Category Archives: Planning

 

Urbanissta’s Legal Beagle is on the Case – April 18

 

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

Our summary of recent decisions is below and via the links you can download more details of the full decision letters should you wish.

As you may be aware, Mid Sussex District Council have now adopted their new Local Plan (28th March 2018) and interestingly, prior to adoption, 5 appeals were decided by the Secretary of State; 4 of which were granted permission.  We provide a summary of these in this month’s edition so it’s a bit of a Mid Sussex special edition, but we have lots of other interesting cases for you to review too, so we hope the following is informative!

Furthermore, our guest barrister, Giles Atkinson of 6 Pump Court provides commentaries on three recent decisions; Dover DC v CPRE (Kent); Braintree DC v SoS for CLG; and Samuel Smith v North Yorkshire CC.

 

 

 

 

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

1. Reasons for Planning Approvals

Ref: [2017] UKSC 79
Appeal Decision Date: 06 December 2017
Appellant: Dover DC
Respondent: CPRE Kent

Readers will remember that I have previously summarised the case of Oakley v South Cambs DC[1] in which the circumstances under which an LPA may be expected to give reasons for granting permission were examined.  The matter has now been definitively determined by the Supreme Court, in Dover DC v CPRE (Kent)[2].

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, endorsed the Court of Appeal’s approach in Oakley establishing a common law duty to give reasons in certain circumstances.

The application in the Dover case was for a major development including over 500 houses, a conference centre, hotel and museum, partly on AONB.  The officer recommendation was for approval for an amended, reduced, development of 365 houses, the reduction intended to protect a particularly vulnerable part of the site from landscape harm.  The applicants objected to the reduction essentially arguing that it would render the scheme unviable but the officer recommendation remained to approve the lesser number.

The committee members however, voted to approve the scheme as applied for with over 500 houses.

In due course, following negotiations about the section 106 agreement, the decision notice was issued without any statement of the reasons for grant.

The question of reasons was raised in challenges to the grant of permission, eventually finding its way to the Supreme Court which indicated that it wished to consider generally the sources, nature and extent of an LPA’s duty to give reasons for the grant of planning permission.

The SC considers first the statutory sources of a duty to give reasons, noting that LPAs are no longer required to give reasons for grants of permission as they were for a period under the GPDO[3], although there is still a general duty on local authority officers making a decision involving the ‘grant of a permission or licence’, which includes the grant of planning permission[4] and for EIA development (which the development in the Dover case was) and under the Aarhus Convention.

The standard of reasons was then considered by the SC, finding essentially that what is needed is an adequate explanation of the ultimate decision, the essence of the duty being whether the information provided by the LPA leaves room for genuine doubt as to what it has decided and why.

Importantly the SC found that the remedy for a breach of the duty to give reasons, which in the Dover case it was accepted had occurred there being a breach of the duty imposed by the proposals being EIA development, was the quashing of the decision rather than just, as had been argued, the retrospective provision of reasons.

Although it didn’t need to be determined in the Dover case because it was accepted that reasons should have been provided under the EIA legislation, the SC went on to consider the common law duty to give reasons and this is probably the part of the decision of widest application and therefore of greatest interest.

The SC endorsed the finding of the CA in Oakley, where particular circumstances gave rise to a common law duty to give reasons for the grant of planning permission based, essentially, on fairness, itself a common law principle.

Without wishing to be over-prescriptive the SC helpfully set out the circumstances in which the common law duty to give reasons arises:

 “However, it should not be difficult for councils and their officers to identify cases which call for a formulated statement of reasons, beyond the statutory requirements.  Typically they will be cases where, as in Oakley and the present case, permission has been granted in the face of substantial public opposition and against the advice of officers, for projects which involve major departures from the development plan, or from other policies of recognised importance (such as the ‘specific policies identified in the NPPF…).  Such decision call for public explanation, not just because of their immediate impact, but also because…they are likely to have lasting relevance for the application of policy in future cases.”

 So, for cases where there is a great deal of public opposition and a member overturn, development is a major departure from the DP or contrary to polices of recognised importance, including those specified at FN 9 of NPPF14[5], LPAs may now be expected to provide reasons for the grant of planning permission.  If they are found to have failed in this duty, the remedy is to quash the decision.

This decision amounts to an important new requirement placed upon LPAs which might be expected to arise not infrequently.

[1] [2017] EWCA Civ 71

[2] Dover Dc v CPRE (Kent) CPRE (Kent) v China Gateway International Limited [2017] UKSC 79

[3] Between 2003 and 2013.  GPDO now replaced with the DMPO.

[4] This under the little known Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, SI 2014/2095

[5] FN 9 of NPPF14 is now (in the March 2018 consultation draft of the replacement NPPF) FN 7 of paragraph 11.

Download the decision here.

2. New Isolated Homes in Countryside

Case No: CO/1207/2017
Appeal Decision Date: 15 November 2017
Appellant: Braintree DC
Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The interpretation of this phrase, from NPPF 55, was considered by the CA recently in Braintree DC v SoS for CLG[1].  Paragraph 55 is as follows:

“55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:

  • the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or
  • where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or
  • where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or
  • the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should: be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; reflect the highest standards in architecture; – significantly enhance its immediate setting; and – be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.”

An inspector, in combined section 78 and section 174 appeals on the same site, had granted permission for 2 single storey dwellings and quashed an EN alleging, amongst other things, the partial erection of a single storey building (one of the dwellings).  The site lay close to but outside the settlement boundary of the village of Blackmore End.

The Inspector had noted in respect of the development:

 “It would not accord with the development plan’s approach of concentrating development in towns and in village envelopes.  On the other hand there are a number of dwellings nearby and the development would not result in new isolated homes in the countryside to which Framework paragraph 55 refers.”

The Inspector went on to observe that there was a very limited range of facilities in the village of Blackmore End and that the occupiers of the dwellings were likely to rely heavily on the private car to access facilities further afield.

The Council challenged the Inspector’s decision and argued unsuccessfully in the High Court that paragraph 55 NPPF was concerned not literally with the proximity of a proposed dwelling to other residential dwellings, but rather with proximity to services and facilities so as to maintain or enhance the vitality of the rural community.

In the CA the Council adopted a slightly different argument, that in order to comply with NPPF 55 a development must be neither physically isolated relative to settlements and other developments, nor functionally isolated relative to services and facilities.

This argument was rejected in the CA; ‘isolated’ meant physically isolated from a settlement, not isolated from services and facilities.

Lindblom LJ found that the requirement for LPAs to avoid ‘new isolated homes in the countryside’ was a geographical distinction between places.  In the context of the preceding two sentences of NPPF 55, this meant a distinction between development of housing within a settlement or village, and new dwellings which would be ‘isolated’ in the sense of being separate or remote from a settlement.

In short, it was said by Lindblom LJ, settlements are the preferred location for new housing development in rural areas.  That, in effect, is what the policy says.

He went on to endorse the High Court’s finding that the word ‘isolated’ should be given its ordinary dictionary definition, so that in the context of NPPF 55 it connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement.  In any particular case, this will be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision maker.

Similarly, what is a ‘settlement’ or ‘village’ as referred to by NPPF 55 will also be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision maker.  Lindblom LJ found that to qualify as a settlement or village, in the absence of any definition of these phrases, there is no specified minimum number of dwellings or population required; a settlement boundary does not have to have been fixed in the local plan; nor does there have to be any specified services, or indeed any services.

The Judgment of Lindblom concludes that this ‘common sense’, ‘literal and natural construction’ of NPPF 55 is in accordance with the broader context of policies for sustainable development in the Framework as a whole.  By seeking to maintain and enhance the ‘vitality’ of rural communities through the location of housing, as para 55 does, is a policy which embraces the social dimension of sustainable development, and to restrict the concept of ‘isolated homes’ to meaning isolated from services (as was argued by the Council) would be to deny this policy’s support for dwellings which did contribute to social sustainability.

