CONJOINED APPEAL BY TAYLOR WIMPEY UK LTD AND WHEATLEY HOMES

Transcription

1 CONJOINED APPEAL BY TAYLOR WIMPEY UK LTD AND WHEATLEY HOMES LAND NORTH OF HARE ST ROAD, BUNTINGFORD PINS references: APP/J1915/A/13/ & APP/J1915/A/13/ LPA references: 3/13/1000/FP & 3/13/1183/OP PROOF of EVIDENCE of Neil Osborn BA (Hons) MRTPI Prepared on behalf of: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd DLP Planning Ltd 4 Abbey Court, Fraser Road, Priory Business Park, Bedford, MK44 3WH Tel: Fax: bedford@dlpconsultants.co.uk November 2013

2

3 CONTENTS PROCEDURAL MATTERS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDINGS Buntingford The Appeal Site PLANNING HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF THE APPEAL APPLICATION. 15 Planning History Revisions to the scheme Appeal Application Decision CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE i) National Policy, and whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development ii) Whether there is a five year housing land supply iii) Local policy considerations including compliance with the Development Plan iii) Other Local Policy Considerations v) Suitability of the site for development, and whether the proposals can be considered to be sustainable development vi) Other material considerations OVERALL CONCLUSIONS... 70

4 List of Core Documents (Appended to Statement of Common Ground) Core Document 1 SOCG Appendix 1: Application 3/12/1657/FP Decision Notice. 5/12/2012. Core Document 2 SOCG Appendix 2: Letter from EHDC dated 14 th February 2013 Core Document 3 SOCG Appendix 3: Letter from EHDC dated 22 nd April 2013 Core Document 4 SOCG Appendix 4: Letter from EHDC dated 4 th June 2013 Core Document 5 SOCG Appendix 5: EHDC EIA Screening Opinion 5 th September 2013 Core Document 6 SOCG Appendix 6: EIA Screening Direction - Secretary of State s Decision 23 rd October Core Document 7 SOCG Appendix 7: Officers Report to Development Management Committee 11 th September Core Document 8 SOCG Appendix 8: Minutes of EHDC Development Management Committee 11/9/2013. Core Document 9 - SOCG Appendix 9: Decision notices 3/13/1000/FB and 3/13/1183/OP Core Document 10 - SOCG Appendix 10: East Herts Local Plan Second Review (2007) Policies Core Document 11 - SOCG Appendix 11: Other Local Level Policy Documents: a) East Herts Strategic Land Availability Assessment Initial Report Rounds 1 and 2 October 2012 b) Annual Monitoring Report 2011/2012 c) Open Space, Sport and recreations SPD 2009 d) Affordable Housing and Lifetime Homes SPD 2008 e) Vehicle Parking Provision at new development SPD 2008 f) Planning Obligations SPD 2008 g) London Commuter Belt (East)/M11 Sub-Region Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2008 h) London Commuter Belt (East)/M11 Sub-Region Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update 2012 i) Planning Obligations Guidance Toolkit for Hertfordshire 2008 j) East of England Plan May 2008 k) Hertfordshire County Structure Plan Review 1998 Core Document 12 SOCG Appendix 12: Other Guidance/Documents: a) Ministerial Statement Housing and Growth (September 2012) b) Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 4

5 c) Ministerial Statement Planning for Growth (March 2011) d) The Planning System: General Principles (2005) e) English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation document Urban Design Compendium (August 2000) f) CABE and DETR publication By Design Urban Design in the Planning System Towards Better Practice (2000) g) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 2006 h) Manual for Streets (1 and 2) 2010 Core Document 13 - SOCG Appendix 13: Report to EHDC District Planning Executive Panel on 7/7/2011. Core Document 14 - SOCG Appendix 14: Report to EHDC District Planning Executive Panel on 26/7/2012. Core Document 15a) - SOCG Appendix 15: Agenda Item 5 Report to and minutes of EHDC District Planning Executive Panel on 21/2/2013 Core Document 15b) Minutes of EHDC District Planning Executive Panel on 21/2/2013 Core Document 16 - SOCG Appendix 16: EHDC Local Development Scheme, August Core Document 17 - SOCG Appendix 17: Report to EHDC District Planning Executive Panel on 25/7/2013. Core Document 18 SOCG Appendix 18: The Buntingford Town Plan

