Commercial
Planning Reform – Local Case Studies
CPRE / ChALC
Michael Stallard
8th April 2014
MRTPI
MIEMA
CEnv
The current reaction to the reforms
People feel they are being 'clobbered' by the NPPF, the presumption in
favour of SD and, in particular, the dominance afforded to the five year
housing supply (or lack thereof).
They feel that they / LPAs are being bulldozed into accepting what
they see as speculative and inappropriate development, and want to
know how they can defend their communities against this, while also
promoting and guiding development that is seen as sustainable and
appropriate.
With a plan-led system, the Local Plan is key…..
The current Local Plan situation (1)
Both Cheshire Local Plans well advanced………….
Stage of consultation
CWAC
CEC
Core Strategy Core Issues Paper
Nov 2009
Nov 2010
Draft Core Strategy (Policy Principles/Development Strategy)
March 2011
Jan 2013
Pre-Submission Version of Core Strategy ie Local Plan Part 1
July 2013
Nov 2013
Submission Version of Core Strategy ie Local Plan Part 1
Sept 2013
Feb 2014
Site Allocations DPD/Local Plan Part 2
Dec 2014
Spring 2015
The current Local Plan situation (2)
How and when PCs can now feed in…..
A good plan is a ‘sound plan’….DCLG tests of soundness are:
Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet
objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements
from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving
sustainable development
Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the
reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence
Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on
cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in
accordance with the policies in the Framework.
So, PCs/TCs should be responding to the various stages of consultation on draft Local Plans with
the above in mind. A settlement’s place in the LP Settlement Hierarchy is crucial for development……
IF representations are made, PC/TC can appear and give oral evidence at LP EiPs
Parish (Town) Council involvement
BUT, engagement with Local Plan is just one (albeit key) way to manage development.
The other ways are via….
•
Representations on planning applications
•
Representations/oral evidence planning appeals (JRs?)
•
Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs) and Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs)
•
Delivery of organic, small scale development by (with the support of the) parish council
•
Designation of Assets of Community Value (ACVs)
•
Designation of Village (Town) Greens
•
Local Development Orders (LDOs)
Refused planning applications (1a)
12/04687/OUT (Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/A/13/2197189) – 140 dwellings at Chester Road and Well
Street, Malpas, Cheshire
CWAC refused (27/02/13) – Council cited 5 policies from the Chester District Adopted Local Plan 2006
but of these, Policies ENV2 and ENV24 are broadly consistent with the Framework
PINS allowed appeal (23/01/14):
The village’s sustainability credentials are limited, as it contains little employment and opportunity
for travel by means other than the car are poor and generally not sufficient to allow access to jobs
elsewhere. As a result, any future residents would almost certainly have to drive to employment in
other centres. Larger shopping generally require trips to Wrexham, Chester or Whitchurch. However,
sustainability is not an absolute matter and it is unrealistic to consider a settlement as being
sustainable only if it complies strongly with every aspect of sustainability. If it were absolute, such
an approach would prevent new housing from occurring outside the relatively few major centres in
CWAC. Overall, I am therefore of the view that the village is suitably sustainable to accommodate this
additional housing. Taking these factors together, and mindful of the housing already approved in the
village, on balance I conclude this location to be sufficiently sustainable to support the extra houses
now proposed.