It should be noted finally, that paragraph 55 of the NPPF is currently (in the consultation draft March 2018) proposed to be replaced with paragraphs 80 and 81 which are in substantially, but not exactly, the same terms.

[1] [2018] EWCA Civ 610

Download the decision here.

3. Visual Impact and Openness of the Greenbelt

Case No: C1/2017/0829
Appeal Decision Date: 16 March 2018
Appellant: Samuel Smith Old Brewery
Respondent: North Yorkshire County Council

In Samuel Smith v North Yorkshire CC[1] the CA have confirmed Turner[2], itself quite a recent CA decision, to the effect that visual impact is potentially relevant to the consideration of the effect of a development on the openness of the Green Belt.

The development at issue in Samuel Smith was an extension of a limestone quarry over approximately 6 hectares in the West Yorkshire Green Belt south west of Tadcaster. The LPA (North Yorks) granted permission and a JR challenge was unsuccessful but permission to appeal to the CA was granted.

In her report to committee the officer determined that the proposed development preserves the openness of the GB and did not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. She noted that openness is not defined but is commonly taken to be the absence of built development, and that because the application site immediately abuts the existing quarry, it would not introduce development into the area so as to conflict with the aims of preserving the openness of the Green Belt.

Overall, she recommended approval of the proposals which she found did not materially harm the character and openness of the GB.

The claimants’ challenge was based on a misdirection about para 90 NPPF.  Paragraphs 87-90 are as follows:

“87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

 When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

  1. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:
  • buildings for agriculture and forestry;
  • provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;
  • the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;
  • the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;
  • limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or
  • limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
  1. Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These are:
  • mineral extraction;
  • engineering operations;
  • local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location;
  • the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and
  • development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.”

Inappropriate development may only be approved if there are VSCs (NPPF 87).  A quarry is capable of not being inappropriate development provided it preserves the openness of the GB (NPPF 90).

It was said by way of challenge, essentially, that by failing to refer specifically to the visual impact of the proposed development on openness, the officer had misdirected the committee so that it approached its decision, wrongly, on the basis that the proposal was not for inappropriate development in the GB and did not have to be justified by VSCs.

Members, guided by the officer advice, assumed that the effect of the development on the visual openness of the GB was not and could not be a relevant consideration in establishing whether the proposal was for inappropriate development; plainly relevant, it was said, in the context of a 6 hectare extension of a quarry.  Had the visual impacts been considered the only conclusion of the committee would have been that the development would not preserve the openness of the GB, would therefore be inappropriate and would therefore have had to be justified by VSCs.

The CA accepted these arguments.  Lindblom LJ giving the leading judgment, notes that NPPF 90 sets out 5 forms of categories, all subject to the proviso that they preserve the openness of the GB and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.  Whilst openness is not defined he agreed with the finding of Turner that the word must take its meaning from the specific context in which it falls to be applied and that different factors are capable of being relevant to the concept when applied to the particular facts of a case; visual impact as well as spatial impact is implicitly a part of openness.

He went on:
“38 As a general proposition, however, it seems to me that the policy in paragraph 90 makes it necessary to consider whether the effect of a particular development on the openness of the Green Belt can properly be gauged merely by its two-dimensional or three-dimensional presence on the site in question – the very fact of its being there – without taking into account the effects it will have on the openness of the Green Belt in the eyes of the viewer. To exclude visual impact, as a matter of principle, from a consideration of the likely effects of development on the openness of the Green Belt would be artificial and unrealistic. The policy in paragraph 90 does not do that. A realistic assessment will often have to include the likely perceived effects on openness, if any, as well as the spatial effects. Whether, in the individual circumstances of a particular case, there are likely to be visual as well as spatial effects on the openness of the Green Belt, and, if so, whether those effects are likely to be harmful or benign, will be for the decision-maker to judge. But the need for those judgments to be exercised is, in my view, inherent in the policy.”

This paragraph provides a useful resume of the distinction between the spatial impact (the simple presence of something on land) and its visual impact, and the reality that the two are often closely related.

In the Samuel Smiths case the Court found that the Council had fallen into error by not considering whether it was likely the development proposed would have a visual impact nor how those visual impacts would bear on the question of whether the development would ‘preserve the openness of the GB’.  The officer’s observation that openness is ‘commonly taken to be the absence of built development’ appeared to lead the assessment away from visual impact and narrow it down to consideration of spatial impact alone.

This decision confirms the CA’s finding in Turner which was itself notable for disproving the decision in a case called Timmins[3] which had stated a clear conceptual distinction between openness and visual impact, such that it was wrong in principle to reach a conclusion on openness by reference to visual impact.  As should be clear now that distinction is incorrect and visual impact is potentially relevant and potentially significant in reaching decisions about openness of the GB.

[1] Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and Oxton Farm v North Yorkshire CC and Darrington Quarries Led [2018] EWCA Civ 489

[2] Turner v SoS for CLG [2017] 2 P.&C.R.1

[3] Timmins and Another v Gedling BC [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin)

Download the decision here

4Under supply of housing leads to two applications being allowed by SoS – Mid Sussex

Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/V/16/3149579 & APP/D3830/W/16//3145499
Appeal Decision Date: 01 March 2018
Appellant: Wates Development Limited
Council: Mid Sussex District Council

Application A (ref: DM/15/3979) was dealt with in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Direction). The appeal (DM/15/3614) was recovered by the Secretary of State (SoS) in pursuance of Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Background
An appeal was made by Wates Development Limited against the decision to refuse planning permission for:

Application A: Outline consent for 30 dwellings, of which 30% will be affordable, with only access to be determined at this stage, with landscaping, open space and car parking, in accordance with application ref: DM/15/3979, dated 5 October 2015; and

Appeal: Outline consent for 44 dwellings, of which 30% will be affordable, with only access to be determined at this stage, landscaping, open space and car parking, in accordance with application DM/15/3614, dated 7 September 2015

In allowing the appeal and granting permission for both applications the SoS considered the following main issues:

  • Five-year land supply
  • The effect on the character and appearance of the area
  • The effect on the areas of ancient woodland
  • Potential coalescence with nearby settlements
  • Housing mix
  • Safety and convenience of users to adjacent highway network

Five-year Land Supply
Limited weight was given to Mid Sussex Local Plan 2004 (MSLP 2004) Policies C1 and C2 as the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. It was considered that the relevant housing policies conflicted with the aims and objectives of the Framework were therefore not up-to-date. The Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan (CDNP) Policy CDNP05 and CDNP08 were also not considered up to date, as such, they were given moderate weight. The emerging MSDP was only be given limited weight.

Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Area
Both applications lie immediately west of existing residential development on Turners Hill Road with the eastern part of the northern boundary adjoining the new Wychwood residential area. It was considered that although the development would result in adverse changes to the character and appearance of the application site itself, the impacts on the character of the wider landscape would not be significant. There are no public viewpoints from the north and views from the eastern side of Bushy Wood would not harmfully impact on the proposed development especially once the proposed buffer planting on the western boundary has matured.

Effect on the Areas of Ancient Woodland
Both application sites adjoin areas of ancient woodland, with Pescotts Wood to the north and Kiln Wood to the south. A 15m wide buffer zone was proposed. With the proposed buffers and appropriate planning conditions, the Council were satisfied with the proposals. The Parish Council argued that the buffers should be increased to 30m wide, however, provided no evidence to justify this request. It was considered that there would be no conflict with development plan policies and the Framework guidance in terms of impact on the areas of ancient woodland.

