Appeal Decision Hearing held on 8 October 2013 Site visit made on 8 October 2013 by Jessica Graham BA(Hons) PgDipL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 31 October 2013 Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2203524 Land at Allesborough Farm, Pershore, Worcestershire WR10 2AB The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to approve matters reserved under an outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Redrow Homes (Midlands) against the decision of Wychavon District Council. The application Ref W/13/00693/RM, dated 2 April 2013, sought approval of reserved matters pursuant to conditions Nos. 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of an outline planning permission (Ref W/11/00752/OU) which was granted on appeal (Ref APP/H1840/A/11/2165772) ( the 2012 appeal ) on 17 May 2012. The application was refused by notice dated 24 June 2013. The development proposed is 45 dwellings including affordable housing and open space. The reserved matters for which approval is sought are access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The road that runs alongside the north-western boundary of the appeal site appears to be known by a variety of different names: it is referred to in evidence as, variously, Salters Lane, Besford Road, and Rebecca Road. In the interests of clarity and consistency, I shall follow the approach of the Inspector who determined the 2012 appeal and refer to it as Salters Lane. 3. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by Redrow Homes (Midlands) against Wychavon District Council. That application is the subject of a separate Decision Letter of even date. Main issues 4. Outline planning permission for the construction of 45 dwellings on this site has already been granted, so it is not the principle of residential development that lies at the heart of this appeal, but rather the acceptability or otherwise of the details now put forward. With that in mind, I consider the main issues to be whether adequate provision would be made for an appropriate mix of housing, and the effect that the proposed development would have on the character and appearance of the area. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Reasons The housing mix 5. Paragraph 50 of the government s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) explains that in order to deliver a wide choice of quality homes and widen opportunities for home ownership, local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community. It goes on to say that local planning authorities should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand. 6. Saved Policy COM1 of the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006, originally drafted to comply with Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing (now replaced by the NPPF), is broadly consistent with this approach. It states that the Council will seek to ensure that proposals for new residential development incorporate a mix of dwelling types, sizes and affordability that reflect and respond to the housing needs of the individual settlements across the district. 7. The Council has also produced a Housing Mix Position Statement (HMPS) dated February 2013, which discusses the need for different types and sizes of dwelling by reference to information extracted from the Worcestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2012, and from the 2013 updates to the SHMA. The HMPS concludes that the evidence indicates that the Council should encourage the provision of a greater number of smaller market homes, and sets out the proportions of 1 or 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom and 4+ bedroom dwellings that should be provided on qualifying sites. I appreciate that the HMPS has not been consulted upon and does not appear to have been widely publicised; it is not part of the adopted Development Plan and does not even have the status of a Supplementary Planning Document. Nevertheless, I consider that it does provide a helpful summary of relevant evidence as to housing need in the terms of Policy COM1 of the Local Plan. 8. The dwellings proposed for the appeal site include 13 affordable units, equating to 31% of the total number of dwellings, in accordance with Policy COM2 of the Local Plan. These would be a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom flats, 2 and 3 bedroom houses and two 1 bedroom bungalows. The Council is satisfied that the proposed property types, sizes and tenures are appropriate to help meet the identified need for affordable housing in the local area, and I have no reason to doubt that would be the case. 9. However, of the 29 open-market dwellings proposed, 4 would have 3 bedrooms, 13 would have 4 bedrooms, and 12 would have 5 bedrooms. Comparing the proportions of this mix with that sought by the HMPS shows that instead of 35% of the dwellings having 1 or 2 bedrooms, there would be none at all; instead of 35% having 3 bedrooms, there would be only 14%; and instead of dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms making up a maximum of 30% of the total, this type of dwelling would constitute 86% of the total open-market provision. The housing mix proposed for the appeal site, then, is distinctly at odds with the housing mix sought by the Council. 10. As the appellant rightly points out, paragraph 50 of the NPPF advises identification of the type of housing needed to address local demand, and Local Plan Policy COM1 states that the housing mix should reflect and respond to the housing needs of the individual settlements across the District, but the www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
HMPS addresses housing need on a district-wide rather than settlement-by-settlement basis. 11. The appellant has therefore produced evidence extracted from the 2011 Census which relates more specifically to Pershore. This demonstrates that Pershore currently contains a slightly higher proportion of 1 and 2 bedroom properties and a slightly lower proportion of 4 and 5 bedroom properties than the wider District of Wychavon and the still wider county of Worcestershire, and that in comparison with the District as a whole, there is a higher proportion of properties in Pershore, of all sizes, where the occupants are aged over 65. There is also evidence that between 2001 and 2011, the younger working-age population of Pershore declined by about 500 people. 12. As the appellant points out, again rightly, it would be over-simplistic to assume that the size of a household necessarily equates to the size of the dwelling it occupies: I accept that purchasing decisions may be based on affordability (and many other factors) rather than simply size, and that many people may aspire to live in the largest property that they can reasonably afford. However, for similar reasons, it seems to me that it would be equally over-simplistic to assume that encouraging young working-age people to move to Pershore would require the provision of more large houses, rather than a range of dwelling sizes including some very modest homes. While young working people who are well off may be looking to purchase a big property with spare bedrooms, there may well be many who, at the start of their careers, are struggling to afford even a small dwelling. 13. I note the appellant s contention that the provision of smaller properties to cater for a predicted growth in the population of those aged over 65 is not necessarily appropriate, since the elderly tend to be less mobile, and have lower migration rates, than those in younger age groups. Those are valid considerations, but at the hearing the local Councillors made the equally valid point that elderly occupiers of large family homes are often keen to downsize once their children have left home, and in the absence of sufficient numbers of smaller properties in their local area, would struggle to do so. This in turn would prevent those existing larger dwellings from being recycled for occupation by growing families. 14. The appellant has not provided any further evidence, in the form of market research or other relevant information, to demonstrate an existing or potential need for more 4 and 5 bedroom houses in Pershore. The housing stock figures extracted from the 2011 Census data identify the number of existing dwellings, but not whether they are occupied. It is therefore not possible to assess how many of the existing larger dwellings may be standing empty, or how many of those built in recent times may remain unsold. 15. The SHMA 2012 forms part of the evidence base for the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan, and has been the subject of a number of objections concerning its projections and methodology. The results of its rigorous testing at Examination in Public are not yet known. This limits the weight that can be placed upon it, but in the absence of any alternative evidence of comparable weight, does not mean that it can simply be disregarded. In conjunction with the 2013 updates it constitutes what is currently the best available evidence for establishing the right mix of dwellings to meet local housing need, and so has rightly been used as the basis for www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3
establishing the District s required proportions of differently sized dwellings, as set out in the HMPS. 16. The HMPS, reflecting the terms of Local Plan Policy COM1, recognises that there must be some flexibility in applying this requirement, in order to account for the specific needs of particular settlements and other considerations such as local character and scheme viability. I have not in this case been provided with any substantive alternative evidence which might establish that the housing need in Pershore, or the circumstances of the appeal site, are such as would justify a departure from the approach set out in the HMPS. On that basis, I find that the proposed development would not make adequate provision for an appropriate mix of housing on the appeal site, and so would conflict with the objectives of Local Plan Policy COM 1 and paragraph 50 of the NPPF. The effect on the character and appearance of the area 17. The appeal site lies outside the development boundary for the town, such that the permitted residential development of the site will inevitably encroach into the open countryside surrounding Pershore, and form the new edge of the settlement. The Inspector who determined the 2012 appeal recognised this, and went on to observe that while the appeal site is situated on a crest in the local topography, the ridgeline has already been breached by development of the houses on Holloway and the buildings of Allesborough Farm. He concluded that the development of 45 dwellings with a maximum height of 8.5m would not be a prominent feature in the landscape, and any impact could be softened by associated tree planting, so that it would not have an adverse effect on the appearance of the rural landscape. That seems to me a fair assessment. 18. The Inspector attached a condition (no. 4) to the ensuing grant of outline planning permission, requiring any Reserved Matters application relating to the appearance, layout and scale of the development to include a statement explaining how the design of the development had had regard to the Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted with the planning application. That is not, of course, the same thing as requiring the design of the development to comply with the details of the DAS. As the Council agreed at the Hearing, it would be perfectly acceptable to submit a Reserved Matters application that departed significantly from the proposals in the DAS, provided adequate explanation were given of the reasons for so doing. 19. One of the design objectives set out in the DAS was to create a sense of place through building design, and the homezone concept. The indicative layout then proposed was described as following homezone principles in the formation of external spaces, so that they would not be dominated by the requirements of vehicular access, allowing spaces within the development to be attractive and person orientated. 20. The layout that is now proposed has a more linear arrangement than that suggested by the indicative plan which accompanied the outline application, with dwellings disposed either side of a straight central access road. I share the appellant s view that this more closely reflects the pattern of neighbouring residential development pattern along Holloway, Holloway Drive and Willow Close, where the dwellings front on to linear streets which follow, in the main, the contours of the ridge. The Council rightly points out that this layout would be at odds with the homezone principles described in the DAS, in that it would not provide an environment where pedestrians are prioritised over vehicles. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4
Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the access arrangements, provision of footways and the use of variation in road surfacing would create a reasonably safe and attractive environment for pedestrians and vehicle-users alike. 21. As to the linked DAS objective of creating a sense of place through building design, the appellant has explained that the positioning of the 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings at the eastern end of the appeal site, which is the widest end of this triangular parcel of land, is intended to set up a harmonious relationship with a rhthym that is then maintained along the internal street scene, as the appeal site narrows to the west and the properties become smaller. 22. I appreciate that this is a considered design response to the physical constraints of the appeal site, but unfortunately it results in a situation where the clear visual distinction between the larger (thus more expensive) and smaller properties, at opposite ends of the appeal site, is at odds with local and national planning policy objectives to create mixed and inclusive communities. If there were not such a discrepancy of scale, between the 1-bedroom affordable B3 bungalows at the western end and the 5 bedroom Highgrove and Blenheim houses at the eastern end, this might not be such a cause for concern. It seems to me that the place-making principles deployed by the appellant could equally well be applied to a much narrower range, and a better integrated mix, of dwelling sizes. 23. The proposed layout has also departed from the illustrative plan provided at outline application stage in terms of increasing the footprints of the dwellings proposed in the north-eastern part of the site, and orientating them so that a considerable number turn their backs on Salters Lane. The Inspector who determined the 2012 appeal noted that the existing urban edge comprises residential gardens which provide little in the way of transition between the built-up part of Pershore and the surrounding countryside, and I can understand the Council s concern that this situation would simply be replicated, rather than improved, if the majority of the rear gardens of the new dwellings were to back on to Salters Lane. 24. However, the proposed development would include the provision of a landscape buffer between the new houses and Salters Lane, which would strengthen the existing established planting with additional trees and shrubs, and for the most part would lie outside the garden boundaries of the new dwellings. This would help to provide a soft but legible transition from urban edge to countryside, and would also provide a considerable amount of screening in views from Salters Lane. Some of the dwellings adjoining this buffer would be orientated side-on to Salters Lane, and the space created by their front and rear gardens would help to break up the visual density of the built form. Condition 11 of the outline planning permission requires the Council s prior approval of the position, design, material and type of boundary treatment, so the Council would have the opportunity to refuse inappropriate fencing; if it were considered necessary, an additional condition worded to prevent future occupiers replacing the approved boundary treatment could be imposed. 25. On that basis, I do not agree with the Council s view that the proposed configuration of dwellings and garden spaces would be fundamentally unsuited to this location at the edge of Pershore. I do, however, share its concern that in public views into the appeal site from Salters Lane, the proposed development would appear inappropriately urban in character. This is primarily www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5
due to the large scale of the dwellings on plots 7, 8, 9 and 10, the very limited separation distance between their flank walls, and their short rear gardens, which place them in close proximity to Salters Lane at a point where the landscape buffer (at least, that part of it which is incorporated within the appeal site, rather than lying in third party ownership) is reduced to one line of trees. I consider that the scale and bulk of these four large 4 and 5 bedroom houses, in such close proximity to the lane and to each other, would appear incongruous in this edge-of-settlement setting. 26. Taking all of this into account, I conclude that it is the problems caused by the inclusion of a high proportion of 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings which render the currently proposed details of this residential development unacceptable. In the light of my findings on the first main issue, there does not appear to be any demonstrable local need that would justify providing so many large houses on this site. I can understand the appellant s concern to make as efficient and effective a use of the land as possible, and as the Council s adopted Supplementary Planning Document Wychavon Residential Design Guide notes, differing objectives need to be reconciled in order to achieve good design outcomes and inevitably compromise is part of this. But in the absence of any overriding local housing need for large houses, measures intended to accommodate their provision should not be allowed to compromise or dominate other important design considerations. 27. I find that for the reasons set out above the proposed development would detract from, rather than make a positive contribution to, the visual environment and would thereby conflict with the aims of Policy SUR1 of the Local Plan. While not having any significant adverse impact on the wider landscape, the character of the proposed development would not accord with edge-of-settlement landscape character of its immediate setting and so would also conflict with the objectives of Local Plan Policies ENV1 and GD2. Other matters 28. Residents on Holloway have expressed concern about the potential for the new dwellings to overlook their properties. However, taking account of the separation distances between the existing and proposed buildings, the intervening boundary treatment and the potential to strengthen this through additional planting, I am satisfied that any slight increase in overlooking which may occur would not be such as would significantly reduce the privacy of the existing occupiers. 29. The appellant contends that since Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan does not take account of the growth aspirations of the NPPF and does not allow for any planning balance to be carried out, then by reference to paragraph 22 of the High Court judgment in Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin), little weight can be attributed to this policy. 30. I do not share that view. The Colman case concerned an appeal decision granting planning permission for the construction of wind turbines. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF states that applications for renewable energy development should be approved if the impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. Paragraph 42 of the Colman judgment records that the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), applied by footnote 17 to paragraph 97 of the NPPF, provides that it is necessary to judge whether any adverse impact on the www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6
landscape would be so damaging that it would not be offset by the benefits of the project. It was against this specific cost/benefit approach to the consideration of renewable energy proposals, set out in the NPPF, that the relevant Development Plan policies in that case were assessed. Paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment find that since the whole thrust of those Development Plan policies was restrictive, their inconsistency with the approach taken by the NPPF was plain. 31. The policy context for housing differs significantly from that concerning renewable energy, and in my opinion, it does not automatically follow that relevant Development Plan policies which do not make specific provision for a cost/benefit approach must be inconsistent with the NPPF. The NPPF does not contain (or import) any equivalent requirement to judge whether any adverse impact on the landscape would be offset by the benefits of the proposed housing development. Rather, in setting out a requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing (paragraph 47), the NPPF explains that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 49). How that presumption is to be applied is explained at paragraph 14, and the second bullet point of its second limb states that where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 32. Paragraph 49 makes specific provision for relevant policies for the supply of housing to be treated as out of date, thereby engaging the cost/benefit approach at bullet point 2 of the second limb of paragraph 14, in circumstances where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It seems to me that in other circumstances, the extent to which relevant Development Plan policies are out of date, or inconsistent with the NPPF, remains to be determined by the decision maker. I consider that the approach taken by Local Plan Policy ENV1, which requires development proposals to safeguard, restore or enhance the character of the natural and built environment in which they are proposed, is (at least so far as housing rather than renewable energy is concerned) consistent with the NPPF s approach of seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built and natural environment (paragraph 9) and conserving and enhancing the natural environment (paragraph 17). 33. Nor do I agree with the appellant s contention that the Development Plan is out of date simply because it is time expired. Paragraph 211 of the NPPF makes it clear that Local Plan policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. Paragraph 215 explains that it is the degree to which such policies are consistent with the NPPF that will determine the weight to be given to them. I interpret this as making consistency with the NPPF - not the age of the policies, or the plan period they were originally intended to cover the relevant factor in determining whether their weight should be reduced. 34. Accordingly, I find no justification for effectively reducing the weight carried by any of the Local Plan policies referred to in this decision. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7
Conclusion 35. I do not underestimate the economic benefits that the proposed development would bring, or the contribution it would make towards meeting the need for more open-market and affordable housing in the district. But it is important that the housing that is delivered is the right housing to meet those needs, and that the costs of delivering it do not outweigh the benefits. In this case, I consider that the there are no material considerations sufficient to outweigh the conflict with Development Plan policies that I have identified above. Even if it were argued that all of those policies are relevant to the supply of housing, and therefore out of date by virtue of paragraph 49 of the NPPF (or, indeed, if I am wrong in my analysis of the application of the Colman judgment and paragraph 215 of the NPPF) such that bullet point 2 of the second limb of paragraph 14 should apply, I consider that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 36. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Jessica Graham INSPECTOR www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms K Ventham BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI Ms A Parsons BA(Hons) DipTP MA(UD) MRTPI Mr M Chard BA(Hons) Dip(Hons) MA(UD) CMLI Mr J Cahill Mr M Marsh Barton Willmore LLP Barton Willmore LLP Barton Willmore LLP Queen s Counsel Redrow Homes FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Ms H Pearson Ms D Duggan Mr J Mytton Principal Planner Senior Planner (Policy) Solicitor INTERESTED PERSONS: Ms R Bevan Cllr C Tucker Cllr D Brotheridge Ms G Smith Cllr V Wood Local resident Ward Member Ward Member Local resident Ward Member DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING 1 Draft of the costs application made by Mr Cahill on behalf of the appellant 2 Copy of the Landscape Impact Assessment provided by the appellant in support of the outline application 3 Copy of the Roof Line Illustrations provided by the appellant in support of the outline application www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9