Category Archives: Infrastructure

 

Legal Beagle November Edition

 

Welcome to the Urbanissta Legal Beagle’s case work reviews – we’re tracking the decisions on proposed developments to see what precedents have been set in recent judgements and decisions that might be useful to you, day to day.

We provide a summary of recent decisions for your reference below and via the links, or you can download the full decision letters should you wish. We’ll be giving you an updated every other month so remember to keep any eye out for our updates.

Our guest barrister, Giles Atkinson of 6 Pump Court provides a commentary on a recent decision; Catesby Estates Ltd v Peter Steer.

Here are 10 recent planning appeals, giving you insights into the latest precedents:

1. Reasons for Planning Approvals

Appeal Ref: C1/2017/1840 and C1/2017/1934
Appeal Decision Date: 18th July 2018
Appellant: Catesby Estates Ltd
Council: Amber Valley District Council

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Catesby Estates[1] is an interesting and important one about how to determine the extent of the ‘setting’ of a heritage asset.

‘Setting’ is defined in the glossary to the NPPF, July 2018, although the definition is unchanged from the 2012 version:

Setting of a heritage asset:  The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.  Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.  Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

The development at the heart of the case is a proposed 400 homes in Allestree, Derbyshire.  The application was refused by the LPA (Amber Valley) essentially because of harm to the setting of the nearby Grade 1 listed Kedlestone Hall.  The land on which the housing was proposed had formerly formed part of the estate for the Hall.  Catesby appealed successfully to the Secretary of State, the Inspector deciding that the development was not within the setting of the Hall because there was no visual connection between the development site and the Hall, but the Inspector’s decision granting outline permission for the development was quashed in the High Court following a section 288 challenge.

The Inspector was found by the High Court to have wrongly assessed the impact of the proposal on the setting of Kedlestone Hall as being determined by the absence of physical or visual connection between the Hall and the land on which the housing was proposed to be built, notwithstanding the historic, social and economic connections between them.  The Inspector had found that without a physical or visual connection the appeal site was not within the setting of the Hall; in the Inspector’s judgment it was necessary for there to be a physical or visual connection for the development site to come within the setting of the Hall.

Lang J concluded that the Inspector’s interpretation of setting, requiring there to be a physical or visual connection between heritage asset and development, was too narrow.

The reason why this decision raised so many eyebrows was that it appeared to be at odds with a CA decision in Williams[2] made a few weeks before Lang J’s judgment in which Lindblom LJ (like the Inspector at Kedleston Hall) appeared to rely on the need for there to be a distinct visual relationship between heritage asset and development for the latter to affect the setting of the former.

Catesby appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of Lang J and the case came before LJs McFarlane, Asplin and Lindblom who, not surprisingly, gave the leading judgment with which the others agreed.

Essentially it was argued in the CA on behalf of Catesby and the Secretary of State that the Inspector had not disregarded the other non-visual and physical considerations necessary to consider when identifying the extent of the setting of the Hall.  On behalf of Mr Steer and Heritage England, it was said, on the contrary, that the Inspector had indeed taken too narrow a view, focusing on views and visual impacts alone and that a visual connection is not necessary in every case.

In his judgment, Lindblom LJ reminded us first that ‘setting’ is not statutorily defined and does not lend itself to precise definition but it is implicit in section 66 of the Listed Buildings Act[3] that the setting of a listed building is capable of being affected in some discernible way by development, whether within the setting or outside.

Importantly, and in accordance with much of what the CA has been saying recently, he went on to make clear that the identification of the extent of the setting of a heritage asset is always a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision maker, not the court.

Addressing the apparent conflict with his own decision in Williams Lindblom J followed what he had said in that case to the effect that for a proposed development to affect the setting of a listed building there must be a distinct visual relationship between the two which is more than remote or ephemeral and which bears on one’s experience of the asset in its surroundings.  However, that does not mean that when considering the extent of an asset’s setting the decision maker should ignore the factors other than the visual or physical, such as the economic, social and historical.

Noting that the CA in another case had acknowledged that smell could harm the setting of a listed building, Lindblom drew together three general points.

First, that it is important that the decision maker understand what the setting of a listed building is, otherwise it would be difficult for an assessment to be made of how development affects it.  Second, although this is never a purely subjective exercise there is not, and nor could there be, a single approach which would apply to every case; this must always be a matter of applying planning judgment to the particular facts of a case with relevant policy, guidance and advice in mind.  Third, the effect of a particular development on the setting of a listed building is a matter for the decision maker.

In light of these points Lindblom agreed with the submissions made on behalf of Catesby and the SoS that the Inspector had not taken too narrow a view of setting, and had not concentrated on the visual and physical effect of the development, to the exclusion of all else.  The Inspector, as a matter of planning judgment, was not saying that land could only fall within the setting of the Hall if there was a physical or visual connection, he was saying the extent of the setting in this case could not be determined by the historical, social and economic connections.

The appeal was therefore allowed and the decision of the High Court overturned.

That may not be the end of the matter however.  At the time of writing Mr Steer has applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal against Lindblom LJ’s decision, that permission having been refused by the CA itself[4].  The appeal is essentially on the basis that there is confusion still about the correct approach because of the Willia

Download Decision Here.

[1] In fact 2 appeals joined: Catesby Estates Ltd v Peter Steer, Historic England and SoS for CLG v Peter Steer, Historic England [2018] EWCA Civ 1697

[2] R (oao Williams) v Powys CC [2017] EWCA Civ 427

[3] In considering whether to grant planning permission…for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

[4] On the 22nd August 2018

 

2. Benefits of the proposal are insufficient to outweigh the impact on Landscape and Setting of Listed Building.

Appeal ref: APP/X1545/W/17/3185429
Appeal Decision Date: 29 August 2018
Appellant: Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd
Council: Maldon District Council

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The applicant appealed against the refusal of for planning permission for an outline application for the construction of up to 45 dwellings with associated garaging, parking, public open space, landscaping, access, highways drainage and infrastructure works.

Background
An appeal was made by Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd against the decision to refuse planning permission for 45 dwellings and associated works by Maldon District Council

 In dismissing the appeal the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issues.

  • Whether the Council demonstrates a suitable supply of housing land;
  • The effects of the proposal on the landscape/visual character of the area; and
  • The effects of the proposal on the setting of the nearby listed building.

 Land Supply
The Inspector decided that the Council can be considered to have a five year supply of housing sites, with an appropriate buffer, for the purposes of this appeal.

Landscape/Visual Character
The Inspector acknowledged that the land is not covered by any specific landscape designation. However its value is derived from the fact that it would form the immediate rural setting at the edge of the Garden Suburb; its intrinsic value is its openness.  As such, the proposed development would undermine the Policy S4 which places emphasis on the protection of open space.

Setting of the Listed Building
Taking account of the low level of contribution to the significance of the historic asset that the appeal site makes, The Inspector considered that it would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to its significance, as set out in paragraph 196 of the NPPF.  Within this level of harm the Council suggested that it should be seen as ‘moderate’ and the appellant suggests that it would be ‘minor’. The Inspector decided that minor harm that would arise.

 Conclusion
The proposal put forward a number of benefits which is considered to carry significant weight. However, the due to the harm identified in respect of landscape and visual character and the impact on the setting of the listed building, the benefits of the proposal are insufficient to outweigh this conflict and the harm arising.

In light of the above, the Inspector refused planning permission.

Download Decision Here.

3. Proposal for 2,600 units refused permission by SoS due to the less than substantial harm to the significance of a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

Appeal Ref: APP/U3935/W/16/3154437
Appeal Decision Date: 13 June 2018
Appellant: Ainscough Strategic Land Ltd
Council: Swindon Borough Council

The appeal was recommended dismissal by the Inspector. On 19th August 2016 , the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination. The applicant appealed against the refusal of for planning permission for an outline application (with all matters reserved save the detailed access off Wanborough Road) for demolition and/or conversion of the existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide:

  • “Up to 2,600 residential units (Use Class C3); – Up to 1,765 sq m of community/retail uses (Use Classes D1/D2/A1/A2/A3/A4)
  • Up to 3,000 sq m of business/employment use (Use Class B1);
  • A Primary School (2.2 ha); – Open space, strategic landscaping and other green infrastructure (including SUDs and areas for nature conservation);
  • Other associated road and drainage infrastructure;
  • Indicative primary access road corridors to the A420; and
  • Improvements and widening of existing route off Wanborough Road to provide pedestrian, cycle and bus access. In accordance with application ref: S/OUT/15/0753/KICO dated 30 April 2015 (“the masterplan scheme”)”

Background
An appeal was made by Ainscough Strategic Land Ltd against the decision to refuse planning permission for 2,600 dwellings and associated works by Swindon Borough Council.

In dismissing the appeal the SoS gave consideration to the following main issues.

Heritage;
Open space;
Trees;
Transport; and
Sustainable Development

Heritage
The SoS has carefully analysed the impact on the Schedule Ancient Monument and agreed with the Inspector that to achieve development of the Masterplan Site inevitably, this would involve the permanent loss of much of the remaining rural setting to the SM. The identified harm to the SM has considerable importance and weight. He further agrees that in the terms of the Framework, the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the SM and, as required by paragraph 134, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal puts forward significant public benefits such as affordable housing, employment and biodiversity gains, however the less than substantial harm to the significance of the SM is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.

Open Space
The SoS agreed with the Inspector that “the proposals do not demonstrate the quantity and quality of open space sought by the open space standards would be achievable within the proposed parameters and environmental constraints of the site. He further agrees that the GI parameter plans are not of a standard to be approved. He further agrees that to leave all matters to be resolved through planning condition(s) and/or a planning obligation would not be reasonable taking into account the inadequacy of the GI parameter plans. As such the masterplan proposals fail to comply with Policy EN3”.

Trees
The scheme proposed the removal of protected trees on the western side of the internal road in order to widen the access route to serve the development Site. The SoS considered that the scheme is not in accordance with a requirement of Policy EN1 criterion (a).

Transport
The SoS agreed with the Inspector in that the proposals would not achieve good connectivity within the development and to the surrounding area and not provide highway infrastructure in accordance with an acceptable strategy. He further agrees that the proposal conflicts with Policies TR1(a), DE1 and NC3(b).

Sustainable development
The SoS agreed with the Inspector that the development of the site is in accordance with the sustainable development strategy of Policy SD2 and would secure a better balance between housing demand and supply. However, the proposals do not meet a range of principles in Policy SD1 to ensure the creation of a high quality and sustainable community. As such, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State concludes that the scheme is not sustainable development and is not supported by Policy SD3”

Conclusion
It was considered that the proposal conflicts with a number of policies, namely, Policies NC3, EN10, CM1, EN1, TR1, DE1, EN3, EN4, EN6, EN11, SD1 and SD3 of the development plan, and is not in accordance with the development plan overall.

The proposal puts forward a number of benefits including affordable housing, as such this carries significant weight in favour of the proposal. However, the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the SM. He considers that the proposal would not conserve the setting to Lotmead Farmhouse and would adversely affect the significance of this non-designated heritage asset.  Having regard to s66(1) of the LBCA he affords these harms substantial weight.

In light of the above, the SOS refused planning permission.

Download Decision Here

4.SoS disagrees with Inspector and rejects proposal for 120 dwellings due to conflict with Neighbourhood Plan

Appeal Ref: APP/Q3115/W/17/3180400
Appeal Decision Date: 20 July 2018
Appellant: R J & S STYLES
Council: South Oxfordshire District Council

The appeal was recommended approval by the Inspector. On 26th February 2018 , the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination. The applicant appealed against the refusal of for planning permission for up to 120 dwellings (40% affordable) with associated access, public open space, landscaping and play space, in accordance with application ref: P16/S3441/O, dated 14 October 2016.

Background
An appeal was made by RJ & S Styles against the decision to refuse planning permission for 120 dwellings and associated works by Oxford District Council

In dismissing the appeal the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issues.