Potential Coalescence with Nearby Settlements
It was considered that neither of the schemes under consideration would result in any real or perceived coalescence of Crawley Down with any neighbouring settlement. Policy CDNP08 of the CDNP seeks to prevent coalescence by not permitting development outside of the village boundary unless 3 criteria are met. The first being that the development should not detract from the openness and character of the landscape – neither applications were seen to conflict with this criterion. In respect of criterion b, the applications were not seen to contribute to “ribbon development. In terms of criterion c, the Parish Council argued that the proposals would reduce gaps neighbouring settlements. It was concluded that, none of the application proposals would result in any real or perceived coalescence of Crawley Down with any neighbouring settlement.

 Housing Mix
The affordable housing mix proposed for each scheme is set out within the S106 agreements and fall short of the 80% figure for 2-3 bedroom units, however the Inspector considered it to be acceptably close and the mix was acceptable to the Councils Housing Officer.  It was concluded thatthe mix would perform satisfactorily when assessed against the requirements of paragraph 50 of the Framework, and all would be capable of delivering an appropriate and acceptable mix of market and affordable housing”.

Highways
The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that, “subject to the imposition of his proposed conditions and the provisions of the S106 Agreements, neither of the two schemes under consideration would have any unacceptable impacts on the safety or convenience of the user of the adjacent highway network and thus no material conflict with MSLP Policy T4 or CDNP Policy CDNP10”

Conclusion
In the absence of a 5-year supply, Paragraph 14 of the NNPF indicates that where relevant policies are out of date permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken. It was concluded that on balance, the adverse impacts identified did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

Based on the above, the both the appeal and called in application were granted permission.

Download Decision here.

5. Under Supply of Housing leads to Two Applications Allowed by SoS – Mid Sussex

Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/V/16/3149575 & APP/D3830/V/16/3161086
Appeal Decision Date: 01 March 2018
Appellant: Gleeson Development Limited
Council: Mid Sussex District Council

 In pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 application B (ref: DM/15/4094) and application C (ref DM/16/233) were referred to the SoS.

Background
An appeal was made by Gleeson Development Limited against the decision to refuse planning permission for:

Application B: outline consent for up to 60 dwellings, of which up to 30% will be affordable, with only the principle means of access to be determined at this stage, along with associated landscaping, open space and car parking, in accordance with application ref: DM/15/4094, dated 9 October 2015; and

Application C: outline consent for up to 30 dwellings, of which up to 30% will be affordable, with only the principle means of access to be determined at this stage, along with associated landscaping, open space and car parking, in accordance with application DM/16/2330, dated 27 May 2016.

In granting permission for both applications the SoS considered the following main issues:

  • Five-year land supply
  • The effect on the character and appearance of the area
  • The effect on the areas of ancient woodland
  • Potential coalescence with nearby settlements
  • Housing mix
  • Safety and convenience of users to adjacent highway network

Five-year Land Supply
Limited weight was given to Mid Sussex Local Plan 2004 (MSLP 2004) Policies C1 and C2 as the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. It was considered that the relevant housing policies conflicted with the aims and objectives of the Framework were therefore not up-to-date. The Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan (CDNP) Policy CDNP05 and CDNP08 were also not considered up to date, as such, they were given moderate weight. The emerging MSDP was only be given limited weight at this stage.

Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Area
In the Council’s SHLAA the Site was assessed as unsuitable for residential development. The Site was seen to have a distinct rural character with a lack of defensible boundary to the east and south. When assessed against CDNP Policy CDN05, the development was seen to harm the character of the area and would detract from the openness and character of the landscape. It was acknowledged that this was an inevitable consequence of developing any greenfield site and not always unacceptable in the overall planning balance. It was concluded the proposed densities would be acceptable. No firm, specific evidence was put before the Inspector to demonstrate what harm would arise from the Gleeson 60 scheme. In light of this, there was no unacceptable conflict with criteria (a) or (b) of CDNP Policy CDNP05 or the first criterion of CDNP05.

Effect on the areas of Ancient Woodland
Both application sites adjoin areas of ancient woodland, with Burleigh Wood to the west and Rushetts Wood to the east. A 15m wide buffer zone was proposed. With the proposed buffers and appropriate planning conditions, the Council were satisfied with the proposals. The submitted ecology statement confirmed that the proposals would not result in the loss of any ancient woodland habitats, nor the loss of any trees or woodland. It was considered that there would be no conflict with development plan policies and the Framework guidance in terms of impact on the areas of ancient woodland.

Potential Coalescence with Nearby Settlements
It was considered that neither of the schemes under consideration would result in any real or perceived coalescence of Crawley Down with any neighbouring settlement. The broad extent of Rushetts Wood lies generally between the Gleeson site and East Grinstead.  In these circumstances, the Inspector was not persuaded that any of the proposed developments would result in any lessening of the separate identity and amenity of Crawley Down, nor lead to any significant perception of coalescence with nearby built-up areas.  As such, found no conflict with policy C2.

 Housing Mix
The affordable housing mix proposed for each scheme is set out within the S106 agreements and fall short of the 80% figure for 2-3 bedroom units, however the Inspector considered it to be acceptably close and the mix was acceptable to the Councils Housing Officer.

Highways
The Parish Council raised concerns regarding the use of Hazel Close and Hazel Way to serve a major development. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that, subject to the imposition of his proposed conditions and the provisions of the S106 Agreements, the schemes would not have any unacceptable impacts on the safety or convenience of the user of the adjacent highway network and thus no material conflict with MSLP Policy T4 or CDNP Policy CDNP10.

Conclusion
In the absence of a 5-year supply, Paragraph 14 of the NNPF indicates that where relevant policies are out of date permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken. It was concluded that on balance, the adverse impacts identified did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

Based on the above, both applications were granted permission.
Download Decision here.

6. Site Located within 4.3km from Ashdown Forest granted Permission for up to 200 dwellings – East Grinstead, Mid Sussex

Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/W/16/3142487
Appeal Decision Date: 01 March 2018
Appellant: Linden Limited
Council: Mid Sussex District Council

 This appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Background
An appeal was made by Linden Limited against the decision to refuse planning permission for “for outline planning permission for up to 200 dwellings, provision of new internal access roads and footpaths, landscaping, open space, sustainable drainage system, earthworks and associated infrastructure and for full permission for the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces (SANGS) in, accordance with application ref: DM/15/0429 dated 2 February 2015”.

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

  • Supply and delivery of housing
  • The effect on the character and appearance of the area
  • Effect on transport
  • Effect of biodiversity
  • Effect on historic environment

Supply and Delivery of Housing
The proposals would bring forward 140 market houses with 60 units of affordable housing. The material contribution of the provision of housing in the district was given significant weight. The scheme would also bring substantial economic and environmental benefits.

Effect on the character and appearance of the area
The Site is divided into two parcels. Parcel A lies to the south east of the railway and to the southern western edge of the built-up area of East Grinstead. Parcel B lies north west of Parcel A and is entirely in SANGS land. The Site adjoins the AONB. It was considered that Parcel A has very limited inter-visibility with the AONB and did not pass the threshold of ‘valued’ as used in the NPPF. However, Parcel B was more representative of Landscape of High Weald due to its extensive views of the ancient woodland. The Inspector concluded that the visual impacts would be localised, with the most significant visual impacts experienced by the occupiers of those houses closest to the site. Moderate impacts would be views from Turners Hill Road, Garden Wood Road and the public footpath to the south of the site. Other visual impacts were described as relatively minor.

Effect on Transport
The Council’s refusal based on highways matters was withdrawn before the enquiry. Rule 6 party however maintained their objection on highways grounds and criticised the Council for accepting a Transport Assessment (TA) which did not include an assessment on A22 junctions. The Inspector disagreed and stated that there has been a robust assessment of transport impacts. Furthermore, the appeal Site enhances opportunities for sustainable transport modes and the proposal and highways contributions would enable two key junctions to be improved. He also noted that the traffic generated by the appeal scheme would be minimal in relation to traffic passing through the junction. As such, the appeal scheme accords with paragraph 32 of the Framework.

