character, appearance or function of the land and

would not damage its landscape quality. LP Policy H5 notes that a new

dwelling will not be permitted outside settlement boundaries unless, amongst

other matters, there is a need in connection with an acceptable use that cannot

be met within the settlement and it would cause no harm to the character of

the area or to the relationship between the settlement and the surrounding

landscape. LP Policy EN20 seeks for development to be in sympathy with the

appearance and character of the local environment and to retain and where

reasonable enhance beneficial landscape features.

16. The Appellants accept that the proposal would breach development plan

policies concerning both the settlement boundary and the landscape. In light

of my earlier findings I too consider that the development would be contrary to

those local policies and national principles identified above. However, I

consider it also necessary to give some consideration to the magnitude of the

harm.



17. The Council maintains that the development would have an adverse impact on

a valued landscape and would cause the loss of valued landscape features. The

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at Paragraph 109 that the

planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. However, what

is meant by a ‘valued landscape’ and how it might be identified is open to

interpretation.

18. In this case I have no doubt that the pastoral openness of the appeal site is

highly valued by the residents of Tilehurst Lane as well as by others who may

only experience the site in passing. However, unless it is especially degraded,

it is likely that most open land outside a settlement boundary would be termed

a ‘valued landscape’ by those who regularly experience it. Consequently,

seeking to define a ‘valued landscape’ in this manner is not particularly helpful

in seeking to inform where and whether development might take place.

19. The site is not subject to any local or national landscape designations. The

parties have, however, referred to various landscape character assessments

which seek to place the appeal site in context. These include the Berkshire

Landscape Character Assessment. This sets out a landscape strategy for the

relevant typology (Settled Farmlands) as being to strengthen and enhance the

landscape character - including that of the remaining mixed pastoral and arable

farmed landscapes.

20. At a more detailed level is the Bracknell Forest Borough Council: Landscape

Analysis of Sites Allocations and an Assessment of Gaps/Green Wedges

(August 2006), a study undertaken to inform the selection of preferred housing

options early in the Local Plan process. In that document the site is placed

within the Binfield Open Clay Farmlands (CL2) categorisation with the study

concluding that this area has a moderate capacity to accept change. This is

explained as meaning that some development may be accommodated in the

landscape without significant effects on its character, or overall change of

landscape character type.

21. The Council’s Character Area Assessments SPD (2010) shows that the site lies

just to the north of Area A: Binfield. It identifies that the character of Area A is

heavily influenced by the surrounding open rural landscape, especially to the

north and east, commenting that the Binfield Open Clay Farmlands to the north

are well enclosed with limited views and a strong contrast with the urban form.

It also notes that Tilehurst Lane retains remnants of its rural character,

partially bounded by hedgerows and roadside ditch/stream.

22. However, it seems to me that these assessments are of only limited value in

analysing the impact of the development; a number cover a very wide area1

and even those which address the appeal site itself are fairly general. A more

detailed assessment of the area was however carried out to inform the

selection of strategic site options for the SALP. This concluded that Area 5.C1

(North of Tilehurst Lane), which includes but is larger than the appeal site, is

“…….less sensitive than CL2 and RV2 [the adjacent character area] as a whole

and could accommodate some development adjacent to Tilehurst Lane,

providing it is in keeping with the local landscape townscape character. The

landscape capacity is moderate.”

1 Eg The Berkshire Landscape Character Assessment



23. According to the Appellants’ Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)

the site is visually well contained preventing most local and medium views of

the site. Whilst it is accepted in the LVIA that views from Church Lane will

incur moderately significant visual effects during construction and for some

time thereafter it is considered that these will reduce to ‘not significant’ after

15 years. Overall the LVIA suggests that the surrounding landscape has a low

sensitivity and is able to accommodate this type of change because it is

characteristic of the area.

24. The Council, however, considers that the magnitude of change has been

underestimated. In particular the Council considers that to identify the scale of

effect on the site itself as ‘minor’, ‘slight’ or ‘negligible’, when the change in

question includes the permanent loss of open pasture and its replacement with

72 houses, associated hardstandings, estate roads and gardens is not a

reasonable assessment. Whilst the Council acknowledges that the Appellants’

assessment in part appears to derive from the starting point that the

development would be ‘part rural in nature’, I agree with the Council that the

development is more likely to appear suburban in nature.

25. I have no reason to doubt the experience or credentials of the Appellants’

expert witness or that the LVIA has followed an accepted methodology.

Nonetheless, use of that methodology still requires a number of judgements to

be made and the Appellants accept that the Guidance for Landscape and Visual

Impact Assessment (Third edition)(GLVIA3) acknowledges that different

assessors will have different opinions – and the methodology does not replace

site assessment.

26. Based on my observations during the site visit, I consider that the open

pasture and the trees and bushes in and around the appeal site, all of which

are set in a rolling landform, make the site subjectively attractive and I have

no reason to question the Council’s view that the site exhibits a number of

landscape characteristics typical of the area and worthy of protection.

However, although lying outside the appeal site, the presence of the kennels to

the northwest degrades the landscape. Similarly, the pastoral qualities of the

landscape are also somewhat compromised by the Toll House and its ancillary

buildings and domestic accoutrements.

27. The site is well contained in longer views from the north by the undulating

landform. It is also reasonably well screened from both Tilehurst Lane and

Church Lane by tree belts and undergrowth. There are, however, filtered views

of the site from Tilehurst Lane and whilst my visit was at a time of sparse leaf

cover it seems unlikely that all views would be blocked even when the trees are

in full leaf. Consequently the impression of an open landscape behind the tree

belt would, in my view, still be there in summer. There are also some distant

views towards the site from the west/northwest although many potential views

are constrained by trees or the kennels.

28. The replacement of the existing pastoral landscape by the construction of an

estate of dwellings should, in my view, be regarded as a significant change.

However, in long views from the north and west those changes would have

limited visibility and, in consequence, limited impact. Despite the screening

effect of the trees the changes are, however, likely to have an appreciable

impact on the character of Tilehurst Lane and the sensitive receptors living

opposite the site. Whilst it may be possible to mitigate any such effects by a



carefully chosen layout and landscaping, the remaining rural character of

Tilehurst Lane would be further compromised.

29. As far as Church Lane is concerned, if the existing tree belt along was to

remain untouched it is likely that construction of the dwellings would go largely

unnoticed. However, the proposed access would itself introduce a suburban

form onto the lane and would also provide views through to the rest of the

development. The impact on the lane would be exacerbated by the removal of

the undergrowth and trees necessary to facilitate the visibility splays. The

presence of an access to a suburban style development in an otherwise rural

environment would, to my mind, appear highly incongruous. The lack of any

pedestrian connection from the proposed access along Church Lane would

simply emphasise the isolation of the development from the rest of the

developed area of Binfield and reinforce its incongruous nature. Whilst I accept

that some of these effects are likely to reduce over time as new planting

becomes established, and that most people would only have transient

experiences of these changes, I nonetheless consider that they weigh heavily

against the proposal.

30. The illustrative drawings also indicate that a landscape mound and acoustic

fence would be provided along the boundary with the kennels. Such a solution

would, in my view, be perceived as a wholly artificial and alien form in the rural

landscape. I accept that the proposal is in outline. However, the Appellants

and Council have agreed a condition requiring a scheme to be provided for

protecting the proposed dwellings/gardens from noise from the kennels –

suggesting that some form of acoustic screening would be required. Even

though the kennels and the proposed housing would themselves restrict the

wider views of any such screening, I consider it unlikely that, on the basis of

the evidence before the inquiry, effective acoustic screening could be provided

without creating a somewhat harsh and uncompromising edge to the

development. The suburban, or possibly even urban, nature of any likely

acoustic screening would add to the overall incongruity of the development.

31. I accept that the site is particularly well screened and that it has already been

assessed as having a moderate capacity for development. Nevertheless, in

assessing the particular proposal before me, I consider that despite the site’s

screening the proposed development would appear as an incongruous suburban

enclave in its rural setting. In my view that would result in very considerable

harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Sustainability and five year housing land supply

32. In terms of its location and the consequences for sustainability the site lies just

outside the settlement boundary. However, the SOCG notes that the site is

within 1Km of the centre of Binfield which benefits from a private college, a

primary school, 3 churches, 4 public houses, a doctors' surgery, a dental

surgery, a chemist, and various other services including a Londis supermarket

(with post office) and a garden centre.

33. The SOCG also notes that the site benefits from bus services running from

Forest Road, approximately 100m south of the site. The bus services offer

links to Bracknell town centre and key services including Wexham Park

Hospital. Employment opportunities are said to be available within the built-up

area of Bracknell and Bracknell Train Station also offers rail links to other major



employment centres including Reading (approx 20 minutes), Wokingham (6

minutes) and London (approx 1 hour).

34. Notwithstanding the local transport links described above a number of third

parties suggested that, in reality, the links are limited and any future residents

would largely depend on private cars for the majority of their trips. I agree

that this is likely. Nonetheless, given the locally available range of services the

site is, from a transport perspective, reasonably sustainable. The Council’s

draft submission Site Allocations Development Plan Document Background

Paper2 identified Binfield as a sustainable settlement and the draft

sustainability appraisal for ‘SHLAA ref 90’ (an area including the appeal site)

scored the site positively in relation to its potential to provide housing and its

accessibility to services and facilities in Binfield.

35. Sustainability however extends well beyond location and services and the NPPF

is a weighty material consideration to be taken into account in its assessment.

Paragraph 6 notes that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to

the achievement of sustainable development and Paragraph 14 explains that a

presumption in favour of sustainable development is at the heart of the NPPF.

36. NPPF Paragraph 49 notes that housing applications should be considered in the

context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that

relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date

if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of

deliverable housing sites. NPPF Paragraph 47 makes it clear that to boost

significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities should use their

evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively

assessed needs for housing in the housing market area and should identify and

update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five

years worth of housing, plus a buffer, against their housing requirements.

37. The Council maintains that it can demonstrate a housing land supply (HLS) in

excess of five years and in consequence relevant policies for the supply of

housing should be considered up to date. This is disputed by the Appellants

who take issue with the Council as to the housing need, the methodology for

addressing any historical shortfall (‘Liverpool vs Sedgefield’), the methodology

for the application of any buffer and the deliverability of certain sites. I shall

address each of these issues separately beginning with the deliverable supply.

Deliverable supply

38. The NPPF sets out a number of parameters to be considered when deciding

whether or not a site is deliverable including that it is available now, offers a

suitable location for development now, and is achievable with a realistic

prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and, in

particular, that development of the site is viable. It also notes that sites with

planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires -

unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five

years. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes it clear that planning

permission or allocation in a development plan is not a prerequisite for a site

being considered deliverable in terms of the five-year supply.

2 PoE Muston Appendix 3



39. According to the Housing Land Supply SOCG the Council believes it has a five

year deliverable supply of 4,320 units; the Appellants considers that the

Council’s figures are considerably overstated on a number of sites and that in

consequence the total deliverable supply should be only 3,138 units. I shall

look at the disputed sites in turn.

Land at Warfield (Area 2)

40. The Council considers that this site will deliver 360 units by 2019, the

Appellants 261. The site is in the ownership of a single developer, has

planning permission for 750 units and the application to discharge pre-

commencement conditions has been made. A s106 agreement has also been

negotiated and agreed. According to the Council the developer has confirmed

an intention to start on site in January 2015. I therefore see no reason to

believe that the site will not deliver housing within the five years; the only

issue is at what rate.

41. The Council’s position is largely based on discussions that took place through

the s106 negotiations. In particular, as the s106 requires delivery of a primary

school before more than 110 units are constructed, and the applicant

anticipates delivery of the school by September 2016, the Council suggests

that this equates to a delivery rate of around 100 units a year (on the basis

that the first units will not be available until August 2015). The Appellants,

however, consider firstly that tying the delivery of units to the opening of the

school is a non sequitur and, secondly, given the Appellants’ knowledge and

previous experience of the developer concerned, it is considered unlikely that

any of the land would be sold on to other developers - and in consequence the

delivery rate would be much lower than that being assumed by the Council.

42. I accept that there does not appear to be anything tying delivery of 110 units

to the opening of the school – the number of units actually completed might,

for instance, be less – nor anything which appears to explicitly tie delivery of

the school to September 2016. However, it seems unlikely to me that the

developer would seek to deliver the school earlier than was necessary and I

note that September 2016 date is the applicant’s own phasing.

43. The Officer’s report on the application, relied on to some extent by both main

parties, suggested that with a start on site at the end of 2014, 87 units would

be complete by November 2015. Whilst this particular phasing is no longer

applicable, it nonetheless suggests that completion of around 8 units a month

(or approximately 100 units pa) would not be an unreasonable assumption.

Despite the Appellants’ discussions with, and previous experience of, the

developer there is, in reality, little in the way of substantive evidence before

the inquiry to support a lower delivery rate.

44. I find none of the evidence particularly convincing or robust and whilst there

must be some risks to the delivery rates anticipated by the Council I do not

consider that the Appellants’ views can be regarded as clear evidence that the

scheme will not be implemented within five years. I shall therefore adopt the

Council’s suggested delivery of 360 units on this site.

Transport Research Laboratory

45. In overall terms the site is around 100ha and is intended to deliver 1000 units.

It has a resolution to grant planning permission subject to a s106 obligation –



due to be completed in January 2015 – but will require some preparatory works

to be undertaken. The Council considers that the site will deliver 460 units by

2019, the Appellants 200. The difference arises from a combination of different

start dates and delivery rates.

46. In terms of delivery the Council assume 150dpa. This is based on multiple

house builders as suggested in the outline application3 and an email from the

site owner4 confirming that the Council’s assumed build out rates still represent

the owner’s current thinking. The Appellants consider that 150dpa is optimistic

by comparison to other strategic sites in the Borough which, with one

exception, have maximum projected build out rates of 100 units per annum.

However, whilst I note the Appellants’ view it seems to me that a build out rate

of 150dpa would not be unrealistic on a site of this size, especially with multiple

developers. As the site owner is clearly considering involving more than one

developer I am content to accept the Council’s assumed delivery rate.

47. In terms of a start date, the Appellants consider the Council’s assumed start

date to be optimistic and point out that there is an error in the start date

suggested by the Council in its trajectory and that subsequently endorsed by

the owner. However, whilst I accept that there is an inconsistency it also

seems to me that as the Council’s email to the owner refers to “…150 per

annum for the following three years to 2018/19” the owner was, in reality,

agreeing to both the Council’s projected start date and delivery rate.

48. That said, I note that the indicative construction programme put forward with

the application anticipates that some 8 months of asbestos removal would

occur before the grant of planning permission, starting in 2013. The

development would then be completed in phases with residential development

shown as occurring in Phase 3 – itself not starting until 2015. Notwithstanding

that the Council notes that the various phases are intended to be carried out

alongside each other, as the asbestos removal has not yet taken place it seems

somewhat optimistic to anticipate that housing delivery would start in 2015/16.

49. In light of all these factors it is my judgement that the Council’s anticipated

160 dwellings in 2015/16 and 2016/17 should be reduced to 80 dwellings and

the overall five year delivery should be regarded as being 380 units.

Land north of Peacock Lane

50. The Council has assumed a delivery of 180 dwellings, the Appellants 106.

Although the Appellants’ figure is based on the current application for the site,

the Council explained that this was part of a reserved matters application and

as such had been constrained by the original permission.

51. Discussions now taking place with the applicant are seeking an increase in

density such that the site would deliver around 30 more dwellings. The Council

also points out that the current application does not relate to the whole of the

allocation, the remainder being promoted by the applicant through the SALP

process as potentially suitable for 37 units. This was subsequently included as

a main modification to the SALP.

52. Although the Appellants question whether the increased density could be

realised, and point out that there is no permission for the remainder of the site

3 Bond Annex to Deliverable Housing Supply 2.4 4 Hird Supplementary PoE App 6



(which, it is also suggested, is in any event unsuitable for residential

development) I was given no substantive evidence to fatally undermine the

Council’s assumptions. However, as the Council’s assumptions would, at best,

produce some 173 dwellings, for the purposes of assessing a five year supply it

seems more appropriate to assume delivery of 170, rather than 180, units.

Sandbanks, London Road

53. The Council has assumed delivery of 49 dwellings whereas the Appellants, as a

result of land contamination and subsequent viability issues, zero. Whilst the

viability issues are clearly of some concern, I understand that a developer has

an option on the site and that an application for a development of some 62

dwellings has already been submitted. Although the Appellants suggest that

the Council cannot envisage more than 49 dwellings on the site, and that in

consequence the viability circle cannot be squared, the Council confirms that

discussions are currently ongoing with the applicant.

54. Whether or not the problem ultimately proves intractable is, on the evidence

before me, a matter of conjecture. However, the fact that the applicant has

submitted an application at all suggests that some form of solution is available.

As the site is likely to deliver either no dwellings or more than 60, for the

purposes of assessing a five year supply I propose to assume that 30 dwellings

will be delivered compared to the Council’s 49. Whilst this clearly represents

an unreasonable proposition for this site on its own, such assumptions should

average out across the whole portfolio.

Amen Corner South

55. The Council has assumed a delivery of 350 dwellings, the Appellants zero.

Although, on the basis of an outline application, the site has a resolution to

grant permission the Appellants point out that, despite being under

consideration for some 18 months, the application was only referred to the

planning committee in August 2014 - with the applicant now having until

January 2015 to complete the s106. The Appellants consider this alone to be a

threat to the Council’s projected delivery of 50 dwellings in 2015/16. The

Appellants also note that the site is in multiple-ownership, that there is as yet

no developer appointed and that a commercial agreement will be required with

an adjoining landowner (concerning drainage of the site and use of the

adjoining landowner’s balancing pond) before any development can begin. As

such the Appellants consider that the adjoining landowner holds the promoters

in a ransom position and in consequence will be in no hurry to complete a

commercial negotiation.

56. Despite the endorsement given by the landowners to the Council’s suggested

delivery rates5, that endorsement was in July 2014, prior to the consideration

of the application at committee. In light of the time that has now elapsed since

the landowner’s endorsement of the suggested delivery rates and the range

and complexity of the issues identified above it seems to me that the Council’s

assumed start date, and thus overall delivery, is highly optimistic. Conversely

I see no reason to believe that the site will fail to deliver any housing in the

five year period. Based on the information before me I consider it is

reasonable to assume that a start on site is likely to be delayed by a year. The

5 Hird Supplementary PoE appendices p74



effect of such a delay would be to reduce the Council’s assumed delivery by

100 units. Delivery should thus be taken as 250 units.

Land at Warfield (Area 1)

57. The Council has again assumed a delivery of 350 dwellings, the Appellants

zero. This area forms part of a comprehensive development and is subject to a

Masterplan which is currently out for consultation. However, whilst an

allocated site, there is as yet no planning permission or application. The site

requires the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) but

as the area earmarked for the on-site SANG (Cabbage Hill) is in the ownership

of a separate commercial party (a house builder) the Appellants consider that

there is an intractable commercial issue and as such the site cannot be

considered available now.

58. Although the Council suggests that two further options for the SANG are under

discussion, the details are confidential and I can give them little weight.

Nevertheless, I agree with the Council that, whilst there would need to be

some form of commercial equalisation agreement, this does not necessarily

mean that the problem is intractable. The Council also points out that the

owner of the potential SANG made representations through the SALP

examination to say that there was such land available in order to facilitate

development.

59. In my view it would therefore be unreasonable to assume that no dwellings

would be delivered on this site within five years. However, as the Council itself

lays out6 the site ownership is highly complex and given that the Masterplan

consultation is not complete there must, to my mind, be some risks in

assuming that 50 dwellings would be delivered in 2016/17. I do, however,

accept that the Council’s assumed delivery rate of 150dpa in 2017/18 and

2018/19 could be achieved, particularly if a number of developers were to be

involved.

60. In light of these matters I see no compelling reason to depart from the

Council’s assumed numbers, albeit that I consider them to be at significant

risk. I therefore intend to assume that 350 dwellings will be delivered from

Warfield (Area 1).

Summary of deliverable supply

61. The Council considers it has an overall 5 year deliverable supply of some 4,320

dwellings whereas the Appellants consider that only 3,138 dwellings would be

delivered. In light of my reasoning above I consider that the Council’s

assumed supply is optimistic and the Appellants’ alternative is unduly

pessimistic. In my judgement the Council’s assumed supply should be reduced

by some 209 units made up of - 80 (Transport Research Laboratory), - 10

(Land North of Peacock Lane), -19 (Sandbanks) and - 100 (Amen Corner

South).

62. Whilst I also consider there to be further, significant risk of delivery at Warfield

Area 1, for the purposes of assessing whether or not the Council has a five year

HLS I shall assume that the likely 5 year delivery equates to some 4,111 units.

6 Hird PoE Table 5 p35/36



Housing requirement

63. NPPF Paragraph 47 is clear that the Local Plan should meet the full, objectively

assessed needs (OAN) for housing in the housing market area. The Council

relies for its OAN on the figures in its CS pointing out that the SOCG notes7

that CS Policy CS15 sets out the housing requirement for the Borough between

2006 and 2026. However, and notwithstanding that the SOCG also goes on to

record that these “….figures set out the requirements for calculating the five

year housing land supply requirement”, the Appellants argue that the figures in

the CS are out of date and do not represent the OAN.

64. Whilst the Council is concerned at the apparent shift in the Appellants’ position

since agreeing the SOCG, I note that the Appellants’ statement of case set out

an intention to provide evidence as to the appropriateness of the Council’s

housing requirement. In any event, whatever the interpretation or genesis of

the statements in the SOCG it seems to me that, having regard to the NPPF, I

must try and understand whether or not the figures relied on by the Council

can in fact be considered as the OAN.

65. CS Policy CS15 notes that over the period of 2006 to 2026 the Council will

make provision for the phased delivery of 11,139 net dwellings. According to

CS Paragraph 173 the “….submission South East Plan identifies that 10,780

new dwellings should be built in the Borough between 2006 and 2026 – an

annual average of 539 dwellings per annum. In addition, there is an additional

359 dwelling shortfall carried over from the period up to 2006 to be made up in

the period to 2017, making a total of 11,139 dwellings to be provided.” This is

reflected in CS Policy CS15 which puts forward broad phasings of 572 dpa

between 2006 and 2017 and 539 dpa between 2017 and 2026.

66. The Council points out that there is no dispute that the housing figure in the CS

represents the only adopted housing requirement for the Borough and

considers that as the CS covers the period up to 2026; has been tested and

found sound at examination; and, has not been superseded by any more

recent assessment of housing need it should be considered up to date. The

Council also points out that it is the figure that has been carried through to the

Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP), not simply as a matter of housing numbers,

but as a means of delivering housing according to the spatial strategy in the

CS. As such the Council considers the CS numbers to be the most reliable

representation of housing needs that should continue to be used for the

purposes of the five year requirement until the Strategic Housing Market

Assessment (SHMA) or Local Plan process is further advanced.

67. Whilst I accept that it is not disputed that the CS figures represent the only

adopted housing requirement for the Borough, as the CS itself records at

Paragraph 173, the housing requirement figures are based on the submission

South East Plan (SEP – also known as the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)).

The report of the panel following the examination in public of the SEP8 notes at

Paragraph 21.54 that, in considering the overall housing provision, “Our finding

is that for the reasons summarised in Chapter 7 we consider the draft Plan’s

provision to be too low.”

7 Paragraph 5.6 8 Bond Appendix 5 ‘The South East Plan Volume 1: Report August 2007’



68. In the specific case of Bracknell Forest, Paragraph 21.94 of the panel report

states that “We recommend that 2,000 (100dpa) should be added to the draft

Plan provision for Bracknell Forest, totalling 12,780, equivalent to 639dpa

(2006-26).” The annual average figure of 639 is contained in Table H1b of the

SEP (May 2009), that table being prefaced by the words “Local planning

authorities will prepare plans, strategies and programmes to ensure the

delivery of the annual average net additional dwelling requirement as set out in

Table H1b.”

69. It therefore seems clear to me that the level of housing provision in the CS

has, through an independent examination process, already been found to be

too low. Despite the SEP report not being publicly available at the date of

adoption of the CS, the Inspector’s report on the examination into the CS9 is

clear at Paragraph 207 that “….if the RSS is finally adopted with different

housing figures for the Borough, then it is likely that the Core Strategy will

need to be reviewed to ensure conformity with the RSS.” I understand no such

review has taken place. Whilst the RSS (SEP) has since been revoked and the

evidence bases for the draft SEP and the SEP are not before this inquiry I do

not see these matters as good reasons to simply ignore the findings of the SEP

panel. Its findings were arrived at following an examination in public and

cannot simply be put aside, albeit that they are now some years old.

70. Notwithstanding the panel’s findings, I accept that the recent SALP (July 2013)

is based on the housing numbers in the CS. However, the Inspector’s report

on the examination into the SALP notes that, had “…the SEP’s housing policies

still been extant, the resulting difference would have raised concerns of general

conformity…” before going on to note that “….given that these policies have

now been revoked, it is appropriate to consider the soundness of the SALP in

the context of the adopted CS. Indeed, consistency with the CS is required by

the 2012 Regulations.”

71. Consequently, and despite his acknowledgment that higher housing numbers

had been put forward in the SEP, it is clear that the SALP Inspector considered

that his assessment of the soundness of the SALP had to be undertaken in the

context of the CS numbers. Indeed, he noted in his report that whilst many

parties wished to revisit the underlying justification for the scale of housing

proposed in the SALP, “….given that the SALP has been prepared in the context

of an adopted CS, such a review would represent a significant change in the

Plan’s role and purpose – which is to allocate sites in line with the CS.”

72. The Inspector’s approach here is consistent with that of the Inspector assessing

the soundness of the Wokingham Borough Council site allocations document, a

matter considered by the High Court in the case of Gladman Development Ltd v

Wokingham Borough Council 10. The judge in that case held that “….an

inspector assessing the soundness of a development plan document dealing

with the allocation of sites for a quantity of housing which is needed is not

required to consider whether an objective assessment of housing need would

disclose a need for additional housing”.

73. I therefore do not see the SALP Inspector’s finding of soundness as an

endorsement of the numbers in the CS. Rather the Inspector’s approach was

9 Inquiry Document 13 10 Bond Appendix 33 [2014] EWHC 2320 (Admin)



intended to be compliant with the relevant Regulations and, as the Inspector

himself noted, to avoid counter-productive delays in the release of sites.

74. In light of these matters I consider that there must be very serious question

marks over whether or not the housing numbers in the CS can be said to

represent the OAN.

75. The Council points out that the PPG11 says that housing requirement figures in

up-to-date adopted Local Plans should be used as the starting point for

calculating the five year supply – and argues that as the CS covers the period

up to 2026 and has not been superseded by any more recent full assessment

of housing need it is up to date. However, I am conscious that the PPG also

notes that considerable weight should be given to the housing requirement

figures in adopted Local Plans, which have successfully passed through the

examination process, unless significant new evidence comes to light (my

emphasis). The findings of the SEP panel should, to my mind, be regarded as

‘significant new evidence’ - although I am also conscious that the PPG says that

it should be borne in mind that evidence which dates back several years, such

as that drawn from revoked regional strategies, may not adequately reflect

current needs.

76. The PPG goes on to say that where there is no robust recent assessment of full

housing needs, a situation that must apply here, the household projections

published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

should be used as the starting point. However, the PPG also acknowledges

that the weight given to these projections should take account of the fact that

they have not been tested (which could evidence a different housing

requirement to the projection, for example because past events that affect the

projection are unlikely to occur again or because of market signals) or

moderated against relevant constraints (for example environmental or

infrastructure).

77. Whilst accepting that the figure has not been tested, the Appellants note that

the current DCLG household projections show a need of 711 units per annum12

- considerably in excess of the CS figures. The Appellants also point out that

the PPG13 acknowledges that the household projection-based estimate of

housing need may require adjustment to reflect factors affecting local

demography and household formation rates which are not captured in past

trends. For example, household formation rates may have been historically

suppressed by under-supply and worsening affordability of housing. The

Appellants believe that the historical under supply, now standing at 1774

units14, and the need for affordable housing of between 176 and 276 units per

year15 (which at an average 25% per site would require a minimum of 704

dwellings to be built each year), both add support to the DCLG figure - which in

consequence should be seen as robust.

78. For its part, the Council accepts that the CS housing figures are not perfect in

that they are not contained in a post NPPF Local Plan and are not derived from

a recent SHMA. However, the Council suggests that for a number of reasons,

11 3-30 12 Bond Appendix 25 13 2a-15 14 Housing Land Supply SOCG 15 Bond Appendix 12



such figures are still preferable to the bare statistical projections derived from

the DCLG figures.

79. In particular the Council argues that the DCLG figures are based on the Office

for National Statistics (ONS) population projections for 2011 and that the 2012

figures show the 2011 figures to be an overestimate of some 20%. All other

things being equal, it is suggested that this would reduce the DCLG projections

from 711 to 569dpa. More recent household projections by the Greater London

Authority (GLA), based on the 2012 ONS statistics together with the application

of household formation rates prepared for the purposes of testing the London

Plan, produce household growth figures for the Borough of 562dpa to 2021.

80. The Council also considers that the lack of any adjustment to the bare figures,

the limitations of the methodology underlying the projections and the

relationship of the projections to the housing market area all reduce the

reliance that can be placed on the DCLG projections. According to the Council,

the Government’s own methodology paper recognises that the limitations of

the 2011-based population projections should be considered when assessing

the 2011-based household projections.

81. The PPG itself records that establishing future need for housing is not an exact

science and that no single approach will provide a definitive answer. On an

annualised basis the figures derived from the CS equate to about 559 dpa;

those from the GLA projections about 562dpa; those from a rough estimate of

the effect of the 2012 population projections about 569dpa; those from the

revoked RSS about 639dpa; and, those from the current DCLG projections

about 711 dpa. Having regard to all the factors above I consider that basing

the OAN on the current DCLG household projections would be likely to produce

too high a figure. Conversely, if the OAN was taken to be the CS derived figure

it is likely that it would be too low.

82. I am conscious that the Council argues that the CS figures have not only been

tested through the examination processes for both the CS and the SALP but

also form part of an adopted plan and should therefore be given preference

over the current DCLG projections. However, whilst clearly part of an adopted

plan the CS figures were not, as explained above, tested through the SALP

examination process and were, in any event, subject to a caveat that they may

need to be reviewed following the RSS examination. Although the more recent

GLA projections have not yet been fully tested, I accept that they do lend some

credence to the CS figures - as does the fairly crude estimate based on the

2012 population projections. Nevertheless, despite being revoked, the RSS

housing need figure was not only subject to examination but was more recent

than the CS figure. It should, in my view, be accorded similar weight to the

figure from the CS.

83. Having regard to all these factors it seems to me that an equivalent OAN is

likely to fall somewhere between the CS housing figures and those derived

from the RSS – that is somewhere between 559dpa and 639dpa. For the

purposes of assessing whether or not the Council can demonstrate a five year

HLS I therefore intend to assume an equivalent OAN of 600dpa; I shall test the

sensitivities of this assumption later.



‘Liverpool vs Sedgefield’

84. Compared to the CS Policy CS15 requirements, the Housing Land Supply SOCG

shows that there has been a shortfall in delivery in each year since 2006/7.

This has led to an overall shortfall which currently stands at some 1,774

dwellings – a figure that could, in theory, increase if the CS figures were

deemed too low. The Council believes that this shortfall should be spread out

over the remainder of the plan period, resulting in an additional requirement of

148dpa for the remaining 12 years of the plan. The Appellants’ view is that the

shortfall should be recovered over the next 5 years. Based on the Council’s

assumed shortfall against the CS, accepting the Appellants’ view would mean

an additional requirement of 355dpa for each of the next 5 years.

85. The PPG16 notes that local planning authorities should aim to deal with any

under supply within the first 5 years of the plan period where possible. Whilst

the Appellants accept the Council’s point that, on the face of it, this is taken

from a plan making paragraph it seems to me that is nevertheless consistent

with the Government’s aim, expressed in NPPF Paragraph 47 and cross referred

to in that part of the PPG, to boost significantly the supply of housing.

Consequently I do not see the approach as applying exclusively to plan making.

Nevertheless, whilst the PPG encourages dealing with the undersupply in the

first 5 years it is not policy and it is not prescriptive. The words ‘where

possible’ clearly suggest that some form of pragmatism is envisaged.

86. In considering the two (‘Liverpool’ vs ‘Sedgefield’) approaches to addressing

the shortfall in delivery, the SALP Inspector noted that “Both calculation

methods have advantages and drawbacks. In the present case, it is clear that

the SALP’s delivery strategy involves larger sites that will require significant

supporting infrastructure and that are likely to come forward at generally later

stages during the Plan period. Seeking to meet the outstanding shortfall

during a five year period would be inconsistent with that approach.”

87. I was given no substantive evidence to show that the mix of sites had changed

appreciably since the considerations of the SALP Inspector and it is clear from

the site specific information before me that the smallish number of sites which

are expected to deliver a significant proportion of the five year housing supply

are complex and would require appreciable supporting infrastructure.

However, that does not mean that it would be impossible to bring smaller sites

forward from later in the plan period - but the relative inflexibility of the larger

sites is clearly a constraint on early delivery.

88. The SALP Inspector also noted that “Moreover, it would require an even greater

rate of housing delivery during the first five year period than is shown in the

present trajectory. Projected completions during some of these years already

markedly exceed recent delivery rates. It would be unrealistic to expect an

even higher rate to be achieved.” Until the larger sites come on stream,

achieving a step change in delivery - especially bearing in mind what has been

a record of persistent under-delivery - would require a very considerable

number of sites to be brought forward from later in the plan period. That in

itself illustrates the considerable practical difficulties inherent in seeking to

recover the shortfall over the next five years.

16 3-035



89. That said, it seems to me that, based on my considerations of what the OAN

might be, the CS figures are likely to represent the lowest level of requirement.

The fact that there is a considerable backlog in delivery against even those

figures means that there is already a significant unmet need. Such a need and

backlog should clearly be met as soon as is practically possible - consistent

with the principles of good planning.

90. The Council believes that the SALP Inspector’s conclusions should, in the

interests of consistency and good planning, only be departed from for good

reason and that to change method now would fundamentally alter the basis

upon which the delivery of the spatial strategy has been planned. The Council

notes that the SALP Inspector himself said that “….bearing in mind both that

housing targets will be reviewed in the forthcoming Local Plan and that (as

already noted) further delays to the present examination would be counter-

productive, I am therefore satisfied on balance that the Council’s approach is

justified and that a five year housing supply has been demonstrated.”

However, I do not see that as a resounding endorsement of the Council’s

preferred methodology for recovering the shortfall over the plan period; rather,

it appears to be an acceptance that adopting the Council’s preferred

methodology would be a pragmatic way of achieving early housing delivery in

the context of a review of the housing targets through an imminent Local Plan.

As the Council confirmed, that Local Plan has now slipped back considerably.

91. In my view the Council should be planning to recover the under supply within

the next five years. Even if the practical and reasonable constraints of good

planning mean that it is not sensibly possible to recover the backlog within five

years, I see no particular reason to be constrained by having, in the

alternative, to choose the Council’s interpretation of the ‘Liverpool’ approach –

which in this case means that it would take 12 years to recover the backlog.

Seeking to recovery the backlog over say 7 or 8 years, or whatever might be

the shortest period possible consistent with good planning, seems more

consistent with the Government’s aims.

92. Against this background I consider that including only an additional 148 dpa in

the requirement for the purposes of calculating whether or not the Council can

demonstrate a five year HLS would be contrary to the aims of the PPG and

Government policy. Based on a need derived from the CS, a more appropriate

figure would be somewhere between 148dpa and 355 dpa. Simply for the sake

of argument I intend to assume, in looking at whether a five year HLS can be

demonstrated, that recovery of the backlog would take place over something

like a 10 year period. I shall again look at the sensitivities surrounding such an

assumption later.

Application of the buffer

93. NPPF Paragraph 47 notes that local planning authorities should identify and

update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five

years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional

buffer of either 5 or 20%. There is no dispute here that the buffer should be

20%; the Council, however, argues that the buffer should only be applied in

comparison to the housing requirement derived directly from CS Policy CS15

and not to any deficit or shortfall. The Appellants consider it should apply to

both. I agree with the Appellants.



94. First, it seems to me that any deficit or shortfall only arises because there has

been a failure to deliver the required housing in previous years. That does not

mean that the requirement has disappeared; indeed, if that were the case

there would be no point in trying to take account of the deficit at all. The

housing requirement must therefore include the deficit. Secondly, the NPPF

makes it clear that the 20% buffer is there in part to “….provide a realistic

prospect of achieving the planned supply….”. I see no logic in seeking to

secure delivery of only part of the overall requirement whilst the rest remains

at risk. That surely is a recipe for a continuing deficit.

95. Although the Council has referred me to Paragraph 22 of the SALP Inspector’s

report I find nothing there that leads me to reconsider my approach above. I

therefore conclude that in assessing whether or not the Council can

demonstrate a five year HLS, a 20% buffer should be added to the supply -

assessed against the totality of the housing requirement including the backlog.

Five year housing land supply – summary

96. The Council believes it can demonstrate a HLS equivalent to some 5.28 years

(Line 1, Table A below). However, as explained previously I consider the

Council’s approach to the application of the buffer to be incorrect. Applying the

buffer to both the base need and the deficit (to enable comparison against the

likely supply) means that, without altering any of the Council’s figures on need,

deficit or deliverable supply, the HLS falls to some 5.09 years (Line 2, Table A).

As noted in Table 2 of the HLS SOCG, that is only equivalent to a surplus of 79

dwellings (or 16dpa) over five years.

Table A

Need Deficit to

be made

up

Total

requirement

inc. 20%

addition

Deliverable

units

HLS

1. Council’s

position

2,794 740 4,093 4,320 5.28 years

2. Revised buffer

application

2,794 740 4,241 4,320 5.09 years

3. Revised buffer

application and

revised base need

3,000 833 4,433 4,320 4.87 years

4. Revised buffer

application and

recovery of under

supply in 10 years

2,794 887 4,417 4,320 4.89 years

5. Revised buffer

application and

revised supply

figure

2,794 740 4,241 4,111 4.85 years

6. Application of all

adjustments

3,000 999 4,799 4,111 4.28 years



97. If an equivalent OAN of 600 dpa (as outlined above) is assumed, the HLS

would fall to around 4.87 years (Table A, Line 3). Whilst I acknowledge that

600 dpa is no more than an assumption, even if the only adjustment to the

HLS calculation was to increase the base need by the equivalent of 16 dpa over

the next five years the Council would be unable to demonstrate a five year

HLS.

98. The Council seeks to recover its current under supply over the remaining plan

period of some 12 years. However, the Government clearly seeks to boost the

supply of housing and aims for under supply to be recovered within the next

five years where possible. Even if it was assumed that the backlog recovery

took place over a ten year period then the Council could not demonstrate a five

year supply (Table A, Line 4). Indeed, recovery over anything less than an 11

year period would mean that the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year

supply.

99. Line 5 of Table A shows that adjustments to the application of the buffer and

the use of what I consider to be a more realistic assessment of the likely

delivery (indeed, bearing in mind the risk to delivery at Warfield Area 1, even

my assessment may be seen as optimistic) mean that the Council is only able

to demonstrate a HLS equivalent to some 4.85 years.

100. Applying all the adjustments that I consider would meet Government guidance

and would provide a realistic assessment of the likely delivery, the Council’s

HLS is equivalent to no more than 4.3 years (Table A, Line 6). Whilst I accept

that this view is based on a series of assumptions and estimations I

nevertheless consider that there is compelling evidence before me to conclude

that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year HLS.

101. In light of this finding and in accord with NPPF Paragraph 49, relevant policies

for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. In my view that

would include any policies which seek to place a blanket ban on development

outside settlement boundaries, such as CS Policy CS9 and LP Policy H5, but

would not include more general policies which seek to protect the character

and appearance of an area.

Other matters

Highway and pedestrian safety

102. A number of concerns have been raised by third parties in respect of highway

matters such as the likely traffic increase on local roads, the relationship of the

proposed access to the sharp bend on Church Lane, the risks to vehicles

turning into the site from Church Lane, the risks to pedestrians accessing the

site and the difficulties inherent in construction of the proposed footpaths.

103. I have taken account of those concerns. However, subject to the changes put

forward by the Appellants in respect of the proposed access and the

contributions to be secured through the submitted s106 obligation, the

Highway Authority no longer raises any objection to the proposals and the

Council has confirmed that it no longer wishes to pursue its highways reasons

for refusal. Whilst I have no doubt that the concerns of local residents are

genuinely held, equally I have no substantive evidence to convince me to take



a different stance to that of the Highway Authority. Consequently I have not

pursued this matter further.

Listed buildings

104. A number of local residents have also raised concerns over the impact of the

proposals on nearby listed buildings and I am conscious that the Planning

(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states at section 66(1) that

“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which

affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority ..shall have

special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting…….”.

105. Notwithstanding residents’ concerns, the SOCG records that the physical

separation and screening between the proposed development and nearby listed

buildings means that any harmful impact would not be sufficient in itself to

justify refusing the application. Based on my observations during the site visit

it is my judgement that the development would result in no material impact to

the significance of the nearby designated assets and I have not, therefore,

pursued this matter further.

Planning Obligation

106. The Appellants have submitted a planning obligation (dated 13 November

2014) in the form of an agreement between the owners, option holder,

developers and Bracknell Forest Borough Council pursuant to s106 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990. This agreement is intended to secure the

provision of 25% of the total number of dwellings as affordable homes as well

as other matters such as financial contributions towards transport, education

and leisure and the mitigation of the impact of the development on land

designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA). The agreement is also intended

to secure the carrying out of the highway works in connection with the

vehicular and pedestrian accesses, the provision of open space of public value

and an off site reptile enhancement plan.

107. Having taken into account the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Regulations Compliance Statement17, the Highways SOCG and the ‘Justification

for Ecological Elements of the s106’18 I consider that the proposed

contributions, the provision of open space, the highway works and the reptile

enhancement plan would all be necessary to make the development acceptable

in planning terms, would be directly related to it and would be fairly and

reasonably related to it in scale and kind.

108. I also consider, having had regard to Policy H8 of the Bracknell Forest Borough

Local Plan 2002, CS Policy CS17, the Council’s Housing Strategy19 and the

resolution of the Council’s Executive20, that the provision of 25% of the

proposed dwellings as affordable housing would meet the CIL tests.

109. In consequence I find that the submitted obligation as a whole meets the tests

set out in the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations

2010. However, in terms of the overall planning balance it is only the provision

17 Inquiry Document 9 18 Muston PoE Appendix 4 19 Inquiry Document 27 20 Inquiry Document 26



of affordable housing that should attract weight in the overall planning balance;

the other provisions merely seek to mitigate the effects of the development.

Conclusion

110. NPPF Paragraph 49 is clear that housing applications should be considered in

the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

According to NPPF Paragraph 14 that means that when, as here, there is no

five year HLS and relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole or

specific NPPF policies indicate that development should be restricted. In this

case there is no suggestion that specific NPPF policies indicate that

development should be restricted.

111. Although the correct application of NPPF Paragraph 14 has been subject to

some debate, case law is clear that the presumption only applies to sustainable

development. It also seems clear that there is no need to try and reach an

interim conclusion as to whether a development is sustainable before then

seeking to apply Paragraph 14. In this case the Council and Appellants agree

that the balancing exercise embedded in Paragraph 14 should be taken into

account in reaching an overall conclusion as to whether the proposal amounts

to sustainable development.

112. There are some clear benefits to the proposal; in light of the Council’s housing

land supply situation the provision of 71 (net) housing units in a location that

gives relatively easy access to a range of services must carry significant weight

in its favour, as must the provision of 18 units of affordable housing secured

through the s106. However, whilst I agree with the Appellants that there

would also be a range of smaller benefits including increased Council tax, New

Homes Bonus, the economic benefits to Binfield in terms of additional revenue

for services and safety benefits for users of the new bridleway, I consider that

these should be accorded limited weight.

113. Weighed against the benefits of the proposal I have found that there would be

very considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area. In my

judgement that harm would, for the reasons above, be sufficient to significantly

and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. In consequence I

do not consider that the proposed development can be regarded as

sustainable.

114. The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan.

Notwithstanding the benefits of the proposal and the fact that the NPPF is a

weighty material consideration that seeks to boost significantly the supply of

housing, having had regard to all matters before me I find nothing to outweigh

the development plan conflict. I therefore conclude that the appeal must fail.

Lloyd Rodgers

Inspector



APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr G Williams of Counsel Instructed by Mr A Jack, Borough Solicitor

He called

Mrs B Kirkham Dip TP,

BLD, CMLI

Director, Kirkham Landscape Planning Ltd

Mrs N Hird BSc (Hons),

MSc (T&CP), MRTPI

Principal Planning Officer, Bracknell Forest

Borough Council

Mr M Muston BA (Hons),

M Phil, MRTPI

Director, Muston Planning

FOR THE APPELLANTS:

Mr R Warren of Queen’s

Counsel

Instructed by Mr D Bond of Woolf Bond LLP

He called

Mr J Cooper BSc (Hons),

DipLD, FLI, AAILA

Director of Landscape Architecture, SLR

Consulting

Mr D Bond BA (Hons),

MRTPI

Partner, Woolf Bond LLP

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mr D Phillips Local resident

Cllr C Turrell Executive member, Planning and Transport,

Bracknell Forest Borough Council

Mrs S Peacey Local resident and Binfield Neighbourhood Plan

Steering Committee

Mrs A Phillips Local resident and member of neighbourhood

area working group

Mrs B Fisher Local resident

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

1 Appearances and opening points on behalf of the Appellants. Submitted by

Mr Warren.

2 Supplementary Proof of Evidence of Mrs Hird. Submitted by Mr Williams.

3 Notification list for Appeal. Submitted by Mr Williams

4 Housing Land Supply Statement of Common Ground. Submitted by

Messrs Warren/Williams.

5 Opening submissions on behalf of the Council. Submitted by Mr Williams.

6 Written statement. Submitted by Cllr Turrell.

7 Extract from GLVIA3 – Assessing the significance of effects. Submitted by

Mr Warren.

8 Draft s106 Deed of Agreement. Submitted by Mr Warren.

9 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations Compliance Statement.

Submitted by Mr Williams.

10 Bracknell Forest Designated Neighbourhood Area Boundary. Submitted by

Mr Warren.

11 Site Allocations Local Plan. Submitted by Mr Williams.



12 Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CSDPD). Submitted by

Mr Williams.

13 Extract from Report on the Examination into the CSDPD. Submitted by

Mr Warren.

14 Extract from Planning Practice Guidance (Section 2a). Submitted by

Mr Warren.

15 Signed s106 Deed of Agreement. Submitted by Mr Warren.

16 Contents Lists: Original Planning Application/Subsequent Correspondence.

Submitted by Mr Warren.

17 Annotated Drawing No 0624/SK/023A. Submitted by Mr Warren.

18 Extract from Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Submitted by

Mr Warren.

19 Letter to Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP submitting Panel Report following

Examination in Public of the draft South East Plan - plus extract of page 101

of the report. Submitted by Mr Warren.

20 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation

Supplementary Planning Document. Submitted by Mr Warren.

21 Table 9A: BFBC Five Year Supply Calculation adopting interim 2011

household projections as the requirement. Submitted by Mr Warren.

22 Written statement including map of ‘Development in Wokingham Borough’s

Strategic Development Locations’. Submitted by Mrs Fisher.

23 SoS decision and Inspector’s report into ‘Land off Coate Road and Windsor

Drive, Devizes, Wiltshire’. Application Ref E/2013/0083/OUT

(APP/Y3940/A/13/2206963). Submitted by Mrs Fisher.

24 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd edition (further

extract). Submitted by Mr Warren.

25 Suggested conditions. Submitted by Mr Williams.

26 Bracknell Forest Council Minutes of Executive 29.3.11 - re. Affordable

Housing Planning Policy. Submitted by Mr Williams.

27 ‘The Right Home’. Housing Strategy for Bracknell Forest 2009-2014.

Submitted by Mr Williams.

28 Policy H8 Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan 2002. Submitted by

Mr Williams.

29 Closing submissions on behalf of the Council. Submitted by Mr Williams.

30 Closing submissions on behalf of the Appellants. Submitted by Mr Warren.



APPENDIX 5

APPEAL DECISION AT LAND AT GOCH WAY, ANDOVER (APP/C1760/A/14/2222867)


Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 24 February 2015

Site visit made on 27 February 2015

by Sara Morgan LLB (Hons) MA Solicitor (Non-practising)


Decision date: 15 May 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/C1760/A/14/2222867

Land at Goch Way, Andover

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an

application for outline planning permission.

The appeal is made by Gleeson Developments Ltd against Test Valley Borough Council.

The application Ref 14/00061/OUTN, is dated 10 January 2014.

The development proposed is an outline application for a residential development

comprising up to 85 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing),

structural planting and landscaping, informal open space, children’s play areas, surface

water attenuation, vehicular access from Goch Way and associated ancillary works.

The inquiry sat for 4 days on 24-27 February 2015.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a residential

development comprising up to 85 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), structural planting and landscaping, informal open space, children’s play areas, surface water attenuation, vehicular access from Goch

Way and associated ancillary works on land at Goch Way, Andover in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 14/00061/OUTN, dated 10

January 2014, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Application for costs

2. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Gleeson Developments Ltd

against Test Valley Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural

3. The application was in outline, with all matters except means of access reserved for future consideration. The plans before the Council when the

appeal was lodged were a site location plan, drawing number P921.LOC.01 Rev C, a site survey plan, drawing number P921.TOPO.01 and a proposed site

access layout, drawing number 12-147-003 Rev C.

4. After the appeal had been lodged, the site access layout drawing was superseded by drawing 12-147-011C1. This drawing does not make material

changes to the nature, location or visual appearance of the junction, and no

1 Attached to the highways statement of common ground (Document 4)

Appeal Decision APP/C1760/A/14/2222867


injustice would be caused by permitting it to be substituted for the original site

access drawing.

5. After the appeal had been lodged, the Council indicated that, if it had been in a

position to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission for seven reasons. Two reasons for refusal related to the site’s location in the countryside, and the effect on the immediate landscape quality

of the area and on the gap between Charlton and Andover and alleged conflict with saved policies SET 03 and DES 01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan

2006 (LP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

6. The other reasons for refusal related to inadequate provision of public open space, adverse effect on highway and transport infrastructure, failure to

provide affordable housing and financial contributions towards sports facilities and school places, and absence of a safe access for existing and proposed road

users. The Council has subsequently agreed with the appellants that these other reasons for refusal could be overcome by way of a section 106 planning obligation, and that obligation was completed on the last day of the Inquiry.

The planning obligation is dealt with in more detail below.

7. On 27 February the 2012-based household projections for England 2012-2037

were released, too late for them to be referred to at the Inquiry. The Council and the appellants have been asked for their comments on these figures, and their comments have been taken into account in my decision.

Main Issues

8. The appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Andover, and

the Council and the appellants agree that the proposal conflicts with saved policy SET 03 of the LP.

9. In the light of the above, the main issues are:

(1) Whether or not the proposed development’s conflict with development plan policies relating to development outside settlement boundaries would be

outweighed by housing land supply considerations, so as to justify in principle granting planning permission for the development.

(2) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of

the surrounding area.

(3) Whether the proposed development would comprise sustainable

development for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reasons

Local and national policy

10. The development plan comprises saved policies from the LP. This plan does not make any provision for new housing after 2011. In other words, it is silent

as to the number and location of new dwellings which should be provided after 2011.

11. Saved policy SET 03 of the LP provides that development in the countryside, that is to say outside the boundaries of settlements defined in the LP, will only be permitted if there is an overriding need for it to be located in the

countryside, or in other certain limited circumstances. The Council’s draft



Revised Local Plan (RLP) has identified sites for new housing which are outside

the boundaries of settlements defined in the LP, and indeed planning permission has been granted on appeal for development on sites in conflict

with policy SET 03, on the basis of the absence of a five-year supply of land. This clearly indicates that, in so far as policy SET 03 seeks to prevent new housing development to meet current housing needs outside the LP’s

settlement boundaries, that policy and those boundaries are out of date.

12. The Council argued that policy SET 03 in fact permits housing in the

countryside if a five-year supply of land cannot be demonstrated, because in those circumstances there is an overriding need. However, the policy is on the face of it a countryside protection policy which seeks only to permit

development requiring a countryside location. General-purpose housing to meet the housing needs of a district could not be described as development

requiring a countryside location. A similar argument was considered and rejected by the Inspector who considered an appeal relating to land off Nutburn Road North Baddesley2. I see no reason to come to a different view.

13. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("the Framework") advises that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

For decision making, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, it means granting permission

unless either any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the

Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. The Council does not argue here that specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be

restricted.

14. The Framework in paragraph 47 requires local planning authorities to boost

significantly the supply of housing by using their evidence base to ensure that their local plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area. Paragraph 49 requires housing

applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It further provides that relevant policies for the

supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

15. The question of housing land supply is considered below. However, given that

the adopted LP is silent on the question of new housing development post-2011 and that policy SET 03 is out of date, the last bullet point in paragraph 14 of

the Framework applies. That, therefore, requires planning permission to be granted for the development unless any adverse impacts of so doing would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Housing land supply

The Council’s position

16. The Council’s Revised Local Plan DPD 2011 - 2029 (RLP) is currently undergoing examination. The RLP housing requirement figure sets a housing

requirement of a minimum of 588 dwellings per annum (dpa) between 2011

2 APP/C1760/A/11/2167212



and 2029. This requirement is split between Northern Test Valley (Andover

and its surroundings) which is required to provide 394 dwellings per year, and Southern Test Valley, which is required to provide the balance of 194 dwellings

per year. The site lies within Northern Test Valley.

17. The Council’s position at the Inquiry was that the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing for the district is the 588 dwellings

identified in the RLP. This is said to meet fully all household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change, and provide

for economic growth with an increase in labour force of 439 jobs per annum.3

18. It is not the role of a section 78 appeal to determine what should be the housing requirement for the district. That is for the local plan examination,

which will be informed by a great deal more information than that provided in this appeal. However, it is necessary to come to a view as to whether the

Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. That determination has to be made against full objectively assessed need, not against any constrained requirement or target, and not against any target in an

emerging local plan4.