  • Housing land supply;
  • Whether tilted balance applies;
  • Location of housing;
  • Effects on character and appearance;
  • Integration with Benson village
  • Loss of agricultural land

Housing Land Supply
The Council and the Appellant agreed in their Statement of Common Ground that the Council had 4.1 years of deliverable housing, based on the Council’s published assessment dated May 2017. In April 2018 the Council published a revised housing land supply figure of 5.4 years, this figure was disputed by the Appellant and it was argued that there would only be a 4.8 year housing supply based on a recent appeal decision. The SoS accepted the appellants argument and decided the calculation should be based on 2017 and 2018 midpoint figure. As such, it was decided that the Council can demonstrate a 5 year land supply.

Whether tilted balance applies
As the Council could demonstrate a 5-year land supply, it was considered by the the Secretary of State that the relevant policies in the development plan were not silent or absent or out of date on the matter of housing allocations in respect of Benson. A such, the tilted balance did not apply.

Location of housing
The SoS agreed with the Inspector in that the proposals would not protect the countryside. Policy NP1 seeks to resists development where a site is not allocated and outside a built-up area. It was further agreed that SOCS policies CSS1, CSH1 and CSR1 do not rule out allocations being made on sites outside existing villages, nor does it allow development on an ad hoc basis. It was decided that the appeal proposal would not accord with the development plan, considered as a whole. The conflict with Policy NP1 was given significant weight.

 Effects on character and appearance
With regards to the character and appearance of the village, the SoS agreed with the inspector that the proposed development would not cause any significant harm to the character or appearance of the landscape, or to the village setting.

Integration with Benson village
The SoS agreed with the Inspector in that the proposed development would be a natural extension of the village and would be accessible for pedestrians, cyclist and motor vehicles. It was decided that there would be no conflict with any relevant policies, including SOLP Policy T1 or BNhP Policies NP10 and NP11.

Loss of agricultural land
The development proposals do not conflict with the advice in NPPF paragraphs 109 and 112 relating to the protection of agricultural land and soils, or with any other national or local policies.

Conclusion
It was considered that the proposal carries many benefits, particularly the provision of additional housing, including affordable housing, which carries significant weight in favour of the development. Moderate weight was given to the benefits to the local economy that would come from the proposal and limited weight was given to the provision of on-site open space and play areas, and the enhancement to the public transport facilities. The proposal however conflicts with Policies G2, G4 and NP1 of the development plan, and is not in accordance with the development plan overall.

As such, when taking into account the advice in paragraph 198 of the Framework that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted, the SoS gave very significant weight to the conflict with the BNhP.

In light of the above, the SOS refused planning permission.

Download Decision Here.

5. Housing figures in Emerging Local Plan (Regulation 22) given limited weight

Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/16/3164961 Appeal Decision Date: 16 August 2018
Appellant: Gladman Developments Limited
Council: Central Bedfordshire

Land between 103 and 27 Langford Road, Henlow, Bedfordshire SG16 6AF
The appeal was mad under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The Inspector dismissed the appeal on 16 August 2018.

Background
An appeal was made by Gladman Developments against the decision to refuse 135 residential dwellings (including up to 35% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children’s play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access points from Langford Road and associated ancillary works.

Preliminary Matters
When refusing permission, the Council originally put forward two reasons for refusal.  One of these reasons related to the absence of a legal agreement which  was later supplied prior to the Inquiry as such, the second refusal had been overcome.  The remaining issue relates to the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

In dismissing the Appeal the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issue:

  • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area

Landscape
The Site lies within the Bedfordshire and Cambridge Claylands National Character Area (CCNCA).  The local character the site falls within Landscape Character Type 4C, the Upper Ivel Clay Valley. The characteristics are mixed land use predominately of arable farmland and large and medium scale geometric arable fields bounded by hedgerows. The submitted LVIA concludes that the impact would be negligible which the inspector agreed with. The proposed development would replace an open arable field with built development as such, would be completely different nature to that which currently exists this was considered a major effect.

Visual
The Inspector analysed each view point and stated that views of the site would also be available from several nearby properties.  In terms of views of the Site, the most affected residents would be those living in the dwelling directly to the south of the Site.  At present they have a rural view from the first floor windows over an arable field to the woods to the north.  This would be replaced by a view of a housing estate.  Neighbouring properties would have more oblique views of the Site. The LVA rates the overall effect of this for the properties south of the site at ten years as major adverse to minor adverse and the Inspector agreed with this and considered that residents of the two northernmost properties would

suffer the major adverse effect. The inspector concluded that the development would have a major adverse landscape effect on the Site and its immediate context as well as major adverse effects on several visual receptors as well as moderate adverse on others.

Five year land supply
It was agreed by both parties that the Council have a five-year land supply. However, the Council submitted Draft Local Plan (DLP) for examination and the housing need figure of 1967 dpa is put forward.  If this figure is taken as the housing need then the appellant considers that the Council would be unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. However, as the DLP is yet to be examined and has significant objections it was agreed between the parties that the emerging policies in the DLP should be given limited weight. However, the Appellant argued that the Housing figure of 1967 should be given material weight as the DLP has now been submitted for examination. The Inspector disagreed with this approach as the policies and figures should not be treated differently and states that until the DLP becomes adopted, the figure within the SHMA of 1600 dpa should be taken as the Council’s housing need.  Therefore the Council can demonstrate a five-year land supply.

Conclusion
The inspector concluded that the development would have an adverse impact on the landscape and its immediate context as well as major adverse effects on several visual receptors and moderate adverse on others.  The proposed development could also be seen as a small incremental change that if continued, could result in the blurring of the identities of Henlow, Clifton and Langford. Despite the economic and social benefits of the proposals, they were not individually or in combination enough to outweigh the harm that identified to the character and appearance of the area

In light of the above, the SOS refused planning permission.

Download Decision here

6.140 dwelling allowed in a village of around 700 dwellings.

Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/17/3190584 Appeal Decision Date: 22 May 2018
Appellant: Gladman Developments Limited
Council: Central Bedfordshire

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for demolition of 59 Shefford Road and associated buildings and the erection of up to 145 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicle access from Shefford Road at 59 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford SG17 5LL.

Background
A
n appeal was made by Gladman Developments against the decision to refuse outline planning permission for 145 dwellings and associated works by Central Bedfordshire Council. All maters except for access were reserved for future consideration.

Preliminary Matters
The application was refused for two reasons including development located outside of the settlement boundary and with the absence of a completed legal agreement securing financial contributions to offset infrastructure impact, including education, recreation and the provision of affordable housing, the development would have an unmitigated and unacceptable impact on existing local infrastructure. The development would therefore not amount to sustainable development

At the inquiry, the appellant questioned the validity of the council’s evidence to suggest a five year supply of land and suggested a 20% buffer should be applied. However recent case law suggested that there was not a persistent under delivery and a 5% buffer should be applied. The Inspector concluded that a 5 year HLS has been demonstrated using an OAN of 32,000 homes over a 20 year period from 2015 and a 5% buffer and that the Luton unmet need should not be included in the supply calculation.

The Inspector also referenced that a new local plan was being prepared and at an early stage of preparation and had limited bearing on his consideration of the appeal.

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issues

  • The suitability of the site for the development proposed in terms of its relationship with the existing settlement of Meppershall and its accessibility to shops and services; and
  • The effect on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.

Suitability of The Site For The Development
The Inspector referred to other decisions including Gladman v Daventry that revolved around Policy DM4 that seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and this blanket protection applies to all areas outside of settlement envelopes irrespective of their landscape value or sensitivity.

The Inspector identified a conflict between Policy DM4 and the NPPF and identified that policy DM4 would frustrate the Council’s ability to achieve a 5 year HLS and that the policy is, therefore, not consistent with paragraph 47 of the Framework.

The inspector identified that a development of 150 dwellings would result in a material increase in the size of the existing village of around 700 homes. However, other than in respect of the effect on character and appearance, the Council has not identified any harm that would flow from that increase. No substantive evidence was submitted to show an unacceptable impact on local services. Accordingly, the Inspector found find no reason to conclude that the site would be unsuitable for the form or level of development proposed and find no conflict with the development plan in this regard.

Character and Appearance
The Inspector found that there is no risk that the proposal would lead to the village merging with any other settlement. The proposed areas of built development indicated on the Development Framework Plan would be some distance from the unsettled hill slopes and, in this respect, the proposal can be distinguished from new development being built. There were only limited views of the site from a distance and the proposal was identified as in keeping with landscape character guidelines.

The Planning Balance
The inspector concluded that the appeal site was not in an unsustainable location and there would not be a conflict with policies CS16 or SADP Policies DM3 or DM14. A conflict with Policy DM4 was identified but this was only given limited weight. the site does not fall within an designated area and the inspector identified a number of benefits arising from the provision of additional market housing including 51 affordable homes.

Conclusion
The inspector concluded that the adverse impacts of development on the landscape do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits identified and that the tilted balance in favour of a grant of planning permission therefore applies.

Download Decision her

7. Lack of 5-year land supply has lead to the approval of 123 houses in Longridge.

Appeal Ref: APP/T2350/W/17/3186969 Appeal Decision Date: 22nd May 2018
Appellant: VH Land Partnership
Council: Ribble Valley Borough Council

Background
An appeal was made by VH Land Partnership against the decision to refuse outline permission for up to 123 houses; demolition of an existing house (74 Higher Road) and formation of access to Higher Road at Land at Higher Road, Longridge.

In granting permission, the Inspector gave consideration to the main issue being whether the development proposed would be consistent with the objectives of policies relating to the location and supply of housing.

Housing Land Supply in Ribble Valley
During the course of the Inquiry, it was identified that there were a number of disputed sites within the Council’s land supply, reducing the council’s figures by 136 dwellings. This reduction led to the Council’s supply amounting to 4.5 years including a 20% buffer. The Inspector identified that even if the Council’s predictions relating to some of the sites prove to be more accurate, it would not significantly alter the housing land supply position and would only marginally reduce the shortfall within the range of 4.5 years and a maximum of 4.7 years of deliverable housing land supply. In that respect, to conclude on the compliance of the proposal with the development plan and the Framework as a whole as part of the planning balance, it is necessary to firstly consider any other matters that are relevant to the proposal. The other matters are set out below:

Highway and Pedestrian Safety
The development would not increase the demand for on-street parking or increase traffic flows on Higher Road to an extent that existing highway conditions and parking arrangements would be significantly altered or worsened. The development would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety or preclude access for emergency vehicles.

Living Conditions
The masterplan and illustrative material submitted with the planning application demonstrate that adequate separation distances to neighbouring properties

The Inspector did not consider that the extent of those effects would result in significant harm or disturbance to their existing living conditions.

Ecology, Trees and Open Space
The Inspector was satisfied that detailed submissions could suitably incorporate existing high and moderate quality trees within the site, together with the trees and hedgerows along the site boundary and those located on neighbouring land with crown overhangs or root protection areas within the site. Public open space within the site, including useable spaces, natural play spaces, pedestrian footpath links and cycle routes, can be secured as part of the reserved matters and conditions in accordance with the illustrative details within the masterplan

Drainage and Flood Risk
The development would not be at unacceptable risk of flooding or increase the risk of flooding to surrounding properties, subject to the suitability of the detailed site layout as part of the reserved matters.

Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the Inspector concluded that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Download Decision here.

8. Compliance with Extant Code for Sustainable Homes Condition Removed

Appeal Ref: APP/E5900/W/18/3199690 Appeal Decision Date: 17 August 2018
A
ppellant: Mr Peter Magri
Council: London Borough of Tower Hamlets

 The appeal was made under Section 78 of the TCPA 1990 against a refusal to grant permission under Section 73.

Background
An appeal was made by Mr Peter Magri against the decision to refuse permission for a variation to the Code for Sustainable Homes condition attached to a permission PA/11/01818 granted on the 5th July 2013 for 57 apartments and 970sqm of commercial space for A1, B1/D1 use as a part 7, part 8 storey development without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref PA/11/01818, dated 5 July 2013.

In allowing the appeal, the Inspector gave consideration to:

  • Whether the condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of addressing climate change and achieving sustainable development.

Changes to the planning practice guidance in 2015 saw the removal of Code for Sustainable Homes(CSH)from national policy with the exception of legacy cases. The Council contended that the withdrawal of the CSH relates to planning conditions for new approvals only and that the development  in this case was a legacy case. Legacy cases are defined as residential development that are legally contracted to apply a code policy such as affordable housing through the National Affordable Housing Programme 2015 to 2018 or earlier programme, or where planning permission has been granted subject to a condition stipulating discharge of a code level which a developer is not appealing or seeking to have removed or varied.