Effect on Biodiversity
The Site is located approximately 4.3km from Ashdown Forest. The HRA concluded that the appeal scheme is not likely to have a significant effect on the Ashdown Forest SPA/SAC. The Inspector therefore considered that the proposals were unlikely to have a significant effect on Ashdown Forest SPA, SAC or SSSI and there would be no harmful effects on biodiversity in general.

 Effect on Historic Environment
The Inspector considered that there would be no direct impact on either of the Grade II listed buildings; Hill Place Farm House and Imberhorne Viaduct. The setting of Hill Place Farmhouse was seen to make very little contribution to its significance as a designated heritage asset. As the Site has already been diminished by modern agricultural buildings, the appeal scheme would not pose any harm. Furthermore, the harm to Bluebell Railways would be negligible. With respect to Inborne Viaduct, although the impact on views was considered as less than substantial, the inspector felt that the new public footpath passing close to the foot of the viaduct would be an important public benefit as it would provide excellent views – this benefit outweighed the harm.

Conclusion
The appeal scheme was seen to make a meaningful contribution to housing without significant harm to the transport network and biodiversity. Although the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the listed viaduct, the harm would be minor. In light of these material considerations, the Inspector expressed that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the impacts and recommended that the appeal is allowed which the SoS agreed.

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

7. SoS goes against Inspector’s Recommendation to Refuse Planning Permission and Grants Permission for 200- Mid Sussex

Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/W/16/3152641
Appeal Decision Date: 01 March 2018
Appellant: Wates Development Ltd
Council: Mid Sussex District Council

 This appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Background
An appeal was made by Wates Development Ltd against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council to refuse “outline planning permission for 200 dwellings, a 9.54ha Country Park and land for a ½ Form Entry Primary School, together with associated access road, car parking, landscaping and open space at land south of Scamps Hill/Scaynes Hill Road, Lindfield, West Sussex, in accordance with application ref:  DM/15/4457, dated 4 November 2015.”.

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

  • Character and Appearance
  • Sustainable Development
  • Development Plan

Character and Appearance
The SoS agreed with the Inspector that although there would be harm to the landscape due to residential development, this should be overcome at reserved matters stage. Furthermore, the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of Walstead should not be a bar to development, and as such this was given limited weight.

Sustainable Development
The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector’s conclusion that the proposed scheme would recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, secure high quality and inclusive design and would not harm any valued landscape. The Secretary of State therefore gave moderate weight to these benefits.

Development Plan
As the Council holds less than a 5-year housing land supply, limited weight was given to MSLP Policy C1 and NP Policy 1. Full weight was given to LP Policy B1(a) which supports the scheme.

Conclusion
The SoS concluded that the scheme conflicted with MSLP Policies C1 and NP Policy 1 – however, the policies were seen to be inconsistent with the Framework and therefore considered as out of date. In the absence of a 5-year land supply, para 14 of the Framework indicates that permissions should be granted unless there are adverse impacts that significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The housing benefits were seen to carry substantial weight and the economic, social and environmental benefits each carry moderate weight. Due to these reasons, the SoS allowed the appeal.

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

8. Application of up to 130 Dwellings Refused due to Unacceptable Risk to Safety of Future Occupiers from Unmanned Railway Crossing- Hassocks, Mid Sussex

Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/V/17/3166992
Appeal Decision Date: 01 March 2018
Appellant: Roydon Homes Ltd
Respondent: Mid Sussex District Council

 Pursuant to Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the application was referred to SoS instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority.

Background
The application was made by Roydon Homes Ltd for residential development of up to “130 dwellings, consisting of 12 No. 1 bed apartments, 27 No. 2 bed houses, 47 No. 3 bed houses, and associated access, together with full permission for change of use of part of the land to form country open space in accordance with application ref:  DM/15/0626, dated 13 February 2015”

In refusing the application, the SoS considered the following main issues:

  • The supply and delivery of housing in Mid Sussex
  • Effects on flood risk
  • Effects on air quality
  • Safety of future occupiers in relation to the railway crossing

Supply and Delivery
The Inspector stated that “Hassocks is the most sustainable of the District’s Category 2 settlements, and is therefore a natural location for a large part of the extra houses that will be needed.” As such, the proposed development was seen to boost the local housing supply.

Flood Risk
Part of the Site is located within flood zone 2 and 3. It was contended by the applicant that residential development will only be located in zone 1 and open space will be located in zones 2 and 3. This type of disaggregation is accepted by NPPG.

Air Quality
The proposed development was seen to not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on air quality and therefore conformed with MSLP Policy CS22, which seeks to avoid unacceptable pollution in any form.

Future Occupiers
The Inspector identified potential implications for public safety.  In the absence of any measures to improve the safety of the unmanned railway crossing, permitting the proposed development in such close proximity, it was considered as an unacceptable risk to the safety of future occupiers, contrary to the aims of NPPF paragraph 32. The SoS agreed with the Inspector’s view.

Conclusion
The SoS concluded that, “despite the benefits that would flow from the proposal, the unacceptable risk to the safety of future occupiers from the unmanned railway crossing represents a sufficiently substantial material consideration to outweigh the benefits, so that the application should be refused”.

Based on the above, the application was refused.
Download Decision here.

9. Sainsburys Development Approved for 683 Homes Allowed with 4% Affordable Housing Ilford, Redbridge

 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/W/16/3164036
Appeal Decision Date: 14 March 2018
Appellant: Sainsburys Supermarket Ltd
Council: London Borough of Redbridge

 The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Background
The appeal was made by Sainsburys Supermarket Ltd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge (“Council”) to refuse planning permission for “demolition of existing buildings and structures and development of a replacement Sainsbury’s store (Use Class A1) of 4,745 sqm (net sales area), 951 sqm (GIA) of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class A1/A2/A3/B1/D1) and 683 residential units (Use Class C3) arranged in 9 blocks including 2 terraces of mews and town houses.  An energy centre and plant is provided at basement and lower ground level, along with 410 retail car parking spaces and 42 residential car parking spaces. Associated highways and landscaping works, in accordance with application ref: 4499/15, dated 13 November 2015.”

In allowing the appeal, the SoS gave consideration to the following main issues:

  • Housing need
  • Density
  • Design
  • Impact on local infrastructure
  • Impact on neighbouring residents
  • Impact on future residents
  • Impact on traffic
  • Effect on the retail function
  • Effect on heritage assets
  • Affordable Housing

Conclusion
“The SoS considered that the public benefits arising from the proposals would significantly outweigh the low level of ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the Grade II* listed Hospital Chapel and its associated buildings. Furthermore the adverse impacts of the proposals do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Overall he considered that there are therefore material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan”

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

 

10.Benefits Outweighed harm to the Green Belt by Reason of Inappropriateness and any Other Harm– Effingham, Guildford

Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/W/16/3151098
Appeal Decision Date: 21 March 2018
Appellant: Berkley Homes
Council: Guildford Borough Council

The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Background
The appeal was made by Berkley Homes against the decision of Guildford Borough Council (“Council”) to refuse planning permission for “hybrid planning application for outline permission (only access to be considered) for the erection of a replacement secondary school for Howard of Effingham and up to 258 residential dwellings with means of access to Howard of Effingham School and Lodge Farm, Lower Road following demolition of all existing buildings; and full permission for the erection of 37 dwellings, with access, parking and landscape works on land at Brown’s Field, Brown’s Lane, Effingham, in accordance with application ref:  14/P/02109, dated 17 October 2014.”