6 List of Appendices Appendix 1 Evidence on drainage matters prepared by Mr Kohli Appendix 2 East Herts Local Plan Review Strategy Diagram Appendix 3 East Herts Local Plan Review 2007 Inspectors Report (Buntingford Extract) Appendix 4 Correspondence re: need for additional Burial Plots July 2011 Appendix 5 - Drawing TWNT B - Revisions to Plot 160 Appendix 6 - Blaby Decision (PINS Ref: APP/T2405/A/11/ ) Appendix 7 Wymeswold Decision (PINS Ref: APP/X2410/A/13/ ) Appendix 8 - Wokingham Decision (PINS Ref: APP/X0360/A/11/ ) Appendix 9 - Chapel en le Frith Decision (PINS Ref: APP/H1033/A/11/ ) Appendix 10 Kings Sutton Decision (PINS Ref: APP/Z2830/A/ ) Appendix 11 Congleton Road, Sandbach Decision (PINS Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/ ) Appendix 12 Abbey Road, Sandbach Decision (PINS Ref: APP/R0660/A/10/ ) Appendix 13 - Hardwicke Decision (PINS Ref: APP/C1625/A/11/ ) Appendix 14 - Pickering Decision (PINS Ref: APP/Y2736/A/12/ ) Appendix 15 - Long Buckby Decision (PINS Ref: APP/Y2810/A/12/ ) Appendix 16 - Honeybourne Decision (PINS ref: APP/H1840/A/12/ ) Appendix 17 - Ashby-de-la-Zouch (PINS Ref: APP/G2435/A/13/ ) Appendix 18 - High Court Judgement (Wainhomes Holdings Limited v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) Appendix 19 Assessment of EHDC SLAA sites Appendix 20 - Table of housing planning permissions granted in East Herts 2012/13 Appendix 21 - Bishops Cleeve Decision (PINS Ref: APP/G1630/A/11/ ) Appendix 22 - Buntingford Town Council - A Consideration of Housing Development in Buntingford to the year 2031 Appendix 23 Bishop Stortford Schools Appeal Decision (Multiple PINS Refs) Appendix 24 Report to EHDC District Planning Executive Panel - 8 October 2013 Appendix 25 - Shottery Decision (PINS Ref: APP/J3720/A/11/ ) Appendix 26 - Shottery High Court Judgement (Stratford-on-Avon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) Appendix 27 - Axeminster Decision (Save Our Parkland Appeal v East Devon District Council & Axminster Carpets Ltd) 6

7 Appendix 28 - Cockermouth Decision (PINS Ref: APP/G0908/A/11/ ) Appendix 29 - Lytham St Annes Decisions (PINS Refs: APP/M2325/A/09/ & APP/Q2371/V/11/ ) Appendix 30 - Economic benefits appraisal Appendix 31 - The required tenure mix in East Hertfordshire to 2033 as set out in the SHMA Appendix 32 Note of investigation of primary healthcare capacity Appendix 33 - Louth Decision (PINS Ref: APP/D2510/A/13/ ) Appendix 34 St Albans High Court Judgement (Hunston Properties v St Albans City and District Council) Appendix 35 Correspondence re: Social Housing Register

8 Preamble Neil Osborn will say: I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree with Honours in Town & Country Planning and have been a Chartered Town Planner since I was originally employed by Telford New Town Development Corporation and then in local government, where I experienced at first hand the plan making and development control functions. I subsequently joined a nationally based planning consultancy called Chapman Warren and in 1988 set up a branch of the Practice at St Ives, Cambridgeshire I have largely worked in East Anglia since that time and I am therefore familiar with many regional as well as local planning issues. In 1992 I formed my own Practice, Development Land and Planning Consultants, based in Bedford. Following reorganisation of the business in 2006 DLP Planning has become a constituent part of the DLP Consulting Group, a multi-disciplinary professional consultancy offering planning, transportation, architectural and environmental services to a wide range of clients. My clients are wide ranging and diverse. They include national and regional housing developers, commercial development interests and investment companies ranging from publically quoted businesses to private investors. I also act for a range of public sector organisations, including local planning authorities, charities, small businesses and private individuals including those who wish to object to development. The range of work that I am involved in includes the promotion of development through the development plan making process; the preparation and negotiation of planning applications, including the presentation of evidence to Planning Inquiries. Present projects include the promotion of, application for and delivery of a number of major residential development schemes, some of which are urban extensions of strategic scale, the promotion of major new employment opportunities, large scale solar energy projects, a major transport museum of national importance and a range of smaller office, retail, mixed development and residential schemes. I act extensively for Taylor Wimpey ( the Appellant ) and have promoted a number of of schemes on their behalf and therefore have knowledge of the design process and product portfolio. Over the past year I have been directly involved with securing permission for in excess of 575 units. 8