.As the developer is appealing the condition and seeking to have it removed, it cannot be considered a legacy case.

The inspector noted that Based on the PPG, the proposal would not be required to be built to zero carbon. Nonetheless, there would be an element of conflict with development plan policies. However, in the context of Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and Section 70 (2) of the Act, the great weight I attribute to the PPG outweighs the weight I afford to the conflict with the above noted development plan policies. The inspector also recognised that owing to Building Regulations Part L (2013) requirements, despite the removal of the condition, the proposal would still address climate change and achieve sustainable development.

Other Matters
The Inspector also noted that the PPG makes it clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 of the Act should also repeat the relevant conditions from the original planning permission, unless they have already been discharged.

It was also cited that Section 73 (5) the Act and the PPG5 are clear that planning permission cannot be granted under this section of the Act to extend the time limit within which a development must be started or an application for approval of reserved matters must be made.

Conclusion
The Inspector concluded that the condition is not reasonable or necessary in the interests of addressing climate change and achieving sustainable development. Condition 11 was subsequently removed and the appeal succeeded.

Download Decision here.

9. 5-year housing supply shortfall lead to successful Appeal for 100 dwellings.

Appeal Ref: APP/U3935/W/17/3192234 Appeal Decision Date: 18th October 2018
Appellant: Ainscough Strategic Land Limited
Council: Swindon Borough Council

Background
An appeal was made by Ainscough Strategic Land Limited against the decision of Swindon Borough Council to refuse “outline planning application (with means of access off Ermin Street/Blunsdon Hill not reserved) for the demolition of the existing Hill Cottage for the development of approximately 100 dwellings (Use Class C3), on-site recreational space, landscaping and associated road and drainage infrastructure.”.

In allowing the appeal, the Inspector considered the following main issues:

  • The relationship of the proposal to the development plan for the area;
  • The effect on the character and appearance of the area;
  • Whether the location of the site is such that the need to travel would be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes maximised;
  • Whether the proposal makes appropriate provision for affordable housing, infrastructure and similar matters; and
  • Whether there are any other material considerations, including the housing land supply situation and benefits of the proposals, which would indicate that the proposals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the development plan

Development plan for the area
In summary, Policy SD2 of the Local Plan notes that development in rural and in countryside locations outside of rural settlement boundaries will be permitted if it is in accordance with the other policies in the Local Plan which permitted specific development in the countryside. No other policies were identified to justify why development outside a settlement boundary should be permitted. Therefore, for the purposes of assessing the proposal against the terms of the development plan, as the proposal lies in the countryside it would be contrary to this part of Policy SD2 of the Local Plan.

It was considered common ground that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply and that relevant policies were therefore out of date. Although the appeal site lies outside the settlement boundary of Broad Blunsdon the Council conceded that it considered that this, of itself, was not a reason to dismiss the appeal due to the land supply position.

Character and Appearance
The Site lies within Upper Thames Clay Vale National Character Area. The Inspector identified the proposals would result in a landscape harm rather than heritage harm. As the Site has a reasonable separation distance from Lower Blunsdon and the Conservation Area, it would therefore be preserved.

In terms of harm to the landscape and visual qualities of the area, it would be contrary to Policy EN5 of the Local Plan.  It would also be contrary to Policy SD1 of the Local Plan in that it would not respect, conserve or enhance the natural environment and the unavoidable impacts would not be wholly mitigated as such would be contrary to paragraph 170 of the Framework

Overall, it was concluded that the Site would be harmful to the landscape and would have harmful visual effects.  The impacts however would be limited and would be mitigated to some extent, but not wholly, by the additional planting that would form part of this development.

Accessible location
The Site was not considered as being well related for the use of non-car modes, however is not poorly located given the proximity to the main built up area of Swindon.

Due to the location of the Site, the need for travel will not be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes maximised when compared with sites with better access for non-car modes. This is contrary to Policy TR2 and to paragraph 103 of the Framework as there would not be a genuine choice of transport modes.  This weighs against the development, but as there are alternatives that may be used by residents which gives some choice, although less likely than not, this was given limited weight.

Affordable housing
Policy HA2 of the Local Plan indicates that all developments of 15 homes or more should provide 30% of the dwellings as affordable housing.  The Planning Obligation provides this proportion and would thus complies with development plan policy.  However, the proposal would only provide 9% of the dwellings for affordable home ownership rather than the 10% set out in paragraph 64 of the Framework. Significant weight was attached to the provision of AH.

5YHLS
The appellants and the Council set out various figures as to the land supply that could be demonstrated, given an agreed base date of 1 April 2017.  These varied from between 1.9 years and 2.1 years for the appellants and 2.5 years and 2.7 years for the Council depending on the varying analyses of deliverability and the appropriate buffer. The inspector decided that which ever the figure, the shortfall is significant.

Conclusion
In bringing all the above together in the final balance, the Inspector considered that the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The Inspector attached significant weight to the fact that the Site fell outside of the development boundary. Furthermore, the proposals would have harmful visual effect on Broad Blunsdon and would result in the loss of a golf course and community facility – these were all given limited weight. The inspector highlighted that there are significant benefits of the proposal from the provision of the additional dwellings both themselves and through the provision of affordable housing.

The 5YHLS was considered a serious matter which resulted in the Policies for the supply of housing in the development plan to be considered to be out-of-date. The factors above provide the material considerations to grant planning permission other than in accordance with the development plan.

Based on the above, the appeal was allowed.
Download Decision here

10. Improvements to affordable housing leads to approval by Secretary of State

Appeal Ref: APPJ2210/W/15/3141444 Appeal Decision Date: 6th August 2018
Appellant: Hollamby Estates Ltd
Respondent: Canterbury City Council

 Background
An appeal was made by Hollamby Estates against the non determination of a hybrid application by Canterbury City Council.

The hybrid application sought in detail the demolition of existing dwelling house in conservation area and two other dwellings, change of use of lagoon to allotments, ecological habitat and footpath link and improvements along Bullockstone Road. The outline elements were related to provision of 800 dwellings commercial and community development with pedestrian and cycle links, drainage sustainable drainage and open space as well as highways infrastructure.

The Council confirmed on 1st March that they would have refused the application for seven reasons comprising severe adverse impact on the highway, inadequate and unsafe works, absence of planning obligations to mitigate the impacts on the local highway network, failure to justify the 4% affordable housing provision, failure to demonstrate an acceptable impact on air quality, conflict with the Habitat Regulations and non-compliance with the development plan.

The appeal was recovered by the secretary of State on the 27th June 2016 on the basis that the appeal involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units or on sites of over 5 hectares.

The inquiry was held in January and April 2017 with the inquiry closed in writing on the 31st July 2017.

The site is subject to EIA with an ES submitted with the application in 2015. In March 2017, three addendums were submitted and in May 2017 the EIA regulations 2017 came into force. Regulation 76 of the EIA regulations allow for transitional arrangements which the inspector considered this site would fall within.

The main areas of concern were affordable housing and highways impacts. In March 2016, the appellants submitted a varied highways improvement scheme which was granted permission in April 2017.

On the matter of affordable housing the application proposed 4% affordable housing, which was contrary to the emerging 30% requirement. At the start of the inquiry, the appellant proposed an increase of affordable housing to 15% with a split of 30% rent and 70% shared ownership. This was contrary to policy which required 70% rent and 30% shared ownership.

The matters as agreed were:

  • The Kent BRIS would provide an appropriate technical solution to the requirement to improve Bullockstone Road
  • Air Quality. The ES Addendum No 2 included further assessment using updated traffic data flow.
  • The appellant agreed that the requested contribution towards strategic access management at the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA would be met in full.
  • The appellant agreed to provide obligations to secure additional secondary education capacity
  • All parties agreed that using the Liverpool method of calculating 5 year supply, there is a surplus of land whereas there is a deficit using the Sedgefield approach.
  • There were no outstanding technical highways and transportation issues that would prevent a grant of outline permission. However there was disagreement regarding the timing of completion of the Spine Road which KCC contended should be completed and available for use prior to the completion of the 410th

The main matters in dispute were development viability and affordable housing.

In January 2018, a revised viability assessment was submitted showing that 30% affordable housing could be provided with a 30% rent and 70% shared ownership mix. The tenure remained unacceptable.

In March 2018, the secretary of state wrote to the appellants confirming that the main issue was meeting local housing needs and that the scheme was not in accordance with Policy SP3, that the proposal would not deliver the Herne Relief Road at the appropriate time, the proposed land use content would not meet the primary objective for the SSA, there would be a net gain in biodiversity/nature conservation, the loss of some 15ha of BMV land does not weight significantly against the development, there would be less than substantial harm to the Herne Conservation Area.

The Secretary of State advised that before making his final decision he would give the appellants six weeks to address the concerns on affordable housing and highways via submission of a revised and agreed planning conditions.

The appellants confirmed that a bi-lateral agreement between all parties addresses affordable housing provision and a unilateral undertaking with Kent County council secures developer contributions towards the Kent Bullockstone Road Improvement Scheme.

Based on the above, the appeal was subsequently allowed by the secretary of State.

Download Decision here.

 

Share this on:

 

Local Plan Updates and Progression August 2018

 

Local Plan Updates – Tracking and Progression

We have been tracking and following the progress of Local Plans in the different regions of England.

A Local Plan sets out planning policies and identifies how land is used – determining what will be built where. We’ve developed this Local Plan Schedule which we hope will keep you up to date on what Local Authorities are doing on their Plans and if you have any questions contact us today.

Share this on:

 

Silvertown Tunnel Consent Order Granted

 

The Development Consent Order for the Silvertown Tunnel has been approved by a Statutory Instrument (No 574). The Silvertown Tunnel Order 2018 was made on the 10th May 2018 and comes into force on the 31st May 2018. The decision was delayed for six months to take into account additional measures for air quality.

The consent order, found on the Planning Inspectorate Website allows for 21 separate items of work including:

  • Construction of a twin bore highway tunnel for a length of 1,440 metres from a portal on the Greenwich peninsula.
  • Improvement of the existing two-lane A102 Blackwall Tunnel southern approach. southbound carriageway over a length of 595 metres from a point 260 metres south of the existing Blackwall Tunnel Southbound South Portal to a point 20 metres south of the existing gantry on the existing slip road.
  • Improvement of the existing two-lane A102 Blackwall Tunnel southern approach northbound carriageway over a length of 500m.
  • Improvement of the existing Tunnel Avenue from a point 65 metres south of a point level with the junction of the existing Tunnel Avenue with Morden Wharf Road.
  • Construction of a new two-lane carriageway over a length of 150 metres forming the southern approach northbound carriage, and construction of new two lane carriageway for 160m forming the southbound carriageway.
  • Improvement of 45 metres of the A102 Blackwall Tunnel southern approach southbound carriageway two-lane diverge slip road leading to the existing Millennium Way.
  • Construction of a new cross-over between the northbound and southbound carriageways of the improved A102 Blackwall Tunnel southern approach.
  • Construction of a new bus-only carriageway linking the existing A102 Blackwall Tunnel southern approach southbound carriageway.
  • Improvement of the existing Pavilion Lane to provide a new bus-only carriageway,
  • Construction of a new Boord Street foot and cycle bridge to provide access for non-motorised users across the A102 Blackwall Tunnel.
  • Works associated with the construction of a Silvertown Tunnel services compound on the north and south portal.
  • Construction of a replacement gas pressure reduction station.
  • Permanent diversion of statutory undertakers’ apparatus and works associated with such diversions, located in Boord Street and Millennium Way.
  • Construction of the new Silvertown Tunnel northern approach
  • Improvement of the existing Tidal Basin Roundabout for a length of 415 metres,
  • Construction of Dock Road on a new alignment.
  • Improvement to the existing Tidal Basin Road to include resurfacing works to the existing Tidal Basin Road.
  • Construction and subsequent removal of a temporary jetty for transportation of materials to Royal Victoria Dock.
  • Dredging and mooring works.

The order allows TFL to construct, operate and maintain the Silvertown Tunnel. The Order would permit Transport for London to acquire, compulsorily or by agreement, land and rights in land and to use land for this purpose. The Order also includes provisions in relation to the operation of the existing Blackwall Tunnel regarding speed limits, penalty charges and byelaws. The order also allows for the implementation of user charging at both tunnels.