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

  • Green Belt
  • Character and appearance of conservation area
  • Heritage assets
  • Ecology
  • Playing pitch
  • Housing supply

Green Belt
The Inspector and SoS agreed that the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt as such substantial weight was attached to the harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Character and appearance of conservation area
It was concluded that the scheme proposes limited extent of erosion of local character and the mitigating effects of the development, the harm is limited in extent, and carried medium weight

Ecology
The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that sufficient mitigation can be secured by condition to overcome concerns over ecological matters in relation to the local Site of Nature Conservation Importance and protected species. He further agreed that the legitimate concerns over the efficacy of the wildlife corridor can in good measure be addressed, and that these matters are neutral in terms of weight.

Playing pitch
The SoS agreed with the Inspector that the proposed replacement school’s facilities would result in a change to the functions of the club, the benefits on offer outweigh the loss.

Housing supply
The Council falls significantly below the 5-year housing land supply (2.1years). The Inspector attached substantial weight to the delivery of 295 dwellings with 20% affordable housing.

Conclusion
The SoS considered that the benefits outweighed harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, and so very special circumstances exist. The SoS concluded that there are no specific policies in the Framework that indicate that this development should be restricted and that there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

Based on the above, the application was allowed./
Download Decision here

 

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 London Plan- In case you Missed it

 

The London Plan is the strategic planning policy document for all London Boroughs and forms part of the statutory development plan for each authority. It sets the strategic housing requirement for the whole of the metropolitan area and how this will be delivered as well as setting the strategic approach to other matters such as economy, design, heritage open space and landscaping and technical details such as renewable energy and drainage.

The current version of the London Plan was first adopted in 2011 with changes made during the course of 2015 and 2016.

The new London Plan or ‘Replacement Plan’ as it is also known was published for consultation in December 2017. This revised plan sees a step change in approach to planning decisions as it goes much further than being an overarching strategic planning document. Upon its anticipated adoption in 2019, it will come into effect straight away and the way in which it written means that authorities would not need to prepare a Part 1 Local Plan.

Whilst the Mayor is seeking to take some of the control of the function of the Boroughs, it doesn’t look to take all of them including the duty to co-operate. As the HBF wrote in their representations, the Mayor cannot pick and chose which functions they want to perform. The Mayor also proposes to set a metropolitan wide level for affordable housing at 50%
The Replacement Plan will run from 2019 to 2041 and sets a requirement of 64,935 dwellings over the first 10-year period. The capacity is made up of 400,470 homes from large sites and 245,730 homes over the 10 year period from small sites of less than 0.25 ha.

There is also reliance on increasing the number of units on those opportunity areas identified in the current London Plan and identifies approximately 9 new Opportunity Areas.

Development at Kings Cross Opportunity Area

Current and emerging Opportunity Areas. London Plan SHLAA 2017

There is a heavy reliance on brownfield land and optimising potential on:

  • Sites of PTAL 3-6
  • Mixed use redevelopment of car parks and low density retail parks
  • Intensification of residential on commercial leisure and infrastructure sites
  • Redevelopment of surplus sites
  • Small sites
  • Industrial sites
  • Sites that are allocated for residential and mixed-use development

There is also a general presumption against single use low-density retail and leisure parks.

Green Belt
The plan identifies that all the dwellings proposed can be provided within the City without extending out into the Green Belt. Policy G2 London’s Green Belt states that:
A The Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development:
1) development proposals that would harm the Green Belt should be refused
2) the enhancement of the Green Belt to provide appropriate multifunctional uses for Londoners should be supported.
B The extension of the Green Belt will be supported, where appropriate. It’ s de-designation will not.

Given that 800,000 people commute between the City and the wider South East on a daily basis, it is questionable as to whether 65,000 dwellings can be delivered within the boundary of London. Nevertheless, the approach to Green Belt reviews should be undertaken by local authorities within their Part 1 Plans.

Commuting Patterns across London and wider region. London Plan 2017

The Plan Identifies 12 infrastructure priorities that the mayor will support within the Wider South East as they are of importance to the city. These include:

  1. East West Rail and new Expressway road link (Oxford – Cambridge)
  2. North Down Rail Link (Gatwick – Reading) including extension to Oxford
  3. A27 / M27 / A259 and rail corridor (Dover – Southampton)
  4. West Anglia Mainline, Crossrail 2 North (London – Stansted – Cambridge -Peterborough) and M11
  5. Great Eastern Mainline (London – Ipswich – Norwich) and A12
  6. Essex Thameside, A217 and A13 corridor
  7. Thames Gateway Kent : Elizabeth Line Extension and HS1 (London – North Kent -Channel Tunnel)
  8.  Lower Thames Crossing
  9. Brighton Mainline (London – Gatwick – Brighton)
  10. South West Mainline, Crossrail 2 South West (London – Surrey / Southern Rail Access to Heathrow) and A3
  11. Great Western Mainline (London – Reading / Western Rail Access to Heathrow)
  12. Midlands and West Coast Mainline (London – Luton – Bedford / Milton Keynes)
  13. Felixstowe – Nuneaton / Midlands and A14


Density
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the removal of the density matrix within Policy DM6 of the Replacement Plan in favour of higher densities across all sites. Policy DM6 requires the submission of a Management Plan where density is exceeded in the following cases:

  1. 110 units per hectare in areas of PTAL 0 to 1
  2. 240 units per hectare in areas of PTAL 2 to 3;
  3. 405 units per hectare in areas of PTAL 4 to 6

All of these units per hectare standards are those applied to central locations suggesting that a higher density approach to new developments will be the normal approach. A high-density scheme in a suburban location may not be appropriate.

The Policy also requires that
“measures of density should be provided for all planning applications that include new residential units:

  1. Number of units per hectare
  2. Number of habitable rooms per hectare
  3. Number or bedrooms per hectare
  4. Number of bedspaces per hectare.”

So, the density matrix whilst not there will still clearly play a part in the decision-making process for authorities.

Tall Buildings

Policy D8 states that the definition of a Tall building can be made by each local authority, again suggesting the approach to higher density development wherever possible. A tall building is still referable to the GLA if it exceeds 30m.

Design
Policy D2 requires design reviews to be undertaken at least once in addition to pre-application advice if they are:
– Above the density indicated in Policy D6
– Propose a building defined as tall building or that is more than 30m in height where there is no local tall building definition.

The approach to design should be taken by each authority within their Part 1 Plans. The approach to tall building design reviews is not helpful when read with Policy DM8.
Within Policy D3 inclusive design is promoted but no clarification is provided as to the threshold for inclusive design.

Regeneration
The Replacement Plan states that Boroughs should identify Strategic Areas for Regeneration in Local Plans based on a thorough understanding of the demographics of communities and their needs.

Affordable Workspace
The Replacement Plan emphasises the need to provide affordable workspace and low cost business space through Policy E3 Affordable Workspace

Basement Development
A Policy is now included on the need to assess large scale basement development along with a Policy also stating that any applications for fracking should be refused.

Public Houses
More protection for pubs is now included along with a policy requiring the provision of public toilets in proposals that involve people standing for long periods of time.

Overheating
There is now clear guidance on how to deal with managing heat risks, requiring an assessment of overheating through CIBSE TM59 for domestic developments and TM 52 for non-domestic developments. In addition, TM 49 guidance and datasets should also be used to ensure that all new development is designed for the climate it will experience over its design life. The

Air Quality
Whilst air quality is addressed in reference to other policies in the current London Plan, air quality requirements are addressed as a standalone policy in the Replacement Plan, requiring development to not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality, or create areas that exceed air quality limits.

Drainage
The Replacement Plan sets a Policy aim for development to achieve greenfield run off rates as the starting point. Development proposals for impermeable paving should be refused where appropriate, including on small surfaces such as front gardens and driveways.

Car Parking
Car-free development should be the starting point for all development proposals in places that are (or are planned to be) well-connected by public transport, with developments elsewhere designed to provide the minimum necessary parking (‘car-lite’) with maximum standards.