9 PROCEDURAL MATTERS (i) This evidence This evidence concerns the framework of planning policy by which this appeal should be judged, as well as providing an overview of the key issues involved in the preparation of the scheme and a general summation of all of the material considerations pertinent to this Inquiry, given the nature of both the Reasons for Refusal and my colleagues evidence as follows: i. Mr Oliver: Highways and Access ii. Mr Dale: Landscape and Design Appended to this evidence is also a statement regarding drainage matters prepared by Wormald Burrows Consulting Engineers (Appendix 1). Mr Kohli will be available to the Inquiry in the event that matters pertaining to this subject should be raised. The Appellant has submitted to the East Herts District Council ( EHDC ) as the Local Planning Authority ( the LPA ) a Statement of Common Ground ( SoCG ) dealing with planning policy, housing land supply, Local Plan timetable, affordable housing provision, ecology, trees and landscaping, contamination, noise, archaeology, flooding and drainage, highways, design and layout, landscape, cemetery, allotments, energy, and infrastructure and S106 contributions. Appended to the SoCG is an agreed list of Core Documents. I will refer to the SoCG and to the Core Documents as appropriate where matters of fact have been agreed between the parties prior to the Inquiry or where common documents are adduced. In setting out any quotations all wording in bold type other than titles reflects the emphasis I invite to be given to specific words and phrases. 9

10 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL 1.1 The Appellant has an option to purchase the area of agricultural land comprising appeal site (a) 8.6 hectares and (b) hectares. In 2011, a planning application for the erection of 160 dwellings with associated garages, car parking, public open space, play areas, landscaping, land reserved for an expansion of the adjoining primary school and new vehicular and pedestrian accesses; and the provision of allotments and the change of use of land for a cemetery with associated accesses, car parking and landscaping was submitted to the LPA for consideration. The proposal was refused planning permission at Development Management Committee, with seven reasons for refusal, on 5 December 2012 (LPA Ref: 3/12/1657/FP). 1.2 Following this refusal and subsequent appeal (PINS Ref: APP/J1915/A/13/ ) (now withdrawn) the Appellant has conducted further consultations with Officers of the LPA resulting in amended and enhanced proposals, with the intention of fully addressing all of the issues of concern. However, despite a recommendation for approval by Officers, the revised application was refused by Members of the Development Management Committee at a meeting on Wednesday 11 th September This application is the subject of Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/A/13/ In parallel with the revised full application an application was also submitted for outline approval on the whole site subject to the full application with the addition of further land to the east, adjoining Hare Street Road and also subject to the option held by Taylor Wimpey. The purpose of this application was to enable the Council to consider the principle of development in the event that matters of detailed design cited in the reasons for refusal for the first application could not be satisfactorily resolved, including matters relating to the siting and access arrangements proposed for the cemetery and allotments. In the event this application was also recommended to be approved and was also refused planning permission at the same meeting of the Committee. It is subject of Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/A/13/

11 1.4 It is my intention to address the LPA s two given reasons for refusal and demonstrate that this is a sustainable development for which there is a presumption in favour of the grant of planning permission as set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework. In inviting the conclusion that planning permission should reasonably have been granted in accordance with the recommendation before the Committee I shall refer to the material considerations which militate in favour of planning permission, including that the proposal will bring forward much needed market and affordable housing, will contribute to ameliorating a significant shortfall in the five year supply of housing land, that there are consequential economic benefits and that no demonstrable harm will arise to any interest of acknowledged importance. I will also invite the conclusion that given the relative scale of the scheme and the LPA s lack of progress on a new Local Plan, the proposal will not prejudice the plan making process in East Hertfordshire and should therefore not be considered premature or prejudicial to that process. 11

12 2. APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDINGS Buntingford 2.1 The town of Buntingford lies approximately 17 km north of Hertford, 11 km south of Royston and 15 km north west of Bishop s Stortford. To the west are the towns of Stevenage, Letchworth and Baldock at an approximate 15 km radius. 2.2 Buntingford is a sustainable and largely self-contained market town adjacent to the the A10, which bypasses the town and runs north-south between Cambridge and London at the junction of the A507, which heads west towards Baldock and the A1(M).The Buntingford Ward was recorded as having 5,378 residents in the 2011 Census. The town offers a range of shops, employment opportunities and social and community facilities. This includes first, middle and upper schools, two supermarkets and four employment areas. The latter includes a large former distribution depot that is now closed but for which planning permission to redevelop for employment purposes has recently been granted although the site is now understood to have been sold to a developer who will propose mixed uses including employment and community facilities. There are regular bus services to Bishop s Stortford, Harlow, Hitchin, Royston and Ware that are capable of meeting some day-to-day needs for access beyond the town. The Appeal Site 2.3 The appeal site (a) comprises 8.6 hectares and (b) hectares and is situated to the east of Buntingford, to the north of the B1038 Hare Street Road and to the south of The Causeway. The site is bounded to the north in part by Layston First School, agricultural fields to the east and the existing residential developments of Paddock Road, Archers and Sunny Hill to the west. A public footpath runs diagonally through the site from Hare Street Road in the south to the rear of Layston First School within the confines of the western field parcel, whilst the eastern field is bounded at its extremity by a public bridleway. 12