A Silvertown Tunnel Design Review Panel will be set up along with the Silvertown Tunnel Stakeholder Design Consultation Group

There are 14 schedules attached to the 187 page document. Schedule 2 part 1 reads like a set of conditions which require:

  • Time limit-5 years
  • The authorised development must be designed and implemented— (a) in accordance with the design principles; and (b) in general accordance with the general arrangement plans
  • TfL must consult with the Silvertown Tunnel Design Review Panel; and the Silvertown Tunnel Stakeholder Design Consultation Group, during the detailed design of the authorised development
  • specific work items details to be submitted and approved
  • code of construction practice
  • No part of the authorised development may be commenced until the following plans and strategies, required by the code of construction practice, have been prepared
    • Construction Site River Strategy:
    • Emergency Plan:
    • Fire Plan;
    • Lighting Management Plan:
    • Site Waste Management Plan
  • No part of the authorised development may be commenced until the following plans and strategies, required by the code of construction practice, have been prepared
    • Air Quality Management Plan
    • Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation
    • Community Engagement Plan
    • Construction Materials Management Plan ;
    • Construction Traffic Management Plan
    • Ecology Management Plan
    • Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan
  • Groundwater Monitoring and Verification Plan
  • Noise and Vibration Management Plan;
  • Passage Plan
  • Construction Environmental Management Plan:
  • Landscaping scheme
  • Monitoring and mitigation strategy
  • secure implementation of measures approved in accordance with the approved programme
  • TfL must— (a) implement a monitoring programme in consultation with the members of STIG; (b) prepare— (i) quarterly monitoring reports for a period of one year from the Silvertown Tunnel opening for public use; and (ii) annual monitoring reports thereafter, derived from that monitoring, and submit them for consideration by the members of STIG
  • Not less than three years before the Silvertown Tunnel is expected to open for public use TfL must install Nitrogen Dioxide (“NO2”) monitors at locations determined in accordance with paragraph 3.7.4 of the monitoring and mitigation strategy.
  • The authorised development must be carried out in accordance with the flood risk assessment.
  • No part of the authorised development may open for public use until a written scheme of proposed noise mitigation measures in respect of the use and operation of that part has been submitted to and approved in writing
  • Prior to the opening of the authorised development for public use, TfL must install noise barriers to protect properties in the Siebert Road, Invicta Road/Westcombe Hill area from the effects of traffic noise from the A102.
  • TfL must secure a cross-river bus service provision using the tunnels which delivers the same or greater levels of public transport
  • TfL must secure the provision of enhanced river crossing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians between the Greenwich Peninsula and Canary Wharf and Silvertown for at least the duration of the monitoring period,
  • authorised development must be carried out in accordance with the biodiversity action plan and mitigation strategy.
  • No part of the authorised development may commence until a site investigation and risk assessment has been carried out
  • The Silvertown Tunnel must not open for public use and the tunnel services buildings at the South Portal comprised in Work No. 12 must not be occupied after their practical completion until the hazardous substances consent for the East Greenwich Gasholder Station site has been revoked or modified
  • The Silvertown Tunnel must not open for public use until the hazardous substances consent for the Brenntag Inorganic Chemicals Ltd site has been revoked or modified
  • Re-use of excavated material on-site
  • Local business transitional support

Part 2  of Schedule sets out the procedure for discharging the requirements of Part 1 of the order including submitting draft documents to Newham, Greenwhich and Tower Hamlets prior to formal submission.

Schedule 3 sets out the approach to stopping up roads including roads to be temporarily closed, permanently closed or substituted.

Schedule 4 sets out the land in which only new rights may be acquired

Schedule 5 Details Approach To  Modification Of Compensation And Compulsory Purchase Enactments For Creation Of New Rights

Schedule 6 Land In Which Only Subsoil Or New Rights Above Subsoil And Surface May Be Acquired

Schedule 7 Land Of Which Only Temporary Possession May Be Taken

Schedule 8: Removal Of Motor Vehicles And Recovery Of Penalty Charges

Schedule 9: Blackwall And Silvertown Tunnels Byelaws

Schedule 10:Classification Of Roads, Etc.

Schedule 11: Article 61 Traffic Regulation Measures, Etc

Schedule 12 :Deemed Marine Licence

Schedule 13: includes protective provisions

Schedule 14: Article 65 Documents To Be Certified

Tfl’s website states:

“Now that the DCO has been granted, we are working with local boroughs, landowners and other stakeholders to outline the next steps for the project. This includes agreeing details of land acquisitions, construction plans and access requirements for residents, visitors and local businesses as the scheme progresses”

“We are now working to procure a contractor to design and build the tunnel. We hope to confirm a preferred bidder in winter 2018 and award the contract in early 2019 so that construction can begin later in that year” 

Construction could begin in early 2019, with the new tunnel expected to open in 2023.

Share this on:

 

City of Christchurch moves from Recovery into Regeneration

 

Christchurch Cathedral January 2017

Following the earthquakes in Christchurch during 2011 that led to significant damage to the city and loss of life, a decision has been made on the future of the Christchurch cathedral in the centre of the city. Following years of the impasse between opposing parties, could this decision now signal a move forward from recovery into regeneration?

We take a look at the events that led to the decision and why the cathedral is critical to the regeneration of the City.

The Earthquake

On the 22nd February 2011, a 6.4 magnitude quake struck the city, and following damage to buildings in a previous quake during 2010, a number of buildings were already identified with the potential to collapse. 185 people died in the nation’s 5th deadliest disaster.

   

182 chairs for the 182 people that died during the earthquake

Events following the Earthquake

October 2011

Two subsequent earthquakes in 2011 further damaged the cathedral and in October 2011, the Trustees of the Church announced proposals to demolish parts of the building as the costs of repair was more than the cost of the insurance.

March-August 2012

Demolition commenced in March 2012 and in August 2012, the Great Christchurch Building Trust (GCBT) announced a High Court challenge of the demolition plans. The court put the demolition on hold in November.

That order was in place until July 2013 when a High Court ruling to lift it was upheld by the Appeal Court. In December 2013, the Supreme Court declined a GCBT appeal against that decision. Demolition was never resumed because the emergency quake powers had expired and it would require consent, which would be challenged in court by GCBT.

2014

In 2014, the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan was published by the City Council identifying actions to be taken to rebuild the city. The cathedral is central to the plan and to the city spatially.

Under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011, a Recovery Plan must be developed for the central business district (CBD). All decisions to be made following the time of the plan must be made in accordance with the requirements of the plan. it also required changes to be made to the city’s district plan. to ensure the objectives of the Recovery Plan were met.

Christchurch Central Recovery Plan 2014

“The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan sets out a clear vision for the Square – an international centre and the heart of our city, with year-round activity, day and night. It’s a vision for a 21st-century city that points to a greener space, with buildings that inspire and activate, and the main square complemented by a series of smaller places[1]”.

July 2015

In July 2015, frustration became clear as the Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee wrote to the Trustees stating lack of progress on the future of the Cathedral was slowing down attempts by the city to regenerate. Cathedral Square landowners were reluctant to spend money on development next to a decaying site with an uncertain future.

September 2015

In September 2015, the Minister appointed a negotiator to mediate between the Church Property Trustees and the Great Christchurch Building Trust. Both sides along with their engineers were asked to agree on the feasibility and cost of restoring the building or replacing it with a new cathedral.

It was identified that restoration would take until 2022 and cost $105m, while a new cathedral would cost about $66m and could be complete by 2019, Deans reported. Anglicans agreed to reconsider restoration of the cathedral in December 2015.

April 2016

Regenerate Christchurch was established to lead Christchurch from recovery to regeneration.  The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 sets out the functions[2] of the Regenerate Christchurch body. The Cathedral Square and its surrounds were identified as a key priority area and a regeneration strategy for the square and surround commenced.

June 2016

In June 2016 Brownlee appointed a working Group to come up with a fully costed and feasible plan for restoring the cathedral.

December 2016

The group delivered its non-binding recommendations to government in December 2016 which formed the basis of a restoration deal between the government and Anglican leaders. This deal was delayed and amended by the Government as requested by the Church Property Trustees.

July 2017

An amended a Cathedral reinstatement plan was put forward to all parties. The deal set out the funding mechanisms for the reinstatement including a $10 million Christchurch City Council pledge, a Great Christchurch Buildings Trust (GCBT) pledge of $13.7m, a $10m Crown cash contribution and a $15m government loan. $90 million was now secured. The offer also proposed new legislation, which would allow reinstatement of the cathedral to be fast-tracked, and a joint venture made up of the Church Property Trustees and a fundraising trust would govern and manage the reinstatement.

Cathedral Square January 2017

On 31 July 2017 Regenerate Christchurch published a draft concept and key moves for Cathedral Square and the surrounding area. Regenerate Christchurch.

In its first annual report regenerate Christchurch,  identified three priority areas including the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Area, Cathedral Square and Surrounds, and Southshore and South Brighton.

September 2017

Bishop Victoria Matthews took the offer to the Synod in September 2017 who voted 55% in favour of reinstating the building with a basic design. It was announced that the project would cost $93 million and would take 10 years to build.

A week following the decision by the Synod, an agreement was signed outlining the project’s commercial, financial and legal terms and approximately $90 million of the restoration cost were already secured. The agreement identified that a new Restoration Trust would be formed that will be responsible for fundraising and managing the project, alongside the Church Property Trustees and an establishment group would be set up to develop the joint venture structure and a project plan.

December 2017

The Christchurch Cathedral Reinstatement Bill had its first reading in Parliament.06 December 2017, and the $10 million Christ Church Cathedral grant was approved by Christchurch City Council[3].

Christchurch Cathedral December 2017

February 2018

Now, we move to 2018 and the City Council are now considering raising rates by an average of 5.5 percent from July this year, to address the priorities in the Council’s draft Long Term Plan (LTP)(external link), which sets out the Council’s work programme and priorities for the next 10 years[4].  A proposal to introduce a new targeted rate to cover the Council’s $10 million special heritage contribution towards the reinstatement of Christ Church Cathedral is also included in the Long Term Plan.

“Deloitte calculates the total cost of the earthquakes will be more than $10 billion”

“There you have it. A couple of heritage blips aside, Christchurch should be able to pass as a functioning, disaster-free city by 2025[5]

Cathedral and Square December 2017

 

[1] https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/plans/central-city-recovery-plan

[2] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0014/32.0/whole.html#DLM6579202

[3] https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/99987766/10m-cathedral-grant-approved-by-council-despite-objections

[4] http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1802/S00182/rates-rise-under-consideration.htm

[5] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/101602318/christchurch-2025-what-will-quake-recovery-look-like

Share this on:

 

The Urbanissta Legal Beagle is on the case (Dec’17)

 

Legal Beagle

Welcome to the Urbanissta Legal Beagle’s case law reviews – we’re tracking the decisions on proposed developments to see what precedents have been set in recent judgments and decisions that might be useful to you, day to day.

We provide a summary of recent decisions for your reference below and via the links, or you can download the full decision letters should you wish. Remember to keep an eye out for further iterations, in the weeks to come.

1. Car showroom replaced to provide office spaces and 142 residential unit – Harlow

Appeal Ref: APP/N1540/W/17/3172421

Appeal Decision Date: 26th September 2017

Appellant: Hollybrook (Harlow) Limited

Respondent: Harlow District Council

 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Harlow District Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission.

Background

An appeal was made by Hollybrook (Harlow) Limited against the non-determination of a planning application for demolition of existing motor dealership buildings and replacement with a development comprising 142 residential units, 1,155 sq.m. of office floorspace (within class B1) and 161 car parking spaces”.

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the Inspector gave consideration to the three main issues.

  • Effect on employment space
  • Whether the scheme make adequate provision for affordable housing
  • Effect on pedestrian and highway safety

Employment space

The site was previously used for car sales, servicing and repairs – however at the time of the appeal was largely vacant. The proposal sought to provide 1,155sq.m of offices as well as 142 residential units. The inspector acknowledged that the site benefits from extant planning permission for redevelopment of the site to provide a replacement car showroom with servicing and repair facilities, along with 102 residential units. The appeal proposal sought more residential units, however, the inspector concluded that the offices proposed would generate more employment than the car showroom – as such, the scheme would not contribute to the loss of employment space.

Affordable housing

Policy H5 suggests that the council use 30% affordable housing as a baseline for negotiations – this is increased to 33% in the Affordable Housing Supplementary document. Expert advice concluded that a provision of 8.5% affordable housing was appropriate level of affordable housing on the site. The inspector concluded that as there was a substantial need of affordable housing in Harlow, this weighed in favour of the development.

Pedestrian and highway safety

The site was considered a safe environment based on the accident records. In terms of parking, 142 parking spaces were proposed for the residential units, with offices provided with 19 spaces. The Council considered this to fall short of their requirements. The inspector, however, concluded that as the scheme is located closer to the town centre, parking requirements differ and the quantity of parking would not lead to inconsiderate parking and harm to pedestrian/highway safety.

Conclusion

The Inspector concluded that the proposal would form sustainable development and the appeal should succeed as the development not result in the loss of employment space; the proposals offer much needed affordable housing in the area, and the quantity of parking would not lead to inconsiderate parking and harm to pedestrian/highway safety.

On the basis of the above, the appeal was allowed.
Download the decision here.

 

2. Development allowed after inspector reduced affordable housing from 40% to 20% after assessing viability – Skipton

Appeal Ref: APP/C2708/W/16/ 3150511

Appeal Decision Date: 29th September 2017

Appellant: Skipton Properties Ltd

Respondent: Craven District Council

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Craven District Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission.

Background

An appeal was made by Skipton Properties Ltd against the non-determination of a planning application for “residential development of 93 dwellings – amendments to layout and alteration of house types on plots 4 to 58 and 62 to 99 (pursuant to outline approval 63/2010/11062 and reserved matters approval 63/2013/13350) without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 63/2015/15726, dated 11th August 2015.”

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issues.

  • Whether a condition requiring affordable housing (AH) on site would meet the statutory tests set out in the NPPF
  • Whether the scheme make adequate provision for affordable housing

Timeline background

The timeline and background of the appeal is explained below:

2012: Outline permission was granted for 103 dwellings.

2013: Reserved matters permission pursuant to outline for 103 units (41 AH units) was secured.

March 2015: MMA to vary the house types for the first 10 dwellings approved.

March 2015: Application sought to revise the house types for the remaining 93 dwellings was approved subject to a number of conditions.

October 2015: Application refused.

Nov 2015: An application to vary Condition 2 (40% AH provision) to reduce the amount of affordable housing on site to 20%.

April 2016: Application to vary condition 2 was refused.

The appeal was originally submitted on the basis that a 40% AH requirement was unviable and that provision should instead be made at 20%.  Following the quashing of the SPD the appellant has also advanced the argument that in the absence of adopted development plan policies seeking AH, a requirement for AH cannot be justified.  It is also claimed that the condition is unenforceable.

Affordable Housing

A requirement of 40% was imposed on the original outline permission, handed down from the RSS.  The current scheme has a full and separate permission which was granted in part due to the fallback provided by the previous approval10, which was subject to an affordable housing requirement. In this regard, despite the passage of time, I accept the Council’s view that the provision of affordable housing was a benefit which in part justified granting permission for a development which was contrary to the development plan, and that the absence of AH should be considered as a disbenefit which is a material consideration in any assessment of the proposal.

Conclusion

It was concluded that the provision of AH would not prevent the implementation of the scheme and would not alter the number of units provided.  “There are therefore no benefits to attribute from the alternative provision of market housing. It follows that the harm arising from the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in this case.” The inspector decided that subject to S106 agreements to provide for public open space and affordable housing at 20% the appeal be allowed in accordance with conditions.

On the basis of the above, the appeal was allowed.

Download the decision here.

 

3. Land at Middlesgate Road, West Frampton – Boston

Appeal Ref: APP/Z2505/W/17/3170198

Appeal Decision Date: 25th October 2017

Appellant: Larkfleet Ltd t/a Allison Homes

Respondent: Boston Borough Council

 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Boston Borough Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission.

Background

An appeal was made by Larkfleet Ltd t/a Allison Homes against the non-determination of a planning application for “The development proposed is the erection of up to 215 dwellings including access off Middlegate Road West, public open space and drainage infrastructure.”

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issues.

  • Whether the principle of development outside the settlement boundary would be acceptable
  • The effect on landscape character and the visual amenity
  • Whether the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land

Principle of development

The site falls in the open countryside just outside of the settlement boundary of Kirton. Policy CO1 of the Boston Local Plan 1999 (BLP) restricts development in the countryside unless it is supported by other policies within the development. It was accepted by both parties that there are no policies to support development in the countryside. It was accepted that the development proposals conflict with Policy CO1.

Landscape character and visual amenity

Policy G1 and G2 of the BLP 1999 set out a criterion which all development proposals should be assessed against. The inspector considered that the proposals could not be assessed against G1 as details such as density, scale etc would be dealt with as reserved matters. Policy G2 prohibits development which has significant adverse impacts on existing landscape, wildlife and vegetation sources.

The impact on the landscape was considered a material issue in this appeal and the council argued that the proposal would not follow any existing boundary and would cut across two fields – this would not respect the character of the existing landscape.

As the development would be concentrated around existing settlements and near main roads, the inspector considered that the development would be an extension of the existing urban area. With appropriate planting to the eastern side of the boundary and the break in development to the eastern side of the A16, it was concluded that there would be no coalescence. The proposal, however, was seen to reduce views from the Stump from Middlegate Road West which was seen to cause harm by restricting views of the important landscape feature.

The inspector concluded that the proposal would not substantially harm the general character of the area or adversely impact upon the existing landscape.  However, although there would be some adverse impacts on the landscape and the character of the area, these would not be so significant that the development would breach the respective thresholds of acceptability. In terms of visual impact, the Inspector considered the proposal to cause significant harm in terms of the loss of open views.

5-YLS

The Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. The Council argued that they had a 3.4 years supply whilst the appellant suggested that it is in the region of 1.61 years. The Inspector agreed with the Appellant and decided that the Council had less than 3.4 year supply.

Conclusion

In concluding the appeal and granting permission, the Inspector stated:

“Bringing all the above together in the final balance, I consider that the adverse environmental impacts I have identified would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the social and economic benefits, in particular, the significant contribution to the shortfall of housing in the area.  Even if the housing shortfall was at the level the Council suggests, the adverse impacts of the proposal would not, in my judgment, outweigh the benefits.  The proposal, therefore, constitutes sustainable development as defined in the Framework. The factors above provide the material considerations to grant planning permission other than in accordance with the development plan.”

On the basis of the above, the appeal was allowed.

Download the decision here.

 

4. Land north of Loperwood Lane, Calmore – Totton

Appeal Ref: APP/B1740/W/16/3164266

Appeal Decision Date: 29th September 2017

Appellant: Howard Sharp & Partners LLP

Respondent: New Forest District Council

 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Boston Borough Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission.

Background

An appeal was made by Howard Sharp & Partners LLP against the non-determination of a planning application for “up to 80 dwellings; open space; drainage”

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issue.

  • Development outside settlement boundary

Principle of development

The Site is situated on the northern edge of Totton screened by hedgerows and mature trees, some of which are protected by TPO. As the Site falls outside of the settlement boundary and within the countryside, the proposal conflicts with policy DM20 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 2 Sites and Development Management (adopted 2014) (the ‘Local Plan part 2’), which resist development in the countryside.

Conclusion

The appeal was considered in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd and SSCLG, Richborough Estates Partnership LLP and SSCLG v Cheshire East BC [2017] UKSC 37 where the policies do not amount to policies for the supply of housing and restricted development. It was further acknowledged that the council could not demonstrate a 5-year land supply, as such the ‘tilted balance’ set out in the second part of the Framework’s paragraph 14 was engaged.

It was considered that although the proposal would conflict with relevant Local Plan policies, however, “it would not result in adverse effects that would be sufficient to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the scheme’s clear benefits – notably the provision of much-needed housing, including affordable housing”.

On the basis of the above, the Inspector deemed the appeal proposal as sustainable development in the terms of the Framework.

In light of the above, the appeal was allowed.

Download the decision here.

 

5. Out of date settlement boundary policies given limited weight for restricting development – Hampshire

 Appeal Ref: APP/N1730/W/17/3167135

Appeal Decision Date: 06th October 2017

Appellant: Berkeley Strategic Land Limited

Respondent: Hart District Council

 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Hart District Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission.

Background

An appeal was made by Berkeley Strategic Land Limited against the non-determination of a planning application for “outline application for up to 423 residential dwellings and a community facility.  Associated vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access, drainage and landscape works, including the provision of public open space and sports pitches.”

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issues.

  • The effect of the proposed development on the Local Gap between Fleet, Church Crookham and Crookham Village and impact on the setting of the countryside
  • Highway safety
  • Whether there are any material consideration which would justify development being determined other than in accordance with the development plan

Local Gap

The eastern side of the appeal site falls within a defined local gap between Fleet and Crookham Village. This is contrary to Policy CON21 whereby the policy makes clear that development which leads to coalescence of or has a detrimental impact on the identity of neighbouring settlements will be resisted.

The inspector concluded that as the development would only occupy one-third of the local gap and the remaining area between Netherhouse Copse and Crookham Village will be undeveloped – there would be no direct coalescence of the settlements. In terms of identity, Crookham derives its identity from being a settlement of rural character and appearance, largely surrounded by open agricultural land which differs from Fleet, as such, Crookham Village would not lose its distinctive character. It was decided that there would be no conflict with policy CON21.

Character and Setting

In terms of the effect on the character and setting of a settlement, it was acknowledged that the development would impact its immediate surroundings and views from further afield. Landscape mitigation was suggested as a means to soften the negative impacts. It was concluded that the impact would be localised and limited and therefore would not have a serious adverse effect on the character or setting. It was however decided that there would be a conflict with policy CON23 due to the adverse impact on the amenity and recreational value of local footpaths which would seriously detract from those qualities.

Highway Safety

The enquiry concluded that the main issue was surrounding the design of the proposed access arrangements rather than whether safe access could be achieved; namely visibility sight lines and roundabout size. The inspector agreed with the Appellant in that the Site could be accessed appropriately in terms of highway safety and would not conflict with Policy T14 of the LP or Policy T15.

Conclusion

The Inspector referred to the Suffolk Coastal Case. It was noted that “the weight to be given to restrictive policies can be reduced where they are derived from settlement boundaries that in turn reflect out-of-date housing requirements”. In light of this case, the inspector concluded that Policy RUR2 is dependent upon the out-of-date settlement boundaries of RUR1 and as such carried limited weight. Policy CON21 was given moderate weight and CON22 was considered to conflict with the hierarchical approach of paragraph 113 of the Framework and the valued landscape approach of paragraph 109.  Paragraph 14 of the Framework was engaged – the benefits were seen to outweigh the adverse impacts.

In light of the above, the appeal was allowed.

Download the decision here.

Permission granted as council could only demonstrate 1.9 years supply of housing.

 

6. Land off Burndell Road, Yapton – West Sussex

Appeal Ref: APP/C3810/V/16/3158261

Appeal Decision Date: 13th October 2017

Appellant: Gleeson Developments

Respondent: Arun District Council

The appeal is made under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the application was referred to the SoS.

Background

An application was made by Gleeson Developments Limited  application for “the development of up to 108 residential dwellings, vehicular access from Burndell Road, public open space, ancillary works and associated infrastructure, in accordance with application ref: Y/19/16/OUT, dated 7th March 2016.”

In granting permission the Inspector gave consideration to the following main issues.

  • Housing land supply
  • The weight attaching to development plan policies
  • The impact of the proposal

Housing Land Supply

The Council failed to meet the five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It was agreed between the parties that there has been a persistent undersupply of housing and a 20% buffer should be applied. The inspector considered the shortfall to be significant with only 1.9 years supply of deliverable housing sites at best.

Development Plan

The Inspector considered the proposal to conflict with “LP policies GEN2 and GEN3, which deal with the settlement boundary and countryside protection respectively and would also conflict with YNP policies H1 and BB1, which deal with housing requirement and built-up area boundary respectively.” As established above, the council cannot demonstrate a 5-year land supply and therefore, these policies were seen to carry limited weight.