Those proposals with parking included need to include electric vehicle charging points.

Strategic Approach to Transport

The Replacement Plan sets out a significant list of transport infrastructure projects proposed to deliver the strategic target of 80% of all trips in London to be made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041 and authorities in preparing development plans would need to support these projects. Such projects include the Silvertown Tunnel, Crossrail 2 and the provision of a new bridge linking south to east at Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf.

Next Steps
The Examination in Public will take place in the Autumn of 2019 with the adoption of the final London Plan in the Autumn of 2019.

 

Share this on:

 

Local Plan Update – We have been tracking all Local Plan preparation across the regions.

 

‘Step into my office’ – with Jo Hanslip

 

London 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:

 

£866 million investment to help unlock potential 200,000 new homes

 

Up to 200,000 new homes are due to get off the ground as the government confirms £866 million investment in local housing projects. 

On the 1st February 2018, the Housing Secretary Sajid Javid and Chancellor Philip Hammond announced that 133 council-led projects across the country will receive funding to support local work that will make housing developments viable and get much-needed homes built more quickly. This £866 million is the first phase of funding from the £5 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, which was increased by £2.7 billion in the 2017 Autumn Budget. According to the government, this latest investment will help to get work started on up to 200,000 homes.

When the investment was announced, Chancellor of the Exchequer – Philip Hammond, said:

“Today marks the first step of the multi-billion pound investment we announced at the Budget to help build the homes our country needs.This fund finances vital infrastructure such as roads, schools and bridges, which will kick-start housing development in some of Britain’s highest-demand areas. This support will help us meet our ambitious plan of building 300,000 new homes each year and ensure we have enough housing in areas which need it most.”

With the government committed to building 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s, this first wave of funding from the £5 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund is part of a comprehensive programme to fix the broken housing market. There will be two funding streams that make up the Housing Infrastructure Fund:

  1. A Marginal Viability Fund:This is available to all single and lower-tier local authorities in England and aims to provide a piece of infrastructure funding to get additional sites allocated or existing sites unblocked quickly. Bids can be up to £10 million.
  2. A Forward Fund:This is available to the uppermost tier of local authorities in England – for a small number of strategic and high-impact infrastructure projects. Bids can be up to £250 million.

This latest investment and will fund key local infrastructure projects including new roads, cycle paths, flood defences and land remediation work, all essential ahead of building the homes. Without this financial support these projects would struggle to go ahead or take years for work to begin, delaying the homes these communities need. Together with the government’s Industrial Strategy, it will provide high-quality infrastructure to support economic growth.

Housing Secretary Sajid Javid said:

“Our priority is building the homes this country desperately needs. This first wave of investment totalling £866 million will help get up to 200,000 homes off the ground, making a huge difference to communities across the country. This is just one of the many ways this government is taking action to get Britain building homes again.”

Projects from County Durham to Cornwall will receive funding including:

  • £10 million for highway infrastructure to unlock further development at the Ashton Green housing site in Leicester, helping to unlock 3,300 homes

Source – Leicester.gov.uk

  • £10 million for construction of a bypass in Botley, Hampshire, a critical strategic road infrastructure project that will help unlock the delivery of 1,000 new homes

Source – Hampshire County Council

http://documents.hants.gov.uk/transport-projects/botley-bypass/BotleyBypassConsultationJune2016.pdf

  • £3.6 million for drainage works, new roads and footpaths at the Manor Cluster, south-east Sheffield to help unlock more than 400 homes by 2025
  • £6.5 million to help build a new primary school as part of the Ilfracombe Southern Extension in North Devon. This will help unlock 750 new homes

Source – Damien Hirst

Can we get images or links to plans/images for these sites?

The £5 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund is a government capital grant programme to help unlock new homes in areas with the greatest housing demand. Funding is awarded to local authorities on a highly competitive basis.

The government will be progressing Forward Funding projects to go through to co-development in the coming weeks, with final funding announced in autumn 2018. The investment announcement forms part of the government’s Industrial Strategy which sets out a long term plan to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout the UK.

The strategy sets out how we are building a Britain fit for the future – how we will help businesses create better, higher-paying jobs in every part of the UK with investment in skills, industries and infrastructure.

The government hopes the funding will get homes built quicker and help it to achieve its target to build £300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s.

This £866 million is the first phase of funding from the £5 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, which was increased by £2.7 billion in the 2017 Autumn Budget. According to the government, this latest investment will help to get work started on up to 200,000 homes.

Things are starting to happen and we will keep you updated.

Share this on:

 

Government Plan to Tackle Air Quality Unlawful

 

Environmental lawyers ClientEarth have successfully challenged the government’s plans to tackle air quality for the third time.

The two previous challenges were also successfully challenged.

 A Brief History 

The first Air Quality Plan produced in 2011 was quashed by order of the Supreme Court in 2015. The Government was made the subject of a mandatory order requiring the Secretary of State to prepare new air quality plans in accordance with a defined timetable.

The second AQP produced in purported compliance with the order of the Supreme Court was published on 17th December 2015.

In a judgment dated 2nd November 2016, Justice Garnham concluded that the 2015 Air Quality Plan failed to comply with Article 23(1) of the Air Quality Directive 2008. On 22nd November 2016, it was ordered that the Secretary of State publish a draft modified Air Quality Plan by 4 pm on 24th April 2017 and a final Air Quality Plan by 31st July 2017.

In November 2017, the government requested an extension of time for the publishing of the draft plan due to the general election and purdah. Justice Garnham concluded that the draft plan must be published the day after the local elections and that date for the publication of the final plan 31st July 2017, would be unchanged. In accordance with the amended order of the Court, a draft air quality plan and supporting technical report were published on 5th May 2017. Those documents were then put out to consultation. In June 2017 ClientEarth sought to challenge the details of this consultation but this was refused.

On 26th July 2017 (“DEFRA”) the “UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations” was published. This was the third attempt by the UK Government to provide an Air Quality Plan (“AQP”) that met its obligations in law.

On 27th July 2017, the Government published a Direction to 23 local authorities under s85(5) of the Environment Act 1995 to undertake a feasibility study to identify the option which will deliver compliance with legal limits for nitrogen dioxide in the area for which the authority is responsible, in the shortest possible time. These were:

  • Basildon Borough Council
  • Bath and North East Somerset Council
  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Bristol City Council
  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Coventry City Council
  • Fareham Borough Council
  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Guildford Borough Council
  • Manchester City Council
  • Middlesbrough Borough Council
  • New Forest District Council
  • Newcastle City Council
  • North Tyneside Council
  • Rochford District Council
  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Rushmoor Borough Council
  • Salford City Council
  • Sheffield City Council
  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Surrey Heath Borough Council
  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

Environment Act 1995 Air Quality Directions were also published for Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton in relation to clean air zones.

The Third challenge to the Air Quality Plan

This third challenge was submitted in November 2017 with arguments being heard from both parties on the 25th January 2018.The high court decision was published yesterday 21st Feb 2018.

ClientEarth’s grounds for the challenge were:

  1. The latest plan backtracks on previous commitments to order 5 cities to introduce clean air zones by 2020.
  2. The plan does not require any action in 45 local authorities in England, despite them having illegal levels of air pollution.
  3. The plan does not require any action by Wales to bring down air pollution as quickly as possible.

The decision concludes that the government have failed to produce an adequate plan to tackle growing air pollution and have failed to require action from 45 local authorities with illegal levels of air pollution.