Refused planning applications (1b)
12/04687/OUT (Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/A/13/2197189) – 140 dwellings at Chester Road and Well
Street, Malpas, Cheshire
PINS allowed appeal (23/01/14):
The site is not within or near the designated Green Belt or in an area designated as being of
outstanding landscape importance. Paragraph 17 the Framework seeks to protect the intrinsic
character and beauty of the countryside. While the landscape might not be identified as having any
particular value, to my mind that does not diminish that test in the Framework. Indeed, the
Framework offers specific advice for designated landscapes over and above that in paragraph 17,
and so it can be assumed that paragraph 17 can be applied to undesignated landscapes.….Once
matured, the proposal would not be an attractive and pleasing residential development in its own
right. When seen in the wider landscape, the development would have a limited zone of visual
influence. In distant views the proposal would be substantially concealed in a valley. Therefore, from
these points the scheme would not notably harm the intrinsic character or beauty of the countryside
However, despite those matters the loss of these fields and this rural landscape would cause some
harm to the countryside in the immediate vicinity of the site, even after the proposed planting
became established. Moreover, the sense of rural isolation that is currently experienced on the
southern part of Greenway Lane would be diminished. I conclude the scheme would cause some
limited harm to the character and beauty of the countryside around Malpas, in conflict with Policies
ENV2 and ENV24 in the Local Plan and paragraph 17 in the Framework.
Refused planning applications (2)
12/05143/OUT (Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/A/13/2197189) – 100 dwellings at land bounded by Kennel
Lane, Chester Road and Dalefords Lane, Sandiway, Cheshire
CWAC refused (18/02/13)
Proposal encroaches into the open countryside creating urban area of scale and size considered
unacceptable and of detrimental impact on landscape character of locality. The benefits of delivering
housing are not considered to outweigh the negative impact on the open character of the application
site and village. The proposal would not respect the prevailing layout or character of the local
landscape or built form.
PINS refused appeal(12/12/13)
Scheme would result in severe and irrevocable damage to the landscape, the countryside and the
character of this clear edge to the settlement. By extending so far into the rural surroundings, the
proposal would result in an intrusive and incongruous outlier entailing adverse visual impacts of
‘major’ significance. In balancing that damage against the benefits identified, I find that the housing
land shortfall is District-wide and that the damage due to the proposal would be irrevocable and
irreversible. In the particular circumstances of this case, I consider such damage significantly and
demonstrably outweighs the presumption in favour of sustainable development that would otherwise
pertain. Hence, and in spite of considering all the other matters raised, I find nothing sufficiently
compelling to alter my conclusion that this appeal should be dismissed.
Refused planning applications (3)
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2195201 – 155 dwellings at land off Sandbach Road North, Alsager
CEC refused (14/03/13) - Proposal unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside
partly on Grade 2 Agricultural Land, contrary to Policies PS8 and H6 and would create harm to
interests of acknowledged importance. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a 5 year
supply of housing land supply in accordance with the NPPF and as such the application is also
premature to the emerging Development Strategy. The proposed development would result in a
harmful encroachment into the open countryside. The development would adversely impact upon the
landscape character and does not respect or enhance the landscape.
PINS refused (18/10/13)
Council cannot yet demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land and this would normally
lead to a grant of planning permission unless significant and demonstrable impacts would outweigh
the benefits of the scheme…..There would be serious harm resulting from the impact of the proposal
on the character and appearance of the countryside which carry significant weight. This harm to
character and appearance is significant and is demonstrable. Such harm is not to be taken lightly
and has, in my judgement, been underestimated by the Appellant. The lack of a 5 year supply of
deliverable housing land does not provide an automatic ‘green light’ to planning permission….the
harm to character and appearance of the countryside is so significant that it outweighs the lack of
housing land supply and other identified benefits….I consider that the harm in this case is such that
the appeal must fail.
Refused planning applications (4a)
CWAC 13/04826/OUT - 8 dwellings at ‘Hillside’, Huxley Lane, Huxley, Chester, Cheshire
HPC objected on 7 grounds:
1. major change within the village - would represent an increase of 33% in total dwellings in Huxley
Lane, a significant increase
2. contrary to the provisions of the 2011 Localism Act in ignoring the wishes of local residents and
does not satisfy the expressed CWAC development strategy
3. not appropriate in scale and design and conserve a settlement’s character and setting
(conversion/infilling of 2 dwellings only)
4. clustering together 8 No dwellings in a cul-de-sac - an urban design concept totally alien to a