13 2,4 The site is principally in agricultural use, divided by a tree belt effectively separating the land into two field parcels. To the west of the tree belt the site is well contained by its established urban boundaries whilst to the east the remainder of the site is bounded by The Causeway to the north, a public footpath and agricultural fields to the east and to the south. Additionally the site also includes a small parcel of land fronting Hare Street Road and divided from the remainder of the western part by a belt of mature trees. This land is in common ownership with the rest of the site and is let as non-statutory allotments. 2.5 The overall site rises steadily from its western boundary up towards the eastern boundary. A topographical survey undertaken of the site indicates that at its lowest point along the western boundary the site level is approximately 99.7 metres AOD, rising to metres at its highest point on the eastern boundary. 2.6 The topography of the site falls east to west with a shallow valley running through the middle of the site to the western boundary. At this boundary, existing water run-off outfalls into a 225 mm diameter pipe. The site lies wholly within Flood Zone There are no designated heritage assets or other nationally significant remains on or close to the site. There is an existing field access from Hare Street Road. The carriageway width at this point is between 6 and 6.5 metres wide. 2.8 In section 4 of this evidence I will invite the conclusion that the site is an entirely suitable location for the type and form of development proposed. Context 2.9 Buntingford is one of five towns in East Hertfordshire and the only one to lie within the rural area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt whose designation otherwise covers the greater part of the district. This is illustrated by reference to the Local Plan Strategy Diagram at Appendix 2. 13

14 2.10 The Inspector who considered the 2007 Local Plan (her Report on Buntingford is at Appendix 3) concluded that Buntingford is a large settlement and was rightly identified as a settlement where some development would be appropriate to maintain the vitality of the area and provide for the necessary needs of present and future generations She went on to consider that: there are opportunities for development, which would both improve sustainability and help to enhance the amenities and facilities within the town, but whilst accepting that there are a number of possibilities for development, for both housing and employment, within the reasonable confines of the town she concluded that more than enough provision has been made for housing within the district during the Plan period and it would not be necessary to release additional land in the town for housing It was in that context that she concluded in respect of the present appeal site that it represented more than just a rounding off and that (at that time) there were other sites where more modest development could occur, if required The Local Plan 2007 was intended to guide development until No substantive progress has been made in the intervening period towards the adoption of a new Local Plan and growth in East Hertfordshire has consequently been constrained by the Green Belt. In the preparation of the Local Plan it is likely that significant decisions will need to be made with respect to the implications that it has for meeting development needs. Whilst the current Local Plan utilised a proportional distribution strategy, assigning the scale of future development in accordance with the size of existing urban populations, major highway infrastructure constraints at Hertford (and to a lesser extent at Sawbridgeworth) and a decision by the Secretary of State in relation to the relocation of two secondary schools south of Bishop s Stortford reflect potentially significant constraints on meeting emerging needs. Accordingly, Buntingford is the only reasonable option for growth in the rural part of the district not subject to major infrastructure or Green Belt considerations. 14

15 3. PLANNING HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF THE APPEAL APPLICATION Planning History 3.1 A previous full application (LPA reference: 3/12/1657/FP) for the erection of 160 dwellings with associated garages, car parking, public open space, play areas, landscaping, reserve land for school expansion and new vehicular and pedestrian accesses; and the provision of allotments and the change of use of land for a cemetery with associated accesses, car parking and landscaping was refused by the LPA on the 5 December 2012 with seven given reasons for refusal (Decision Notice included as Core Document 1). These can be summarised as follows: 1) Unacceptable development in the Green Belt and prejudicial to the emerging District Plan; 2) Insufficient justification for the proposed cemetery in the Rural Area, in combination with visually intrusive allotments, out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape; 3) Adverse impact on the local highway network; 4) Failure to achieve a high standard of layout and design to respond to the context of the site and surrounding area, or to reflect local distinctiveness, resulting in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area; 5) Unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to residents of 11 Hare Street Road, and between plots 13 and 14, 25 and 26, 90 and 91, and 150 and 151; 6) Failure to make adequate provision for children s play facilities on site; and 7) Insufficient provision of information to determine the impact of the proposed cemetery access on protected trees. 3.2 On behalf of the Appellant (Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd.) an appeal was submitted (PINS Ref. APP/J1915/A/13/ ), but this has subsequently been withdrawn, following discussions with the LPA and submission of the applications the subject of this appeal, which sought to overcome the previous reasons for refusal listed above. 15

16 Revisions to the scheme 3.3 Prior to the formal submission of applications 3/13/1000/FP & 3/13/1183/OP, the Appellant engaged constructively with the LPA in order to resolve the reasons for refusal arising in respect of application 3/12/1657/FP. This included submitting drafts of the revised scheme for review and consideration and meetings with Planning Officers to discuss the layout and detailed matters pertaining to the site. Discussions were also held with the Highway Authority as outlined by Mr Oliver. As a result of these discussions, the scheme has evolved significantly. 3.4 During an initial meeting with the LPA on 24 January 2013, Officers recommended a number of revisions to the detailed design, which are outlined in a letter dated 14 February 2013 (Core Document 2). These revisions were subsequently made to the Officers satisfaction and were not raised by Members as reasons for refusal. 3.5 With regard to reason for refusal 2 (cemetery), following the submission of further evidence (Appendix 4) identifying the need for additional burial space in Buntingford, a Council letter dated 22 April 2013 outlined the LPA s agreement that the case had been made, adequately to overcome the previous objection (Core Document 3). Officers were similarly satisfied with the case for additional allotments a matter reflected in the Town Council s consideration of future development referred to later in my evidence and as set out at Appendix In response to reason for refusal 4 (layout and design) and 6 (play areas), following further advice from Officers in the letter dated 4 June 2013 (Core Document 4), revisions were made to the scheme to relocate the SuDS balancing pond to create a multifunctional and inclusive village green providing surveillance and amenity value. A Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) has been incorporated and a previously proposed Local Area of Play (LAP) removed from the scheme. The layout and disposition of both the burial ground and the allotments has been revised, better to take into account the prevailing land form, boundaries and access. Further amendments to the layout of the scheme were also suggested by Officers, including; soft landscaping improvements to the car parking at the northwest corner of the site; greater separation between No. 16

17 11 Hare Street Road and plots (reason for refusal 5); and amendments to the planting scheme to provide mature feature trees. Subsequently all of these recommendations have been incorporated into the revised scheme submitted under application 3/13/1000/FP. 3.7 Reason for refusal 7 (protected trees) has also been addressed through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (letter dated 4 June 2013, Core Document 4 refers) from which it was concluded that adequate visibility at the access to the cemetery via The Causeway can be achieved with removal of just one small protected tree Officers Report (Core Document 7) paragraph 7.43 refers. Appeal Application 3.8 The Statement of Community Involvement submitted as part of this application sets out in more detail the measures undertaken by the Appellant since the refusal of application 3/12/1657/FP. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion 3.9 Prior to application a Screening Opinion was sought from the LPA. The formal Screening Opinion issued by the LPA, dated 05 September 2013 concluded that the proposal is not EIA development within the meaning of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations The Screening Request and Opinion have both been submitted with the appeal documents but are exhibited as Core Document 5 for convenience,. For complete clarity and certainty on the issue the Appellant also submitted a request for a Screening Direction to the Secretary of State ( SoS ). The SoS has subsequently issued a Direction to the effect that the impacts of the proposed development are not so significant as to justify the requirement for the preparation of an Environmental Statement ( ES ). The SoS s Direction is at Core Document 6. Buntingford Town Council 3.10 When developing the original scheme, DLP Planning on behalf of the Appellant sought to ensure the opinions and aspirations of Buntingford Town Council ( BTC ) and the 17

18 wider community were canvassed and taken into consideration. Four meetings were undertaken with BTC, each time in order to inform the Council of the emergence of the proposal, to describe the design process, to consult on a wide range of issues including design and layout, community needs and to broaden and reinforce an understanding of local issues and concerns. Presentations were made to the Town Council and a number of plans were displayed at BTC meetings where Councillors were able to provide opinions on the proposals and discuss these with the project team During these meetings, BTC highlighted a local need for a new cemetery with a preferred access via The Causeway as well as a need for more allotments in the town. BTC also referred to the importance of design, supported the preparation of a local design and character assessment and participated in discussions with the Appellant on a variety of matters including in particular the overall mix and density of housing proposed for the site. Stakeholder Consultation 3.12 Significant efforts have also been made to consult with or seek the opinions of a number of other local stakeholders, who have in turn contributed to an understanding of community needs and aspirations. These have included: Governors and senior staff of Layston First School, Senior staff of Freman College Rev. Ian Hill, Priest in Charge, St Peter s Buntingford Hare Street Road allotment holders Buntingford Tennis Club Description of proposals 3.13 The revised proposal comprises two separate applications for: 18

19 (a) Full permission (LPA reference 3/13/1000/FP) For the erection of 160 dwellings with associated garages, car parking, public open space, children s play area, landscaping, diversion of footpath, pumping station with associated works and new vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist accesses and the provision of allotments and the change of use of land for a cemetery with associated accesses, car parking and landscaping; and (b) Outline application with all matters reserved (LPA Reference 3/13/1183/OP) For the erection of 160 dwellings with associated garages, car parking, public open space, children's play area, landscaping, diversion of footpath, pumping station with associated works and new vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist accesses and the provision of allotments and the change of use of land for a cemetery with associated accesses, car parking and landscaping (alternative site area) In relation to the western field parcel, the proposal incorporates provision for vehicular access onto Hare Street Road to the south, servicing the 160 residential units (of which 40% are proposed as affordable housing) an area of public open space incorporating a surface water balancing pond, and a LEAP (Local Equipped Area of Play) The proposal in respect of the eastern field parcel comprises 1 hectare area for use as a cemetery, with vehicular access to be taken from The Causeway and on-site parking provision. To the south of the cemetery, a new allotment site is proposed comprising 0.6 hectares to provide for up to 20 allotment plots (which will enable the relocation of the allotment holders displaced from the existing plots fronting Hare Street Road as well as creating additional allotments) with provision of on-site parking accessed directly from the proposed residential development. In addition, a footpath and cycleway is proposed to connect the proposed residential area with The Causeway. Public Exhibition 3.16 A public exhibition was hosted at The Manor House, High Street, Buntingford on 18th April 2012 in connection with, and prior to submission of, the original application. The exhibition was widely advertised with leaflets distributed to almost 2,500 business and 19

20 residential addresses in the town. East Hertfordshire District Council and Buntingford Town Council Members were given advance notification of the event, in the form of a letter sent with the inclusion of a copy of the exhibition leaflet personally inviting them to attend and view the information. The exhibition was also advertised in The Buntingford & Royston News and also on the Hertfordshire Mercury News website on 12 th April 2012, approximately one week prior to the event The exhibition was well attended for an event of its type. It received 223 visitors over the course of the afternoon and evening. A total of 87 completed response forms / letters / s were returned during the event or subsequently to DLP Planning A number of matters were raised by members of the public both during and after the public exhibition which led at the time to material changes to the scheme particularly in relation to aspects of the layout, to off-site highway improvements and to further work to ensure that concerns about drainage were satisfactorily addressed. Decision 3.19 Applications 3/13/1000/FP and 3/13/1183/OP were put before the Development Management Committee on Wednesday 11 th September The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the Applicant entering into legal obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of both applications, planning permission and outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report which is Core Document As recorded in the Minutes (Core Document 8) Members expressed a number of concerns with the recommendation - in particular stating that the application was premature to the Local Plan as that has yet to be finalised. Concerns were also raised in relation to the siting of the scheme in an elevated position; the unsuitability of the site when compared to others in and around the town; the location and accessibility of the proposed cemetery; the level of housing development that had already taken place in Buntingford; and that the land was within the Green Belt and the proposal should 20

21 therefore be refused. Some Members also commented that they felt very little had changed from the previous application (LPA: 3/12/1657/FP) Members subsequently rejected the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services by votes of 6 to 5 (3/13/1000/FP) and 6 to 4 (3/13/1183/OP) and resolved that: (A) In respect of planning application 3/13/1000/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The site lies in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt as defined in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review, April 2007, where development will only be allowed for specific purposes. The proposals do not represent an acceptable form of development in that respect and are, therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of policies GBC2 and GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April Prior to the publication of the East Herts District Plan, Part 1: Strategy, development at this time would prejudice the assessment process currently underway which will lead to the identification of land and the preferred strategy for residential and other development across the district. The proposals are therefore contrary to the objectives set out in that respect in the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposed development, if permitted to proceed in advance of a full assessment of the impact of this and other potential development in the town, which may come forward through the District Plan process, will constitute an unsustainable form of development, particularly in relation to the impact and demand placed upon education, public transport, health facilities and local leisure provision. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SD1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework. (B) In respect of planning application 3/13/1183/OP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The site lies in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt as defined in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review, April 2007, where development will only be allowed for specific purposes. The proposals do not represent an acceptable form of development in that respect and are, therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of policies GBC2 and GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April Prior to the publication of the East Herts District Plan, Part 1: Strategy, development at this time would prejudice the assessment process currently underway which will lead to the identification of land and the preferred strategy for residential and other development across the district. The proposals are therefore contrary to the objectives set out in that respect in the National Planning Policy Framework. 21

22 2. The proposed development, if permitted to proceed in advance of a full assessment of the impact of this and other potential development in the town, which may come forward through the District Plan process, will constitute an unsustainable form of development, particularly in relation to the impact and demand placed upon education, public transport, health facilities and local leisure provision. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SD1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework Copies of the decision notices are set out as Core Document 9 22

23 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE 4.1 As required by Section 38 (6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (The Act), the determination of planning applications and appeals is to be undertaken in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A High Court judgment (Bromley LBC v SoS for Communities & Local Government (2007)), concluded that material considerations can include special circumstances that differ from those assessed in adopting the development plan, even if the adoption has been very recent. In this instance the Local Plan allows only for housing development up to 2011 and it is common ground that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. Consequently the key material consideration is the Framework and the starting point for determining these appeals should be paragraph 14 which sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 4.2 Accordingly, within this section of my evidence I shall examine the proposal in relation to the presumption, identifying other material considerations that equally favour the appeals and I will demonstrate that the appeal schemes are both appropriate and acceptable in planning terms, and that no interest of acknowledged importance will be materially harmed as a consequence it. Furthermore, I will identify the material benefits which also significantly favour the granting of planning permission. 4.3 Arising from the reasons for refusal and the grounds of appeal, the determining issues in this appeal are considered to be as follows: i. National planning policy including Ministerial Statements ii. Whether there is a five year housing land supply iii. Local policy considerations including compliance with the development plan iv. Whether the development would be premature to the emerging Local Plan 23

24 v. Suitability of the site for development, and whether the proposals can be considered to be sustainable development vi. Other material considerations. 4.4 Matters related to highways and landscape issues are dealt with by my colleagues Mr Oliver and Mr Dale. A Statement on drainage matters prepared by Mr Kohli is at Appendix 1. 24

25 i) National Policy, and whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development I turn first to the requirements of national planning policy, which are particularly relevant in this appeal given the lack of an up-to-date Local Plan and as agreed with the LPA, a shortfall in five year housing supply. The National Planning Policy Framework The Framework sets out the Government s requirements for the planning system only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. Whilst not prescriptive, The Framework is however material to the consideration of all planning proposals and states at paragraph 14 that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, there is a presumption in favour of granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted The Local Plan Second Review 2007 was prepared in accordance with the transitional arrangements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and as noted above, certain of its policies ceased to have effect from April However, the life of saved policies was extended until their replacement by the emerging District Plan a plan which at 2013 is yet to be produced. The Local Plan Second Review is not however a development plan document (DPD) prepared in accordance with the 2004 Act, but was allowed to continue through to adoption. As a consequence, from the date of the publication of The Framework, the Local Plan is a document to which paragraph 215 of The Framework applies, wherein following the 27 March 2013, a year to the day of its initial publication, any time expired development plan policy document can only be given due weight to the extent that they are consistent with The Framework. 25

26 4.5.4 Most pertinent to the assessment of this appeal is paragraph 49 of The Framework, which states that: Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites This approach is supported by Inspectors decisions elsewhere in the case of Blaby, Leicestershire (Ref: APP/T2405/A/11/ June 2012 Appendix 6) it was stated that: where a five year supply cannot be demonstrated, relevant policies for the supply of housing land cannot be considered to be up to date In a decision at Wymeswold, Leicestershire [APP/X2410/A/13/ ] at Appendix 7 the Inspector concluded at paragraphs that the disadvantages of the scheme in relation to potential harm to the character and appearance of the local countryside (and in this instance to the setting of a conservation area) did not carry sufficient weight to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable arising from the Framework when considered alongside the benefits provided for the supply of affordable and market housing at an early date where, as in the case before this Inquiry, the Local Planning Authoritity could not demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable housing sites In this instance whilst the Local Plan Second Review, identifies the confines for Buntingford and consequently determines that the appeal site lies outside the boundary of the settlement, this consideration should carry less weight given the fact that the Plan looks only to 2011 in terms of housing provision, and EHDC cannot demonstrate a five year land supply. This, as discussed later in my evidence, would indicate that housing policies, and accordingly those determining countryside protection are out of date and carry relatively diminished weight. 26

27 4.5.8 In such circumstance the presumption in favour of sustainable development must therefore be the starting point for determining this appeal an approach verified by the Secretary of State in his decision at Kentwood Farm, Wokingham (PINS Ref: APP/X0360/A/11/ at Appendix 8) Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets out the presumption, stating: At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking For decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted An assessment therefore has to be made as to whether the adverse impacts of allowing the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or if there are specific policies in The Framework that indicate that development should be restricted. I will address this matter Section 4 (v) of this evidence. Ministerial Statements In addition to the Framework, Ministerial Statements are also material considerations which, in the absence of an up to date development plan, must be accorded significant weight In March 2011, the Rt. Hon. Greg Clark, then Minister of State for Decentralisation issued a written statement following the Budget entitled Planning for Growth, (Core Document 12 c)). This Statement sets out the steps the Government expects local authorities to take with immediate effect, summarised in the following quotation: 27

28 Government s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be yes, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national policy The Statement also indicates an expectation for: local planning authorities to plan positively for new development; to deal promptly and favourably with applications that comply with up-to-date plans and national planning policies; and wherever possible to approve applications where plans are absent, out-of-date, silent or indeterminate Furthermore: Local planning authorities should therefore press ahead without delay in preparing up-to-date development plans, and should use that opportunity to be proactive in driving and supporting the growth that this country needs. They should make every effort to identify and meet the housing, business and other development needs of their areas, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth, taking full account of relevant economic signals such as land prices. Authorities should work together to ensure that needs and opportunities that extend beyond (or cannot be met within) their own boundaries are identified and accommodated in a sustainable way, such as housing market requirements that cover a number of areas, and the strategic infrastructure necessary to support growth The Statement explains that when deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of sustainable development. Where relevant and consistent with their statutory obligations they should therefore: (i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust growth after the recent recession; (ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing; (iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity); (iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date; 28

29 (v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development The Statement continues: In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably, and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions Planning for Growth makes clear that the Secretary of State will take the principles into account when determining applications that come before him. In particular he will attach significant weight to the need to secure economic growth and employment as reflected in the Wokingham decision (PINS Ref: APP/X0360/A/11/ paragraph 6.21 at Appendix 8) On 6 September 2012, the Secretary of State, in his Housing and Growth Statement (Core Document 12 (a)) focused on reducing delays in planning where he stated: The Localism Act has put the power to plan back in the hands of communities, but with this power comes responsibility; a responsibility to meet their needs for development and growth, and to deal quickly and effectively with proposals that will deliver homes jobs and facilities This proposal would help East Hertfordshire meet its development needs and support a more flexible and responsive supply of land for housing. It would support the economic recovery and secure sustainable growth It would also have a direct economic benefit insofar as it would attract payment of the New Homes Bonus. An Inspector in upholding an appeal at Chapel en le Frith (PINS Ref: APP/H1033/A/11/ , 23 August Appendix 9) stated: the Government s New Homes Bonus scheme: a factor which under s143 of the Localism Act 2011 is, as a local finance consideration, a material consideration in this appeal In summary, I adduce that Statements issued by senior Government Minsters which seek to plan positively for new development, promoting growth and meeting the 29

30 identified needs of their area indicate a clear set of intentions from the Government and they should therefore be accorded significant weight in the determination of these appeals in the absence of an up to date Local Plan. ii) Whether there is a five year housing land supply I turn now to consider in more detail the supply of housing land I have agreed with the LPA, as set out in a SoCG, that there is a shortfall of deliverable five year housing land supply. The 2011/12 AMR was published in February It identifies that the Council has 3.6 years supply against the now revoked East of England Plan target of 660 dwellings per annum. With a 5% buffer applied and a windfall allowance of 241 dwellings, the LPA identifies that it has 3.8 years supply. 4.6,3 Notwithstanding that I have agreed with the LPA the scale of the shortfall so far as its published documents are concerned, I have also carried out my own detailed analysis of the supply of deliverable housing land in East Hertfordshire District and I conclude that the shortfall is significantly greater than the published figure, the supply ranging from years. Establishing the requirement The relevant Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), the East of England Plan 2008, was revoked in January Policy H1 of the RSS set an overall housing development target for the region, assigning at least 12,000 new dwellings to East Hertfordshire for the period April March Based on this, as of March 2006, some 9,860 new dwellings remained to be built, at an annual average of 660 new dwellings per annum. The control figure for new housing development provided by the East of England Plan remains, until formally replaced, the most up to date objectively tested development target, and is therefore a material consideration. In light of the changes to the planning system EHDC has undertaken technical work in order to provide evidence to support setting its own district-wide housing target. This work is 30