These 45 authorities are identified in the air quality plan as Local authorities with roads with concentrations of NO2 forecast above legal limits and assuming no additional measures. All figures are provided in µg/m3 and 40 µg/m3 is the statutory annual mean limit value for NO2, but are not required to conduct a feasibility study

These authorities are:

  • Portsmouth City Council
  • Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
  • Bournemouth Borough Council
  • Bradford City Council
  • Plymouth City Council
  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Wolverhampton City Council
  • Bolsover District Council
  • Leicester City Council
  • Liverpool City Council
  • Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council
  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council
  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Poole Borough Council
  • Burnley Borough Council
  • Peterborough Council
  • Reading Borough Council
  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
  • South Gloucestershire District Council
  • Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
  • Blaby District Council
  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Cheltenham Borough Council
  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Southend Borough Council
  • Ashfield District Council
  • Broxbourne Borough Council
  • Chelmsford Borough Council
  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Havant Borough Council
  • North East Lincolnshire Council
  • Sunderland City Council
  • Warrington Borough Council
  • Broxtowe Borough Council
  • Luton Borough Council
  • Oxford City Council
  • South Ribble Borough Council
  • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Northampton Borough Council
  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Dartford Borough Council

This inaction led to the conclusion that the government’s proposals are unlawful and “seriously flawed” in respect of those 45 areas, which were not expected to reduce pollution to within legal levels until 2021.

Justice Garnham ordered ministers to require local authorities to investigate and identify measures to tackle illegal levels of pollution in 33 towns and cities as soon as possible – as 12 of the 45 local authorities are projected to have legal levels by the end of 2018.

This decision means that if the government fails their duties to address air quality, matters can be taken directly to the courts without delay. The courts will have the powers to pass judgment on whether the government’s actions meet its obligations on air pollution under UK and EU law.

“It seems to me that the time has come for the Court to consider exercising a more flexible supervisory jurisdiction in this case than is commonplace. Such an application was made to me when the November 2016 judgment was handed down. I refused it on that occasion”

There was no ruling against the government for its decision to back-pedal on a previous commitment to legally ensure five cities implemented charging ‘Clean Air Zones’ – which charge the most polluting vehicles to enter the most polluted parts of a city. Ministers issued Directions to those five cities in December 2017 as above.

Air pollution is thought to cause and contribute to as many as 40,000 thousands of deaths a year in the UK already, especially among vulnerable people such as those with existing respiratory problems.

DEFRA commented that they had previously considered that it was sufficient to take a pragmatic, less formal approach to those areas with less severe air quality problems but have agreed that they will take a more formal approach in line with the court decision. They will continue to implement the £3.5 bn air quality plan.

If you have any questions about the topics that we cover on our blog, contact us today, we’d be happy to talk.

 

 

Share this on:

 

The GDPR and planning applications

 

In 2015 a Council breached the Data Protection Act (DPA) when it published the information in planning application documents which it made publicly available online.

The Council was fined £150,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The ICO is an independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

When the ICO did an investigation, they found that on the 16th July 2015, the Council received a written statement in support of a householder’s planning application for proposed works in a green belt.

The statement contained sensitive personal data relating to a static traveller family who had been living on the site for many years. In particular, it referred to the family’s disability requirements, including mental health issues, the names of all the family members, their ages and the location of their home.

The Council published the statement in full on its online planning portal later that day.

The ICO investigation found that this was due to failings in data protection procedures and training. An inexperienced Council officer did not notice the personal information in the statement, and there was no procedure in place for a second person to check it before the personal data was inadvertently published online.

The information was only removed on the 4th September 2015 when the concerns came to light.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

If the same data breach was to happen after the 25th May of this year, the Council could have faced a fine of £17,000,000!

There is a new data protection law coming into force and anyone who handles data about ‘people’ has to be compliant.

Currently, the maximum fine the ICO can issue is £0.5m. After this May, larger fines of up to £17m (€20m) or 4% of global turnover will be allowed, enabling the ICO to respond in a proportionate manner to the most serious data breaches.

The GDPR is based on a set of common-sense principles:

  • A “right to be forgotten”: When an individual no longer wants her/his data to be processed and provided that there are no legitimate grounds for retaining it, the data will be deleted. This is about protecting the privacy of individuals, not about erasing past events or restricting freedom of the press
  • Easier access to your data: Individuals will have more information on how their data is processed and this information should be available in a clear and understandable way. A right to data portability will make it easier for individuals to transmit personal data between service providers
  • The right to know when your data has been hacked: Companies and organisations must notify the national supervisory authority of data breaches which put individuals at risk and communicate to the data subject all high-risk breaches as soon as possible so that users can take appropriate measures
  • Data protection by design and by default:‘Data protection by design’ and ‘Data protection by default’ is now essential elements in EU data protection rules. Data protection safeguards will be built into products and services from the earliest stage of development, and privacy-friendly default settings will be the norm – for example on social networks or mobile apps
  • Stronger enforcement of the rules: Data protection authorities will be able to fine companies who do not comply with EU rules up to 4% of their global annual turnover or £17,000,000 – whichever is more

If you are an organization that handles data about people, you should note the following…
Identify where you or your company are storing data, for example:

  • Your website
  • Telesales – do you store names and numbers for your agents to call?
  • Direct mail – do you have completed order forms stored away with contact details?
  • Customer service departments – calls taken from potential customers and those recorded details
  • Personal contact with people – the exchange of business cards from a tradeshow or exhibition

Prepare yourself and your staff, make them well aware of the changes that are coming.

  • Make sure that they understand the principles of good data protection and that they don’t write down details of people on a piece of paper that could go astray, end up in the bin or taken home on computers or memory sticks where information could get stolen
  • Evaluate your environment and how you document personal data – where did it come from, who have you shared it with?
  • How will you audit the data? Review current policy notices and put a plan in place – procedures and timescales
  • Be compliant, review your practices and make sure that, to the best of your ability, you look after the data as if it were your own
  • Make sure your organisation’s privacy policy of how you handle data is compliant with the new rules and is up to date
  • Decide how you will be able to prove that your data is secured safely and how to seek consent moving forwards.

Do you need a Data Officer?
A data protection officer (DPO) is an enterprise security leadership role required by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Data protection officers are responsible for overseeing data protection strategy and implementation to ensure compliance with GDPR requirements. A DPO would be recommended for any organization that processes or stores large amounts of personal data, whether for employees, individuals outside the organization, or both. Seek advice as to whether your company should employ a DPO.

The GDPR is a very hot topic at the moment and we will be keeping you up to date with any developments.
Read more about the ICO and the GDPR  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this on:

 

The Review of build out – house building delays

 

We need more homes, what’s the delay?

On the 14th January 2018, the Minister of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), published details about the ‘Letwin’ review. Sir Oliver Letwin, former Cabinet Office Minister was asked to chair a review into the gap between planning permissions granted and homes built.

The review:

  • The aim of the review is to find out why there is a significant gap between housing completions and the amount of land allocated or permissioned in areas of high housing demand – and make recommendations for closing that gap
  • The review should identify the main causes of the gap and what practical steps can be taken to increase the speed of build out
  • The long term goal is to support an increase in housing supply that will be consistent with a stable housing market

Sir Oliver Letwin said: “This government is serious about finding ways to increase the speed of build out as well as tackling the complicated issues surrounding it. That’s why we have set up this diverse panel to help me test my analysis and to make practical, non-partisan recommendations, as we look to increase housing supply that’s consistent with a stable UK housing market.”

Housing secretary Sajid Javid said: “We are determined to build the homes this country needs, but currently there is still a significant gap between the number of planning permissions being granted and the number of homes built. This review is vital to helping us understand how we can build more homes quickly.”

He added, ”The review will provide an interim report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in time for Spring Statement 2018 and a full report for Budget 2018.”