rural village ie linear form of dev
5. Loss of agricultural land and not linked to any local drainage and school is already oversubscribed.
6. at least 3 miles from key service centres (Tarporley, Tattenhall) and is not sustainable
7. loss of a minimum of 60 metres of hedgerow trees and natural habitat and will have a negative
impact on local wildlife
Refused planning applications (4b)
CWAC 13/04826/OUT - 8 dwellings at ‘Hillside’, Huxley Lane, Huxley, Chester, Cheshire
Planning Committee (04.03.2014 ) refused the application because:
• has a relatively remote location, with poor pedestrian and cyclist links, lack of local facilities, and
involves the development of land which is not previously developed in the open countryside
• harm from the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits
of the proposal, including the contribution toward the Council’s housing land supply
• proposal does not accord with the development plan and therefore the Framework’s presumption
in favour of sustainable development does not apply to the proposed development. The proposal is
therefore contrary to The Framework, Policies ENV1 and HO7 of the Chester District Local Plan,
and the Council’s Sustainable Development SPD
• provision of eight dwellings on the site would
appear incongruous with, and introduces
development of an urban character into, the rural
setting of the locality. The proposal would result in
a detrimental impact on landscape character. The
proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of
The Framework and Policy ENV24 of the Chester
District Local Plan
Not appealed to date……
Neighbourhood plan development (1a)
Update on the draft Tattenhall NDP situation
PINS Examination (21/08/13) – house developers objected to the draft NDP partly on the grounds that
could not conform, as it was required to do, with the strategic elements of the local plan, because the
local plan did not yet exist (a prematurity issue). The inspector dismissed the issue as too
"existentialist" in nature to be relevant!!
Developers' challenge (via Judicial Review) to the draft NDP made reference to same issue. High
Court (QBD) Hearing was scheduled for the end of March 2014 but no press reports as yet!
Implications of a ruling that neighbourhood plans should not be finalised in advance of local plan
adoption would be significant:
• More than half of the 1000+ NDPs currently under preparation are in areas in which the District
Local Plan has yet to pass examination and be adopted.
• Progressing those neighbourhood plans would seem pointless if the court decides that such
documents are invalid without the context of an up to date local plan.
• Many commentators suggest that neighbourhood planners do not need to overly fret about the
issue. Gov has clearly said that neighbourhood plan preparation can begin even if an approved upto-date local plan is not in place
Neighbourhood plan development (1b)
Update on the draft Tattenhall NDP situation
• Some examiners clearly agree, with at least two neighbourhood plans that have recently passed
examination being in areas that lack an adopted local plan.
• Other experts say that the key consideration is that the plans should be evidence-based, and that
emerging plans or even long-adopted plans can provide solid ground on which to base
neighbourhood policies.
• But there are also dissenting voices that suggest that a NDP that takes its strategic direction from
anything other than a recently adopted local plan will be vulnerable to challenge, unless it is in
clear conformity with an emerging plan.
• All the signs are that ministers want neighbourhood planners to be able to move forward in places
without adopted local plans, as long as they do not unreasonably compromise local authorities'
ability to meet wider needs…..until the government's intention is completely clear, community
groups in areas without up-to-date plans may hold off working on neighbourhood plans for fear
that their time could prove to be wasted.
• LATEST (04/04/14) - Llew Monger, chairman of the Winslow PC NDP Steering Group said the
government’s National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), published last month, "makes it clear
that NDPs can be brought forward even where there is no up to date local plan in place".
Neighbourhood plan development (1c)
• DCLG NPPG (March 2014) - Paragraph: 009 (Reference ID: 41-009-20140306)
• Can a Neighbourhood Plan come forward before an up-to-date Local Plan is in place?
• NDPs can be developed before or at the same time as the local planning authority is producing its
Local Plan. A draft neighbourhood plan or Order must be in general conformity with the strategic
policies of the development plan in force if it is to meet the basic condition. A draft Neighbourhood
Plan or Order is not tested against the policies in an emerging Local Plan although the reasoning
and evidence informing the Local Plan process may be relevant to the consideration of the basic
conditions against which a neighbourhood plan is tested.
• Where a neighbourhood plan is brought forward before an up-to-date Local Plan is in place, the
qualifying body and the local planning authority should discuss and aim to agree the relationship
between policies in the emerging NDP and the emerging Local Plan
• The LPA should take a proactive and positive approach, working collaboratively with a qualifying
body particularly sharing evidence and seeking to resolve any issues to ensure the draft NDP has
the greatest chance of success at independent examination.
• The LPA should work with the qualifying body to produce complementary NDPs and Local Plans. It
is important to minimise any conflicts between policies in the neighbourhood plan and those in the
emerging Local Plan.
Neighbourhood plan development (2)
Update on the draft Winsford NDP situation
PINS Examination (24/01/14) – EIP adjourned after the first day after legal submissions from the
Darnhall Estate who legally objected (in part) on the basis that the document could not come into
effect before the District Council's Local Plan is in place.
Examiner (Mynors) ruled that the examination be adjourned until June 2014 when the outcome of an
ongoing ‘prematurity’ judicial review challenge to the draft Tattenhall NDP, should be known.
CWAC’s planning committee refused an application by the Darnhall Estate to build 184 homes in
Winsford in December 2013 because the site was not identified for housing in the draft Winsford NDP
and the application was considered premature. But CWAC submitted its draft core strategy to the
government for examination in January 2014
Darnhall also questioned whether a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for the draft NDP
should have been carried out….UK law requires SEA for plans that give rise to ‘significant
environmental effects’ and conflicting guidance from DCLG on whether some, or all, NDPs need an
SEA.
Commentaries expressed concerns about the impact of legal battles on communities' enthusiasm for
neighbourhood planning.
Neighbourhood plan development (3a)
S&P working on the Ashton Hayes NDP for 2 years - the core of the NDP Steering Group team is
approximately a dozen people and has been reported to the PC
The process they've gone through
Project commenced in April 2012 following the village defending an application for 15 affordable
homes on its edge. The initial process was:
(i) The Parish Council decision to pursue a Neighbourhood Plan
ii) Volunteers sought to form the Neighbourhood Planning Team
(iii)Team meets and agrees the process (iv)Team produces its Vision Statement and Terms of Reference
(v)The Plan Area is produced in draft (vi) Plan finalised, application made and Forum approved by Cheshire West
Sub-teams were created to cover Housing, Environment & Landscape, Community Facilities, Amenities & Social
Welfare, Business & Employment and Transport & Infrastructure. Tasks included:
‘Environment Sub-Group used RSK to carry out an overview ecological assessment and management plan
Liaising with CWAC over the perimeters in which the policy sits and the impact of emerging local and national policy
Door to door needs survey of the entire area
Five consultation events along with the other sub-teams
Neighbourhood plan development (3b)
Barriers or challenges that they've encountered and how they've been overcome
Complication with the most sensible boundaries including Horton-Cum-Peel which is outside the
Parish boundary of Ashton Hayes. The position is reported to CWACC who seek confirmation from
Central Government. Eventual agreement that Horton-Cum-Peel and Ashton Hayes can combine as
Neighbourhood Forum for NDP.
NDP scope - team carried out an initial sample survey of the area using data in 2009 adopted Parish
Plan. This was to ascertain what was still important or what was new in terms of issues
Lessons that can be learned
•
Sub-divide and conquer tasks!
•
Ongoing dialogue with LPA throughout the process invaluable (Lucy Hughes in Policy at CWACC)
•
Use of a “critical friend” employed in the process very useful (Cheshire Community Action, a
charitable organisation who give advice and support to rural communities)
Next Steps
Finalise the draft Plan across all teams and carry out another consultation exercise.
SEA/SA Screening – the need for the sustainability assessment!!
Successful delivery of small-scale dev (1)
Planning Application 11 dwellings at land off Bowe’s Gate, Bunbury, Cheshire
Strutt and Parker were appointed in 2012 by Peckforton Estate and Rural Housing Trust to undertake
initial pre-application/feasibility work with CEC into the acceptability of housing on the site - included
ecology and highways work and an initial meeting with the Local Authority housing and planning
departments, presenting an initial scheme layout for their comment. Conclusion - site had relatively
few constraints and in principle the Authority were supportive of affordable housing with some
market housing to help with overall viability.
Second stage of feasibility works included revising the scheme design to reflect the sites characteristics and to be more in
keeping with the character of Bunbury.
The next stages of the project engaged with the local community and also involved further research into the area’s housing
needs (met local village design group, Parish Council and rural housing officer). Officer confirmed affordable housing need and
provided useful steer on type of dwellings and tenure required.
Parish Council invited S&P to a consultation event in the village where developers with sites around Bunbury were asked to
come along and explain their proposals to the local community. The outcome of this event was very positive. Although,
residents had general concerns about new housing within Bunbury, the Parish Council’s own results showed that the majority
(30%) supported our scheme over others proposed around Bunbury.
Met with the leader of the Council and Bunbury Parish Council Chairman and Vice Chairman to further explain scheme designed as a terrace reflecting a historic example close to the site which is valued by the local community - subterranean
dwellings built into the landscape to help reduce visual impact. Footpath will be upgrade which leads from the application site to
the village heart.
A Parish (Town) Council’s armoury…. (1)
Making use of the full range of extant LDDs and SPDs/SPGs
CWAC Adopted SPD on Sustainable Development (July 2008)
New development within the District should be sustainably located,
utilising previously developed land and existing buildings wherever
possible.
improve
It should
accessibility to local services whilst
encouraging alternative means of transport”
Paragraph 2.7 of the SPD advises that housing development should be
located within 1.6km (one mile) of a wide range of shops and services
and that the development should be within 800m of a bus stop
providing a frequent service to Chester or a key settlement.
Good idea to use existing LDDs / SPG / SPDs, but you’d need to
confirm their status with the councils first – will they be saved /
maintained when the new plans are adopted, or will they be considered
out of date? And if so, at what stage in the plan process?
A Parish (Town) Council’s armoury…. (2)
Making use of the full range of policy in NPPF…..
The undesignated (ordinary) countryside
The draft NPPF (2011) made no reference to the intrinsic value
of the more than 55% of English countryside not in a National
Park, Green Belt, Site of Special Scientific Interest or other
designated site, but nonetheless of huge value to millions of
people who live in, visit and enjoy it.
Final NPPF (March 2012) Core Planning Principle 5 recognition
of 'the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside' which
applies whether that countryside is specifically designated or
not. This will not mean no development in the countryside, but
it will help ensure that building on greenfield land is not an
option of first resort…..
A Parish (Town) Council’s armoury…. (3)
Making use of the full range of practice guidance in the NPPG…..
How much emphasis has planning guidance given to brownfield development?
Advice on reducing the amount of farmland lost to housing in first version of Planning Policy
Guidance Note 3 (PPG3 in 1988), with revised PPG3 version (1992) bringing in increased emphasis
on reusing urban land. PPS3 prioritised housing on previously developed land over greenfield sites
in order to achieve a national brownfield target of 60 per cent.
The NPPF still has an emphasis on brownfield development but does not include a target. So, does
the NPPG boost brownfield development?
NPPF goal is to provide more homes in the right places at affordable prices and to protect the
countryside and green belt. The NPPG includes a renewed emphasis on the reuse of brownfield sites
as a key source of land for housing. It also proposes incentives, such as relaxed planning
obligations for brownfield development.
However, brownfield sites more expensive to
develop and delivery (profit!) lead-in times are
often extended which means such land may not be
able to provide houses at the speed and rates
required to meet the country's housing needs……
Questions…….