19. But even on the assumption that the figure of 588 dwellings represents the full

objectively assessed need, it is not clear to me that the Council can indeed demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites.

Should the Borough be regarded as two separate housing market areas?

20. It has been a long-standing approach of not only the Borough Council but also Hampshire County Council in its structure plan and the South East Plan (SEP)

to apply separate housing requirements for the two parts of the Borough. Those documents, of course, pre-date the Framework. The requirement in the Framework is to ensure that the local plan meets the full objectively assessed

needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

21. Here, the Council says that there are two separate housing market areas within

Test Valley. Southern Test Valley is regarded as part of a Southampton-focused housing market area. That, together with a Portsmouth-focused housing market area, has been the subject of a separate South Hampshire

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The South Hampshire SHMA has considered scenarios relating to Southern Test Valley.

22. The Council has also commissioned its own SHMA covering the whole of its area, and prepared on the same basis and by the same consultants who prepared the South Hampshire SHMA. The Test Valley SHMA notes that for

Test Valley there are links across a number of areas. One of its key findings is that on the basis of migration patterns and past research about housing market

areas it would be reasonable to advance a SHMA for the Borough itself, whilst giving consideration to key areas outside the local authority. It also notes the

need to distinguish between the north and the south of the Borough.

23. But the analysis in the Test Valley SHMA appears to be largely based on the Borough as a whole rather than on Northern and Southern Test Valley. Its

estimates and key findings also relate to the Borough as a whole and not the two separate areas. It makes no recommendation that the Borough should be

3 Revised Local Plan submission document paragraph 5.18. 4 Hunston Properties v SSCLG and St Albans City and District Council[2013] EWHC 2678



regarded as two housing market areas and it does not explicitly make any

findings which are relevant only to one or other of the two parts of the Borough. Its key recommendation relating to housing requirement relates to

the Borough as a whole, and it does not make a recommendation as to how that requirement should be split between Northern and Southern Test Valley.

24. In the RLP, the figure of 588 dwellings has been split between the two areas of

the Borough based on the existing employment split between the two areas according to the RLP Housing Topic Paper 5, into 67% to the northern area and

33% to the southern area. The Housing Topic Paper notes that a split based on employment is considered the most appropriate using an economic based scenario, and also reflects the Council’s desires relating to Andover’s self-

contained labour market and its aspirations to increase the town’s population. But it is not clear from the SHMA or the Council’s Housing Topic Paper how that

split relates to the findings of the Southern Hampshire SHMA, as it does not appear to reflect any of the scenarios examined. The split is not dealt with in the Test Valley SHMA.

25. The appellants say that to split the housing requirement for the Borough in this way is a policy approach. On the basis of the information provided to this

Inquiry, I am not able to conclude that it is a reflection of full objectively assessed need in the two parts of the Borough. There may be a policy justification for adopting the split in the RLP, and for treating the two areas of

the Borough separately for the purposes of housing land supply, as the Housing Topic Paper suggests. But that would be a matter for consideration at the

Examination into the RLP. For the purposes of this appeal, I consider that the Borough should be regarded as a whole.

26. This was not the approach adopted by the Inspector who considered the

Harewood Farm appeal6. However, in that case the agreed position of both parties was that housing land supply should be assessed on the basis of the

Northern Test Valley area only. Consequently, the Inspector would not have been provided with the more detailed information and arguments which have come forward in this appeal.

27. The Council has also referred to a number of other appeal decisions where it says the Borough has been recorded as two separate areas for housing

delivery. But there is no discussion of the point in the Nutburn Road appeal decision, and in the Halterworth Lane decision7 there was agreement that the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of land in Southern Test

Valley, so that the matter would not have been discussed in any detail. For these reasons, I do not consider myself bound to follow the approach of these

previous Inspectors.

Requirement pre-2013

28. In calculating the housing requirement, the Council has used the housing requirement in the SEP of 501 dpa up to 2012/13, because the SEP was revoked on 25th of March 2013. From then on, the Council has used the

submission RLP requirement of 588 dpa. The Council says this approach was accepted by the Inspector in the Harewood Farm appeal. But it is not clear

5 Paras 9.9, 9.10 6 APP/C1760/A/13/2190103 7 APP/C1760/A/11/2149410



from that decision that the Inspector had the benefit of the arguments and

information available in this appeal.

29. The position now is that the Council says it has identified as the objectively

assessed need for the Borough from 2011 the figure of 588 dpa. If the Council’s approach is followed, and the housing requirement is assessed on the basis of the SEP figure of 501 dpa from 2011/12 to 2012/13, then the

objectively assessed need over those two years (588) will never be required to be met in full. That does not accord with the overall approach of the

Framework of meeting the full, objectively assessed needs for housing.

30. On the other hand, backdating the requirement of 588 dpa to the start of the RLP plan period would accord with the Council’s approach to the SEP

requirement, which it used to calculate the requirement for the period prior to the SEP’s adoption in 2009, rather than the higher Hampshire County Structure

Plan requirement.

Requirement vs supply

31. Using this approach, the housing requirement for the period from 2006-2014

would be 4269 for the Borough as a whole. Completions during this period are agreed at 3335 for the Borough, giving a shortfall of 934.

32. The RLP requirement for the period 2014-2019 for the Borough is agreed at 2940. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the 5% (or 20% for persistent under delivery) buffer required by the Framework should be

added before or after adding the shortfall. But even assuming the Council’s position of adding the buffer before the shortfall is correct (and it seems to me

that it is not), and assuming only a 5% buffer, the requirement would be 3087 before adding the shortfall of 934 and 4021 afterwards.

33. There is also disagreement on what elements should be included in the supply.

But even on the Council’s best position supply only amounts to 3941. That does not amount to a 5-year supply. Completions Borough-wide have fallen

short of the requirement every year except one since 2006/7 using the SEP requirement until 2010/11. Even taking the Council’s position of using the SEP requirement until 2012/13 the target would only have been met Borough-wide

in two of those years. So arguably the 20% buffer should be applied, which would increase the deficit.

34. My conclusion is that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites. In principle, therefore, I consider that the absence of a five year supply of deliverable sites is capable of outweighing the conflict with LP

policy SET 03. I go on to consider the balancing exercise required by the Framework below, after considering the second issue.


35. The appeal site comprises an undeveloped grass field in agricultural use, which

lies to the north of Goch Way and to the west of Saxon Way. It is bounded on its eastern side by a late 20th century housing development within the village of Charlton. To the north of the appeal site is open countryside. On the other

side of Saxon Way is a modern housing development, Saxon Fields. Effectively, the site has urban development on three sides, in the form of either

housing or distributor roads. It is crossed by overhead power lines, and there



are large pylons within the site itself. Taking all this into account, I consider

the site’s character to be semi-rural.

36. To the south of Goch Way is an area known as the Anton Corridor, which

comprises a broad swathe of small lakes, paddocks and wooded areas along the bottom of the River Anton Valley. This is about 250 metres wide opposite the south side of the appeal site, and it effectively separates Charlton from

Andover to the south. The parish boundary between Charlton and Andover runs within the eastern boundary of the appeal site.

37. The appeal site was the subject of an objection to the 2006 LP proposing a new local gap between Andover and Charlton. The Inspectors who reported on those objections concluded that, although the identity of Charlton as a village

was clearly valued, in physical and visual terms the settlement was part of the urban area of Andover and was defined as such for planning policy purposes on

that plan’s proposals map. They did not consider that there was any justification for the designation of a gap around Charlton, and noted that the Inspector who considered the matter at the previous Local Plan Inquiry reached

a similar conclusion.

38. The appeal site was also put forward as an omission site in an objection to the

2006 LP. The Inspectors concluded that the site could accommodate some 90 dwellings as an urban extension without undue harm to the landscape setting of Andover. They considered that the site should clearly be considered in any

future search for housing land, but that in the absence of any need at that time there was no justification to identify it for development in that plan.

39. The site is not subject to any policy designation in terms of its landscape quality, and it is not located in an identified strategic or local gap. There are no features of the appeal site which are identified as being of particular quality

or distinctiveness in any policy documents, and indeed I saw none on my site visit. The site does, however lie outside the identified settlement boundary and

thus policy SET 03 applies.

40. The application is in outline, and although a master plan and appraisal layout drawing have been produced those are only indicative. However, the

appellants agree that, if planning permission were to be granted, a condition should be imposed requiring development to be carried out in general

compliance with the site layout principles set out on that plan.

41. The appeal site slopes gently northwards towards a ridge. It is proposed that the development would not go beyond this ridge, but would extend as far as

the northern limit of existing development to the west in Armstrong Rise. It is not proposed to extend as far to the north as the northern limit of the Saxon

Fields development.

42. Development would be set back some distance from Goch Way with informal

open space at the front, and a linear park running north-south through the site to follow the line of the existing overhead power line. Access would be taken from Goch Way, and part of the existing hedge would need to be removed.

However, the remainder would be retained.

43. Urban development need not be unattractive. However, the effect of the

development would be to change completely the character and appearance of the appeal site, from an agricultural field to an urban development. Having



said that however, when the site is viewed from Goch Way, it can be seen in

the context of the housing development on the adjoining land to the west, which is not especially well screened. This is not a site which is surrounded by

countryside. In addition, the overhead electricity wires which cross the site, together with large pylons, detract from the rural character of the site.

44. There is a good level of screening between the site and Saxon Way, and

looking across the site from Goch Way the houses at Saxon Fields are well screened although the street lighting columns can be seen above this

screening, giving away the presence of urban development beyond. Goch Way itself has the appearance of an urban distributor road within an urban area. Residential development on the site would not look out of place in this context,

and with good design and landscaping need not be unattractive even though it would clearly be different from the current appearance of the site. Because of

the rising ground, there are no views from Goch Way of the countryside to the north of the appeal site. The site is already well contained by existing urban development. The development on the appeal site would be seen in the

context of, and in conjunction with, that urban development.

45. In views to the south from the public footpath which crosses the appeal site to

the north of the proposed development area, the character and appearance of the site would appear radically different if it was developed. But these views would be in the context of the existing residential development to the west,

which is clearly visible and not particularly well screened. Development here would detract from the semi-rural ambience at present enjoyed by users of the

path. Planting along the southern edge of this footpath could mitigate that harm, but would not remove it completely. The current views across Andover to the high ground south of the town would also be lost. On the other hand,

views from the public footpath towards the north would still be towards the countryside.

46. Because of the extensive belt of planting and hedgerow to the east of the site, which provides an effective screen along most of its length even in the winter, there would only be very limited views from Saxon Way. There is a gap in the

hedgerow in the vicinity of one of the electricity pylons, giving views of the appeal site and the housing beyond. But, given the effect of the pylon on this

view at present, views beyond into what would be a housing development would not be materially harmful.

47. In views towards the site from Enham Lane to the north the hedgerow along

the roadside would filter and restrict what could be seen, and the effect of the development on them would not be material.

48. More distant views of the site from Hatherden Road, Foxcote Lane and rights of way to the north and northwest of the site would be over some distance. Only

the northern-most part of the development would be visible. That would be likely to be prominent in the short term, but would be seen in the context of the existing residential development to the west, and would appear as a

natural continuation of that development. The adverse effect would be restricted to the short term, and would be limited. Planting would screen the

development over time.

49. The Council, Charlton Parish Council and a number of local residents have objected to the proposal because it would, they say, result in a loss of

distinction between Charlton and Andover. Charlton is a village with its own



parish council, and its historic core lies some way to the west of the appeal

site. It is, effectively, separated from the remainder of Andover to the south by the River Anton corridor.

50. In planning terms it is part of the wider Andover urban area, and there are no policies in the LP, either saved or otherwise, which identify the appeal site as an important local or strategic gap. Furthermore, the Council has not

proposed, in the RLP, that the site should be identified as such a gap. The site does represent a break in built development between Saxon Fields and the

development to the west. But this break is not perceptible except in the immediate vicinity of the site and in views from the west along Goch Way. Consequently its value as a physical separator is very limited.

51. It is clear from the representations that Charlton has, and is perceived by its residents to have, a separate identity. There is no reason why that separate

identity should be encroached on by the proposed development. With an appropriate layout, as proposed, which would set the development back from the Goch Way frontage, the development would not materially detract from the

current perception of the separate identity of the village. There is already a separation of the appeal site from Saxon Fields, formed by Saxon Way and the

existing landscape belt. The proposal includes the reinforcing of this area to create a landscape buffer, which would assist in maintaining the perception of a separation between the appeal site and Saxon Fields.

52. The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment refers to the appeal site being well located to the town, surrounded on three sides by built

up area, but in a sensitive location between Andover and Charlton. However, there is no further analysis of that assertion, and the sensitivity of the location has not been reflected in any adopted or emerging policy. In this regard, I see

no reason to reach a different conclusion from those of the Inspectors considering objections into the LP. There has not been any material change in

circumstances since those conclusions were reached, and they remain valid.

53. Taking all these matters into account, I conclude that the development would have a moderately harmful effect on the semi-rural character and appearance

of the surrounding area when viewed from Goch Way immediately adjacent to the site. That harm would be mitigated by the setting back of development

within the site and the creation of informal open space on the site frontage, as well as by the creation of the proposed linear open space. The effect on views from the west along Goch Way would be limited due to the retention of the

frontage hedge and the informal open space at the front of the site, although the site access would be likely to be visible from here.

54. There would be a greater effect on views from the public footpath crossing the site. That effect would reduce in time with the maturing of landscape planting,

but the character of the path would change for ever, to that of a path running along the edge of urban development.

55. There would be some limited short-term harm in views of the site from the

roads and footpaths to the north, but that would cease to be significant in the long term, again due to landscape planting. There would be no material harm

to the separate identity of Charlton.

56. The Council argues that the development would conflict with saved policy DES 01 of the LP, which provides that development will be permitted provided



that it satisfies three criteria. These are that it can be accommodated without

detriment to the distinctive landscape qualities of the area within which it is located, its visual impact is in keeping with the local character of the area, and

there is sufficient landscaping to enable the development to integrate into the local environment. Development should not be permitted where it would detract from the local landscape due to the inclusion of unnatural landscape

features, such as artificial bunds, or the breaking of important skylines or ridge lines.

57. The appeal site has no distinctive landscape qualities, being related in the main more closely to the urban development which adjoins it on three sides than to the wider countryside beyond to the north. Development on the appeal site,

provided that it was suitably laid out and provided with appropriate landscaping, would not have any material effect on the landscape qualities of

that wider countryside. Nor, because of the self-contained nature of the site, would it harm the wider landscape setting of the urban area.

58. The visual impact of the scheme, with appropriate design and landscaping,

would not be out of keeping with the local character of the area. The development would not look out of place in views from Goch Way or in views

from the north, due to its proximity to existing urban development. The provision of sufficient landscaping could be secured by condition. No unnatural features such as artificial bunds are proposed, and the development would not

breach an important ridge line. Consequently, I conclude that the development would not materially conflict with policy DES 01.

59. The Council has also referred to saved LP policy DES O2, which provides that development will be permitted provided that it does not cause harm to settlement character in a number of specified respects. Development on the

appeal site would be in character with the site’s urban surroundings. There would be no material harm to the character or landscape setting of Charlton or

Andover. The submitted master plan layout shows that the overall design of the development would be able to respond positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would not result in the loss of any

landscape features that contribute to the character of the area, and it would not significantly disrupt views which form part of the distinctive character of

the area. Consequently, I conclude that the development would not materially conflict with policy DES O2.

Whether the development would comprise sustainable development for

the purposes of the Framework

60. The framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development:

economic, social and environmental. These three elements are, to an extent, interlinked.

61. The Inspectors considering objections to the 2006 LP considered that the appeal site had reasonable existing or potential accessibility to jobs, shops and services by modes of travel other than by the car. There have not been any

changes in circumstances to undermine that finding. The Council has agreed that the site is in a sustainable location with an adequate range of everyday

facilities available nearby, as well as having good access to public transport. The site is in an appropriate location for housing development, and is available for development. This would bring economic benefits, as envisaged in the

Framework.



62. Development of the site for housing would bring social benefits in providing

additional housing in the Borough, including affordable housing. Even if the Council could demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, the provision of

additional affordable housing would be a social benefit to which I attach significant weight, bearing in mind that the Council is not aiming through the RLP to meet the objectively identified need for affordable housing.

63. Indeed, the additional general-purpose housing that would be provided would bring significant economic and social benefits even with a five-year housing

land supply established, given that the housing requirement in the RLP is a minimum and so allows for an oversupply. The Council did not identify in its written evidence any harm that would arise from an over provision of housing,

and even in oral evidence to the Inquiry Mrs Higgins, the Council’s witness on housing land supply, could only refer to the possibility that an oversupply

would lead to a degree of out-commuting.

64. This possibility is referred to in the Council’s Housing Topic Paper to the RLP examination, particularly in the context of the result of providing 834 dwellings

per annum, the number that would be required in order to achieve the objectively identified need for affordable housing. There is no evidence that

this would be the outcome of permitting development on the appeal site.

65. The development would provide a high quality built environment, and the contributions secured under section 106 obligation would make contributions

towards the creation of additional school capacity, the redevelopment of Andover Leisure Centre, an all-weather playing surface at Saxon Fields, the

provision of new cycle routes and improvements at Andover Railway Station. These would address the infrastructure needs arising from the development as well as supporting the health and social well-being of the occupiers and other

residents of the area, thus producing social benefits.

66. The development would result in the permanent loss of an area of countryside

to urban development, but there are no significant environmental interests identified that would be harmed by the development. On the other hand, the development would incorporate a substantial area of open space, which would

bring health benefits, and the proposals for open space, landscaping and vegetation would enhance biodiversity. That would bring environmental

benefits.

67. Turning then to the balancing exercise required by paragraph 14 of the Framework, the development would conflict with saved LP policy SET 03. That

policy is part of the development plan, and I am required to make my determination in accordance with the development plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise. Clearly, national planning policy in the Framework is a material consideration. On the other hand, policy SET 03 is out

of date as it does not reflect the requirement to provide housing post 2011. Under these circumstances, I attach only limited weight to the conflict with policy SET 03.

68. There would be some harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. That harm would be restricted to a relatively small number of public

viewpoints, and would be mitigated over time by the effect of landscaping. I attach limited weight to this harm. The development would not, however, detract from the separate identity of Charlton, and there would be no material

conflict with LP policies DES 01 or DES O2.



69. There would be significant economic, social and environmental benefits arising

from the development, as indicated above, to which I attach substantial weight. My conclusion is that those benefits would clearly outweigh the harm

identified, whether or not the Council was able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. Consequently, it would amount to sustainable development within the meaning of the Framework, and the appeal should therefore be

allowed.

Other matters

70. The Council as agent for Hampshire County Council, the highway authority, has agreed that the proposed access would be of a suitable width, and would be acceptable in safety terms. The Council has also agreed that the roads and

junctions local to the site are adequate in terms of safety and capacity to cater for development traffic. It has also agreed that the increase in traffic flows by

comparison with existing volumes of traffic would be minor, and would not have significant safety implications. There is no convincing evidence to lead me to disagree with the Council’s assessment in this regard.

71. The application is in outline, and the precise layout and relationship of the development with adjoining properties would be determined at a later stage.

However, the indicative master plan shows that the site could be developed without causing an unacceptably adverse impact on adjoining residents by reason of noise, overlooking or loss of light. Clearly, the outlook onto the site

for occupiers of adjoining properties would change, but I am satisfied that the proposed development is capable of being implemented without causing undue

harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers.

72. The appeal site is crossed by overhead electricity power lines. The master plan shows a linear parkland running through the development beneath and to

either side of the power lines, and it is not proposed that any dwellings would be constructed beneath it. Although some local residents have expressed

concerns as to health issues arising from the proximity of overhead power lines to dwellings and play areas, there is no convincing evidence of any risk to health as a result.

73. Southern Water did not object to the application, subject to conditions relating to the provision of adequate foul and surface water drainage, including

sustainable drainage methods. The application was accompanied by a flood risk assessment, and the Environment Agency had no objection to the application subject to a condition requiring a surface water drainage scheme for

the site based on sustainable drainage principles to ensure that the surface water run-off generated from the site would not exceed the run-off from an

undeveloped site. In the light of this, I am satisfied that the foul and surface water drainage of the developed site can be secured adequately by condition.

In these circumstances there is no good reason to suppose that the development would lead to an increased risk of flooding in the area.

74. The application was accompanied by an ecological impact assessment. The

County Council’s Senior Ecologist raised no objections to the development on ecological grounds, and noted that the landscaping and sustainable drainage

proposals would provide some habitat enhancements and enhance the foraging potential of the site for bats. It is also proposed that new bat roosting features should be incorporated in the development, and this is a matter that could be

secured by condition. A number of representations from members of the public



have referred to the site being used by Brent geese, but the County Council’s

Senior Ecologist has doubted whether the site would be an important grazing resource for them, given their close association with coastal areas and the

distance of the site from the coast. In the light of the available information, there is no convincing evidence that any ecological interests would be materially harmed as a result of the development

75. The application was also accompanied by a heritage statement which identified the potential for archaeological remains to be found on the site. This

recommended the carrying out of an archaeological survey, and the County Archaeologist has consequently recommended that an archaeological condition should be attached to any planning permission to secure such a survey. With

such a condition, I am satisfied that heritage interests would be appropriately protected.

76. It is agreed that a condition should be attached to the planning permission requiring car parking to be provided in accordance with the Council’s standards and thereafter retained. This would overcome the concerns expressed in some

representations as to the adequacy of parking within the development.

77. No objection has been raised by the local education authority to the proposal

provided that the effects of the development on local schools are mitigated. The section 106 obligation makes provision for contributions to be made towards education provision. There is no convincing evidence that the

development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on other local facilities and services.

78. Some representations have expressed concern that the development would have an adverse effect on property values. There is no evidence to support those concerns, but in any event the issue is not whether owners and occupiers

of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from the development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities

and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest. My conclusion is that it would not.

79. Neither these nor any of the other matters raised in the representations lead

me to alter my conclusions on the main issues.


80. The section 106 obligation requires financial contributions to be paid towards the redevelopment of Andover Leisure Centre and towards a new all-weather playing surface at Saxon Fields. These contributions would allow the impact of

additional demand on existing facilities arising from the development to be mitigated, and to ensure that appropriate social facilities were available to

future residents of the development.

81. The obligation also requires the provision and ongoing management of on-site

public open space. This is to ensure that the new development would not cause or exacerbate deficiencies in the provision or quality of existing recreational open space.

82. The requirement in the obligation for 40 percent of the dwellings within the development to be affordable housing units would accord with the relevant

saved policies of the LP and would go towards meeting the recognised need for affordable housing within the borough.



83. There is a requirement for a financial contribution to be made to the County

Council for the provision of additional primary school places as there are no local schools with spare capacity to accommodate children who might live on

the development. This would mitigate the impact on existing primary school facilities. The County Council does not seek a contribution towards secondary school provision as there are sufficient spare places within schools in Andover

to accommodate any needs arising from the development.

84. The obligation requires the carrying out of highway works to Goch Way, in

order to mitigate the impact of traffic arising from the development on the local highway network. It also requires the payment of a financial contribution towards off-site cycle and pedestrian facilities and improvements at Andover

Railway Station. These works are also necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on the wider highway network.

85. In all cases the contributions would be calculated by reference to the estimated population of the development.

86. I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the section 106 obligation are

necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related to it in scale and

kind. Consequently, they meet the tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and in paragraph 204 of the Framework. I am able to take them into account in considering whether planning

permission should be granted, and my conclusion is that they would overcome the Council’s objections to the development in regard to these matters.

Conditions

87. A condition is necessary to identify the approved plans, and as the application is in outline, conditions are also required relating to the submission of details of

the reserved matters. Details are also required relating to existing and proposed ground levels, tree protection measures and landscaping, and to

restrict the height of the dwellings at the northernmost part of the site, in order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. For the same reason, and to ensure that the layout of the development is appropriate, a

condition is needed to require the development be carried out in compliance with the submitted indicative master plan.

88. In order to ensure that the on-site roads, footways, and other highways infrastructure are provided to an appropriate standard, details of these matters should be submitted for the approval of the local planning authority, and

carried out in accordance with the approved details. A condition is necessary to ensure the satisfactory disposal of surface water from the site based on

sustainable drainage principles, in order to reduce any risk of flooding resulting from the development. In view of the potential archaeological interest of the

site, a condition is needed securing a programme of archaeological work to be carried out before development commences, in the interests of identifying and recording any heritage assets which might be identified.

89. In the interests of highway safety, appropriate parking and manoeuvring facilities for contractors and delivery vehicles during the construction period

should be provided. For the same reason, conditions should require the highway access into the site to be constructed in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority. It is also necessary



for this reason for parking to be provided for future occupiers in accordance

with the Council’s standards.

90. In view of the possibility that the site is contaminated, the site needs to be

assessed and a scheme for mediating any contamination prepared, approved and implemented. Conditions are needed to secure this, and to deal with any contamination discovered during construction works. New bat roosting

features should be required to be incorporated within the development, in the interests of preserving and enhancing the biological diversity of the site.

91. Finally, a condition is needed requiring a travel plan to be submitted and approved, in order to reduce the reliance of future occupiers of the development on car borne travel.

Sara Morgan

INSPECTOR

Schedule of conditions

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

with the following approved plans: Nos P921.LOC.01 Rev C, P921.TOPO.01 and 12-147-011 Rev C.

(2) Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the buildings, and the landscaping of the site (“the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any

development is commenced, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(3) Applications for the approval of all the reserved matters shall be made within a period of two years from the date of this permission. The development to which the permission relates shall be begun not later

than whichever is the later of the following dates:

(i) three years from the date of this permission; or

(ii) one year from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

(4) Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details, including plans and cross sections, shall be submitted to and approved

in writing by the local planning authority of the existing and proposed ground levels of the development and the height of the ground floor slab of each of the dwellings. Development shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details.

(5) No development shall take place until the following matters have been

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

details of:

(a) the width, alignment, gradient and surface materials for any

proposed roads, footways, footpaths and cycleways including all



relevant horizontal and longitudinal cross sections showing

existing and proposed levels;

(b) the type of street lighting including calculations, contour

illumination plans and means to reduce light pollution;

(c) the method of surface water drainage including local sustainable disposal.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(6) No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of surface water from the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of

the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall also include on-

site infiltration testing to BRE 365 standards and confirmation of the size of infiltration basins. The drainage scheme shall demonstrate that the surface water run-off generated up to and including 100 years (plus

30% climate change allowance) critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall

event. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme for that part of the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

(7) No development shall take place (including site clearance) until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance

with a written brief and specification for a scheme of investigation and mitigation, which has been submitted by the developer and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be

carried out in accordance with the programme of archaeological work.

(8) No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the

protection of existing trees both on and adjacent to the site, and which are shown for retention, and the means by which these retained trees are to be protected during the construction phase, has been submitted

to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted scheme shall follow the principles laid out in the Tree

Research “Arboricultural Method Statement Tree Protection Plan” (dated November 2013) and include a plan showing the location and specification of any protective fencing, ground protection and/or other

precautionary measures as informed by British Standard 5837:2012. Such protection measures shall be installed prior to any other site

operations and at least two working days notice shall be given to the local planning authority before other site operations commence. Tree

protection installed in accordance with the approved details shall be retained for the full duration of construction work, or such other time as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. No

activities whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of the local planning authority.

(9) Prior to the commencement of development full details of the layout for the parking and manoeuvring onsite of contractors’ and delivery vehicles during the construction period shall be submitted to and



approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved

scheme shall be implemented prior to the commencement of development and retained for the duration of the construction period.

(10) No development shall take place until a landscape implementation and management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The implementation plan shall stipulate

the period of time when planting for all parts of the site shall be undertaken, but shall also state that landscape planting located within

the public open space area at the north of the site and adjacent to the public right of way crossing the site, shall be begun during the first available planting season (between the months of November to March

inclusive) following commencement of development hereby permitted. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved

details.

(11) No development shall take place (other than any approved demolition and site clearance works) until an assessment of the nature and extent

of any contamination and a scheme for remediating the contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

authority. The assessment shall be undertaken by a competent person, and shall assess the presence of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The assessment shall comprise

at least a desk study and qualitative risk assessment and, where appropriate, the assessment shall be extended following further site

investigation work. In the event that contamination is found, or is considered likely, the scheme shall contain remediation proposals designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for residential use.

Such remediation proposals shall include clear remediation objectives and criteria, an appraisal of the remediation options, and the

arrangements for the supervision of remediation works by a competent person. The site shall not be brought into use until a verification report, for the purpose of certifying adherence to the approved

remediation scheme, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(12) In the event that contamination (that was not previously identified) is found at any time during construction works, the presence of such contamination shall be reported in writing to the local planning

authority. If such contamination is identified development shall be halted on the affected part of the site until a remediation scheme for

dealing with that contamination has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved remediation

scheme shall be implemented and a verification report, for the purpose of certifying adherence to the approved remediation scheme, shall be submitted to the local planning authority prior to first occupation of any

of the dwellings hereby approved.

(13) No development shall take place until details of the highway access into

the site and the improvement works shown in principle on Drwg No. 12-147-011 Rev C have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.



(14) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied unless

or until the highway access into the site and the improvement works shown in principle on Drwg No. 12-147-011 Rev C (and which have

been approved by way of condition 13 above) have been installed in accordance with the approved details.

(15) Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the maximum

parking standards as set out in “Annex 2 - Parking Standards” of the adopted Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006). Where any single

garage is provided in pursuance of providing the requisite car parking for an individual dwelling, the internal dimensions of that single garage shall be a minimum of 3m x 6m.

(16) No dwelling shall be occupied unless and until spaces been laid out and provided for the parking of vehicles for the corresponding dwelling in

accordance with the approved plan and this space shall thereafter be reserved for such purposes at all times.

(17) The development shall incorporate new bat roosting features as set out

in section 4.2.4 of the Ecological Impact Assessment, Goch Way Andover, report (EAD December 2013) and in accordance with a

scheme and timetable to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before construction commences. Thereafter all new bat roosting features shall be permanently retained.

(18) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless or until a fully developed Framework Travel Plan has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Framework Travel Plan shall be in broad compliance with the principles set out in Section 8.0 of the Odyssey Markides “Transport Assessment” (report

number 12-147-05) (December 2013) and aim to prepare a package of transport measures to accommodate the demand for travel from the

site in the most sustainable way. The measures to be included in the Framework Travel Plan may include those set out in Table 8.1 of the Transport Assessment and include the means of implementation, and

post-occupation monitoring and review. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

(19) Development shall be carried out in general compliance with the site layout principles, as contained in the Indicative Master Plan Drwg No. P921/02 Rev. D and Appraisal Layout Drwg No. P921/01. Rev J.

(20) No dwelling, sited immediately adjacent to the proposed public open space area located at the northernmost part of the site as shown on the

indicative master plan Drwg No. P921/02 Rev. D and Appraisal Layout Drwg No. P921/01. Rev J shall have a ridge height that exceeds seven

metres when measured against the corresponding existing ground level.



APPEARANCES


Adrian Trevelyan-Thomas Of Counsel, instructed by the Solicitor, Test

Valley Borough Council He called Justin Gardner Justin Gardner Consulting

Laura Higgins Team Leader in Planning Policy, Oxford City Council

David Daniell Appleton Group Bristol FOR THE APPELLANT:

Satnam Choongh Of Counsel, instructed by Jacqueline Mulliner

He called Christopher Enderby Director, Enderby Associates Ltd

Thomas Baker Principal Planner, GVA Jacqueline Mulliner Director, Terence O’Rourke

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Councillor Ian Carr Ward Councillor for Charlton and Leader of Test

Valley Borough Council Councillor Barbara Spencer Chairman of Charlton Parish Council

Alan High Local resident Ted Hurdle Local resident

DOCUMENTS

1 Opening submissions on behalf of the Appellant 2 Statement of common ground (general) 3 Statement of common ground (housing commitment trajectories)

4 Statement of common ground (highways) 5 Table of projected plant growth rates

6 Plans CE.3, CE.4 and CE.5.1 – CE.5.8 handed in by Mr Enderby 7 PAS Technical Advice Note Objectively Assessed Need and

Housing Targets

8 Table 1 Scenarios showing the effect of different assumptions on OAN, produced by Mr Baker

9 Timetable for Revised Local Plan 12 February 2015 10 Tables agreed by Mrs Higgins and Ms Mulliner showing housing

requirement and supply under varios scenarios

11 Appeal decision APP/D0840/A/13/2209757 Land north of Upper Chapel Launceston

12 Appeal decision APP/J3720/A/14/2217495 Land north of Milcote Rod Welford-on-Avon

13 Appeal decision APP /F1610/A/14/2213318 Land south of

Cirencester Road Fairford 14 Costs Decision re APP/P3420/A/14/2218530 Land at Baldwins

Gate Newcastle-under-Lyme 15 List of suggested conditions



16 Section 106 Agreement and summary of key obligations

17 Closing submissions of Test Valley Borough Council 18 Closing submissions on behalf of the appellant

19 Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 20 Itinerary for site visit



APPENDIX 6

WARWICK LOCAL PLAN: INSPECTOR’S FINDINGS REGARDING INITIAL MATTERS


Dave Barber Planning Policy Manager Warwick District Council

Our Ref: PINS/T3725/429/5

Date: 1 June 2015

Dear Mr Barber, Examination of the Warwick District Local Plan: Inspector’s findings regarding initial matters and issues

1. Further to the initial hearing sessions held between the 6th and 12th of May 2015, I set out below my findings in respect of the duty to co-operate (Matter 1), soundness in terms of overall housing provision (Matter 2) and soundness in terms of the supply and delivery of housing land (Matter 3). I also explain the consequences for the examination.

Duty to co-operate

2. There are a number of strategic matters which required co-operation during the preparation of the Local Plan. The overall provision for housing is of particular importance however, given that Warwick District forms part of the wider Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area (the HMA), the links between authorities in terms of migration, commuting and housing markets and the interrelationship between Warwick District and Coventry City.

3. I am satisfied that the Council has engaged actively with the other authorities in

the HMA and beyond throughout the plan preparation process in terms of overall housing provision. The key question is whether engagement has been constructive and the extent to which co-operation has maximised the effectiveness of the preparation of the Local Plan.

4. The duty to co-operate does not bring with it a specific requirement to have

reached agreement on the level of housing need and how this will be met across the HMA however. It is the actions and approach of the Council which are critical to my consideration of this matter. I have also taken account of the position taken by other authorities, none of which raise concerns over the level of housing provision proposed in the Local Plan or the Council’s compliance with the duty to co-operate.

5. The Council acknowledges that co-operation between the HMA authorities

received greater impetus following the findings of the Inspector examining

Coventry’s Core Strategy in 2013. This led to joint working on a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (the 2013 SHMA) and an Addendum in 2014 (the 2014 SHMA Addendum), along with other collaboration in terms of evidence. The 2013 SHMA set out figures for objectively assessed need (OAN) for housing across the HMA as a whole and for individual authorities. The overall provision for housing in the Local Plan is based on the 2013 SHMA.

6. Joint working and co-operation continued after the publication of the 2014

SHMA Addendum, notably through the Economic Prosperity Board which met in October and November 2014 and subsequent formal endorsement by each authority. In essence there is an agreement that the OAN for the HMA is 4,004 dwellings per annum. There is recognition that Coventry City will not be able to accommodate the higher level of OAN indicated in the 2014 SHMA Addendum (1,811 dwellings per annum) and agreement that the figures for each authority set out in the 2013 SHMA represent a starting point for distribution of housing across the HMA and that this will accommodate some of Coventry City’s needs subject to additional work on capacity being undertaken. It was also recognised that additional work on capacity may identify a further shortfall from the Warwickshire Districts. A process and timeline for evidence gathering and plan review was also agreed, culminating in a joint Core Strategy or co-ordinated review of plans during 2017-19.

7. At the time the Local Plan was submitted, there was no agreement between the

authorities in terms of the distribution of the full OAN for the HMA (4,004 dwellings per annum). This remains the case. On the basis of individual authority figures agreed as a starting point, there would be a shortfall of 234 dwellings per annum.

8. The issue of meeting OAN across the HMA in full has not been resolved and I

deal with this in relation to soundness below. However in terms of the duty to co-operate, considerable effort has been made by the Council, in conjunction with the other HMA authorities to attempt to address the issue in a constructive fashion through agreement and commitments to continued joint working. The Council submitted a Local Plan based on overall housing provision of 714 dwellings per annum (as in the Publication Draft Plan), despite the fact that the 2014 SHMA Addendum indicated that a lower figure of 606 per annum was required in the District. Whilst I have concerns as to the specific basis for 714 dwellings per annum and whether it is necessarily the appropriate level of provision, the Council has clearly accepted the need to make a significant contribution to accommodating unmet needs from elsewhere in the HMA in principle.

9. The Council has demonstrated constructive, active and ongoing engagement

with local authorities and relevant organisations on the other strategic matters. The issues have been resolved effectively and there are no concerns from these authorities and organisations regarding compliance with the duty to co-operate.

10. Taking all of the above factors into account I am satisfied that the Council has

engaged constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in terms of overall housing provision and indeed other strategic matters. I conclude therefore that the Council has complied with the duty to co-operate.

Soundness – overall housing provision

11. I am satisfied that the 2014 SHMA Addendum, when read alongside the 2013 SHMA, provides a robust assessment of OAN for the HMA. It is based on the most up to date national projections available at the time and in my view uses reasonable assumptions to arrive at a demographically led figure of 4,004 dwellings per annum between 2011 and 2031.

12. Whilst the 2014 SHMA Addendum does not include a specific uplift for market signals, affordability or economic growth, it recognises the case that higher household formation rates for younger households and higher jobs growth would indicate a higher figure. It makes it very clear that the figure of 4,004 dwellings per annum should be regarded as a minimum.

13. The 2012-based household projections published in February 2015 indicate the

need for 4,100 dwellings per annum across the HMA between 2011 and 2031 (taking account of allowances for vacancy rates). These are the most up to date projections currently available and give further weight to the findings of the 2014 SHMA Addendum, although again they would suggest that the figure of 4,004 dwellings per annum should very much be seen as a minimum.

14. Although the 2014 SHMA Addendum sets out figures for each authority, it

regards these as indicative given the sensitivity to variable migration levels. It also recommends further work by individual authorities in terms of economic growth prospects.

15. The HMA authorities confirmed at the initial hearing sessions that they regard

4,004 dwellings per annum as the minimum figure for OAN in the HMA. On the basis of the evidence before me, I share that view.

16. Other than Stratford-on-Avon District Council, the authorities in the HMA

confirmed that they consider the individual authority figures in the 2014 SHMA Addendum as a reasonable basis for OAN in their areas. Stratford-on-Avon District Council considered it to be higher (at least 565 dwellings per annum compared to 508 per annum in the SHMA Addendum) and were undertaking further work in the light of the interim conclusions of the Inspector carrying out the examination of their Core Strategy. It is unclear at this stage to what extent any increase in the figures for individual authorities should be absorbed within the overall HMA total or added to it.

17. The figures from the 2012-based household projections for individual authorities

are broadly comparable with the figures from the 2014 SHMA Addendum although it is notable that the figure for Coventry City is 144 dwellings per annum higher.

18. It may be that some of the authorities in the HMA could be asked to

accommodate unmet needs from the Greater Birmingham area in due course. If this was the case it is likely to require a further re-assessment of the distribution and overall level of housing provision in the HMA. Whilst the situation in this respect is not yet clear, it seems to me likely that if anything, there would be further upward pressure on the figures for the HMA and individual authorities.

19. Within the HMA itself, there is a particular issue with Coventry City where the

agreed figure of 1,180 dwellings per annum based on the 2013 SHMA falls well short of the figure of 1,811 from the 2014 SHMA Addendum. Coventry City Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan and has recently undertaken a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) with a draft produced in September 2014. This indicates capacity within or adjacent to the urban area for some 16,500 dwellings and up to a further 7,100 dwellings within the Green Belt (total 23,600). The City Council is yet to make any decisions in terms of releasing land from the Green Belt however. In any event, the maximum capacity would appear to be some 12,500 dwellings below the need indicated by the 2014 SHMA Addendum and accepted by the City Council as a reasonable basis for OAN.

20. Given the evidence currently available, there is likely to be a substantial unmet

need of at least approximately 12,500 dwellings in Coventry City between 2011 and 2031. The Council argues that on the basis of the agreement reached, the net shortfall would only be some 4,680 dwellings (234 per annum) and that in the context of total needs over the whole plan period this would be relatively modest.

21. I do not share this view. The shortfall is likely to arise in Coventry and would

need to be met in the other authorities. Relative to the indicative OAN for these other authorities, I consider this to be a significant figure. It must also be seen in the context of the OAN of 4,004 dwellings being regarded as a minimum and potential further upward pressure on this figure. There is no substantive evidence and indeed the HMA authorities do not argue that there are constraints which prevent the OAN for the HMA overall being met in full. Under these circumstances I see no basis in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for an approach which having identified the OAN for the HMA, does not meet it in full.

22. Whilst I appreciate that the HMA authorities regard the figures as a starting

point, I also have significant concerns in relation to the basis for the agreed distribution of housing. The figures for individual authorities are those from the 2013 SHMA which set out a lower overall figure for the HMA and a substantially lower figure for Coventry City. Whilst perhaps understandably the authorities have sought to continue with the figures previously agreed, it is not necessarily the case that they remain appropriate in the light of evidence provided by the 2014 SHMA Addendum. The figures for individual authorities were not originally derived on the basis of accommodating unmet need from Coventry. The 2014 SHMA Addendum affected the figures for individual authorities in different ways. I am not aware of any detailed analysis which has assessed the contribution that each authority should make in the light of this updated evidence. The authorities in Warwickshire have different relationships with Coventry and it is not clear how this has been taken into account in agreeing the figures.

23. In the case of Warwick District specifically, the Council considers the OAN to be

606 dwellings per annum based on the 2014 SHMA Addendum and has agreed a figure of 720 dwellings per annum as its contribution to meeting overall needs in the HMA. On the face of it this would make a contribution of some 114 dwellings per annum towards unmet needs from elsewhere within the HMA.

Other than the fact that this was a previously agreed figure, I see no basis however to suggest that this is necessarily the appropriate contribution to unmet needs, relative to other authorities.

24. Therefore we have a situation where the agreement between the HMA

authorities would leave what I consider to be a significant shortfall of unmet need. This is in the context of what is clearly regarded as a minimum figure for OAN. In addition there is insufficient justification for the specific contribution to unmet need proposed from Warwick District.

25. It is not the case that the Local Plan should necessarily accommodate all of the

residual unmet need from the rest of the HMA. However, the Council has submitted a plan in the absence of a clear strategy to meet the OAN for the HMA in full.

26. I consider therefore that in relation to overall housing provision, the Local Plan

is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. It is not sound.

27. I have taken account of the arguments put forward by the Council and the other

HMA authorities in terms of the merits of having an adopted plan in place as soon as possible and the scope to deal with issues of unmet need through a review of the Local Plan. I note examples from other examinations where Inspectors have taken this view. Of course the circumstances relating to each examination vary and there are other examples, such as Aylesbury Vale, where Inspectors have not accepted that a review mechanism is appropriate. In this case, there is clear and up to date evidence regarding OAN, produced jointly by all of the authorities concerned. There has also been the opportunity to consider the evidence on OAN and put forward a strategy to meet it in full. There is clear evidence that there are likely to be substantial unmet needs from Coventry City and a good indication at least of the scale of these unmet needs.

28. Whilst there are clearly benefits in having an adopted Local Plan in place as

soon as possible, this cannot be at the expense of having a sound plan which effectively deals with key strategic matters. Realistically, even if the examination were to progress to further hearing sessions, the earliest the Local Plan could be adopted is likely to be late 2015 or early 2016. I deal with housing supply below but if further work were to be undertaken in this respect, it is likely to add further to the timescale for adoption. Joint working between the HMA authorities is already underway and further work planned to an agreed timetable. With renewed impetus, it seems to me that the evidence base and agreement between authorities could be in place to put forward a plan which effectively deals with the issue of housing provision within the next year or two.

Soundness - the supply and delivery of housing land

29. In considering this matter I have taken account of the information set out in the

Council’s written statement for the hearing session, discussions on the day, the notes subsequently provided by the Council in relation to the housing trajectory (EXAM 19) and the windfall allowance (EXAM 20) and further clarification dated 22nd May 2015 in response to my questions. I am grateful to the Council for the clarification provided and appreciate the willingness to address specific concerns

raised in a pragmatic fashion. I take the Council’s position in respect of a windfall allowance and the supply and delivery of housing land generally to be that set out in the post-hearing notes as further updated by the response to my questions.

30. Notwithstanding my concerns regarding the overall provision for housing in the Local Plan, I have considered the approach towards the supply and delivery of housing land in the context of the Council’s view that there is a requirement for 720 dwellings per annum between 2011 and 2029 (12,960 dwellings in total). Updated Table 3.8 (in the response to my questions) summarises the Council’s position in terms of housing supply. This indicates a total supply of 12,711 dwellings, some 249 short of the requirement. Even on the basis of the Council’s own assessment, the Local Plan will not deliver the housing requirement.

31. The merits of individual site allocations and the assumptions about delivery

have not been subject to detailed scrutiny at this stage in the examination. Nor has there been detailed scrutiny of individual sites with planning permission. However, for the purposes of reaching conclusions on the initial matters and issues and subject to the caveat that further scrutiny may well have lead to a different conclusion, I am prepared to accept the Council’s position with regard to the supply and timing of delivery from these sources. Likewise, I am prepared to accept the Council’s view of potential supply and timing of delivery from the consolidation of existing employment areas and canal-side regeneration.

32. My key concern is with the allowance for windfall sites. I note that the Council

has now incorporated potential supply from SHLAA sites (300 dwellings in total) into this category. The Council’s latest position is that windfalls would contribute 53 dwellings in 2015/16, 123 dwellings in 2016/17 and 175 dwellings each year from 2017/18 onwards (2,276 dwellings in total over the remaining 14 years of the plan period to 2029). This would equate to approximately 19% of the residual dwelling requirement as of 2015/16. I appreciate that windfalls have consistently played a substantial part in housing supply in the District and I accept that they are likely to continue to come forward in reasonably significant numbers. Given the nature of the District, past trends and the scope of the SHLAA, I am satisfied that the specific estimates (set out in EXAM 20) for annual average windfall completions from rural sites, conversions and changes of use and urban sites of less than 5 dwellings are reasonable.

33. The SHLAA includes urban area sites for 5 or more dwellings. It was published

relatively recently (May 2014) and the site identification process appears to have been carried out robustly and comprehensively. The Council estimates capacity from such sites (excluding those large enough to allocate) as 316 dwellings of which it considers 300 could be expected to be delivered in the plan period. This leaves a significant allowance (in the order of at least 900 dwellings) for as yet unidentified urban area sites of 5 or more dwellings.

34. The Council has a reasonably up to date SHLAA which sought to identify such

sites and has had the opportunity to allocate sites in the emerging Local Plan. Whilst additional urban area sites for 5 or more dwellings are likely to continue to come forward, I see insufficient basis to suggest that this will be on the scale

anticipated with any degree of certainty. Previously (see H005 and the Council’s written statement for the hearing session) the Council had not included an allowance for completions from urban area sites for 5 or more dwellings up to 2019, in recognition of the overlap with specific sites identified in the SHLAA. Whilst this category has now been merged in the Council’s latest assessment, I see no basis for including an allowance for unidentified urban area sites for 5 or more dwellings in addition to specific SHLAA sites in this period.

35. I note that you accept that the Council’s trajectory set out in EXAM 20 included

double counting with the anticipated completions in 2015/16 and 2016/17 from sites already with planning permission.

36. In the terms set out in Paragraph 48 of the NPPF, I do not consider that there is

compelling evidence that windfall sites will continue to provide a reliable source of supply on the scale envisaged. I find therefore that the overall windfall allowance is not justified or realistic.

37. Solely on the basis of the Council’s own estimates there would be a shortfall in

provision of some 249 dwellings over the plan period compared to the requirement. Even this relies on a windfall allowance which I consider to be unjustified. It also provides no flexibility should site allocations not come forward as expected. I consider that the supply of housing land for the plan period as a whole would fall short of that necessary to meet requirements and provide even a modest level of flexibility by several hundred dwellings.

38. Actual completions since 2011 have totalled 1,180 dwellings (up to 28/2/15). I

accept that an allowance can reasonably be made for the net effect of additional care home bedspaces and that on this basis completions since 2011 can be regarded as 1,265 dwellings. Compared with an annual requirement of 720, there has been a shortfall in delivery of 1,615 dwellings in the first four years of the plan period.

39. I accept that previous constraint policies (applied between 2005 and 2009) and

wider economic conditions from 2007 onwards are likely to have had an effect on the level of housing completions in the District. I also acknowledge that completions each year between 2001 and 2006 exceeded regional strategy requirements, although this was clearly in the context of more buoyant economic circumstances.

40. However, completions in each of the first four years of the plan period since

2011 have been very significantly below the annual requirement. As noted above, giving a shortfall of 1,615 dwellings already. There has been under delivery in each of the last six years and in seven out of the last ten years. Since 2005 there has been an overall shortfall of some 1,700 dwellings. Despite higher levels of completions between 2001 and 2006, there has been an overall shortfall of approximately 500 dwellings between 2001 and 2015. Warwick District had a separate housing target from Coventry City during this period and it is this against which performance should be judged. On the basis of the above I consider that there has been persistent under delivery of housing.

41. In terms of a five year supply of housing sites, a buffer of 20% should be applied therefore. This buffer should be applied once the shortfall from the plan period so far has been added to the basic requirement of 720 dwellings per annum.

42. In light of the above I consider the five year requirement as of 1/4/15 to be

6,258 dwellings. The Council’s position (as clarified in the response to my questions) is that the five year supply at this point would total 5,968 dwellings. This includes an allowance for 701 dwellings from windfall sites which as set out above I consider to be unjustified. The Local Plan would not provide for a five year supply of housing at the outset and is not likely to until at least 2017/18.

43. I consider therefore that in relation to the supply and delivery of housing land,

the Local Plan is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. It is not sound.

44. I have taken account of the Inspector’s report on the North Warwickshire Core

Strategy and the Inspector’s interim conclusions on the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy. There are some significant differences in circumstances compared with the Local Plan however. The Inspector’s report for North Warwickshire was clearly produced in advance of the publication of the 2014 SHMA Addendum and the subsequent agreement between the HMA authorities. The specific issue of unmet need from within the HMA and in particular Coventry City was not apparent at that time. It also appears that the Inspector did not have specific concerns regarding the supply of housing land.

45. In the case of Stratford-on-Avon, the District clearly has a different relationship

with other authorities compared with Warwick District. Much of the focus of the Inspector’s interim conclusions relates to the relationship with Greater Birmingham, where the situation regarding unmet need is still to be clarified, rather than Coventry. In Stratford-on-Avon the Core Strategy is to be followed by a separate site allocations document which provides the scope for reserve sites to provide additional flexibility and respond to evidence of unmet needs elsewhere. Again it appears that the Inspector does not have the same concerns regarding the supply of housing land.

Overall findings

46. I am satisfied that the Council has complied with the duty to co-operate,

however I consider that the Local Plan is not sound in terms of overall housing provision and the supply and delivery of housing land.

47. As set out above, whilst I recognise the benefits of having an adopted Local Plan in place as soon as possible, this cannot be at the expense of having a sound plan. Adopting a plan with a commitment to a review mechanism would not resolve the key strategic matter of housing provision and as explained above is in reality unlikely to bring significant benefit in terms of timescales for adoption. In any case, it would not address the serious concerns relating to housing supply.

48. I have considered the potential to address the issues of soundness through a

suspension of the examination. There is significant work still to be undertaken

jointly with the other HMA authorities in terms of assessing the capacity to accommodate housing, Green Belt, and agreeing a distribution of the OAN for the HMA in full. The timetable for this would put it well beyond a reasonable period of suspension. It may also result in a significantly different approach to accommodating housing development in Warwick District. In order to address the serious issues with housing supply both for a five year period and the plan period as a whole, additional housing land on a significant scale would need to be identified. This is likely to take considerable time given that options would need to be properly considered and assessed. It is also likely to require a review of the spatial strategy and potentially the approach to the Green Belt. The Council acknowledges this in EXAM 20 in respect of the implications of seeking to identify broad locations for growth or significant additional site allocations.

49. Taking all of these factors into account, I do not consider that a suspension of

the examination is appropriate in this case, it would take too long, is likely to result in a plan substantially different from that submitted and in any event is unlikely to facilitate the adoption of a sound local plan in a timetable that is significantly shorter than the other options open to the Council.

50. Under the circumstances my advice to the Council is that there are realistically

only two options. Firstly the Council could choose to receive my formal report. Given my findings, I will only be able to recommend non-adoption of the Local Plan. Alternatively the Council may choose to withdraw the Plan under S22 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).

51. I appreciate that you will be disappointed by my findings and will need time to

consider them. However, I would be grateful if you could confirm the Council’s position via the Programme Officer as soon as possible. A copy of this letter should be placed on the Council’s website and made available on request.

Yours sincerely Kevin Ward INSPECTOR



APPENDIX 7

APPEAL DECISION AT LAND OFF STATION ROAD, GREAT AYTON (APP/G2713/A/14/2218137)


Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 14-16 January, 20-23 January and 12-13 March 2015

Site visits made on 13 and 16 March 2015

by Susan Heywood BSc (Hons) MCD MRTPI


Decision date: 10 July 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/G2713/A/14/2218137 Land off Station Road, Great Ayton


against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

The appeal is made by Gladman Developments Ltd against the decision of Hambleton

District Council.

The application Ref 13/02275/OUT, dated 25 October 2013, was refused by notice

dated 15 January 2014.

The development proposed is “outline planning application for a residential development

of up to 113 dwellings with associated access with all other matters reserved, including

retention of an existing barn for B1 use and demolition of outbuildings on land off

Station Road, Great Ayton TS9 6HB”.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. The inquiry was adjourned on 23 January to allow further evidence to be

presented in relation to the existing farm business being carried out on the appeal site. I heard that further evidence when the inquiry resumed. I carried

out an accompanied inspection of the site and its surroundings on 13 March and unaccompanied inspections before the inquiry opened and after the close of the inquiry.

3. The application is made in outline with all matters except for means of access reserved for future determination. I have considered the appeal on that basis,

although I note the illustrative masterplan which demonstrates how the appellants envisage the development being carried out.

4. The application was refused for 10 reasons. The Council are satisfied that reasons 4 (affordable housing provision), 5 (public open space contribution) and 6 (footpath and cycleway links) can be overcome by the imposition of

conditions or by the submitted planning obligation. Other than in relation to the planning obligation, these matters no longer require consideration in this

decision.

5. The Council consider that reasons 7 (flood risk), 8 (drainage) and 9 (highway impact) have been overcome by the submission of further information and

Appeal Decision APP/G2713/A/14/2218137


agreement with statutory bodies. However, interested parties remain

concerned about these matters which are addressed in this decision.

6. A public inquiry was held in November 2014 into the proposed development of

175 dwellings, by the same appellants, on land to the north of Stillington Road, Easingwold (Appeal ref: APP/G2713/A/14/2217056). The decision (the Easingwold decision) was issued shortly before the inquiry into the current

appeal opened but was challenged by the appellants and subsequently quashed shortly before the inquiry closed. That decision reflected the Council’s position

on some matters and the appellants on others and provided a useful focus for the evidence in the case before me. However, given its subsequent quashing, it has no legal effect and I will not consider it further.

7. I should also note that as a result of the Easingwold decision, the appellants did not pursue the issue of whether regard should be had to market signals in

determining the housing requirement. Following the quashing of that decision they confirmed that, whilst they reserved the right to raise this matter at forthcoming inquiries in Hambleton, they did not seek to reopen consideration

of that matter in this inquiry.

8. Prior to the resumption of the inquiry in March the Government published the

2012-based Household Projections for England, 2012-2037. The main parties agreed that these did not have any significant impact on the housing requirement evidence presented to the inquiry prior to the adjournment.

9. After the close of the inquiry a further appeal decision relating to housing land supply in Hambleton was issued (APP/G2713/A/13/2194376). This is referred

to hereafter as the Huby decision. The parties were given the opportunity to make any further comments on that decision and I have had regard to those representations.

Main Issues

10. The main issues in this case are:

i. whether the Council are able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites sufficient to meet the full objectively assessed need (FOAN) for housing;

ii. the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area;

iii. the effect of the development on the existing farming enterprise on the

site;

iv. other material factors including site sustainability, the provision of affordable housing, flooding and highway matters.

Reasons

The Policy Background

11. The development plan includes the Core Strategy 2007, the Development Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) 2008 and the Allocations DPD

2010. Relevant Core Strategy policies (CP policies) include CP1, which is a generic policy setting out a number of criteria which seek to achieve sustainable development and CP2, which seeks to minimise the need to travel.

Policy CP4 sets out the settlement hierarchy and aims to restrict development



outside development limits. Policy CP5 sets the target number of dwellings to

be built per annum based on the now revoked Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). CP5A provides for the distribution of dwellings within five sub-areas, CP6 sets

out the method to achieve the target number of dwellings per sub-area and CP7 relates to the phased release of land for housing.

12. In the Development Policies DPD relevant policies (DP policies) include DP8

which aims to ensure that development is contained within settlement development limits and DP9 which states that exceptional circumstances will be

required for development outside development limits.

13. The Council have recently adopted an Interim Planning Policy Guidance Note relating to Settlement Hierarchy and Housing Development outside of

Development Limits (the Interim Policy Guidance). The document recognises that policy CP4 was written at a time when national policy was more restrictive

and focused on sustainable travel than the Framework. In light of the Framework the document advocates greater flexibility with respect to development within smaller settlements, outside the settlement hierarchy set

out in policy CP4, and outside defined development limits. The document was formally adopted following consultation and modification to reflect the

responses. A significant amount of weight can be attached to this document.

14. The development plan documents were adopted prior to the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In these circumstances

the latter advises that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

15. Other than in its requirement to assess development against the now out of date housing figures, policy CP1 accords with the Framework as does policy CP2. Policy CP4 requires ‘an exceptional case’ to be made for development

outside the settlement hierarchy and in the countryside outside development limits. DP8 and DP9 have similar requirements. In these respects the policies

are not in accordance with the Framework. However policies CP4, CP5A and CP6 also relate to the settlement hierarchy and the distribution of housing to meet the aims set out in Spatial Principle 3 of the Core Strategy. This seeks to

direct development to sustainable locations. In so far as these policies deal with the sustainable distribution of development I consider them to be

consistent with the Framework. CP7, in seeking to restrict the release of land, is not consistent with the Framework and the Council accept this.

16. Other policies have been drawn to my attention. I deal with other relevant

policies under the various issues below.

17. Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets out the presumption in favour of

sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay

and, where relevant policies are absent, silent or out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the

Framework taken as a whole. Paragraph 49 of the Framework states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date

if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.



18. In this case, I consider that the following policies, at least in part, are relevant

to the supply of housing: policies CP4, CP5, CP5A, CP6, CP7, DP8 and DP9.

19. It is first necessary for me to consider what the housing requirement is for the

area and then to determine whether there is a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against that requirement. Only then will I be able to determine whether relevant policies for the supply of

housing are up-to-date.

Housing land considerations

Objectively assessed housing need

20. The parties agree that the housing requirement of 280 dpa set out in policy CP5 is based on the now revoked RSS. This was not a FOAN as it was based

on a constrained figure which sought to restrict development in ‘areas of restraint’. There is therefore no dispute that this no longer represents the up-

to-date objective assessment of need. The Council have begun to update its evidence base for the review of the emerging Local Plan. The analysis carried out leads the Council to conclude that the FOAN is 398 dpa.1 The appellants

consider that the figure should be 458 dpa.

21. Both parties use the 2012 sub-national population projections as the basis for

their assumptions. The Council and appellants agree that the differences between the two figures for the FOAN are a result of using different unemployment rates and commuting ratios in the modelling. These aspects

therefore require further consideration in order to determine which figure for FOAN is likely to be the more accurate.

Unemployment rates

22. The appellants adopt an unemployment rate of 3.8% as a starting point, falling to 3% by 2016. The figure of 3.8% is derived from the 2011 Census. The

Council agree with the end point of 3%, but use a starting point unemployment rate of 5.8%. This figure is taken from the Annual Population Survey (APS)

and is an average for the years 2009-2012. The Council’s scenario assumes that there is more flexibility for the existing population to take up an increase in jobs growth, thus leading to a more conservative assessment of the housing

requirement.

23. Both starting point figures have their limitations; the Census figure is a

snapshot in time and the APS data is based on such small samples that every estimate is flagged as being “unreliable”. Additional evidence was submitted to the inquiry in the form of the ONS data showing the Modelled Unemployment

Rate in Hambleton. This improves on the APS estimate by ‘borrowing strength’ from the claimant count to give an estimate that is more precise than the APS

data alone.

24. The modelling indicates that, at no time has the unemployment rate reached a

high of 5.8%, as suggested by the Council. Indeed, the Council’s witness conceded that this figure was probably too high. In addition, the modelling does not reflect the actual Census figure of 3.8% in 2011, but rather shows a

1 The Council accept that 30 dpa should be added to their initial starting point of 368 dpa, in order to account for an under-estimate in the number of self-employed workers. This uplift leads to the Council’s position that the

FOAN is 398 dpa.



higher unemployment rate during that year. I accept that modelling may be a

better indicator to use in the situation where the starting point date is a number of years away from the Census date. But in this case, the starting

point of 2012 is sufficiently close to the Census date of 2011 for me to reach the conclusion that 3.8% is a reasonably reliable starting point to use.

25. The parties agree that, in this scenario, 30 dpa should be added to the

Council’s estimate of 398 dpa giving a total of 428 dpa as the FOAN.

Commuting ratio

26. The commuting ratio in the 2001 Census was 1.03, meaning that there was a net outflow of 3% of workers from Hambleton. By the 2011 Census, this had changed to 0.93, meaning that there was a net inflow of 7% of workers to

Hambleton. The Council’s assumed commuting ratio falls from 1.03, at the starting point of 2012, to 1.00 whereas the appellants have used a balanced

ratio of 1.00 throughout.

27. The Council have assumed a continuation of the existing situation, which sees the commuting ratio falling. They argue that, in reality, the situation is not as

black and white as a balanced commuting ratio suggests. Furthermore, they argue that the increase in the number of self-employed workers would lead to

a greater self-containment as these would be older people who are more likely to live and work in the same district.

28. Using a commuting ratio of greater or less than 1.00 will have an impact on

other local authority areas. This is because there will be either a net in-commute, in which case there will be more jobs in Hambleton than there are

dwellings to accommodate the workers, or a net out-commute, where people living in Hambleton would be working elsewhere. In the plan-making process, the implications of this for housing land supply can be considered through the

duty to co-operate with adjoining local authorities. However, there is no mechanism for this to take place in the consideration of individual development

proposals. The Planning Advisory Service advice2 states that it is risky to plan for the ratio of workplace jobs to resident workers rising over the plan period, ie. the approach of greater self-containment that the Council advocate. It

advises that for the shift in commuting ratio to be believable there would have to be supporting evidence to show what economic factors or policy action will

bring it about. No such evidence is provided in this case. Neither is there any evidence to justify the Council’s assumptions regarding the impact of the increased number of self-employed workers on commuting rates.

29. Accordingly, I accept the appellants’ approach of using a flat-rate ratio of 1.00 throughout for the purposes of this appeal. The parties agree that the forecast

growth in jobs in this scenario means that a further 30 dpa should be added to the Council’s estimate, taking the FOAN to 458 dpa, ie. equivalent to the

appellants’ assessment in this appeal.

Conclusion on housing need

30. Bringing together the above factors, I conclude that the FOAN for the purposes

of this decision should be 458 dpa which equates to a five year requirement of 2,290 dwellings. The parties agree that the shortfall in delivery since 2012

2 Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets Technical advice note - CD133



should be added which, based on a FOAN of 458 dpa, amounts to 6043

dwellings. Consequently the five year housing requirement for the purposes of this decision should be considered to be 2,894 dwellings. This is the starting

point for considering whether or not there is a five year supply of housing. I deal with the supply of housing below including the need for a buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land, in accordance with the

Framework.

Housing land supply

31. The Framework requires authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% or 20%

(moved forward from later in the plan period). The parties agree that a buffer of 5% should be added in this case. Adding the buffer at this stage, ie. after

adding the shortfall in supply from previous years, would entail the provision of a sufficient supply of sites to provide 3,039 dwellings in the five year period, or 608 dpa over the five year period.

32. I note the recent Secretary of State decision that states that the buffer should not be applied to the shortfall from previous years’ under-delivery. I also note

that my colleague in the Huby decision adopts this approach. However, with the greatest of respect, the purpose of the buffer is to increase the supply of land in the first five year period; it is not to alter the demand side of the

equation. The housing requirement, ie. the demand, is the FOAN plus the shortfall from previous years. The Framework states that authorities are

required to identify a five year supply against their housing requirement plus a buffer of 5%. Consequently, the buffer can only be added to the requirement once the shortfall has been added on. To do otherwise would be to ignore a

part of the requirement (the shortfall) in ensuring that there is a sufficient supply to meet that requirement, plus an additional 5%.

33. In this case however, even if I were to accept that the buffer should be added to the ‘basic’ figure of 2,290 dwellings and the shortfall should be added later, there would be only a nominal change to the above figure in paragraph 30 ie.

2,290 + 115 (5%) = 2,405 + 604 (shortfall) = 3,009 dwellings or 602 dwellings per annum. Consequently, both methods lead to the need for a

supply of just over 600 dpa over the five year period.

34. Against a five year requirement of 3,039 dwellings, the Council considers that it can demonstrate a supply of sites sufficient for 3,012 dwellings over that

period, which includes 500 dwellings on windfall sites. This equates to around 4.95 years’ worth of supply. The appellants do not agree that a windfall

allowance should be included and consider the supply from specific sites amounts to just 1,974 dwellings.

35. In the absence of windfall sites, the Council, on their own figures, are only able to demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of sites for just over 2,500 dwellings. This is clearly not sufficient to provide for the requirement of over

3,000 dwellings over the five year period. Accordingly it is necessary for me to

3 This figure is significantly different to the shortfall identified in the Huby decision. That decision states that the parties agreed the backlog to be 468 in that case. That is different to the agreement between the parties in the

appeal before me. I have based my assessment on the evidence before me in this inquiry.



consider whether an allowance should be made for around 500 dwellings to be

provided on windfall sites as the Council suggests.

Windfall Sites

36. The Framework is clear that local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five year supply where there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will

continue to provide a reliable source of supply.

37. The 2012/13 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR)4 indicates that on average there

have been 257 net windfall completions per annum between 2004/5 and 2012/13. However, the parties agree that the figures for the three years 2008/9 to 2010/11 are unreliable as during that time there were no allocations

in the former Local Plan and no adopted Allocations DPD. All completions during those years were therefore recorded as windfall completions.

Nevertheless, even excluding those years from the calculation, an average of 277 dpa were provided between 2004/5 and 2007/8, and 136 dpa average in the two years 2011/12 and 2012/13. The rate also remained at a level just

above 100 dwellings in the final year of available monitoring, 2012/13, albeit at a lesser rate than in previous years. I therefore accept that windfall rates have

historically been high although the ‘gap’ of three years diminishes the consistency in the figures to an extent. On balance however, the evidence would allow me to conclude that windfall sites have consistently become

available in the local area.

38. The appellants raised concern regarding a number of completions which the

Council had ‘found’ from previous years and added into the completions figures for the 2012/13 AMR. The Council’s explanation for this was a change in the system for monitoring completions. However, even without the ‘extra’

dwellings, windfall completions exceeded 100 dwellings each year in their original monitoring year.

39. The Council point to recent national and local policy changes that they say will boost the level of windfall developments in future. These are the recent addition to the PPG removing small scale developments from the requirement

to provide affordable housing, recent changes in permitted development rights and the Council’s Interim Policy Guidance Note.

40. Within the Service Centres, in Hambleton’s settlement hierarchy, Core Strategy policy CP9 only seeks affordable housing on developments of 15 or more dwellings. The Government’s change to affordable housing thresholds will not

therefore affect development within the Service Centres. Nevertheless, there are large parts of the district which lie outside Service Centres where the

current threshold is to seek affordable housing on sites of 2 or more dwellings. The Ministerial Statement introducing the affordable housing change states that

the Government expects the measures “to have a significant positive impact on housing numbers”. The aim is to reduce burdens on developers of small sites and so increase the supply and speed up delivery of housing development.

There is no reason to consider that the Government’s aim will not be realised in Hambleton. Consequently, I accept that this change will be likely to boost the

number of schemes coming forward as windfall sites. Similarly, I accept that the changes to permitted development rights are likely to increase the number

4 CD122



of schemes coming forward through conversions and change of use of

agricultural, commercial or retail buildings.

41. The aim of the Council’s Interim Policy Guidance Note is to provide small scale

development, defined as up to 5 dwellings, to take place in a gradual, incremental and organic manner. I agree that this is likely to increase the number of small sites coming forward and it is highly likely to add to the

number of windfall permissions granted by the Council.

42. I consider that there is compelling evidence to conclude that a windfall

allowance can be included in the five year supply. I do not consider 100 dpa to be an overly optimistic figure having regard to the above evidence, although the actual numbers per annum are likely to fluctuate. I am therefore satisfied

on balance that there is sufficient evidence to enable me to conclude that it is reasonable to include this as a windfall allowance.

Specific sites within the five year supply

43. The sites within the Council’s five year housing land supply are set out in the 2014 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Whilst this

followed a survey with owners, agents and developers with interest in allocated sites, it was not formally sanctioned by the local Housing Market Partnership as

previous versions of the SHLAA had been. The appellants criticise the build-out rates and lead-in times used for some of the sites. Whilst I do not find the alternative build-out estimates submitted by the appellants to be particularly

conclusive, the PPG says that the advice of developers and local agents will be important in assessing lead-in times and build-out rates by year. The lack of

endorsement by the Housing Market Partnership diminishes the certainty that can be placed on the Council’s assessment in some circumstances.

44. The PPG states that Local Plans are the appropriate place for the examination

of the deliverability of sites to meet the five year supply. This thorough process cannot be replicated in the course of determining individual appeals

where only the appellants’ evidence is before me. This is particularly highlighted in this case where the evidence presented to this inquiry has differed, in some respects, to that presented in the Huby inquiry and will

therefore lead me to different conclusions to my colleague inspector in the Huby case. In addition, much of the evidence is based on forecasting and

assumptions and it is not therefore an exact science. Consequently, where the evidence in relation to the disputed sites before me leads me to reduce the potential supply from that site, I have accepted my colleague’s judgement in

the Huby decision where that seems reasonable based on the evidence before me.

45. There are four sites in north Northallerton allocated in the Allocations DPD: sites 798, 797, 795 and 787. Site 798 is not in dispute. The remaining sites

are reliant on the delivery of a link road and railway bridge crossing. Whilst agreement with Network Rail has moved forward recently, the likelihood of the required infrastructure being provided on time cannot be assured. During the

inquiry the Council increased its assessment of deliverability from the three disputed sites from 264 dwellings to 337 dwellings based on pre-application

discussions with the developer on site 797. I consider that this should be treated cautiously however as it is to be expected that developers will ‘talk-up’ the likely housing deliverability in pre-application discussions. This will not

necessarily translate into a grant of planning permission. The appellants



estimate a delivery of just 140 from these sites, but there is little conclusive

evidence to lead me to be so pessimistic of delivery from these sites. My colleague inspector in the Huby decision estimated a delivery of 250 dwellings

on the three sites by March 2019. I consider this to be a reasonable judgement which falls somewhere between the Council and appellants’ estimates.

46. Site 769 has a capacity of 55 dwellings as identified in the SHLAA. There is an issue regarding relocating the existing allotments which occupy part of the site

and the Council have consequently reduced the capacity to 15 dwellings. However, the appellants have submitted further information from Persimmon Homes, who have an interest in the land, which indicates that there can be no

certainty regarding delivery within the five year period. On this basis I consider that it would not be prudent to include this site within the five year

supply.

47. The Council consider that three sites in Aiskew - 762, 765 and 767 - will provide 183 dwellings within the five year period compared to the appellants’

estimate of 40. This seems optimistic particularly as the largest yielding site, 762, does not yet have outline planning permission. I also heard that site 765

has been available since 2010 but there has been no action in taking development of the site forward. My colleague in the Huby decision reached a conclusion of 120 from these three sites which seems to be a reasonable

assumption under these circumstances.

48. On sites 778 and 779, the appellants’ assessment of lead-in times and build-

out rates differ from the Council’s and result in a reduction from the Council’s estimate of 134 dwellings to 106. I am not satisfied that the appellants’ evidence is sufficiently conclusive to significantly reduce the Council’s estimates

from these sites. Planning permission has been granted for part of site 778 and an application for the remainder of site 778 and for site 779 has been

submitted. I am not aware of any barriers to delivery on these sites. My colleague in the Huby decision estimated 130 from these sites and I consider this to be a reasonable estimate on the evidence before me.

49. On site 803, the Council expect 70 dwellings compared to the appellants’ 56. A planning application has yet to be submitted on the site and it appears to be

dependent upon the provision of road infrastructure through the adjoining site. Given the uncertainty regarding timing of the delivery of the road, I am sympathetic to the appellants’ view as to the likely yield from this site within

the five year period.

50. 44 dwellings are included at Cleveland Lodge, Great Ayton, site 804. The site

is allocated for housing within the Allocations DPD with a requirement that it provides “very sheltered housing” (independent housing with an element of

close/extra care for the elderly). The appellants submitted evidence of the intention to submit an application for an ‘elderly care establishment’ falling within Use Class C2. However, the Council consider that this is likely to be in

addition to the 44 dwellings. In any case, it is far from certain that such an application would be approved by the Council in light of the Allocations DPD

policy. Consequently, I agree with the Council that 44 dwellings is a reasonable estimate from this site.5

5 The Huby decision refers to 70 dwellings for this site but that is not the evidence that is before me.



51. Outline planning permission has been granted for 925 dwellings on site 808

and work has begun on phase 1 for which a detailed permission for 107 dwellings has also been granted. I note that there have been pre-application

discussions for phase 2 and approval has been granted for a sports village. The Framework states that sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that

schemes will not be implemented within five years. No such clear evidence has been submitted. There are currently two builders operating on this site and I

consider that the Council’s estimate of 420 dwellings from this site is not unreasonable.

52. Site 815 also has planning permission for 183 dwellings and is allocated in the

Allocations DPD. There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the site is not deliverable. I see no reason to doubt the Council’s estimate of 90

dwellings from this site.

53. The Council increased the delivery on site 801 from 40 to 48 units as a result of pre-application discussions with the developer. As stated above, this will not

necessarily translate into a planning permission and I have therefore retained the delivery from that site at 40 as initially suggested by the Council.

Conclusion on housing land considerations

54. In light of the above, the five year supply of housing sites falls to 2,691. Against a requirement of 3,039 dwellings this equates to a supply of just under

4.4 years.6 If I had added the buffer of 5% before adding the shortfall, as agreed by the parties, this would have equated to a marginally increased

supply of 4.45 years (3,009 dwelling requirement against a supply of 2,691 dwellings). Had I agreed with the appellants that a windfall allowance should not be included, this would have reduced the supply to around 3.6 years.

55. Even on the best estimate therefore, I conclude that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites sufficient to meet

the requirement. In accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework, relevant policies for the supply of housing, identified above, should not be considered up to date and there is a requirement to consider applications in the context of the

presumption in favour of sustainable development. Accordingly, before carrying out the balance required by the Framework I will turn to consider the

other issues of relevance in this appeal.


56. Although the Council did not raise any concerns regarding the impact of the

development on the character or appearance of the surroundings, this matter was raised by interested parties. The appellants therefore presented evidence

on this matter.

57. The appeal site lies on greenfield land on the eastern edge of Great Ayton. It

comprises an agricultural field, a paddock and, on its western edge, various farm buildings. To the north lie an agricultural field and the grounds and woodland belonging to Cleveland Lodge. To the east lies open countryside, an

area of relatively flat or gently undulating lowland which rises to the North York Moors National Park further to the east.

6 This is different to the conclusion reached by my colleague in the Huby decision due to the differences in some

elements of the evidence.



58. The site falls within various landscape character types produced at national,

county and district level. However, in practice, it is not necessary to focus on the specific character types as the character of the site and its surroundings is

clear from the site inspection. Beyond the village to the east the medium scale arable fields bounded by hedgerows and trees, the relatively flat nature of the landscape which rises to the escarpment of the North York Moors and the

enclosure created by belts and copses of mature woodland provides an attractive rural character. This contrasts with the harder edge of the village

seen on the western and part of the southern boundaries of the site which have a semi-rural character with a small number of medium density houses and the agricultural buildings of School Farm abutting these boundaries.

59. The viewer walking along the footpath that runs to the north of the site, from the village towards Cliff Rigg to the east, has a sense of leaving the village and

entering a rural area. Initially the edge of the village is not evident as it is screened by the woodland belt to the north of the site. The village becomes visible the further east along that footpath one travels. But it is not prominent

or significant in the landscape due to the distance from the viewer, intervening landscape features and topography and its medium density built form.

60. The village of Great Ayton is known, at least locally if not further afield, for its historic association to Captain Cook. The Cook museum lies in the village as does his former school and what is believed to be his family home lies at

Aireyholme Farm to the east. The footpath is understood to be the route he took on his walk to and from school. On leaving the village along that footpath

the viewer is presented with a view of Captain Cook’s Monument, located on the escarpment at Easby Moor. This view is framed by a woodland belt on the northern edge of the site and a copse of trees within the grounds of Cleveland

Lodge7. This striking view is a reminder of the heritage of the village.

61. The built development on the site would intrude significantly into this framed

view of the rural landscape towards the escarpment and Captain Cook’s Monument. I acknowledge that proposed landscaping on the boundary of the site would soften the appearance of the development over time, but

nevertheless, there is no escaping the fact that the land would take on a more urban character when seen from this vantage point. The village is well-visited

by walkers. The Parish Council provides information leaflets identifying walking routes out of the village, including along the footpath to the north of the site. It is reasonable to consider that the receptors, those walking along that

footpath, will be highly sensitive to change. The proposed development would cause a significant adverse effect on the character of the locality. I accept that

the effect becomes less harmful as the viewer travels further east along this footpath, but the change would nonetheless be substantial in a localised area.

62. I consider that in assessing viewpoints 6 and 7 together in the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) and in considering viewpoint 8 also to be similar, the appellants have underestimated the impact of the development

from viewpoint 6.

63. When viewed from the escarpment of Cliff Rigg to the east, the main extent of

the built form of the village is located to the north of the site. It is separated from the site by the mature woodland in and around Cleveland Lodge. The existing dwellings and buildings on Station Road are visible but appear as little

7 Approximately equivalent to viewpoint 6 in the appellants’ LVIA



more than a ribbon of development forming a subsidiary part of the village.

That area acts as a transition between the main built form of the village to the north and the open countryside to the south and east of the site. The proposed

development would not be a natural rounding off of the village. It would be seen as an intrusion of built development into the open countryside which would consolidate the built form of the village in this location. Again the users

of the footpath to Cliff Rigg would be highly susceptible to change. In the short to medium term the development would have a moderate adverse effect on the

character of the area. This would reduce in time and the LVIA gives an indication of the view 10 years after completion. By that time the landscaping on the edges of the site would have softened its impact. Nonetheless, as an

elevated view into the site over the boundary landscaping would be gained from this vantage point, the adverse effect would remain, albeit at a more

diminished level.

64. I conclude that the proposed development would result in a significant and harmful change to the character and appearance of the countryside. This

would be contrary to policy CP1 and policy DP30 which respectively seek to protect the natural environment and character and appearance of the

countryside. These aspects of the policies are in compliance with one of the core planning principles in the Framework to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Impact on existing farming enterprise

65. The appeal site, at School Farm, comprises a field in agricultural use, together

with a yard containing a number of farm buildings and a farm shop. Mr Phalp senior owns the farm tenancy. Whilst I understand that he still takes an active role in the farm operations, it is mainly farmed by his son, Mr Phalp junior, and

his son’s wife. The family also farm other holdings in the area: Southbrook Farm, Aireyholme Farm and Ayton Banks Farm. The appellants pointed out

that the tenancy does not automatically pass to Mr Phalp jnr on the demise of his father. However, it is clear that the operations at School Farm are currently interlinked with the other farm holdings, and in any case the evidence was

presented on behalf of the Phalp family as a whole.

66. I heard that the facilities at the farm yard, including the agricultural buildings,

are vital to the farming operations at all four of the holdings operated by the tenants. They describe School Farm as being the ‘hub’ of the enterprise, its ‘shop window’ and ‘gateway to the markets’. The agricultural buildings on the

appeal site are used both for the keeping of livestock and for storage of crops. One of the buildings houses a farm shop with an adjacent barn used for egg

grading and packaging. The eggs are produced at Southbrook Farm. Due to its central location and ease of access, School Farm is used to accept and store

deliveries for each of the farms. These are then transported to the other holdings by tractor and trailer. Conversely, crops and produce from the other farms are taken to School Farm where they are loaded onto articulated vehicles

for distribution elsewhere.

67. As well as housing livestock which needs extra care during calving or lambing, I

heard that one of the existing large barns provides the only storage building on any of the holdings which is large enough, or of the correct specifications and in the correct location, for the storage of grain. The tenants claim that none of

the other holdings has a building of sufficient size to accommodate the grain



store and this was not disputed by the appellants. I saw that access to both

Aireyholme Farm and Ayton Banks Farm for large vehicles would be problematic due to the narrow, winding and steep nature of the access roads.

I also note that, with the exception of Southbrook Farm, the other holdings are situated in the North York Moors National Park where planning policies for new buildings are likely to be more restrictive.

68. The farm shop is housed in part of one of the large agricultural buildings. It sells a variety of produce. Some of that produce, such as the eggs, is

produced on the various farm holdings but the shop also sells other items which are bought in to sell. The evidence provided by the tenants’ accountant states that the sales from the farm shop, including the egg sales, accounted for

51% of the total sales of the farming business in 2013. This evidence concludes that the farm shop and egg sales at School Farm are critical to the

viability and sustainability of the whole farming business. The tenants also point to the loss of at least 2 jobs employed directly in the farm shop and egg production that would result from the proposal.

69. It transpired during the course of the inquiry that the farm shop does not have the benefit of planning permission. Accordingly, the appellants argue that I

can place no weight on the loss of an unauthorised business and the revenue that it generates. The Council provided an explanatory note for the inquiry on this matter. This sets out the Council’s view that planning permission would

have been required to use the existing storage building as a farm shop, because much of the produce being sold is not produced on the farm. The note

states that planning permission was granted in 1993 for a farm shop within the farm yard, close to the location of the existing shop. It goes on to say that, because the existing shop provides local employment and no complaints have

been received, they do not consider it expedient to take enforcement action against this unauthorised use.

70. The use appears to be compatible with the surrounding area; it is clearly a valued facility in the village. Furthermore, it would comply with advice in the Framework regarding farm diversification and it is evidently important to the

viability of the farming enterprise. Thus, having regard to the Council’s confirmation that it is unlikely to take enforcement action, the balance of

probability lies in the likelihood that the farm shop will remain. Whereas, if the appeal were to be allowed, the shop could not remain in its current location and there are no proposals for its replacement.

71. Even if this approach were not correct, the loss of the shop would result in a drop in egg sales which would have an adverse effect on the revenue received

by the egg business. The farm yard is located close to the centre of the village and is therefore a convenient location from which to sell the eggs. Sales from

Southbrook Farm would not be as viable due to the distance of that farm from the centre of the village. The tenants stated that before the shop opened, they used to sell the eggs from School Farm on the basis of an ‘honesty box’. It is

also a consideration that the egg grading and packaging operations are located adjacent to the shop and as such, in operational terms, it appears efficient to

sell the eggs from this location. Accordingly, even if circumstances changed and the Council decided that it was expedient to take action against the existing shop use, it is reasonable to consider that the sales of eggs from this

location would continue. This of itself would be considered to be an ancillary use which would not require planning permission.



72. The evidence demonstrates that the eggs sold from this location through the

farm shop are significantly more profitable than they would be if sold as contract production. The proposal would lead to the loss of the egg grading

and packaging facility and there would be no land remaining within the site from which the eggs could be sold. Consequently, the tenants would have no option but to sell most of their eggs via contract. This would be likely to

reduce the revenue received.

73. The appellants have stated that it would be possible to contract out operations

housed in the agricultural buildings (the crop storage and livestock housing), but this would be at a financial cost to the business. They have also suggested that the buildings could be replaced elsewhere on School Farm. However,

there is no suggested alternative location before me, although I note that an alternative location was offered to the tenants but was rejected as being

unsuitable. For the reasons set out above, it is far from clear where alternative, suitable buildings could be provided.

74. I have considered whether it would be possible to impose a condition that

would require the replacement of these buildings before development commences. However, I am concerned that in seeking to discharge such a

condition the appellants could provide replacement buildings in a location which is not suitable for the farm operations. The suggested condition would require the Council to make a judgement on the suitability of the buildings to the farm

enterprise. Yet they may not be in possession of the necessary information to enable them to make that judgement. If it was possible to word the condition

such that it required the agreement of the tenants to the siting of the buildings (and I am not convinced that this would be the case), that agreement could be withheld thus preventing or significantly delaying the development.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that such a condition would be a workable proposition and I do not consider that it would meet the tests set out in the

PPG.

75. The land is classified as best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land. This is a finite resource and the Framework makes it clear that regard should be had

to the economic and other benefits of such land. Nevertheless, in the context of Hambleton as a whole, the loss of BMV as a result of this development would

be small. In the context of a need for additional housing development within the district, in all likelihood, some loss of such land is inevitable. In terms of the impact on the viability of the farm, although it is a high yielding field, the

tenant confirmed that its loss, on its own, would not be insurmountable for the business. However, I note that the appellants attribute a financial loss to the

business from the loss of yield from this field.

76. In addition to the financial and operational impact on the farming enterprise,

there is also evidence that the farm yard is a part of the village community. The tenants hold open days for school children to undertake farm visits and one of the barns is used for making floats for the village fête. It is clearly a

facility which is valued by the community. The Framework seeks to ensure that the planning system facilitates social interaction and creates healthy,

inclusive communities. It seems to me that the activities which take place at School Farm do just that.

77. I conclude therefore that the loss of the existing buildings and yard at School

Farm would be likely to place financial and operational constraints on an



existing agricultural business. This would be contrary to the Framework’s aim

of supporting economic growth in rural areas by promoting the development and diversification of agricultural businesses. It would also have a social

impact through the loss of a facility which, on the evidence before me, is of value to the community. These factors weigh against the proposed development.

Other Material Factors

Location of development

78. In locational terms, Great Ayton is a Service Village which is described in the Core Strategy as being the “main location of services to supplement those provided by the Service Centres, to help meet the needs of the rural

communities throughout the hinterland”. Policy CP6 states that new housing will be supported in Service Villages, at a level appropriate to the needs of the

local communities and within the defined development limits. The restriction on development outside development limits is not in accordance with the Framework. But, as stated earlier, those parts of the policy which relate to the

settlement hierarchy and the sustainable location of development do accord with the Framework’s aims. Spatial Principle 3 of the Core Strategy envisages

limited development in Service Villages. I do not consider that the development of up to 113 dwellings falls into the definition of ‘limited development’.

79. The Interim Policy Guidance sets out the support for small scale housing development in villages, including outside Development Limits, where it

contributes to maintaining and enhancing the vitality of the local community. Service Villages are defined in the Interim Policy Guidance as being ‘sustainable settlements’. However, the Guidance encourages small scale development, up

to 5 dwellings, adjacent to the main built form of a settlement and where it results in incremental and organic growth. The scale of the proposed

development would clearly be contrary to this Interim Policy Guidance.

80. The Council acknowledge that Great Ayton is a sustainable settlement and I accept that it does have a good level of service provision. Nevertheless, it is

not as sustainable as other locations within the district such as the Principal Service Centres of Northallerton and Thirsk and the Service Centres of Bedale,

Easingwold and Stokesley. Residents of the proposed dwellings would need to travel further afield for many of their daily or weekly needs. This would include travel to secondary schools, larger supermarkets, banks and a wide range of

employment facilities. Public transport is available in the form of bus and train services, although given their frequency in this rural area and the fact that they

do not extend into the evening, residents of the site would be largely dependent on their cars for access to services further afield and for evening

entertainment.

81. The Framework gives guidance for housing in rural areas. It states that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural

communities. It also states that it should reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing. However, it also aims to actively manage patterns of

growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and to focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. Developments that generate significant movements should be



located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable

transport modes can be maximised.

82. The development would meet a local need for affordable housing and, given

the lack of a five year housing supply, it would help to meet the district’s need for market housing. It would increase the mix of housing in Great Ayton and add to the vitality of the village. I expand on these matters below. However,

the scale of development would not be in accordance with Spatial Principle 3 of the Core Strategy. It would also fail to comply with policy CP1 which seeks the

use of previously developed land, where that is in a sustainable location, in preference to greenfield sites. Furthermore, it would fail to comply with policy CP2 which seeks to locate development where the need to travel will be

minimised. No support for the proposal can therefore be claimed in relation to the location of the development; indeed the failure to comply with the

development plan strategy for the distribution of development is a factor weighing against the appeal.

Other sustainability considerations

83. The Framework sets out the three dimensions of sustainable development. These are economic social and environmental. In economic terms I have set

out above the impact on the existing farm business which is a factor weighing against the development. Nevertheless, there are also economic factors in its favour. The development would provide direct economic benefits in supporting

jobs through the four year construction phase. It would also support the local economy indirectly through increased expenditure in the village shops and

other businesses. This weighs heavily in favour of the appeal.

84. The proposal also includes the conversion of one of the existing agricultural buildings to offices and it is claimed that this would provide the opportunity for

15 jobs within the village although the appellants accepted that these were speculative office jobs. Furthermore, against the potential job creation must

be balanced the actual loss of jobs through the loss of the farm shop. This would provide only a limited amount of weight in favour of the appeal.

85. The new homes bonus and increased Council tax receipts and business rates

would bring additional resources to the Council, although I consider these matters to be incentives for Councils to provide housing and other

developments rather than attracting weight in the planning balance.

86. 50% of the dwellings would be affordable housing. This would be in accordance with policy CP9 and the appellants presented evidence on the

benefits of this in an area in great need of such provision. This is an important matter which adds significant weight in favour of the appeal.

87. The provision of more housing would clearly fulfil a social and economic role in terms of the continued vitality of the village. This would be in accordance with

the Framework’s advice regarding development in rural areas. A high proportion of the population of Great Ayton is of retirement age. The development would add to the mix of housing, providing housing opportunities

for families with young children. However, Great Ayton appears to be a thriving community and there is no evidence that existing shops and services

are under threat in the absence of the development. The number of pupils at Roseberry Community Primary School is below its capacity, but not significantly so and there is no evidence that the school is under threat of closure. It is also



the case that the Interim Policy Guidance will be likely to increase the number

of dwellings in the village thus providing additional dwellings to add to the vitality of the village. Nevertheless, this provides some weight in favour of the

appeal. There would also be open space and a play area on the site and this would provide some further social benefit, although this would be of a very minor nature.

88. In environmental terms, I have set out above that the proposal would cause significant harm to the natural environment. Nevertheless, the upgrading of

the existing stone barn would enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. This would be in accordance with DP8, itself in compliance with the Framework, which seeks to conserve the historic environment. This would add

a limited amount of weight in its favour. I do not agree that the removal of the modern barn would improve the appearance of the conservation area as this is

part of the rural and agricultural character of the village and is a neutral factor.

89. Other matters put forward in favour of the development include the increases in biodiversity from the retention of existing trees and hedgerows and the new

planting proposed; the energy efficiency of the dwellings; the proposed sustainable drainage scheme; new and upgraded links to the station and the

pedestrian crossings. However, I consider these to be mitigating factors rather than benefits and the weight to be given to them is marginal.

90. The above matters weigh in favour of the development to varying degrees and

I have regard to them in the overall planning balance which I set out below.

Flooding

91. The site is bounded to the north by what is known as the ‘Northern Boundary Ditch’ and Dikes Beck runs to the south of the site adjacent to Station Road. The Environment Agency (EA) have confirmed8 that the site effectively lies

within Flood Zone 1, outside any area identified as being at medium and high risk of flooding. The evidence confirms that surface water from the site would

be directed to the Northern Boundary Ditch and would be at or below greenfield run-off rates. The appellants consider that this would be a benefit of the scheme, but the reduction in surface water to Dikes Beck would appear to be

minimal. The appellants’ drainage advisors state that the total impact on the flows in Dikes Beck would be “minimal if not negligible”.

92. Foul water would be directed to the combined sewer which runs alongside Station Road. Northumbrian Water confirm that there is sufficient capacity within that sewer to accommodate foul water from the development. Both the

EA and Northumbrian Water have confirmed that they have no objections to the proposed development.

93. However, it is clear from the evidence presented by the interested parties in this appeal that there are understandable concerns regarding the potential

flood risk impacts from the proposal on the surrounding roads. I note that significant flooding does occur on Station Road as a result of surcharge from two manholes within that road. Concern was therefore expressed that the

development would increase the amount of foul water in the combined sewer upstream of these manholes, thus increasing the concentration of foul water

during a flooding event. As a result of these concerns the appellants confirmed

8 Statement of Common Ground between the EA and appellants



that the foul water connection would take place downstream of these

manholes. This could be secured by a suitable condition. Concern was expressed regarding safe access to and egress from the site during flooding

events. The site itself and its access road onto Station Road are outside of any flood risk area. Whilst, during flood events, there is likely to be flooding on routes to and from the site, there is no evidence that this is likely to be a

significant problem which would weigh against this appeal. It is important to note that the EA have raised no concerns in this regard.

94. I appreciate the strength of feeling held by the local community. I can also understand the frustration experienced by local residents in relation to the existing flooding situation and the lack of remedy provided by the regulatory

bodies to date. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the development would exacerbate this existing problem. The proposal would not

therefore conflict with polies CP21 and DP43, both of which are in compliance with the Framework and which seek to ensure that development does not have an adverse impact on flooding. This matter does not therefore weigh against

the appeal.

Highway considerations

95. The Highway Authority and appellants have reached agreement on highway matters based on a number of off-site improvements to the surrounding road network. However, local residents’ concerns remain.

96. The development would undoubtedly increase the amount of traffic travelling along Station Road, High Street and Newton Road. On my site visits I noted

that parked cars restrict the width of the carriageways on these roads in places and, at times, traffic needs to stop to give way to oncoming vehicles. With the increase in vehicle movements to and from the site, this would be likely to

occur more frequently. However, there is no evidence to demonstrate that this would lead to undue queuing along these roads, nor would it result in

significant safety concerns.

97. The appellants propose improvement schemes along Station Road and at the junction with Station Road / High Street / Newton Road. Vehicles currently

park somewhat haphazardly along Station Road resulting in traffic weaving in and out of parked cars. It is proposed to introduce parking bays on one side of

the road only, with parking restrictions opposite. This would enable two way flows of traffic along Station Road. At the junction, the size of the bell-mouth would be reduced and a pedestrian crossing point introduced. I note that both

improvement schemes would result in a reduction in the number of parking spaces available. Whilst any loss of parking in an area where spaces are at a

premium is not ideal, the number of spaces to be lost (around 5) would not be unduly large and there is no evidence that this is likely to result in any

significant harm to highway safety. Nor do I consider that it is likely to significantly diminish the attractiveness of Great Ayton as a destination for walkers or visitors.

98. In addition to the highway improvements noted above, improved pedestrian and cycle links are also proposed. All of these improvements could be secured

by a suitable condition or the submitted S106 agreement, which I deal with later.



99. In light of the proposed improvements, I am satisfied that the impact of the

proposed development would be mitigated. Overall, I have no reason to disagree with the Highway Authority’s professional opinion, expressed in the

Statements of Common Ground, that the traffic generated would not have an adverse impact on the local road network. There is therefore no conflict with CS policy CP1 which seeks to restrict development which has an adverse traffic

impact. The proposed highway, footpath and cycleway improvements are also in accordance with policies DP2 and DP39 which require contributions and

provision to be made for sustainable development and transport.

100. The Framework states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development

are severe. That is a high bar. On the basis of the evidence, I do not consider that case to be made. This matter does not therefore weigh against the

appeal.

Community involvement

101. Reason for refusal No. 10 refers to the Framework’s advice that 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. The

Council and local residents claim that this did not take place. The Framework goes on to say that where it can be demonstrated that this community involvement took place, proposals should be looked on more favourably. Thus,

whilst weight can be given in favour of a development where it has followed this advice, I do not agree that the lack of such engagement would in itself

weigh against a proposed development. Clearly if the community raise legitimate planning concerns that have not been addressed by a development proposal then those outstanding matters are capable of weighing against the

development in the overall planning balance. But, it is not unusual for local communities to be opposed to development, even where extensive

engagement has taken place. Furthermore, it is possible that the views of the local community may not accord with the requirements of a particular development plan. Accordingly, in this case I have taken on board the

planning concerns raised by the local community and have attached weight to each of these matters one way or the other. But, in itself, the lack of extensive

community involvement is not a matter which weighs against this appeal.

Other appeal decisions

102. I have been provided with a number of other appeal decisions by the parties

in this case. It is rarely the case that appeal decisions elsewhere will be directly comparable to the development under consideration in another appeal

so as to provide the justification for a particular decision. Apart from the Huby decision which has clear relevance to the appeal before me, I have not referred

to any other decisions here. I have determined this appeal on the basis of the evidence presented to me and on its own merits.

Overall Balance

103. I have concluded that the Council are currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of specific deliverable housing land. The Framework states that in

such circumstances planning permission should be granted unless any adverse

9 Both policies comply with the Framework in so far as they seek contributions towards infrastructure to mitigate

the impact of development.



impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits

when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

104. The proposal would have the social and economic benefits of addressing the

current under-supply, this includes the support to the local economy and increasing the mix of housing in the area. The provision of much needed affordable housing is also a matter of significant weight. There are other

factors which provide weight in favour of the development; the speculative office jobs, the upgrading of the stone barn, and factors that mitigate the

impact of the development. But these matters are not determinative.

105. On the other hand, the proposal would cause serious environmental harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. It would also cause

considerable social and economic harm due to its impact on the farming enterprise at School Farm. The failure to comply with the development plan

strategy for the distribution of development is also a factor weighing against the appeal.

106. The lack of a five year supply of housing land does not automatically lead to

the grant of planning permission, even where there are substantial benefits from the provision of affordable housing and other benefits such as in this case.

Paragraph 8 of the Framework states that the three sustainability roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. To achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains

should be sought jointly and simultaneously. In this instance the harm to the character and appearance of the area, the impact on the farm enterprise and

the location of the development leads me to conclude that the proposal is not sustainable development. These impacts are significant and demonstrable and they therefore outweigh the benefits in this case.

Planning Obligation

107. As I set out earlier, a S106 obligation was submitted by the appellants. This

would trigger the provision of open space as well as the provision of other contributions towards infrastructure. I have no reason to consider that the terms of the obligation would not accord with the requirements of Regulation

122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations. However, given that I have reached the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed there is no need for

me to consider this matter in greater detail.

Final Conclusion

108. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be

dismissed.

Susan Heywood

INSPECTOR



APPEARANCES


Jonathan Easton of Counsel Instructed by Hambleton District Council He called:

Peter Boden Director, Edge Analytics Ltd Mark Harbottle Hambleton District Council Andrew McCormack Hambleton District Council

FOR THE APPELLANT:

John Barrett of Counsel Instructed by Phil Bamford, Gladman

Developments Ltd He called: Darren Wisher Regeneris Consulting

Michael Gary Holliday FPCR Environment and Design Ltd Robert Hindle Rural Solutions

Michael Palmer Land Research Associates Ltd Chris Patmore WSP UK Ltd Jonathan Cracknell Hydrock Consultants

Michael Watts Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Richard Taylor Strutt & Parker LLP

Paul Cornfoot Fore Consulting Ltd INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mark Phalp School Farm Kath Phalp School Farm

Cllr Greenwell District Councillor Cllr Moorhouse County Councillor

John Fletcher Great Ayton Parish Council Mr Bennett CPRE Kevin Price Save School Farm Action Group

Marion Button Local resident David Greer Local resident

Peter Morgan Local resident Stephen Stokeld Local resident Richard Lines Local resident

Mr Bisby Local resident John Robinson Local resident

Mr Moody Local resident Mr Jackson Local resident Mr Stevens Local resident

DOCUMENTS

Council Documents

1 Opening statement 2 Paragraph 19 of PPG – Market Signals

3 Paragraph 35 of PPG – How to deal with past under-supply 4 Written Ministerial Statement 28 November 2014



5 Note on windfall allowance

6 Network Rail e-mail correspondence 7 North Northallerton Development Area – Delivery Position Statement Nov

14 8 Cleveland Lodge e-mail correspondence 9 Comparison of village services

10 Secretary of State Decision, Gresty Lane APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 11 Amended 5 year supply position statement

12 CIL compliance statement 13 Peter Boden – Comments on new evidence on Hambleton’s OAN 14 Roseberry Community Primary School Ofsted extract

15 Paragraph 001 PPG – character of landscapes 16 The Endeavour Way Cycle Route study

17 Housing requirement tables 18 Report to Cabinet 17 March 2015 – Interim Policy Guidance Note 19 Note regarding the changes to the Interim Policy Guidance Note

20 Note regarding the planning status of the farm shop 21 LDS

22 Closing submissions

Appellants’ documents

23 Opening statement

23a Appearances 24 Rebuttal statement by Chris Patmore to Mark Harbottle Proof of Evidence 25 Jonathan Cracknell rebuttal to Mark Harbottle Proof of Evidence

26 Michael Watts Supplementary Evidence 1 – the Easingwold decision 27 Michael Watts Supplementary Evidence 2 – windfall allowance

28 Letter from Gladman Developments dated 13 January 2015 29 Farm land map 30 Retained access map

31 Note by Darren Wisher 32 Position statement relating to highways and transport – Paul Cornfoot

33 Cleveland Lodge letter dated 14 January 2015 34 Supply round table Agenda 35 Chris Patmore Rebuttal to Save School Farm Action Group

36 Jonathan Cracknell introduction 37 Catchment descriptors

38 Paul Cornfoot introduction 39 5 year housing land supply position summary

40 Appeal decision APP/N1350/A/14/2217552 41 Completed S106 42 Chris Patmore Response to Inspector’s Note

43 Paul Cornfoot Response to Mr Greer 44 Addendum to Statement of Common Ground – parking on Station Road

45 Richard Taylor Proof of Evidence 46 Consent Order quashing the Easingwold decision 47 Closing submissions



Joint documents

48 Response to Inspector 7 January 2015 49 Response to Inspector 3 March 2015 50 Response to Inspector – Housing Supply Position (Update)

51 Agreed Joint Statement – Implications of 2012 Household Projections 52 Flood Risk (Safe Access and Egress) – Statement of Common Ground

53 Suggested conditions

Interested parties’ documents

54 Mark Phalp statement

55 Kath Phalp statement 56 Save School Farm Action Group statement 57 Mr Morgan statement

58 Mr Jackson plan 59 Mr Stevens – vacancies at Stokesley Business Park

60 Mr Greer – correspondence with Yorkshire County Council 61 Mr Lines – flooding in Great Ayton 62 Mr Price – statement on behalf of Save School Farm Action Group

63 John Robinson statement 63a List of third party speakers

64 John Fletcher – statement on behalf of Great Ayton Parish Council 65 Letter from Judith and Alan Skerry 66 Statement from Ms Button

67 Letter dated 9 March 2015 from Farmoor Services on behalf of School Farm landowner

68 Mr Finch letter 69 Information regarding School Farm as a community asset 70 Suggested points of interest for site visit

71 Rishi Sunak MP letter 72 Mr Greer further evidence

73 Closing statement – Mr Price for Save School Farm Action Group 74 Closing statement – Great Ayton Parish Council

Documents submitted since the close of the inquiry

75 Council’s comments on the Huby decision 76 Appellants’ comments on the Huby decision



APPENDIX 8

AMBER VALLEY LOCAL PLAN: INSPECTOR’S LETTER

Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination

Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI

Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP

Tel: 07969 631930 Email: [email protected]

Date: 10 Aug 2015

Derek Stafford Assistant Director (Planning & Regeneration) Amber Valley Borough Council Town Hall Market Place Ripley DE5 3BT (by email) Dear Mr Stafford Amber Valley Local Plan (Part 1 – The Core Strategy) Thank you for your letter of 24 July updating me on the changed position concerning the Local Plan. Without commenting upon the contents of the ‘revisions to the further proposed changes’ it is disappointing that the progress of the examination has been further delayed. I note that the revisions are to be published for comment for a period ending on 4 September and that the Council is due to consider the matter again on 16 September. I also note that the joint further SA work with South Derbyshire has yet to be completed and published for consultation. Dates for this process need to be firmly established as soon as possible since the hearings sessions cannot be resumed until this has taken place. Concerning the 4 lower paragraphs on p8. The joint letter from Ms Kingaby and myself dated 10 December referred to appeal ref 2199085 as the SoS’s model for adding the buffer to the sum of the 5-yr target and the shortfall. Although the Council refers to the Cheshire East decision ref 2209335 (Gresty Lane) where the SoS took a different approach, PINS is not aware of any other SoS decision in which the calculation was made in that way. The Cheshire East method is outside the SoS’s ‘normal’ approach. The model set out in 2199085 is therefore the one which should be followed.

Address for correspondence Programme Officer

c/o Community Planning Amber Valley Borough Council

Town Hall Ripley

Derbyshire DE5 3BT

Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy – Examination

Inspector: Roy Foster MA MRTPI

Programme Officer: Carmel Edwards B Lib (Hons) MCLIP

The Council is clearly aware of the importance of establishing solid, reliable information to support its assumptions on the deliverability of sites counted within the 5-yr supply, and I note that an update on that position is to be put to the next Council meeting on 16 September. Yours sincerely Roy Foster Inspector Cc: South Derbyshire District Council

Derby City Council



APPENDIX 9

WEST DORSET AND PORTLAND JOINT LOCAL PLAN: INSPECTOR’S

FINAL REPORT

Report to West Dorset, Weymouth and

Portland Councils

by Paul Crysell BSc MSC MRTPI


Date 14 August 2015

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 (AS AMENDED)

SECTION 20

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO THE WEST DORSET, WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND JOINT LOCAL PLAN

Document submitted for examination on 24 June 2013

Examination hearings held between 25 November and 9 December 2014

File Ref: PINS/F1230/429/5

West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Report, August 2015

2

Abbreviations Used in this Report

AA Appropriate Assessment CIL Community Infrastructure Levy DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

HMA HRA

Housing Market Area Habitats Regulations Assessment

LDS LEP

Local Development Scheme Local Enterprise Partnership

LP Local Plan

MM MS

OAN

Main Modification Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Strategy

Objectively assessed need PPG prs

Planning Practice Guidance Private Rented Sector

RS Regional Strategy SA

SANG SOCG

Sustainability Appraisal

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace Statement of Common Ground

SCI Statement of Community Involvement SCS SEP

Sustainable Community Strategy Strategic Economic Plan

SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHMA

SNPP SPD

Strategic Housing Market Assessment

Sub-National Population Projections Supplementary Planning Document


3

Non-Technical Summary

This report concludes that the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Joint

Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the District and Borough Councils providing a number of modifications are made to the Plan.

The Councils have specifically requested me to recommend any modifications necessary to enable the plan to be adopted. The majority of the modifications were proposed by the Councils but I have amended detailed

wording and/or added consequential modifications in the interests of soundness. I have recommended their inclusion after considering the

representations from other parties on these issues. The Main Modifications can be summarised as follows:

• Acknowledgement of the need for an early review of the Local Plan by

2021 to ensure provision of sufficient housing land for the remainder of the plan period;

• Changes to the level of housing provision and revision of the five year housing land supply position;

• As part of the review process identify a long-term strategy for

development in the Dorchester area and reappraise housing provision in Sherborne;

• Remove reference to a Trunk Road Service Area as part of park and ride proposals at Dorchester.


4

Introduction

1. This report contains my assessment of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Joint Local Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan or LP) in terms

of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied

with the duty to co-operate, in recognition that there is no scope to remedy any failure in this regard. It then considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements. The

National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 182) makes clear that to be sound, a Local Plan should be positively prepared; justified; effective

and consistent with national policy.

2. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local

authorities have submitted what they consider to be a sound plan. The basis for my examination is the submitted draft plan (June 2013) [CD/SP2].

3. My report deals with the main modifications that are needed to make the Plan sound and legally compliant and they are identified in bold in the

report (MM)1. In accordance with section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act the Councils requested that I should make any modifications needed to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound/not legally compliant and thus

incapable of being adopted. These main modifications are set out in the Appendices to this report.

4. The main modifications that are necessary for soundness relate to matters that were raised in written representations or discussed at the examination hearings. Following these discussions, the Councils prepared

a schedule of proposed main modifications and carried out sustainability appraisal. This schedule has been subject to public consultation and I

have taken account of the responses in coming to my conclusions in this report. As a result I have made some amendments to the detailed wording of the main modifications and added consequential modifications

where these are necessary for consistency or clarity. None of these amendments significantly alters the content of the modifications as

published for consultation or undermines the participatory processes and sustainability appraisal that has been undertaken. Where necessary I have highlighted these amendments in the report.

Background

5. Following an exploratory meeting held on 22 January 2014 the Councils

requested2 that I suspended the examination to allow further work to be undertaken on an objective assessment of housing need to inform the level of housing provision required during the plan period.

6. The results of this work led to changes being recommended to the Plan and a six week period of public consultation on further alterations took

1 N.B. There are no main modifications under MM12, MM13, MM14 or MM45 2 Letter of 13 March 2014 [CD/INSP11]


5

place between 31 July and 11 September 2014. Hearing sessions for the public examination were held between 25 November and 9 December

2014. A number of main modifications the Councils recommended were published, together with an updated Sustainability Appraisal. These were

subject to consultation between 19 February and 8 April 2015. An additional period of consultation took place between 17 April and 29 May 2015 to allow for responses to a further modification which was not

included in the original schedule.

Assessment of Duty to Cooperate

7. Section s20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the

Councils complied with any duty imposed on them by section 33A of the 2004 Act in relation to the preparation of their joint plan. The Councils

contend that West Dorset (WD) and Weymouth and Portland (WP) share the same Housing Market Area (HMA) and there has been no suggestion to the contrary by other parties.

8. Nevertheless, a number of respondents felt that the Councils have not embraced the legislative provisions of the Duty to Cooperate because they

failed to have regard to development needs at peripheral locations. Three areas where administrative boundaries influenced development options were highlighted; on the edge of Yeovil (South Somerset); at Lyme Regis

which borders East Devon District; and at Crossways close to the Council’s eastern boundary with Purbeck District. The Councils’ position on this

matter is set out in a statement [CD/CON12] and in a response to initial concerns I identified [CD/INSP15].

9. A joint approach to plan-making has been agreed by Weymouth and

Portland and West Dorset Councils because of the geographical and functional relationship between the two authorities. The association has

led to land in West Dorset being allocated which will meet some of the housing needs of Weymouth and Portland.

10. It is not unreasonable to suggest that peripheral areas of WD could offer

opportunities for more effective plan-making if administrative boundaries were ignored because there is potential overlap with HMAs in adjacent

authorities. However, discussions with neighbouring authorities and prescribed agencies have not led to formal cross-boundary proposals.

11. Development options within WD adjacent to Yeovil were investigated

during the formative stages of the South Somerset Local Plan but not pursued. Similarly, the Inspector conducting the examination into

Purbeck District’s Core Strategy/Local Plan [CD/OCP9] made no explicit reference to meeting development needs on the common boundary with WD but recognised that opportunities for sustainable growth could emerge

as WD were contemplating strategic growth in this area. Consequently, he saw potential benefits in identifying the infrastructure which would be

required in Purbeck District if this location was a focus for future growth.

12. In recognition of this and the need for cross border cooperation at Crossways, the Councils accepted that further clarification would be


6

helpful [WDWP/Ex22]. A modification is therefore recommended acknowledging the partial review of the Purbeck Local Plan which is being

undertaken and the need for a joint approach to implementing planning outcomes (MM63). In addition, a new policy (CRS 2) is proposed

committing WD to explore future options for this cross-border area in conjunction with relevant organisations (MM65).

13. These changes have been criticised for placing undue emphasis on

Crossways in preference to other development options. I consider these concerns are premature given the conclusions I reach later in this report.

The modifications clarify the need for the two Councils to coordinate infrastructure needs as part of current LP proposals, to work together on the outcome of the Purbeck Partial Review for this area while also

recognising that a joint approach is needed should growth in this location be seen as a longer-term option.

14. Discussions have taken place between the authorities on the western edge of WD where Lyme Regis merges with Uplyme, the neighbouring settlement in East Devon. The proximity of these settlements means

development options might exist which could provide alternative planning outcomes for the area. The two Councils have jointly assessed

development options while recognising that these are limited because of the location of both settlements in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

(AONB)3 and land stability and access issues.

15. The opportunity to explore matters further has not been pursued, in part because published advice from the Planning Advisory Service (June 2014)

says HMA boundaries should not cut across local authority areas because of the difficulties this presents [CD/CON20]. Even so, I do not consider

the close relationship between two parts of what can be viewed as the same settlement should be dismissed. It does not appear there was any reluctance on the part of WD to participate in cross-boundary working and

the Councils have since agreed that a common approach should be adopted in pursuing future options for growth [WDWP/Ex21].

16. West Dorset Council has allocated land on the periphery of Lyme Regis for housing purposes which will contribute to the market and affordable housing needs of the local area. It is unclear whether additional sites in

Uplyme could be made available and it is difficult to conclude that cross-boundary issues are so significant to warrant delaying adoption of the LP.

17. The duty to cooperate is not one which forces parties to agree but discussions during the Examination led to a position statement supporting future joint working between the Councils [WDWP/Ex21]. This is

endorsed through modifications to the text and policy content of the LP (MM76, MM77 and MM78). I appreciate that this does not mean a

common solution to meeting development needs will be reached but it provides formal recognition that administrative boundaries should not be an obstacle to more positive planning outcomes.

3 Uplyme lies within the East Devon AONB; Lyme Regis within the Dorset AONB


7

18. The needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community have been assessed as part of a County-wide study. This is intended to provide the basis for

individual districts to make appropriate provision through collaboration on a Dorset-wide Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations

Plan. The latter has been the subject of consultation at various stages beginning with an initial Issues and Options Document in November 2011 [CD/HOUS5] and, more recently, an additional sites exercise in March

2015. The final Plan is intended to be in place by the end of 2016.

19. It is regrettable that the Site Allocations Plan has not been published by

now but there is a reasonable prospect that the Councils will comply with national policy, set out in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, regarding the identification of sites to meet locally set targets. It is imperative that they

do so. In the short term, applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites in both WD and WP will be considered using existing national and local policy

provisions as set out in MM18.

20. In the context of the joint LP it is evident that both WD and WP have been party to discussions and regular meetings with relevant organisations

during Plan production. While some of these bodies have made representations there is no suggestion that these arise through a failure to

cooperate. None of the neighbouring authorities have indicated that Plan proposals would adversely affect their development strategies and I do

not agree with those who argue that the absence of tangible outcomes shows there has been a failure to engage appropriately. I am satisfied the Councils have complied with the Duty to Cooperate.

Assessment of Soundness

Preamble

21. The Local Development Scheme [CD/CON1] sets out the Councils’ intention for a joint Local Plan and Dorset-wide Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Plan. Additional policy covering

green infrastructure and coastal change will be prepared, together with Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) including the Weymouth town

centre masterplan and guidance on planning obligations. Both Councils have also produced Charging Schedules as part of their Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for examination alongside the LP.

22. The Councils were criticised by a number of residents for failing to consult sufficiently during the preparation of the LP but there is evidence4 to show

there was engagement with local communities throughout the process. Changes have been made to the Plan in response to representations although more than one respondent found modified versions incorporating

strikethrough text, underlining and colour coding difficult to understand. I am, however, satisfied that the Councils have tried to make the changes

as clear as possible.

4 See for example – CD/CON4; CD/CON5; CD/CON8; CD/CON10; CD/CON14


8

23. The Councils have undertaken Sustainability Appraisals (SA) including Strategic Environment Assessments (SEA) at the various stages of plan

preparation5. These documents set out the purpose, methodology and baseline information used in assessing the Councils’ vision and objectives

and the different development options which have been considered.

24. The various iterations of the SA leading to the Submission Plan culminated in a report of June 2013 [CD/SA4]. The Councils also commissioned an

independent review of the process [CD/SA10]. This found the work to be fundamentally sound but made a number of recommendations,

particularly in light of recent case law. Among these it was suggested that links were provided to all stages of the reporting process; that the significant effects of each version of the LP in terms of SA findings were

identified together with reasons for rejecting alternative policy options and sites; and that a record of how responses to the SA consultation processes

were addressed.

25. A further update to the SA [M Mod 5 including Appendices] accompanied the main modifications. This outlined the preparatory stages of the LP

process and the corresponding work undertaken for the purposes of SA. A summary of the SA is provided for each iteration of the Plan while the full

assessment is included in the appendices. These show the Councils have assessed the effect of changes to policies and allocations in terms of their

SA impact including the reduction in scale of development at different locations.

26. The SA has been criticised for a number of reasons including a failure to

examine alternative options. I do not agree. A strategic approach was followed when assessing potential allocations and relevant parts of the SA

were reviewed once changes were made to the Plan. The process of refinement examined alternative sites as well as the consequences for SA purposes of a reduction in land allocations when alterations were proposed

in February 2013 [M Mod 5, Appendix E]. Similarly, the implications of revisions to housing supply in July 2014 [M Mod 5, Appendix G] were

taken into account.

27. It is also claimed that some of the specific alterations, including those affected by the proposed modifications have not been properly assessed

for the purposes of SA. A number of changes have been made to policies and text as the Councils have sought to respond to representations and

clarify and ensure compatibility with the NPPF and PPG. These adjustments may have implications for the effectiveness of the Plan but do not mean the SA is deficient.

28. I find that SA work has been undertaken consistently during the plan preparation process and examination stages and there has not been a

failure to adequately consider reasonable alternative options or key aspects of the Plan.

5 See for example – CD/SA1 through to CD/SA5, CD/SA9, CD/SA10, M Mod 5 & M Mod 6 for the documents covering sustainability appraisals carried out for plan preparation and submission.


9

29. Screening reports required for the purposes of a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) were carried out in June 2012 [CD/SA6] which

recommended that amendments were made to the LP to avoid harm to protected sites. These were undertaken. An update to the HRA in June

2013 [CD/SA7] concluded that it was unlikely that significant adverse effects would result from the adoption of the LP and that an Appropriate Assessment of potential effects was not necessary.

30. I am therefore satisfied that for the purposes of the HRA and SA the work carried out for the LP has been adequate.

Main Issues

31. Taking account of all the representations, written evidence and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings I have identified

four main issues upon which the soundness of the Plan depends.

Issue 1 – Whether the spatial strategy is the most appropriate one to

deliver the sustainable development objectives promoted in the National Planning Policy Framework.

32. The objective of the LP is to direct most development to the principal towns of Dorchester and Weymouth and the larger communities in West

Dorset. Where possible, use will be made of previously developed land although greenfield sites will also be needed.

33. Many parts of the Plan area are subject to constraints and this has had a bearing on the choices made in formulating the spatial strategy. For example, extensions to some settlements could have an adverse effect on

the natural environment by increasing the risk of flooding or by detracting from the landscape. The latter is of particular concern because a large

proportion of the Plan area lies within the Dorset AONB.

34. Despite physical and environmental restrictions the Councils have concluded that allocations in parts of the AONB are unavoidable even

though the NPPF says that ‘great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty’ in these areas (paragraph 115). Although

paragraph 14 refers to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the need for local plans to meet objectively assessed needs, it advises that some designations, such as AONB, may influence

what development is allowed.

35. There has been widespread opposition to a number of proposals in the LP,

particularly where allocations have been put forward within the AONB. It is difficult to see how some incursions can be avoided if the Councils are to adhere to sustainable development principles and meet the needs of

rural communities. Apart from areas to the east and north of Dorchester and those around Sherborne most of the remaining parts of the Plan area

are subject to AONB designation and it would be unsustainable and perverse to reject suitable options.

36. Concentrating development in the larger settlements means there is

access to existing services and facilities while new development can be the


10

catalyst for improved provision. With the exception of Crossways and Sherborne, criticism of the Councils’ approach focused more on site

selection, scale and the effects of change rather than opposition to the distribution of growth in the spatial strategy.

37. Having regard to the purposes of the LP, sustainability objectives, environmental constraints and my conclusions about housing land supply, I am satisfied that the spatial strategy can, in principle, be supported.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that the LP fails to give sufficient emphasis to the sustainable role of particular settlements and the contribution they

could make to meeting development needs. I examine the merits of proposals for each of the key settlements later in this report. However, as part of my overall findings I consider a modification is required to ensure

the Councils identify further development options at specific settlements as part of an early review of the LP which, it was made clear, they intend

to undertake. I therefore recommend the wording of modification MM60 is revised in order to make the LP sound.

Issue 2 – Whether adequate provision is made to meet future housing

needs consistent with the objectives of national policy

Background

38. The Submission Plan identified sufficient land to enable the construction of between 12,340 and 13,220 dwellings by 2031 (617 – 661 dwellings per

annum (dpa)). This was seen by some respondents as insufficient to meet future needs particularly as both the Panel reporting on the Regional

Spatial Strategy for the South West (RS) and the Dorset County Structure Plan (SP)6 had identified higher targets (905 and 788 dpa respectively). In my view this earlier work is no longer a reliable guide to current

housing needs because of the time that has elapsed since the reports were produced, their broader strategic objectives and the changes which

have taken place in the economy. Consequently, I give little weight to these documents.

39. Local planning authorities are required to undertake an objective

assessment of need (OAN) when preparing plans to establish the amount of housing required during a plan cycle. The starting point for this

calculation is the most recent population and household projections but these are influenced by past trends including national and local policy initiatives. For this reason they do not necessarily provide a

representative and unrestrained figure of housing need and, as the PPG explains7, account should be taken of local circumstances and factors such

as demographic characteristics, migration and ‘market signals’.

Assessment of Housing Need

40. It was generally accepted that WD and WP is a self-contained housing

market area which provides an appropriate basis for undertaking a

6 The Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2011 (Formally the Dorset County Structure Plan) 7 PPG 2a-015 20140306


11

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) [CD/HOUS2]. The purpose of the SHMA is to examine population trends in the Plan area to determine

the level of OAN taking into account natural change and the effects of migration. Work undertaken to inform the Submission Plan was based on

interim ONS household projections8 from 2011 which provided an estimate of likely housing requirements to 2021.

41. These projections gave no indication of the changes likely to occur after

2021 leading the Councils to adopt a range for the number of homes anticipated after this date to provide flexibility and cater for increased

demand should it materialise in a more buoyant economy. Separate provision was made for WD and WP with growth in the former largely consistent with numbers provided over the previous 20 years. However,

targets were set at a lower level than those previously delivered in WP.

42. The figures were criticised because they were regarded as too low

implying that further land in both authorities should be allocated to meet future needs. Several housebuilders also pointed out that neither Council had been able to meet its annual targets. Without further sites to improve

choice, the deficit in housing completions was likely to get worse.

43. I had similar concerns but I find some of the criticism is flawed. For

instance, before 2006/07 97% of the Structure Plan target (for the period 1994 – 2011) was met but this had reduced to 91% by 2011 [CD/SUS12].

Past building rates were largely consistent with planned targets until the effects of the economic downturn took hold contributing to a reduction in house completions. As building rates have yet to recover a deficit has

developed since the start of the current plan period.

44. Nevertheless, I found the original evidence [CD/HOUS2] in support of the

housing targets unconvincing and neither sufficiently robust nor fully in accordance with the NPPF9. Further work was commissioned to review the SHMA [CD/SUS10, July 2014] following the suspension of the

examination. This used the most recent population and household forecasts as a starting point for assessing housing needs across the

combined authority areas following a methodology10 for calculating OAN consistent with national guidance11.

45. Population projections are particularly sensitive to the effects of migration

and the variations which can occur from previously observed trends. Forecasting is also made more difficult when there are significant changes

in economic conditions. In order to minimise reliance on recessionary factors trends prevalent at different times were modelled to test the robustness of population and household estimates. Thus account was

taken of pre-recessionary migration patterns, changes over the ten year census cycle (2001 - 2011) and issues affecting the 2011 Interim

projections. Initial results from the ONS 2012 Sub-National Population

8 Office for National Statistics, Household Interim Projections, 2011 to 2021, England 9 CD/INSP15, 10 December 2013 10 Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets, June 2014 (Technical Advice Note prepared for the Planning Advisory Service by Peter Brett Associates) 11 PPG 2a-017-20140306 – 2a-020-20140306


12

Projections (SNPP) were incorporated into the model prior to the release of new household projections by the Department for Communities and

Local Government (DCLG).

46. Consideration was given to the likely effects of technical discrepancies in

data such as ‘Unattributed Population Changes’12 to ensure reliable population statistics were used. A precautionary approach was also taken on the numbers of older people expected to work following Government

initiatives to increase retirement ages. I am therefore satisfied the assumptions provide a reasonable basis on which to estimate demographic

change. Local factors were then examined to see how house prices and rents influenced market demand and whether these or other matters warranted an upward revision of housing need.

Market Signals

47. Planning Practice Guidance says that household projections should be

adjusted to reflect market signals having regard to factors such as land and house prices, rents, affordability and rates of development. The Councils’ Review shows house prices have increased faster than its

comparators since 1996 but that the difference is small. Houses in WD are more expensive than those in either the South West or England but

are comparable to those for Dorset generally. The small increase in house prices witnessed in Weymouth and Portland is no worse than those in

other parts of the region or England and is generally applicable to the wider Plan area.

48. As noted previously, the annual number of house completions has

normally kept pace with targets. Rates have fallen since the start of the recession as consumer confidence has waned forcing the building industry

to respond to new market conditions. This is indicative of economic forces in operation rather than an inherent problem of land availability constraining the supply.

Employment Growth

49. Future levels of employment are to be taken into account in housing

needs assessments to ensure housing is available to avoid unsustainable commuting patterns making it difficult for businesses to recruit staff13. However, the relationship between homes and jobs is difficult to predict

and depends on assumptions made about key variables such as population change, economic growth and labour supply. Small changes in

assumptions can have a significant effect on outcomes and is a reason why estimates should be seen as an indication of job growth rather than a precise target.

50. Population change in the Plan area is heavily influenced by migration because of the demographic profile (where deaths exceed births). The

Submission Plan identified an additional 16,100 jobs (full-time equivalent)

12 Differences between Census returns and mid-year estimates 13 PPG para. 018 2a-018-20140306


13

would be needed by 2031. Given the demographic profile it is not surprising that some respondents argued that the Councils had

underestimated housing needs and placed too much reliance on older people continuing to work up to and past state retirement ages.

51. I do not discount the possibility that this may happen which would reduce pressure to replenish the economically active population. However, there is a risk that any shortfall in the workforce would draw in economic

migrants leading to increased commuting if there was insufficient housing to accommodate them. I was not convinced that the evidence [CD/SUS1]

was sufficiently robust to support the Councils’ position.

52. The anticipated growth in jobs was therefore re-assessed as part of the housing needs review. Experian, a specialist forecaster, estimated that

between 13,070 and 13,640 jobs were likely to be created in the HMA during the plan period [WDWP Ex13]. Alternative forecasts supplied by

Oxford Economics (8,300) and Cambridge Econometrics (12,800) produced results which, some suggested, supported the case for additional housing. The similarity (and differences) in these estimates

derives from modelling techniques, choice of population data and assumptions made about the extent to which high labour demand

influences migration and how economic activity rates change over time.

53. The latter has important implications where the population is

comparatively elderly but evidence is emerging which points to a propensity for older people to continue in employment. Work carried out by the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR)14 shows employment rates in

older age groups are expected to increase during the plan period. This is most noticeable in women reaching retirement age i.e. those between 60

– 69, but is also apparent in other elderly groups [WDWP/Ex13].

54. Further testing of the Experian models was undertaken using 2010 and 2012 SNPP data as well as population and migration changes aligned with

proposed Plan targets. This showed the local economy was unlikely to be constrained by a lack of labour making it less dependent on economic

migrants.

55. I am conscious of the limitations in modelling workforce changes because of the assumptions made and the number of variables involved. However,

having considered the further testing of core assumptions the Councils have undertaken I am satisfied that the likely growth in jobs can be

supported by the planned level of housing which is unlikely to be a constraint on economic growth.

Affordable housing needs

56. Affordable housing need was reassessed as part of the SHMA review following the approach set out in PPG15. The outcome of this process is

presented in CD/SUS10 (SHMA, Part 2). This shows there is an annual

14 OBR – Independent economic advisors to the Government 15 PPG 02a-022-20140306 - 02a-029-20140306


14

net need for 362 affordable houses in WD and 423 in WP. From this position the model was refined taking into account factors which influence

the way in which the local housing market operates.

57. An allowance was made for a higher proportion of household income

(30%) to be spent on accommodation. This was said to be more representative of housing costs than the discontinued 25% threshold used in previous guidance16 and would see a reduction of 103 affordable units

required across the Plan area.

58. Further refinements removed younger single persons from needs

calculations because they were more likely to share as local housing allowances are reduced. The role of the private rented sector (prs) in meeting housing needs was also acknowledged as a source of housing for

households unable to afford market accommodation. Estimates suggest that this accounts for 161 households annually in WD and 214 households

in WP. These adjustments would reduce the need for affordable accommodation to 104 dpa (WD) and 130 dpa (WP).

59. It is difficult to exclude supported tenancies from a needs assessment

because they are not an explicit part of the affordable housing model, a point made by a number of respondents. On this matter, I was referred

to the conclusions of the inspector examining the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan17. He was critical of the Council’s reliance on the prs to meet some

affordable housing needs because of concerns regarding tenure security, the suitability of accommodation and reliance upon it as a longer-term option.

60. These may be recognised problems for those renting in the private sector but it is a component of the housing market and the only available source

of accommodation for some households. Providing for all households reliant on the prs would require 609 affordable units annually across the Plan area, a figure approaching the total amount of housing proposed in

the LP. The transfer of existing private tenants to affordable housing would also have significant implications for the wider housing market.

61. The PPG says consideration should be given to increasing the amount of housing where it could help to deliver the required number of affordable homes18. In this case more than double the amount of land allocated for

housing purposes would be required. The difficulties would be compounded if efforts were made to meet the greater needs of WP where

the Council is anticipating that no more than 35% of affordable units will be provided on mixed market sites in Weymouth and 25% on Portland.

62. I do not accept it is feasible or appropriate to support further land releases

as a means of increasing affordable housing delivery. It would entail a substantial uplift in housing allocations and put pressure on the

housebuilding industry to sustain excessively high building rates which the

16 DCLG, SHMA Guidance, 2007 17 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan, Inspector’s Report, February 2015 18 PPG 02a-029-20140306


15

market may be unable to deliver. A large increase in the amount of market housing would also be likely to reduce the viability of larger

schemes and undermine the numbers of affordable units being delivered.

63. A Ministerial Statement in 201419 highlighted government concerns over

the burdens faced by small-scale housing developers and proposed the introduction of thresholds below which affordable contributions should not be sought. Changes were also planned where vacant buildings were

brought back into use. In response, the Councils recommended alterations to relevant parts of policy HOUS 1 and the supporting text in

four modifications (MM12, MM13, MM14 and MM16).

64. The modifications were criticised, particularly by local residents and organisations, because it was felt they would make it more difficult for the

Councils to deliver affordable housing although it would be possible for communities to identify potential sites for affordable housing purposes in

neighbourhood plans. A legal challenge to the Ministerial Statement has, however, resulted in the High Court finding against the Secretary of State and the revisions which had been made to the PPG on planning obligations

for affordable housing and social infrastructure contributions20.

65. The judgement confirms the policies in the Written Statement should not

be treated as a material consideration in development plan procedures and decisions. As a result, I consider it is no longer appropriate to endorse

the changes proposed in MM12, MM13 and MM14 and that alterations should also be made to MM16.

66. Having regard to previous representations on this matter I consider the

Councils should revert to their original policy provisions i.e. that all new market housing should make a contribution towards affordable housing

needs. This would support efforts to provide this type of accommodation and would largely affect sites of five or fewer dwellings which would have been exempt from contributions in those areas designated as AONB

(approximately 70% of the Plan area) and sites of ten or fewer dwellings elsewhere.

67. Setting limits to the percentage of affordable housing to be provided across Portland, Weymouth and West Dorset have been recommended to policy HOUS 1 (as set out in MM16 but now altered to remove reference

to small-site thresholds) and corresponding monitoring indicators (MM17). Evidence for the Community Infrastructure Levy shows this

would reduce the risk of inhibiting the delivery of some sites21. Reference is also to be included to the housing register which along with the SHMA provides the basis for identifying affordable housing demand in the Plan

area (MM15).

68. The need for affordable housing remains a significant issue but I can see

no advantage in recommending the Plan should be withdrawn to allow a

19 Ministerial Statement - Small-scale developers, 28 November 2015 20 West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v SSCLG, 31 July 2015 21 CD/CIL 8 and CD/CIL9


16

fundamental review of the housing strategy. Delay would jeopardise the affordable provision the Councils’ assessment concludes is required. Thus

234 of the annual housing target of 775 dwellings should be in affordable categories, a figure capable of being delivered across the Plan area.

Revised housing provision

69. The outcome of the review showed that 529 to 775 new households required accommodation annually according to which of the underlying

trends formed the basis for calculating the OAN. In setting annual targets for new housing at 775 dpa the Councils accepted that pre-recessionary

trends (2008) and high migration levels witnessed in the early years of the new millennium provided a better basis for estimating future needs than the more pessimistic projection of household formation in the 2011

modelling. Allowing for pre-recessionary migration movements also means that growth in the local labour force is unlikely to be inhibited by a

constrained housing supply were migration flows to recover to those seen in more buoyant times (2001 – 2007).

70. Despite this some parties maintained the view that housing levels should

be commensurate with those advocated in the RS or even higher. I do not consider the evidence to support higher building rates outweighs the

Councils’ assessment and the most recent household projections. The latter were released for England by DCLG in February 2015. These cover

the period from 2012 to 203722 and follow the methodology used for the 2011 interim results and the 2008 household projections. Prior to their release the Councils had used the 2012 population projections to estimate

that 507 dpa would be sufficient to satisfy local housing needs increasing to 554 once an allowance was made for second homes and vacant

dwellings.

71. The latest projections suggest a slightly slower rate of growth can be expected of 494 dpa rising to 539 dpa to allow for vacant stock and

second homes [CD/SUS15]. A number of parties urged caution in interpreting these figures because they are influenced by recent economic

events and depressed market conditions. I agree it would be unwise to place undue reliance upon them because trends are inevitably hostage to cyclical changes in the economy.

72. However, the most recent evidence supports the premise that recessionary effects are likely to have a long term impact so that growth

in the Plan area will be lower than predicted prior to the recession. Even so, the difference between the Councils’ estimates and the most recent projections is small and I consider it is advisable for the Councils to

discount any downward revision of housing targets given concerns about affordability and government emphasis to ‘significantly boost’ the supply

of new homes.

73. The annual requirement of 775 dwellings (15,500 over the plan period) represents an increase of between 17 to 26% over proposals in the

22 2012-based Household Projections: England, 2012 – 2037, 27 February 2015


17

Submission Plan. Having regard to the available evidence I consider this is a reasonable estimate of the amount of housing required during the

plan period.

Overall provision to meet housing needs

74. The consequence of this higher target meant that sites identified in the SHLAA [CD/SUS9] would not be sufficient to meet needs to 2031. Initially the Councils said they intended to alter the end date of the plan period

from 2031 to 2028 meaning an early review would be necessary to ensure the maintenance of an adequate housing land supply.

75. I do not dispute the need for councils to undertake timely reviews of their development plans but the purpose of adopting a preferred 15 year timeframe23 is to provide certainty, encourage investment and ensure

continuity of the housing land supply. I therefore agree with those respondents who felt the original plan period should remain as the basis

for long-term decisions, especially as it provides a common timeframe for initiatives elsewhere in the LP.

76. Following discussions at the examination, the Councils took the

opportunity to update their SHLAA. The latest iteration of this document [CD/SUS13] provides the basis for the Councils’ contention that sufficient

land is now available to meet the revised target for the original plan period i.e. to 2031. This identifies sites from a variety of sources with

strenuous efforts made to avoid double counting and the inclusion of sites having no development potential.

77. In support of this work a study was commissioned by the Councils using

BNP Paribas Real Estate (BNP Paribas) to provide an independent assessment of the main sites they have identified and which constitute the

bulk of the housing supply (CD/SUS14). A majority of landowners and/or developers provided information on the timing of planning applications and construction programmes on allocated and committed sites as well as

known or anticipated obstacles to delivery. This suggests that most sites are likely to deliver dwellings either in line with or even in advance of the

Councils’ trajectory. In a few cases building programmes may be overly ambitious but delays are expected to be offset by earlier delivery on other sites. Nonetheless, some respondents believe this work does not

overcome their previous reservations and they continue to argue there is a need for additional sites.

78. Circumstances change and it is possible that unforeseen delays will affect some sites but I have no reason to believe this should seriously threaten delivery of the larger sites especially as the BNP Paribas study found

evidence of renewed confidence amongst developers and buyers both nationally and locally. This increases the likelihood of convergence

between the ability of the housebuilding industry to increase supply and the demand for accommodation. Allocations are also distributed across



18

the Plan area reducing concentration where multiple outlets could influence rates of delivery.

79. I therefore consider it is likely that most of the main sources of housing supply will be delivered over the course of the plan period. I am,

however, less confident over the contribution from other areas because the evidence is less convincing. Figures for numbers derived from the change of use of rural buildings are based on applications submitted in

2014, a majority of which were refused or remain pending. This does not constitute an adequate basis for long term planning.

80. Similarly, I do not consider there is sufficient experience of neighbourhood planning to rely on it as a consistent source of supply although I accept it has the potential to make an important contribution, especially in villages

and smaller settlements. I also consider it is unwise to rely on contributions from large windfall sites or pre-application or pending

applications.

81. I have therefore excluded these as realistic components of the supply and only included rural exceptions sites where funding has been agreed. I

accept that dwellings will come forward which fall within these categories but the current evidence is not sufficiently robust to justify their inclusion.

As a result I consider the overall supply (including completions between 2011 to 2014) amounts to 14,855 dwellings meaning there is insufficient

land to meet housing needs to the end of the plan period.

82. The NPPF accepts it may not be possible for authorities to identify locations for growth in the years 11 – 15 of a plan period (paragraph 47),

the Councils having previously endorsed the need for an early review to address this. Their most recent position is that a review remains a

prudent option in order to ensure a ‘robust’ five year housing land supply is maintained and to examine post 2031 development needs. In light of the conclusions I have reached regarding the overall housing supply

situation, I find I am not fully in accord with their conclusions. Instead I consider it is imperative that an early review is undertaken to identify

additional land capable of meeting housing needs to the end of the current plan period as well as the broad location for development in the five year period thereafter, in the expectation that current Government guidance

will not change.

83. A review will also provide an opportunity to consider growth options at

Dorchester. The need to do so is expressed in MM60. It is a crucial, albeit difficult, matter for the Councils’ to resolve but one which it is vital to address when examining options for further growth. The failure to do

so is an unsatisfactory feature of the current LP but I do not consider it is a reason for finding the Plan unsound.

84. There is inconsistency between the timescales for a review as set out in MM4 and MM60 which needs to be resolved. I therefore recommend a review should be in place no later than 2021, if not earlier, to avoid

development having to be allowed in locations which are not favoured or are in less sustainable locations. I have adjusted MM60 accordingly.


19

Five-year housing land supply

85. Having regard to my conclusions in relation to the housing target for the

plan period I consider the five year housing requirement is derived from an annualised requirement of 775 dwellings to which a buffer of 20%

(775) is added because of past under-delivery and a further 1004 (837 units x 20%) to compensate for the shortfall in delivery since the start of the plan period in 2011.

86. The calculation of a five year housing land requirement in accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 47) is relatively straightforward. The Councils accept

a 20% ‘buffer’ is necessary, because completions have not matched targets in recent years although they did not apply it to the shortfall. An appeal decision24 by the Secretary of State has endorsed the need to do

so meaning that sufficient land to accommodate at least 5,645 dwellings in the first five year period should be provided rather than the 5,487

suggested by the Councils.

87. Several developers have questioned the validity of the Councils’ five year housing land supply including their intention to use a combined figure for

the HMA rather than separate figures for each authority which had been done previously. It was suggested that a combined assessment was

inappropriate, partly because it masks deficiencies in the supply position in West Dorset. However, PPG says a five year supply can apply across a

joint plan area25. I consider it is reasonable because it provides additional flexibility with allocations in WD able to contribute towards the housing needs of WP.

88. It is commendable that the Councils are looking to eliminate the shortfall in dwelling numbers as soon as possible26 but this would require building

rates to exceed past levels of construction. Consequently, phasing proposals and the corresponding housing trajectory were regarded by some parties as being impractical. This is a weakness in the Plan although

it illustrates the limited influence councils have because housebuilding is affected by market conditions, including access to finance, as well as the

availability of sites. Even with Government initiatives to stimulate the market there is no guarantee that the ‘uplift’ in building rates necessary to deliver the five-year housing target is feasible because it is dependent on

circumstances outside the Councils’ control.

89. Nevertheless, the Councils have calculated that sufficient land to

accommodate 6,519 dwellings is available for the period 2014 – 2019. The sources of supply have been challenged, however, and alternative levels of provision have been calculated (based on the Councils’

information) amounting to between 4,200 and 5,200 dwellings27. In common with some respondents I also find it difficult to give unqualified

support for some categories of supply.

24 APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 25 PPG 2a-010-20140306 26 The so called ‘Sedgefield’ methodology 27 N.B. These figures are approximate because of the degree of detail involved in the assessment.


20

90. The Housing Delivery Review [CD/SUS14] examined likely rates of delivery on existing and committed sites and allocations in the LP and was

broadly supportive of the Councils’ trajectory. Even so, the number of dwellings likely to come forward from these categories has been contested

by some developers.

91. A 5% lapse rate has been applied to existing permissions though rates between 2008 and 2011 averaged 2% per annum. During this period

lapse rates increased, presumably as recessionary effects took hold, but remained below the 5% threshold. Sites where there are known

timetabling issues have been excluded or numbers have been discounted in recognition that some sites will not be fully implemented in the five year period. Approximately 32% of sites with planning permission have

been omitted from this element of the supply to prevent double counting and avoid duplication with sites in other categories.

92. Sites allocated in the LP without the benefit of full planning permission form a separate element of supply. Assumptions regarding the timescales for delivery have been examined by BNP Paribas resulting in the

identification of 1,497 units in the five year period. Doubts were expressed over possible constraints on some sites and I consider a more

precautionary approach should be adopted. Consequently, a lapse rate of 10% should be included in the calculation of units derived from this source

rather than assuming, as the Councils have done, that the anticipated numbers on all sites will be completed.

93. Large sites identified through consultation exercises, sites known to be

surplus to requirements, underutilised or vacant or identified in Urban Capacity Studies make up a further significant source of supply. These

are sites of 0.15 ha. or more meaning that many would deliver relatively small numbers of dwellings. Those deemed unsuitable because of physical or policy constraints were rejected during the assessment process. A 10%

lapse rate was then applied to the 5 year supply anticipated from this source.

94. It has been suggested that these sites should be allocated in the LP if they are to be included in the overall supply. I regard this as impractical given the number and limited size of many of the sites. The Government has

exhorted local authorities to identify land with housing potential but I consider the Councils’ 10% lapse rate is too optimistic and a more

cautious approach should be taken of their potential in the next five years. Consequently, I consider a 20% lapse rate is the minimum which should be applied to sites in this category.

95. On minor sites below 0.15 ha. monitoring evidence shows an average of 156 dwellings were completed each year between 1998 and 2013. The

Councils estimate that 111 dpa will be available from small site development based on identified sites rather than adopting a (larger) generic windfall level. As for the previous category, those affected by

planning constraints were excluded including sites with known ownership issues. Checks have also been undertaken to ensure the supply is not

dependent on the use of residential gardens (NPPF, paragraph 48).


21

96. Excluding development in year one (in effect a 20% discount) minor sites are considered capable of delivering 444 dwellings over a five year period.

This represents a significant improvement from earlier calculations when a 50% discount was applied. However, there is ample evidence to show

these sites have been and remain an important component of housing supply to justify their inclusion, especially as the Councils have taken a cautious view on the numbers likely to be delivered from this source.

97. An allowance of 63 dwellings from rural exception sites relies on sites where an affordable housing provider has shown interest or where funding

from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) has been approved. An average of 10 dwellings has come from this source since 2009/10. In order to bring exception sites forward a supporting housing needs survey

is required as well as planning permission. I consider a more conservative estimate of 35 dwellings should be used by taking account only of the

sites benefitting from HCA funding.

98. Prior approval applications involving the change of use of rural buildings or office conversions to residential uses outside development boundaries are

seen as a further source of supply. Estimates are based solely on applications since April 2014 some of which have been refused or are

pending. In my view this does not provide a credible basis for their inclusion and this element should be discounted.

99. Five units are anticipated from sites in neighbourhood plans but there is no evidence to show these are likely to be delivered. It may be possible that sites in plans will come forward later in the plan period but it would

be unwise to rely on the unpredictability of this source in contributing to housing supply in the short term.

100. An allowance for ‘large windfall sites’ is based on schemes of five or more dwellings built between 2004 and 2010 in locations outside development boundaries. It has been argued that the likelihood of similar sites

continuing to come forward will be reduced because of the LP focus on sustainable development. I am less certain because businesses evolve

and change and alternative uses are often sought. A modest contribution has been made to housing numbers from such sites (mostly providing between five and fifteen dwellings). Nevertheless, I consider it would be

unwise to rely on a source which is likely to fluctuate considerably from year to year. For this reason it should be discounted from five year supply

estimates.

101. Units anticipated from pre-application or pending applications should not be included in the five year supply. The SHLAA acknowledges that these

sites can have long ‘lead-in’ times making them an uncertain source in the short term. It has also been argued that residential institutions (Use Class

C2) should be excluded because no assessment has been made for this type of accommodation in the OAN. In principle, the PPG permits local planning authorities to include housing for older people against their


22

housing requirement but says the approach should be set out in the LP28. This has not been done by WD and WP and is a matter which should be

addressed when reviewing the Plan. However, I do not consider it is unreasonable for the Councils to take existing schemes with planning

permission into account because they will provide housing to meet a particular form of need while freeing some existing dwellings for use by other households.

102. The NPPF expects local planning authorities to boost significantly the supply of housing yet in the first three years of the plan period less than

10% of the required dwellings have been completed. If sites were to come forward as the Councils say is possible (subject to the revisions I have referred to above) approximately 38% of properties would be

provided in the course of the next five years, 36% in the following five years and 15% in the remainder of the plan period. Having regard to the

different timescales I consider the potential to increase delivery in the next ten years would represent a ‘significant boost’ in supply.

103. I find the Councils’ identification of a five year housing supply is overly

optimistic in the types of sites and number of dwellings expected to come forward. Once these are removed and a more precautionary view is taken

on delivery, a figure close to that required remains (5.1 years). While this means it is possible to conclude the Councils can meet their five year

housing supply needs, based on the available information at 1st April 2014, there is very little margin should circumstances change. For this reason, I consider it is imperative that the Councils do not ignore new

opportunities which come forward in sustainable locations and are consistent with other policy provisions.

104. On balance, based on the updated SHLAA [CD/SUS13] and taking all of the above into account, I consider sufficient sites have been allocated in the LP to potentially meet the Councils’ five year housing land target while

providing the necessary ‘buffer’ to ensure flexibility of choice and competition required by the NPPF.

Conclusions on housing provision

105. For the reasons set out above I am satisfied that the figure of 775 dwellings per annum derived from the revised SHMA is soundly based for

the purposes of paragraph 47 of the NPPF and that the affordable housing element for growth represents a realistic projection of needs having had

regard to local circumstances. Whilst a degree of uncertainty remains as an inevitable consequence of the limitations in modelling techniques, I am not persuaded that a convincing case has been made to support an

alternative level of housing provision.

106. The overall number of dwellings derived from the various sources of

supply is unlikely, however, to be sufficient to meet housing targets to the end of the plan period making it necessary for the Councils to identify further land. The evidence to support a five year housing land supply,

28 PPG 3-037-20150320


23

while more persuasive, is close to the minimum required to provide choice and competition. It is therefore important that the Councils closely

monitor the delivery of new dwellings and take advantage of every reasonable opportunity to improve their short term supply position as well

as the overall amount of housing for the plan period.

107. In order to reflect the revised figures on housing land provision, I have recommended changes to parts of the text and tables in Chapter 3 of the

LP (Achieving a Sustainable Pattern of Development). These are referenced under MM4 and shown in full in Appendix C. The Councils

will also need to revise the housing trajectory shown in Figure 3.2 to take account of the revisions which I recommend are made to the calculation of housing supply.

108. Despite my concerns on housing provision my overall view is that the Councils’ strategy is fundamentally sound. I therefore consider the most

appropriate option is to endorse the LP as a basis for guiding future development in the Plan area while recognising that an early review is necessary to resolve land supply issues in the latter part of the plan period

and to address other issues to emerge from the examination process. The alternative conclusion of a finding of unsoundness could compromise the

delivery of key sites and increase the likelihood that development takes place in less favourable or sustainable locations.

Issue 3 – Whether the distribution of development and other proposals

for the various settlements is justified?

109. I have previously acknowledged the spatial strategy means that land has been allocated in the LP which, in some cases, lies within the Dorset AONB but is regarded as necessary to meet future development needs. The

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 says regard should be had to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of an AONB, a matter which

is repeated in the NPPF29 and PPG, the latter also pointing out the duty is relevant where development outside an AONB could have an impact on its setting30. Paragraph 116 of the NPPF makes clear that exceptional

circumstances are required for major development in these areas. I have therefore had regard to this duty when considering proposals which may

affect land whether in or adjacent to the AONB.

Weymouth

110. Weymouth is the largest settlement in the Plan area. Its attractive setting

in a wide sweeping bay makes it an important holiday destination while it retains a role as a commercial and employment centre. Like a number of

other coastal towns it is reliant on low paid service jobs and has pockets of deprivation. The town is at risk of flooding from the land and sea, a problem which is likely to be exacerbated by climate change.

29 See NPPF paragraphs 14 and 115 30 PPG 8-003-20140306


24

111. Both Weymouth and Portland are physically restricted by their proximity to the sea. Peripheral sites on the edge of Weymouth have a functional

relationship and obvious link to the town despite being in West Dorset. Consequently, urban extensions proposed at Chickerell and Littlemoor will

contribute towards the housing needs of the Weymouth and Portland area.

112. The Councils believe there are opportunities for improving the town centre and delivering new housing. Doubts were expressed by some respondents

about these ambitions given the likely loss of parking and the risk of ‘town cramming’. I agree that any development would need careful treatment

to ensure the distinctive character of the centre with its mix of historic buildings is not damaged. Nevertheless, there are areas where improvements would be beneficial and where new or more intensive uses

could be introduced. The most recent work on housing capacity, for instance, has suggested that town centre regeneration could contribute at

least 600 dwellings during the plan period (MM31).

113. The Councils are keen to ensure the vibrancy of the central area is maintained during the early evening by encouraging suitable activities. To

reflect the findings of a study into the evening and night time economy of Weymouth [AD/WPCL1] changes to the duration of activities have been

recommended (MM32, MM33, MM34, MM35 and MM36). In addition a further location (Lodmoor) has been included as one of the key sites in the

central area for which more detailed guidance will be provided to aid the development process (MM33). The boundaries of the relevant sites as illustrated in the LP will be updated (MM38) and shown on the Proposals

Map (MM37).

114. A number of other relatively modest but necessary modifications have

been recommended to reflect variations in land use proposals (MM39), revisions to housing numbers, phasing arrangements or other alterations (MM41, MM42, MM44, MM46, MM47 and MM48). Changes are also

proposed for sites at Markham and Little Francis (WEY 10) (MM40) and for land at Wey Valley (WEY 12) (MM43) to emphasise the primacy of the

developer/landowner in producing masterplans for these locations, albeit in conjunction with other relevant parties. Revisions to the site capacity of the latter have been questioned by the developer although there is no

implication in the drafting of the revised text of an attempt to impose a precise limit rather than reflect the Councils’ reappraisal of likely numbers.

Portland

115. The geological and geographical attributes of Portland give the island a unique identity which has been further influenced by stone quarrying and

its long maritime history. It remains a significant employment area with the former naval estate being a focus for regeneration initiatives while

tourism continues to have an important role in the local economy.

116. The Council’s proposals for Portland are modest reflecting in part the opportunities which exist for employment and housing but which have not

been fully exploited. In seeking to maintain progress for the mixed-use redevelopment of Osprey Quay the Councils are adhering to a masterplan


25

approved in 2001 while planning permission for the redevelopment of navy accommodation at the former Hardy Complex is still to be

completed. The Councils says that economic conditions have slowed progress and local developers confirm that difficult site conditions mean

viability is an issue.

117. The LP identifies Portland Port as an important element of the regional and local economy and there was considerable debate during the examination

about its role and future prospects. This centred on whether the Councils should re-instate the Port-related policy from the pre-submission draft and

acknowledge the value of the maritime services sector by reference to it in the Economy chapter of the Plan.

118. I am not persuaded of the need to do so. A balance has to be struck

between encouraging and promoting business activities and safeguarding other interests. I therefore share the Councils’ reluctance to single out

maritime activities in the generic policy sections of the LP and also note the potential for conflict between employment initiatives at the Port and their environmental impact. The latter was of clear concern to Natural

England and an issue behind the removal of the earlier Port policy in light of a Habitat Screening report [CD/SA6].

119. Natural England has broader doubts regarding the balance between environmental protection and promotion of Port-related activities and

advocates reference is made to guidance in the NPPF. I do not consider this is necessary because schemes will be required to adhere to all relevant policy provisions including guidance and advice in the NPPF and

PPG which are material to planning decisions.

120. Nevertheless, the Councils have suggested a number of changes should be

made to highlight their support for the Port and its maritime services. These endorse the protection of ‘key employment sites’ (MM49) and specifically acknowledge the value of the maritime sector and supporting

industries (MM50). The Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has identified the Port as an ‘opportunity’ area in its Strategic Economic Plan and one

which is capable of attracting new investment. This merits inclusion in the LP which is recommended through MM51.

121. Reference to a ‘safeguarded’ route for the A354 Weymouth to Portland

Relief Road was included in the adopted LP (2005) to support economic growth and to mitigate the impact of vehicular traffic accessing the island.

A new route could be of considerable benefit to businesses and local residents but it appears the County Council have doubts as to how it could be funded. Uncertainty over timescales runs the risk of unreasonably

‘blighting’ land and properties. Until further work to assess alternative routes, economic and environmental factors, timescales and funding

sources have been fully considered I am not persuaded there is sufficient justification for safeguarding a route at present.

122. In recognition that consent has been granted at Southwell Business Park

for a new educational academy, a modification is proposed to improve links with local business and community activities (MM52). Elsewhere the


26

creation of a Quarries Nature Park has been the Councils’ long term goal to ensure disused quarries are opened to the public and their importance

for nature conservation, geology and cultural heritage is recognised. Concern was raised that working quarries should be excluded from policy

initiatives (PORT 3) although, as drafted, land would only be included if agreement can be reached with owners. I am satisfied that this reflects the Councils’ longer term aspirations but safeguards the interests of

existing operators.

Littlemoor

123. The allocation of land at Littlemoor (LITT 1) involves the northwards extension of Weymouth beyond the administrative boundary into WD and part of the Dorset AONB. The Councils identify this as a strategic site

representing major development thereby giving rise to concerns regarding its impact both on the AONB and wider landscape.

124. Rising land to both the north and east helps to contain the proposed site and I agree with the Councils that strategic planting would help mask the scale of the development and mitigate the obvious boundary between the

countryside and the existing urban edge. Internal planting could further help to contain building forms and ameliorate its impact on the

surrounding countryside.

125. Development in this location would benefit from its proximity to the

Weymouth Relief Road, the station at Upwey and existing services at Littlemoor. While other sites have been put forward such as Wyke Oliver Farm and land to the north of Upwey, I do not regard these as genuine

alternatives but rather locations capable of augmenting the strategic provision of LITT 1 and are sites which should be considered when

reviewing the LP.

126. As a number of respondents have pointed out development at any of these locations would have consequences for this part of north Weymouth

whether through increased traffic movements, the need to address flooding issues or the loss of agricultural land. I have seen no evidence to

suggest the first two matters are insurmountable or that the amount of agricultural land to be lost is crucial given that greenfield sites will be needed if the Councils are to meet their housing target.

127. Fears were also expressed that the scale of development would lead to local facilities being ‘swamped’ although there is no evidence to show that

this would be the case. In my opinion the market is likely to respond to increased demand for goods and services including the provision of new or revised public transport links.

128. To support the level of proposed development it is envisaged there would be a need for additional education facilities involving the provision of a

new primary school or the expansion of an existing one, depending on the County Council’s needs as the education authority. To retain flexibility the supporting text should be revised to allow for either option (MM53). The

Councils now accept that the developer/landowner will be the primary


27

source of masterplanning for the area subject to this work being undertaken in collaboration with relevant parties. A modification is

proposed to adjust the Plan accordingly (MM54).

129. Taking the various factors into account I consider there are sound reasons

to support the Councils’ preferred choice of site at LITT 1 despite its location in the AONB. Having regard to the overall level of housing need and the availability, size and merit of other sites on the periphery of the

Weymouth urban area, I am satisfied it would be less visually harmful when compared to the release of a number of smaller sites. In coming to

this conclusion I also recognise the development would provide an opportunity to improve the transition between the countryside and urban area. Furthermore, positively promoting the use of nearby land at Icen

and Weyside Farms for employment uses (LITT 2) would, in turn, help to resolve historical planning issues and improve the containment of an

adjacent and prominent site in the AONB.

Chickerell

130. The Councils’ objectives for Chickerell are to create a better balance

between homes and jobs while improving services and facilities. Permission has been given for a mixed-use scheme (CHIC 1) at Putton

Lane and for more substantial expansion to the north and east in order to deliver some 800 – 850 new dwellings (CHIC 2). These proposals would

augment housing provision in the wider Weymouth and Portland area and from this perspective they are a pragmatic contribution to meeting the housing needs of both authorities.

131. The development of CHIC 2 would reduce the gap between Chickerell and existing development in Weymouth but would not extinguish it. This is

important because it would maintain the identity of the settlement. A nearby area of land off Radipole Lane, Southill has been promoted as a more suitable option to development at both Littlemoor (LITT 1) and to

the use of the northern part of the Chickerell allocation (CHIC2) because of the impact these schemes would have on the AONB.

132. The land off Radipole Lane has been viewed favourably by the Councils in the past because it is well related to the existing residential area at Southill, has good road connections and is close to facilities and services.

Ultimately it was rejected because of its impact on the landscape and public opposition to the proposal. In my view it does not represent a

reasonable alternative to the plans for Littlemoor because it is smaller and some distance from it. Development of the northern part of the site could, potentially, provide an alternative to the northwards expansion of

Chickerell (part of the CHIC 2 allocation) but use of the western part, currently occupied by a 9 hole golf course and driving range, would

involve coalescence with the eastern portion of the same scheme. On balance, I am not persuaded the site offers the same advantages and opportunities as the Councils’ preferred sites.

133. Adjustments to the scheme at Putton Lane (MM55 and MM56) would encourage a more flexible approach to the use of the site without


28

compromising previous objectives. Changes are also recommended to the major urban extension to the north and east (CHIC 2) to identify the likely

capacity of its two distinct if physically linked parts (MM57). I regard this as a helpful addition to the supporting text but I share the developers’

concerns that it should not inhibit alterations to layouts and densities, or obstruct a flexible approach to development possibilities through the masterplanning process. The landowner/developer is now identified as

the main contributor to the latter, subject to the inclusion of relevant groups including the Town, District and County Councils (MM58).

134. In proposing modifications under MM57 the Councils reduced the nominal capacity of CHIC 2 resulting in representations from the developers. I understand their reservations but the supporting text uses the terms

‘about’ and ‘approximately’ in the phasing of the modification to indicate the final figure may change. Modification MM59 requires that a strategic

landscape phasing plan is produced although a Landscape and Visual Appraisal [AD/WPCL8] suggests the development can be contained effectively. Nevertheless, an agreed phasing plan would ensure that the

potential effects of development on the adjacent AONB to the west of the site are fully addressed.

135. The possibility of using the existing primary school off Rashley Road for housing purposes is signalled in policy CHIC 3, subject to the provision of

replacement facilities. The policy sets out a flexible approach in dealing with future education provision in the area although some parties questioned whether it was appropriate. I do not consider it to be a matter

which affects the soundness of the Plan.

Dorchester

136. Opportunities for development at Dorchester are constrained by natural features and the town’s setting in the landscape. The Councils therefore intend to make maximum use of available land within existing boundaries,

defined by the A35 bypass and the floodplain of the River Frome, but acknowledge there is insufficient capacity for Dorchester to meet its own

needs during the plan period. The Councils’ original intention was to resolve this by identifying significant housing and employment allocations at Crossways, a modest settlement some six miles east of Dorchester.

Although the village has potential as a sustainable location it is regarded by many respondents as a less effective option for development.

137. A scheme to meet housing needs on land to the north of Dorchester has been rejected by the Councils. The idea drew considerable opposition from local residents mainly because of landscape and flooding issues and

from the Councils’ perspective expansion of the town in this direction is not favoured. Despite this it is not obvious that other or better

alternatives exist or indeed whether the Councils are committed to finding a solution to the longer-term expansion of the county town.

138. Implementing options for development within existing town boundaries

provides, at best, a short term solution to meeting future housing and employment needs. The Councils appreciate this is a significant issue and


29

intend to review the Plan in order to address it. Although welcome, I do not consider sufficient attention is being given to this matter especially if,

as seems likely, deficiencies exist in the overall housing land supply.

139. These are matters which require resolution as a matter of urgency rather

than waiting until after 2021 to commence the review, which is the Councils’ preference. I therefore consider alterations to the supporting text are necessary to make the LP sound (MM60). The change requires

that a strategy is in place to meet long term development needs at or in the vicinity of Dorchester by 2021 and that a site or sites necessary for its

implementation are identified as part of review proposals. The Government’s initiatives on localism mean that the involvement of local residents could be encouraged through neighbourhood planning.

Park and Ride/Trunk Road Service Area

140. As the County town and one of its main employment centres Dorchester

attracts residents, commuters and those living in its rural hinterland that work or use the services and facilities in the town. The road system, however, struggles to cope with the amount of traffic resulting in

congestion at peak periods and levels of pollution which have led to the designation of an Air Quality Management Area.

141. To improve the environment and reduce traffic problems alterations to key junctions and re-routing traffic have been contemplated31 although the

Councils’ vision for the town centre allows for the expansion of facilities should the need arise. This is likely to increase the pressure on parking because spaces will be lost through redevelopment which, in turn, could

have an adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the centre.

142. In order to avoid this it is intended that priority is given to short-stay

visitors while ‘capturing’ a proportion of those commuting from the Weymouth area by providing ‘Park and Ride’ (P&R) facilities. A site for this purpose has been identified adjacent to the A354 (DOR 10),

immediately south of the A35 bypass (land to the south of the Stadium Roundabout). As part of the proposal the policy also allows for the

provision of a trunk road service area (TRSA).

143. It is anticipated that the TRSA would incorporate restaurants, shops and a petrol filling station and both facilities would have extensive areas for

parking. The TRSA would ensure facilities for drivers accorded with guidance in Circular 1/200832 and combining the uses would have

economic, accessibility and logistical advantages.

144. The land allocated for the P&R/TRSA would involve development extending well beyond the A35 which currently acts as the boundary between

Dorchester and the countryside beyond. More importantly, the uses would intrude into the AONB. An absence of suitable alternative sites was

31 See for example, the Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan 32 Circular 01/2008 Policy on Service Areas and other Roadside Facilities on Motorways and all-purpose trunk roads in England


30

cited as part of the justification for the P&R location although the supporting text suggests the case for the TRSA is less convincing requiring

adequate justification were such a use to be pursued.

145. I understand the Councils’ reasoning but, together with the AONB, both

the P&R and TRSA would have implications for the setting of the nearby historic sites at Maiden Castle, a round barrow further to the south east and Herringston round barrows. These are important features in the

landscape, Maiden Castle being the largest iron-age settlement in the UK.

146. Studies have suggested the impact of the P&R/TRSA would be limited

[AD/EAST7] and that comprehensive planting would help to screen the facilities from the historic sites and the wider landscape. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) [AD/EAST7 F] concluded that the effect

on the AONB would be marginally beneficial while that on Maiden Castle moderately adverse once landscaping of the site had had the chance to

mature.

147. Natural England and Historic England contest these conclusions given the sensitivity of these sites and the prominence of Maiden Castle in the

landscape. Together with the Dorset AONB Team, they also question why these facilities cannot be provided elsewhere. I share their concern

because the linear form of the site together with the plethora of buildings, lighting and signage would have a noticeable urbanising effect and extend

a ‘finger’ of development into the countryside. This would be difficult to mask effectively, especially from higher areas in the surrounding landscape and particularly during winter months. Development would also

have a noticeable impact during construction and problems of noise and light pollution would be on-going issues.

148. In particular, I do not find the case for a TRSA to be so compelling so as to outweigh the substantial harm that siting the scheme adjacent to the Stadium Roundabout would have on the landscape and historic features of

national importance. I appreciate there are no dedicated TRSA facilities near Dorchester but studies have shown an alternative, nearby site (Site

M) would be less intrusive as a service location although it has value as a community space [AD/EAST 7A].

149. Other locations in and around Dorchester are capable of accommodating a

TRSA although I accept they may not be ideal. Nevertheless, I do not consider the operational advantages of a combined P&R/TRSA are

sufficient to justify its siting in a sensitive area of designated landscape and historic importance which would be contrary to paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF and principles for conserving the historic environment.

150. Conversely, I find the case for a P&R to be more convincing. There is a considerable body of evidence on commuting patterns and vehicular

movements [AD/EAST7] to support the provision of parking facilities outside the town. A number of locations have been investigated. The preferred site, immediately south of the A35, is regarded as the most

favourable location because it is well placed to intercept the largest


31

number of commuters and reduce vehicular movements at the busy A35/A354 junction.

151. An alternative suggestion promoting the use of the P&R service at Weymouth would not be financially sound [AD/EAST7 D] requiring

continued public subsidy while other sites would not confer the same operational benefits. Reducing the size of site required to accommodate P&R facilities would have significantly less impact on the landscape and

historic features and would be less harmful than the combined use because it would be smaller and require fewer structures.

152. On balance, I therefore consider that reference to the TRSA should be deleted from policy DOR 10 and the supporting text and that a smaller, revised area capable of accommodating the P&R only should be identified.

I endorse alterations to the boundary of the original site as proposed through modification MM81 insofar as it could help to limit how far the

site need intrude beyond the A35 while adjusting the wording of the policy and text accordingly.

Crossways

153. Crossways lies close to the District’s eastern boundary with Purbeck District and functions as a dormitory settlement for Dorchester, other

parts of West Dorset and settlements to the east. Although it is relatively large (2,267)33 the village has no obvious centre but it is close to Moreton

Railway Station which has connections to Poole, Bournemouth and Dorchester. Its proximity to the latter (six miles) means the Councils regard Crossways as a location which is capable of offsetting some of the

county town’s development needs.

154. The presence of the railway station means the village is theoretically a

sustainable location even though parts of the settlement are beyond a reasonable walking distance. While it is possible for residents to use public transport I was presented with evidence to suggest the limited

service means most people are likely to use their cars. For this reason there are concerns that further development would put more traffic on

what some have suggested is a barely adequate road system.

155. In their preparatory work the Councils identified four peripheral sites with the capacity to accommodate some 1500 dwellings and up to 15ha.of

employment land. This scale of development was opposed by many including the parish council and the Councils subsequently reduced the

amount of development. Current proposals involve the allocation of land to the south of the B3390 for housing purposes and a smaller area on the south-western flank of the settlement for employment uses. These would

deliver approximately 500 dwellings and a minimum of 3.5 ha. of employment land (policy CRS 1).

156. Some respondents claim this remains an excessive level of growth for the size of settlement, especially when compared to proposals for more

33 Population at 2011 Census


32

established communities which have better facilities and service provision. I understand the reasoning behind this argument but it is not always

feasible or appropriate for plans to adopt a proportionate approach to growth once constraints to development are taken into account.

157. In my view there are limited differences between the sites originally identified for housing purposes. Each is in a broadly sustainable location but the Councils’ preference for development south of Warmwell Road

would mean that a southerly expansion of the settlement would encourage additional services and facilities to focus on the main route through the

village.

158. Expanding Crossways in this direction would, however, potentially compromise the sand and gravel reserves which underlie much of the area

and also place housing closer to internationally protected heathlands and wildlife sites. This would increase the possibility of disturbance and a loss

of habitat. According to the Councils neither factor would hinder development.

159. Sand and gravel deposits are within a Mineral Safeguarding Area as

identified in the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Strategy 2014 (MS) [CD/OCP8] which accords with advice in the NPPF on conserving

mineral resources and avoiding the sterilising of reserves (paragraphs 142 and 143). I was told that prior extraction of sand and gravel was feasible

as part of a phased programme of building works and this would be consistent with policy provision in the MS.

160. A study undertaken on behalf of the landowner [AD/EAST4] sets out

reasons why extraction might be uneconomic as a result of adverse impacts (MS - policy DM1) or the need to provide ‘buffers’ between

residents and mineral workings (MS - policy DM2). These factors would have a bearing on whether extraction was viable but would be unlikely to prevent residential development from taking place.

161. Protecting important habitats by providing suitable alternative natural greenspace (SANG) is essential as new development would otherwise

result in people and their pets intruding into sensitive areas. This is acknowledged in the development proposals for Crossways (policy CRS 1). A plan illustrating how areas of SANG could be incorporated into the future

layout of this area was provided [WDWP/Ex05] and the Councils have responded to the views of the County Council and Natural England [see

SOCG2] by recommending changes via MM61.

162. Modifications proposed in MM62 and MM64 would address concerns raised by Heritage England about adverse effects on a Scheduled

Monument. Acknowledging the importance of these factors would ensure proposals accorded with the NPPF.

163. Previous sites identified to the north-west (Site D) and north of Crossways (Site A) are not affected by similar constraints. Despite this Site D would extend the village into more open landscape but Site A would be

contained by the railway line. It was suggested that a significant


33

proportion of this area would remain open to serve as a recreational area and that it would be possible for cycling and pedestrian links to be created

to Moreton Station. My inspection of this area leads me to conclude that it is of sufficient merit to warrant consideration as a location for longer-term

development.

164. Nevertheless, I consider the Councils’ preferred site (Site B) is the best direction for development at Crossways being better placed than

alternatives to provide a focal point for the community along the B3390. In endorsing this site the Councils have focused on the developer/

landowner as critical in the production of a masterplan while recognising that local residents, Parish, District and County Councils and Network Rail should be party to this process (MM64).

165. Crossways is close to Dorchester but without substantial enhancements to transport links I do not consider it is a particularly sustainable option for

meeting the longer term needs of the county town. I am mindful, however, of the Partial Review of the Purbeck Local Plan which may have implications for this area and these could, if appropriate, be taken forward

in the early review of the LP I have recommended.

The Western Settlements - Lyme Regis, Bridport and Beaminster

166. Allocations are proposed in the larger communities in the western parts of WD at Beaminster, Bridport and Lyme Regis although these settlements

are located in the Dorset AONB. This, together with other factors have been considered by the Councils when balancing the likely impact of development on the natural environment and the future needs of each

community.

Beaminster

167. Three sites were identified in the Pre-Submission Plan as suitable locations for housing provision in Beaminster but were later reduced to one following public consultation on the draft proposals. Residents were

worried that access to two sites in Hollymoor Lane would mean vehicles had to negotiate a narrow section of East Street where there are safety

concerns because of the potential conflict between pedestrians and road users.

168. I accept there are risks involved but a significant amount of housing has

been built already beyond the ‘pinch point’ of traditional properties in East Street. The Highway Authority has been unable to resolve complaints by

residents about this problem and it seems unlikely that an alternative route can be provided. A prospective developer has suggested a ‘shared surface’ could provide a workable solution similar to one adopted on the

main road through South Perrot, some five miles to the north of Beaminster. There highway problems are compounded by the bends and

volume of traffic although the village is much smaller than Beaminster. East Street, in comparison is straighter with better sight lines and is not a through route. I therefore consider a shared surface could help offset


34

safety issues although further work should be undertaken to determine what level of additional development could be accommodated.

169. In reaching this conclusion I am mindful that land off Broadwindsor Road has been proposed for a mixed-use development (BEAM 1) with the

emphasis mainly on housing (120 dwellings). Viability issues have meant employment uses proposed under the previous LP have not materialised although the Councils believes some limited employment (0.5 ha) and

live-work units could still come forward. The site is flat but would extend the western edge of the town into the countryside and intrude into the

designated AONB while it can be seen from higher land beyond the settlement.

170. I find it difficult to conclude that BEAM 1 represents major development in

the AONB given the scale of strategic sites promoted elsewhere in the Plan area although I do not dispute it would be a significant scheme for

Beaminster. I have therefore had regard to its potential impact on the landscape while recognising that some development is required to maintain the vitality of the settlement. I consider there are exceptional

circumstances to support the allocation because of the need for new homes and jobs and the scope for minimising the visual impact of the

development and protecting wildlife interests through strategic planting.

171. An additional paragraph should be inserted into the LP in response to

concerns raised by Heritage England. This would highlight the presence of nearby heritage assets (MM84) and accord with the revised wording agreed between the parties [SOCG 3]. The alteration is supported by

Natural England who sees the setting of historic assets as contributing to the special qualities of the AONB.

Bridport

172. As the largest settlement in this part of WD, Bridport is the most suitable location to meet future development needs in both the immediate and

wider area. The proposed development of Vearse Farm on the western fringes of Bridport is therefore consistent with sustainability principles but

led to a large number of representations, including a petition, opposed to the allocation. Local residents and organisations object to the choice and scale of the site and contend that development would see a significant

expansion in the population of the town adding to existing problems of traffic congestion and pressure on local services and facilities.

173. The size and extent of the allocation challenges the presumption in the NPPF that major development should be avoided in AONB unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is clear to me that the Councils are well

aware of the importance of protecting designated landscape but face the difficult problem of balancing such concerns with the need to provide

homes and jobs to meet future needs. In order to achieve this and adhere to sustainable development principles it is inevitable that some areas in the AONB will be affected.


35

174. From my visits to the area I concur with those who say that buildings on Vearse Farm would be visible from various points in the immediate and

wider landscape. However, the topography would make it difficult to appreciate the size of the development from any one location and this

could be reinforced by appropriate landscaping. If attention is paid to the design throughout the phasing programme it would be possible to introduce variety in the form and layout to help offset some of the

concerns about the scale and massing of the development.

175. I was told of various issues such as flooding problems affecting the site,

as well as land downstream, which could increase the likelihood that development would intensify run-off and have adverse consequences for areas between Bridport and West Bay. I cannot discount this but there

has been no formal objection by the Environment Agency to suggest this is so serious an issue to curtail either some or all of the housing and

employment uses proposed for the site.

176. Similarly, there are fears that traffic generated by the scheme would add to congestion and pressure on the highway network, particularly West

Allington Road (B3162). This is the main route into Bridport from the west and one which, I was told, is very sensitive to further development.

I am aware that congestion is a significant issue, particularly at peak times and during the summer months. Nevertheless, the Highway

Authority is satisfied that measures can be taken to accommodate the level of development involved.

177. It was suggested the forthcoming neighbourhood plan for Bridport could

be used to examine development options before a final decision was made. I regard this as unrealistic given that the plan is at an early stage

of preparation. The delivery of Vearse Farm is a crucial element in the Councils’ housing land supply calculations. Deferring a decision until such time as a neighbourhood plan can be put in place would undermine the

soundness of the LP and increase the risk of schemes being promoted in locations where the individual and cumulative impact of development may

be greater. On balance and having regard to the site’s location and other issues I have referred to, I consider there are exceptional circumstances to justify the identification of Vearse Farm in the LP.

178. Vearse Farm is seen as a suitable location to provide a new school or for an enlarged replacement should the decision be taken to close an existing

school. A review of education capacity is being undertaken by the County Council although it has yet to decide how it intends to meet future needs in Bridport. A minimum of one additional form of entry (FE) is required to

cater for the projected increase in birthrates and new housing but a further FE may prove necessary in future [WDWP/Ex08].

179. The County Council says the primary school site at Skilling Hill Road (St Mary’s) is too small to accommodate a further FE although this was disputed by a number of respondents. It was also argued that the

relocation of education facilities from St Mary’s to Vearse Farm would exacerbate traffic movements and increase the distance for those

travelling from West Bay and areas to the south of the town. I accept a


36

change of location might prove inconvenient for some families but existing and potential school sites are relatively close to each other.

180. In relation to education it seems to me that WD is taking a pragmatic approach by preparing for changes to provision in the absence of a final

decision. Thus policy BRID 2 explains the existing school off Skilling Hill Road could be used for housing purposes if facilities were moved to Vearse Farm (MM71). However, a small adjustment to the modified text

to BRID 1 (MM67) is required to clarify that provision of a new school site at Vearse Farm should have capacity for a two-form entry in the event

that this is required.

181. My overall view is that the allocation of Vearse Farm should be supported. It is a relatively well-contained site bounded to the west and south by the

A35 bypass, by the B3162 to the north and the current western limits to the town on the east. The scale of the proposed development affords

opportunities to address some of the wider traffic issues including improvements to the Miles Cross junction while introducing new facilities of benefit to the town.

182. As part of its housing review, discussions with the developer have encouraged the Councils to increase the rate of building activity from

between 50 and 80 dpa to 100dpa. This is reflected in MM66. Changes to the supporting text and policy (BRID 1) are also necessary in light of

information provided by Dorset County Council regarding school provision on the site (MM67, MM69 and MM70), changes to sustainable construction standards and to address concerns raised by Heritage

England regarding the treatment of heritage assets (MM68).

183. The Councils have identified waste land off Jessopp Avenue on the north-

eastern side of the town as suitable for housing purposes. The site benefits from good access to the road system but also has amenity and recreation value. Being close to the River Asker water voles and otters

are known to be present. In responding to the concerns of local residents and Natural England the Councils have endorsed the need for a substantial

and effective wildlife corridor between development and the river. The changes are reflected in both policy BRID 3 (MM73) and the supporting text (MM72). The latter also includes revised text noting the historic

assets which are close to and visible from the site and to which regard should be had when development proposals come forward.

184. In view of the likely need for further retail space the Councils, in common with their approach to other centres, have designated two car parks as the preferred locations for this purpose (BRID 4). The proposal has been

criticised because of the existing pressure for parking in the town centre although a feature of the policy is to ensure sufficient parking is retained

as part of any scheme. In order to deliver the Councils’ ambitions for this land much will depend on the careful design of any development.

185. In written representations and views expressed during the hearings it was

clear that St Michael’s Trading Estate is an area which makes an important contribution to the vitality of Bridport town centre. An eclectic mix of


37

businesses occupies traditional but small-scale industrial buildings which add considerably to the town’s retail appeal. Some of these buildings are

of historic interest but the Councils, supported by the owner, maintain that regeneration of the Trading Estate is necessary to secure its future.

This would involve retaining employment opportunities and restoring buildings of historic interest by allowing residential development as part of a viable scheme.

186. It is apparent the buildings are in need of repair and improvement but opponents fear proposals could devalue the unique form and appeal of the

site and undermine its character. Such risks cannot be discounted but ignoring the condition of the buildings is more likely to jeopardise the future of the site in its current form. Incorporating some residential use

appears to be a realistic and modest option which is capable of funding improvements while retaining the inherent character of the Estate. I see

no reason to reject the proposal subject to the changes to the policy (BRID 5) and the supporting text to reinforce measures necessary to safeguard the riverside corridor and maintain its wildlife value (MM74 and

MM75).

Lyme Regis

187. Reservations were expressed over the feasibility of developing land at Woodberry Down (LYME 1) because of geological problems and soil

conditions. The site was allocated in the previous LP and has been enlarged to accommodate some 90 dwellings as well as employment uses. Visually it is very well contained by the surrounding landform so its impact

on the AONB is limited and is not, in my view, a reason for opposing development. As I saw work is underway, the developer having piled the

site to overcome stability issues. Despite the awkward nature of the site the housebuilder is confident of meeting the Councils’ objectives although it illustrates the difficulties associated with finding suitable development

land.

188. I have commented previously on matters arising from the proximity of the

administrative boundary with East Devon and the importance for the neighbouring authorities to collectively examine future development options as part of a cross-border assessment (see paragraphs 14 to 17).

Sherborne

189. Sherborne is an attractive and historic town in the northern part of WD

which many respondents believe would be irretrievably damaged by further expansion. I accept that inappropriate schemes could undermine its attractiveness but the Councils are required to plan for the future

needs of the community. Sherborne is a sustainable market town with a wide range of services and facilities and as one of the largest settlements

in the Plan area it is an appropriate and suitable location for accommodating some development, a view shared by the Councils [CD/NORTH/BP].


38

190. The draft Submission Plan acknowledged that high house prices had led to more commuting. Residents were travelling to better paid jobs elsewhere

while those with lower-paid jobs could not afford to live there and had to commute from surrounding places such as Yeovil. Consequently there

was support for increasing the supply of affordable housing following work undertaken for the Sherborne Area Community Plan34.

191. Nonetheless there has been little housebuilding in recent years and the

majority of new housing is reliant on implementing a previous LP allocation [Policy NA1]. Work on this site has only begun recently and

little additional housing is anticipated during the remainder of the plan period. Proposals in the Pre-Submission Plan [CD/SP1] favoured an extension to the LP allocation at Barton Farm on the northern fringes of

the town but strong opposition meant it has not been pursued.

192. The Councils have investigated other development options on the

periphery of the town but contends that these would be damaging. Various factors have been cited to support this claim such as the impact on historic assets, poor access, reduced gaps to nearby settlements and

landscape constraints.

193. At the examination hearings the Councils explained how further expansion

of Barton Farm would be detrimental because its position on rising land would be seen from the opposite side of the valley. I agree it would be

visible but its overall effect would be limited because the topography restricts views from other locations including those closer to the town. The impact of development in the wider landscape could be ameliorated

by structural planting although a sensitive approach would be required because extensive planting would be inappropriate in view of the open

character of the escarpment.

194. I do not discount the potential impact on the town from more people and traffic but the further extension of Barton Farm would assist in meeting

future housing needs and provide an opportunity to secure a new link road from the A30 and improve access to the north. This could help in

removing some of the traffic from the town while the site itself is sufficiently distant to avoid any direct effect on the town centre.

195. The allocation of the former gasworks (SHER 4) for employment and

housing uses was regarded by some respondents as impractical because access and flooding issues could impede delivery. There are alternative

routes to the site should it be necessary to avoid the nearby railway crossing while a flood warning area has been identified immediately across the River Yeo from the site. However, the Councils confirmed that neither

the Environment Agency nor the Highway Authority considered these were issues which could not be overcome. I was also informed that new

owners had acquired the site and following its remediation intended to pursue an application for housing in 2015. Given the proximity of the site

34 As referred to in CD/NORTH/BP


39

to the railway station and facilities in the town centre, I consider it is a suitable location for this purpose.

196. I am aware that a housing scheme involving a modest site on the western edge of the town was recently rejected by the Councils. In view of my

conclusions that the LP has made insufficient provision for housing for the entirety of the plan period, suitable sites in sustainable settlements should not be too readily rejected. The identification of further land at Sherborne

is, in my opinion, a necessary and logical requirement for the successful and sustainable planning of this part of WD before the end of the plan

period.

197. As part of the Plan review I therefore consider development needs in Sherborne should be reappraised. In reaching this conclusion I am

conscious of the considerable local opposition to the Councils’ efforts in site finding during the plan preparation process. Consequently, it may

prove opportune for the community to examine and engage in the planning regime for Sherborne by examining options for further growth through a neighbourhood plan. I have therefore amended the Councils’

modification (MM60) requiring that additional housing site(s) are brought forward either through the LP review process or by means of

neighbourhood planning.

198. I have had regard to representations to LP provision for land at Sherborne

Hotel (SHER 3) and for any future expansion of the town centre retail area (SHER 4) but I can find no reason for recommending changes to these policies.

Issue 4 – Whether generic policies for the Plan area are appropriate and

consistent with the requirements of the NPPF and PPG?

Housing

199. Policy HOUS 6 seeks to restrict residential development in rural areas

where settlement boundaries have not been defined. Several respondents felt there were settlements which were capable of accommodating modest housing projects particularly where schemes were designed to meet local

needs. Limited development would also assist in supporting and retaining community facilities without compromising the form or function of rural

communities.

200. Adopting a more dispersed spatial strategy could make a modest contribution to housing needs in WD but it would not be a sustainable

option. Many villages have limited facilities, poor public transport links and are in sensitive locations in the Dorset AONB. Nevertheless, the

Councils say they welcome initiatives to promote schemes which have local support through neighbourhood planning and I was told of several communities who are engaged in this work. There is no guarantee that

plans will come to fruition but the Councils’ stance accords with the Government’s localism agenda and could assist in delivering more

affordable housing.


40

201. In responding to other issues associated with policy HOUS 6 [WDWMEx09] the Councils produced a supplementary paper clarifying how applications

for rural worker accommodation will be assessed. The intention is that relevant factors should be included as part of the supporting text rather

than in policy (MM19). In my opinion, the changes strike a reasonable balance between the Councils’ roles in maintaining the open character of the countryside yet supporting rural enterprise consistent with paragraphs

28 and 55 of the NPPF.

202. The Councils were reluctant to set a threshold for extending or replacing

properties outside defined settlement boundaries in the absence of evidence. I agree it is difficult to do so but it is clear that local residents and organisations are worried that inappropriate development could

damage sensitive locations, especially those in the AONB. Reliance on phrases such as ‘significantly larger’ provides little help to potential

applicants. More precision is therefore proposed with the introduction of a ‘guide’ percentage while retaining flexibility to allow for exceptions where they can be justified (MM20).

203. Further definition is provided for ‘low impact dwellings’ (MM21) and reference is removed to the creation of new residential curtilages where

there is no dwelling (MM22). The changes to the text are reflected in revisions to policy HOUS 6 as shown in MM23. The removal of reference

to low-impact or self-build dwellings from policy HOUS 6 was said by one respondent to make the Plan unsound because it would no longer accord with the NPPF in meeting objectively assessed need. I disagree because

the revision made in MM21 acknowledges that there is demand for both low impact dwellings and self-build projects. Neither types of

development would be prevented from coming forward, subject to compliance with relevant policies for new housing.

204. It has also been argued that modification MM23 fails to acknowledge

requirements in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 201535. This obliges local authorities to keep a register of individuals and community

groups who have expressed an interest in acquiring land for self-build and custom-build projects. I see no reason why the Councils cannot implement a register of interest outside the local plan process.

Community Needs and Infrastructure

205. The LP identifies the need for a variety of community facilities and

services to support new and existing development. The Councils have endeavoured to respond positively to comments by making some modest but important modifications. These in turn have attracted criticism but I

do not consider they raise issues which would affect the soundness of the Plan or weaken the policy base; instead, they update, clarify or provide

further explanation of the Councils’ position and are reasonable changes to make (MM24, MM25, MM26, MM27, MM28, MM29 and MM30).

35 Granted Royal Assent on 26 March 2015


41

206. The Councils approach to renewable energy is set out in policy COM 11 and would allow schemes generating power from renewable sources

subject to compliance with three criteria. As drafted this means it would not be consistent with a recent ministerial statement or revisions made to

the PPG36. A change to both the supporting text and policy is required so that it is clear that proposals will not apply to wind energy developments, the latter needing to comply with national policy and guidance until the LP

is reviewed. The revisions are set out in MM85 and have the approval of the Council.

Economy

207. There is little opposition to the Councils’ employment strategy which proposes land allocations of around 60 ha. in sustainable locations within

or close to main population centres, although, as previously discussed, projected levels of employment growth are seen by some as needing the

support of a larger workforce and further housing. The Councils’ intention to align their objectives with those of the LEP (MM5) is regarded as further proof of a potential imbalance because LEP priority areas are

unlikely to reflect the skills and age profile of the existing workforce.

208. I do not accept that alterations to the introductory text on the economy

presage a significant change to the employment structure or the workforce which would be needed to support it. The LEP’s Strategic

Economic Plan (SEP) [CD/ECON 5] identifies county-wide business priorities which will be more relevant to some areas than others. The need to reduce unemployment and improve the skills of the workforce are

acknowledged with the SEP emphasising the improvements required in the economy of Weymouth, the employment potential of Portland Port and the

tourism opportunities associated with the Jurassic Coast.

Retail Development

209. Limited but necessary changes are required to explain the Councils’

position when assessing retail proposals. The modifications (MM6 and MM7) would ensure the LP reflects the most recent Government guidance.

210. Policies allowing for the expansion of retail facilities using car parks in town centre locations led to a number of objections. Respondents were generally of the view that the loss of parking would be detrimental

because of the effect on the vitality and viability of shopping centres. I have commented on this previously and I am satisfied the Councils are

endeavouring to strike a reasonable balance by supporting new initiatives while requiring schemes ensure sufficient parking is retained to minimise the threat to town centres activities.

Tourism

211. A number of caravan and camping site operators contend that policy

changes in the LP would be detrimental to their businesses. I consider

36 Ministerial Statement on Wind Turbine Development, 18 June 2015


42

that differences between these and the previous LP are subtle and I am not convinced they are as restrictive as has been claimed. Tourism is

acknowledged as a very important part of the areas’ economy and one which is closely linked to its environmental quality. The intention of policy

is to achieve a sensible balance encouraging and supporting tourism yet protecting the landscape and environment that attracts visitors to this part of Dorset.

212. Proposals for caravan and camping sites would be subject to policy ECON 7. This is largely supportive of new and expanded facilities subject to

their impact on the natural and built environment. The policy does, however, imply that schemes on the Heritage Coast are not likely to be favoured which, given the importance of this stretch of coastline, is an

appropriate stance for the Councils to adopt.

213. In response to criticisms of their position, the Councils have said the

introductory text should be altered to identify other policies which are relevant to proposals involving the change of use of existing buildings (MM8) or the replacement and expansion of existing tourist

accommodation (MM9). Further details of accommodation permitted on caravan and camping sites is provided in MM10 and a small but

significant alteration to policy ECON 8 broadens the definition of diversification projects in rural areas (MM11).

Environment and Climate Change

214. Revisions to policy on the environment and climate change are shown in a revised chapter under MM3 and Appendix B. Some of these alterations

are minor, such as correcting the title of the County Minerals Plan, and could be taken forward as Additional Modifications. Responses to the

proposed modifications also identify adjustments which would improve the Plan but are not relevant to my consideration of soundness.

215. Modifications to the sub-section on wildlife and habitats expand on how

the Councils will assess proposals. The changes have been criticised for undermining biodiversity interests but, in my opinion, they provide a

reasonable approach by supporting development yet recognising the Councils’ responsibility to protect species and habitats. The changes are supported by Natural England, except where references to a net loss in

biodiversity have been removed, and are broadly consistent with the objectives of paragraph 118 of the NPPF. A missing ‘or’ should, however,

be inserted into the final part of the second sentence of ENV 2 (iv) to clarify that development will not be permitted if appropriate measures are not put forward to adequately mitigate development affecting wildlife

interests.

216. In adjusting the policy relating to heritage assets the Councils have

reflected content in the NPPF. Revisions to the supporting text identify key initiatives where heritage has relevance for wider Plan objectives. The position on flood alleviation schemes has also been updated to provide a

generic stance on protecting schemes from inappropriate development.


43

217. During the examination it was acknowledged that government changes to housing and energy standards would necessitate adjustments to LP

policies. The Councils have attempted to address this by setting out broad objectives for building works while accepting the need to comply with new

initiatives.

218. The changes being introduced have been outlined in a recent ministerial statement37 and initiated through the Deregulation Act 2015. I therefore

consider that modifications proposed to policy ENV 12 and the supporting text are no longer appropriate given the Government’s intention to

introduce additional optional Building Regulations on water and access and a new national space standard to complement the existing Regulations.

219. The revisions mean that local planning authorities should not set any

additional technical standards in local plans or supplementary planning documents relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of

new dwellings. The optional new national technical standards can be required through LP policies where there is evidence to support the case for doing so and providing their impact on viability has been considered.

The Councils have not yet had an opportunity to consider this.

220. I therefore recommend changes are made to the supporting text

(paragraphs 2.5.22 and 2.5.23 and policy ENV 12 (i) as proposed. In addition, paragraph 2.5.26 should include reference to proposals to

exempt small sites in meeting zero carbon standards.

221. Small but important changes are also proposed to the supporting text and policy ENV 16 on amenity which are intended to provide further

explanation on matters the Councils will have regard to when assessing development proposals. The alterations complement rather than change

the original aims and objectives of the policy and should be supported.

222. The modifications referred to above are referenced under MM3 and shown in full in Appendix B.

Other matters

223. Since the economic downturn development viability has become a more

prominent issue. The Government has advised councils to avoid making unrealistic or excessive demands on developers whether through financial contributions or the physical provision of infrastructure if this is likely to

put schemes at risk.

224. It is important to adopt a flexible approach to viability issues. For this

reason the inclusion of a new paragraph (paragraph 1.4.4) would help to clarify the Councils’ position (MM1). On a similar theme, revised wording confirms that infrastructure requirements will be reviewed in order to

maintain an up-to-date Infrastructure Delivery Plan (MM2).

37 Ministerial Statement (Planning Update) by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, 25 March 2015


44

225. Additional wording would improve explanation of two terms relating to heritage to address concerns raised by Historic England (MM79 and

MM80). The Councils have also identified changes are necessary to development boundaries for Cerne Abbas (MM82) and Godmanstone

(MM83) following the adoption of a Neighbourhood Plan covering both settlements.

226. A number of alterations are also necessary to correct minor errors. These

include factual updates and wording and mapping changes which have no bearing on the substance of the Plan and can be taken forward as

Additional Modifications.

Conclusion

227. My overall conclusion is that the Plan provides a logical basis for

promoting and regulating growth in West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland by adhering to sustainable development principles. However, I

am not convinced it provides sufficient reserves of land to meet housing needs for the entirety of the plan period or addresses issues which are crucial for the longer-term planning of the area.

228. The Councils have acknowledged the need for an early review, a measure I endorse. It is imperative that the deficiencies I have identified are

addressed as quickly as possible. The key is for the Councils to monitor the effectiveness of their housing strategy and respond positively should

changes prove necessary. As part of the review they should consider the future role of the county town in accommodating growth as well as other sustainable locations, including Sherborne.

229. I do not agree with those who advocate the LP is so deficient that it should be found unsound. Doing so would increase the risk that

alternative schemes come forward is less suitable or sustainable locations or otherwise jeopardise progress on improving housing delivery which is crucial if needs are to be met. Subject to the Councils implementing the

recommended modifications my overall conclusion is that the Plan is sound.

Assessment of Legal Compliance

230. My examination of the compliance of the Plan with the legal requirements is summarised in the table below. I conclude that the Plan meets them all.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Local Development Scheme (LDS)

The West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan is identified within the approved LDS April

2014 which sets out an expected adoption date of May 2015. A short delay in adoption does not affect the Local Plan’s content which is broadly

compliant with the LDS.


45

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation

231. The Plan has a number of deficiencies in relation to soundness for the reasons set out above which mean that I recommend non-adoption of it as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act. These

deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above.

232. The Councils requested that I recommend main modifications to make the

Plan sound and/or legally compliant and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendices the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan satisfies the

requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework.

P R CrysellP R CrysellP R CrysellP R Crysell

Inspector

This report is accompanied by appendices containing the Main Modifications

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and

relevant regulations

The latest SCI was adopted in November 2014 and consultation has been compliant with the

requirements therein, including the consultation on the post-submission proposed ‘main modification’

changes (MM)

Sustainability Appraisal

(SA)

SA has been carried out and is adequate.

Appropriate Assessment

(AA)

The Habitats Regulations AA Screening Reports

(June /2012 and June 2013) sets out why AA is not necessary.

National Policy The Local Plan complies with national policy except where indicated and modifications are

recommended.

Sustainable Community

Strategy (SCS)

Satisfactory regard has been paid to the SCS.

Public Sector Equality

Duty (PSED)

The Local Plan complies with the Duty and is

adequate.

2004 Act (as amended)

and 2012 Regulations.

The Local Plan complies with the Act and the

Regulations.



APPENDIX 10

APPEAL DECISION AT LAND OFF TANTON ROAD, STOKESLEY (APP/G2713/A/14/2223624)


Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 June 2015

Site visit made on 9 June 2015

by David M H Rose BA (Hons) MRTPI


Decision date: 07 September 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/G2713/A/14/2223624 Land off Tanton Road, Stokesley


against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

The appeal is made by Johnson Brook against the decision of Hambleton District

Council.

The application Ref 14/00337/OUT, dated 14 February 2014, was refused by notice

dated 30 May 2014.

The development proposed is described as an ‘outline planning application for a

residential development of up to 226 dwellings with associated access with all other

matters reserved’.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a residential development of up to 226 dwellings with associated access with all other matters reserved at land off Tanton Road, Stokesley in accordance with the

terms of the application, Ref 14/00337/OUT, dated 14 February 2014, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision.

Preliminary Matters

2. The Council’s decision notice listed five reasons for refusal. However, reason four (affordable housing provision) and reason five (public open space, sport

and recreation facilities) were not pursued at the Inquiry in that the former could be secured by an agreed planning condition; and, the latter met by a

Community Infrastructure Levy payment in line with the Council’s recently adopted Charging Schedule. I return to these matters later in this decision.

3. Following the close of the Inquiry an appeal decision (Land off Station Road,

Great Ayton), relating, in part, to housing land supply in Hambleton, was issued.1 The Council and the appellant were given the opportunity to

comment and their further representations have been taken into account.2

Main Issues

4. In light of the above the main issues are:-

(a) whether the Council has a five-year supply of deliverable housing land;

1 JB/HDC/44 (APP/G2713/A/14/2218137) 2 JB/HDC/45 & JB/HDC/46



(b) whether the proposed development can be considered to be

sustainable having particular regard to the Council’s strategy for the scale and distribution of new housing development and the

identification of the Stokesley sub-area as an area of restraint; and

(c) in the event of the Council not being able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, whether other material

considerations would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Reasons

The development plan

5. The development plan comprises the Hambleton Core Strategy (2007), the

related Development Policies (2008) and Allocations (2010). Policy CP5, which sets the scale of new housing, is out-of-date in that it is based on a ‘constrained’ housing figure flowing from the, now revoked, Regional Spatial

Strategy which sought to restrain growth in rural districts. This policy carries no weight in the consideration of this appeal.

6. The subsequent percentage distribution of annual growth, through Policy CP5A, provides a focus on the central part of the district, including Northallerton, Thirsk and Bedale; and restraint in the Stokesley and

Easingwold areas. In turn, Policy CP6 provides a further level of distribution between the five service centres, above, and their respective hinterlands.

7. Although these policies are a function of the Regional Spatial Strategy, the general principle of concentrating development in the central part of the district and the related service centres has logic in the delivery of sustainable

development, and on that basis, they merit significant weight.

8. That being said, Policy CP6 has an inextricable link with Policy CP4 which, in

tandem with Policy DP9, imposes a test of ‘an exceptional case’ for development which lies outside the development limits of identified settlements. Given the out-of-date housing figure; the inevitable need to

release some greenfield sites; and the government’s call to boost significantly the supply of housing, Policies CP4 and DP9 are inconsistent

with the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. Finally, Policies CP1 and CP2, in so far as they seek to secure sustainable development and to reduce the need to travel, are consistent with the

principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Objectively assessed housing need

10. It is common ground that the district of Hambleton represents the

appropriate housing market area for the purposes of this appeal; and the five-year land supply period is 2015-16 to 2019-20.3

11. Planning Practice Guidance confirms that ‘establishing future need for housing is

not an exact science – no single approach will provide a definitive answer’.

However, it goes on to clarify that ‘Household projections …… should provide the

starting point ……; plan makers should make an assessment of the likely change in

job numbers …….; [and] the housing need number suggested by household

projections should be adjusted to reflect appropriate market signals ……’.

3 The five-year land supply period in the Easingwold (APP/G2713/A/14/2217056) and the Huby

(APP/G2713/A/13/2194376 & 2194410) appeal decisions was 2014-15 to 2018-19



12. The demographic starting point and the jobs growth rate are generally

agreed. There are differences on the level of unemployment; commuting ratios; and whether a market signals uplift is appropriate. The Council’s

assessment is 413 dwellings per annum. The appellant’s is 458 without a market signals uplift; and 565 with an uplift.

13. In terms of the level of unemployment, moving forward from the common

base date of 2012, the appellant relies on the Census data of 2011. It is acknowledged that this is a single snapshot in time, and it could be prone to

a level of error. Moreover, it is not disputed that the Council’s approach of using the unemployment rate statistics taken from the Annual Population Survey is reasonable.

14. In this regard, although the Census data should not be applied uncritically, and the rolling three year average in the Annual Population Survey could be

used to provide verification or otherwise, the survey output comes with a caveat relating to its estimate and confidence interval. Whilst a longer term trend would normally be preferable to a single count, I am not convinced

that the Annual Population Survey is a sufficiently robust and accurate basis to either undermine or displace the Census particularly as the latter predates

the base date by no more than one year.

15. Moving on to commuting ratios, the 2001 Census shows outward commuting from Hambleton in the ratio of 1.03; whereas the corresponding 2011 figure

indicates a reversed trend of 0.93. The Council’s modelling presupposes a falling ratio from 1.03 in 2012 to a balanced ratio of 1.00 by 2026; with the

appellant applying a ratio of 1.00 across the same period.

16. The Council’s starting point, in light of the position already reached, appears somewhat artificial; and, whilst the appellant’s approach might be criticised

for lacking in sophistication, it nonetheless represents a position of equilibrium between homes and jobs and a theoretical balance between one

district and another. Without a wider understanding of the apparent turnaround in commuting, and in light of the guidance in the Planning Advisory Service’s technical advice note4 about the risks involved in ‘recalling

commuters’, I prefer the assumptions adopted by the appellant.

17. In light of the foregoing I consider that the appellant’s pitch of 458 units,

prior to the consideration of any market signals uplift, is to be preferred to the Council’s stance of 413 dwellings per annum.

18. Turning to the market signals data, Planning Practice Guidance identifies six

potential factors. On the first, land prices, there is no reliable data. However, in terms of house prices, it is evident that house prices in

Hambleton have risen by over 200% in a 16 year period from 1997 and have remained above the England and North Yorkshire average throughout. The

trend in the period 2010 to 2013 was a rise of 14% against a rise of 4% in the region and 7% nationally (excluding London).

19. In addition, rental prices have increased at a faster rate than the national

average for one, two and three bed properties since data became available in 2011. The affordability ratio for the five-year period to 2013 shows an

increase of 13% against a 1% decline across North Yorkshire; a 3% increase for England; and 15% increases for each of Inner London and Outer London.

4 Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets



20. Looking at net house completions, against the constrained Core Strategy

target of 290 units per annum, under delivery, on a significant scale, has occurred since 2008-09. Finally, the volume and proportion of overcrowded

households and concealed families have both worsened between the 2001 and 2011 Census; with 29% of the 20-34 age group living with parents in Hambleton.

21. Overall, there is clear evidence on five of the six market signals and an unambiguous indication of under supply relative to demand. Planning

Practice Guidance5 advises that ‘a worsening trend in any of these indicators will

require upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based

solely on household projections ...... In areas where an upward adjustment is

required, plan makers should set this adjustment at a level that is reasonable’.

22. For its part, the appellant concludes that it is highly likely that the delivery of increased supply (in the order of 458 units per annum) would be insufficient

to counter the adverse signals; and based on recognised modelling a further 3,000 dwellings might be required but, given the uncertainty about the scale

of the uplift that should be applied, it would be reasonable to restrict this to 1,500 dwellings between 2012 and 2026. The resultant total need would be approximately 565 dwellings per annum.

23. The Council does not counter any of the above, save for the principle of applying a market signals uplift associated with a section 78 appeal rather

than through the plan making process.

24. The preparation of housing and economic development needs assessments is primarily a function of the plan making process. Paragraph 158 of the

National Planning Policy Framework confirms:- ‘Each local planning authority

should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant

evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects

of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and

strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and they take full

account of relevant market and economic signals’. Paragraph 159 indicates:- ‘Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in

their area ……’.

25. The Planning Practice Guidance identifies paragraph 159 as ‘related policy’.

Although paragraph 020 (How should plan makers respond to market signals?)

directs its advice to ‘plan makers’, the overall tenor of the document is

similarly addressed to ‘plan makers’ rather than ‘decision takers’. That is not surprising given the underlying rationale for preparing such assessments.

26. However, where the relevant policies in the development plan are out-of-

date, decision takers are faced with the task of assessing housing needs, on the best available evidence, including the consideration of employment

trends, on a case by case basis pending a review or replacement of the local plan.

27. Whilst market signals might provide a strong indication of policy failure and

a shortage of new homes, the guidance acknowledges that ‘market signals are

affected by a number of economic factors and plan makers should not attempt to

estimate the precise impact of an increase in housing supply. Rather they should

increase planned supply by an amount that, on reasonable assumptions and

consistent with principles of sustainable development, could be expected to improve

affordability, and monitor the response of the market over the plan period’.

5 Housing and economic development needs assessments



28. In this case, the appellant seeks to address the market signals by injecting a

quantity of additional homes into part of the district which is identified as an area of restraint, albeit Stokesley is defined as the recognised service centre

for the sub-area where at least two-thirds of new housing development will be concentrated. However, such an ad hoc housing driven reaction, as opposed to an overall strategic response with employment and travel in

mind, would run the risk of undermining the principles of securing sustainable development for the district as a whole.

29. Moreover, the National Planning Policy Framework, at paragraph 47, provides a mechanism for boosting significantly the supply of housing. Whilst this is not described as a response to market signals, where there is

persistent under delivery, the consequences are likely to manifest themselves in one or more of the six indicators. The remedy is to increase

the buffer in order to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply. In that instance, the additional housing land would be drawn forward from later in the plan period without undermining the overall

strategy of the plan, and its foundation in securing sustainable development. Simply adding more houses without consideration of the wider

consequences, as proposed here, would be an unwarranted reflex reaction.

30. It is also of note that the local planning authority has been alive to the consequences of not having a five-year supply of housing land in the

measures approved in November 2013 whereby the phasing mechanism in the Core Strategy was removed with the effect of releasing sites which would

otherwise have stood idle until either 2016-21 or 2021-26. Whilst that, by itself, is unlikely to fully address the implications of the market signals analysis, it nonetheless provides a considered starting point.

31. It cannot be denied that Hambleton exhibits a number of adverse market signals, which is likely to be a consequence, at least in part, of the policy of

restraining new housing development in the district and past delivery rates. Nonetheless, given the complexities of the factors involved and the task of delivering sustainable development, I consider that a market signals uplift

derived from the information before me would not be justified.

32. Against this background I shall carry forward the appellant’s assessment of

458 dwellings per annum as the objectively assessed housing need for Hambleton from the base date of 2012.

Five-year requirement

33. Annual net housing completions are available for the period 2004-05 to 2014-15. Whilst the early years, with the exception of 2004-05, show completions running above requirements, the trend suffered a small reversal

in 2008-09 and a more marked decline thereafter resulting in, in round terms, an annual average of 200 dwellings, against the restrained Core

Strategy target of 290 homes. Although the Inspector in the Huby decision saw the ‘recent’ failure to meet housing targets as not ‘untypical’, given the recession and difficulties in securing finance, that trend has continued into

2014-15. On its face, prior to examining potential underlying considerations, this represents ‘persistent under delivery’.



34. Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires:- ‘To boost

significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: …… identify and

update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years

worth of housing against their housing requirements …… where there has been a

record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should

increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide

a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and

competition in the market for land ……’.

35. However, Planning Practice Guidance6 indicates:- ‘The approach to identifying a

record of persistent under delivery of housing involves questions of judgement for

the decision maker in order to determine whether or not a particular under delivery

of housing triggers the requirement to bring forward an additional supply of housing.

The factors behind persistent under delivery may vary from place to place and,

therefore, there can be no universally applicable test or definition of the term. It is

legitimate to consider a range of issues ......’.

36. In this regard, the phasing strategy for allocated housing sites was removed in November 2013, in recognition of a marked shortfall in deliverable sites,

creating an anticipation of stimulating delivery by some 500 dwellings over a five-year period.

37. Moreover, the Interim Policy Guidance Note, adopted by the Council in April

2015, adds flexibility to the operation of Policy CP4 by making provision for appropriate small scale development within, and adjacent to, smaller

settlements where development would not have previously been sanctioned. It is predicted that this could release approximately 90 additional windfall sites per annum. Although it is too early to place any reliance on this

estimate, the measure is likely to bring additional small housing sites into the supply chain.

38. A further factor warranting scrutiny is the relationship between planning permissions granted and subsequent completions. Data, for the period

2004-05 to 2010-11, indicates that cumulative completions more-or-less matched cumulative permissions. However, from 2011-12 to the current date (excluding the distorting effect of an approval for a single large scheme

in 2012-13), cumulative completions have fallen a long way short of cumulative permissions.

39. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it would not be unreasonable to give credence to the Council’s position that some of the under delivery can be attributed to the inertia in the housebuilding sector during the

recession. Whilst recessionary trends are part of the ‘normal’ economic cycle, the recent downturn has been particularly acute. Nonetheless, the

number of permissions granted between 2011-12 and 2014-15 (omitting 2012-13) showed no hint of ‘recessionary effects’ in so far as they clearly outstripped those granted in the three years preceding the economic slump.

40. The combination of the positive measures promoted by the Council to boost supply, and the clear indication that there is no inherent shortage of sites

with planning permission, provides material considerations of sufficient substance to outweigh the National Planning Policy Framework’s call for a 20% buffer. On this basis a 5% buffer should be applied.

6 Housing and economic land availability assessment (paragraph 036)



41. At the Inquiry, the parties agreed that with an annual requirement of 458

dwellings per annum, a 5% buffer, and a shortfall of 772 units,7 the five-year requirement would amount to 3,177 dwellings (635 dwellings per

annum). This is based on the addition of the buffer to the five-year housing requirement (before adding the shortfall), consistent with the Secretary of State’s position in an appeal decision at Gresty Lane, Crewe.8 However, a

number of subsequent appeal decisions have followed the principle that any buffer should be added to the five-year housing requirement and any

shortfall, which the appellant prays in aid.

42. The Inspector in the Great Ayton decision explains, carefully and coherently, that ‘the purpose of the buffer is to increase the supply of land in the first five year

period; it is not to alter the demand side of the equation. The housing requirement,

ie. the demand, is the FOAN plus the shortfall from previous years. The Framework

states that authorities are required to identify a five year supply against their

housing requirement plus a buffer of 5%. Consequently, the buffer can only be

added to the requirement once the shortfall has been added on. To do otherwise

would be to ignore a part of the requirement (the shortfall) in ensuring that there is

a sufficient supply to meet the requirement, plus an additional 5%’.9

43. Whilst the Council maintains that the expressed position of the Secretary of State at Gresty Lane should be preferred, it does not directly address or

counter the clear explanation provided in the Great Ayton decision. Rather it relies on the following:- ‘by applying the buffer to the requirement and the

backlog (which is already part of the requirement – albeit as yet unmet) it is

effectively applying the buffer twice to that part of the requirement and therefore

double counting. The approach advocated by the Council and the Secretary of State

(requirement + buffer + backlog) applies the buffer to all parts of the requirement

only once’.

44. It is helpful to return to the National Planning Policy Framework which sets out that local planning authorities should ‘identify and update annually a supply

of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against

their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from

later in the plan period) ……’.

45. Plain reading suggests that the buffer should be added to the total requirement which would, inevitably, include any under delivery from earlier

years. In this regard, the purpose of the buffer is to increase the supply of land; it does not change the number of houses required to be built within that period.

46. Put simply, the buffer is not, and it does not become, part of the requirement; it is purely a given excess of land over the land supply

necessary to permit the identified need for housing to be delivered. That is the position each year; the buffer does not carry forward into the annual calculation of housing need made in subsequent years; it is itself

recalculated on the basis of the need identified to ensure the appropriate degree of choice and competition in the market for land. On this basis, it is

not clear how the Council’s concern about double counting would arise.

7 JB/HDC/09 [458+5%=481; 481x5=2,405; 2,405+772=3,177]. NB The backlog of 772 units was an agreed

position (notwithstanding the different figure set out in the Great Ayton decision) 8 APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 (paragraph 14) 9 APP/G2713/A/14/2218137 (paragraph 32)



47. In this particular case the difference in approach would be small in so far as

it would increase the five-year housing requirement to 3,215 dwellings (643 per annum).10 I shall adopt this for my subsequent analysis.

Specific deliverable sites

48. The dispute on the number of dwellings likely to be delivered within the five-year period 2015-16 to 2019-20 centres on the anticipated completion rate on seven allocated sites without planning permission; two allocated sites

with planning permission; and the role of windfall sites.

49. Three sites are allocated in Aiskew:- the pig farm (site 765); land to the

north-east of the pig farm (site 767); and Wilberts Farm (site 762). The first two have not progressed to the submission of a planning application.

Although there is a ‘willing land-owner’, Aiskew is very popular location and some major sites nearby are nearing completion, the anticipation of full delivery by 2019-20, without any expressed commitment or delivery

programme, appears to be optimistic. Forty units, rather than 78, would be a more robust assumption. However, the very recent outline application at

Wilberts Farm and expected completions from 2017-18 gives sufficient support for a total of 105 units.

50. Station Yard, West Tanfield (site 776), is cleared and ready for development.

Although it is said that it will be brought to the market in the near future, there is no time-scale or assessment of marketing prospects and a total of

20 completions, rather than 40, would be a fairer assessment.

51. The site at Easingwold (site 778) comprises two parts with development underway on the smaller northern part and a planning application under

consideration for the southern portion. The difference between the parties is small (14 units), with the discrepancy arising from whether or not the

southern portion would start to deliver completions in 2016-17.

52. Whilst there is no indication as to how long the determination of the planning application is likely to take, an ‘early’ grant of planning permission should

provide a reasonable prospect of completions flowing from 2016-17. This allows me to share the Council’s confidence that the site would be capable of

being built out within the next five years.

53. Turning to the land at east of Stokesley Road, Northallerton (site 787), this site could be developed independently or in conjunction with adjoining land.

Whilst the landowner has indicated that development could follow closely behind an approval for adjoining land (which has an application currently

under consideration), the position is extremely vague and creates the impression of nothing more than a ‘watching brief’ at this stage. Whilst approval on adjoining land might precipitate action, it is equally conceivable

that the outcome could be a cautious approach, awaiting evaluation of the success of adjacent development. Overall, the lead-in time to bring the site

to the market and/or deliver new homes appears to undermine the reality of delivering any of the 72 dwellings within the relevant period.

54. Moving on to Cleveland Lodge, Great Ayton (site 804), the issue turns on

whether or not 44 residential units (in conjunction with a 40 bed nursing home) should be considered as dwellings capable of independent living

10 [458x5=2,290]+772=3,062; 3,062x5%=3,215



within Class C3. The Inspector in the Huby appeal found the units to be

dwellings for the purpose of the five-year supply (in the absence of any conclusive evidence from the appellant); and the Great Ayton Inspector

agreed with the Council that 44 dwellings was a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence which she had heard. For my part, correspondence shows that the holder of an option agreement for the site is clearly seeking

to pursue a use within Class C2 (which would avoid any need for an affordable housing contribution) and that no conventional housing is

proposed for the site.

55. This casts doubt on the intentions beyond the pre-application enquiry and the form that any subsequent proposal might take which could lead to on-

going dispute and delay and, potentially, the need to provide a viability assessment if the units are subsequently determined to be within Class C3.

Given the cloud of uncertainty, it would be appropriate to pursue a cautious approach and discount any contribution from this site.

56. Looking next at sites with planning permission, development is underway at

Sowerby Gateway (site 808). Although the original building contractor has gone into administration, the houses currently under construction are due to

be completed by another party. It is said that some 25 of the 107 units are already occupied; 58 are started and 29 yet to start.11 The delivery of all of these within the next two years as anticipated, and certainly within five

years, is a reasonable assumption.

57. The remaining units are, according to the Council, to be delivered at a rate

of 100 units per annum from 2017-18 to 2019-20; and it is said that negotiations are underway to bring in two national housebuilders. Whilst each would, no doubt, wish to substitute its own house types, a lead in time

of two years, with completions in year three, does not seem unreasonable.

58. The final site relates to an extra-care development, west of Topcliffe Road,

Sowerby (site 839), included within an outline planning permission for a mixed-use development including an ‘extra-care facility (C2)’. An approval of reserved matters for the ‘provision of a 90 unit extra-care facility ……’

followed. Whilst this should place the matter of classification beyond doubt, the district and county councils appear to have been complicit in accepting

the units, which are self-contained with a full range of facilities, as dwellings within Class C3. Moreover, some 51% of the units are categorised as ‘affordable units’. I am satisfied that, despite the initial descriptions, the

units should count towards the five-year supply.

59. In summary, this would put gross completions from allocated sites without

planning permission at 1,116 units12; 1,035 units13 on allocated sites with planning permission; and a combined total of 2,151 units.

60. On windfalls, it is agreed, following a comprehensive analysis of extant planning permissions, that gross completions, over five years could amount to 396 units (annual completions:- 142/134/32/22/14). There is every

indication, based on past trends, that these will be supplemented by ongoing

11 There is an unexplained discrepancy of 5 units – but this is not material 12 1,246-[38+20+72]=1,116 13 1,079-44=1,035



approvals for small sites across the District;14 and the Council’s Interim

Policy Guidance Note.

61. Indeed, windfall completions have averaged some 146 units annually over a

period of five years (albeit the average for the last three years is marginally below 100). On this basis, the Council considers it appropriate to apply a ‘conservative’ windfall estimate of 100 dwellings per annum to the housing

supply calculation. Whilst the previous role of windfalls and the current policy regime provide justification for windfalls, at around 100 units per year,

to be a factor of the housing supply, the addition of 500 units to the already identified ‘pipeline’ of 396 is likely to represent a serious over-estimate.

62. Accordingly, the more likely windfall contribution would be the appellant’s

concession to substitute 100 units in each of years three to five resulting in an overall windfall allowance of 576 units. This would amount to a total five-

year supply of 2,727 dwellings. Given the identified annual requirement of 643 dwellings per annum, the resultant housing supply would be approximately 4.24 years.15

63. On this basis paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework confirms that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered

up-to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of

deliverable housing sites’; and paragraph 14 confirms that ‘this means …….

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date

granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the

policies in this Framework taken as a whole ……’.

Sustainability

The economic role

64. The three dimensions of sustainable development consist of economic, social and environmental roles.

65. The National Planning Policy Framework explains that the economic role includes the availability of sufficient land of the right type, in the right places and at the right time to support growth; and building a strong, competitive

economy is a cornerstone of Government policy. In this regard, the appeal proposal would generate employment arising from construction works (an

average of 60 full-time equivalent jobs per annum); and new household expenditure supporting local facilities and services and increased employment arising from that economic activity.

66. Whilst it is said that those benefits could arise in any event from other residential development, there is, in this instance, no comparable site or

sites and there is a pressing need for additional housing which, with conditions to ensure the ‘early’ submission of reserved matters and commencement of development, could be delivered in the near future. This

is a factor of significant weight.

14 Notwithstanding the subsequent judgement (dated 31 July 2015) in West Berkshire District Council and

Reading Borough Council v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin) in so far as it relates to the threshold for the provision of affordable housing

15 Applying the ‘agreed’ position, as set out in paragraph 41 above, the resultant housing supply would have been about 4.29 years:- the difference is not of sufficient materiality to influence the weight which attaches in the

overall planning balance



67. Consideration is also to be given to the economic benefits of the site in its

existing use as agricultural land in that some 49% of the overall site is best and most versatile land (Grade 2 and Sub-grade 3a). However, as this

occurs in ‘pockets’, its effective use is undermined and it is farmed as if it were Sub-grade 3b land. The value of the best and most versatile agricultural land within the site is therefore negligible.

The social role

68. The proposal would provide the homes required to meet the needs of the present and future generations, which Core Strategy Policy CP5 can no

longer provide; and it would offer every prospect, through good design, of creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services in

Stokesley. The site would also deliver a mix of housing (including bungalows to meet an identified need related to a high level of residents aged 65 and over) and tenure. At least 50% of the new homes would be affordable, in

accordance with Core Strategy Policy CP9 and Development Policy DP15.

69. This would represent a very significant positive attribute in that the provision

of affordable homes has fallen well-below the target for the district particularly in the Stokesley sub-area where affordable units average 25% of all completions. Moreover, the North Yorkshire Strategic Housing Market

Assessment concluded that housing needs had increased and that there was a need for an additional 320 affordable homes annually (up to 2016) in

Hambleton, with the respective figures for the Stokesley sub-area and Stokesley being 47 and 26 each year respectively.

70. The project would also deliver public open space, a multi-use path network

within the site and re-surfacing of the public right of way passing Neasham House Farm in order to improve connectivity with the town centre. Whilst

these would principally meet the needs of the development itself, there would, nonetheless, be potential benefits to existing local residents albeit it is recognised that those living nearby already use the public footpaths on the

eastern and western sides of the site and informal connecting tracks. These are modest benefits to be added into the overall balance.

Environmental role

71. Although the appeal site is greenfield land it is adjoined on two sides by the existing built-up area; it is unusually well-contained along the majority of its

northern boundary by woodland; and whilst it has an undefined open boundary, to the west, the landscape strategy would be capable of providing effective definition and containment. Despite the presence of some best and

most versatile agricultural land (referred to above), the site has no ‘special’ designation. In this regard the local planning authority has not raised any

objections on landscape or visual impacts.

72. Whilst the development plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework, acknowledges the need to protect and enhance the natural environment, it is

not disputed that meeting housing needs in Hambleton will require the release of some greenfield sites and development beyond the development

limits of some settlements. The loss here, could be minimised by a suitable landscape strategy which would limit the removal of existing hedgerows and trees and provide for additional planting and provision of greenspace.



73. In locational terms, although the Stokesley sub-area is identified as an area of restraint, the majority of development that will take place in the area is to be focused on the ‘Service Centre’ of Stokesley. Whilst there are local

concerns about the distance of the site from the centre of the market town, the quality of public transport routes and opportunities for walking and cycling, the expansion of an urban area will generally mean locating

development further from its central services and facilities. That is not to say that such development, as a matter of course, runs counter to the

principles of securing sustainable development through Core Strategy Policies CP5A and CP6.

74. In addition, although Stokesley is located within easy commuting distance, by car, of Tees Valley, there is no evidence to show that the development

would be likely to contribute, in a significant manner, to unsustainable patterns of commuting having particular regard to the 2011 Census which

shows an inward flow into the district as a whole.

Other considerations

75. With reference to the numerous written objections,16 and appearances at the Inquiry, it is said that Hambleton has a robust Local Plan, informed by the community and following the principles of localism. However, the housing

policies in the development plan are out-of-date and, as a result, provide insufficient housing land to meet identified needs. Therefore, pending the

preparation of a ‘new’ plan, further housing land will have to be provided on a site by site basis and outside the plan making process.

76. A history of surface water flooding in the locality is well-documented but the technical evidence supporting the application, and scrutinised by the

Council’s Drainage Engineer and Environment Agency, indicates that it would be possible to ensure that surface water from the site could be managed so

as not cause or add to any flooding in the area. The existing problems on adjoining land, including the junction of Tanton Road with B1365, are not a sufficient basis to preclude the proposed development.

77. It is acknowledged that the floor levels of the proposed dwellings would have to be constructed at a specified minimum level and, in some instances, significantly above those of neighbouring houses. However, the relationship

of one house with another and the ability to minimise potential adverse over-looking would be a matter for consideration at reserved matters stage.

78. Access is a further concern, but junction capacity assessments show that each of the relevant junctions would be capable of operating in a satisfactory manner; there are no material issues with visibility from and to the junctions; and, despite the accident record in the vicinity of Tanton

Road/B1365, there are no inherent shortcomings with the layout of the junction itself although it is recognised that additional street lighting,

secured by condition, could be of benefit for night-time safety.

79. The B1365 is a convenient commuting route; it is generally narrow and winding in nature; it has a record of accidents; and the development would

bring increased traffic along it. However, there is no technical evidence to support the level of improvements sought by local residents which would go far beyond the impacts generated by the development itself.

16 Endorsed by Rishi Sunak, Member of Parliament for Richmond (Yorks)



80. In terms of the criticism of the Residential Travel Plan, the document sets

out aspirations to encourage alternatives to single-occupancy car journeys and to ensure that residents have access to, and a choice of, travel options.

Despite the scepticism expressed, the document reflects best practice and provides a genuine attempt in seeking to influence travel modes, albeit where journeys on foot to the town centre might be beyond a readily

attractive distance and bus services serving a market town and its rural hinterland are likely to be limited. Nonetheless, the offer of improvements17

to Neasham Lane (described as ‘a muddy, unpaved, and unlit rural footpath’) would be a genuine advantage in providing a useable and direct route to the town centre.

81. The claimed ‘permanent loss of our community green space amenity for walkers

and wildlife enthusiasts’ has to be placed in context in so far as the site

currently offers two peripheral public footpaths which would be retained as part of the development and supplemented by other public green space. As open farmland, there is limited wildlife presence, albeit the hedgerows and

woodland, which would be retained for the most part and supplemented to mitigate any losses, offer a variety of habitats which, through appropriate

measures, could be safeguarded and enhanced.

82. Although it is said that the proposal would place a strain on local health and education services, none of the relevant providers oppose the development.

A variety of other concerns have been noted, but none provide a compelling reason to count against the proposal.

Conclusion on sustainability and the planning balance

83. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material

considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions.

84. The three roles of sustainable development are mutually dependent. The

proposal would deliver significant economic and social benefits; and the pattern of growth would be in a generally sustainable location. Its negative

impacts on the countryside would be minimal and capable of being offset by a landscape strategy; and the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would be of negligible consequence. Whilst the views of local people

are an important consideration, the limited adverse impacts arising from the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the very

clear benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.

85. In terms of the development plan, the housing target in Policy CP5 is out-of-

date which undermines the restraining function of defined development limits set out in Policies CP6, CP4 and DP9. However, the proposal would be

generally consistent with Policies CP1 and CP2 and the underlying spatial principles. It would also achieve the provision of affordable housing in accordance with Policies CP9 and DP15. It can therefore be seen to be

generally consistent with the development plan when read as a whole.

17 Submitted on the last day of the Inquiry



Conclusion

86. Returning to the main issues identified at the beginning of this decision, the

determining factors leading to my decision are:- the Council does not have a five-year supply of deliverable housing land; the proposed development can

be considered to be sustainable having particular regard to the Council’s strategy for the scale and distribution of new housing development and the identification of the Stokesley sub-area as an area of restraint; and, as the

Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, there are no material considerations which would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. I shall therefore allow the appeal.

Planning Conditions

87. As an outline application, a condition to secure the submission of reserved matters is necessary. In view of the requirement for finished floor levels to

be a minimum of 67.5 metres above ordnance datum, and to achieve a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring properties, a condition will be

imposed requiring floor levels to be agreed.18 [Conditions 1 and 2]

88. The number of dwellings is not to exceed 226 units, in order to limit the scope of the permission consistent with the submitted details. The

development is also to be carried out following the principles described in the Development Framework Plan and in the Design and Access Statement, to

provide an appropriate form of development. As details of the two access routes into the site are not reserved matters, the development is to be undertaken in accordance with the submitted access drawings, in the

interests of highway safety. [Conditions 3, 4 and 5]

89. In order to ensure that the proposed development delivers new homes as

soon as reasonably practicable, the submission of reserved matters is to be made in a period of no more than 18 months from the date of this decision; and the development is to be commenced either within the same period or

within 12 months from the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. The 12 month period, rather than 9

months sought by the local planning authority, will provide an appropriate balance between prompt delivery and the flexibility required by a developer. [Conditions 6 and 7]

90. A phasing scheme is essential for a properly planned and co-ordinated development, having regard to the size of the site, the number of houses to

be built and the related facilities to be provided. Landscaping, as a vital element of site design, will require the submission of a landscape masterplan as part of the landscaping reserved matters. [Conditions 8 and 9]

91. The provision of affordable housing, secured by condition, would help offset the shortage of such accommodation in the district in compliance with Core

Strategy Policy CP9, which seeks to achieve a 50% contribution in the Stokesley sub-area, and to set out a mechanism as required by Development Policy DP15. I have made some minor revisions to the wording of the

condition for improved clarity. [Condition 10]

18 Although it was agreed that details of floor levels should be included within condition 1, the meaning of

‘reserved matters’ in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order

2015 is:- ‘access; appearance; landscaping; layout; and scale.’



92. The inclusion of bungalows within the overall housing mix would be

advantageous as Stokesley has a high proportion of households where the occupants are aged 65 and over. Whilst there would be no formal

mechanism to secure occupancy to this age group, it would, nonetheless, widen the choice of homes available in the locality. [Condition 11]

93. Taking into account the size of the site, the proximity of neighbouring

houses and the duration of construction works, it is necessary to ensure that building operations are undertaken in an appropriate manner through the

safeguards of a construction method statement. I have reworded the final requirement relating to emergency access to the site, during the construction phase, for clarity. [Condition 12]

94. Surface water and foul drainage arrangements need to be agreed to ensure satisfactory disposal and to minimise the risk of surface water flooding

arising from the development. [Conditions 13 and 14]

95. Further investigation of the site is required to safeguard any archaeological finds that might be revealed and to counter any potential ground

contamination. [Conditions 15 and 16]

96. A suite of conditions is required to safeguard the biodiversity interest within

the site; and also to retain the landscape framework of existing hedgerows. [Conditions 17, 18, 19 and 20]

97. The construction of energy efficient homes is also an important pre-requisite,

in accordance with the requirements of Policies CP18 and DP34. So too is the implementation and management arrangements for open space and

related facilities in order to provide a good standard of amenity. [Conditions

21 and 22]

98. A travel plan, with measures for auditing and updating, reflects the national

policy aim of achieving the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. As the current limit of street lighting runs out in the vicinity of the proposed site access on to Tanton Road, and given the short distance

between the access and the junction of Tanton Road with B1365, it would be prudent to require this short stretch of highway to be provided with street

lighting to offset the increased usage of this part of the highway network. Improvements to the footpath running south from the site towards the town centre would help to encourage greater use. [Conditions 23, 24 and 25]

Community Infrastructure Levy Contributions

99. The Council’s Community Infrastructure Charging Schedule came into effect

in April 2015. It applies to market housing at a rate of £55 per square metre and by way of estimate would yield over £500,000.

Stokesley Neighbourhood Plan

100. The National Planning Policy Framework confirms that ‘Neighbourhood planning

provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right

types of development for their community’. The community is in the early stages of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan with a public consultation event due to take place on 6 June 2015. No formal documents were drawn to my

attention.



Conclusion

101. Having considered these and all other matters raised I find nothing of sufficient materiality to lead me to a different conclusion. The appeal is

therefore allowed subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

David MH Rose

Inspector



SCHEDULE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS (1 – 25)

APPROVAL OF DETAILS

1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the dwellings (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be submitted to and approved

in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

2) Details of the finished floor levels of the dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

3) The development hereby permitted shall comprise no more than 226 dwellings.

4) The development shall be carried out in general accordance with the details shown on the Development Framework Plan, drawing number 2013-033-100-02 Rev D and the Design and Access Statement – February 2013.

5) Access to and within the development shall be carried out in full accordance with the details shown on the Access Plans – 3065/SK001/001 and

3065/SK001/002 before the occupation of the first dwelling on the site.

TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION

6) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than 18 months from the date of this

permission.

7) The development shall be begun either before the expiration of:

(a) 18 months from the date of this permission; or (b) 12 months from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters

to be approved, whichever is the later.

PHASING

8) Prior to commencement of development a scheme outlining the phasing of

development (the ‘phasing scheme’), including a site layout plan identifying land uses such as formal and informal open space, hard and soft landscaping, pedestrian and cyclist access routes and infrastructure, shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing

scheme.

LANDSCAPING

9) The reserved matters application for landscaping shall be accompanied by a detailed Landscape Masterplan and Strategy (in substantial accordance with

the Framework Plan 2013-033-100-02 Rev D) to demonstrate that the landscaping proposals have taken account of, and been informed by, the

existing landscape characteristics of the site and by any loss of existing vegetation on the site. The Landscape Masterplan and Strategy, following its approval by the Local Planning Authority, shall be implemented in

accordance with the phasing details approved under condition 8 above.



AFFORDABLE HOUSING

10) The development shall not begin until a scheme for the provision of

affordable housing as part of the development (the ‘affordable housing scheme’) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. The affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the approved affordable housing scheme and shall meet the definition of affordable housing in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework

or any future guidance that replaces it.

The affordable housing scheme shall include:

(a) the numbers, size, type, tenure and location on the site of the

affordable housing provision which shall consist of not less than 50% of the overall total number of housing units on the site. The

affordable housing provision shall comprise either houses or bungalows and shall accord with the Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (and/or any additional or

successive relevant planning policy document adopted by the Council); (b) a timetable for the delivery of the affordable housing and its phasing

in relation to the occupancy of the market housing which shall provide for the final affordable unit to be made available for occupation before

the occupation of the 100th open market dwelling on site;

(c) the arrangements for the transfer of the affordable housing to an

affordable housing provider and these arrangements shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (and/or any additional or

successive relevant planning policy document adopted by the Council). The arrangements shall ensure that such provision is affordable for

both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and (d) the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of

occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced.

HOUSING MIX

11) At least 5% of the dwellings hereby permitted, both market and affordable, shall comprise 2 bedroom bungalows.

CONSTRUCTION METHOD STATEMENT

12) No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has

been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority; and the approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction

period. The statement shall provide for:

(a) the hours of work;

(b) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

(c) loading and unloading of plant and materials;

(d) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;



(e) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;

(f) wheel washing facilities;

(g) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; (h) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction

works; (i) means of protection of trees and hedgerows during site preparation

and construction; and

(j) access arrangements for emergency vehicles during the construction phase.

SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE

13) No development shall take place until details of the implementation,

maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

This sustainable drainage scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. The details of the scheme shall include:

(a) a timetable for its implementation; and

(b) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by

any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

FOUL DRAINAGE

14) No development shall take place until details of foul water drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority. No building shall be occupied until the drainage works required for that building have been implemented in accordance with the approved details. The approved foul water drainage works shall be retained and

managed thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

ARCHAEOLOGY

15) No development shall take place within the application site until a written

scheme of archaeological investigation, including the methodology of further investigation works and a programme for the works to be undertaken (the ‘archaeological scheme’), has been submitted to and approved in writing by

the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed archaeological scheme.



GROUND CONTAMINATION

16) No part of the development shall be commenced on site unless and until:

(a) a site investigation has been designed for the site using the

information obtained from the desktop investigation (Preliminary Risk Assessment (Phase 1 Desk Study) LKC 13 1131 – February 2014. This shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority prior to the investigation being carried out on site; (b) the site investigation and associated risk assessment have been

undertaken in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and

(c) a method statement and remediation strategy, based on the

information obtained from (b) above, including a programme of works,

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation strategy.

BIODIVERSITY

17) Before development commences detailed proposals for the incorporation of features into the scheme suitable for use by breeding birds (including swifts

and house sparrows) and protected species including a timetable for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposals shall be installed in accordance with the

approved details and timetable and retained thereafter.

18) Before any development or other operations commence, and within one

month of the planned commencement of works, an assessment of the trees on the site for bat roosts shall be undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist. A copy of the assessment report shall be submitted to the Local Planning

Authority and any necessary mitigation plan shall be approved, implemented (and if necessary maintained in consultation with Natural England) and confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

19) No tree/shrub clearance works shall be carried out on the site between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, in any year, unless the site has been

surveyed within that period for breeding birds and a scheme to protect breeding birds is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If such a breeding bird protection scheme is submitted and

approved the development shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

BOUNDARY TREATMENTS

20) No part of the existing boundary hedges of the site shall be uprooted or removed or reduced in height to a height below 1.5 metres (except for access) other than in accordance with details that have been submitted to,

and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.



SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

21) At least 10% of the energy supply of the development shall be secured from

decentralised and renewable sources or otherwise through design measures. Details of a timetable of how this is to be achieved, including

details of physical works on site, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority as part of the reserved matters submissions. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with

the approved timetable and retained thereafter.

PROVISION OF ON-SITE AMENITY SPACE, CHILDREN’S PLAY AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S FACILITIES

22) The development hereby approved shall not begin until arrangements

(including a timetable for implementation and management plan) for the provision of on-site amenity space, children’s play and young people’s facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. The on-site amenity space, children’s play and young people’s facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved

arrangements and the future management transferred to a management company to be managed in perpetuity.

TRAVEL PLAN

23) No dwelling in the development hereby approved shall be occupied until a Travel Plan based on the Framework Travel Plan (‘the Travel Plan’)

accompanying the application has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall include the objectives, targets, mechanisms and measures to achieve the targets, implementation

timescales, provision for monitoring, and arrangements for a Travel Plan co-ordinator, who shall be in place until 5 years after the completion of the final phase of development. The approved plan shall be audited and updated and

submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority at intervals no greater than 18 months. The measures contained within the

approved plan and any approved modifications shall be carried out in full.

STREET LIGHTING

24) No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme, previously submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, for the extension of the street lighting system between the site access on to Tanton Road and the

junction of Tanton Road with B1365 has been implemented in accordance with the approved details.

STOKESLEY FOOTPATH 10.140/2/2

25) Development shall not commence until a survey and scheme for footpath surfacing works to Footpath Ref No:10.140/2/2 running northwards from

North Road, passing to the east of Neasham House Farm to the development boundary, as shown on Drawing Stokesley Footpath 10.140/2/2, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The

scheme shall be completed prior to the occupation of the first dwelling on the site.

0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0



APPEARANCES


Jonathan Easton (of Counsel)

Assisted by Constanze Bell (of Counsel)

Instructed by Legal Services Department

Hambleton District Council

They called

Robin Miller BA (Hons)

Understanding Data Ltd

Andrew McCormack BSc, MRTPI

Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader Hambleton District Council

Mark Harbottle BSc, MRTPI

Head of Planning and Housing

Hambleton District Council

FOR THE APPELLANT:

John Barrett (of Counsel)

Instructed by Mark Johnson

Johnson Brook Limited

He called

Darren Wisher BA, MA Econ

Director Regeneris Consulting

Mark Johnson BSc, MRTPI, MRICS

Managing Director

Johnson Brook Planning and Development Consultants

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Councillor Andy Wake District Councillor and Chairman of Stokesley Parish Council

Susan O’Donoghue Keep Stokesley Special

Councillor Stewart Brennan CEng FIMechE

Parish Councillor

Councillor Bryn Griffiths County and District Councillor

Graeme Tweddle Local Resident

Councillor Ian Blakemore Parish Councillor

Councillor Sean Carey Parish Councillor

Reverend Paul Huchinson Rector of Stokesley and school governor



DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

JB/HDC/01 Huby Appeal Decisions – APP/G2713/A/13/2194376 –

APP/G2713/A/13/2194410

JB/HDC/02 Nomis – Unemployment Data

JB/HDC/03 Johnson Brook – 5YHLS Sheet (Dated 29/05/2015)

JB/HDC/04 Extract from Barton Willmore - Huby Addendum Proof of Evidence

(Feb 2015)

JB/HDC/05 Easingwold – Edge Analytics (Dr P Bowden – October 2014) PoE

JB/HDC/06 Great Ayton – Edge Analytics (Dr P Bowden – January 2015) PoE

JB/HDC/07 HDC Briefing Note – 2010/11 – 2014/15 Permissions V Completions (28/05/15)

JB/HDC/08 HDC Briefing Note – IPGN and other Policy on Windlfalls

(29/05/2015)

JB/HDC/09 Johnson Brook - Hambleton Housing Requirement and Supply

Speaking Note (03/06/2015)

JB/HDC/10 Harrogate BC – SHMA Extract (Feb 2015)

JB/HDC/11 Judgement – Crane Vs SOS – [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin)

JB/HDC/12 HDC Affordable Housing SPD Adopted 7 April 2015 - Extract

JB/HDC/13 Update to Appendix 3 of McCormack’s Proof – Note on Windfall

Allowance

JB/HDC/14 Adopted Interim Policy Guidance (2015)

JB/HDC/15 HDC – Five Year Supply Windfall Allowance – Stokesley Sub Area at 398 OAN and at 454 OAN.

JB/HDC/16 Cleveland Lodge Letter – Prospect (14th Jan 2015)

JB/HDC/17 HDC – Cleveland Lodge Letter (NLP March 2015)

JB/HDC/18 Hambleton Committee Report Extract – 2nd December 2014 – Settlement Hierarchy and Housing Development in the Rural Areas

– Draft Interim Policy Guidance Note

JB/HDC/19 Email from GDL to JB – Anticipated Delivery Schedule of Stokesley

Site (04/06/2015)

JB/HDC/20 Stanton Under Bardon Appeal Decision – APP/K2420/A/13/2200224

JB/HDC/21 Burton-Upon-Trent SOS Recovered Appeal Decision – APP/B3410/A/13/2197299

JB/HDC/22 Fairford Appeal Decision – PP/F1610/A/14/2213318

JB/HDC/23 Natural England Technical Information Note – Agricultural Land

Classification

JB/HDC/24 Susan O’Donoghue (for Keep Stokesley Special) – Flooding

Concerns

JB/HDC/25 Stewart Brennan (for Keep Stokesley Special)



JB/HDC/26 Bryn Griffiths – Potential Road Traffic Issues

JB/HDC/27 Graeme Tweddle – Residential Travel Plan Statement

JB/HDC/28 Ian Blakemore Written Submission

JB/HDC/29 Sean Carey – Historic Flooding Photographs

JB/HDC/30 Joint Note and Spreadsheet on Five Year Supply – 05/06/2015

JB/HDC/31 PPG Paragraph 35 – 3-035-20140306

JB/HDC/32 SOS Appeal Decisions – APP/R0660/A/13/2197532 and APP/R0660/A/13/2197529

JB/HDC/33 CIL contributions note from HDC

JB/HDC/34 Letter to PINS from Rishi Sunak, MP for Richmond

JB/HDC/35 Photograph – site levels (Susan O’Donoghue)

JB/HDC/36 Additional/amended conditions 22 and 25

JB/HDC/37 Opening Points on behalf of the Local Planning Authority

JB/HDC/38 Opening on behalf of the appellant

JB/HDC/39 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Local Planning Authority

JB/HDC/40 Closing on behalf of the appellant

JB/HDC/41 Statement of Common Ground

JB/HDC/42 Letter of notification and list of persons notified

JB/HDC/43 List of sites: Timescale from initial planning permission to site start

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE INQUIRY19

JB/HDC/44 Planning Appeal Decision: Land off Station Road, Great Ayton (APP/G2713/A/14/2218137)

JB/HDC/45 Correspondence from Hambleton District Council dated 22 & 30 July and 20 August 2015

JB/HDC/46 Correspondence from Johnson Brook dated 22 & 28 July and 25

August 2015

19 See paragraph 3 of decision



APPENDIX 11

HEREFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY: INSPECTOR’S REPORT

Report to Herefordshire Council

by Christine Thorby MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date 29 September 2015


SECTION 20

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE

THE HEREFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN

CORE STRATEGY 2011 - 2031

Document submitted for examination on 23 September 2014

Examination hearings held between 10 February and 25 February 2015

File Ref: PINS/W1850/429/3

2

Abbreviations Used in this Report AA CS

Appropriate Assessment Submission Core Strategy May 2014

DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government DPD Development Plan Document DtC Duty to Co-operate HC HRR

Herefordshire Council Hereford Relief Road

HMA Housing Market Area LDS Local Development Scheme MM NMP NP NPPF

Main Modification Nutrient Management Plan Neighbourhood Plan National Planning Policy framework

OAN PPG

Objectively Assessed Need Planning Practice Guidance

SA Sustainability Appraisal SCI Statement of Community Involvement SCS Sustainable Community Strategy SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment UEA SUE

Urban Expansion Area Sustainable Urban Extension

WMS Written Ministerial Statement

Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy, Inspector’s Report September 2015

3


This report concludes that the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011- 2031 Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the District, providing a number of modifications are made to the plan. Herefordshire Council has specifically requested me to recommend any modifications necessary to enable the plan to be adopted. All of the modifications to address this were proposed by the Council but where necessary I have amended detailed wording and I have recommended their inclusion after considering the representations from other parties on these issues. The Main Modifications can be summarised as follows:

• Removal of waste and minerals policies and associated explanatory text and add information about the preparation of a waste and minerals plan;

• Replacement policy and new appendices addressing the relationship between critical infrastructure, delivery and monitoring;

• Revised housing trajectory to provide more detail and up-to-date figures to assist with monitoring;

• Modifications to numerous policies to ensure that they are not restrictive/prescriptive or to provide clarity/flexibility;

• Changes to wind power development and housing standards policies to reflect recent written ministerial statements from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government;

• Changes to retail and affordable housing thresholds; • Modifications to clarify the roles of neighbourhood plans and other

development plan documents; • Changes to numerous policies to update the wording to be consistent with

national policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.


4

Introduction 1. This report contains my assessment of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core

Strategy 2011- 2031 (CS) in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied with the duty to co-operate, in recognition that there is no scope to remedy any failure in this regard. It considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements. The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 182) makes clear that to be sound, a Local Plan should be positively prepared; justified; effective and consistent with national policy.

2. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The basis for my examination is the submitted, Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011 – 2031, pre-submission publication May 2014 which is the same as the document published for consultation in May 2014.

3. My report deals with the main modifications that are needed to make the Plan sound and legally compliant and they are identified in bold in the report (MM). In accordance with section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act the Council requested that I should make any modifications needed to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound/not legally compliant and thus incapable of being adopted. These main modifications are set out in the Appendix.

4. The Main Modifications that are necessary for soundness all relate to matters that were discussed at the Examination hearings. Following these discussions, the Council prepared a schedule of proposed main modifications and carried out sustainability appraisal where necessary and this schedule has been subject to public consultation for six weeks. I have taken account of the consultation responses in coming to my conclusions in this report and in this light I have made amendments and some additions to the detailed wording of the main modifications. None of these amendments significantly alters the content of the modifications as published for consultation such that they undermine the participatory processes and sustainability appraisal that has been undertaken. Where necessary I have highlighted these amendments in the report. Other modifications arising after the consultation on the Main Modifications are minor and are a matter for the Council.


5

Assessment of Soundness 5. The following is a list of background documents which accompanied the CS

that are relevant to the plan as a whole.

6. The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) [A6] was adopted by the Council in March 2007. It sets out a framework which identifies how and when the Council will consult in the preparation of future planning documents including the CS. The preparation of the CS has followed the consultation principles established in the SCI. In addition, the Statement of Consultation [A11] brings together and summarises the consultation process undertaken by the Council on the CS from 2007 up to the publication of the final publication document in September 2014.

7. Some representors expressed concern about consultation; however, the preparation of the CS has followed the consultation principles established in the SCI. There were also concerns about the submission of statements of common ground and other documents received during the hearing sessions. However, these related to matters already under consideration and the statements of common ground were very helpful as part of the on-going consideration of soundness of the plan. I am satisfied that the preparation of the CS has followed the consultation principles established in the SCI.

8. The CS has been subject to Sustainability Assessment (SA)[A4] throughout its preparation up to the time of the Hearing. In addition the Main Modifications were subject to a further Addendum SA. The Council’s evidence base demonstrates that different options and alternatives have been addressed at all of the relevant stages. The SA identifies the process, including the final submission SA (and the subsequent addendum April 2015 relating to the main modifications). At each stage of its development the emerging CS policies were assessed against SA objectives, and consideration was given as to whether and how the policies would further the objectives. The SA was subject to consultation in the same way as the CS. There is nothing to suggest that the SA was undertaken other than in accordance with the Regulations. The conclusion of the SA, up to and including the Main Modifications, is that the CS is robust in terms of its sustainability. Its policies provide certainty and clarity. Taking all of the above matters together, the CS has been subject to an adequate Sustainability Appraisal.

9. Similar conclusions apply in respect of the work carried out on the Council’s behalf in relation to the Habitats Regulations Assessment/Appropriate Assessment (HRA/AA) [A5] and Addendum for the Main Modifications, given that necessary amendments were made to draft stages of the plan, prior to the submission version. Taking into account the advice from relevant consultees, notably Natural England and the Environment Agency, I consider that the plan has been subject to a legally compliant and adequate HRA.

10. On 1 December 2014 an assistant Inspector, Elizabeth Ord LLB(Hons), LLM, MA, DipTUS, was appointed to examine the CS waste and minerals (MW) policies. The assistant Inspector wrote to the Council on 25 January 2015 advising them of her concerns about the MW policies and associated text. These related to a lack of evidence that strategic issues such as cross boundary movements, meeting needs and shared sites had been co-ordinated


6

with surrounding Councils; a lack of strategic information about targets, standards, capacity and overall scale of development in the CS; an aging evidence base which did not take account of current national policy; the lack of a clear vision, objective and spatial strategy for MW, and finally, that the strategy for the supply of minerals and the provision of waste management facilities was inadequate.

11. To remedy the numerous weaknesses of the MW section would require significant amendments to the evidence base, the MW policies and related text, and result in very different document to that which has been submitted with a considerable time delay. In order for the submission plan to be sound MM01 is proposed, deleting the waste and minerals policies, the supporting text and any reference to the policies throughout the plan. Herefordshire Council set out updates to the LDS [IN7] which includes a timescale for the delivery of a separate Minerals and Waste Local Plan to be submitted for examination in 2016.

Assessment of Duty to Co-operate 12. Section s20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the Council

complied with any duty imposed on them by section 33A of the 2004 Act in relation to the Plan’s preparation.

13. The Council has prepared a ‘Duty to Co-operate Statement’ [A12] which summarises how the Council has co-operated with other Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) and with the additional bodies prescribed in Regulation 4 of the 2012 Regulations.

14. The sections on minerals and waste are brief, with limited evidence of cross boundary co-operation and I have addressed this in paragraphs 10 and 11 of my report. For the remaining policies, the Council has worked well with all the neighbouring authorities during the preparation of the CS. The level of involvement with the different authorities has varied according to the issues raised. Details of a range of meetings, discussions and other means of communication are set out in detail in DtC document [A12]. As an outcome, it is clear that there are no strategic cross boundary issues that need to be resolved. It is clear that there has been positive and constructive engagement with surrounding authorities.

15. In relation to the relevant Regulation 4 bodies, all relevant bodies have been

engaged - some in more detail than others, dependant on the extent of their involvement in the Plan’s infrastructure proposals. Again, details of the means of engagement are set out in document A12. The Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis. Taking the plan as a whole, I conclude that the CS complies with the legal DtC in the Act.

Main Issues

16. Taking account of all the representations, written evidence and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings I have identified eleven main issues upon which the soundness of the Plan depends.


7

Issue 1 – Whether the overall spatial strategy is soundly based and does it present a clear spatial vision for the county, appropriate to the needs of the area, consistent with national policies?

17. The spatial vision (chapter 3) seeks sustainable development based on fostering a high quality of life for those who live and work in Herefordshire whilst protecting the distinct areas of character within the county. The strategy seeks to achieve this by ensuring an appropriate balance between improving the quality of life, gaining economic prosperity for all and the protection of the county’s environmental assets. At the highest level, this is a clear and appropriate vision.

18. A series of vision statements and twelve objectives support the spatial vision. They are focussed around the role of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). They put forward social, economic and environmental aims, identifying the relevant CS policies under each strand aimed to deliver a sustainable outcome for the plan. MM04 is proposed adding a new objective relating to the importance of land based industries and agriculture to the economic prosperity of the county. This is important as it clarifies and supports the objectives of policies SS5, RA6 and E1. Policy SS1 sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

19. The spatial strategy builds upon the existing settlement pattern with most new housing and employment directed towards the city of Hereford, the largest settlement in the county where many of the major services and facilities are located. Leominster, the county’s second main market town, will also be the focus of large scale strategic housing development in recognition of its economic importance and good public transport links. Development in the smaller, most sustainable, market towns, reflects their roles, needs, opportunities and development constraints and will assist in meeting the aims of the plan. Herefordshire is a mainly rural county and in recognition of the dispersed settlement pattern almost a third of the all housing is directed through small scale development towards villages in rural areas. The Council’s studies [C30, C31, C32] indicates that this is a reasonable approach, as it will help to sustain and develop rural services and communities, and meet identified local need. The infrastructure required to support growth throughout the county has been considered in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan [C29] and this is addressed in more detail later in this report.

20. One of the key strategic provisions of the CS is to locate new housing for Hereford and the market towns on large green field UEAs (Urban Expansion Area) and strategic sites recognising that the SHLAA and other studies [B20g, C25a and C30] show there is insufficient capacity on brownfield land to meet needs. Although large strategic sites can take some time to deliver the quantity of housing sought, this is a long term approach for the plan period, which has been carefully considered throughout preparation of the Plan, looking at the SHLAA, other options and all reasonable alternatives, and following appropriate consultation. The large scale sites offer long term co-ordinated growth, where social and transport infrastructure meeting the needs of the new residents can be delivered in a comprehensive manner. The same conclusions would not apply to a more dispersed pattern of new housing growth incorporating smaller schemes across the county. The Council has demonstrated through the SHLAA, SA and consideration of other sites put


8

forward following consultation of the Draft CS/preferred options stages of the plan, that the location of the strategic sites has been carefully considered over a long period of time, in line with national policy and guidance. Other sites put forward were less sustainable, were of greater landscape sensitivity, had greater infrastructure demands or were not preferred by locals, and those in the plan are, therefore, the best options for the county.

21. The impacts and the benefits of the approach have been addressed in the evidence and I am satisfied that the CS represents a reasonable and pragmatic spatial strategy for Herefordshire over the next 20 years in order to achieve the sustainable growth objectives of the plan.

Is there sufficient information in the plan to guide development and does the plan leave critical decisions to other documents?

22. Larger, strategic sites - UEAs and sustainable urban extensions (SUEs) - are identified by broad locations in the plan with no site boundary and they are not precise allocations. Whilst I was initially concerned that there was insufficient detail to identify and bring forward sites, it became clear during the examination that there was considerable owner/developer interest in the strategic sites and the Housing Land Supply position statement (March 2014) showed that many had progressed to a pre-application stage. In addition, each of the sites has a specific policy related to it, identifying the approximate quantum of the various uses, with more details to be provided, if necessary, by a masterplan. The CS policies retain a degree of flexibility whilst giving sufficient detail at this strategic stage to assist in bringing forward the key sites. As the anticipated development will come forward throughout the plan period including the middle/late period, I am satisfied that the plan gives sufficient certainty and clarity at this stage to facilitate development.

23. While the strategic sites are identified, the location of the remaining smaller

scale sites for houses and employment for the market towns and rural villages will mostly be established through neighbourhood plans (NP). In this respect the Council have made good progress, and the Neighbourhood Planning Update [PS47] showed that four of the five market towns and between 65 – 75% of the rural villages identified for growth in the process of producing their own plans at the time of the hearing. The trajectory shows that some of these plans could be at the submission stage by April 2016. The CS identifies where Development Plan Documents (DPDs) will be prepared by the Council for areas not covered by NPs. MM02 adds a necessary commitment and monitoring timescale to bring forward sites in the rural area in a Rural Area Site Allocation Development Plan Document where there is no NP forthcoming.

24. MM02 also sets out that all of the policies in the Plan are strategic in that they contribute to the strategic aims of the CS. While representors were concerned that this would reduce flexibility for NPs, I agree that each of the policies in the Plan delivers one of the strategic priorities in the NPPF. There is no evidence to demonstrate that any of the policies are unrelated to these, or that NPs would be unduly restricted in their remit. MM02 is necessary in the interests of clarity and to assist in the NP process, consistent with the aim of NPPF paragraph 16 that NPs should support the strategic development needs of the plan.


9

25. Overall, the spatial strategy is consistent with national policy and guidance and is based on a sound and thorough analysis of the current situation in the county, as demonstrated in the comprehensive and detailed evidence base.

Issue 2 – Whether the approach to the provision of housing is positively prepared, is appropriate to the needs of the area is soundly based and consistent, with national policy?

Objectively assessed needs for housing and the housing target

26. Herefordshire is a relatively self-contained county and there is a consensus that the county boundary broadly represents a single strategic market housing area. There is no evidence of unmet need from other local authorities and I am satisfied that evidence set out in the West Midlands Strategic Housing Market Area 2009 (SHMA), the Herefordshire Local Housing Market Assessment 2013 (HLMA) [C26] demonstrates this. Although the SHMA dates from 2009, the evidence has been reviewed in both the HLMA and the Council’s Local Housing Requirements Study (LHRS) 2014 [J3].

27. Policy SS2 seeks the delivery of a minimum of 16,500 homes in Herefordshire in the plan period which equates to 825 dwellings per annum (dpa). The Council’s evidence base for housing provision is set out in the LHMA. The update uses the standard methodology for determining housing need set out in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

28. The 2014 study arrives at an Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for

Herefordshire of between 15,400 and 16,200 (770 – 810 dpa) homes over the plan period. The lower end of 15,400 is based on the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2012-based Sub-National Population Projections. The official 2008-based projections indicate household growth of 714 homes per annum; whilst the 2011-based interim projections indicate a need for 801 homes per annum. Looking at projected growth and household formation rate trends, the 2014 LHRS concludes that a part return to the 2008 projection would be appropriate, leading to a figure of around 735 households per year.

29. The LHRS takes into account long term migration trends, market signals,

household formation rates, rate of development and demand, commuting rates and includes an allowance for vacant and second homes (informed by the 2011 census). Some small upward adjustments are made to the figures in the light of these factors, but generally, they have a limited impact on the range set out in the DCLG projected figures.

30. The LHRS looks at a range of economic growth projections including studies

showing some 7,500 to around 9,000 new jobs are forecast using Experion and Oxford economics trend data (sensitivity tested with the higher spring 2014 figures) and this indicates that a higher level of housing might be necessary to support growth in employment [J3, section 3]. A range of scenarios have been modelled with a prediction of some 721 – 775 dpa to be necessary to meet housing need associated with economic growth. The economic policies of the plan have been considered with a focus on improving and promoting employment and an uplift to 16,200 homes which is higher than the modelled figures would appear sufficient to meet housing associated with economic growth. Representors suggest a cautious approach to the


10

figure in the light of the Marches Local Enterprise Plan’s higher predicted growth.

31. The Marches Local Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan

(LHRS)[J3] identifies a higher number of potential jobs in the LEP area, pointing to areas such as the service sector, tourism and leisure where there are opportunities for growth. However, it covers three LPAs and the Plan does not make clear how the jobs could be split within the Local Authorities covered by the Marches LEP, including how many are thought to be needed in Herefordshire. Whilst I am satisfied that the Council’s estimate is reasonable and justified, the final housing figure of 16,500 (825 dpa) has included an upward adjustment to cope with potentially greater employment growth should this arise.

Affordable housing

32. The LHMA considers the levels of need and supply of affordable housing. This takes account of information on housing costs and earnings, as well as the numbers of households and flows onto the housing register. A total affordable housing need for 3,457 homes is identified across Herefordshire over the 2012-17 period. This is equivalent to 691 dpa. The LHRS realistically indicates that having regard to the demographic and employment led projections, previous rates for the provision of affordable housing and the viability of new development in Herefordshire, building affordable homes at rate of 691dpa is highly unlikely to be achieved.

33. If the current need is distributed over the plan period to 2031, the annual housing need would fall to 369 homes per annum (2012-2031). Although it increases the time over which the affordable housing need would be met it is a more realistic assumption of what could be achieved. The study makes further adjustments to take into account concealed households and household formation rates (to see if they recover in the longer term). An adjustment is made to improve affordability (responding to market signals), and the LHRS reasonably concludes that the top end of 16,200 (810dpa) would help to meet the affordable housing need over the plan period.

34. However, a further upward adjustment is proposed to take into account the possibility of a greater economic uplift than forecast and this would help to increase the supply of affordable housing. The LHRS demonstrates that an overall figure of 16,500 (an uplift of between 2 – 7%) would boost the supply of housing and is a robust figure for the housing target.

35. During the course of the examination DCLG released the 2012-based

household projections (published in February 2015). The projections indicate a more modest growth in households; the projections equating to household need of 14,200 homes (710 dpa) over the 2011-31 plan period. As the figures post-date the 2014 LHRS, the Council re-assessed the 2012 projections against all previous assumptions. They concluded that the latest household projections were not so dissimilar as to warrant a change to the OAN or net final housing figure. I am satisfied that retaining the housing target of 16,500 would be appropriate, and the target figure would be realistic and sufficient to provide for housing needs in Herefordshire.


11

36. In addition, to assist with the provision of affordable housing and boost the supply of housing for Hereford, the market towns and the rural areas within the CS are subject to MMs expressing them as a minimum. Settlement boundaries are to be defined in the NPs and DPDs for Hereford and Bromyard and the CS takes a positive approach to encourage housing development.

37. Policy H1 sets thresholds and targets for affordable housing for new

development. The policy identifies a range of 25-40% of affordable housing varying between different areas in the county taking into account the housing needs of the different market areas and the viability of development. This is justified by the LHMA, the Rural Area Issues Paper and the whole plan viability assessment. The percentages sought for the strategic sites reflect the levels set out in policy H1.

38. A new national threshold for affordable housing was introduced in a written ministerial statement (WMS) in November 2014. MM042 modified the submission plan policy H1 threshold to that of the WMS setting a new threshold of sites of more than 10 dwellings which have a maximum floor space of more than 1000 square metres. However, following a judgment in the High Court on 31 July 2015 (West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin) the High Court issued a Declaration Order on 4 August 2015 confirming that for various reasons the policies in the WMS must not be treated as a material consideration.

39. While the WMS thresholds no longer carry weight, the examination of the CS was based on the modified policy. The modified threshold formed the basis of supplementary evidence considering viability (Herefordshire viability testing supplementary report Feb 2015) the effect on the provision of affordable housing throughout the county and was consulted upon. The policy, as modified would be effective and bring forward affordable housing, although less so in the rural areas than the submission policy. However, as the submission policy was not tested during the examination I find MM042 necessary to ensure that the Plan has a viable and sound affordable housing policy. If the Council wish to return to the submission policy they have the option of carrying out an early Plan review for policy H1.

40. There has been low housing growth in Herefordshire since at least 2008 as set out in the LHRS [J3] and the percentage of affordable housing identified in policy H1 is the result of balancing affordable housing against other strategic aims of the plan, including the development of large sites and associated social and transport infrastructure. In the circumstances, the approach to affordable housing is the reasonable and realistic and will bring forward much needed affordable housing.

Mix and range of houses (other than affordable housing)

41. Policy H3 would bring forward the type and range of housing to meet local needs, providing a flexible and responsive approach. This is supported by a number of documents. MM044 adds necessary details to the policy explaining how it would be applied to make it effective. The NPs and Development Plan Documents for Hereford, Bromyard and the Rural Areas would also have appropriate policies to address the issues of type and mix of new homes for


12

specific areas. MM06 adds a reference to the explanatory text for policy SS2 explaining how individual or group self-build projects would be supported to comply with national guidance. MM03 adds clarity on Community Right to Build. Traveller sites

42. At the time of the examination there were 34 Gypsy and Traveller sites with a

total of 114 pitches, four tolerated sites with 21 pitches [PS55a]. The submission CS does not identify five years’ worth of sites for travellers against locally set targets. However, alongside the CS the Council is preparing a Traveller’s Sites Development Plan Document [PS4b] which they commit to producing quickly. The LDS (2015) [PS5] shows adoption in 2016 to ensure that it would not lag far behind the CS. The issues and options version and SA [PS4c] has been out to consultation and the Council are in the process of identifying land. They provided evidence of cross boundary co-operation on the document [PS40] and an up-to-date and comprehensive draft Traveller and Showperson Accommodation Assessment was completed in February 2015 [PS55a/b], as part of the evidence base for the Traveller Sites DPD. This showed that from 2014 to the end of the plan period some 33 traveller pitches, 8 showperson plots and 3 transit pitches would be needed. This has yet to be examined, but a five year land supply for traveller sites would be identified in the document as well as deliverable sites for the next 15 years.

43. To ensure that the Council can meet the needs of travellers until the DPD is adopted, policy H4 for travellers’ sites is modified by MM045. The modification deletes all restrictive or prescriptive wording and introduces a supportive policy. The MM makes clear that planning applications do not have to provide evidence of need. The MM introduces criteria which seek to ensure that sites are appropriate for travellers by enabling mixed uses and promoting sites with good access to facilities. The MM is necessary to make the policy effective and sound. Policies H4 and Policy H2 enable small sites to be used specifically for affordable traveller’s accommodation, to be considered as rural exceptions in small rural communities.

44. The Council had made reasonable progress with the DPD at the time of the hearing, and policy H4 is flexible and positively worded. Nevertheless, the Council must make the submission and adoption of a Travellers’ Site DPD a key priority in order to plan effectively for the needs of the travelling community and meet the requirements of National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty. Although the lack of sites within the CS is not ideal, holding up the CS at this stage for completion of the DPD would delay major development coming forward on the strategic sites, and, because the Travellers’ Sites DPD is identified to come forward soon the Council’s approach would be reasonable.

45. Overall, the approach to the provision of housing is consistent with national policy and guidance, is based on a sound and thorough analysis of the current situation in the county, as demonstrated in the comprehensive and detailed evidence base.


13

Issue 3 - Whether the approach towards the supply and delivery of housing land is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy?

Housing land supply targets and the five year housing land supply

46. The spatial/development strategy rightly seeks to steer the majority of development to the key settlements and strategic sites which would provide access to jobs, services and public transport. The distribution of new housing and development proposed is appropriate, given the economies of scale/concentration of new infrastructure that is likely to assist delivery, particularly of the strategic sites. In recognition of the longer lead in times for the SUEs/UEAs and larger strategic sites, which could provide around a third of the housing, it is clear that more homes will be delivered in the middle and late stages of the plan. The CS indicative trajectory for expected completions shows a greater proportion of homes being delivered later on in the plan period. To address this, the Council considered various options in the Revised Preferred Option Background Paper [B6b]. The CS proposes a stepped housing target (reflecting the expected delivery rates) of 600 dpa for the first five years of the plan (2011-2016), 850 dpa for years 6-10 (2016-2021), 900 dpa for years 11-15 (2021-2026) and 950 dpa for years 16-20 (2026-2031) as a means of addressing this in relation to delivery targets. I consider that a stepped target would be a likely and not unexpected consequence of this approach.

47. In addition, figures show that the market has been depressed with a shortfall of over 900 dwellings as of April 2014 identified in the Housing Land Supply document of October 2014 [PS1a]. Although there has been significant increase in the land supply position during 2014 – 2015 and increase in housing, delivery would take some time to achieve. The target figures do not seek to constrain development which should come forward as soon as possible, but I accept that the stepped target would be realistic and a sound basis for monitoring and assessing land supply (including the five year housing land supply) throughout the plan period. In accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF to boost the supply of housing, a buffer of 20% would be appropriate for Herefordshire as there was a consensus that under delivery had been persistent from at least 2008 set out in the LHRS and housing position papers [PS1a and b]. To make clear the approach to the 5 year housing land supply, I have added wording to this effect to MM07.

48. During the examination the Council updated its position on the five year

housing supply with the Update to Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy Five Year Housing Land Supply, March 2015 [PH1]. The five year supply date was taken to be April 2014 (a reasonable date as the hearings took place in February 2015) – 31 March 2019. The stepped targets for these years were added together. The shortfall was added to the stepped target figure. Applying the 20% buffer (to the target plus the shortfall), a five year housing land supply could be demonstrated, albeit it with less than 5.5 years supply (see figure below). In this calculation the shortfall is spread over the five year housing period.


14

Extract from the Council’s Housing Land Supply Position Statement March 2015: This figure shows that with an indicative trajectory target and the shortfall being addressed over the forthcoming five years there would be a five year supply of housing land in the county: A Core Strategy 2011 – 2031 16500 B Core Strategy requirement 1800 Using indicative trajectories: 1/4/2011 – 1/4/2014 600 dpa C Homes Completed (net) 873 Net reduction includes demolitions and conversions 1/4/2011 – 31/3/2014 D Requirement for next five years 4000 using trajectories 15/16 – 600 pa (1yr) 16/17 – 19/20 – 850 pa (4yrs) E Plus Residual Shortfall 927 (over next five years as per PPG) F Plus 20% buffer 985 added after shortfall G Total Requirement 5912 H Annualised requirement 1182 I Total Deliverable dwellings 6201 J Housing Supply 5.24yrs

49. The Council’s preferred option is to spread the shortfall over the plan period which would, in addition to a stepped target, add a further delay to the provision of homes and would not be a proactive approach. Therefore, I conclude that for the CS to be positively prepared and for the five year housing land supply to be effective, the shortfall should be spread across the five year period. This approach would be consistent with the advice in the PPG.

50. Details of deliverable sites are contained with the Update to Herefordshire

Local Plan – Core Strategy Five Year Housing Land Supply [PH1] March 2015 document. Their assessment complies with advice in the PPG about whether sites are deliverable. The sites include the CS strategic housing sites where they can make a contribution, sites with planning permission or a resolution to grant planning permission, assessment of NP sites (based on the SHLAA, emerging NP allocations and an assessment of deliverability), previously allocated sites where they are considered deliverable, past housing completions and a windfall allowance. The windfall allowance is justified by a figures from past monitoring reports [B21a-f] showing a consistent level of windfalls throughout the county over many years. The HLS provides information about the UEAs and SUEs, including ownership and progress towards submitting a planning application, and there is convincing information that these sites could start to deliver housing within the 5 year period.

51. The five year housing land supply (PH1) is marginal but realistic and to

maintain this position the Council will have to closely monitor the sites shown on the indicative trajectory to deliver housing within the five year period, with appropriate action taken if the supply appears at risk. The way this will be undertaken to be effective is addressed in the paragraphs below.

Delivery

52. The reliance on larger sites coming forward later in the plan period is not without risk, particularly of delay in timing and the consequential failure to deliver the number of houses within the plan period. In this respect, one of the main concerns with the submitted Plan was the relationship between the supply and delivery of the strategic sites, critical infrastructure and/or the


15

impact on the environment. The CS identified three significant areas of risk: the proposed Hereford Relief Road (HRR); water infrastructure and the effect on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

53. Hereford Relief Road. The plan identifies a new strategic road, the Hereford

Relief Road, to be built to the west of the city to ensure there is capacity and mitigate the effect of transport on the town centre and the A49 trunk road which runs through Hereford, from the three Hereford UEAs (HD3, HD4 and HD5) and the Hereford City centre development (HD1 and HD2). There is support for the approach from Highways England and it is likely that funding towards the HRR would come forward through developer contributions where appropriate, and the HRR may be delivered during the plan period.

54. However, the HRR is not identified in the Council’s Local Transport Plan [C46a]

as planned infrastructure, the funding is not secure and it is not part of Highways England (HE) Road Investment Strategy for 2015 – 2020 (Statement of Common Ground between the Council and HE). The route has not been modelled or identified in detail and there is a high degree of uncertainty about whether the HRR is viable and can be achieved within the plan period. A key consideration for soundness of the plan is, therefore, whether the substantial growth identified for Hereford is deliverable.

55. Water Infrastructure. Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW), statutory undertakers

providing water and sewerage infrastructure, make clear that the existing infrastructure would not be sufficient to cope with the identified growth across the county. However, over the plan period DCWW indicate that their investment programmes, in combination with improvements funded/undertaken by developers could provide the required infrastructure. The whole plan viability study 2014 satisfactorily addresses the implications for housing development identified in the Plan and the role of the developer; nevertheless, a co-ordinated approach with DCWW is required as set out in the Statement of Common Ground and other studies [C50a, PS57 and PS59]and this could affect the timing and the deliverability of sites.

56. River Wye SAC. The River Wye SAC is vulnerable to phosphate loading which

could come from an increased flow of sewage into the rivers from a growth in housing in Leominster and the rural areas and from the location and construction of the HRR (place shaping policies LO1, LO2, RA1, RA2, RA6 and HD3). A Nutrient Management Plan November 2014 (NMP) [C51] has been produced by Natural England and the Environment Agency who have worked with the Council during preparation of the CS to manage planned growth and the effect on the SAC. The HRA May 2014 (updated in September 2014) [A5] concluded that an appropriate assessment (AA) was necessary and this was undertaken as part of the 2014 HRA. This concluded that having regard to mitigation measures required by CS place shaping and general policies, delivered in-combination with the measures set out in the NMP that there would not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC from the plan as a whole.

57. The AA[A5] conclusions on the SAC are based on delivery rates set out in the

trajectory for the achievement of the total housing target, and the related water cycle study, including water infrastructure improvements. At this stage the evidence shows that there would be no adverse effect; however, the level


16

of phosphates could be influenced throughout the plan period by a wide range of factors other than the Planned CS development. Although the NMP is an on-going programme addressing changes, the NPs and local area DPDs would require separate HRA’s as would any planning applications for the Hereford Relief Road and development coming forward in Leominster and the rural areas. The financial implications for mitigation have been satisfactorily assessed in the whole plan viability study; nevertheless a co-ordinated approach with DCWW, EA and NE is required and this could affect the timing and the deliverability of sites.

58. The submission Plan policy SS3 sought to deal with the identified risks to the

delivery of housing; however, the policy was worded in a negative way which would prevent or delay development if the critical infrastructure/mitigation measures were not in place. In addition, intervention strategies to address any delay were unclear and there was a lack of a site specific indicative trajectory, or targets and dates to monitor the delivery of development. The policy was unsound as it introduced a significant level of uncertainty about when and if the required housing could be delivered.

59. In order to ensure that the approach to supply, delivery and monitoring is

sound taking into account the aforementioned factors MM07 and MM065 (in part) introduces a combination of measures enabled by a new policy to effectively monitor progress and take action necessary to ensure the delivery of the housing target.

60. Firstly, it introduces an appendix (5) to the Plan with a table identifying the

necessary infrastructure, including links to the NMP, for each strategic site, and the date by which it is required. It identifies by number the amount of housing that can go ahead before the infrastructure becomes critical; it sets out a programme and key progressions points for the critical infrastructure so that progress can be monitored and it identifies what action will be taken if the delivery of infrastructure fails to progress as expected. Secondly, MM07 and MM065 introduce a revised, comprehensive trajectory (appendix 4) identifying all of the strategic sites, housing projected to come forward through NPs and local DPDs, and windfalls, against delivery for each year sufficient to meet the housing target of 16,500. Finally, a re-worded policy SS3 makes a commitment to annual monitoring against the revised housing trajectory, including the production of a policy monitoring document. It links a commitment to take action if critical infrastructure does not come forward as expected and it identifies measures to be undertaken if the housing falls below the projected target in any one year including identifying further land.

61. I am satisfied that this is a positive and flexible approach and the MMs are

necessary to ensure that development can go ahead where it meets the plan policies, that there is always a forward looking monitoring process to identify problems with the critical infrastructure programme long in advance of any difficulties arising and appropriate action can be taken to ensure targets are met.

62. Overall, the approach to the supply and delivery of housing is consistent with

national policy and guidance, is based on a sound and thorough analysis of the current situation in the county, as demonstrated in the comprehensive and detailed evidence base.


17

Issue 4 - Whether the approach to movement and transport is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

63. SS4 – movement and Transport, is a positively worded policy reflecting the

NPPF aim of promoting sustainable transport and facilitating sustainable development. It sits alongside and supports the wider CS approach to directing most development in the county to Hereford and the market towns to reduce unsustainable travel patterns. The policy identifies major transport infrastructure sought during the life of the plan as identified in a range of transport studies [C43a C47b]. The Edgar Street Grid Link Road is at an advanced stage and will support development of Hereford city centre. The HRR is mentioned, but I have dealt with the uncertainty of its delivery in the previous section of this report. Notwithstanding this, inclusion of the HRR in the policy would not be unsound as it remains a valid aim of the Council to bring this forward when possible as a means of improving the local transport network. Other infrastructure projects including the Leominster Relief road and park and choose/ride schemes would come forward as part of the development criteria of the UEAs/SUEs. MM08 clarifies the wording of the policy, identifies the role of NPs, adds that contributions must meet the statutory tests and sets out partner organisations involved in implementation of the policy in order for the policy to be effective.

64. General policy MT1 – traffic management, highway safety and promoting active travel, sets out criteria, based on a range of supporting documents, to ensure that the effect of traffic on the network and highway safety is minimised and mitigated where necessary. MM049 adds a reference to the use of travel plans to encourage active travel behaviour and clarifies some of the wording to make the policy effective.

65. Overall, the approach to the transport and movement has been positively

prepared and is consistent with national policy and guidance.

Issue 5 - Whether the approach to employment is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

66. The submitted Core Strategy policy SS5 seeks to provide 148 hectares (ha) of

employment over the plan period at an average of 7.4ha per annum with a continuous supply of 37ha over a five year period. This was based on the Employment Land Study (ELS) 2012 [C6a] which updated the earlier Employment Land Provision Background Paper Revised version March 2009 considering options based upon labour demand projections and past trends.

67. There is no direct link between job numbers and employment in the CS.

However, the HLRS makes clear that adjustments made to the past trend figures together with the aforementioned employment growth would ensure that the CS target of 148ha would be sufficient to meet employment needs during the plan period.

68. The Annual Land Monitoring Report 2014 [PS6] shows that some 61.5ha is

available from recent planning permissions, with new strategic sites within or adjacent to Hereford, Leominster, Ledbury and Ross-on-Wye providing a


18

further 50ha. The new employment sites have been subject to the Economic Land Viability Assessment and whole plan viability test [C8] and there are no physical constraints that would prevent the sites coming forward. The ELS shows that with continuing investment at Rotherwas, a large business park to the southeast of Hereford (designated as Enterprise Zone), sufficient land would be available to achieve the overall target. The Plan commits to a regular 3 – 5 year review of the ELS and identification of further land through either a Plan review or a further DPD if necessary. MM010 is necessary to make the policy effective as it links monitoring and review of the employment provision in policy SS5 to a new appendix (6), which provides the details and timescales for delivery.

69. Although there is some uncertainty about employment land coming forward

toward the end of the plan period, the ELS shows that there is a good range and quantity of employment land in the county mostly focussed on the existing urban areas, particularly Hereford and there are a number of larger rural employment sites outside of existing settlements where further employment land could be focussed.

70. The type of employment use is not limited in the CS for the strategic sites

(unless there is a site specific reason for doing so) nor are densities or plot ratios specified, in order to provide flexibility, choice and a locally responsive approach. Moreover, both the ELS and the HLRS predict that service sector jobs and agricultural diversity will represent the greatest increase and these would not necessarily be on identified employment land. In this regard MM09 adds a sentence to the explanatory paragraphs for policy SS5 recognising and supporting small business. The SA of the Pre-Submission Publication (May 2014) [A4] indicates that Policy SS5 (Employment Provision) is likely to have a significant positive effect on employment, skills and the sustainable economy by supporting the provision of an appropriate quantum of employment land.

71. Policy SS5 is supported by general policies E1, E2, E3 and E4 which set out the

way in which the Council will consider planning applications for new employment provision, criteria for when the loss of employment land may be acceptable, matters to be considered for homeworking and the promotion of tourism. MM050 and MM051 are necessary to remove figures and information from the explanatory text which are out of date and introduce changes to wording of the policy E2 to clarify the Council’s approach. MM052 removes overly prescriptive text to policy E4 to ensure it is flexible. The MMs are necessary to make the policies effective and consistent with the NPPF.

72. Overall, the approach to the provision of employment is based on a sound and

thorough analysis of the situation in the county, as demonstrated in the comprehensive evidence base and it is consistent with national policy and guidance.

Issue 6 - Whether the approach towards Town Centres and retail is justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

73. The CS identifies Hereford as a Sub Regional Shopping Centre, and the five

towns in the county as Market Towns. Below this there are Local Shopping Centres and Neighbourhood Shopping Centres. The Town Centres Update Study 2012 [C41] indicates that the hierarchy of centres continues to reflect


19

their role and function in the county. The study identifies relatively modest need for retail space in the Market Towns which would not warrant strategic locations, and which could be accommodated within existing retail areas.

74. In Hereford the study demonstrates that because of the new shopping centre

and regeneration programme in the city centre, additional retail floor space is unlikely to be needed until towards the end of the Plan period. The Hereford Area Plan DPD (HAP) will enable proposals to be advanced and sites to be identified to meet long term retail needs. There would be a need to provide appropriate local convenience facilities to serve the needs of the UEAs and this would be achieved through the place shaping policies for the strategic sites. Although the Plan encourages leisure and other town centre uses there is no identified need for sites to be allocated within the plan period.

75. General policies E5 and E6 provide the framework for determining proposals

for town centres for all town centre uses. The CS aim is for Hereford and the Market Towns to be the focus for retail developments. In this respect, studies show that relatively small scale out of town development has affected the market towns [representor 149], and MM053 reduces the threshold for the requirement for any retail, leisure or office development outside of the town centre (and not in accordance with the Plan) to provide an impact assessment. The modifications are carried through to the place shaping policies and other policies where thresholds are referred to throughout the CS. Although the threshold is significantly below that suggested in the NPPF, it is necessary to better reflect local circumstances, encourage a more sustainable approach in terms of transport and assists overarching aim of policy E6 for development to contribute and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres.

76. The submission Plan contained town centre maps which were unclear in terms

of both their evidence base and appearance. In order for the retail policies to be effective MM015, MM022, MM024, MM027, MM030 and MM035 are necessary for soundness of approach, deleting the town centre maps for Hereford, Bromyard, Kington, Ledbury, Leominster and Ross-on-Wye. The MMs indicate that the town centre boundaries will be established in the HAP, Bromyard DPD and NPs where a robust evidence base will be established. In the meantime the Unitary Development Plan maps (with the exception of Hereford) are clear and reasonable. However, in Hereford there have been significant changes within the town centre with large new shopping centre forming part of a wider regeneration scheme. The HAP is programmed in the Local Development Scheme [A7] to come forward in winter 2016/17 where the new town centre boundary will be established. There is a master-plan for the regeneration area, with clearly defined boundaries and I see no conflict or difficulty with implementation of the employment policies arising from this approach. MM013 is necessary to make clear that the HAP will define the town centre boundary.

77. Overall, the approach to the provision of retail is consistent with national

policy and guidance, is based on a sound and thorough analysis of the current situation in the county, as demonstrated in the comprehensive and detailed evidence base.


20

Issue 7 - Whether the approach towards the natural and built environment is justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

78. Overarching policy SS6 seeks development to conserve and enhance both the

natural and built environment. It lists a wide range of environmental components to be considered in the planning process to achieve the policy aim. This is justified by a comprehensive evidence base, including heritage, townscape, landscape, biodiversity, geo-diversity and green infrastructure studies. MM011 makes the policy sound by adding additional wording to clarify the components, explain the role of NPs, DPDs (in areas without NPs), and SPDs, in identifying local features, areas and sites defining local distinctiveness. Importantly MM011 removes an inaccurate and misleading sentence relating to mitigation. The modification also introduces additional wording to the supporting paragraph providing necessary information on the role of Natural England’s conservation objectives for the SACs, Management Plans for the AONBs and SPDs and is necessary to make the policy sound.

79. General policies LD1, LD2, LD3 and LD4 support policy SS6. These relate to

landscape and townscape, biodiversity and geo-diversity, green infrastructure, the historic environment and heritage assets respectively. They set out in more detail how the environmental components in Policy SS6 would be considered in the planning process. Although the overarching aims of the submission Plan policies are sound, their wording incorrectly reflected policy documents that preceded the NPPF. In order to make the policies sound MM054, MM055, MMO56 and MM057 update the wording to ensure that the policy considerations reflect the NPPF rather than superseded documents. MM05 to overarching housing policy SS2 updates the policy in a similar way ensuring the reference to character and beauty of the countryside reflects national policy.

80. Policy SS7 addresses climate change. The supporting text recognises that this

is a complex issue where government legislation may change and the measures identified would constantly be reviewed. The policy does not make reference to standards but sets out broad principles such as seeking development to be focussed in sustainable locations. It seeks pro-active strategies to be put forward to mitigate and adapt to climate change. MM012 makes the policy sound by changing wording to better reflect the NPPF, including removing unnecessary and over-prescriptive detail.

81. SD1 relates to sustainable design and energy efficiency setting out a range of

general principles that developments are required to consider. MM058 removes unnecessarily prescriptive measures and simplifies text to ensure the policy is consistent with the provisions of the NPPF. The modification also alters explanatory paragraph to reflect the changes and is necessary to make the policy sound.

82. In a written ministerial statement (WMS) on 18 June 2015, the Secretary of

State for Communities and Local Government set out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development. The submitted CS policy SD2 was not consistent with the WMS in its promotion of wind energy development. MM067 imposes a separate paragraph in the policy, replicating


21

the WMS criteria for consideration of wind energy development. It adds a paragraph to the explanatory text indicating that the Council will consider whether to identify suitable areas for wind energy through future development plan documents. MM067 is necessary to ensure that the policy is consistent with national guidance in enabling local residents to have a greater say in future development. MM059 removes prescriptive tests relating to targets for renewable and low carbon energy which is necessary to introduce a flexible, more site specific approach. The modifications would make the policy sound. MM060 clarifies and defines the sequential test in an extra paragraph to make the policy and its requirements clear.

83. In a WMS on 25th March 2015, the Secretary of State for Communities and

Local Government set out new arrangements for the consideration of Housing Standards in the planning system. New additional optional Building Regulations on water and access and on space standards are described which can complement existing, mandatory Building Regulations. MM066 deletes reference to residential development meeting Code for Sustainable Homes (Code) level 5 for water efficiency (seeking 80 litres per person per day) which was withdrawn by the WMS. However, the Council has worked closely with the Environment Agency, Natural England and Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water who support the approach of water efficiency standards to assist the management of nutrients in the River Wye SAC. Although the national optional standard (110 litres, per person, per day) introduced by the WMS is not as challenging a requirement as Code level 5, there is evidence in the Water Cycle Studies [C50a and PS57] that it would contribute towards the management of nutrients. MM066 replaces the requirement for Code level 5 with the national technical standard. There would be no significant implication for the NMP. It would have a lower impact on viability and would not affect delivery of new housing sought by the Plan. MM066 is necessary to ensure consistency with national policy by helping bring forward new homes whilst protecting the environment.

84. Overall, these policies would conserve and enhance the natural and built environment consistent with national policy and guidance. They are based on a sound and thorough analysis of the current situation in the county, as demonstrated in the comprehensive and detailed evidence base.

Issue 8 - Whether general policies SC1, OS1, OS2, SD4 and OS3 are justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

85. Policy SC1 relates to social and community facilities. MM046 makes the

policy sound by removing unnecessarily prescriptive text and adding a sentence relating to developer contributions to ensure that they can only be sought where they meet the relevant policy tests. The modification adds to the explanatory text to clarify the marketing criteria set out in the policy, ensuring that the policy would be effective. OS3 relates to loss of open space setting out principles that will be taken into account in development. This is a clear and positively worded policy which is sound and no modifications are proposed.

86. Policies OS1 and OS2 relate to the requirement for open space, sports and

recreation facilities. MM047 removes prescriptive standards from policy OS1 and makes associated changes to the explanatory text, reducing burdens and


22

making the policy more flexible and site specific. MM048 removes out of date policy references from Policy OS2 and adds text to make the policy more flexible. MM047 and MM048 are necessary to ensure consistency with the NPPF aim of a flexible and positively prepared Plan.

87. SD4 relates to wastewater and river water quality and is soundly based on a

wide range of aforementioned studies and assessments including the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment addendum (Feb 2015)[PS58] the HRA [A5], Statements of Common Ground between DCWW and the Council and the EA/NE and the Council, and the NMP [C51]. This is a positively worded and clear policy, identifying what information developers should provide and setting out measures that may be appropriate. No modifications are necessary to this policy to make it sound.

Issue 9 - Whether the place shaping policies for Hereford, the market towns of Bromyard, Ledbury, Leominster, Kington and Ross-on-Wye is effective and justified and consistent with national policy? Hereford place shaping policies 88. Hereford is the main service and economic centre, with the highest population

in the county. The majority of new housing proposed for the county (6,500 dwellings) would be accommodated in Hereford during the plan period with some 800 dwellings in the city centre (HD2), and some 2,500 dwellings in three urban expansion areas to the north, west and south of the city (HD4, HD5 and HD6). Around 15 hectares of employment land would be provided at the western and southern UEAs. The location and quantity of development was arrived at following consideration of a range of options and studies, for both Hereford and the county as a whole.

89. The Council is preparing the Hereford Area Plan DPD (HAP) expected in the

LDS to be adopted in 2016/17, which together with neighbourhood plans (where necessary) provide for the remaining housing and set out more detailed policies for the city centre. The SHLAA [C25a] shows that there is capacity within the city for the remaining dwellings. The aforementioned MM014 deleted a reference to neighbourhood plans assisting in this process. However, if there are changes to the Hereford settlement boundary in the HAP (which the Council advises is possible) it may cover some of the NP areas. Therefore, it is sensible to keep the reference to NP as this adds flexibility and I intend to amend the MM accordingly.

90. Within the city centre the Eign Gate and Edgar Street regeneration project is

underway with the creation of a large shopping area and urban village. MM015 adds to policy HD2 that “the majority” of the 800 new dwellings would be within the urban village, adding flexibility for the housing to be provided elsewhere in the city centre where there is capacity. The modification deletes unnecessarily prescriptive text from the policy, provides greater clarity in both the policy and the explanatory text to make the policy sound.

91. The CS recognises that the scale of development proposed in Hereford would

place further demand on the city’s constrained transport network. However, the submission Plan policy HD3 relating to movement failed to emphasise the importance of achieving and promoting sustainable transport to help address


23

demand. MM016 adds text to the Hereford movement section to ensure that the focus of the policy, in line with the NPPF, is to facilitate sustainable transport. The modification deletes over prescriptive wording relating to contributions which could be in conflict with the policy tests for planning obligations and clarifies that funding would be sought by a variety of mechanisms as appropriate. The aforementioned Hereford Relief Road is identified as important infrastructure for Hereford. MM016 deals with the uncertainty of delivery linking the policy to SS3 which deals with the relationship between critical infrastructure and delivery making the policy sound.

92. HD4, HD5 and HD6 identify broad locations for the UEAs, the location and size

derived at from information in the SHLAA and following several SAs [A4, B13 – B16c] of other alternatives and options as the plan progressed. The policies for the UEAs are criteria based setting out what development would be expected for each UEA, including access and infrastructure. MM017, MM018 and MM019 amend the wording of the policies HD4, HD5 and HD6 respectively to ensure consistent terminology is used, add the word “minimum” to the housing targets, remove duplication, incorporate a link to policy SS3 relating to general infrastructure and monitoring. The MMs are necessary to make the policies effective and sound. No modifications were proposed to HD7 relating to employment provision in Hereford. HD7, together with the aforementioned employment policies, would promote and encourage employment provision in Hereford.

93. The whole plan viability test assessed the policies and their requirements and

found them to be viable, and I conclude that the place shaping policies for Hereford are sound.

Leominster place shaping policies

94. Leominster is the main centre in the north of the county with good transport links and the least constraints of the market towns. MM028 updates the information in policy LO1 (the general policy identifying housing and employment targets for Leominster) and ensures terminology is consistent with the rest of the Plan. The modification makes clear that the Leominster NP will identify the dwellings numbers not sought in the UEA. MM031 explains the role of the Nutrient Management Plan, in line with policy SS3.

95. A range of options for the location and quantity of housing was considered in the SA and earlier iterations [A4 and B13 – B16c] which justify the identification of a broad location for a large UEA (policy LO2) to the south west of the town to provide around 1,500 homes. The site is suitable and in a sustainable location [A4]. LO2 sets criteria for the development of the UEA and MM028 and MM029 add the word “minimum” to the housing targets in policies LO1 and LO2, and alters the retail threshold to be consistent with other Plan policies and this makes the policy effective. MM030 adjusts retail floor space levels to be consistent with other policies in the CS to clarify the policy approach set out in LO2.

96. The whole plan viability test assessed the policies and their requirements and found them to be viable, and I conclude that the place shaping policies for Leominster are sound.


24

Bromyard, Ledbury and Ross-on-Wye place shaping policies.

97. Bromyard, Ledbury and Ross-on-Wye are market towns of significance in the

county. The SA and aforementioned SA options and alternatives show that the quantity of housing and employment would be proportionate, having regard to the size of the towns and their environmental constraints. The Plan identifies a Strategic Urban Extension (SUE) for each market town in a location which has been assessed in SA against all other reasonable options. The whole plan viability test shows that the development requirements for the relevant SUEs (policies BY2, LD2 and RW2) are achievable.

98. MM020, MM021, MM025, MM026, MM032 and MM033 update the

information in policies BY1 and BY2 for Bromyard, LD1 and LD2 for Ledbury and RW1 and RW2 for Ross–on-Wye (and where necessary the associated text) to be consistent with the NPPF, add the word “minimum” to the housing target, and clarify the criteria for the SUEs to make the policies sound.

99. MM020 makes clear that Bromyard Town Council has decided not to produce a

NP and that the Council will produce the Bromyard Development Plan (BPD) to identify sites for the remaining employment and housing sites not set out in the SUE. The LDS update (Feb 2015) [IN7] gives a timescale for Bromyard Development Plan for adoption in Winter 2016. MM034 clarifies policy RW1 ensuring that the monitoring of employment land in Ross-on-Wye would be linked with policy SS5 making it effective.

100. MM025 and MM032 make clear that Ledbury and Ross–on-Wye will produce a

NP to identify sites for housing/employment land, not addressed in the SUE policies. For Ledbury SUE/UEA, the submission plan policy LD2 tied down the primary and secondary vehicular access to two specific roads. This was too prescriptive given the early transport studies for the site. MM025 deletes the primary and secondary references and I am satisfied that this would make the policy sound in that it would be more flexible and effective. Further minor changes to the wording of the policy in terms of access suggested by the Council following responses to the main modifications would not be necessary for soundness and it would be up to the Council to impose them if they wish.

101. The whole plan viability test shows that the development requirements for the

relevant SUEs (policies BY2, LD2 and RW2) are achievable and I conclude that the place shaping policies for Bromyard, Ledbury and Ross-on-Wye are sound.

Kington place shaping policies

102. Kington is the smallest of the market towns with significant environmental and locational constraints [A4]. The quantity of housing would be proportionate but given the constraints there may be a need to reassess the SHLAA for Kington to ensure that its target of around 200 homes in the plan period could be achieved. MM023 clarifies policy KG1 identifying a NP as the means of allocating the land. It updates the information in the policy and adds clarity to the criteria. As Kington is an area where water infrastructure improvements are critical to delivery, MM023 adds information about the monitoring process linking this to policy SS3. The modifications make the place shaping policy for


25

Kington sound.

103. Overall, the place shaping policies for Hereford, the market towns of Bromyard, Ledbury, Leominster, Kington and Ross-on-Wye are effective and justified and they would achieve sustainable development.

Issue 10 –Whether the approach to the rural areas is positively prepared, is appropriate to the needs of the area, is soundly based and consistent with national policy?

104. A key element of the spatial strategy is the allocation of some 5,300 homes to

the rural area. I have already concluded that strategic approach to the rural area relating to the quantity of housing is robust, and the SHLAA and Rural Housing Background Report 2013 [C30] shows that there is capacity within the villages and hamlets to achieve this. The rural area is diverse and the Rural Background Paper and the LHRS and the LHMA, provide robust evidence for the seven different market areas identified in the rural areas across the county and the approximate number of houses required based upon common housing market conditions.

105. However, each rural area has differing needs and requirements, and all sit

within a rural landscape which must be recognised and respected. Therefore, a flexible and responsive approach is necessary to bring about the level of development sought by the Plan. I had significant concerns about whether submission Plan policies RA1 which set out the general approach to the housing market areas (HMA) and policy RA2 which set out the approach to how the villages would achieve this. They were very prescriptive, and the approach to quantities for the housing market areas and villages was confusing and seemingly inflexible, and it appeared to restrict development numbers. This left some uncertainty about the role of the NPs, the location of local housing and its overall delivery.

106. To make RA1 (and the associated explanatory text) sound MM036 makes

clear that the proportionate growth sought from within each HMA would be indicative. It adds that the indicative targets relate to the HMAs as a whole leaving flexibility for NPs to identify the most suitable housing sites. It sets out that local evidence and environmental factors would inform the scale of development. It indicates that the overall figure of 5,300 is a minimum target and therefore the indicative figures are not meant to be read as a cap on housing numbers.

107. To make RA2 (and the associated explanatory text sound), MM037 clarifies

the approach to be taken to the quantity and location of development. The submission Plan reasonably identifies the most sustainable villages within the HMAs capable of accommodating new housing based on a range of studies of the rural hierarchy and rural housing markets a [C30, C31 and C32]. Rather than be prescriptive MM037 replaces text within the policy to ensure that the minimum target growth will be used to inform the level of housing within the settlements and that NPs will allocate sites for housing accordingly. It sets out a number of criteria followed through in the text to make the policy more responsive, having regard to the role and function of the settlement, housing type and landscape setting. The modification indicates that the Council are producing a Rural Areas Site Allocation DPD for parishes where there is no NP.


26

The LDS Update (February 2015) [IN7] indicates that the timescale for adoption to be Autumn 2017. MM043 changes wording in rural exception housing policy H3 to be consistent with changes to RA2. The MMs make the approach to the rural settlements much more flexible and give immediate guidance to developers about where new housing may be appropriate making the policy sound.

108. For development within the open countryside MM038 is necessary to add

clarity to policy RA3 setting out where it would apply in order for it to be effective. It deletes over prescriptive text from the explanatory paragraphs to update the CS in line with the wording of the NPPF. The submission Plan Policy RA4 relating to agricultural, forestry and rural enterprise dwellings set restrictive criteria relating to the size of new homes which appeared to have no evidence base. MM039 deletes the restrictive text and amends the associated explanatory texts removing unnecessary or prescriptive information enabling the policy to be flexible, effective and sound. MM040 and MM041 remove restrictive text from policy RA5 for the re-use of rural buildings and policy RA6 for the rural economy to ensure that it reflects changes to other rural policies. For RA5, the policy relates to both residential and economic uses and the MMs ensure that the policies accord with the approach to the rural areas set out in the NPPF.

109. Overall, the approach to the rural areas is positively prepared, is appropriate

to the needs of the area, is soundly based and consistent with national policy.

Issue 11 – Whether the Core Strategy would monitor development and necessary infrastructure effectively? 110. The aforementioned modifications to SS3 relate to monitoring and action to be

taken in relation to housing in terms of infrastructure delivery and monitoring. MM061, MM062, MM063 and MM064 add/delete text to ensure that CS policy ID1 and the explanatory paragraphs would support the modifications made to SS3 and assist the delivery of infrastructure for all development identified by the plan. Crucially the MM clarifies that contributions from developers towards infrastructure can only be sought where they comply with the statutory tests and the NPPF. The text is updated to reflect the MMs to SS3 and ID1 and to make the policy sound. The MM065 update of Appendix 1 relating to saved Unitary Development Plan policies is necessary to provide clarity, and a new appendix 3, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, would assist with monitoring. I have deleted references to appendices 2, 7 and 8 which are not necessary as main modifications to make the plan sound.

111. Overall the plan would monitor development and necessary infrastructure effectively.

Assessment of Legal Compliance 112. My examination of the compliance of the Plan with the legal requirements is

summarised in the table below. I conclude that the Core Strategy meets them all.


27

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS


The Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy is identified within the approved LDS January 2015 which sets out an expected adoption date of Summer 2016. The Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy’s content and timing are generally compliant with the LDS.

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and relevant regulations

The SCI was adopted in March 2007 and consultation has been compliant with the requirements therein, including the consultation on the post-submission proposed ‘main modification’ changes (MM)

Sustainability Appraisal (SA)


Appropriate Assessment (AA)

The Habitats Regulations AA Screening Report (May 2014) sets out that the plan may have some negative impact, and an AA has been undertaken. This found that there would not be an adverse effect on the integrity of protected sites from the plan as a whole.

National Policy The Local Plan complies with national policy except where indicated and modifications are recommended.

Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS)

Satisfactory regard has been paid to the SCS.

2004 Act (as amended) and 2012 Regulations.

The Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy complies with the Act and the Regulations.

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 113. The Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy has a number of deficiencies in

relation to soundness and legal compliance for the reasons set out above which mean that I recommend non-adoption of it as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act. These deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above.

114. The Council has requested that I recommend main modifications to make the Plan sound and legally compliant and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendix the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Christine Thorby

INSPECTOR

This report is accompanied by the Appendix containing the Main Modifications.



APPENDIX 12

HORSHAM DISTRICT PLANNING FRAMEWORK: INSPECTORS REPORT

Report to Horsham District Council

by Geoff Salter BA MRTPI


Date: 8th October 2015


SECTION 20

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO

HORSHAM DISTRICT PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Document submitted for examination on 8 August 2014

Examination hearings held between 4 November 2014 and 3 July 2015

File Ref: PINS/Z3825/429/4

-2-

Abbreviations Used in this Report

AA Appropriate Assessment AHVA Affordable Housing Viability Assessment AoNB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty B&HBC Brighton and Hove Borough Council CBC Crawley Borough Council CCG Clinical Commissioning Group CS Core Strategy dpa dwellings per year DtC Duty to Co-operate HDPF Horsham District Planning Framework HMA Housing Market Area IDP Infrastructure Delivery Plan LGW London Gatwick Airport LDS Local Development Scheme LP Local Plan MM Main Modification NP Neighbourhood Plan OAN Objectively assessed need NPPG National Planning Policy Guidance SA Sustainability Appraisal SCI Statement of Community Involvement SCS Sustainable Community Strategy SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment SCC Surrey County Council SuDS Sustainable urban Drainage Scheme

Horsham District Planning Framework, Inspector’s Report, October 2015

- 3 -


This report concludes that the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF - the Plan) provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the District providing a number of modifications are made to the plan. Horsham District Council has specifically requested me to recommend any modifications necessary to enable the plan to be adopted.

All of the modifications to address this were proposed by the Council but where necessary I have amended detailed wording and added consequential modifications where necessary. I have recommended their inclusion after considering the representations from other parties on these issues.

The Main Modifications can be summarised as follows: The housing requirement for the Plan period should be 16,000 dwellings at

a rate of 800 dwellings per year; The Plan should be subject to an early review, to commence within three

years; Three strategic development areas should be brought forward for at least

2,500 dwellings at North Horsham, around 600 dwellings west of Southwater and around 150 dwellings south of Billingshurst;

Revised criteria for the assessment of new retail development outside Horsham town centre;

A new policy for a mixed use development for employment, education and specialist housing at the former Novartis site;

Modifications to the detailed planning of development at North Horsham; Modifications to the climate change policy to accord with government

policy; Modifications to the policy for the protection of community and leisure

facilities to accord with government policy; and Clarifications to the Glossary, Plans and the Council’s intended changes to

the Policies maps to ensure effectiveness.


- 4 -

Introduction

1. This report contains my assessment of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF - the Plan) in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied with the duty to co-operate, in recognition that there is no scope to remedy any failure in this regard. It then considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements. Paragraph (#) 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes clear that to be sound, a Local Plan should be positively prepared; justified; effective and consistent with national policy.

2. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The basis for my examination is the submitted draft plan (August 2014) which is the same as the document published for consultation in May 2014.

3. My report deals with the main modifications that are needed to make the Plan sound and legally compliant and they are identified in bold in the report (MM). In accordance with section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act the Council requested that I should make any modifications needed to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound/not legally compliant and thus incapable of being adopted. These main modifications are set out in the Appendix.

4. The Main Modifications that are necessary for soundness all relate to matters that were discussed at the Examination hearings. Following these discussions, the Council prepared a schedule of proposed main modifications and carried out an updated sustainability appraisal. The schedule was subject to public consultation for six weeks. I have taken account of the consultation responses in coming to my conclusions in this report and in this light I have made some amendments to the detailed wording of the main modifications and added consequential modifications where these are necessary for consistency or clarity. None of these amendments significantly alters the content of the modifications as published for consultation or undermines the participatory processes and sustainability appraisal that has been undertaken. Where necessary I have highlighted these amendments in the report.

Assessment of Duty to Co-operate

5. Section s20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the Council complied with any duty imposed on them by section 33A of the 2004 Act in relation to the Plan’s preparation.

6. The Council has a good record of constructive engagement with neighbouring Councils and relevant statutory authorities, dating back to well before the preparation of the HDPF (CD/LP/12,13). The previous Core Strategy identified the area west of Bewbush, now known as Kilnwood Vale, as an urban extension to Crawley which is now being developed in accordance with a joint area action plan. The Council is part of the Gatwick Diamond initiative, a group of authorities planning for and supporting economic development in the sub region. Horsham DC, Crawley BC and Mid Sussex DC have prepared a joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) May 2009 and updated


- 5 -

(October 2012), with an affordable housing needs SHMA update in October 2014 and economic development studies, the latest being the Northern West Sussex Economic Growth Assessment (EGA) dated April 2014. The Council has provided records of a number of regular meetings throughout the plan preparation period up to submission attended by both officers and members and covering a wide range of issues including, most importantly, the key planning topics of housing and employment provision (HDC/18 and 21).

7. I appreciate that much of this planning context is the same as that provided by Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC), whose Local Plan (LP) failed the Duty to Cooperate (DtC) legal requirement in late 2013. However, unlike the Mid Sussex LP, the submitted HDPF has not been subject to objections from neighbouring local planning authorities; indeed, the HDPF has been actively supported by both Crawley Borough Council (CBC) and MSDC, with key officers giving evidence on Horsham District Council’s behalf during relevant hearing sessions. Crucially, the increase in the housing target from the Preferred Strategy stage indicates that the engagement with adjoining stakeholders has been constructive. While I have deeper concerns about the soundness of the housing target in the submitted strategy, including its justification with regard to meeting Horsham’s own and Crawley’s needs, as

discussed below, I consider that the legal requirements of the Localism Act with regard to continuous and constructive engagement have been met.

Assessment of Soundness

Preamble

8. Following the first period of hearing sessions in November 2014, I prepared a report summarising my Initial Findings, which was sent to the Council on 19 December 2014. At that stage I found some important shortcomings in the submitted HDPF with regard to housing provision. In essence the Council had failed to justify the identified level of housing need and therefore had not addressed the implications of providing for the correct level of need. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs (OAN) for market and affordable housing in the Housing Market Area (HMA), as far as is consistent with the policies in the NPPF.

9. The Council considered my findings and as a result of further work published a number of main modifications (MMs) in March 2015 for further comments. These MMs included a revision of the housing requirement figure from 650 dwellings per year (dpa) to 750 dpa over the plan period from 2011 to 2031. The Council also published a number of supporting documents, including an update to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and a revised assessment of its objectively assessed need (OAN). In cooperation with CBC and MSDC, an updated SHMA was also published concerning the needs of the area covered by the three Councils (HDC/38). A resumed hearing session was held in July 2015 to discuss the updated evidence base and representations on the MMs.


- 6 -

Main Issues

10. Taking account of all the representations, written evidence and the discussions that took place at all the examination hearings I have identified 14 main issues upon which the soundness of the Plan depends.

Issue 1 – General strategy

11. On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main

settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and Billingshurst, to be sound. These are the main urban areas in the district, with the best concentration of facilities able to support, with additions, new development, as clarified in MM3. The housing trajectory, which I discuss in more detail below, already includes a comprehensive selection of known suitable and realistically available sites. A policy to concentrate development in urban extensions is justified by the consideration of alternative strategies in the SA (CD/LP/05), which has been an integral part of the plan preparation process since 2009. Reasonable alternative strategies were assessed as part of an iterative process, as set out in Chapter 7 of the SA, considering the three key variables of the amount of housing that should be delivered in the District, the locational strategy for development and the location of strategic development. The identified allocations for new housing and employment premises are capable of development without any undue environmental effects and avoid areas of particular landscape or ecological value.

12. Greater dispersal of development to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services. Such a strategy would have been unlikely to be realistic in terms of compliance with national policy in the NPPF or the advice in PPG.

13. The proposal for some development (about 10% of the housing total) in villages, to be identified in Neighbourhood Plans (NPs), is also justified and accords with government policy in the NPPF. The proposal for a new ‘Mayfield Market Town’ (MMT) has been put forward as an addition to the development already proposed in the HDPF. This was tested in the earlier stages of Plan preparation, along with other locational strategies, but not carried forward because strategic expansion of existing settlements with a mix of smaller sites was considered a more sustainable approach (SA, chapter 7). I consider it reasonable in the circumstances not to pursue an option that was predicated on a much more significant step change in housing provision than indicated by the CLG household projections at the time and the previous SEP housing target of 650 dpa. I deal with this in more detail below.

14. The Plan is supported by documentation specifying the new infrastructure

necessary to support the level of development envisaged, and how this would


- 7 -

be delivered, particularly through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). No significant transport infrastructure would be required in the form of major new highways, although significant improvements to a number of junctions around Horsham will be required. Appendix 5 of the Council’s updated position statement for the resumed hearing (HDC/40) sets out a range of works needed by WSCC to accommodate the traffic impacts from the allocations and expected housing development up to 750 dpa, most of which would be front-loaded onto the next 10 years of the plan period.

15. Although modifications to the amount of housing over the plan period are required, the Plan’s vision and overall strategy to concentrate most new development at the main settlements remains essentially unchanged. In general, the modifications do not constitute a significant change to the main thrust of the submitted plan and are not so extensive as to constitute a complete re-write of the originally submitted version of the Framework. However, it became clear during the examination that the Plan should be the subject of an early review for two main reasons: firstly, to review the housing requirement, particularly to take into account the implications of the forthcoming government decision on the location of a third runway for the London airports, as always envisaged; and secondly, to identify the areas for new housing development needed towards the end of the Plan period to meet the increased housing requirement of 800 dpa.

Issue 2: Environment

16. Most of the suggested revisions to policies 24 and 30 would be unnecessarily

restrictive and are not needed for compliance with the NPPF; some would be contrary to the broad thrust of the NPPF to promote necessary sustainable housing and employment growth unless specific policies, such as those for the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AoNB). The Council has agreed to a minor addition to reflect the wording of the NPPF regarding protecting natural assets. I consider the environmental impacts likely to result from the allocations in the Plan in more detail in the sections below. The document should be read as a whole and the HDPF contains a number of environmental safeguards within the two policies and also Policies 25-27. I consider the HDPF will be effective in protecting the District’s environmental and heritage assets therefore.

Issue 3: Employment

17. The headline employment figures from the 2011 census show that Horsham District had a resident workforce of 66,868, but there is an out-commuting ratio of about 18%. The Council, CBC and MSDC commissioned the joint NW Sussex Economic Growth Assessment (NGA) which in summary outlined three possible employment scenarios for Horsham District: a baseline prediction of job growth of 445 pa; a higher growth scenario of 636 jobs pa; and a capacity-based scenario (assuming an additional three employment sites beyond those contained in the HDPF) of 757 jobs pa. The Council’s position with regard to the submitted plan was that the baseline figure of a total of 8,890 jobs over the plan period to 2031 was realistically achievable, through


- 8 -

commitments for new floorspace, protection of the best existing employment areas and the proposed development of a new business park within the mixed use allocation at North Horsham. The HDPF contains no target for employment growth, however; this is not inconsistent with the NPPF, which requires local planning authorities (LPAs) to plan positively for expected employment needs in a general sense.

18. In the context of my Initial Findings regarding housing provision, I expressed a note of caution about the forecasts, in the light of evidence about the local economy. I understand that the methodology used in the forecasting involved the analysis and breakdown of the local economy into a number of sectors, to which projected national growth rates were applied. This may not provide a particularly accurate prediction of future growth in a changing employment environment locally. There are indications of such change in Horsham, particularly in the market for large scale offices, although the district’s role as a key part of the ‘Gatwick Diamond’ is not likely to diminish, and could be altered considerably depending on the outcome of the decision on the third London runway.

19. The baseline scenario of 445 jobs pa also represents a large increase on historic job growth between 1997 and 2013 of 273 jobs pa. An update to this figure submitted at the resumed hearing suggested a higher annual rate of 340 jobs pa but even so the EGA scenarios indicate a very significant uplift in historic job growth performance. As the EGA acknowledges the projected increase in total B class jobs could be regarded as optimistic based on past performance.

20. The EGA did indicate clearly that there were some inadequacies in the type and range of employment sites in the District. It referred to the rather dated nature of some of the larger office properties in the town centre, as well as a shortage of modern employment property. A key conclusion of the EGA was the need for industrial floorspace, which may suffer a potential shortfall of 16 ha, compared with a 5.5 ha shortfall of office space. The study also indicated that there was a strong need for modern, high quality business premises well located in relation to the strategic road network.

21. Based on recent indications such as the take up of planning permissions, there appears to be sufficient capacity available to meet current demand for employment space. The Council referred to the possibility of further employment development coming through intensification of use on existing retained sites, some windfall and other sites identified in Neighbourhood Plans (NPs). On past trends these sources are unlikely to bring about any shift change in the number of workers in the District. The clear changes in the local economy, including indicators such as the lack of demand to implement an allocation for the redevelopment of Warnham and Wealden Brickworks at Langhurstwood Road and the closure of a major employer, Novartis, lead me to continue treating the EGA scenarios with caution.

22. In any event, there appear to be enough sites (including the proposed new business park), for current foreseeable demand; I agree with the Council that there is no indication that the Plan will suppress growth. The proposal to review the Plan, to commence within three years in accordance with my recommended modification (MM2), will ensure that additional allocations could


- 9 -

be considered to ensure that any justified and necessary employment growth is not constrained.

23. As to concerns about the lack of premises for small to medium-sized industrial and warehouse enterprises, I accept the Council’s point that the HDPF is an overarching framework for the whole district and that site specific needs can be identified and planned for through NPs (clarified through MM8) and in a forthcoming Site Allocations DPD. I have concluded therefore that the broad framework of the employment policies would be sufficient to meet likely needs and would provide for still considerable growth of at least 300 dpa. However, it would be prudent to reconsider likely employment needs when the early review of the HDPF occurs, particularly to take account of any new requirements after the decision about the third runway.

North Horsham Business Park

24. The proposal for a business park at North Horsham accords with the

recommendation of the EGA that the Council should consider allocating new employment space in the area of strongest market demand (ie in or around Horsham). The location of the ‘park’ relatively near to Gatwick Airport and the M23, adjacent to the strategic road network and with good potential for rail access is likely to be attractive to a large number of potential occupiers. The prospective developer of the North Horsham site was very positive about the prospects for deliverability and viability of the Business Park element of the allocation at this location. I have no firm evidence to question this position; although the amount of business floorspace was reduced in the developer’s mixed use scheme at Kings Hill, the market potential and demand for premises there during a different phase in the economic cycle are not comparable with those at the North Horsham location.

25. From my visits throughout the Plan area, I consider this to be the employment site with the most realistic chance of combining commercial success with reasonable provision of access by public transport. Overall, the housing and employment benefits of the proposed allocation would significantly outweigh the disadvantages of the environmental impacts, which in my view would not be unacceptably severe.

Retention and development of Key Employment Areas

26. The EGA found that losses of industrial floorspace over the previous 11 years had been relatively modest. Low vacancy rates and a lack of surplus space had created market conditions with little frictional space, opportunity to expand or upgrade premises. The majority of the district’s industrial areas

were performing relatively well and the study concluded that there was a sound justification for safeguarding such existing employment sites, particularly the larger and most important industrial areas such as Foundry Lane and Southwater Business Park. The need to retain good employment sites to support the local economy and growth in the Gatwick Diamond area as a whole is clear and Policy 8 is justified and sound.

27. After preparation of the Plan a major employer, Novartis, announced the closure of its business at Horsham. In response, during the suspension of the


- 10 -

examination, the Council put forward MM5, MM7 and MM9, which proposed a university and higher education quarter on the site, with some 200 specialist housing units. At the time the modification was advertised, discussions were taking place with the University of Brighton regarding an expansion through a satellite campus at the site. However, this proposal has now been dropped, apparently through lack of funding. At the resumed hearing the Council confirmed its intention that the policy should remain as modified by MM9, which has some flexibility in its wording if no other higher education provider comes forward to re-use the site. I consider the new policy would provide suitable guidance for this key site and support local employment.

Issue 4: Retail Development/Town centres

28. The main concern with the retail strategy of the HDPF related to the potential

amount of new floorspace at out of centre locations at N Horsham and Broadbridge Heath. The shopping facilities at North Horsham would be intended as a local centre primarily to serve the proposed new housing, educational and business developments. In order to prevent any undue draw of trade from the primary town centre of Horsham itself, Policy SD3 needs to be modified to include an impact test in accordance with MM17. As originally drafted, Policy 6 could well have allowed an unacceptable amount of new retail development at Broadbridge Heath. The Council has agreed to insert a clause imposing a requirement for a full retail impact assessment for town centre uses with a cumulative total of 2,500sq m [MM6]. I consider the revised policies contain adequate safeguards to prevent any undue impact on the vitality and viability of Horsham town centre and should ensure the continued planned investment at the main centre in the retail hierarchy in accordance with policy in the NPPF.

Issue 5 – Housing

Objectively assessed need (OAN)

29. The submitted HDPF contained a housing requirements figure of 650 dwellings per year (dpa). At the time the Plan was formulated the Council did not rely on a district-wide SHMA in conventional form. As I noted in my Initial Findings, the North West Sussex SHMA (CD/H/04), updated in October 2014, primarily addressed affordable housing need. The overall assessment of need was found in the Locally Generated Housing Needs Study (LGHNS), updated in September 2012, which did not use the 2011-based CLG household projections. I expressed serious concerns that the Council’s estimate of need

did not properly reflect the most recent data available, contrary to the advice in National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

30. The Council reviewed its position in the light of my findings and commissioned further work to revise the OAN figure - Housing Need in Horsham District, March 2015 (CD/H/O3), which did use as a starting point the latest CLG household projections, published in February 2015. These indicated a projected formation of 597 households pa, equivalent to 615 dpa, allowing for vacancies. At the resumed hearing and in written evidence a number of


- 11 -

representors argued that this figure underestimated the OAN, taking account of necessary adjustments to reflect guidance in the NPPG.

Population and household projections

31. Looking at household formation predicted by the CLG projections, headship rates are assumed to show a significant rise compared with the previous set (2011 based). The 8% growth for Horsham in the period 2012-2021 compares with a 10% rise nationally, reflecting an expectation of a return to headship rates more aligned with those preceding the downturn in the economy in 2008, more in line with longer term trends. There is no strong evidence to suggest that the CLG projections of headship rates and household formation based on the latest population figures should be significantly adjusted. However, document HO/3 does note that the projected headship rates in the 25-34 age cohort are not expected to return to the trend from 2001 to 2008, possibly reflecting affordability pressures. I do not think it reasonable to assume that headship rates across a larger cohort (25-44) will return to 2001-2011 levels, certainly not at the fast recovery rate predicted by some objectors. Over time, the decrease in household size, much of which is already factored in by CLG population projections with regard to older age cohorts, could be expected to level off. However, the Council’s analysis in

CD/HO/3 does test higher headship rates for the 25-34 age group which would lead to a higher OAN figure; I discuss this in relation to market signals below.

Employment forecasts

32. If necessary, the OAN should be adjusted to reflect likely employment forecasts, to provide adequate housing for an increased number of jobs. It is important to note that the CLG household projections already incorporate significant growth, reflecting past migration trends and employment growth of about 275 jobs pa. The 2012 LGHNS update (CD/H/02) indicated that 767 dwellings would be needed to align with roughly the same level of employment growth as that in the baseline projection (440 pa).

33. As discussed in relation to employment policy above, the EGA study indicates that a key element of future demand is for a new modern business park. Important changes are taking place in the local economy: an employment allocation at Warnham and Wealden Brickworks has not been taken up; Novartis, a major employer in the District, has gone; town centre offices, evidenced by vacant premises in North Street, have significantly reduced in size; the Council has consolidated premises and determined that prior approval is not required for the change of use of its site to housing; and retail employment patterns are changing as a result of online growth.

34. Projections of very large increases in the growth of jobs compared with the last two and a half decades are not necessarily consistent with current local economic evidence therefore. Some of the sectors identified, such as retailing related to housing growth or professional services could well be affected by structural changes such as on line retail growth or the loss or decline of major local employers such as Novartis. The projected reduction in the population of working age could indicate some pressure to increase housing numbers, possibly offset by increased numbers of older part-time workers.


- 12 -

35. In summary, I agree with the Council’s analysis that there is no evidence to support the contention that a lack of housing has suppressed or held back employment growth. On balance I consider that there is no need for any significant uplift in the OAN figure to account for employment growth at a much higher rate than that seen over the last 15-20 years. Even if very high numbers of projected jobs materialise, they could be filled through a reduction of commuting levels. This would meet the policy objective of the NPPF to prevent unsustainable travel patterns resulting from a constrained housing supply (and thus an inadequate number of resident workers) to support employment growth.

Market signals

36. The relative position of house prices in Horsham compared with the HMA and regional and national trends is unchanged; over the period from 1998 to 2007 they have increased by similar percentages in all areas. Since 2007, Horsham house prices have again followed regional and national trends, showing notable price falls to 2009 and relatively flat indicators since. Sales volumes show a similar picture in recent years, with dramatic falls in 2008, from which they have just recovered, somewhat faster than the national average. Price/income ratios in Horsham remain just below the peak levels found in 2007 and until the last 18 months have been little changed. Absolute rises are similar to those in Mid Sussex, although affordability issues in Crawley are not so severe.

37. Since 2006/07 completions data in Horsham and across the HMA fell well short of the former South East Plan target, although there has been a marked pick up over the last two years, again reflecting improved market conditions. The initial slow pace of development on major development sites west of Crawley during the recession clearly had a significant impact on these figures. The Council have included a modest upwards adjustment in their OAN figure of 22 dpa to account for affordability pressure in the 25-34 age group, evidenced by substantial growth in private rented sector accommodation and the number of persons in HMOs, even though these indicators are again in line with HMA and national trends. I consider there is no strong case for a significant uplift to account for market signals in Horsham district, which are very similar to those elsewhere across virtually all of the south east. The Council’s modest increase appears appropriate therefore.

Affordable housing

38. With regard to affordable housing needs, the most recent assessment in October 2014 (CD/H/O4) indicates a need for between 225 and 404 affordable homes each year. This is part of the overall OAN figure, not in addition to it. Almost all of the minimum core level of need (those on housing register within the ‘reasonable preference’ category) can be met from the 650 OAN figure if 35% of new housing on larger sites is for affordable housing, in accordance with Policy 15. Privately rented housing to those on benefits cannot be considered affordable housing (see Higginbottom v Oadby and Wigston EW HC 1879) but a very reasonable proportion of the highest identified affordable housing need can be provided. Other issues, such as the availability of


- 13 -

financial support, are likely to be more of a constraint on the supply of affordable housing in the district. The policy response of a higher OAN requirement may not deliver higher numbers of affordable housing therefore and in any event there are no strong grounds for an uplift in Horsham on this account.

OAN conclusions

39. On balance therefore, I remain unconvinced that a significant uplift in the OAN figure for Horsham District alone would be justified. A modest increase in the baseline figure of 615 from CLG projections, including a 3% allowance for vacancies and second homes, to a figure of around 650 dpa would support growth in the population of working age employment to meet some additional employment needs and some reduction in affordability pressures.

40. However, there are other needs in the HMA, which includes Crawley and Mid Sussex. In March 2015 the three Councils agreed a new position statement setting out the OAN for the whole HMA area and the proposed housing provision at that time (HDC/38). At the time of my Initial Findings the residual unmet need in Crawley was about 220 dpa. Following the hearings at the Crawley examination, it has been agreed that Crawley can meet only about 334 dpa of the OAN figure of 675 dpa, leaving a shortfall of 340 dpa. As already indicated, Horsham should meet some of this need if possible; on a very rough basis it seems reasonable for Horsham to try to accommodate roughly half this number.

41. I remain unconvinced of any considerable degree of overlap between the NW Sussex HMA and that of the coastal authorities to the south. The needs of Brighton and other nearby coast towns arise from the strong migratory pull of those wishing to live in a town by the sea; these pressures are not the same as those generated by smaller inland towns or rural communities. Although HDC have continued constructive dialogue with Brighton and Hove Borough Council (B&HBC), there has been no objection to the HDPF or firm indication of how many dwellings might be required to fulfil unmet needs there.

42. Similarly, the Mayor of London has indicated that he expects the capital to be able to meet the revised FALP housing requirements of 49,000 dpa without recourse to requests to Councils outside the GLA area to provide housing to meet any shortfall in London. No such request has been made thus far.

43. Taking all these factors into account, I recommend that the housing requirement contained in the HDPF should be 800 dpa (MM10, MM11). This reflects my conclusions on the need within the district itself of about 650 dpa, plus an allowance for almost half of the unmet need in Crawley Borough.

Housing supply

44. Since the hearings in November 2014 the Council has revised the housing delivery trajectory (HDC/40), which provides for 14,974 dwellings over the whole Plan period (MM12). The increase in numbers from the previous trajectory appears to result from the extra dwellings allocated at land south of Billingshurst, others on new sites permitted since the Plan submission, for example: 165 at Guildford Road, Broadbridge Heath; 193 at Mill Straight, Southwater; and 160 on the smaller part of the Novartis site (MM4). This


- 14 -

does not account for all the uplift but there have also been a significant number of new permissions on smaller sites in the intervening period. In the absence of any firm evidence to the contrary I have no reason to believe that the delivery of housing will not be broadly in accordance with this programme.

45. What is clear from the trajectory is that a large number of committed dwellings are due to be constructed over the next 8 years up to 2023, primarily at Kilnwood Vale (previously known as West of Bewbush) and west Horsham, together with the North Horsham and Southwater allocations. On the Council’s latest figures there has been a shortfall over the first four years of the plan period of 739 dpa against a requirement of 800 dpa. Looking back over the last decade or so delivery of housing in Horsham district has been consistent with national economic trends; although there was under delivery against former SEP targets during the recession after 2008 there has been a noticeable increase in housing completions over the last two years. I consider there has been no persistent under delivery of housing and the normal 5% buffer for the five year supply should apply.

46. The Council did not take account of another 250 potential homes at North Horsham or 200 dwellings that may come forward at the main part of the Novartis site. It may be possible to increase the number of dwellings at North Horsham but it seems likely that any extra completions would come forward at the end of the build programme, beyond 2031. Concerns have been expressed about the development trajectory for the allocation and I note there has already been some minor slippage so far. However, given the length of the remaining plan period (at least 15 years) there is enough flexibility for any delays to be recovered. The potential 200 units for students at the main Novartis site are for a specific new need that has not been taken into account in preparing the OAN figure. I agree with a number of representors that they should not be included as part of the delivery to meet the Plan’s housing requirement but would be in addition to that number. The current uncertainty about the site reinforces my precautionary approach on this issue.

47. Inevitably, the numbers of homes being proposed in NPs is uncertain at this relatively early stage in the process of their production. However, from the evidence produced by the Council on the position so far (C/HDC/40) the number of 1500 over the whole district seems realistic. Since the hearings in November 2014 a number of ‘front runners’ have started or are carrying out public consultation and some 688 dwellings ( 44% of the expected dwelling target) have been identified across 29% of the designated NP areas. From this evidence about expected delivery from NPs I consider the 100 pa assumed from this source in the housing trajectory is a reasonable estimate of the minimum number of dwellings likely to come forward in the smaller settlements of the district. Further flexibility is provided by the Council’s intention to consider the need for additional site allocations in the Site Allocations DPD, programmed to begin in 2016, as set out in the Local Development Scheme (LDS).

48. As I indicated in my Initial Findings, the total windfall allowance of 750 units is soundly based on evidence of past completions over several years encompassing different market conditions (CD/H/08). The annual projections of 100 dpa through NPs and 50 dpa from windfalls from 2016 onwards are realistic therefore.


- 15 -

49. Taking all these factors into account my calculation of the five year supply requirement is 4976 dwellings :(739 shortfall + 4,000 target) x 5% buffer. This compares with expected delivery in the trajectory from April 2015 up to March 2020 of well over 800 dpa. The total projected supply over this period is 5803 dwellings. The Council provided compelling evidence that a windfall allowance of 50 dpa was justified by analysis of permissions granted over recent years, further supported by the increase in expected supply since 2014 already mentioned. With these elements, the projected supply represents about 116% of the requirement (including the 5% buffer), ensuring the Council has a 5 years supply with a considerable degree of flexibility to take account of any slippage on major sites. Even without the NP sites, the five year supply requirement is just met.

Housing conclusions

50. The Plan does not identify enough housing for the whole Plan period, on a basis of 800 dpa. Although the background evidence did not include a capacity study for the District, the SA updates (CD/LP/25a,b) produced to support the MMs indicate that the district can accommodate up to 800 dpa with some environmental impacts. However, I consider these impacts would not be so severe as to outweigh the pressing need to meet the OAN for housing in Horsham and the SHMA as a whole.

51. There is no contingency in the delivery trajectory, other than the allowance for non-development of existing permissions on small sites. There would be a shortfall in the later years of the period, which the Council needs to address in the early review, together with a review of the requirement itself, whether or not LGW expansion goes ahead. The review work should include an assessment of potential sustainable sites falling between the likely maximum limit of any NP sites, probably about 150, and the strategic allocations of 500 plus. Although desirable, it is not an essential requirement of policy in the NPPF that specific site allocations to meet requirements in years 11-15 of a plan period should be identified. I have taken what I consider to be a pragmatic approach to ensure that new housing can be delivered in the early part of the plan period, in accordance with the Ministerial Statement of July 2015.

52. As I discuss in brief below, there are other large sites with the potential to meet requirements towards the end of the plan period. These options include land west of Ifield, near the area of need at Crawley, west of Southwater and east of Billingshurst. If the review identifies significantly increased requirements, it is possible that the option of developing a new settlement may need to be considered in more depth. I consider that in the first instance it is for the Council to look again in more detail at the merits or otherwise of these options, together with other smaller sites and the monitoring of housing provision through NPs. I make some comments in relation to the evidence produced in writing and at the hearings but it would not be appropriate at this stage for me to make any firm recommendations about any of these sites in this report.

53. A joint approach involving all the relevant Councils is required on a co-operative basis to fully address the OANs of at the very least the three Council areas in one overall SHMA and possibly to include consideration of other


- 16 -

updated needs outside the SHMA, including those of the coastal area authorities and possibly London. It is appropriate for this Plan to proceed on that basis, provided that there is a firm commitment from the Council to play its part in addressing the needs of the wider area as part of an early review of the HDPF, as required by MM2.

Affordable housing – Policy 15

54. Policy 15 of the submitted HDPF requires 35% of dwellings to be affordable on sites providing 15 or more dwellings, or on sites over 0.5ha. On sites providing between 5 and 14 dwellings, 20% of dwellings should be affordable or an equivalent financial contribution should be made. The policy of differential rates at these thresholds is justified by detailed analysis in the Affordable Housing Viability Study – 2012 (CD/H/01) and the update in October 2014 (CD/H/04). These concluded that a target rate of 40% would be viable with the inclusion of grant funding. I agree with the Council that it is prudent to reduce the target to 35% to take into account the vagaries of grant funding. The policy also includes an appropriate reference to the viability of individual schemes to ensure adequate flexibility in its implementation.

55. Since the original hearings the government revised the policy set out in the PPG to remove the requirement to provide affordable housing on sites with 10 or fewer dwellings MM13 was an amendment to the policy to change the 20% threshold in accordance with the NPPG, which was advertised in March 2015 for comment. However, a successful High Court challenge by two councils has resulted in the deletion of the revised guidance in the NPPG and the Council has requested that the original Policy 15 should stand and that MM13 be withdrawn. Bearing in mind the sound economic justification for the policy as originally drafted and the clear need for affordable homes in Horsham, a substantial proportion of which could come from smaller sites, I consider that it would be appropriate to disregard MM13 and leave Policy 15 as submitted.

Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

56. There was no substantive objection to Policy 20 concerning the provision of 39 net permanent residential pitches for gypsies and travellers between 2011 and 2017, together with a commitment to make additional provision over the rest of the plan period. These commitments, including the provision on new sites already with permission, would meet the needs identified in the December 2012 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (CD/H/12) and did provide a five year supply up to 2017. However, the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply at present.

57. Further work is continuing to assess needs beyond 2017 and in accordance with Policy 21 additional sites will be identified through the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD, to commence in 2016. In addition, the overall level of need should be reconsidered as part of the early review process for the HDPF, which is to commence within three years. Given its scope, the HDPF cannot remedy the deficiency regarding the five year supply, which clearly has implications for the treatment of planning application in the context of government policy in #25 of ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’. Despite the very short time frame for additional pitch provision, the HDPF provides a short term interim framework to meet the needs of gypsies, travellers and travelling


- 17 -

showpeople before the issue is addressed comprehensively in the Review required by MM2.

Issue 6 – North Horsham

58. A key element of the Plan is the allocation of an extensive tract of land at North Horsham for a mixed use development which would include at least 2,500 homes, a business park, schools, retail, social and community facilities , including a doctors’ surgery. The allocation was the subject of a large number of objections and was the subject of extensive debate at the hearings. Nevertheless, from all the written and oral evidence, including comments on supplementary studies in support of the allocation, nothing has convinced me that the proposed allocation is not sound.

59. Of all the proposed sites for major new housing development, I consider the North Horsham allocation is at one of the most sustainable locations, close to the heart of the Gatwick Diamond economic area and well placed to meet the clear need for housing in the District but also the SHMA as a whole, with particular reference to unmet needs in Crawley. At the resumed hearing the Council indicated that the allocation had potential for a minimum of 2,500 homes but in all likelihood another 250 homes could be accommodated. This is the subject of MM14, required for clarification and effectiveness.

60. I have already discussed the issues raised concerning the deliverability of the business park above; the area identified appears to have great potential to meet a need for modern space close to the area of highest demand, near Gatwick Airport. The location is sustainable at present but would be improved by the provision of a new station towards the eastern end of the allocated area. While noting the arguments about the deliverability of another station in close proximity to a previously planned station at the Kilnwood Vale development, the wording of the Plan is suitably flexible in that the necessary land is safeguarded pending further consultation with the Department for Transport and Network Rail. The proposals cannot be considered unsound in this respect.

61. I appreciate that a station at North Horsham would help to improve the sustainability of the allocation by improving transport choices but that desirable outcome may be at the expense of another desirable station too close for operational viability. However, I agree with the Council that the proposed station is not critical to the sustainability credentials of the allocation, given the number of other stations nearby, including Horsham itself (within a relatively short bus or cycle ride), Littlehaven (even closer) Warnham (on a slower line to London through Dorking) Faygate or Ifield. An alternative scenario could involve the closure of Faygate.

62. There would be some separation from the main urban area of Horsham itself, which would lie on the other side of a busy trunk road. This disadvantage could partly be overcome by four new pedestrian and cycle links additional to the retained subway, as indicated on the Concept Masterplan, amended in accordance with MM15. The mixed use development would have a number of facilities itself, including a large convenience store and a variety of facilities,


- 18 -

including schools, to create a new neighbourhood. MM16 and MM17 are necessary to ensure that the new retail facilities do not have an adverse effect on the primary shopping centre of Horsham town centre.

63. There was considerable argument about the merits of locating a secondary school at North Horsham, rather than at a larger development west of Southwater, an area which already ‘exports’ substantial numbers of secondary age pupils each day, largely to Horsham. However, the education authority supports the allocation, citing the benefits of provision being provided as the scheme develops and the ability to accommodate overspill from Crawley. As a result of discussion about school requirements, a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been agreed between WSCC and Liberty Trust, the proposers of the scheme, which clarifies delivery mechanisms in accordance with MM19 and MM20.

64. The proposed development area on largely flat land below the wooded ridgeline to the north, which would create a clear defensible boundary, would not result in the loss of landscape of particularly high value, as assessed in the Landscape Capacity Assessment Report (CD/ENV/10). By and large the site is visually separate from the High Weald AoNB to the south west, with the potential railway station and associated parking on the other side of the A264. From my inspection of the surroundings, I consider the setting of the AoNB would be protected. The distance between the new development and the western edge of Crawley would be reduced from about 3.5km to 3km but would be sufficient for the separate identities of both towns to be retained. The Concept Master Plan shows extensive areas of ‘landscape and buffering’

along the northern boundary of the allocation to create a firm edge to the urban extension. The Masterplan should be amended in accordance with MM34 to clarify the boundary, and the extent and location of the secondary school site with consequent amendments.

65. There is no evidence of sensitive ecological habitat or protected species across the open farmland which comprises the majority of the site; other existing habitats along hedgerows and watercourses are safeguarded on the master plan and could be fully protected at the detailed design stage, as required by MM18. Substantial areas of open space would be retained alongside Old Holbrook and a nature park, incorporating Bush Copse ancient woodland, would be created in low lying land liable to flood.

66. The allocated area is large enough to provide for the suggested amount of development without recourse to those areas liable to flood, which could be kept as open space and small nature reserves (CD EN/01). I see no reason why a sustainable urban drainage scheme (SUDS) could not be designed that would restrict surface water outflows to existing levels at worst; tellingly, the Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposed allocation.

67. The highway authority considers that there would be no adverse effects on the strategic road network that could not be mitigated satisfactorily. I have no alternative convincing technical evidence that the modelling by WSCC is not fit for purpose, as alleged. Although the new development and associated crossings of the A264 would have some impact on traffic flows on this route, WSCC confirmed that there would be no significant impact on strategic road capacity, subject to MM21 and MM22. Similarly, although traffic delays into


- 19 -

Horsham from the north would increase, they would not reach unsupportable lengths. Further modelling by the proposers of the development indicates how detailed measures could be achieved to retain reasonable flows along the A264 and secure safe links to the town.

68. In addition I understand that WSCC and Surrey County Council (SCC) would seek improvements to the section of the A24 north from Great Daux roundabout that has a poor safety record. Although a full medium to long term scheme needs to be planned in detail, MM23 provides for interim measures to address the impact of the development on the road network, including those parts outside Horsham District. Initial traffic studies show that delays on local roads could be averted by junction improvements to provide more capacity. While there would clearly be some sense of separation from the existing urban area of Horsham, safe crossings for pedestrians and cyclists across the A264 could be provided at grade or by bridge; an existing underpass would be retained. Other traffic management measures, including width restrictions, could be developed to strongly discourage rat running through the lanes to the north of the site and to provide better pedestrian and cycle access to Horsham town centre. Full bus services would be provided and supported for several years through a Section 106 obligation.

69. Considerable work has already taken place on the planning of the whole development, including a viability appraisal which shows that the scheme is deliverable. Although there are some risks attached to the allocation of a substantial proportion of new development in one location, a more dispersed pattern of development as advocated by some representors may well be less efficient and could pose problems for infrastructure provision. I deal with some broad infrastructure points below, but I find nothing inappropriate in the likely funding mechanisms, including the probable exclusion of this site from the proposed CIL regime, given the extensive provision and costs of on-site infrastructure, including particularly the new schools and highway works. The proposals also allow for the provision of affordable housing in accordance with Policy 15. In conclusion, the allocation offers the opportunity to provide necessary housing, business development and community facilities at a sustainable location. Overall, the housing and employment benefits of the proposed allocation would significantly outweigh the disadvantages of the environmental impacts, which in my view would not be unacceptably severe.

Issue 7 –Southwater

West of Southwater

70. Similar comments apply to the allocated land west of Southwater with regard to landscape impact, biodiversity and highway safety and convenience. The site is at a sustainable location relatively close to the centre of the settlement and a revised figure of 600 dwellings could be well integrated with existing housing (MM24). The development would provide support to local shops and services. Since submission of HDPF the Council has granted permission for a 596 dwelling scheme, so any detailed discussion of the merits of the allocation is academic.


- 20 -

Other objection sites

71. During the consultation on the Plan a number of additional or alternative sites were put forward on the basis of arguments that the housing requirement figure was much too low and more housing capacity would be needed over the Plan period. Although I supported this view in my Initial Findings, the Council put forward just one additional site for housing, at Billingshurst (see below). Despite the provision of much more housing in the updated housing trajectory, more allocations are likely to be needed to meet the housing requirement of 800 dpa towards the end of the Plan period, and potentially even more land could be needed, depending on the outcome of the early review. While I have made some preliminary comments about the ‘omission’ sites that have been put forward, it will be for the council to decide how best to meet future needs, following further work on the merits of competing sites through updated SA.

West of Southwater extension

72. Developers of the West of Southwater allocation and other representors opposed to North Horsham argued for a significant extension of the allocation to provide a larger scheme for about 1300 homes in total, a small local centre and a secondary school. A new school here would have the advantage of reducing the very significant numbers of children travelling from Southwater (which does not have a secondary school) into Horsham. Although the proposal for more dwellings and a secondary school at this location had previously been supported by WSCC as education authority, the authority now says that it would also be acceptable to provide a secondary school in due course at North Horsham, where pupil numbers would increase and where overspill from Crawley could be accommodated.

73. Subject to a suitable policy framework restricting the amount of retail development at the site, I see no reason why additional dwellings here would not help to support and consolidate Southwater village and the investment that has already taken place at Lintott Square. The countryside to the west of the allocated area is a relatively intimate landscape of small scale fields bounded by hedgerows, including some mature trees. I therefore share some of the Council’s concerns about landscape impact, which might be more

serious than at North Horsham. From the evidence provided there appear to be no overriding constraints about highways and access to the A24, where further improvements are likely to be needed. There are concerns about access to the station at Christ’s Hospital, which is quite a long walk from the site and has limited parking; these would have to be addressed. From the ecological surveys there would be no particularly adverse impacts on wildlife.

74. In conclusion, the advantages of extra school places at Southwater are not sufficient to outweigh the sustainability and other advantages of the North Horsham allocation. However, although the site is not needed now, it should be revisited in the context of a need to provide for more dwellings during this plan period when the plan is reviewed and for any future needs that may arise as a result of such a review of the OAN for the SHMA, following a definitive decision about the future of Gatwick Airport.

75. I note that since the first hearing sessions the Council has granted permission for 193 dwellings at Mill Straight on the southern edge of the town; this is not


- 21 -

a strategic site in the context of an HDPF allocation but makes an important contribution to the five year supply.

Issue 8 – Billingshurst

76. A considerable number of new dwellings are already committed at

Billingshurst. As part of the MMs published in March 2015 the Council allocated an urban extension on the south side of the town to the east and west of an already committed site as a ‘rounding off’ of the urban area. [MM25]. Although smaller than the minimum size threshold for new allocations set out in the HDPF, the proposals appear to be a logical urban extension to the town, in a sustainable location within reasonable walking distance of the railway station and within a short cycling distance of the town centre. The impact of the development of the site on the landscape would be limited and there appear to be no overriding constraints. Although low lying, there is no objection from the EA regarding surface water flooding, subject to the provision of a suitable Sustainable urban Drainage Scheme (SuDS) in the normal way. Further development in Billingshurst would help consolidate the viability of retail, social and community facilities in the town, which has an employment base and reasonable rail connection to Gatwick airport and on to London. The urban extension proposed in MM25 is sound.

77. From the evidence and my site visits I consider Billingshurst has further potential for sustainable development to the east of the town, which would consolidate its role in the local settlement hierarchy. The Council makes a good point that the recently permitted housing needs some time to be assimilated into the physical and social fabric of the town. The pace of new development and the provision of adequate physical and social infrastructure would need to be carefully managed therefore. There appear to be no overriding objections to some modest further expansion. The landscape character of the area is of pleasant enclosed fields used for pasture but is not of such quality as to warrant protection from development. There are no significant infrastructure constraints: the secondary school has scope to expand to 10 form entry; and drainage could bypass the town to the north. Together with the new 475 home development approved on appeal, further allocations could deliver part of a localised by-pass around the east side of the town. I consider that this proposal should be considered in the early review of the plan to meet housing needs during the back half of this plan period or any new requirements arising from a revision of the OAN. Some development here may have some potential to relieve some of the pressure for new housing in some coastal authorities.

Issue 9: Crawley extension sites

West of Ifield

78. A substantial area of land to the west of Ifield is well located in a relatively sustainable position close to employment opportunities at Crawley and LGW. The relatively flat landscape is reasonably attractive but has no particularly special quality. The setting of Ifield church and the surrounding Conservation


- 22 -

Area of the village could be preserved through careful design and buffers separating new development from the old village.

79. Clearly, a substantial development of about 2,500 dwellings and ancillary uses would require considerable investment in infrastructure to be successful. A long term aspiration for a new western relief road at Crawley may be needed, even without the expansion of LGW. The timing and funding for this remains uncertain. The provision of new schools, a new or expanded waste water treatment works, health and other community services would need to be planned in conjunction with CBC. However, none of these issues seems insurmountable and the proposed development is being actively promoted on the basis of viability and deliverability.

80. The main issue with deliverability of the site concerns timing. Although much of the land is owned by the Homes and Communities Agency a substantial part is Ifield golf club, which has a lease until 2022. The loss of the golf course as a sports facility would be unfortunate but there are several others nearby and this would not be a critical objection. The noise contours from LGW affect part of the site but a substantial developable area would remain. Nonetheless, the extent of the area for new housing would be better assessed after the decision about the future of LGW and the impact on a number of sites, including employment sites, is known. As the Council agreed, it would be appropriate to re-consider the land when the review of the HDPF is undertaken within the next three years.

West of Kilnwood Vale

81. The extension of Kilnwood Vale to the west was put forward as another potential long term option to increase housing supply. Similar concerns about the provision of infrastructure in Crawley and the timing of delivery apply. The site is more remote from Crawley than West of Ifield and facilities and services in the town may be less accessible. The Council raised a strong objection that development would reduce further the gap between Crawley and Horsham, which is important to retain community identity and remains significant in landscape terms. I note that this option was considered and discounted at the examination into the West of Bewbush AAP.

Matter 10 - Other village and rural sites

82. A number of sites at villages were put forward as additions to the strategic allocations in the Plan, on the basis that a higher housing target would be required. The original intention of the LDS was for the HDPF to set out broad locations for developments of over 500 dwellings, deferring the allocation of smaller sites for 150-500 dwellings to the Site Allocations DPD. A significant number of other smaller sites (up to a maximum size of 150 dwellings) are expected to come forward through NPs. This approach does leave some uncertainty in the short term about meeting OAN through potential sites which are not within parishes likely to be covered by NPs. The Council has already varied its position on this matter by including the land south of Billingshurst for 150 houses as an allocation in the HDPF.


- 23 -

83. However, adequate housing land to secure a supply for five years has been identified and a number of NPs are underway. An early review of the Plan is required to provide the remainder of housing requirement. Therefore, there is no pressing need to allocate additional smaller sites now; the Council has the mechanism of the Site Allocations DPD if initial monitoring shows a potential shortfall in the short term supply of land. It would not be appropriate at this stage to change the basis of the Plan and to require a significant change to the LDS, although the Council may wish to review the way medium-sized sites are dealt with as part of the review. I have not therefore considered in detail the merits of a number of rural sites put forward during the examination, including land adjoining Bax Close, and adjoining Clay Lane, both at Storrington, land north of The Rise, Partridge Green, or land east of Pound Lane, Upper Beeding.

Matter 11 - Mayfield Market Town (MMT)

84. For the reasons set out above in relation to housing need, I consider that the very significant increase in the amount of development involved in the MMT proposal is not required in current circumstances. At present there is no need to include an area of search for the proposed ‘market town’. The planning mechanisms put forward by representors on behalf of Mayfield that an area of search should be identified in the HDPF followed by detailed planning through an SPD would not be appropriate or lawful; such a significant large development could not be decided through a non-statutory process outside the development plan legal framework. As was acknowledged by virtually all participants at the hearings, any decision to expand Gatwick Airport by building a second runway would have major implications for the planning of the whole sub-region and would almost certainly necessitate an urgent review of the HDPF (and in all probability the plans of all authorities in the Gatwick Diamond area). If that were to occur, the way in which future development needs should be met would undoubtedly be raised again. It would be for the Council to determine, in constructive cooperation with other relevant bodies, including particularly Mid Sussex DC, how those needs would be met.

85. Much of the area of search for the proposed new town is pleasant low-lying pastureland, but it could not be said to possess special scenic quality. The land does not fall within any environmental designation and there is no evidence that any protected wildlife habitats need be affected. Despite the anecdotal evidence of local residents, there appears to be no concern from the EA that surface water flooding could not be managed through a SDS. No other overriding physical constraints have been raised.

86. However, I raised significant concerns about the sustainability of the location of the MMT site, in particular its distance from railway services and the strategic road network and the potential usage and viability of the ‘park and ride’ proposals. These concerns were refuted by the promoters of the proposed MMT but endorsed by other participants, including both District Councils. To my mind the location of the site beyond reasonable walking and cycle distance from the rail services serving LGW and the main employment centres along the route remains a severe disadvantage. Even if the MMT provided a significant amount of new employment, it is unrealistic to expect such a level of self-containment that a very significant proportion of travel to


- 24 -

work by car would be avoided.

87. As paragraph 52 of the NPPF acknowledges, the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements that follow the principles of Garden Cities. It is for local authorities to consider, with the support of their local communities, whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development. The deliverability of the preferred 10,000 dwelling option, with employment development, within two local authority areas without their support, and in the face of strong opposition from two local MPs, parish councils and local people, including land owners, is also an issue of concern. While compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers could be used if an agreed scheme were to be approved through the development planning process, that outcome seems distant at present. The scheme for just half of what the promoters ideally prefer in Horsham district alone would appear to dilute the fundamental concept and raises further uncertainty about delivery.

88. Nevertheless, bearing in mind my concerns about housing need and the clear need to review the plan at the earliest possibility, preferably in conjunction with at the very least the other two LPAs in the NW Sussex HMA, I think it would be premature to rule out in principle any potential for a new settlement to meet future needs. While I have some doubts about the extent of overlap between what appear quite different housing market areas, a ‘market town’ option, or some similar form of new settlement to meet some of the housing needs arising in the Sussex coastal areas may be an option to be reconsidered. This need not be at the suggested location for the MMT or possibly some further work might overcome the disadvantages of the Mayfield proposal in relation to access by public transport, among other matters. In any event I do not support the Council’s suggested MM1 to delete the reference to such consideration in the future. What is clear however is that such an option would have to evolve through cooperation and consultation amongst the local planning authorities and all the local communities involved.

Matter 12: Other Horsham sites

Tower Hill

89. The potential allocation site at Tower Hill is not of strategic scale and would be seen as a clear break beyond the existing natural boundary of the railway line. The area has some landscape sensitivity. The Council has expressed some concerns about providing a safe access, due to the proximity of any potential road access to a junction with a bad highway safety record.

North West Horsham

90. This very substantial area of countryside to the east of the A24 was put forward for development of about 5,000 dwellings very late in the plan process as an alternative to the North Horsham allocation. The area is not physically well related to the Horsham urban area (or any other settlement) and is not as well located as North Horsham to the heart of the Gatwick Diamond area. At this stage there is virtually no evidence base on which to evaluate any very large scale development. In particular, the traffic implications of such a new


- 25 -

large development on the safe use of the A24, which is acknowledged to be in need of improvement on traffic grounds, have not been fully assessed. In the absence of any such background work, any consideration of the site would be premature.

Lyons Farm

91. Development of this large site (capable of taking more than 500 dwellings) would be seen as a separate entity to the main area of urban extension at Broadbridge Heath, beyond the settlement boundary established in the former Structure Plan. The main part of the site would be over 750m from the centre of Broadbridge Heath and I agree with the Council that is difficult to envisage how the new housing area would integrate with the expanded village.

Issue 13 - Climate change

92. Policy 35 - Appropriate energy use – sets out guidelines for energy use in new buildings that are broadly consistent with government policy in that they do not require adherence to specific standards but set general parameters for the reduction of energy in all new development. The policy also includes a heating and cooling hierarchy, with a broad generalised requirement to maximise the potential for carbon reduction. The detailed proposed amendment from a representor for a site specific combined heat and power plant at Kilnwood Vale would not be precluded by this policy. However, it would not be appropriate to make such an allocation in a strategic plan such as HDPF; it could be provided for in the subsequent Site Allocations DPD, if appropriate.

93. Following the recent ministerial statement concerning energy and climate change issued on 18 June 2015, the Council has put forward two modifications to remove reference to wind energy schemes in the last part of Policy 35 and to add some detail to the supporting text in #10.18. These changes - MM38

and MM39 - are required for consistency with government policy.

Issue 14: Infrastructure

94. The IDP was prepared in consultation with key stakeholders and sets out the infrastructure necessary to support the development proposed in the HDPF and how such infrastructure can be delivered. It includes details of the required timing of all essential elements to ensure proper phasing of development, in accordance with the NPPF (#177). Policy 38 sets out the key principles for the provision of new infrastructure, including a general requirement for phasing to ensure appropriate infrastructure is provided at the right time to support the new growth.

95. Full viability studies have been carried out for the main allocations, including North Horsham, which indicate that the full range of development can be delivered with proper infrastructure and a level of affordable housing in accordance with Policy 15 (CD/IN/4). The relevant policies for the strategic allocations, SD1-8 for N Horsham and SD9 for Southwater, provide an


- 26 -

adequate framework to ensure infrastructure will be provided at the right time to serve each phase of the development. The Plan’s requirements should

ensure that adequate infrastructure, including new roads, open space and schooling, would be provided. In common with major urban extensions with substantial site specific requirements elsewhere, it would not be viable to charge Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as well, given the scale of investment required. I note that the gap between the estimated cost (at about £37m) of all necessary infrastructure expected to be funded through CIL (primarily social and green infrastructure) and projected CIL receipts had risen to about £17m in July 2015. This gap is not so significant as to put at risk key infrastructure projects and other key elements of infrastructure, such as schools and transport requirements, which would be funded through sources other than CIL, such as Section 106 payments, WSCC capital budgets and New Homes Bonus.

96. Some residents expressed concerns about access to healthcare provision when significant new housing proposed in the Plan was completed. However, the Council has carried out proper consultations with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), which is well aware of the nature and scope of development proposed in Horsham. The responsibility for ensuring the resident population has reasonable access to hospitals and primary healthcare rests in the first instance with this group, which has raised no objections to the Plan. As far as I am aware distances from various parts of the district to hospitals meet normal current standards but in any event the HDPF cannot set out requirements for health care or any other infrastructure that has not been proposed by the relevant authority with evidence of need and adequate funding.

97. I consider Policies 39 and 40 provide an adequate policy context for the provision of new cycling infrastructure, in accordance with #35 of NPPF. The allocated sites will make adequate provision for cycles, including new safe crossings of the A264, through the application of Policies SD 1-7.

Other matters

98. MM28 contains the wording of revisions to Policy 43 concerning the retention of community facilities and open space, which as originally worded did not accurately reflect the guidance in the NPPF (#74).

99. MMs31-33 contain modifications to definitions in the glossary, necessary for effectiveness. MMs 35-37 set out necessary clarifications to site plans and the Policies Map.


- 27 -

Assessment of Legal Compliance

100. My examination of the compliance of the Plan with the legal requirements is summarised in the table below. I conclude that the Plan meets them all.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS


The HDPF is identified within the updated approved LDS July 2015 which sets out an expected adoption date of October 2015. The HDPF content and timing are broadly compliant with the LDS, although there has been slippage at the end of the programme due to the need for a resumed hearing in July 2015 after publication of and consultation on Main Modifications (MMs).

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and relevant regulations

Consultation on the HDPF has been compliant with the requirements of the adopted SCI (November 2013), including the consultation on the post-submission proposed MM changes.

Sustainability Appraisal (SA)


Appropriate Assessment (AA)

The Habitats Regulations AA Report (April/2014) concludes that the HDPF will not have an adverse effect on site integrity of any European site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

National Policy The HDPF complies with national policy except where indicated and modifications are recommended.

2004 Act (as amended) and 2012 Regulations.

The HDPF complies with the Act and the Regulations.

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation

101. The Plan has a number of deficiencies in relation to soundness for the reasons set out above which mean that I recommend that it should not be adopted as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act. These deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above.

102. The Council has requested that I recommend main modifications to make the Plan sound and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendix the HDPF satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Geoff Salter

Inspector

This report is accompanied by the Appendix containing the Main Modifications

1

Proposed Modifications to the HDPF – September 2015

Since the Submission of the HDPF a number of additional changes to the plan have been suggested, e.g. following the Examination hearings in November 2014, and the Inspector’s note of 21st July (ID30). These are set out in the table below. The page numbers referenced relate to the HDPF track change version.

Main Modification Number

Horsham District Planning Framework Page No.

Policy /Para Number

Proposed Modification (deleted text shown as struck through and additional text shown underlined.

Reason for Modification

Chapter 3 MM 2

17 New para after para 3.26

Delivery Mechanisms

The housing trajectory demonstrates that the Council can deliver around 10,000 dwellings in the first 15 years of the plan. There are however a number of uncertainties towards the mid to end of the plan period, including the future of Gatwick Airport. In recognition of this, the Council is committed to a review of the plan which will commence within the first three years from the adoption of the HDPF. The purposes of the review will take into account any updated housing needs requirements together with a review of the process for housing delivery, including Neighbourhood Development Plans. Prior to this review, the Council has also programmed a Site Allocations document which will enable a range of smaller sites including Gypsies and Travellers, employment and smaller scale housing sites to meet local needs.

To provide greater clarity as to how the plan will deliver sites into the future.

Chapter 4 MM 3 22 Policy 2 a Focus development in and around the key

settlement of Horsham, and allow for organic growth To provide greater clarity regarding settlement hierarchy in light of the

2



Policy /Para Number



in the rest of the D district in accordance with the identified settlement hierarchy.

Inspector’s Initial Findings

MM 4 22 Policy 2c Bring forward two three strategic development areas of at least 2,500 dwellings immediately to the north of Horsham Town, and c500 around 600 dwellings West of Southwater, and around 150 dwellings South of Billingshurst to meet the strategic requirement for new homes, and to provide access to new employment, health, educational and recreational opportunities;

Update to policies to allocate additional land in light of Inspector’s Findings

MM 5 22 New bullet point Bring forward a strategic mixed used opportunity at the former Novartis site in Horsham for employment, education and specialist housing at the equivalent of around 200 units.

Update to policies to allocate additional land in light of Inspector’s Findings

MM 6 29 Policy 6 Please read this modification with AM36 for completeness.

From second sub heading:

Retail development and other main town centre uses

After paragraph e, which the Council does not propose be amended, it is suggested that a new paragraph is added which reads: f. Any proposed development for main town centre uses which on its own or which cumulatively reaches a threshold of an additional 2,500 sq m will

Following representation / hearing and discussion with NLP on behalf of Aviva Life and Pensions UK Ltd to ensure that the policy is the best safeguard consistent with local circumstances and the general intentions of the NPPF.

3



Policy /Para Number



need to demonstrate that it will not have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Horsham Town Centre. This should include an assessment of the impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in the Town Centre. Subsequent paragraphs in the policy will then be updated to ensure they have the correct alphabetical sequencing.

MM 7 32 Para 5.5 From second sentence amend para as follows:

‘Current opportunities Opportunities for higher education are more limited, with the nearest universities in Brighton, Chichester and Guildford. Local Authorities and businesses in the Gatwick Diamond area have recognised that there may be is a need for additional higher education and training opportunities in the area to ensure that the workforce remains trained to a higher level in the future. To meet this need the plan allocates land at the former Novartis site in Horsham for redevelopment as a University quarter.

To reflect the identified need to consolidate employment opportunities and support for business growth, and additional training opportunities and research and development activity following approaches from Brighton University.

MM 8 33 Policy 7 – insert new sub para’s

g. encouraging sustainable local employment growth through Neighbourhood Development Plans

h. encouraging the expansion of higher education facilities related to research and development and employment training activity

To reflect the significant role of Neighbourhood Development Plans in providing sustainable local employment growth To reflect the identified need to consolidate employment opportunities and support for

4



Policy /Para Number



i. identifying additional employment areas to meet the need for appropriate new business activity

business growth, and additional training opportunities and research and development activity following approaches from Brighton University.

Chapter 5 MM 9 38 New Policy after

existing Policy 7 and Supporting Para

University and Higher Education Quarter, Horsham

The former pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing site presents an opportunity for ongoing use and redevelopment which has been identified as ideally suiting an integrated education and research or similar use. There is an identified need for higher education opportunities in the Gatwick Diamond area that redevelopment of this site would meet, in addition to supporting businesses. The site is well located in close proximity to Horsham town centre with access to a wide range of services and transport links including the train station. The site has some existing buildings which offer the potential to provide a unique combination of high quality modern research and teaching facilities as well as impressive, high quality industrial era historic buildings set within established landscaping. The policies for this site have a flexible approach encouraging mixed use development with an element of student accommodation to support the education facilities. There is also an opportunity through the future reuse and adaption of the site for the area to connect

Additional policy to meet additional employment and housing requirements

5



Policy /Para Number



better with the town centre and enhance the accessibility of the historic buildings on site for wider community benefit and enjoyment. Policy 8 Strategic Allocation – University Quarter mixed use development Land at the former pharmaceutical research development and manufacturing site bounded by Wimblehurst Road and Parsonage Road and the railway lines, as indicated on the policies Map, is allocated for re-use as comprehensive, mixed use strategic development for a higher education facility including supporting facilities, complementary employment uses and associated infrastructure. Development shall be provided in accordance with the principles of development set out below.

The redevelopment shall principally be used for education and research with complementary employment uses.

The development shall provide for onsite residential accommodation for students, which equates to around 200 housing units, to ensure that the housing needs of the education facility are met on site rather than creating a significant additional residential need in the District.

6



Policy /Para Number



Design

The design of the development shall reflect the previous use of the site as a successful research centre and create an environment which reflects its new role as an environment for learning whilst respecting its location in the heart of an existing community.

The layout and intensity of uses on the site shall be led by a Masterplan that identifies focal points, key views and locations where low, medium and high density uses may be accommodated. Higher density uses should be accommodated adjacent to the railway line.

The historic buildings, which reflect the local community’s past industrial heritage, shall be a focal point of the development by retaining the key Art Deco buildings and their landscape setting using the existing layout as a design feature and focal point.

The design shall take particular account of public views; primarily from Wimblehurst Road and seek to enhance the Parsonage Road frontage.

7



Policy /Para Number



Supporting uses

In addition to educational uses, the site is suitable for employment and residential use to meet the needs of an educational and research facility. Limited retail and other complementary uses will also be supported provided that they are directly relate to the educational, business or residential use of the site and do not adversely affect the current and future vitality and viability of Horsham town centre

The scale of future development of this site

will be suitable as a “ campus” education facility rather than a stand-alone University, so development shall demonstrate how it seeks to enhance and complement community facilities and services in the surrounding community; seeking shared or enhanced facilities that may help to meet the needs of the campus alongside local needs.

Sustainability

The site shall be designed to enhance and complement the existing road, footpath, cycleway and public transport connections; reflecting its location in the heart of Horsham town in close proximity to the train station.

8



Policy /Para Number



The future use as a higher education facility

shall require that the transport links and facilities reflect the use by students by providing suitable safe sustainable transport design in particular seeking to provide and enhance alternative modes of transport the car. There shall be a parking provision and future management plan to address how the needs of students and staff are met and the impact on the surrounding neighbours.

In addition to the overall sustainability

requirements of the plan the development shall seek to achieve re-use of the modern laboratories and associated facilities as well as the existing historic buildings.

The existing community

The development shall develop close links between the new higher education facility and local communities through sharing education and community facilities and developing local opportunities for training and learning.

The re-development of the site shall support

and enhance the employment and training

9



Policy /Para Number



opportunities in the District and the wider Gatwick Diamond economic area.

Future use of the site

The capacity of the site and level of development shall be set out and if there are any change in courses that increases numbers of students on the site this will require further agreement with the Council.

If the site is not developed for a higher education use by 2021 the future redevelopment of the site can be provided by other uses in a sequential test with a combined training and employment use first and employment use solely secondly.

Chapter 6

MM 10 52 Para 6.3 This showed that the housing number could be calculated approximately as shows that the housing number comprises the following elements

190 (216) Sufficient homes per year to house the existing population,

460 (597) Houses that are homes per year would be needed to allow for population change, household change and maintain the same size

To reflect new updated evidence on housing need. (NB figures in brackets are the proposed amendment to the policy before the receipt of ID30 in July 2015) It is suggested that it may be more appropriate to set out a less specific approach to the breakdown of the

10



Policy /Para Number



workforce, 560 (636) homes per year is t The lowest level of

housing that would be needed to allow for population and household change as well as economic growth.

An Additional 100 homes that per year are needed for the housing market area centred on Gatwick, plus a small allowance for the Coastal housing market area.

For this reason a figure of 650 (750) 800 homes per year has been proposed as a housing target …….. ‘ This will deliver 13,000 (15,000) 16,000 homes over the next 20 years’

housing number as set out below. Alternatively, the Council could consider whether to agree to any updates to this figure as identified by the Inspector

MM 11 53 Para 6.5 Amend penultimate sentence to read ‘ This will deliver at least 13,000 (15,000) 16,000 homes over the next 20 years’

To reflect new updated evidence on housing need. (NB figures in brackets are the proposed amendment to the policy before the receipt of ID30 in July 2015)

MM 12 54 Policy 15 Strategic Policy - Housing Provision

Provision is made for the development of at least 13,000 (15,000) 16,000 homes and associated infrastructure in the District within the period 2011-2031, at an average of 650 (750) 800 homes per annum. This figure will be achieved by:

a. Housing completions for the period 2011 –

Some modifications to the policy are made for clarity (NB figures in brackets are the proposed amendment to the policy before the receipt of ID30 in July 2015) . Additional allocated sites and amended wording to reflect the time

11



Policy /Para Number



2014 2015; b. Homes that are already completed, permitted

or agreed for release; c. Strategic Sites:

Around At least 2,500 homes at Land North of Horsham

Around 600 homes at Land West of Southwater

Around 150 homes at Land South of Billingshurst

d. The provision of at least around1500 homes throughout the District in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, allocated through Neighbourhood Planning and 750 windfall sites.

e. 750 windfall units sites

period in point (a) and increased overall housing number as per the Inspector’s Initial Findings and subsequently ID30. Clarification regarding points (d) and (e). Insertion of the word ‘Around’ strategic sites part (c) to allow for flexibility.

Chapter 7 MM 14 63 Policy SD1 Land North of Horsham, comprising the area north

of the A264, between Langhurstwood Road and Wimlands Road, is allocated for mixed use strategic development to accommodate at least 2,500 homes and associated infrastructure within the area identified on the concept Masterplan Map.

To ensure consistency with policy 14 wording.

MM 15 63 Policy SD1 Fourth bullet point 6th line Change wording from a new left in left out junction into the development east

To allow for flexibility when designing the junction – would allow the

12



Policy /Para Number



of Rusper Road to A new secondary junction into the development east of Rusper Road

opportunity to deliver an ‘at grade’ crossing when fully operational

MM 16 66 7.11 Add at the end of the paragraph: The Local Centre should not detract from the vitality and viability of Horsham town centre

To help retain the development and retail hierarchy in the District

MM 17 66 Policy SD3 Local Centre The Local Centre will include:

Retail provision of no more than 6,000m2 (net)sales floorspace together with other appropriate local shopping facilities subject to it being demonstrated that there would not be a significant adverse impact on Horsham town centre;

Sufficient healthcare provision within or adjacent to the Local Centre. The exact size will be determined at the time to meet the needs of the development’s population; and

Addition following hearing session on Employment

MM 18 71 SD6 2nd para 2nd line add ‘characteristics and biodiversity qualities of the site’

MM 19 72 Para 7.42 The strategic site has been planned to provide a site to meet the future secondary school needs of the District. This site will accommodate a 6 form of entry secondary school accommodating up to 900 children from aged 11 to 16 years. An additional 2ha will also be provided for the secondary school site for playing fields. This equates to a site of up to 6.91 8.91 hectares and shall be located as indicated on

To reflect the statement of common ground between WSCC and Liberty.

13



Policy /Para Number



the concept Masterplan Map. MM 20 73 SD8 SD7 SD8

The development will include the following education facilities:

Early year’s provision to meet the requirements of the new community;

Two, 2 form of entry primary schools (or equivalent);

Land and financial contribution for a 6 form of entry secondary school site; and

Additional land amounting to 2ha for the secondary school campus for playing pitches;

Financial contribution towards post 16 education facilities; and

A Special Education Needs school accommodating up to 60 children from 2-19 years old.

To reflect the statement of common ground between WSCC and Liberty.

MM 21 76 Para 7.62 Change wording from ‘a new left in left out junction into the development east of Rusper Road’ to ‘A new secondary junction into the development east of Rusper Road’

To allow for flexibility when designing the junction – would allow the opportunity to deliver an ‘at grade’ crossing when fully operational.

MM 22 77 Policy SD8 Change wording from ‘a new left in left out junction into the development east of Rusper Road’ to ‘A new secondary junction into the development east of

To allow for flexibility when designing the junction – would allow the opportunity to deliver an ‘at grade’

14



Policy /Para Number



Rusper Road’ crossing when fully operational. MM 23 77 & 78

Policy SD9 Policy SD8

Add a fifth bullet point in at the end of ‘Policy SD9 – Transport Infrastructure: Other measures, to be funded by the developer,

that address the impact of the development so as to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of the strategic and local road networks including outside the District boundary.

Add additional paragraph at end of transport supporting text for SD8: “The Horsham District Transport and Development Study indicates that development of the land north of Horsham would result in an increase in vehicle trips travelling north into Surrey towards existing problem locations. A comprehensive transport assessment to demonstrate the additional amounts of traffic movement including but not limited to north on the A24 and the A281 that would be generated by all the residential and business development proposed in the strategic allocation shall be undertaken prior to the determination of planning applications for the site’s development. Before undertaking any modelling work to support the transport assessment, applicants will be required to agree trip rates, trip distribution and junction modelling with Surrey and West Sussex County Councils. Should this work reveal the need for

In response to representation ProSub 1905 Mole Valley and ProSub3078 from Surrey County Council. HDC has discussed these proposed amendments with SCC and MVDC and all agree to the proposed wording changes.

15



Policy /Para Number



highway works or mitigating measures in Surrey taking into account all modes of transport, a suitable mechanism to deliver these works will need to be agreed with Surrey County Council. “

MM 24 79 Policy SD10 SD10

First para: ‘Land west of Southwater, comprising the area to the west of Worthing Road and south of Church Lane, is allocated for housing, open space and community facilities to accommodate c.500 around 600 homes and associated infrastructure within the area identified on the concept Masterplan Map….’

Penultimate bullet point, third line amend ‘the existing urban area of Horsham Southwater, thus reducing’

To reflect revised housing number allocated to this site and to correct typographical error.

MM25 80 New Policy SD11

Land South of Billingshurst Billingshurst is a small town/ large village located six miles to the south west of Horsham along the Arun Valley railway line. The historic core of the village is built around the crossroads of the A29 and A272, with more recent, suburban developments surrounding this. Billingshurst benefits from a wide range of local services and facilities, including primary schools, the Weald Secondary School, dentist and doctors

In response to Inspector’s Initial Findings

16



Policy /Para Number



surgeries, local convenience stores, comparison shopping, leisure facilities, pubs and local restaurants. There is also a train station to the south of the village centre with trains running to London and Horsham. An application for 50 units recently permitted to the south of the village, has left the area to the south east of the site vulnerable to development. A plan led approach enables a comprehensive development of this site and adjoining sites which provides an opportunity to create a landscape buffer to the south of the village providing a clear transition into the open countryside and a strong defensible boundary to the settlement edge. The site is well connected in terms of the existing transport network and benefits from access to the facilities and services on offer in the locality. Surface water flooding is an issue locally and development of the site should make the most of opportunities to manage flood risk. Consideration of impacts on the Mens SAC in relation to Barbastelle bats may also be a consideration. SD 11 Strategic Policy: Land south of Billingshurst Two parcels of land located to the south of Billingshurst are allocated for housing development

17



Policy /Para Number



and associated infrastructure to accommodate around 150 dwellings. This land comprises the area west of Marringdean Road to the south of Blackthorn Avenue and land to the west of the recently approved A2 Dominion site. Development of this area will be required to deliver the necessary infrastructure, facilities and services to meet the needs of the community. The development will be designed at an appropriate density and layout which relates to the existing settlement and provides convenient links to existing facilities and services. The development shall be programmed in order to enable its completion by 2031. Housing Need

the development shall provide around 150 homes with a mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to reflect local need.

Landscape & Heritage the design shall ensure that there is a

landscape buffer to the south of the village providing a clear transition into the open countryside and a strong defensible boundary to the settlement edge; and

the design and layout will preserve and recognise existing sensitive heritage assets and their settings, including the listed Great

18



Policy /Para Number



Gillmans Farmhouse, as well as conserving and enhancing the biodiversity and positive landscape qualities of the site.

Transport and Access the development will have a legible layout

which facilitates and supports all modes of sustainable transport, providing clear linkages to local services and facilities;

access should be in a safe and convenient location ensuring good visibility in all directions and taking account of the capacity requirements of Marringdean Road; and

the internal road layout should be designed to allow the circulation of bus routes should this be required.

Chapter 9 MM 26 99 Policy 27 Bullet point a, additional word to be added after

“there is no significant reduction”

NB – please read this amendment with modification AM99.

In response to discussion on Day 4: North Horsham of the Examination.

Chapter 10 MM 38 (new modification following ID30 )

114 Insert new para after 10.12 (Note – subsequent paragraph

The evidence base supporting this plan (the West Sussex Sustainable Energy Study), identified limited capacity for wind turbine development due to the landscape constraints of the district. Any wind

In response to Inspector’s Note ID30 to reflect the most up to date Government guidance.

19



Policy /Para Number



numbers to be updated consequentially)

turbine proposals will be considered against the written Ministerial Statement concerning Energy and Climate Change, published on the 18th June 2015 or latest government guidance thereafter’

MM 27 115 New para 10.15 (will be 10.16 after consequential updates stemming from MM 38)

10.15 'Renewable energy proposals will need to take into account the impact that they may have on protected landscapes. This includes the need to take into account views from protected landscapes to proposals which lie outside the South Downs National Park or High Weald AONB. Applicants should also refer to Policy 29 – Protected Landscapes.'

SDNP – ensure National Park is considered. The SDNP are in agreement with this proposed amendment

MM 39 (new modification following ID30 )

116 Policy 36 – final paragraph

The Council will permit schemes for renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind) where they do not have a significant adverse effect on …..

In response to Inspector’s Note ID30 to reflect the most up to date Government guidance.

Chapter 11 MM 28 128 Policy 43 Amend point 3 as follows:

Proposals that would result in the loss of sites and premises currently or last used for the provision of community facilities or services, leisure or cultural activities for the community will be resisted unless equally usable facilities can be conveniently provided nearby. To allow the loss of a facility iIt will be necessary to demonstrate that continued use of a community facility or service is no longer feasible taking into account factors such as; appropriate marketing, the demand for the use of the site or premises, its quality and usability, and the

To take into account response from Inspector in ID-25

20



Policy /Para Number



identification of a future occupier. Where it cannot be demonstrated that such a loss is surplus to requirements such a loss may be considered acceptable provided that:

a) An alternative facility of equivalent or better quality and scale to meet community needs is available or will be provided at an equally accessible location within the vicinity; or

b) A significant enhancement to the nature and quality of an existing facility will result from the redevelopment for alternative uses of on an appropriate proportion of the site.

c) Where the development would result in the loss of an existing sport recreation or amenity open space facility the space is identified as being of low quality and value in the criteria in the Horsham Open Space and recreation Study 2014 Appendix 1; Glossary

MM 29 Glossary P148 Around A guide figure that is plus or minus ten percent of the figure quoted.

Clarification following hearing sessions.

MM 30 Glossary P 156 Smaller Sites: These are site allocations which are Clarification following hearing

21



Policy /Para Number



below 200 homes and therefore not classified as Strategic Site Allocations.

sessions

MM 31 Glossary P 156 Smart growth. Redevelopment that would result in an intensification of use in the same area that would not adversely impact surrounding areas.

Addition following hearing session on Employment

MM 32 Glossary P 157 Strategic Site Allocation: A location for development of around 200 homes or more. Site specific details are specified within policies in the Horsham District Planning Framework

Clarification following hearing sessions

MM 33 P 158 Student accommodation - this is accommodation provided on a campus to meet the needs of a resident student population.

To support new policy on University Quarter

Appendix 2; Site Plans MM 34 Land North of

Horsham Concept Masterplan Map

1) Amend red line boundary in south-eastern corner south of the land proposed to be safeguarded for a new railway station.

2) Amend the location of the educational use site (including the secondary school)

3) Insert an additional 2 ha of land for the secondary school south of the revised area identified for educational use.

4) Relocation of the playing pitch which was shown

To provide an additional buffer. To reflect the Statement of Common Ground between West Sussex County Council and Liberty Property Trust. To reflect the Statement of Common Ground between West Sussex County Council and Liberty Property Trust.

22



Policy /Para Number



on the educational use site.

5) To insert a landscape buffer around the residential area, which was previously shown as the educational use site.

To reflect the changes to the location of the secondary school. To ensure that there is an appropriate buffer around the area shown as residential.

Policies Map MM 35 Inset Map 18-

Storrington and Sullington

Amendment to Built Up Area Boundary to include Thakeham Tiles as per the Core Strategy Proposals Map 2007 [CD/SS/36]

To correct GIS Error.

MM 36 Inset Map 4 Amendment to policy map to show allocation of SD11 – Land South of Billingshurst

New allocation

MM 37 Inset Map 10 Amendment to policy map to show allocation of new policy – specialist homes at Land South of Parsonage Road, Horsham

New allocation