Mr Javid confirmed that:

  • Mr Letwin would chair a ‘Panel’ to support the work
  • A base would be provided and a team of 2-3 officials would be allocated to achieve the proposed review
  • The Housing Minister would chair a fortnightly steering group with Her Majesty’s Treasury and No.10 Downing Street teams to provide appropriate support
  • Simon Gallagher as Senior Responsible Officer would support this with an official’s group. Should it prove necessary to involve other departments he would be happy to expand to cover broader groups      

The bill will be constructed in two phases:

  • Phase 1 – currently underway – will seek to identify the main causes of the gap by reviewing large housing sites where planning permission has already been granted. This will include information-gathering sessions with local authorities, developers, non-government organisations and others. Early findings will be published in the interim report
  • Phase 2 – will make recommendations on practical steps to increase the speed of build-out, which will be published in the full report

The review will also consider how to avoid interventions which might discourage housebuilding or hinder the regeneration of complex sites.


The review team members are:

  • Richard Ehrman – author, small commercial property developer and former journalist. Former special adviser to the Secretary of State for Employment and subsequently Northern Ireland, onetime Chief Leader Writer of the Daily Telegraph, and former Deputy Chairman of Policy Exchange
  • Lord Jitesh Gadhia – Member of House of Lords and investment banker
  • Lord John Hutton – (Labour) Peer and former Secretary of State
  • Rt Hon Baroness Usha Prashar CBE, PC – (Crossbench) Peer with a career spanning public, not for profit and private sectors, currently Deputy Chairman, British Council and a non-Executive Director of Nationwide Building Society
  • Christine Whitehead – Emeritus Professor of Housing Economics at London School of Economics 

Let’s hope that the review will result in the government achieving their long-term goal.

Read the document – ‘Review of build out – terms of reference’

Share this on:

 

Government reshuffle brings new housing minister and new department name

 

Good game, new name…

It’s another positive step in the right direction on the government’s mission to fix the broken housing market.

The Prime Minister has conducted a reshuffle of her cabinet and the ministerial team which has affected the Government’s housing portfolio.

The Rt Hon Sajid Javid remains in charge of the overall portfolio although his title has been broadened to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government reflecting the priority given to housing by the PM and a change of name for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

Housing Secretary Sajid Javid said:

“Building the homes our country needs is an absolute priority for this government and so I’m delighted the Prime Minister has asked me to serve in this role. The name change for the department reflects this government’s renewed focus to deliver more homes and build strong communities across England.”

The DCLG, formed in 2006 has been renamed the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

An article published on the GOV.UK website on the 8th January 2018 confirmed the government’s renewed focus on housing.

Further changes were announced:

  • Alok Sharma, Minister of State for Housing who has held the position since June 2017, is being switched to the Department for Work and Pensions as he takes up a new role as Minister of State for Employment
  • Dominic Raab, MP for Esher and Walton, replaces Mr Sharma as Housing and Planning Minister at the newly branded MHCLG. He previously held the role of Minister of State for Courts and Justice

About Dominic Raab…

  • A former international lawyer who, after working for a law firm in the City, joined the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. There he advised on a wide range of briefs, including UK investor protection, counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism and UK overseas territories
  • After leaving the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in 2006, he worked for three years as Chief of Staff to Shadow Home and Justice Secretaries, advising the Conservative frontbench on crime, policing, immigration, counter-terrorism, human rights and constitutional reform
  • He was elected as the MP for Esher and Walton in 2010 with a majority of 18,593. He increased this majority to almost 30,000 at the 2015 general election before achieving a majority of 23,298 in 2017
  • Raab served the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Education Select Committee between 2010 and 2015 and in 2016 was elected by MPs to sit on Parliament’s Committee on Exiting the EU, which scrutinises the government’s approach to Brexit
  • In terms of housing and planning interests, Raab has previously led a campaign to protect the Green Belt in and around Elmbridge. His website states that he has “campaigned consistently to maintain effective greenbelt protections, which was confirmed as national policy by the government in its 2017 White Paper.”
  • In 2011 he also called for allowing the local community to determine the balance of development as well as streamlining the bureaucracy of the planning process for the benefit of councils

Elsewhere, Greg Clark will remain as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy while Marcus Jones has been announced as the new Conservative Party Vice Chair for Local Government, vacating his role as Minister for Local Government within MHCLG.

A new Local Government Minister had not been announced on the 8th January. Further, previous Housing Minister, and more recently Immigration Minister Brandon Lewis, has been appointed as Conservative Party Chairman, being replaced by Caroline Nokes in the immigration brief at the Home Office.

Following the resignation of Justine Greening as Education Secretary, Damian Hinds is the new Secretary of State in the department responsible for skills.

Hopefully, the reshuffle and potentially a new housing game plan will boost our confidence in the government and their attempts to fix the broken housing market.

Read more about the 2017 housing white paper.

Do you have any planning needs or housing projects that you would like to discuss? Contact us today.

 

 

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:

 

A return flight to Heathrow this Christmas

 

Mr and Mrs Bear are back pulling at our heartstrings this year for the Heathrow Christmas advert. The cuddly characters were introduced last year when the two elderly bears were travelling through the airport to be reunited with their families over the festive season.

Watch the heart-warming Christmas story (with a tissue) here.

Thankfully they weren’t caught up last week in the largest snowfall in London for nearly 5 years where passengers found themselves grounded on the runway at Heathrow Airport.

On this return flight to Heathrow, we are going to update you on the latest developments.

At the moment, the long and short haul of it is…

Heathrow’s third runway could be operational by 2026, creating £60 billion of economic benefits over a 60 year period. The plan consists of a 3,500m runway which is said to be the first full-length runway to be built in the south-east of the UK since the Second World War. The costs involved are estimated to be a staggering £18.6 bn. The government have stated that the decision to approve the plan is central to the economic growth of Britain. London is growing and we need to meet the needs now and for the future.

The Heathrow boss, John Holland Kaye, has said he is not ruling out some form of collaboration with the team behind a rival expansion plan for the airport’s third runway. The business magnate, Surinder Arora, who owns 16 hotels, a golf course and his own private airfield, is the largest single landowner on the site marked for expansion. He has revealed a plan alongside US engineering firm Bechtel in August where he claimed, the third runway project could be delivered for £12.4bn. £5bn cheaper than Heathrow’s initial estimate.

Heathrow has since changed its plans so as to bring down the costs of a third runway. However, it has been suggested that there could be a collaboration with Mr Arora’s company in some way.

According to the Telegraph online, Mr Holland Kaye said, “It would not surprise us if we do something with him as we expand the airport. He is an important local stakeholder and it would amaze me if we don’t do something together.” The Heathrow boss also said that he is working with airlines to try to keep charges close to today’s levels.

The comments come shortly after the Department for Transport issued a revised draft airport’s National Policy Statement, a document which forms part of the process of airport expansion and which will be scrutinised by the transport select committee in the House of Commons. The document welcomed competing bids for the work and stated the Government did not have a preference for who constructed the third runway as long as it met the specifications outlined by the Airports Commission.

The plans to add a runway at Heathrow have been criticised by one of the rival proposals, Heathrow Hub, which claims they will not be able to deliver the promised annual 740,000 flights.

Heathrow Hub said rather than building an entirely new runway, the northern one should be extended and used simultaneously for take-offs and landings, a solution it said could be ­delivered for less than £10bn.

The group commissioned engineering consultancy Ebeni to examine the current plan. Ebeni said a taxiway needed to link the new northern runway would reduce the number of flights, because tail fins of large aircraft such as Airbus A380s and Boeing 747s using the taxiway would get in the way of aircraft taking off, creating a possible safety risk.

Ebeni said having to wait for these aircraft to clear the space required for take-off would create delays and reduce capacity from the stated 740,000 flights a year under the current plans to fewer than 700,000.

Read the revised National Policy Statement here.

We can only hope for a happy ending with the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

As we draw near to end of 2017 and look forward to 2018, the team here at Urbanissta would like to wish you a Happy Christmas and prosperous New Year.

If there is anything we can help you with to achieve your goals for 2018, contact us today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this on: