Appeal Decision Site Visit Made on 21 September 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 September 2020 by Philip Lewis BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 November 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/P2935/W/20/3248070 Land North of Lesbury, Alnwick Road, Lesbury, Northumberland Grid Ref Easting: 423588 Northing: 611921 • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Guy Munden, Northumberland Estates against the decision of Northumberland County Council. • The application Ref 18/04527/OUT, dated 21 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 January 2020. • The development proposed was originally described as ‘Outline planning application for the development of approximately 41 dwellings including access, open space, SuDS and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. During the Council’s consideration of the application, the scheme was changed to include provision for 50% affordable housing. The Council dealt with the application on that basis and so shall I. 3. The application is in outline with all matters reserved except for access. An illustrative proposed site plan, proposed colour layout and landscape proposals plan were submitted. I have regard to these plans solely on an illustrative basis in respect of the reserved matters. 4. A signed and dated planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106) has been provided as part of this appeal. It includes obligations relating to affordable housing, contributions to the Coastal Mitigation Scheme, and to health and education provision. 5. A neighbourhood plan is being prepared for the Lesbury Parish Neighbourhood Area, The Lesbury Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036 (LNP). On 11 July 2020, Northumberland County Council issued a Regulation 18 Decision Statement in respect of the LNP. The statement says that the Council considers that the Plan, as modified, meets the basic conditions as set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Plan complies with provisions made by or under sections 38A and 38B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and that the Plan may proceed to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/P2935/W/20/3248070 referendum. The appellant was given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the Regulation 18 Decision Statement for their case and I have had regard to the comments received in determining the appeal. Main Issues 6. The Council refused the application for four reasons, including reason 4 which concerned the lack of a completed S106 Agreement to secure affordable housing and contributions to primary healthcare and ecological coastal mitigation. The Council has confirmed that the completion of the S106 Agreement has overcome this reason for refusal. From the remaining reasons for refusal and having regard to the comments of interested parties and the issuing of the Regulation 18 Statement by the Council, I have identified the following main issues for the appeal: • Whether the proposed dwellings would be in a suitable location having regard to policies for housing development in the countryside; • Whether granting planning permission would undermine the plan making process for the LNP; and • The effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the area with regard to the setting of the Northumberland Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the landscape character of the area. Reasons Housing development in the countryside 7. The development plan consists of the saved policies of the Alnwick District Local Plan 1997 (ALP) and the Alnwick Core Strategy 2007 (CS). These Plans were each adopted a number of years before the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in 2012 and the subsequent amendments to the Framework. 8. Paragraph 213 of the Framework clearly sets out that existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of the Framework. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework, (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). 9. The CS sets the broad locational strategy for delivering housing and other development through the operation of a number of Policies. CS Policy S1 is concerned with the location and scale of new development. Together, Lesbury, Hipsburn, Bilton and Alnmouth are defined as a Sustainable Village Centre, where development will be well-related to the scale and function of the settlement. The appeal site is situated on the edge of Lesbury in an accessible location. I find no conflict with this policy, which is broadly consistent with the Framework. 10. CS Policy S2 sets a sequential approach to development, prioritising development of previously developed land and buildings in urban areas, with the development of other suitable sites adjoining sustainable village centres https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/P2935/W/20/3248070 being the final priority category in the sequence. This policy reflected the approach taken in the former Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East and former national planning policy. I agree with the main parties that the sequential approach in relation to previously developed land as set out in CS Policy S2 is not consistent with current national planning policy as set out in the Framework. The Council did not find conflict with this policy nor provide evidence in that regard and I agree I should afford minimal weight to any conflict with this Policy due to its inconsistency with the Framework. Consequently, in the context of paragraph 213 of the Framework, I find CS Policy S2 to be out of date. CS Policy S3 sets out sustainability criteria, which should be met in granting planning permission. This Policy is broadly consistent with the Framework. 11. The appeal site consists largely of agricultural land adjoining, but outside of the built-up area of Lesbury. Whilst the site adjoins a designated sustainable village centre, it is nevertheless in the countryside and CS Policy S14 is relevant. CS Policy S14 includes, amongst other things, that new development in the open countryside will only be permitted where the development is likely to be sustainable in the context of CS Policy S3 and where the development is essential to support farming and other countryside-based enterprise and activity, promote recreation and supports the retention of sustainable communities or supports the conservation and enhancement of the countryside. It also includes requirements for an applicant to demonstrate that they have carried out the sequential test in CS Policy S2, and concerning the development of the best and most versatile agricultural land. 12. The Council argues conflict with CS Policy S14 on the basis that the appeal scheme is not essential to support farming and other countryside-based enterprise and activity, and fails to support the conservation and enhancement of the countryside. I agree with the Council that the sequential test approach in CS Policy S14 is not supported by the Framework. Furthermore, the Policy is not consistent with national policy for rural housing as set out in paragraphs 77, 78 and 79 of the Framework in that the exceptional circumstances set out for development in the open countryside by CS Policy S14 are more restrictive. I therefore consider it to be out of date. In the interests of consistency, I have sought the views of the main parties on a number of appeal decisions1 where CS Policy S14 was relevant. I have had regard to the comments made. 13. Whilst the appeal proposal does not conflict with the sustainability criteria set out in CS Policy S3, it nevertheless does not fall within one of the development types listed for the countryside in CS Policy S14. I have had regard to the appellants argument that the policy should be read flexibly and that the appeal scheme would support the retention of sustainable communities. However, CS Policy S1 and its explanatory text are clear that development in the countryside is generally limited to the reuse of existing buildings and otherwise new development should be resisted. There is also no demonstration that the sequential test set out in CS Policy S2 has been met, but as the Policy is out of date, I apply minimal weight to this conflict. I find no harm in respect of the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land as a result of the proposal. 1 APP/P2935/W/19/3244395, APP/P2935/W/19/3242847, APP/P2935/W/20/3246042 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/P2935/W/20/3248070 14. I find that whilst the appeal proposal accords with CS Policies S1 and S3, it is in conflict with CS Policies S2 and S14. I shall return to the weight to be given to this conflict in undertaking the planning balance. Emerging policies 15. Although the Council has issued its Regulation 18 Decision Statement in respect of the emerging LNP, a referendum cannot be held until 6 May 2021 due to measures introduced in response to the coronavirus pandemic2. In accordance with Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) I have regard to the emerging LNP in so far as it is material to the appeal.