Impact

It was accepted that there were no Landscape or design concerns about the proposal, the site is not identified as being an important gap between Yapton and Ford and there Grade II listed building would not be adversely affected. The Inspector concluded that “overall with regard to the environmental dimension of sustainability on the basis of these conclusions, there would be a neutral effect.” Socially, the proposal would provide substantial benefit and bring with it the economic benefits of construction jobs and construction-related activity. These benefits outweigh the adverse impacts.

In light of the above, permission was granted.

Download the decision here.

 

7. Out of date local plan policies lead to appeal being allowed – Gloucesterhshire

 Appeal Ref: APP/P1615/A/14/2218921RD

Appeal Decision Date: 07th November 2017

Appellant: ALLASTON DEVELOPMENTS LTD

Respondent: Forest of Dean District Council

The appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Forest of Dean Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission with a call in from the Secretary of State.

Background

The application was refused by the Forest of Dean Council in January 2014 and during the appeal, it was called in by the Secretary of State on November 18th 2014. The secretary of State disagreed with the recommendation of the planning inspector and dismissed the application in December 2015. The Secretary of State’s decision was challenged in the High Court and was subsequently quashed. The appeal has therefore been re-determined by the Secretary of State, following a re-opened inquiry. The secretary of state agreed with the Inspector to allow the appeal and grant planning permission for “delivery of up to 200 dwellings, including up to 20 serviced self-build plots and up to 37 retirement apartments, community building (up to 2,000 sq. ft.) comprising flexible A1/D2 ancillary space and new public open space”.

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the Inspector gave consideration to the following issues:

  • Material considerations
  • Valued landscapes
  • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
  • Traffic conditions travel by car and highway safety
  • Benefits and delivery

Material considerations

The Inspector and Secretary of State agreed that whilst the development would be in conflict with a number of Core Strategy policies, and in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan when read as a whole, the lack of a housing land supply, which was noted as less than 3 years, rendered those relevant policies in the Core Strategy and Neighbourhood Plan as out of date.

Valued landscape

The site was not regarded as a valued landscape.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area

The arrangement of the site was recognised as minimising the impact on the character of the area, both by containment and by scale. While the physical characteristics of the site would be transformed, such change would not cause significant harm to the key characteristics of the Allaston Ridge Landscape Character Area and the character of the area as a whole. The visual amenity of the rights of way would suffer significant harm, by the closer presence of buildings, by being set within managed grounds, and through the material diminution of views, however, this was given moderate weight.

Traffic conditions – travel by car and highway safety

The location of the development was recognised as a sustainable location for housing growth and no evidence was provided to suggest a site to deliver the additional housing numbers that the district requires. The harm to traffic conditions and harm to air quality also carried limited weight.

Benefits and delivery

The development of the site would make a contribution to the supply of housing. The pressing need for the delivery of new homes, and in particular those which would be affordable, would continue to provide strong justification for the development of the appeal site. The Secretary of State identified that there was nothing of material substance relating to delivery which would justify the refusal of planning permission.

Conclusion 

The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that local plan policies were out of date and were afforded limited weight. Having regard to material considerations, the harm to the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to the loss of open countryside and the amenity of public footpaths carried moderate weight. The harm to traffic conditions carried limited weight as car usage was identified as neutral. The provision of the diverse mix of homes carries significant weight along with the provision of a new community building and employment during the construction stage carry moderate weight. The adverse impacts of the proposal did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

For the reasons above, the Appeal was allowed and outline permission was granted.

Download the decision here.

 

8. Recovered appeal granted permission as the proposal was considered a very special circumstance – St.Albans

Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/W/15/3051164

Appeal Decision Date: 17th November 2017

Appellant: Oaklands College and Taylor Wimpey North Thames

Respondent: St Albans City and District Council

The appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Forest of Dean Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission with a call in from the Secretary of State.

Background

The application was refused by St Albans City and District Council in September 2013. The appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State on July 10th 2015. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspectors recommendation to allow the appeal and grant planning permission for “comprehensive redevelopment to provide new and refurbished college buildings, enabling residential development of 348 dwellings, car parking, associated access and landscaping, including the demolition of existing buildings”.

The application was subject of EIA.

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the main issues considered by the Inspector and Secretary of State were:

  • Green Belt considerations
  • The effect on the character and appearance of the area
  • The effect on the protected trees in Beaumont Wood
  • Educational benefits
  • Enhancement of beneficial Green Belt uses
  • Housing delivery
  • The effect on heritage assets
  • The effect on the Sandpit Lane area – traffic, flooding and Rights of Way

Green Belt considerations

The site being located within the Green Belt was recognised as inappropriate which is harmful by definition. Development in the Gren Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Significant weight was attributed to the harm caused by the proposed development.

The effect on the character and appearance of the area

Limited weight was given to the character and appearance of the area as the beneficial effect of the college development in landscape terms goes some way towards balancing the harm caused by the residential development. Overall the combined proposal would cause some limited harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The effect on the protected trees in Beaumont Wood

It was recognised that Beaumont Wood contributes to the visual amenity of the area and is a resource worthy of protection. The development would not harm protected trees.

Educational benefits

The delivery of high-quality education was recognised as a national and local priority and the quality of the educational offer at the College was not in dispute. The Inspector reported that many of the existing buildings are of very poor quality and are wholly unsuited to the provision of the high standard of education which the College continues to provide. The improvements to the college would only be funded through the residential development and the Council did not put forward any educational or viability evidence to suggest that development on a smaller scale could properly meet the needs of the College and its students.

Enhancement of beneficial Green Belt uses

The proposed development carries with it a number of benefits for uses and facilities within the Green Belt which were agreed by the parties as material considerations in favour of the proposal as set out in the Statement of Common Ground and afforded moderate weight.

 Housing Delivery

The benefits arising from the provision of market and affordable housing was a matter of common ground and the council’s land supply was most recently noted as 3.72 years. There was disagreement between the secretary and the Inspector regarding the policies for Green Belt development being out of date. The Secretary of State recognised that given that the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing, and the contribution the proposal would make to meet the significant shortfall, Local Plan policies directly relating to the supply of housing must be deemed as out of date. The weight to be attached to the provision of affordable housing was afforded significant weight.

The effect on heritage assets

The removal of unsympathetic extensions to the Mansion House, along with the intention to improve the setting of the other historic features of the campus, was recognised as a benefit in heritage terms. The scale of the overall scheme and the undesignated status of the Mansion House suggested limited weight be attached to heritage matters.

The effect on the Sandpit Lane area – traffic, flooding and Rights of Way

The concern expressed by residents concerning increased level of traffic along Sandpit Lane was recognised, however, there was no objection from the highway authority and there was no detailed evidence from any other party to suggest any negative impacts. The matter was therefore neutral in the planning balance. There was no technical evidence to counter the appellants evidence on the matter of drainage. The provision of a new footpath was also at an early stage and did not weigh against the proposal.

Planning balance and overall conclusion

The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the scheme was not in accordance with the Development Plan in relation to Green Belt and settlement policies. However, there were material considerations which indicated the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. These included the limited harm to the character and appearance of the area and the delivery of significant improvements to the college. In light of the lack of a five year housing land supply, the proposed market and affordable housing was also identified as a significant benefit (IR 252) that carried significant weight in favour of the proposal.

Overall, the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the considerations outweighed the harm to the Green Belt, justifying the proposal on the basis of very special circumstances. He, therefore, concluded that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The appeal was allowed, and planning permission granted.

Download the decision here.

 

9. Permission granted for a mixed use development in an unsustainable location – Leicestershire

 Appeal Ref: APP/Y2430/W/16/3150720

Appeal Decision Date: 17th November 2017

Appellant: Brooksby Melton College

Respondent: Melton Borough Council

The appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Forest of Dean Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission with a call in from the Secretary of State.

Background

The application was refused by Melton Borough Council for “mixed use redevelopment of the disused education/agricultural complex at the Spinney, Brooksby for residential development (up to 70 dwellings), B1 development (up to 850 sq.m) and village shop 100 sq.m(A1) with means of access.”

In allowing the appeal and granting permission the main issues considered were:

  • Whether the proposed development would provide a suitable site for housing, having regard to the proximity of services and the benefits of the proposal

Suitability

The site constitutes previously developed land and lies 7 miles to the south west of Melton Mowbray and comprises a number of derelict buildings and a grade II listed building. The inspector acknowledged that the Site falls within the countryside with reasonable bus service, however, it is likely that most residents would use private transport for their day to day needs, as such the location was deemed unsustainable. The appellant proposed highway works as part of the scheme which included relocation of the bus stop and the installation of a pelican crossing. The appellants also proposed a village shop, however, the inspector raised doubts in respect of its long-term usage.

The Inspector referred to a previous scheme submitted by the Appellant which is located in a sustainable location and provides 21 affordable homes. The inspector states that “The King Street scheme in its current guise could only go ahead in tandem with the appeal site scheme due to the funding that the proposed scheme would provide”. When considering the Melton Theatre, the Appellant expressed that although it brings cultural benefits, there is a financial strain in subsiding the theatre and without investment, the theatre would close in the future.

The appellant’s evidence confirmed that as part of the, up to £2.1 million would be invested into the theatre to bring it up to modern day standard along with allowing the college to fund restoration works to grade II* listed building. The inspector noted that the Melton Local Plan 1999 is out of date and the tilted balance of NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) paragraph 14 was engaged. He concluded that although the scheme is in an unsustainable location, “the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the wide range of benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole”. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Planning balance and overall conclusion

The Inspector considered the case to present an unparalleled set of circumstances, “which although resulting in a development in a location which would not normally be ideal, presents a unique range of benefits which would benefit the Borough as a whole”.  It was considered that the benefits significantly and demonstrably outweighed the adverse impacts. As such the appeal was allowed and planning permission was granted.

Download the decision here.

The Legal Beagle will be back soon with more valuable information and analytics…

Any questions? Ask our Legal Beagle – fetching facts and sitting down to analyse and advise.
Or do you have an industry related topic you would be interested in reading about on our site? If so, contact us today.

Catch up with our latest news and views from the team at Urbanissta.

Share this on:

 

The 2017 Autumn Budget and the broken housing market

 

The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his Autumn Budget to Parliament on 22nd November 2017. The Chancellor has pledged to fix the UK’s ‘broken housing market’. The investment he announced in the budget – which included £15.3bn of new funding – is meant to deliver at least 300,000 more houses by the 2020s.

He has also pledged to deliver five new garden towns by 2050 which would mean almost a million more houses.

Here is the need to know facts about housing from the 2017 Autumn Budget:

Planning for more homes

The planning system needed reform to boost land availability in the right places for homes, and to ensure that better use was made of underused land in urban areas whilst confirming the government’s commitment to maintain the existing protections for the Green Belt.

Deallocating sites from plans:

It will consult on strengthening policy to be clear that allocated land should be taken out of a plan if there is no prospect of a planning application being made.

Intervention where there is a failure to progress Local Plans:

DCLG had begun the formal process of considering intervention in 15 areas where the local authority had failed to put an up-to-date plan in place. It would shortly activate powers enabling it to direct local planning authorities to produce joint statutory plans and undertake an assessment of where they should be used.

First-time buyer led developments:

It would consult on a new policy whereby local authorities would be expected to permission land outside their plan on the condition that a high proportion of the homes were offered for discounted sale for first-time buyers, or for affordable rent. This would exclude land in the Green Belt.

Increasing housing density in urban areas :

It would consult on introducing:

  • Minimum densities for housing development in city centres and around transport hubs, with greater support for the use of compulsory purchase powers for site assembly
  • Policy changes to support the conversion of empty space above high street shops
  • Policy changes to make it easier to convert retail and employment land into housing
  • A permitted development right to allow commercial buildings to be demolished and replaced with homes

Ensuring that planning permissions were built out faster

It was determined to ensure that land released for housing was put to the best use. It will consult on:

  • Strengthening the Housing Delivery Test with tougher consequences where planned homes are not being built, by setting the threshold at which the presumption in favour of development applied at 75% of housing delivery by 2020
  • Expecting local authorities to bring forward 20% of their housing supply as small sites. This will speed up the building of new homes and supports the government’s wider ambition to increase competition in the house building market
  • Speeding up the development process by removing the exemptions from the deemed discharge rules. This will get builders on site more quickly, ensuring that development is not held back by delays in discharging planning conditions

Review of build out:

It would set up a review panel, chaired by Sir Oliver Letwin, to explain the significant gap between housing completions and the amount of land allocated or permission, and make recommendations for closing it.The review will provide an interim report in time for Spring Statement 2018 and a full report at Budget 2018.

Register of planning permissions:

It would develop a central register of residential planning permissions from local authorities to improve information on where permissions are held and progress towards them being built out.

Developer contributions

Land value uplift:

In this year’s Housing White Paper, the government committed to responding to the CIL Review. DCLG will launch a consultation with detailed proposals on the following measures:

  • Removing restriction of Section 106 pooling towards a single piece of infrastructure where the local authority has adopted CIL, in certain circumstances such as where the authority is in a low viability area or where significant development is planned on several large strategic sites. This will avoid the unnecessary complexity that pooling restrictions can generate
  • Speeding up the process of setting and revising CIL to make it easier to respond to changes to the market. This will include allowing a more proportionate approach than the requirement for two stages of consultation and providing greater clarity on the appropriate evidence base. This will enable areas to implement a CIL more quickly, making it easier to set a higher ‘zonal CIL’ in areas of high land value uplift, for example around stations
  • Allowing authorities to set rates which better reflect the uplift in land values between a proposed and existing use. Rather than setting a flat rate for all development of the same type (residential, commercial, etc.), local authorities will have the option of a different rate for different changes in land use (agricultural to residential, commercial to residential, industrial to residential). All the protections for viability from CIL, such as the Examination in Public, will be retained
  • Changing indexation of CIL rates to house price inflation, rather than build costs. This will reduce the need for authorities to revise charging schedules. This will ensure CIL rates keep up with general housing price inflation and if prices fall, rates will fall too, avoiding viability issues
  • Giving Combined Authorities and planning joint committees with statutory plan-making functions the option to levy a Strategic Infrastructure Tariff (SIT) in future, in the same way, that the London Mayoral CIL is providing funding towards Crossrail. The SIT would be additional to CIL and viability would be examined in public. DCLG will consult on whether it should be used to fund both strategic and local infrastructure

Housing investment:

These reforms would ensure that there was more land for housing, but the private sector and local authorities would need support to ensure homes were built as soon as possible.

  • The government would strengthen the ability of the Homes and Communities Agency (to be renamed Homes England) to use investment and planning powers to intervene more actively in the land market
  • Land Assembly Fund: It would provide £1.1 billion for a new Land Assembly Fund, funded from the NPIF, enabling Homes England to work alongside private developers to develop strategic sites, including new settlements and urban regeneration schemes
  • New garden towns: It would bring together public and private capital to build five new garden towns, using appropriate delivery vehicles such as development corporations, including in areas of high demand such as the South East
  • Increasing the Housing Infrastructure Fund: It would invest further in infrastructure through the NPIF to support new housing in high-demand areas. The Budget committed a further £2.7 billion to the competitively allocated Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) in England
  • Strategic planning in the South East: Government would support more strategic and zonal planning approaches through housing deals in the South East, where housing need was at its most acute. As a first step, it had agreed on a housing deal with Oxfordshire, part of its wider strategic investment in the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor. Oxfordshire would bring forward for adoption a joint statutory spatial plan and commit to a stretching target of 100,000 homes in the county by 2031, in return for a package of government support over the next five years, including £30 million a year for infrastructure and further support for affordable housing and local capacity. The government was also continuing housing deal negotiations with Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, Leeds and the West of England
  • Small sites: infrastructure and remediation: It would provide a further £630 million through the NPIF to accelerate the building of homes on small, stalled sites, by funding on-site infrastructure and land remediation
  • Home Building Fund: SMEs: It announced a further £1.5 billion for the Home Building Fund, providing loans specifically targeted at supporting SMEs who cannot access the finance they need to build

Housing guarantees:

It would explore options with industry to create £8 billion worth of new guarantees to support housebuilding, including SMEs and purpose-built rented housing.

Affordable housing:

Increasing supply:

  • It confirmed a further £2 billion of funding for affordable housing, announced in October, including funding for social rented homes
  • The Budget would lift Housing Revenue Account borrowing caps for councils in areas of high affordability pressure, so they could build more council homes. Local authorities would be invited to bid for increases in their caps from 2019-20, up to a total of £1 billion by the end of 2021-22. The government will monitor how authorities respond to this opportunity and consider whether any further action is needed
  • Estate regeneration: there would be £400 million of loan funding for estate regeneration to provide new homes in high‑demand areas

Construction skills:

To deliver a workforce fit to build these homes, it was providing £34 million to scale up innovative training models across the country and was working with industry to finalise a Construction Sector Deal to support innovation and skills in the sector, including £170 million of investment through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.

Homeownership

Stamp duty land tax: It would permanently raise the price at which a property became liable for SDLT to £300,000 for first-time buyers to help young people buy their first home. The relief will not apply for purchases of properties worth over £500,000. 95% of first-time buyers that paid SDLT will benefit, up to a maximum of £5,000, and 80% of first-time buyers will pay no SDLT at all.

Help to Buy Equity Loan: 

The Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme helps people to buy a home with a 5% deposit and has supported 135,000 people so far. The Budget confirmed the announcement in October of a further £10 billion for the scheme, supporting another 135,000 people to buy a new home.

Creditworthiness and rental payment data: 

The government will launch a £2 million competition, to support FinTech firms developing innovative solutions that help first-time buyers ensure their history of meeting rental payments on time is recognised in their credit scores and mortgage applications. Mortgage lenders and credit reference agencies are often unable to take rental payment history into account as they do not have access to this data. This competition will support firms to solve this problem.

Empty homes premium:

To encourage owners of empty homes to bring their properties back into use local authorities would be able to increase the council tax premium from 50% to 100%.

Right to Buy pilot:

It would proceed with a £200 million large-scale regional pilot of the Right to Buy for housing association tenants in the Midlands.

Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford corridor – Housing:

Up to 1 million new homes were needed in the area by 2050 to maximise its economic potential, starting with a housing deal with Oxfordshire (see above) and working with Central and Eastern sections on commitments in 2018. It would also consider significant new settlements and the potential role of development corporations to deliver these using private finance.

Land value uplift:

Authorities and delivery bodies in the Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford corridor were expected to use existing mechanisms of land value capture and the new powers (subject to consultation) announced at the Budget to capture rising land values from the additional public investment. It would also encourage authorities to explore the introduction of a Strategic Infrastructure Tariff, in addition to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), supported by appropriate governance arrangements, requiring developers to baseline their contributions towards infrastructure into the values they paid for land.

Read the full 2017 Autumn Budget.

Read more…

If Britain does build a million homes, let’s not make a million more people lonely – The Guardian.

Legal & General accelerates housing investment after budget – FT Advisor

Will more housing result in more jobs in the construction sector? – Buy Association

Share this on:

 

Could Micro Housing alleviate the housing crisis or is it a passing fad?

 

Urbanissta’s Legal Beagle – Farhana Hussain, examines the topic of micro housing in the UK.

  • What are micro homes?
  • Who would be the target audience?
  • Has the need for larger homes become less of a priority?
  • House costs and affordability

Farhana’s findings…

I recently submitted my dissertation and it was centred upon whether micro housing could solve the housing crisis. I’ve observed a number of micro housing schemes popping up across London, so, I thought, why not do a blog on my findings and address what’s been making the headlines. Is there room for micro homes in this current climate, how affordable are they and could they really alleviate the housing crisis?

Context

I find that there is a common perception that rising housing prices have forced developers to sacrifice space and quality by seeking higher density and higher revenue per sqf to offset rising land value and construction costs and so offer affordable housing. It is thus widely believed that the introduction of micro housing capitalises on this pattern. Apartments and houses that are small by traditional standards are currently being sold at 20 per cent below market rate in London, and are now being considered in urbanising locales, particularly high-density cities where affordability is stretched.

What are Micro Homes?

A working definition of micro housing is a unit of less than 500 sq.ft, with a fully functioning kitchen, bathroom and WC. A small room at 160 sq.ft with a communal kitchen, bathroom, etc., is not to be considered a micro home as it does not fall under this definition. It is difficult to pinpoint the ideal unit size. Furthermore, for micro homes to gain popularity on a meaningful scale, and so potentially alleviate the housing crisis, it is important to understand that these homes need to be targeted at a specific audience and serve a specific purpose, particularly if they fall below minimum space standards.

Who would be the target audience?

London has a target to deliver a minimum of 55,000 homes per annum for the next decade. As in the image below, the biggest age group in Inner London is 25 to 29 olds and in Outer London it is 30 to 34. The Households and Household Composition in England and Wales report for 2001-2011 showed an increase of 564 single-person households, the highest proportion of which was in London (35%). With the highest population in London being below the age of 30, it is evident that not enough is being done to house this audience. This is reinforced by the 37% over the ten-year period in the number of 20 to 34-olds living with parents.
Has the need for larger homes become less of a priority?

Yes and no.

The needs of society are not the same as they were at the time of two World Wars. The economic status of the country, digitisation, lifestyle changes and under-occupancy may all have contributed to the reduction in minimum standards, while the increase in one-bedroom households is more likely due to cost limitations rather than personal preference. Nevertheless, the evident demand for one-bedroom homes in London, where the largest age demographic is between 25 and 29, indicates that there may be a market for micro home. Micro housing appeals mainly to younger audiences for whom location, economics and privacy are important, or to older generations looking to downsize.

House costs and affordability

Due to the housing crisis, housing costs of all types and tenures are rapidly increasing across the UK, particularly in London and the South East. Affordability, however, is not just confined to private ownership: tenures of all types are now disproportionate compared to average income, with almost three million households in the UK now spending more than a third of their income on housing. Thus, it is widely agreed that the supply of affordable housing is at an historic low and requires urgent policy intervention. In order to improve affordability, it is estimated that 300,000 new homes are needed in England every year, more than double the current rate of building.

London has seen a slight increase in affordable housing, with many local authorities making the provision of affordable housing a prerequisite in securing planning permission. There has been a rise in shared ownership and sub-market rented homes, yet questions remain over just how affordable they really are, and to whom. Some of these ‘affordable’ homes require the occupiers to be on incomes over £60,000, double the average London household income. Clarity over what is meant by affordable housing is therefore paramount, and to whom we are relativising the housing cost. With middle-income households demanding homes at 60-80% of market prices, this by no means infers a reduction in the need for social rent for low-income households.

Within the overarching definition, the London Plan’s supporting texts set out criteria to assess affordability based on different schemes:

Affordable housing includes social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing… and should: (a) meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices; (b) include provisions for the home to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households; or (c) if these restrictions are lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternatively (London Plan, 2016).

 

Further details for each scheme stipulated by the policy are listed in the table below

 

Type of housing Criteria
Social rented housing Guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime or provided by other bodies under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.
Affordable rented housing Affordable rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent.
Intermediate housing Affordable to households whose annual income is in the range £18,100-£64,000. Two bedrooms, suitable for families; the upper end of this range will be extended to £74,000.
London living rent Yet to be rolled out by the government.

 

 

Despite the government’s efforts and the 56%  increase in residential consents, closer analysis indicates that there has not been any increase in the areas where affordability is most stretched ( see image below. Source: Savills, 2017).

Figure 14. Affordability in England
Source: Savills, 2017

It is, therefore necessary for developers to take advantage of market demand in order to drive the success of their market-sale programmes and generate subsidy for affordable housing. Priorities need to be shifted from aimlessly building homes to homes being built where they are most needed. Ultimately, for micro homes to make a meaningful contribution to the housing market, they should be deployed in areas of stretched affordability, particularly in London and the South East.

Can Micro Housing alleviate the housing crisis?

The UK housing crisis is made up of a number of interconnected issues, including the lack of construction workers, reduced LPA powers, a lack of transparency, increased demand through deregulation, and lax policy-making. Some have argued that the housing reform to this point, if anything, has exacerbated the problem. This would suggest that the government need to look first at stabilising the market before the crisis can be solved in the long term before diving head first into eliminating the crisis.

As highlighted above, 25 to 29-olds are the largest age demographic in Inner London; in Outer London, it is 30-34 year olds. The Households and Household Composition in England and Wales reported an increase of 564,000 single-person households between 2001 and 2011, the highest proportion of which is in London holding (35%). Taking both the above indicators together, it is clear that not enough is being done to house the under-thirty market in London.  Come micro housing developers are marketing micro homes as a potential solution for Inner Londoners, a one-bed micro home is currently being marketed at over £200,000 (after 20% discount): this would require an average annual income of at least £40-50,000. I n reality, the average for those aged between 25 and 29 is £28,000. This would suggest, therefore, that the micro housing schemes currently being implemented in London are not serving their original purpose. Moreover, it is understood that the Mayor of London has already invested millions of pounds into the development of micro homes, without any clearly-advertised criteria against which these schemes will be assessed. Given that such schemes are in their relative infancy, it would appear that LPAs are taking the initiative without empirical supporting evidence.

Conclusion

It appears, in practice, that current micro housing developments are solely targeting those on the higher end of this scale, effectively ignoring the majority of those who fall within it. As such, a new definition will need to be considered. Affordability must take into account expenditure, commuting costs, dependents, and a number of other socio-cultural determinants. Given that salaries and house prices differ from borough to borough, there is an argument for local authorities to be given greater powers to assess what is genuinely affordable in their areas, rather than being held to a standardised yet ultimately ambiguous definition. Furthermore, given how space standards have decreased over time, and will most likely continue to do so, the definition of micro housing may need to shift with the times as well: unless micro units are launched as a separate entity or affordable housing scheme, they may no longer by necessary as small one-bedroom properties become the norm.

Don’t miss out on Farhana’s case law reviews. Tracking planning decisions and proposed developments. Read more about Urbanissta’s Legal Beagle. 

Share this on:

 

Britain’s housing crisis – what’s the latest?

 

Theresa May could face a Conservative backlash over the housing crisis if she doesn’t listen to the backbench Conservatives.

The Prime Minister has been advised to force councils to build more homes in an attempt to tackle the housing crisis and prompt a building boom.

Proposals have been put in place but nothing will be published until the end of the month according to The Department for Communities and Local Government.

The Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, would like to see housebuilding boosted significantly.

In the housing white paper ‘Fixing Our Broken Housing Market’ published in February 2017, the Government said: “Some local authorities can duck potentially difficult decisions, because they are free to come up with their own methodology for calculating ‘objectively assessed need’. So, we are going to consult on a new standard methodology for calculating ‘objectively assessed need’, and encourage councils to plan on this basis.”

Sajid Javid hopes by adopting an expansive approach, which includes data about the local housing market, he can boost redevelopment in areas where prices are rising quickly. However, Javid and his allies are likely to find themselves up against Tory MPs and councillors that are wary of a planning blight. Andrew Mitchell, the former Development Secretary, publicly conflicted with Javid over plans for a housing development in his Sutton Coldfield constituency.

Housing campaigners urged the Prime Minister to be bold-faced. Gill Payne, the executive director of public impact at the National Housing Federation, said: “Getting this right will be a show of the strength of Government’s commitment to building the homes the nation needs. Getting a consistent and accurate picture of housing need is really important – it cements into the local plan the number of homes that need to be delivered.”

Ms Payne added: “Robust methodology will give a consistent and undisputable approach across the country.”

Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, said: “We hope these changes will help to simplify and join up the way councils across the country assess housing need in their areas, and it’s vital that the new proposals work to deliver as many affordable homes as possible.”

She added that Javid should tighten up the planning regime, to allow local authorities to exert more control over what can be built, where, rather than relying on the market to deliver.

“It’s important to remember that developers can still often build whatever they like, regardless of whether it meets what the council says is needed or not. The Government must now take action to change this, by giving councils more power to get housing built that will meet the needs of their community.”

Previous Governments have sought to make property ownership more affordable. Ambitious building targets have rarely been met, and George Osborne’s focus on subsidising mortgages through the help-to-buy scheme was disparaged for fuelling the boom.

Moving forwards…

Theresa May really does need more young voters

The Prime Minister’s efforts to tackle the problem may have been strengthened by the Conservative’s poor showing among the younger generation at the general election in June. A recent YouGov poll suggested that just 4% of 18-24-year-olds trust the Conservatives to deal with the issue of housing – against 44% for Labour. If Theresa May takes the appropriate steps, she could gain more support from young people.

Official figures

Homeowners could expect to pay about 7.6 times their annual earnings to buy a house in England and Wales in 2016, up from 3.6 times earnings in 1997.

The Housing need test

The housing need test is one of a package of measures radical Conservatives believe will be necessary to tackle the challenge.

Whilst in Scotland…

The Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, in a speech focusing on housing policy in Scotland, said on Friday: “It is a bedrock of Conservative belief that we should encourage a property-owning democracy. Yet increasingly, we now have something more akin to a property-owning oligarchy. Made up of lucky, mainly older, people who – by dint of having scaled the housing ladder – are now the ones who now control the country’s economic purse strings. “

George Freeman, chair of the Conservative policy forum, has also warned that young people risk rejecting capitalism if they have no chance of owning a home.

May signalled on her trip to Japan that she wants to press ahead with domestic reform, as well as complete the Brexit negotiations.

She pointed to her Downing Street speech last year, in which she pledged to right, “burning injustices”, including the fact that “if you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home”.

But diluted corporate governance reforms published last week raised questions about whether May’s minority Government will be willing to take on vested interests.

Housebuilding slumped after the financial crash from more than 215,000 homes a year in 2007-8 to 133,000 in 2012-13. It has since recovered, but has not regained its pre-crisis level.

We will keep you informed about future developments.

Read our article on the Housing white paper 2017 here. 

Share this on:

 

£2.3 billion investment in infrastructure for new housing in the UK

 

UK infrastructure investment uk housing.

Things are looking up for housing!

A £2.3 billion fund which could unlock 100,000 new homes in areas of high demand was launched yesterday (4th July 2017) by the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid. It was a welcome and positive move.

At the Birmingham LGA Conference, the Communities Secretary said that the investment will help to fund vital physical infrastructure projects. Life’s necessities – the building of roads, bridges, energy networks and other utilities, the absence of which continues to delay housebuilding in the UK – preventing the government from fixing our broken housing market.
Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, said:

“To build the homes this country needs, we need to deliver the right infrastructure in the right place at the right time. By investing in local infrastructure, we can help unlock building thousands of new homes in the areas where they are needed most.
The Housing Infrastructure Fund will also make sure we have better public services in place for local communities.”

Furthermore, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Jones commented:

“Where we live plays a huge part in our lives; from the distance of our commute to the local facilities available. By ensuring we have enough housing in areas where it is needed the most, we can boost productivity and support new communities to grow and thrive.
This money is part of our £23 billion National Productivity and Investment Fund, which will ensure Britain is match fit for the future.”

The much needed new investment through the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) aims to solve this problem. It is opening for bids for local authorities across England to come forward with proposals to help get homes built faster, as from today!
Local authorities could begin building immediately once a proposal has been approved. The funding will be available from 2017-18 to 2020-21.
The fund was originally announced back in the Autumn Budget last year by Chancellor Phillip Hammond. Mr Hammond said that the money would be available for local authorities by 2020-21. The sooner the better.

Home Builders Federation Planning Director Andrew Whitaker said:

“Funding necessary infrastructure will give local authorities the opportunity to remove barriers to developments being delivered. Direct support for critical infrastructure will not only unlock more housing, it should also help to accelerate planned developments.”

“Local authorities that plan for growth should be supported and that will, in turn, allow house builders to get on and deliver the homes our communities so desperately need. HIF is an important demonstration of the government’s commitment to housing, following on from the housing white paper, which sets out a strategy to fix the nation’s dysfunctional housing market.”

“The fund will support councils to step up their plans for growth, release more land for housing and get attractive, well designed homes that people want to live in built at pace and scale.”

More encouraging comments came from the LGA Chairman Lord Porter.

“We’re pleased that the government has followed through on its commitment to invest in infrastructure linked to housing and that this to be led by councils, as we outlined on our preliminary Housing Commission findings last year.”

“Going forward, what’s crucial is that the arrangements to access this fund are flexible, especially around different housing tenures, and that all councils can access funds to deliver housing for their communities.”

“Councils know their communities, and the places in them, best and so it’s right that approaches to invest in local infrastructure are led by local authorities.”

It looks like things are moving in the right direction at last.

Read more about…

Sajid Javid
Sajid Javid was appointed Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 14 July 2016. He was elected Conservative MP for Bromsgrove in 2010.

Andrew Jones
Andrew Jones was appointed Exchequer Secretary to HM Treasury on 15 June 2017.
He was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Department for Transport from May 2015 to 15 June 2017. Andrew was elected the Conservative MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough in May 2010.

House Building
What are the government doing about house building?

Homes & Communities Agency
Find out about funding programmes, regulations, land & development opportunities, design and sustainability, procurement panels and digital services.

Department for Communities and Local Government
The Department for Communities and Local Government’s job is to create great places to live and work, and to give more power to local people to shape what happens in their area.

If you wish to discuss this topic or any other on our website, contact us today.

Do you know something that we don’t know? We are always interested in hearing about planning, development, architecture and design. contact us if you stumble upon any fascinating changes to the London landscape.

 

Share this on:

 

Government reveals its preferred option for Lower Thames Crossing

 

• Option C- Connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30 through a bored tunnel.

The Government have been considering Thames River crossings as an alternative to the Dartford Crossing since 2009 and today the preferred option has been revealed. For over 50 years, the Dartford Crossing has provided the only road crossing of the Thames east of London and it is recognised as a critical part of the UK’s major road network carrying local, national and international traffic.

Highways England acknowledge that a new crossing is needed to reduce congestion at the existing Dartford crossing and this additional crossing could unlock economic growth, supporting the development of new homes and jobs in the region.

Timeline

2009 – In 2009, there were 5 potential crossing options explored

2011 – A Lower Thames Crossing became a top 40 priority infrastructure project

2012 – 5 options became three

2013 – Option B was discarded by the Government

2014 – Highways England commissioned to undertake assessment of two potential options

2016  Highways England consult on the two remaining options, and set out option C is the preferred option.

  • Option A- site of the existing A282 Dartford Thurrock Crossing
  • Option C- Connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30 through a bored tunnel.

The Route Consultation received 47,034 responses, making it the largest ever public consultation for a UK road project

• Option C- Connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30 through a bored tunnel.

Source: Highways England

Today April 12th 2017-Transport Secretary Chris Grayling announces that Option C is the preferred option

The details

Option C will comprise a bored tunnel crossing under the river Thames East of Gravesend and Tilbury. A new road north of the river will join between junction 29 and 30 and a new road south of the river which will join the A2 east of Gravesend.

The project will costs between 4.4-£6.2 billion pounds and is due to be open by 2025.

Why option C?

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling supported option C because the crossing would create more than 6,000 jobs and boost the economy by more than £8bn.

What do the affected local authorities think?

Thurrock Council have been very vocal in objecting to any plans that would create a further crossing within the Borough and have been committed to campaigning against the proposals, including the publication of “17 reasons against the Dartford Crossing”. In responding to the announcement today, council leaders have expressed outrage with the decision. Cllr John Kent, said: “Now is the time for Thurrock – its people, it’s businesses, and its council – to come together and fight as one.

Gravesham Borough Councilors, in which Gravesend is located, are equally disappointed with today’s decision, and remain resolutely against option C.

We can expect that this wont be the end of the Council’s fight to reject option C.

What other options are considered to reduce congestion on the Dartford Crossing

Within the east of London, there is a heavy reliance on a small number of crossings including the Dartford Crossing and the Blackwall Tunnel. TFL have consulted on river crossing options within the east. An examination is currently underway on the potential for a Silvertown tunnel.

Future options for TFL include developing the concepts of new bridges at Gallions Reach(2) and Belvedere(3).

Thames River Crossing possible sites

Source:Thurrock Council

Key URLs:

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/cip/lower-thames-crossing-consultation/

http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/lower-thames-crossing/

https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/news/thames-crossing/council-leaders-outraged-at-crossing-announcement

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lower-thames-crossing

 

Share this on: