Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Appeal Under Section 78 by Emery Planning on Behalf of Glennmark Trading Ltd

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 78 BY EMERY PLANNING ON BEHALF OF GLENNMARK TRADING LTD.

HIGH PEAK REFERENCE: HPK/2015/0471 PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/H1033/W/16/3155484

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF MELISSA KURIHARA MLPM, MRTPI

1 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

Contents

1. Introduction 3 2. Planning Policy 4 3. The Case for High Peak Borough Council 9 4. Conclusions 19

Appendix 1: Appeal decision Land off Craythorne Road, Stretton APP/B3410/W/15/3134848 Appendix 2: Appeal decision Land between Ashflats & A449, Mosspit, Stafford APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578 Appendix 3: Appeal decision Land bounded by Gresty Lane, Crewe APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 Appendix 4: Deliverable supply tables (large sites and allocations) Appendix 5: Proof of Evidence of A G Massie APP/H1033/W/16/3147726 Appendix 6: Rebuttal Proof of Evidence of A G Massie APP/H1033/W/16/3147726

1. Introduction

1.1. This Proof of Evidence has been prepared by Melissa Kurihara, Principal Planning Consultant at Urban Vision Partnership Ltd, a multi disciplinary planning consultancy based in Salford.

1.2. I am a chartered town planner with significant professional experience in housing land supply. I hold a Masters in Landscape, Planning and Management from University of Manchester and I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Prior to joining Urban Vision I worked in various planning policy teams within local government.

1.3. I have experience of all stages in Local Plan production from initial evidence gathering and the establishment of the correct OAN, through to submission, independent examination and adoption. I specialise in housing land supply assessment, both methodology and realistic assessment of deliverability.

1.4. This Proof of Evidence is provided on behalf of High Peak Borough Council in relation to the appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning consent for residential development including the demolition of 70 and 72 Brown Edge Road. All matters are reserved save for access.

1.5. This evidence which I have prepared and provide for this appeal within this proof is true, and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution, the Royal Town Planning Institute. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions. In reaching my conclusions on the deliverable supply, I have also placed reliance on the evidence of Ged Massie, which was presented on behalf of the LPA at the Appeal into Land off Station Road, Tunstead Milton (APP/H1033/W/16/3147726).

1.6. I address matters of 5 year land supply only. Mr Beswick covers landscape and Mr White covers all other matters including the planning balance.

3 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

2. Planning Policy

The Development Plan 2.1. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) requires that this appeal must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

2.2. For the purposes of this appeal the Development Plan compromises the High Peak Local Plan (2016)

High Peak Local Plan 2.3. On 24th March 2016 the High Peak Local Plan was found sound following its Examination by an independent Inspector. The Inspector’s Report (CD3.1) concluded that the High Peak Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough until 2031, provided a number of Main Modifications were made to the Plan. On 14th April 2016 the Council adopted the new Plan.

2.4. Between 2012 and 2016 High Peak Borough Council carried out a series of consultation and evidence gathering stages to prepare the High Peak Local Plan.

 Options consultation (2012)  Preferred Options (2013)  Additional consultation (regarding potential changes to the Preferred Options) (December 2013)  Pre-submission Local Plan (2014)

2.5. At the end of the staged process of Plan production and consultation, representations on soundness and legal compliance were sought prior to the Plan being submitted to the Secretary of State for independent Examination on 28th August 2014. Mr Mike Moore MRTPI CMILT MCIHT was appointed as the Planning Inspector by the Secretary of State to conduct the independent Examination, with initial hearing sessions on key issues taking place in January/February 2014. These initial sessions considered Duty to Cooperate, legal compliance, the development strategy, housing need and supply and the site selection process, to test the Plan’s legal compliance and soundness.

2.6. At the examination stage of the Plan, representations were received from Emery Planning on behalf of a range of clients. Emery Planning attended the hearings and raised the following points:

 As submitted the Plan does not meet the full objectively assessment of housing need  Additional land surrounding towns and villages should be safeguarded to meet future development needs beyond the plan period  Concern that there would not be a five year land supply on adoption  Further sites should be added for flexibility  Assumptions made as to the availability and deliverability of sites in the Plan will lead to the plan under delivering as not all sites are regarded as deliverable

2.7. Following initial hearings in January/February 2014 the Council undertook further work to assess the implications of the DCLG 2012-based sub-national household projections and the Strategic Development Site at Land at Woodhead Road, Glossop.

2.8. A further hearing session to discuss this work was held in September 2015. The proposed Main Modifications to the Plan were subject to a period of consultation between 10th December 2015 and 28th January 2016. The representations received, together with a summary and the Borough Council response to these representations, were forwarded to the Planning Inspector for his consideration.

2.9. The Inspector’s Final Report was received on 24th March 2016 which marked the end of the independent Examination (CD3.1). The report concludes that the High Peak Borough Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough until 2031, providing a number of modifications are made to the Plan.

2.10. A key consideration at Examination was the assessment of the Council’s 5 year land supply position and the consideration of the trajectory for house building over the Plan period. Paragraph 63 of the Inspector’s Report provides useful context to the EIP’s consideration of 5 year land supply, stating that

“Taking account of the evidence before me from all parties relating to the position at the time it was calculated by the Council; the housing land supply is likely to be less than the Council estimates. Nevertheless, it would be closer to six years than five. Recent progress on some individual sites may have been different to that assumed when the supply was calculated. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that on adoption there would be a reasonable prospect that the

5 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

Plan would result in an appropriate supply of sites to provide 5 years worth of housing in accordance with the Framework”.

2.11. It is clear that the Inspector received representations from various parties (including the appellant’s agent) regarding 5 year land supply. Representations suggested various approaches to methodology and raised queries over deliverability. The Inspector considered all of these and concluded that he was satisfied that the Council could demonstrate a 5 year land supply and that the allocations were deliverable.

2.12. Paragraph 64 of his report states: “The Council’s suggested main modification (MM106) proposes to substitute the revised trajectory for that in the LP. This is necessary to ensure that it is consistent with all the other modifications relating to sites. The amended trajectory is based on evidence as at September 2015. It has been suggested in representations on the main modifications that it should be revised further in the light of events that have occurred since this date, particularly where some sites are not being developed at the anticipated rate. However, the trajectory s inevitably based on information at a particular point in time. It is more important that the Council monitors development against the trajectory (and the 5-year land supply requirement) in a comprehensive way having regard to progress on all sites”.

2.13. This paragraph is instructive, it acknowledges the fact that a trajectory is a snapshot in time based on information available at that time. What is important is the monitoring of the performance of the Council over the timeframe of the Local Plan. The Inspector acknowledges that some sites had not been developed at the anticipated rate, but regards this as something that should be considered in a comprehensive way when assessing the delivery performance through the regular annual monitoring procedures over the Plan period.

2.14. The Inspector’s Report considered the September 2015 trajectory to be robust. He considered that there needed to be a main modification (i.e. the Plan was unsound without the revised trajectory). The Inspector therefore appears to have been content with the trajectory and the levels of delivery which it assumes.

2.15. There are a number of instances round the country where appellants have sought to challenge a Council’s five year land supply within a relatively short timeframe post adoption of a new Plan. In instances such as this the evidential burden on appellants to counter the findings of a local plan Inspector is significant.

“It is a material consideration of significant weight that some 9 months ago, following a full and proper examination, my colleague Inspector made findings about individual sites and about the overall supply. I consider that those findings create an assumption that there is a 5 YHLS unless there is significant and clear evidence to the contrary, including a material change in circumstances since the LP examination”. (Appendix 1, APP/B3410/W/15/3134848).

2.16. This is not a legal and/or planning policy evidential hurdle. Rather, it is a recognition that there should be consistency in administrative decision making. The Appellant (here) is challenging the inclusion of the same sites in the 5 year supply on essentially the same evidence. The s.78 Inspector therefore needs, in my opinion to have very robust evidence and give compelling reasons to reach a decision which is inconsistent with an EiP Inspector less than 12 months ago. I appreciate that the base date of evidence before the EiP Inspector was March 2015 (or September 2015 for the trajectory). However, the Inspector clearly concluded that he considered there would be a 5 year supply on adoption i.e. post March 2016. There has been less than 12 months since the date of that Inspector’s Report.

2.17. It is useful to refer to another appeal decision from Stafford Borough (in 2014) where a similar challenge to the newly adopted Plan for Stafford Borough was mounted shortly after its adoption (Appendix 2, APP/Y/A/14/2217578 1). The Inspector in this case noted:

71. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that, at its core, the Framework promotes a genuinely plan-led system, within which an important object is to boost significantly the supply of housing to meet objectively assessed needs. In default of those needs being delivered through the medium of an up-to-date development plan, paragraph 14 enables decisions on planning applications to be taken in the context of the broader policy embodied in the Framework taken as a whole, including, through paragraph 49, the granting of permission for housing in circumstances where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

1 This decision was the subject of an unsuccessful legal challenge.

7 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

appeals” is a statement that needs to be understood in its proper context, i.e. the Framework and the PPG taken together and as a whole. The latter also states that… “the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that locally authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites [...]”

2.18. The Inspector in this case gave substantial weight to the recent findings of the Local Plan Inspector. The thrust of his Report is that for the first monitoring year following adoption of a Plan, unless significant or fundamental new evidence comes to light, the Plan should be regarded as up-to-date and displaying a 5 year supply of housing land. As he acknowledges at paragraph 78 “ the Development Plan is neither absent nor silent and, bearing in mind that it has so recently been found sound and been adopted, the burden of proof on appellants to demonstrate that relevant policies are out-of-date is to my mind a heavy one”.

2.19. Whilst there may be some difference in the actual timing of the delivery of specific sites in the trajectory what is important is whether the council can meet its OAN over the Plan period to 2031. The fact that some sites within the trajectory may deliver earlier or later in the Plan period is of no consequence if the authority can meet its targets over the Plan period whilst maintaining a five year land supply. The focus of the NPPF is to boost significantly the supply of housing to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period. The 5 year supply is a mechanism to assist in achieving this. However, a 5 year supply is not the end in itself. The end is the delivery of the identified level of housing across the plan period.

3. The Case for High Peak Borough Council

History of the 5 Year Land Supply Position

3.1. As set out above, in section 2 of this proof, the Council’s 5 year land supply position was assessed in detail by the Local Plan Inspector, with him concluding that the Council has a robust and defensible supply. To suggest otherwise in such a short space of time following this decision (24.03.16) one would expect the appellant to identify significant new evidence that has come to light to show that the Inspectors considered conclusions are wrong.

3.2. As noted in the PPG Paragraph 033 Ref ID: 3-033-20150327 (CD 12.3) “The examination of Local Plans is intended to ensure that up-to-date housing requirements and the deliverability of sites to meet a five year supply will have been thoroughly considered and examined prior to adoption, in a way that cannot be replicated in the course of determining individual applications and appeals where only the applicant’s/appellant’s evidence is likely to be presented to contest an authority’s position.”

3.3. Paragraph 47 of the National planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that Local Planning Authorities should:

“Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area...”

3.4. Each Local Authority must identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. The Council’s most recently published 5 year land supply position has a base date of 30th September 2016.

3.5. This position was considered at an appeal on 7th February 2017 (APP/H1033/W/16/3147726). The Council presented evidence in defence of its 5 year land supply. At the Inquiry the Council’s witness accepted that there were a number of corrections that needed to be made to the Council’s September 2016 5 year land supply assessment. The evidence presented here in this Proof reflects the alterations to the supply that the Council made at the Manchester Road, Tunstead Milton Inquiry.

9 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

Methodology

3.6. The first step in assessing a Council’s 5 year land supply is to establish the correct housing requirement against which to test the identified supply.

3.7. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out at paragraph 302 what the starting point for calculating a five year land supply is. It states:

“Housing requirement figures in up-to-date adopted Local Plans should be used as the starting point for calculating the five year supply. Considerable weight should be given to the housing requirement figures in adopted Local Plans, which have successfully passed through the examination process, unless significant new evidence comes to light. It should be borne in mind that evidence which dates back several years, such as that drawn from revoked regional strategies may not adequately reflect current needs.” [My emphasis]

3.8. The adopted High Peak Local Plan sets the housing requirement for the plan period at 7,000 dwellings for the Plan period 2011-2031. The Plan is based on delivering the upper end of the OAN range identified in the SHMA (310-350). The Plan is only very recently adopted and there is no reason to deviate from the requirement that it sets. As a result the housing requirement for the purpose of the five year land supply is 350 dwellings per annum.

Buffer

3.9. Having established the baseline requirement for the calculation of the five year land supply above I now consider the scale of buffer which should be factored into the calculation.

3.10. The NPPF requires that Local Planning Authorities apply an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, Local Planning Authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the required supply, and to ensure adequate market choice and competition for land.

3.11. The Council applies a 20% buffer in calculating the housing land supply. There has been much debate over the correct application of the buffer in the 5 year land supply calculation;

2 Reference ID: 3-030-20140306

should it be applied to the basic requirement only or the basic requirement plus any shortfall/under-delivery.

3.12. The Council notes the Secretary of State’s letter regarding the recovered appeal: Land bounded by Gresty Lane, Rope Lane, Crewe (Appendix 3, APP/R0660/A/13/2209335). The Secretary of State made clear in that case that the buffer should only apply to the base requirement, i.e. the buffer should not be applied to any shortfall:

“However, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s approach of including the allowances for each year’s backlog in the overall sum to which the buffer should be applied as he sees this as double-counting. He considers that it would be more appropriate to add the figures for the backlog once the figure for each year’s need has been adjusted to include the buffer” (para 14)

3.13. The Local Plan Inspector took note of this appeal decision, but considered that the shortfall is part of the requirement and to take a different view would be to discount part of the requirement for the plan period as a whole. He concluded that the buffer should be applied to the base requirement and the shortfall. Therefore the buffer has been applied to the housing requirement and the accumulated shortfall (as per the Inspector’s Report para 51).

Shortfall

3.14. Paragraph: 035 ID: 3-035-20140306 of the PPG states that local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply in housing delivery within the first five years of the plan period where possible (the ‘Sedgefield’ approach) (CD7.2). However, following thorough consideration of all of the issues regarding housing provision and delivery the Local Plan Inspector concluded that in High Peak the Liverpool method is more appropriate (paras 52-54 of CD3.1). This is the approach that the Council continues to adopt and which was greed at the Tunstead Milton appeal.

11 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

3.15. Since the start of the Plan period the Council has accumulated a shortfall in un-delivered units:

Monitoring Year Target Completions Shortfall 2011/2012 350 102 -248 2012/2013 350 207 -143 2013/2014 350 36 -314 2014/2015 350 1003 -250 2015/2016 350 160 -190 2016/2017 (to 31st Sept) 175 203 +28 Total 1,925 808 -1,117

3.16. As directed by the Local Plan Inspector, the buffer should also be applied to the accrued shortfall.

Summary of housing land requirements

3.17. The following table sets out in summary how the requirement aspect of the 5 year land supply calculation has been considered

Five Year Housing Land Supply

Net Annual Requirement 350

Requirement for five year supply 1,750 350 * 5 = 1,750

Shortfall April 2011 – Sept 2016 1,117

Shortfall to be made up in next five years 385 (1,117/14.5) *5 = 385 Requirement for five year period incorporating 20% buffer 2,562 (1750+385*1.2) Annual requirement 512 2,562/5

3 Completions figure amended for this monitoring year to correct a totalling error in the published AMR.

Deliverable Housing Land Supply

3.18. The following section of my proof sets out the sites which the Council relies upon as its deliverable supply.

3.19. Footnote 11 to Paragraph 47 of the NPPF defines what sites can be considered as ‘deliverable’ in terms of five year housing land supply calculations. It states that a site must be available now, suitable now and achievable now. It clarifies that sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires or there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within 5 years.

3.20. Additionally Paragraph: 031 ID: 031-20140306 of the PPG provides further guidance on what constitutes a ‘deliverable site’, it states.

“Deliverable sites for housing could include those that are allocated for housing in the development plan and sites with planning permission (outline or full that have not been implemented) unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within 5 years.

However, planning permission or allocation in a development plan is not a prerequisite for a site being deliverable in terms of the 5-year supply. Local planning authorities will need to provide robust, up to date evidence to support the deliverability of sites, ensuring that their judgements on deliverability are clearly and transparently set out. If there are no significant constraints (e.g. infrastructure) to overcome such as infrastructure sites not allocated within a development plan or without planning permission can be considered capable of being delivered within a 5-year timeframe.

The size of sites will also be an important factor in identifying whether a housing site is deliverable within the first 5 years. Plan makers will need to consider the time it will take to commence development on site and build out rates to ensure a robust 5-year housing

supply.”

13 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

3.21. The Council relies on six components of supply:

Sites with planning permission Sites under construction 267 Small sites with planning permission 193 Large sites with planning permission 1,896 Sites without planning permission Allocations and other identified sites 696 Small sites windfall allowance 184 PDNPA contribution 34 Total 3,270

3.22. I consider each of these in turn.

Sites with planning permission

3.23. As indicated in the PPG4 and the NPPF para 47 footnote 11, sites with planning permission should be regarded as deliverable until permission expires or unless there is clear evidence that the schemes will not be implemented within five years (my emphasis).

3.24. The Council’s current five year land supply calculation has a base date of 30th September 2015 (CD5.10). At the base date of 30th September 2016, there were 3,059 units on extant planning permissions in the Borough. Not all of these units are expected to be built out within the 5 year period.

3.25. The expected deliverable supply is made up of 267 units which were under construction at the base date of the calculation, 193 units that were extant on small sites with planning permission (sites for 1-9 units), and 1,896 units that were extant on large sites with planning permission.

3.26. I set out at Appendix 4 my anticipated delivery trajectory for large sites with planning permission. To increase the robustness of the supply relied upon, and to assist the Inspector at the Tunstead Inquiry with the most up to date deliverability information, since the publication of the housing land supply statement, the Council sought to establish a current position on the deliverability of all large sites with planning permission. I provide at Appendix 5 the Proof of Ged Massie and at Appendix 6 his rebuttal proof from the Tunstead Inquiry. I have had extensive discussions with Ged Massie and the LPA regarding the sites. I accept for the reasons set out within his evidence that his assessments of deliverability are robust.

4 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 3-031-20140306

Sites without planning permission

3.27. The other deliverable sites counted towards the Council’s supply are either sites which are allocated sites in the Local Plan (which do not currently have planning permission), a small site windfall allowance and an allowance for sites coming forward within the Peak District National Park.

3.28. The capacity of the allocated sites in the Local Plan is 2,130 units. The council considers there are 696 units that will be brought forward on allocated sites within the 5 year period. As indicated in the PPG5 and the NPPF para 47 footnote sites allocated in a Development Plan should be regarded as deliverable unless there is clear evidence that the schemes will not be implemented within five years.

3.29. The delivery from allocated sites was reviewed by the Inspector as part of the examination of the Local Plan and he was satisfied that the delivery rates were appropriate. In a similar approach to how the Council dealt with large sites with planning permission, to increase the robustness of the supply relied upon, and to assist the Inspector at the Tunstead Inquiry with the most up to date deliverability information, since the publication of the housing land supply statement, the Council sought to establish a current position on the deliverability of all allocated sites that are expected to deliver within the 5 year period. I set out at Appendix 4 my anticipated delivery trajectory for allocations and other sites. I provide at Appendix 5 the Proof of Ged Massie and at Appendix 6 his rebuttal proof from the Tunstead Inquiry. I have had extensive discussions with Ged Massie and the LPA regarding the sites. I accept for the reasons set out within his evidence that his assessments of deliverability are robust.

3.30. Paragraph 48 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities may make an allowance for windfall6 sites in the five year supply if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area, and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply.

3.31. In the most recent Housing Land Supply Statement (September 2016) the Council counted 211 units to be delivered from small sites which do not currently have planning permission (windfall sites). The inclusion of a small sites windfall allowance within the 5 year land supply

5 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 3-031-20140306 6 Sites which have not been specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally compromise previously-developed sites that have unexpectedly become available.

15 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

was accepted as reasonable by the Local Plan Examination Inspector. At paragraph 60 of his report he concluded that the evidence provided to the Examination “is sufficiently compelling that a windfall allowance should be made as proposed in the 5 year housing land supply”. I agree that a windfall allowance should be included in the deliverable supply but I consider that this should be only 184 units. This is because the Plan allows for 1,200 windfalls from small sites over the Plan period. The trajectory endorsed by the Inspector envisaged these being brought forward at an annual rate of approximately 92 units per year (for 13 years of the Plan). The windfall allowance should only be applied to the latter two years of the 5 year period to avoid double counting; therefore I count only 184 units in this category.

3.32. There are also 34 units expected to be delivered on sites which do not currently have planning permission within the Peak District National Park. Again this was considered by the Local Plan Examination Inspector. At paragraph 61 of his report he concluded that the small allowance of 7 dwellings per annum is appropriate “Accordingly it is appropriate to include this assumption, supported by the MoU with the National Park Authority”.

Summary of housing land supply

3.33. The following table sets out in summary the deliverable supply relied upon by the council.

3.34. The total deliverable supply has been amended since the September 2016 5 year land supply statement as a result of the discussions at the Tunstead Milton Inquiry (reflected in the figures above)

3.35. This section of my proof clearly demonstrates that the Council can demonstrate a robust 5 year land supply position:

Total Deliverable Supply / Annual Requirement = 3,270 / 512 = 6.39

3.36. The Council can demonstrate a 6.39 year housing land supply. This is a strong position for the Council; the level of supply provides a comfort that there is sufficient flexibility within the supply to weather any fluctuations in expected housing delivery

3.37. As a result the housing policies of the Development Plan are not out of date and carry full weight in decision taking.

3.38. Whilst I am confident that the Council can demonstrate a robust five year housing land supply if the Inspector concludes that it does not this would engage paragraph 14 and 49 of the NPPF and relevant policies for the supply of housing would be deemed out of date.

3.39. However, this does not mean that they should be disregarded. Even out of date policies can be regarded as having sufficient weight to justify the refusal of a proposal. The weight to be attached to out of date policies is for the decision maker. The Court of Appeal, in March 2016, in the Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd & Anor case (CD6.2) commented on the operation of these paragraphs of the NPPF. Paragraphs 42 – 47 of the judgement are considered most relevant, they effectively set out a stepped approach to applying paragraph 14 and 49 of the NPPF. Paragraph 43 of the judgement states that,

“If the development does not accord with the relevant provisions of the development plan, it will be necessary to consider whether other material considerations, including relevant policies in the NPPF, nevertheless indicate that planning permission should be granted.”

3.40. Paragraph 47 goes on to state:

“One may, of course, infer from paragraph 49 of the NPPF that in the Government’s view the weight to be given to out-of-date policies for the supply of housing will normally be less than the weight due to policies that provide fully for the requisite supply. The weight to be given to such policies is not dictated by government policy in the NPPF. Nor is it, nor could it be, fixed by the court. It will vary according to the circumstances, including, for example, the extent to which relevant policies fall short of providing for the five-year supply of housing land, the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it, or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy – such as the protection of a “green wedge” or of a gap between settlements. There will be many cases, no doubt, in which restrictive policies, whether general or specific in nature, are given sufficient weight to justify the refusal of planning permission despite their not being up-to-date under the policy in paragraph 49 in the absence of a five-year supply of housing land. Such an outcome is clearly contemplated by

17 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton

government policy in the NPPF. It will always be for the decision-maker to judge, in the particular circumstances of the case in hand, how much weight should be given to conflict with policies for the supply of housing that are out-of-date. This is not a matter of law; it is a matter of planning judgment (see paragraphs 70 to 75 of Lindblom J.’s judgment in Crane, paragraphs 71 and 74 of Lindblom J.’s judgment in Phides, and paragraphs 87, 105, 108 and 115 of Holgate J.’s judgment in Woodcock Holdings Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Mid-Sussex District Council [2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin)).”

3.41. The judgement sets out that one of the considerations regarding the amount of weight out- of-date policies can command is linked to the extent of the housing shortfall, the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it, and the particular purpose of a restrictive policy. This is an issue addressed by Mr White.

3.42. However, on the basis of the evidence I have seen, I would conclude that there is no shortfall. Even if there is a marginal shortfall in the 5 year supply, this is not material because the overall need for housing to 2031 can be met. The LPA has taken robust action to address the shortfall in supply by inter alia the allocations in the emerging Local Plan, which the EiP Inspector considers will be effective to (i) deliver sufficient housing to 2031 and (ii) deliver a 5 year supply on adoption. There is, therefore, in my opinion, no reason to reduce the weight to policies relevant to the supply of housing, even if (contrary to my evidence) there is not a 5 year supply.

4. Conclusions

4.1. The council considers that it has a robust 5 year supply of housing land (including appropriate buffer). As stated earlier within this Proof of Evidence the most recent assessment as at 30th September 2016 shows that the Council has a current housing land supply equal to 6.48 years which provides a surplus of 1,381 dwellings against the five year housing requirement (including 20% buffer) for High Peak District.

4.2. The Council has shown that the most up to date OAN figure is that contained within the recently adopted High Peak Local Plan, and that the most suitable methodology for dealing with accumulated shortfall is the Liverpool methodology as accepted by the Local Plan Inspector.

4.3. Using this preferred approach High Peak Council has a 6.39 year supply.

4.4. As such the housing policies of the Development Plan should be considered up to date and carry full weight.

4.5. In light of the information set out in this proof, and the evidence presented by Mr Beswick and Mr White, the Inspector is respectfully requested to dismiss this appeal.

Appendix 1: Appeal decision Land off Craythorne Road, Stretton APP/B3410/W/15/3134848

Our Ref: APP/B3410/W/15/3134848 Gladman Developments Ltd Gladman House Alexandria Way Congleton Cheshire 18 November 2016 CW12 1LB

Dear Sir/Madam

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED LAND OFF CRAYTHORNE ROAD, STRETTON, STAFFORDSHIRE APPLICATION REF: P/2014/00818

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Karen L Ridge LLB (Hons) MTPL, who held a public local inquiry on 26-28 April and 4, 5,10, 16 and 23 May 2016 into your client’s appeal against the decision of East Staffordshire Borough Council to refuse planning permission for your client’s application for outline planning permission for a mixed use development scheme comprising of up to 385 dwellings, provision of 1.69 hectares of land for a single form entry primary school and associated infrastructure, including details of access and all other matters reserved, in accordance with application ref: P/2014/00818, dated 25 June 2014.

2. On 28 October 2015, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because the appeal involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units on a site over 5 hectares, which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.

Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision

3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal should be dismissed.

4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with her recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse outline planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Department for Communities and Local Government Email: [email protected] Maria Stasiak, Decision Officer Planning Casework 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 21

Matters arising since the close of the inquiry

5. On 31 October 2016, the Council wrote to the Secretary of State regarding the Red House Farm court hearing (East Staffordshire BC v SSCLG & Barwood Strategic Land II LLP & Others, referred to at IR12.23), which took place in the High Court on 28 October 2016. Judgment has not yet been handed down on that case, but the Secretary of State does not consider that it is necessary to delay issuing the current decision on that basis.

Policy and statutory considerations

6. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7. In this case the development plan consists of the East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012- 2031 (ESLP) which was adopted on 15 October 2015. It includes the Stretton Neighbourhood Plan (SNP) which was made on 1 February 2016. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR4.2-4.4.

8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’).

Main issues

9. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR10.2.

Conformity with the development plan

10. For the reasons set out at IR10.4-10.19, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR10.19 that the proposal is contrary to ESLP policies SP8, SP2, SP4 and one element of SP1, and is also contrary to SNP policy S1. He further agrees that policies SP8, SP2, SP4 and S1 are key strategic policies sitting at the heart of each of the development plans and are tasked with directing development to appropriate locations. Having regard to the nature and scale of the proposal and the strategic nature of the development plan policies breached, he agrees with the Inspector at IR10.20 that the proposal is not in accordance with the development plan as a whole.

The five-year housing land supply

11. The Secretary of State has carefully considered whether the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. He notes that for the reasons given at IR10.23-10.25, parties are agreed that there is a five-year requirement of 3,574 houses when the 20% buffer is added, with any under-delivery still to be factored in (IR10.25).

12. For the reasons set out at IR10.27-10.35, he agrees with the Inspector at IR10.34 that the method used by the Council to count completions is sufficiently precise and robust and that the Council have provided a clear explanation as to how the figures are arrived at. He notes that the method used by the Council was the same method as that used in calculating completions before the Local Plan Inspector, and agrees with the Inspector at IR10.35 that there is no reasonable basis for changing the method of counting 222

completions at this point in time. He therefore agrees with the Inspector at IR10.36 in preferring the Council’s figures on completions over those of the Appellant. He agrees that the Council’s housing requirement figure is 4,235 in terms of the five-year housing land supply, equating to an annual requirement of 847 dwellings (IR10.36 and 10.84).

13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s analysis of the five-year housing land supply as set out at IR10.37-10.83. On 10 November 2016 the Secretary of State granted permission for the development on College Fields, Rolleston (IR10.82-10.83). He further agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR10.85 that there is a current housing land supply of some 5.5 years. Like the Inspector, the matters raised at IR10.86-10.89 do not change his view that the Council has a five-year housing land supply.

The loss of best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land

14. Having considered paragraph 112 of the Framework, the Secretary of State considers that the loss of 23 hectares of BMV land constitutes a significant development, but that at present the development of this land is not demonstrated to be necessary (IR11.4-11.10). He agrees with the Inspector at IR11.10 that the development is contrary to ESLP policy SP1. The Secretary of State considers that moderate weight should be attached to the harm caused by the loss of BMV land in the circumstances of this case.

Educational provision

15. For the reasons given at IR11.16-11.27, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR11.27 that the adjusted forecast need figure of 11.5 form entry (FE) is to be preferred. He has taken into account the Inspector’s analysis at IR11.28-11.30 of the amount of provision already made or planned. He notes that the planning permission granted at Red House Farm has been challenged, and hence there is some uncertainty about the contribution towards the 1FE school proposed at Henhurst Ridge which would create a 2FE school. He therefore concludes that the planned and additional provision to be made in the plan period may be somewhat lower than the figure of 9.78FE which the Inspector cites in IR11.30. He agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR11.31 that during the plan period there is likely to be a need for additional primary school provision over and above that which is currently programmed, and that any additional provision which emanates from the appeal proposal, over and above the 0.5FE necessary to meet the requirements of the development itself, would go some way to meeting the deficit in numerical terms.

16. The Inspector’s assessment of the location of the school is set out at IR11.32-11.36. The Secretary of State has taken into account the Inspector’s view at IR11.34 that other sites could have been discounted which, had different parameters been applied, might be suitable for future provision, and which may also be on land that is not BMV land. Nonetheless, for the reasons given in IR11.32 and IR11.35, he agrees with the Inspector at IR11.36 that irrespective of any comparative exercise, the school site would be in a relatively accessible location on a site which is located in an area of growth between two strategic allocations. The Secretary of State has considered the likelihood of delivery of the school (IR11.37-11.40). He agrees with the Inspector at IR11.40 that following any transfer, planning permission would need to be obtained, and that it is only possible to acknowledge that there does not appear to be any unsurmountable objections, in planning terms, to the delivery of a 1FE primary school. He further agrees that there is no guarantee that an extension of a 1FE primary school to a 2FE school would be acceptable in planning terms (IR11.38).

233

17. Overall, for the reasons given at IR11.41-11.47, he agrees with the Inspector that a limited amount of weight should be accorded to this benefit. He has taken into account that the planned and additional provision to be made in the plan period may be somewhat lower than 9.78FE, but this does not change his conclusion that this benefit merits limited weight.

Other matters

18. The Secretary of State considers that the provision of market and affordable housing carries substantial weight in the planning balance, but agrees with the Inspector that this should be viewed in the context of the Inspector’s finding that the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land (IR12.11). He agrees with the Inspector at IR12.12-12.13 that the proposal would result in construction jobs and other economic benefits over the lifetime of the development, and considers that this carries moderate weight in favour of the development.

19. The Secretary of State has taken into account the evidence which was put forward on highways matters and the Inspector’s assessment at IR11.48-11.69. He agrees with the Inspector’s assessment and agrees with his conclusions at IR11.70 that the designed access to the site is acceptable, and that the impacts of the development on the highways network could be satisfactorily addressed by the off-site highway works proposed and by the financial contribution towards the Burton Transport Strategy.

20. For the reasons given at IR11.71-11.82, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the assessment of minor adverse to negligible impact on the landscape is a reasonable one (IR11.75), and that there would be moderate harm to the visual amenity of pedestrian receptors along Craythorne Road (IR11.83). Overall he agrees with the Inspector at IR11.83 that having regard to the extent of the walking route involved and its proximity to the village and the likelihood of its use by villagers, limited weight should be attached to the harm to the landscape and visual amenity.

21. For the reasons set out in IR11.84-11.87, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR11.87 that subject to the suggested conditions, an appropriate design solution could be achieved, which would not prejudice the school site coming forward and would not increase the risk of flooding off-site. For the reasons set out in IR11.88-11.90, he considers that the proposal does not raise material issues in respect of local services, coalescence of Rolleston and Stretton or community engagement. Like the Inspector he is satisfied that the effects of development would not prejudice ecological interests subject to the two suggested conditions (IR11.89).

22. For the reasons set out at IR12.9, the Secretary of State considers that securing access to the Bulwaulk, the provision of green infrastructure on the site and sustainable urban drainage do not carry weight in favour of the proposal.

Planning conditions

23. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR9.1-9.6, the recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for them, and to national policy in paragraph 206 of the Framework and the relevant Guidance. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy test set out at paragraph 206 of the Framework. However, he does not consider that the imposition of these conditions would overcome his reasons for dismissing this appeal.

244

Planning obligations

24. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR1.6-1.10 and IR9.7-9.23, the executed unilateral undertaking dated 10 June 2016, paragraphs 203-205 of the Framework, the Guidance and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended. For the reasons given in IR9.7-9.13, he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the unilateral undertaking complies with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 204 of the Framework, is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development, and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. For the reasons set out at IR9.15-9.23 he agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation at IR9.23 that the unilateral undertaking should be taken into account with clause 5.6 intact, and has proceeded on this basis.

25. The Secretary of State has taken into account the number of planning obligations which have been entered into on or after 6 April 2010 which provide for the funding or provision of a project or type of infrastructure for which an obligation has been proposed in relation to the appeal. For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR9.14, the Secretary of State concludes that the obligations are compliant with Regulations 123(3), as amended.

26. The Secretary of State has considered whether it is necessary for him to refer back to parties in respect of Regulation 123 prior to determining this appeal. However, the Secretary of State does not consider that the unilateral undertaking overcomes his reasons for deciding that the appeal should be dismissed, as set out in this decision letter. Accordingly, he does not consider it necessary for him to do so.

Planning balance and overall conclusion

27. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the appeal scheme is not in accordance with ESLP policies SP8, SP2, SP4 and one element of SP1, as well as being contrary to SNP policy S1. Having regard to the strategic nature of the development plan policies breached, he considers that it is not in accordance with the development plan overall. He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

28. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the proposal against the relevant policies in the Framework taken as a whole. He considers that the provision of market and affordable housing carries substantial weight, but considers that this should be viewed in the context of the Inspector’s finding that the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. He considers that the economic benefits of the proposal carry moderate weight in favour of the development. He considers that the educational provision carries limited weight in favour of the development.

29. He considers that the loss of BMV land carries moderate weight against the proposal, and the harm to the landscape and visual amenity carries limited weight against the proposal.

30. Overall he considers that the material considerations do not indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The

255

Secretary of State therefore concludes that the appeal should be dismissed and outline planning permission refused.

Formal decision

31. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client’s appeal and refuses outline planning permission for a mixed use development scheme comprising of up to 385 dwellings, provision of 1.69 hectares of land for a single form entry primary school and associated infrastructure, including details of access and all other matters reserved, in accordance with application ref: P/2014/00818, dated 25 June 2014.

Right to challenge the decision

32. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 33. A copy of this letter has been sent to East Staffordshire Borough Council and Save our Stretton, and notification has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the decision.

Yours faithfully

Maria Stasiak Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

266

Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Karen L Ridge LLB (Hons) MTPL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date: 16 August 2016

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Appeal by Gladman Developments Limited

East Staffordshire Borough Council

Inquiry held on 26-28 April & 5, 5, 10, 16 & 23 May 2016

Land off Craythorne Road, Stretton, Staffordshire

File reference: APP/B3410/W/15/3134848

CONTENTS

PAGE

Background and Procedural Matters 3

The Site and its Surroundings 4

The Proposal and Planning History 5

Planning Policy 6

Matters Agreed Between the Council and Appellant 8

Matters in Dispute Between the Council and Appellant 9

Education Matters Agreed Between the Appellant and SCC 9

Highway Matters Agreed Between the Appellant and 11 the Highways Authority (SCC)

Highway Matters Agreed Between the Appellant and 11 Highways England

The Case for the Appellant 12

The Case for the Council 21

The Case for Save Our Stretton 33

Other Oral and Written Representations 39

Planning Conditions and Planning Obligations 40

Inspector’s Conclusions 45

Recommendations 81

List of Appearances 82

Lists of Documents 83

Annex A- List of Acronyms 90

Annex B-Recommended Conditions 91

28 File Ref: APP/B3410/W/15/3134848 Land off Craythorne Road, Stretton, Staffordshire • 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 Gladman Developments Limited against the decision of East Staffordshire Borough Council. • The application Ref. P/2014/00818, dated 25 June 2014, was refused by notice dated 23 July 2015. • The development proposed is an ‘Outline application for a mixed use development scheme comprising of up to 385 dwellings, provision of 1.69 hectares of land for a single form entry primary school and associated infrastructure, including details of access and all other matters reserved’. Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed

Background and Procedural Matters

1.1 The Inquiry sat on 26, 27, 28 April 2016 and 4, 5, 10, 16 and 23 May 2016 with an accompanied inspection of the site and its surroundings taking place on 23 May 2016. Unaccompanied inspections of various other sites took place whilst the Inquiry was in progress.

1.2 The description of development set out above differs from that on the application form. It is taken from the refusal notice and was agreed between the parties. The agreed description is ‘Outline application for a mixed use development comprising of up to 385 dwellings, provision of 1.69 ha of land for a single form entry primary school and associated infrastructure including details of access with all other matters reserved’1.

1.3 This appeal was recovered on 28 October 2015 under section 79 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by the Secretary of State because the appeal involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units on a site over 5 hectares, which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities2.

1.4 A local group known as ‘Save our Stretton’ (SOS) appeared at the Inquiry as a Rule 6 party. This group is made up of local residents who wished to object to the proposal.

1.5 A Planning Statement of Common Ground (SCG) was agreed between the Council and the Appellant. A series of position statements3 were agreed between the Appellant and other statutory consultees. These included a Highways position statement with Highways England, a Highways position statement with Staffordshire County Council (SCC), as Highways Authority, and two education position statements with Staffordshire County Council, as local education authority. SOS were not involved in discussions with regard to any of the statements and are not a party to any of them.

1 This is the description used on the Council’s decision notice (CD5.1) and it differs from the description on the application form. 2 Recovery letter dated 28 October 2015. 3 Whilst these are styled as statements of common ground they are not made between the main parties to the appeal and therefore it was agreed that they are more properly described as position statements.

29 1.6 A draft Unilateral Undertaking (the UU) made pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) was placed before the Inquiry. Discussions in relation to the mechanics of the UU were ongoing throughout the Inquiry. At the end of the Inquiry the Appellant requested and was granted a further period to make certain agreed amendments to the UU and to have it executed. The executed UU has been received4 and shall be considered in this report.

1.7 The UU makes promises in relation to the delivery of affordable housing, the payment of primary and secondary education contributions, a transport strategy contribution, a refuse contribution and the transfer of 1.6 hectares of land for a school site, as well as securing a Travel Plan and open space provision.

1.8 The Appellant does not dispute the necessity for the contributions but there remains one outstanding dispute about the drafting of the UU in terms of the release of individual plot owners from the covenants. I shall return to this later.

1.9 On the 11 May 2016 the Court of Appeal issued judgment5 on the Secretary of State’s appeal against a previous High Court judgment. This earlier judgment related to a challenge to the Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014 and his subsequent alterations to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on planning obligations for affordable housing and social infrastructure contributions on some sites.

1.10 The Court of Appeal upheld the Secretary of State’s appeal on all grounds and on 19 May 2016 new paragraphs6 were added to the PPG reiterating the specific circumstances where the aforementioned contributions should not be sought. This change came about before the final day of the Inquiry but after oral evidence had been heard. It does not directly affect any of the issues in this case and touches on a peripheral finding in one very minor respect. It may affect the deliverability of one small site7 of 10 units used to make up the 5 year housing land supply (5 YHLS). Given the nature and scale of the dispute between the main parties and the very minor contribution of this site I did not consider it necessary to refer back to the parties for comments but I shall refer to the change in my deliberations.

The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site location plan is at CD1.2. The revised Design and Access Statement (CD2.2) and the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (CD1.5) each provide some sense of the context in which the site is located.

2.2 The appeal site extends to 23.36 hectares and lies adjacent to housing on Craythorne Road in the village of Stretton which sits within the Trent River Valley. The surrounding landscape beyond Stretton is predominantly agricultural with Rolleston on Dove situated to the north and Burton upon Trent located to the south.

4 GDL28- certified copy UU dated 10 June 2016 5 SSCLG v West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 441 6 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 23b-031-20160519 7 Demontfort Way

30 2.3 The site is mostly agricultural land divided into three fields by existing vegetation. It comprises mostly grade 2 best and most versatile land.8 A small area of the site, in the south-western corner, previously formed part of the former Craythorne Golf course. The site is well contained with Craythorne Road to the east and north, existing residential properties to the south and mature hedgerows to the west.

The Proposal and Planning History

3.1 The appeal relates to an outline application with all matters, other than access, reserved for future consideration. The outline planning application which led to this appeal was originally described as ‘residential development of the site to provide up to 425 dwellings and associated infrastructure’9. Following negotiations between the parties the application was revised to include a parcel of land to be designated for an educational use which was to be transferred to the County Council for the purposes of provision of a primary school. The number of dwellings was adjusted to ‘up to 385 dwellings’. It is this revised application which was refused planning permission by the Council on 23 July 201510. I am satisfied that the revised application was subject to proper consultation procedures.

3.2 The application was supported by a Development Framework Plan, Design and Access Statement, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Transport Assessment and Travel Plan, Ecological Appraisal, Arboricultural Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, Noise Assessment, Archaeological Assessment, Foul Drainage Analysis and an Air Quality Assessment11.

3.3 During the Inquiry there were discussions between the Council, the Appellant and the Inspector as to the nature of the planning permission sought. It was agreed by the Council and Appellant that the application was a mixed use development incorporating a residential use and the change of use of a parcel of land for educational purposes. It was further agreed that any permission resulting from this appeal would not result in an outline planning permission for a primary school building which would have to be the subject of a further application.

3.4 The revised proposal is represented by details on the site location plan drawing 2012-016-005 (dated 29.11.13)12 and the site access arrangements plan13 1324/30 revision C dated March 2014. The current proposal involves up to 385 dwellings of which 33% would be affordable homes with a proportion of the affordable homes to be provided off-site through a financial contribution. The proposal also includes highways and associated infrastructure works, with agreed off-site highway works intended to mitigate the effects of the development. In addition, 6.36 hectares of public open space would be provided on the site. A network of attenuation basins

8 Agricultural Land Quality Report of Land Research Associates [CD8.1] and proof of evidence of Mr Kernon 9 Core document CD 1.1 10 Notice of refusal Core document CD 5.1 11 Core documents CD 1.3 through to CD 1.15 12 Core document CD 1.2 13 Core document CD 8.4.6

31 to control surface water drainage of the site would deliver what the parties agree is a ‘betterment’ scheme, as well as associated ecological benefits14.

3.5 Vehicular access to the site would be from two points off Craythorne Road referred to as the southern and northern access points and depicted on the site access arrangements plan. A proposed internal new road through the appeal site is intended to be the main vehicular linkage between the southern end of Craythorne Road and its northern end. This would effectively mean that the existing length of Craythorne Road, adjacent to the eastern site boundary, would become access only for use by the existing residents on Craythorne Road.

3.6 The planning history of the site is limited. In relation to that portion of the site which formerly comprised the golf course, there were several planning permissions granted in the 1970s and 1980s in relation to the extension and development of additional sports facilities at the golf club. In relation to the wider site there was an application for residential development on 21 hectares of land in 1989 which was refused.

Planning Policy

4.1 The development plan, for the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, includes The East Staffordshire Local Plan15 2012-2031 (ESLP) which was adopted on 15 October 2015. It also includes the Stretton Neighbourhood Plan16 (SNP) which was made on 1 February 2016. Both plans are recently adopted or made and post-date the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

4.2 The ESLP strategic policies which are most relevant17 are as follows:

• ESLP policy SP1: confirms the approach to applying the presumption in favour of sustainable development and contains 15 principles against which development proposals will be assessed.

• ESLP policy SP2: sets out a settlement hierarchy and confirms that development will be directed towards the most sustainable locations in accordance with the hierarchy. Burton upon Trent is defined as a main town at the top of the hierarchy.

• ESLP policy SP3: concerns the provision of homes and jobs throughout the plan period and indicates an average housing rate provision of 466 dwellings per annum for the first 6 years of the plan and 682 dwellings per annum for 13 years thereafter.

• ESLP policy SP4: elucidates upon the distribution of housing growth 2012-2031 and contains figures representing the development requirement in various locations.

14 Planning Statement of Common Ground. 15 Core document CD 7.1 16 Core document CD 7.4 17 As agreed by the parties in the Planning Statement of Common Ground (SCG). Please note that whilst the SCG refers to ESLP policies NP1 and IMR2 the parties confirmed at the opening of the Inquiry that these policies have been revoked.

32 • ESLP policy SP6: sets out provisions to manage the release of housing and employment land.

• ESLP policy SP8: gives advice regarding development outside settlement boundaries and confirms that generally such development will not be permitted unless it falls within one of the 9 listed categories.

• ESLP policy SP10: contains expectations with regard to the delivery of education infrastructure.

• ESLP policy SP16: is concerned with meeting housing needs in terms of providing appropriate dwellings or a mix of dwellings.

• ESLP policy SP17: is an affordable housing policy setting out aspirations of up to 40% affordable housing on schemes of 4 or more dwellings or sites more than 0.14 hectares, subject to viability considerations.

• ESLP policy SP20: sets out the town and local centres hierarchy.

• ESLP policy SP23: is a green infrastructure policy which seeks to safeguard green infrastructure corridors and encourage development to contribute towards these corridors.

• ESLP policy SP24: emphasises the importance of high quality design.

• ESLP policy SP32: concerns the provision and protection of outdoor open space and sport facilities and sets out expectations in terms of contributions from developers.

• ESLP policy SP35: sets out a commitment to accessibility and sustainable transport.

• ESLP policy DP1: is a detailed design policy which contains the factors the Council will take into account when assessing the design of proposals.

4.3 The Stretton Neighbourhood Plan18 (SNP) has been examined twice. The first examination resulted in the identification of some issues with the Plan. The second examination resulted in a recommendation that, subject to some modifications, the plan was legally compliant. Following a referendum the Council resolved that the plan was ‘made’.

4.4 The most relevant SNP policies are as follows:

• SNP policy S1: provides that new development, which preserves and enhances the openness of the countryside, will only be permitted for certain specified uses.

• SNP policy S2: seeks to protect landscape character.

18 Core document CD 7.4

33 • SNP policy S3: promotes the protection and enhancement of local wildlife.

• SNP policy S6: specifies that, wherever feasible, development proposals will be expected to incorporate sustainable drainage systems.

• SNP policy S7: seeks to protect archaeological interests in Stretton.

• SNP policy S11: protects existing outdoor sports, recreation facilities and open space.

• SNP policy S14: promotes the development of new high speed broadband infrastructure to serve the Parish.

4.5 Relevant national policy is to be found in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as well as national Planning Policy Guidance (PPG).

4.6 The Council rely on ESLP policies S1 and SP8 and policy S1 of the SNP and national guidance within the Framework in support of their continued opposition to the proposal.

4.7 Save our Stretton support the Council’s case but also raise objections with regard to the effect of the proposal on highway safety as well as raising concerns about landscape character, ecology and flooding and the effects upon infrastructure.

Matters Agreed Between the Council and Appellants19

5.1 It is agreed between the two main parties that housing supply policies in Neighbourhood Plans are not exempt from the effects of paragraphs 49 and 14 of the Framework20.

Sustainable development

5.2 ESLP policy SP2 directs development to the most sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. For the purposes of this hierarchy it is agreed that the settlement of Stretton forms part of the Burton upon Trent area. It is further agreed that the appeal site lies outside the development boundary of Stretton, as depicted on the proposals map and it is therefore in open countryside.

5.3 The site lies outside, but adjacent to, the existing built up area of Stretton. The parties agree that the site is well linked by sustainable modes of transport and/or by foot to the existing services within Stretton. The site is considered sustainable in terms of accessibility to key services and facilities by new residents.

5.4 It is further agreed that the proposal would generate economic benefits in terms of construction and housing growth and it would accord with the

19 Taken from the Planning Statement of Common Ground. I have set out the key matters which are agreed, it is not an exhaustive list given that there are a series of other agreements about less contentious matters. 20 In accordance with the judgment in Woodcock Holdings Limited v Secretary of State [2015]EWHC/117 (Admin) at CD 11.1

34 social role of sustainability in terms of the provision of market and affordable housing.

Housing land supply

5.5 The housing requirement for East Staffordshire over the plan period is agreed to be 11,648 dwellings.

5.6 The Council and Appellant agree that the calculation of the 5 YHLS should be carried out using the same methodology as that accepted by the Inspector conducting the recent examination into the ESLP (the Local Plan Inspector).

5.7 It is further agreed that, in principle, affordable housing policies have been met by a combination of the provision of on-site affordable housing (13% of the houses in the total scheme) and a commuted sum to provide off-site provision equivalent to the remaining 20% of the total scheme housing. Both parties agree that the provision of affordable housing should attract substantial weight in support of the proposal in the overall planning balance.

Education

5.8 It is agreed that there is an existing shortfall in primary school places in the Burton upon Trent area, irrespective of the development. The parties agree that a new 0.5 FE primary school would be necessary to meet the needs generated by the appeal proposal and that a financial contribution towards secondary school provision would also be required.

Matters in Dispute between the Council and Appellant

5.9 Whether or not the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

5.10 Whether the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development in line with paragraphs 14 and 49 of the Framework.

5.11 Whether the planning balance exercise, as required by paragraph 14 of the Framework, has been carried out correctly and whether appropriate weight has been given to the benefits and dis-benefits of the scheme.

Education Matters Agreed Between the Appellant and SCC

5.12 There are two position statements21 made between the Appellant and SCC as the local education authority. The Council (ESBC) is not a party to these agreements and it does not follow that the Council necessarily agrees with all of the contents in the position statements. There are key disputes on education matters which I shall come to.

5.13 The Appellant and SCC have reached agreement on the following matters. The appeal proposal is projected to generate an additional 81 primary aged pupils. The existing schools are projected to be full and it has been agreed that they could not accommodate the additional demand from the appeal scheme. Although it was recognised that a 0.5 FE school would mitigate the impact of up to 385 houses, it was agreed between the Appellant and SCC

21 Education Statement of Common Ground dated March 2016 and Addendum Education Statement of Common Ground dated April 2016.

35 that this would ‘not be an efficient use of land in an urban area where there is a greater shortage of places. A 0.5 FE is not cost effective and does not offer the best education opportunities for children.’22

5.14 The first position statement sets out in detail the various studies which were commissioned to look at current and future school capacity. A series of findings are recorded in the position statement at 2.4. I shall examine this matter in more detail later on.

5.15 The two reports concluded that the demand for secondary places would begin to exceed supply from 2015 and this trend will continue to rise to a deficit equivalent to the need for two additional secondary schools by 2030/31. Half of this demand can be met by the expansion of existing schools, leaving a requirement for one additional secondary school which it is indicated should be to the west of Burton upon Trent. A new secondary school is currently subject to a planning application at Branston Road.

5.16 The second position statement was prepared in response to the education evidence submitted on behalf of the Council by Mrs Anna Miller. The second position statement seeks to correct what the SCC (as local education authority) and the Appellant believe are misapprehensions on Mrs Miller’s part in terms of her interpretation of the various education reports. Again I shall examine these matters in more detail later.

5.17 The provision of 1.69 hectares of land for a development of a single FE primary school and a financial contribution towards primary school provision was agreed between the Appellant and SCC. It was further agreed that there is potential to increase school capacity in the future to 2FE which could accommodate 420 primary school aged children.

5.18 It was agreed that there is an outstanding unmet need for new primary school places in East Staffordshire. This need is an existing issue and is not created as a result of the proposed appeal scheme, although this scheme would result in additional need over and above this baseline position. It was agreed that the provision of a new primary school is urgently required now within the wider Burton upon Trent area.

5.19 It was further agreed that the appeal site has been identified as one of five sites within the wider Burton area which is considered suitable to make primary school provision. Both parties agree that the 1.69 hectare site is large enough to accommodate a 2 FE primary school if the Education Authority decides it is appropriate to develop a school of this size.

5.20 It was agreed that a primary education contribution of £634,560 and the provision of a 1.69 hectare site would be provided by the Appellant to mitigate the effects of 385 houses on the site. It was further agreed that a development up to 385 dwellings would necessitate a financial contribution towards additional secondary and post-16 places in the order of £1,395,62523.

22 1.2.4 Education SCG. 23 Calculated as a payment of £3,625 per dwelling, Education position statement paragraph 4.1.2

36 Highways Matters Agreed Between the Appellant and SCC

5.21 The first highways statement is between the Appellant and SCC in its capacity as Highways Authority. It sets out the highways/transportation agreements reached regarding the local highways network following a Transport Assessment24 (TA) which was submitted with the planning application. The Borough Council (ESBC) is not party to the highways position statements, after having raised objections initially on the advice of SCC. Following further modelling and clarifications the Council, like SCC, has now expressed itself satisfied. However, SOS maintains its objection in relation to highways matters and I shall return to this matter.

5.22 The position statement records that the TA is representative of the existing arrangements for the local highway network, pedestrian and cycle facilities and public transport provision. The study junctions which were the subject of the TA were also agreed.

5.23 The site access arrangements, including modifications to Craythorne Road, were agreed and were subject to an independent Stage 1 Road Safety Audit which was also agreed. A scheme to provide passing bays to the north of the site on Craythorne Road was further agreed.

5.24 It is also agreed that the Appellant would make a contribution of £830 per dwelling25 towards the Burton Transport Strategy26 which is aimed at securing improvements along the main routes through Stretton. This contribution would be ring-fenced for use in Stretton and secured through the UU. The contribution fully mitigates the traffic impact of the development on the local highway network in the eyes of SCC.

5.25 In addition the Appellant submitted a Travel Plan27 proposal setting out objectives in terms of traffic reduction, widening travel choice and improving accessibility of the site by sustainable modes of transport. This is also agreed with SCC.

Highways Matters Agreed Between the Appellant and Highways England

5.26 A second position statement was made between the Appellant and Highways England relating to the strategic highway network which is the responsibility of Highways England. Again the Borough Council were not involved in this statement but do not make any objections to it. SOS maintains its highway objections and do not accept the conclusions in the position statement.

5.27 Highways England expressed itself satisfied with the effect of the proposal in terms of two study junctions which form part of the strategic highway network. The modelling in terms of assessment periods, assessment year, base traffic flows, distribution and levels of generated traffic and committed development were all agreed.

5.28 Of the two junctions modelled, it was agreed that mitigation works were necessary at the Claymills Lane/A5121 Derby Road/A38 northbound on/off

24 Reference 1324/2/C at CD 1.6 25 Totalling £319,550 for 385 dwellings. 26 Inquiry document 3P.7. 27 TP report reference 1324/3/A, CD 1.7.

37 slip road junction. A mitigation scheme28 appended to the position statement was also agreed. This scheme was the subject of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, the findings of which were also agreed to be satisfactory in that the issues raised could be dealt with at design stage.

5.29 It is envisaged that the off-site highway works will be secured via a s278 Highways Act Agreement as required by a Grampian condition29.

The Case for the Appellant

6.1 This summary contains all material points in relation to the Appellant’s case. It is taken from the submissions made and evidence given on behalf of the Appellant and from other documents submitted to the Inquiry.

6.2 The main issues and reasons for refusal will be addressed as follows:

• whether the proposal is in an acceptable location having particular regard to development plan policies, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the 5 YHLS and the loss of BMV agricultural land,

• the education benefits,

• the additional concerns raised by Save Our Stretton,

• the planning obligations,

• the planning balance.

6.3 The ESLP incorporates the Planning Inspectorate’s model policy at Principle 1 which embodies the Framework’s Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development. The inclusion of this model policy reflects the statutory obligation upon decision-makers to exercise their functions with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Moreover, Principle 1 of the ESLP is explained as reflecting the Government’s view that paragraphs 18-219 of the Framework constitute what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system.

6.4 ESLP SP1 expresses the LP approach to sustainable development and indicates that the Council will assess whether a development proposal is as sustainable as possible against 15 identified criteria. None of the reasons for refusal allege that the appeal scheme conflicts with either ESLP Principle 1 or SP1. ESLP SP2 (Settlement Hierarchy) states that development will be directed towards the most sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. It is a matter of agreement between the Appellant and the Council that, for the purpose of the settlement hierarchy and decision-making, Stretton forms part of the Burton upon Trent area, albeit that the site is outside the settlement boundary.

6.5 ESLP SP3 identifies a minimum housing requirement of 11,648 dwellings to be delivered over the plan period. Of particular significance is that the

28 Drawing no 1324/40/A at appendix 3 to the position statement. 29 Agreed condition 12.

38 housing trajectory for the local plan had to be split in order for it to be considered sound by the Local Plan Inspector. He recognised that it was “crucial to the soundness of the Plan” that a 5YHLS can be demonstrated at all times30. The only means by which the Council were able to demonstrate this at the time of the Examination was via a stepped trajectory and the Local Plan Inspector accepted this approach as being “pragmatic”31. Consequently the Council’s minimum annual housing requirement is 466 dwellings for the years 2012-2018 and 682 for the remainder of the plan period. It is also significant to record that at the time of the Examination the Council was only just able to demonstrate a 5YHLS (5.2 years) on the basis of this stepped trajectory32.

6.6 ESLP SP4 (Distribution of Housing Growth 2012-2031) allocates specific sites to meet minimum housing requirement for the Borough over the plan period. It also identifies a further minimum delivery requirement of 1,359 dwellings to be met through non-allocated (i.e. windfall) provision within the settlement boundaries or in accordance with made neighbourhood plans. This non-allocated development requirement assigned to Burton is stated as being delivered within settlement boundaries or in accordance with made neighbourhood plans. However, the explanatory text to this policy recognises that “The majority of sites contributing to the development requirement will be brownfield. Greenfield may be acceptable in accordance with Strategic Policy 1 and Detailed Policy 3.”33

6.7 ESLP SP8 sets out what types of development will be permitted outside settlement boundaries. This includes the provision of facilities for the use of the general public or local community; close to an existing settlement which is reasonably accessible on foot, by bicycle or by public transport; or infrastructure development where an overriding need for development to be located in the countryside can be demonstrated. Paragraph 3.68 of the explanatory text indicates that the definition of infrastructure can include education facilities. Whilst the residential element of the appeal proposal conflicts with this policy, a school would not. Consequently, there is some support from this policy to the provision of the land for a school.

6.8 The SNP was made on 1 February 2016. The appeal proposals conflict with SNP policy S1 (Development in the Countryside) because the site is located within the countryside identified on Map 3 as “identified areas”. The SNP replicates the settlement boundaries as found in the ESLP and consequently serves exactly the same restrictive purpose. The appeal proposals do not conflict with SNP policy S2 (Protecting Landscape Character). The site is not the subject of any landscape designation and policy S2 is not restrictive of development per se but addresses design issues.

6.9 The development plan is the starting point for the determination of this appeal and consideration should be given to whether or not the development proposal accords with the development plan when assessed

30 CD 7.2 paras 83-90. 31 CD 7.2 para 111. 32 CD7.3 para 105. 33 CD 7.1, para 3.37.

39 as a whole. As with all development plan documents there may be some points in the plan supportive of the proposal and others pointing in the opposite direction. The need for this holistic approach when assessing the proposals against the development plan is expressly recognised in Principle 1 and SP1 of the ESLP, the explanatory text of which emphasizes the importance of reading the Framework and its practical principles of sustainable development as a whole34.

6.10 The Appellant has expressly recognised that the appeal proposals conflict with ESLP policy SP8 because the proposal (excluding the provision of the land for a school) is for residential development in the open countryside. This conflict is because of its location outside the settlement boundary for Burton upon Trent as identified in both the ESLP and the SNP. It is also recognised that the site is not identified in ESLP SP4 or the SNP as an allocation for housing. In view of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and irrespective of the 5YHLS issue, conflict with some development plan policies is not the end of the matter.

Presumption in favour of sustainable development

6.11 The ESLP and SNP presumption in favour of sustainable development is necessarily consistent with national policy as embodied in the Framework. Paragraph 49 of the Framework is engaged in this appeal. This requires residential schemes to be considered in the context of the presumption. It also indicates that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS of deliverable sites.

6.12 Assessment of the policies to be considered relevant to the supply of housing and the presumption in favour of sustainable development has been considered in three recent court cases35. None of these cases dislodge the statutory presumption in section 38(6) but they do make clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the Framework are material considerations of considerable weight in their own right, albeit that ultimately the weighting to be applied is for the decision- maker.

6.13 Consequently, all applications for residential development should be considered in the context of sustainable development, regardless of the 5YHLS and/or whether relevant policies can be considered up to date. In other words conflict with some development plan policies (even in a recently adopted plan) is not necessarily of itself sufficient to refuse planning permission without further consideration as to whether the proposal represents sustainable development. Moreover, this approach is effectively endorsed in Principle 1 and SP1 of the ESLP in any event. This is the approach taken in many other recent appeals36.

34 CD 7.1 para 3.2. 35 Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd & SSCLG; and Richborough Estates v Cheshire East BC & SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 168. Wychavon v SSCLG & Crown Developments [2016] EWHC 592 [GDL 11]. Cheshire East v SSCLG & Renew Land Developments Ltd [2016 EWHC 571 (Admin). 36 Long Copse Lane, Westbourne appeal (APP/L3815/W/15/3003656) [CD 10.12],

40 6.14 Of particular significance is that exactly the same approach was taken by the Inspector in the very recent Red House Farm appeal37 which is a material consideration of significant weight. It is directly comparable in a number of respects. In that case the Inspector concluded that the proposal would be contrary to Strategic policies 2, 4 and 8 because the site was “next to, but outside, the settlement boundary for Burton upon Trent” but the Framework was a material consideration and the appeal scheme needed to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This approach is commended as wholly appropriate in the instant appeal.

The 5 year housing land supply

6.15 Simply because the ESLP was adopted last October does not negate or otherwise excuse the Council from demonstrating a 5YHLS. It is not about adoption but delivery. There has now been a year of delivery since the HLS evidence was considered by the LP Inspector. The Appellant has concerns over the Council’s claimed completions because it does not appear to be the product of any robust methodology and the figures are significantly different from the national returns to DCLG.

6.16 There are two fundamental differences between the Council and Appellant in terms of the calculation of a 5YHLS. The first relates to the method of counting completions and the second relates to the deliverability of identified sites.

6.17 Completions: The Council’s claimed completions data is not precise, not robust and neither does it promote transparency and democratic accountability. These figures are a fundamental component of calculating the 5YHLS because they purport to demonstrate past delivery against the requirement trajectory.

6.18 These concerns are underlined by the past performance of the Council. The Council’s own figures following the publication of its 31 March 2016 HLS Statement38 demonstrate that it has failed to meet its annual trajectory every year since the start of the plan period despite the reduced target of 466 dwellings per annum (dpa) for these four years. The suggestion from the Council that the ‘direction of travel’ is positive represents an example of unjustifiable optimism ignoring past experience.

6.19 Deliverability of sites: independent of the Appellant’s concerns over the completions figure the Council’s claimed supply does not withstand scrutiny. The deliverability of the sites making up the claimed supply has been assessed in accordance with the approach to footnote 11 of paragraph 47 of the Framework and the relevant guidance in the PPG. The assessment of housing land supply is a matter of planning judgment concerned with “deliverability”, which is an assessment of the likelihood that housing will be delivered in the five year period having regard to a number of factors.

37 (APP/B3410/W/16/3142808) [GDL 16]. 38 See Table at para 3.5 of Melissa Kurihara Rebuttal PoE.

41 6.20 On the Appellant’s evidence the best case is that there is a 3.9 year HLS if the Appellant’s counting methodology is accepted. Using the Council’s ‘counting’ methodology the supply would be 4.2 years. The difference between the Council and Appellant in terms of the deliverability of sites in the identified supply is 1,286 units. Even if the Council’s counting methodology is applied, if half of the 1,286 units in dispute are found not to be deliverable then there is no 5 YHLS.

6.21 The Appellant has produced tables setting out its case in relation to the sites in dispute with regard to deliverability. These tables are to be found on pages 12 to 21 of the Appellant’s Closing Submissions document. The sites will be examined in more detail later in this report.

Best and most versatile agricultural land

6.22 In line with ESLP Principle 1 and SP1 the appeal proposal also needs to be assessed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development applying the 15 listed criteria. The appeal proposal is consistent with all of those 15 listed criteria, save one, which seeks to safeguard the long term capability of best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land.

6.23 In the context of ESLP policy SP8 (Development Outside Settlement Boundaries) the provision of facilities and infrastructure will be judged against a number of criteria of which the need to maintain land of high agricultural value for food production is but one of eight. However, the loss of BMV land is material to a consideration of whether the proposal amounts to sustainable development since it is also a factor identified in paragraph 112 of the Framework. It is important to note that paragraph 112 is within Chapter 11 of the Framework (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment). BMV is not expressed as being a ‘showstopper’ but something that needs to be taken into account and policies SP1 and SP8 reflect this.

6.24 Through the allocations at Guinevere Avenue, Upper Outwood Farm and Branston Locks39, the Council has already effectively acknowledged that the need for sustainably located housing focussed on Burton necessarily impacts upon the existence of BMV land. The ESLP sustainability appraisal concluded that focussing development on Burton and Uttoxeter represented the most sustainable use of land40.

6.25 Furthermore the SHLAA does not identify the existence of BMV land as a constraint upon development of the appeal site41. This is unsurprising in view of the urban locked nature of the site and the fact that it is in multiple ownership. This inconsistency in the Council’s approach to BMV is further evident from the applications at Lawns Farm and Glenville Farm42.

6.26 The impact upon BMV agricultural land is a matter of fact. The weight to be attached to this impact will necessarily be a matter of judgment. However, the weight to be afforded to this factor in the overall planning balance

39 Compare LRA Appendix (attached to PoE of TK) with ESLP Inset map (JVH App.4). 40 CD 12.12, paras 7.106 and p.124. 41 CD 9.2. 42 See committee reports at ESBC 14 and ESBC 15

42 should be influenced by the approach that the Council has historically taken to BMV both in the context of this application and in its strategic policy of focussing residential development on Burton upon Trent.

Education

6.27 The appeal proposals include financial contributions of £1,648.20 per dwelling for primary education purposes, £3,625 per dwelling for secondary education purposes and 1.69 hectares of land to be transferred to SCC on the commencement of development. The Primary School land provision followed consultations with SCC as the Local Education Authority. For the avoidance of any doubt the contribution made by the appeal scheme is considered by the Local Education Authority to be a benefit.43 The provision is over and above that required to mitigate the impacts of the appeal proposal in isolation.

6.28 Furthermore, in terms of location, the Local Education Authority described it as “ideal”. The Appellant contends that this is unsurprising in view of the AMEC assessment of the location as having “the greatest potential to provide a primary school between two strategic allocations and would appreciably improve the coverage in this area of the town.”44 In its capacity as the statutory education authority SCC has provided two joint Position Statements in which they confirm the need for education infrastructure.

6.29 Need: The Cambridge Education Report45 produced on behalf of both SCC and ESBC was published only a week after the Council’s ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan’ (‘IDP’), the latter being a high level desk based study that was not specific to education. It is clear that the authors of the Cambridge Education Report had included the schools in Table 1 of the evidence of Mrs Miller as part of the baseline.46 Their conclusion is a need for 9.0 FE primary schools in the longer term, which equates to a total of 11.4 FE when a 5% surplus is factored in.

6.30 The IDP47 was a desk based study commissioned by the Council. There appears to be no indication that the Council queried the difference between the plan period requirements for infrastructure. Irrespective of those matters the Council agrees on the need for primary school infrastructure48.

6.31 The provision of land for education purposes contributes beneficially to the planning balance. Paragraph 72 of the Framework indicates that the Government “attaches great importance” to ensuring sufficient schools are available and it is submitted that this is a consideration which attracts great weight49.

43 Paragraph 1.2.4 SCC Education Position Statement 44 CD 12.2 (Appendix C – Land to the rear of Bitham Lane and Craythorne Road). 45 CD 12.1 46 CD 12.1, p.19 47 Anna Miller appendix B 48 Planning Statement of Common Ground paragraph 6.7.1 49 See letter from Brandon Lewis at [GDL 13]. Also [CD 10.15] (Bideford SoS & IR – APP/W1145/A/2228355 & 8356).

43 The concerns of ‘Save our Stretton’

6.32 The principal concerns of SOS relate to the highway impacts of the proposed scheme. It is important to note that the Appellant’s highways expert commenced initial discussions about the appeal scheme with SCC and Highways England in November 2012, when the Transport Assessment scoping report (TA) was issued. Both SCC and Highways England requested that the Burton SATURN model was used to assess the traffic impact of the development. The culmination of this process was that the TA parameters and methodology were agreed.

6.33 Despite the concerns raised by SOS both SCC and Highways England critically reviewed all of the information within the TA report including: • TA study network • Accident data • Traffic count data • Trip generation rates • Traffic distributions • The modelling software (eg SATURN and PICADY50) • Traffic Impact (requirement for detailed modelling) • Modelling input parameters • Modelling results

6.34 The Appellant’s highways expert, Mr Jackson, gave evidence to the Inquiry and confirmed that during the pre-determination process both SCC and Highways England requested additional information and clarification. Their respective objections were only removed once they were satisfied that any effects of the proposals could be satisfactorily addressed.

6.35 The concerns over the site access arrangements, as raised by SOS, are not shared by SCC. The Highways position statement with SCC confirms the acceptability of the proposals51. Concern was raised by SOS over the southern access (SJ1A) which creates a small cul-de-sac with a turning head and the possible impacts arising from the school. Mr Jackson considers it unlikely that this will provide a major drop-off area for parents52. Nevertheless, the highway authority may seek to introduce waiting restrictions in this location if it is considered that parents may use this to park their vehicles during drop-off and pick up times, albeit that they are content with the proposed design.

6.36 The TA includes PICADY modelling of the southern and northern accesses (Tables 5 & 6 of TA report 1324/2/C53). The PICADY results predict that both junctions will operate with very high levels of spare capacity in the AM & PM peak hours and this is agreed with SCC. Modelling of the small cul-de-sac has not been undertaken as it only serves two properties and will clearly not have capacity issues.

50 Which models priority controlled junctions. 51 Drawing 1324/30 Rev C 52 Confirmed in Examination in Chief and Cross-Examination 53 CD 1.6

44 6.37 Whilst SOS has questioned the sustainability credentials of the site in a wider context the accessibility credentials of the site are unimpeachable. This is manifestly clear from the TA, the Travel Plan, the evidence of Mr Jackson and the Planning SCG. In addition to the road improvements to Craythorne Road and Bitham Lane, there is a good range of amenities within walking distance of the appeal site. Stretton and Burton are within cycling distance and there are existing bus stops on Bitham Lane and the railway station is within 3.5km of the site.

6.38 The other traffic impacts over which SOS have raised concerns are being addressed to the satisfaction of both SCC and Highways England. Following the work undertaken as part of the TA and TAS reports it is agreed with SCC that the Appellant will make a financial contribution of £319,550 towards the Burton Transport Strategy which would fully mitigate the traffic impact of the appeal scheme. This contribution would be targeted at the Stretton ward and includes: • Personalised Travel Planning across the ward • Increased bus services serving the ward • Public transport information marketing across the ward • Improving walking and cycling connections in the ward • A contribution towards the traffic management along Bitham Lane, Bridge Street, Church Road and Claymills Road.

6.39 The computer modelling identified a need for a mitigation scheme at the A38/A5121/Claymills Road junction (SJ5). A scheme was worked up and has been agreed with Highways England which mitigates the appeal development traffic impact on the strategic highway network54.

6.40 Although SOS has raised objections to the impact on the character and appearance of the area, it is noted that the site is not subject to any landscape designation. SOS did question the approach taken by the authors of the LVIA55 and these concerns are misplaced. The LVIA did identify users of the public rights of way56 as potential receptors and these could include walkers along Craythorne Road. However, there is no footpath along the length of Craythorne Road and the sensitivity of those users to the view across the site would necessarily be tempered by the consequential need for caution regarding traffic. The LVIA concluded that the overall landscape and visual effects at year 15 would be minor adverse-negligible57 and the Council agrees with this opinion58.

The Planning Obligations

6.41 The UU is to be amended with an appropriate trigger clause to address the concerns of SCC in respect the release of individual homeowners from the planning obligations and the recycling of grant/proceeds from affordable housing. Subject to these revisions and resubmission of the UU all parties agree that the proposed obligations meet the tests of the Community

54 Position statement with Highways England 55 CD1.5 56 CD 1.5, p.7 57 CD 1.5, p.26 (para 9.9). 58 Planning Statement of Common Ground, section 6.8.

45 Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the CIL regulations). The planning obligations also confirm delivery of significant benefits of the proposal including the provision of much needed affordable housing and the land for the school.

Conclusions and Planning Balance

6.42 The Framework establishes that the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and identifies three pillars to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. In the context of the appeal proposal no economic harm whatsoever has been alleged. On the contrary, the application was accompanied by a Socio- Economic report which clearly demonstrates the significant economic benefits that would be generated59. Neither the Council nor SOS sought to question the socio-economic benefits of the scheme.

6.43 The Socio-Economic report also demonstrates that the population of East Staffordshire has risen by some 17% since 1991 and further growth is predicted. There is a significant affordability problem within East Staffordshire and particularly within Burton (both in terms of the ratio of house prices to earnings and the supply of affordable housing) and this scheme would go some way to remedying this situation.60 Financial contributions would also be secured towards education, open space and sports provision to assist in the ongoing provision of infrastructure in the locality61.

6.44 The scheme would provide significant social benefits in terms of market and affordable housing, access to what is presently private land, and the provision of land for a new primary school and land to facilitate an extension to a 2FE school in the future. The facilitation of this essential infrastructure would be a benefit of great weight particularly because the prospects of the Branston Depot site delivering a primary school are now remote62.

6.45 In terms of an environmental role; no material harm has been identified in the context of impact upon landscape character and the character and appearance of the area. The loss of BMV agricultural land is a factor but the benefits of the proposal outweigh the loss of this resource. Those environmental benefits include the public access to, and preservation of, the Bulbaulk – a feature that appears to be particularly valued by the community; the provision of significant green infrastructure; the retention and enhancement of identified biodiversity habitats; and the proposed sustainable urban drainage scheme. The scheme demonstrates significant environmental credentials.

6.46 The adoption of the ESLP in October does not render unsustainable those unallocated sites where there may be some conflict with the development plan. The contention that this site is unsustainable when assessed against

59 CD 2.4 60 See Conclusions at paragraphs 4.1.1-4.1.3 61 CD 4.1, paragraph 12.3 62 JVH site no.11. Also, see summary of social benefits as explained in the Case Officer’s Report at paragraph 12.2 [CD 4.1].

46 the development plan or the Framework is not a contention in the reasons for refusal, nor does it appear in the Council’s Statement of Case and it is simply wrong. The Case Officer’s report explicitly endorses the considerable sustainability credentials of the site as does the Planning Statement of Common Ground. Moreover, such an approach would run counter to the requirement to consider the Framework as a whole.

6.47 There is no technical impediment to the delivery of this site. The application was accompanied by a full range of technical reports. The delivery record63 of the Appellant is also a consideration that weighs in favour of the scheme because it demonstrates that the scheme can make a significant contribution to the Council’s 5YHLS, including the provision of much needed affordable housing.

6.48 The Appellant contends that the Council are unable to demonstrate a 5YHLS and consequently paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged. For decision-making this means, where relevant policies in the development plan are out-of-date, granting planning permission for development unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The only harm identified (as opposed to the need to consider the loss of BMV land) appears to be the fact of the recent adoption of the ESLP. The absence of the 5YHLS and the signal failure of the Council to deliver in accordance with its adopted trajectory since the beginning of the plan period demonstrate that the development plan is not delivering. This scheme would make a significant contribution to addressing this serious deficit.

6.49 Even if there is a 5 YHLS and relevant policies are not out of date, the sustainability credentials of the scheme in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the need to boost significantly the supply of housing would justify a departure from development plan policy, as in the Red House Farm II decision64. The scheme is manifestly an excellent example of sustainable development within the meaning of the Framework.

6.50 For all of the above reasons the Appellant submits that the appeal should be allowed.

The Case for the Council

7.1 This summary contains the material points of the Council’s case. It is taken from the submissions made and evidence given on behalf of the Council and from other documents submitted to the Inquiry.

7.2 Section 38(6) requires decisions on whether to grant planning permission to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There is no doubt that the development proposed is plainly not in accordance with the plan. Therefore, so far as

63 See JVH PoE, paragraph 8.1.28 and JVH App.10. 64 GDL 15 & 16.

47 the plan is concerned, permission should be refused. The only real question therefore is whether there are proper grounds for setting aside the decision-making framework provided by the development plan in favour of other material considerations.

7.3 The Appellant contends that there are two such reasons, both of which they claim find support in national policy. Firstly, it is contended that the plan is “out-of-date” because there is insufficient housing land to provide a 5 YHLS against the plan’s requirements. Accordingly, it is argued the “tilted balance”65 in the second bullet point in paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged (unless specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted).

7.4 Further or alternatively, it is argued that the benefits of the proposal, including the offer of land for a primary school, mean that it is sustainable development to which the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the Framework applies, regardless of whether there is a 5 YHLS.

7.5 Each of these arguments run up against obvious and significant problems posed by the fact that both parts of the development plan – the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan – are, on any view, extremely up-to-date (in the ordinary sense of that word and in the sense of having been found to be consistent with the Framework when subject to independent examination before they were respectively adopted and made).

7.6 The Local Plan Inspector, in finding the Local Plan to be sound in the form in which it has been adopted, expressly considered whether there was a 5 YHLS and concluded that there was. As the PPG makes clear, the Local Plan Inspector was uniquely well-placed to make such a judgment in light of evidence and representations from a wide range of stakeholders which cannot be replicated in individual appeals66. Accordingly the Government clearly envisages that such an Inspector’s conclusions on the 5 YHLS are not to be set aside lightly and invites attempts to do so, soon after a plan’s examination, to be met with a healthy scepticism.

7.7 It is clear that the Framework envisages that plans adopted prior to its publication may be out-of-date in other relevant senses and thus not provide an adequate basis for decision-making. However, there is no basis for the suggestion that decisions should be made contrary to plans which have been adopted or made post-the Framework since, of necessity, such plans must have been found to be consistent with the Framework and its policies on sustainable development in order to proceed to adoption or to be ‘made’.

Conformity with the development plan

7.8 It is common ground that the appeal proposals conflict with ESLP policy SP8 because the appeal site is located outside settlement boundaries. SP8 makes clear that in such cases development “will not be permitted” unless

65 See e.g. Cheshire East BC v SSCLG & Renew Land Developments Ltd [2016] EWHC 571 at 41 and Exeter CC v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 1663 (Admin) at 15. 66 PPG, Paragraph: 033 Reference ID: 3-033-20150327.

48 it falls within one of a number of exceptions – which, again, it is agreed do not apply here. It follows that, whether or not the development for which consent is sought is regarded as constituting a mixed-use scheme (i.e. residential with an educational element), the primary component of the proposal and the proposal as a whole cannot comply with SP8. The scheme cannot be disaggregated to assess compliance with policy SP867.

7.9 On behalf of the Appellant, Mrs Hodson ultimately accepted68 that the only buildings for which outline permission is being sought as part of this scheme are the 395 dwellings, not a school. The scheme is therefore, at best, only preparing the ground for a future application for permission for a school. It is highly questionable whether merely providing the land can be regarded as “infrastructure development” within the terms of the relevant exception in SP8.

7.10 Even if it was concluded that the scheme does include an element of “infrastructure development” and should be assessed in a split manner for compliance with policy SP8, even the “education” component would still fail to comply with the policy because an “overriding need for the development to be located in the countryside” has not been demonstrated.

7.11 Likewise, it is clear that the proposals are also contrary to ESLP policies SP2 and SP4. SP2 provides that “new development should be concentrated within the settlement boundary of the Main Towns”. It does not mean that some development is permissible outside the boundaries of those settlements, rather it is making a statement about the relative proportions of development to be shared between the different categories of settlement in the hierarchy. This is evident from both the terms of the policy itself and the explanatory text.

7.12 SP4 similarly only provides for development requirements to be met within the settlement boundaries of Main Towns or, alternatively, in accordance with made Neighbourhood Plans. Since the proposals here do not fall within either category, they cannot be in accordance with the policy. Mrs Hodson’s argument that development, of greenfield sites outside these categories, is permissible under SP4 is clearly wrong69. The policy itself is clear and the explanatory text to which she refers does not, and could not, say any different70.

7.13 The proposals are also contrary to ESLP SP1 insofar as they involve the development of a large area of ‘BMV’ agricultural land which has not been shown to be necessary and in respect of which it has not been shown that other, lower quality land is not available. Mrs Hodson and the Appellant accept that the proposal is contrary to policy S1 of the SNP. Given the extent of conflict with these policies, and their importance to the objectives

67 See, by analogy, Kenmal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd v FSS [2006] 1 P&CR 10 per Keene LJ at 34: “At this stage of the analysis, it was not appropriate to try dividing the development proposal up into segments, into those parts which would be appropriate and those which would be inappropriate’. 68 During cross-examination by Mr Hunter 69 The Council’s analysis on this point accords with that of the Inspector in the recent Lower Outwoods Road/Red House Farm (no. 2) appeal decision 70 Cherkley Campaign Ltd v Mole Valley DC [2014] EWCA Civ 567.

49 of both of the constituent plans, the appeal proposal is in significant conflict with the development plan overall.

7.14 The Framework provides that a decision contrary to the development plan may be justified if:

• Relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up-to-date because there is no 5 YHLS (§49)

• The adverse impacts of granting permission are not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole (§14); and

• Specific policies in the Framework do not indicate that development should be restricted (§14).

7.15 None of the above apply here.

Five Year Housing Land Supply

7.16 There is clearly more than sufficient deliverable land to satisfy the ESLP’s housing requirements over the next 5 years. The starting point for consideration of this issue must be the Local Plan Inspector’s finding that there was a 5YHLS of housing land. The PPG clearly implies that significant weight should be given to such a finding, particular when such a short time has elapsed since his report, and warns of the relative disadvantages of trying to carry out a similar assessment in the context of a s.78 appeal.

7.17 The areas of dispute are twofold: the appropriateness or otherwise of the method used by the Council to count completions and the deliverability of specific sites relied on by the Council as part of the supply. All other areas are agreed.

7.18 Completions/Backlog: if the Council’s housing requirement (4,235) is calculated using the Council’s method, then – even on the basis of the Appellant’s supply calculations (3,569) - there is a 4.21 supply. If the Appellant’s method and supply calculations are both accepted then the supply is 3.9 years. The calculation of completions is material to the question of a 5 YHLS.

7.19 If the Appellant was right about the deliverability of half of the disputed units but wrong about the other half, then (using the Council’s completions figure) there would be no shortfall against the required supply.

7.20 The method that the LPA has employed in calculating completions in its latest housing supply statement is the same that it used previously, including before the Local Plan Inspector. It was not subject to any criticism by either the Inspector or any of the other participants in the Local Plan process, which – it may be noted – included the Appellant and a range of major housing developers.

7.21 The Council’s approach to this calculation is not unique and is similar to that taken by other authorities71 and neither the Council’s nor the

71 Mrs Kurihara in Examination in Chief.

50 Appellant’s housing supply witness was aware of any criticisms of this approach. There is nothing in planning policy or guidance which either precludes the use of such an approach or recommends an alternative based exclusively on DCLG building control returns. Furthermore there is no definition of ‘completion’ in national planning policy or guidance.

7.22 Mrs Hodson confirmed that she had no objection to the Council counting dwellings that were visibly inhabited. However, that is inconsistent with her assertion that a certificate is necessary. An inhabited dwelling, as much as one that is not inhabited, may also lack a certificate. However, its condition will be the same immediately prior to habitation as it is post- habitation. Therefore a dwelling which is to be regarded as complete post- habitation will (usually at least) have been equally immediately complete beforehand. Mrs Hodson did not produce anything to substantiate her claim that buildings without a completion certificate would not be able to be occupied.

7.23 The Council’s approach is more likely to produce a more accurate figure than simply relying on the DCLG tables which are intended to provide broad estimates of house-building activity. They are dependent on up-to- date data and the lack of data for the last quarter requires extrapolations to be made. The Council’s figure of 4,235 is soundly based and is to be preferred.

Deliverability of the 5 YHLS

7.24 A set of tables appended to the Council’s closing submissions summarises the differences between the parties in relation to a series of housing sites where deliverability is in dispute. These will be examined in detail later.

7.25 In addition the Council makes a number of general observations on the Appellant’s approach to the deliverability of sites. Notwithstanding the advice in the Framework and the PPG the Appellant has applied a more stringent approach, referring to ‘no certainty’ of a site coming forward. Mrs Hodson also treated ‘doubts’ about sites with permission or allocated sites as a reason not to include them, contrary to the Framework and PPG advice that there should be ‘clear evidence’ that they will not be implemented within 5 years.

7.26 Mrs Hodson also invited a departure from the conclusions on deliverability reached by the Local Plan Inspector even where there had been little change in material circumstances since the Examination. Mrs Hodson also gave weight selectively to information directly from owners, developers and agents. The Council also expresses concern that responses provided to it regarding the deliverability of individual sites appear to have been inadvertently influenced by contact with Mrs Hodson’s consultancy.

7.27 It is submitted that the Council’s assessment of the available supply is particularly robust and reliable for the following reasons:

• It does not rely on windfalls which the LP Inspector described as “commendably cautious”. Furthermore, the Appellant itself submitted to the LP inspector that several hundred houses could

51 be expected as windfalls. Accordingly, even if there was a shortfall of that order, it would be likely to be covered by windfalls.

• The Council has in fact improved the quality/quantity of the information on which its assessment is based in the latest supply statement by carrying out a specific assessment of every site of 10 or more units which were not previously assessed.

• Wherever developers/owners have indicated that sites are deliverable (or will deliver at a lower rate than the Council anticipated), it has discounted the sites.

7.28 It is clear that the ESLP is now delivering a higher rate of supply, with completions having risen sharply very close to the relevant annual target and a healthy current supply of deliverable land safely in excess of the five years required (5.72 years). Therefore the ESLP policies are up-to-date for the purposes of paragraph 49 of the Framework. It is accepted72 that they are not inconsistent with the Framework and therefore they are not out-of-date for any other reason.

7.29 Even if the second bullet point in paragraph 14 of the Framework were engaged, permission would still fall to be refused on grounds that:

• Specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted – namely, those in relation to BMV land and Neighbourhood Plans73;

• The adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. There is extensive conflict with the development plan which gives rise by itself to significant harm. There is also significant harm by way of the loss of BMV. Furthermore, there will also be harm to the landscape and views. The fact that this was not regarded as a reason for refusal in its own right does not mean that it will give rise to no harm. In fact, the Appellant’s own LVIA identified a number of adverse impacts from the development but contended that their effect would reduce over time as the development is assimilated74.

Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land

7.30 Significant development of BMV agricultural land is clearly regarded by the Framework as having adverse economic and environmental consequences. Therefore, before such development is allowed, the Framework75 requires two things: firstly that such development be demonstrated as “necessary” and secondly, where that is the case, it requires planning authorities to seek to direct development to lower quality land wherever possible.

7.31 The Appellant has not demonstrated that significant development of BMV is necessary in order to accommodate development needs because there is an adequate five-year supply and no other reason for developing

72 Mrs Hodson in Cross Examination 73 §§112 and 198 Framework. 74 CD1.5 – see esp. tables in Appendices A and B. 75 §112

52 agricultural land has been suggested. Furthermore, even if it was found that a 5 YHLS did not exist, the Appellant has not produced any evidence to show that lower quality land is not available.

7.32 The Appellant’s agricultural evidence76 in fact suggests that land of Grade 2 quality (as on much of the appeal site) is not likely to be typical of land in the wider area. Furthermore, that in the most plausible directions for further additional growth around Burton there appear to be significant areas which do not contain BMV land at all (or at least in lower proportions to the appeal site which is all BMV). Mrs Hodson accepted that no assessment had been carried out to assess the availability and suitability of any potential sites in these areas of lower quality land to accommodate the kind of development proposed here. Consequently, as Mr. Kernon concluded, the proposals are inevitably contrary to the Framework. Furthermore, the proportion of grade 2 land, and BMV generally, is substantially lower in this area than in the country at large77 – a factor which can only add weight to the objections to its loss.

7.33 The Council contend that the loss of BMV land is not just an adverse impact to be weighed in the balance for the purposes of the second bullet point in §14 of the Framework. Rather it is a specific policy indicating that development should be restricted and thus the second bullet point disapplied. The question of what constitutes a specific policy has been considered in the High Court by Mr Justice Coulson78 who concluded that specific policies are ones which “indicate that development should be restricted” where they limit development and “cut across” the balancing exercise that would otherwise fall to be applied under the second bullet point in §1479.

7.34 The second sentence in Framework §112 is no less a “specific policy” than §114. It plainly does seek to restrict development on BMV and does so by indicating an approach which “cuts across” the balance that would otherwise be required under the second bullet point of §14 because it requires the necessity for such development to be demonstrated, and also requires Councils to encourage the use of lower quality land, as opposed to simply requiring the harm that would arise from such development to be weighed against the presumption or ‘tilted balance’ in §14. The contrast with the first sentence in §112 (which applies even if significant development of agricultural land is not proposed) is marked: where significant development of agricultural land is not proposed decision- makers are only instructed to take the benefits of BMV into account, whereas where significant development is proposed on such land, LPAs are directed to take a more rigorous approach.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development

7.35 The Council do not accept that the Framework requires planning permission to be granted contrary to a development plan which is not out- of-date or inconsistent with the Framework, in circumstances where a 5

76 LRA map. 77 Inquiry document ESBC 5 78 Forest of Dean DC v Gladman [2016] EWHC 421 (Admin) 79 §28 ibid

53 YHLS can be demonstrated, simply on the basis that the development in question is considered to be ‘sustainable’.

7.36 The common factor in each of the circumstances which may justify a decision being made contrary to the plan in Framework §14 is that they represent “shortcomings” in the plan. In those circumstances, it is legitimate, consistently with s.38(6), for national policy to set out an alternative basis for decision making80.

7.37 To read the Framework as providing for decisions to be made on an alternative basis to the plan, even where the plan has no such shortcomings and has been found to be up-to-date and consistent with national policy, would substantially undermine the presumptive priority afforded to the plan by statute. It would also be contrary to a planning system remaining plan led and the central importance which the Framework places on having an up-to-date plan.

7.38 The Framework also explains why there should generally be little or no room for arguing that a proposal which is contrary to such an up-to-date development plan constitutes “sustainable development” of the sort that it seeks to encourage. This is because the plan itself (a) is to be regarded as central to the delivery of sustainable development, (b) must be consistent with the Framework’s policies on sustainable development (including the presumption), and (c) should specifically reflect a vision of what will and will not constitute sustainable development in the area covered by the plan.

7.39 The Framework81 explains that sustainable development is to be ascertained by §§18-217 read as a whole. It is impossible therefore to see how the Framework generally, or the presumption in favour of sustainable development specifically, can be relied on to justify a decision being made contrary to an up-to-date plan (particularly where it is contrary to a made Neighbourhood Plan) save where the plan is not to be treated as up-to- date because a 5 YHLS exists.

7.40 The form of development proposed here was fully foreseen and considered during the LP process. Indeed, the fact that the appeal site was included within the SHLAA82 and was promoted as an alternative site shows by itself that the plan was consciously adopted knowing that it would not only preclude development proposals of this kind but of this site in particular.

7.41 In Cheshire East BC v SSCLG and Renew Land Developments Ltd83 Mr. Justice Jay held that an “extrinsic” assessment of whether a development is sustainable cannot be performed outside the parameters of paragraph 14 because it would be “unworkable”. Instead, he held that paragraph 14 itself defines (or “teaches” how to decide) whether a proposal constitutes sustainable development. It follows from this to ask whether something which does not pass the paragraph 14 test constitutes sustainable

80 As per Lindblom J. in Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 754 81 §6 and see comments on local plans at §150, §151, §182 and §198 in respect of Neighbourhood Plans. 82 CD 9.2 83 [2016] EWHC 571 at 26 and see §§18, 19, 26, 27, 28

54 development is nonsensical. By definition, if it fails paragraph 14 then it is not sustainable development.

7.42 However, it is acknowledged that the reasoning in Renew does not appear to be consistent with that of Mr. Justice Coulson in Wychavon v SSCLG84 where he accepted that the presumption in favour of sustainable development could be engaged even if a development did not fall to be permitted under paragraph 14. Furthermore, it also needs to be noted that Mr. Justice Jay himself acknowledged that his reasoning and conclusion on paragraph 14 was certainly inconsistent with that of Lang J in William Davis and also potentially inconsistent with that of Patterson J in Dartford BC.

7.43 It is notable that the Wychavon case is silent about the correct approach to determining sustainability when a proposal is contrary to an up-to-date plan adopted post Framework. In that case the development plan in force dated from 2006 and thus pre-dated the Framework. Conflict with such a plan may not necessarily determine that the development was not sustainable. By contrast, conflict with a plan adopted post the Framework should indicate a lack of sustainability.

7.44 The Council’s approach is consistent with the Wychavon judgment and the Ashflats appeal decision85 and the Hambrook appeal decision. The Ashflats decision was upheld by the High Court86 and the conclusions of the Inspector in the Hambrook decision were fully accepted by the Secretary of State in his decision letter87.

7.45 The Appellant relies upon the recent appeal decision in Lower Outwoods Road/Red House Farm (No.2). In that decision the Inspector considered whether the development was sustainable simply by way of a freestanding balancing of factors under each dimension of sustainability and does not appear to have factored into his assessment that the proposal was contrary to the recently adopted and up-to-date ESLP. This approach is objectionable. The Appellant’s witness88 accepted that conformity or conflict with a development plan adopted post-Framework must be regarded as at least being relevant to whether a proposal constitutes sustainable development.

Primary Education

7.46 The UU contains obligations requiring an area of 1.69 ha to be offered to SCC for a new primary school, together with the payment of financial contributions towards it. The Appellant claims that these obligations serve two purposes, firstly, as meeting the need for additional primary school places generated by the development itself (equivalent to 0.5FE) and, secondly, as providing additional “much-needed” primary capacity for the wider area. Clearly, the first purpose cannot be regarded as a benefit of

84 [2016] EWHC 592 Admin18 85 CD 10.17, see §§108-117. 86 Milwood Land (Stafford) Ltd v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 1836 (Admin) 87 See Hambrook DL18-21 88 Mrs Hodson during cross-examination

55 the development. Rather, it is merely part of what is required to mitigate the development’s impact.

7.47 Furthermore, whether the additional capacity that the Appellant’s refer to can be regarded as securing a wider benefit and, if so, what weight should be given it, depends on a number of factors. In particular:

• whether a need has been demonstrated for an additional primary school (or schools) in Burton, having regard to existing and planned primary provision in the area;

• whether, if there is a need, it has been shown that it cannot be accommodated in more suitable locations (e.g. within the settlement boundary, not on BMV land);

• whether the school would be well-located in relation to identified needs;

• the extent to which there is any assurance that a school will be delivered if the appeal is allowed; and

• the likely capacity of the school.

7.48 It is not argued that the scheme constitutes enabling development. Therefore even if the provision of land for a school is regarded as a benefit – it cannot be regarded as overriding any such policy conflict.

Need for additional primary schools

7.49 There are three different forecasts before the Inquiry as to need for primary school places in Burton over the plan period. None of them, however, provide evidence to demonstrate that there is a need, much less an overriding need, for a school on this site.

7.50 The Cambridge report forecast that, without any additional provision over its baseline, there would be a deficit in primary places in Burton of -2.5 FE in 2016 rising to -9 FE by 203089. The Arup Infrastructure Delivery Plan (‘the IDP’) which was prepared at the same time as the Cambridge report and in light of it, forecast the deficit at 2030 to be higher at -10.5FE, albeit proceeding from a different baseline from the Cambridge study90.

7.51 Whilst the AMEC site search report purported to be based on the evidence of need in the Cambridge report and the IDP, in fact it presents different figures for the deficit (a range of -9.6 to -11.6 FE by 2030) or, allowing for windfalls, around -12.5 FE. Those figures differ, however, again from the aggregate of 6.5 FE and 4.3 FE to 10.8 FE referred to in the bullet points on p.2.

7.52 The Arup IDP assesses existing, planned and anticipated supply and concludes that the deficit it forecasts will be met91. It is to be noted that the IDP was relied on by the Local Plan Inspector when assessing the soundness of the plan.

89 CD12.1, appendix C 90 Anna Miller appendix B, table 19, p.56 and XIC of Anna Miller 91 Ibid, §10.5.1 and 10.6.2

56 7.53 By contrast, since part 2 of the Cambridge report did not proceed, it contains no assessment of whether the anticipated supply of places would or would not meet its forecast deficit. However, the analysis of existing and planned provision in Mrs. Miller’s evidence demonstrates that the deficit forecast in both the IDP and the Cambridge report would be met.

7.54 However, as Mrs. Miller explains, the total amount of new provision already made or planned amounts to 15.78 FE (or 3,297 places), judged against the IDP baseline deficit of -10.5 F, or 10.28 FE judged against the Cambridge baseline deficit of -9FE.92

7.55 Furthermore, although the AMEC report proceeded on the basis that two further 2FE schools would be required over and above existing and planned provision in area 1 (centre and the north of town) and 0.3 FE new provision would be required in area 2 (Branston), giving a total residual shortfall of -4.3 FE93, it is clear that this need will be either substantially by sites which were not taken into account as part of its baseline94.

7.56 Accordingly, even taking the AMEC report at face value, the shortfall would be at most only -0.3 FE which is not a pressing need. It could be met in any event in other ways over the plan period by either expansion or the provision of an additional school elsewhere. It is unclear generally how the figures in the AMEC report have been derived from the Cambridge report and the IDP (which they claim to be). By contrast, the AMEC’s figures were calculated on the assumption that the Cambridge report did not take into account windfalls (for which an additional allowance of 1 FE was made). This, however, is contradicted by what is said in the Cambridge report itself.

7.57 The projections become forecasts when proposed new housing is taken into account and the new housing figures are built into the forecast model95. Once the figures are corrected for this, AMEC’s shortfall of -4.3 FE requiring additional provision by 2030, reduces to -3.3 FE, which is less than the sum of the capacity of the three new additional sites referred to above (i.e. 4 FE), meaning that there is demonstrably no shortfall on the basis of any of the three reports.

Alternatives

7.58 If it is concluded that a significant and pressing need for additional primary provision has been demonstrated, it is still necessary to ask whether a more suitable (less unacceptable) site or sites may be available, given the location of the appeal site outside the settlement boundary and on grade 2 and 3a BMV agricultural land. The extent of the shortfall, even on the basis of the AMEC report, would at most be -0.3 FE. However, the Appellant accepts that no proper assessment of alternatives has been undertaken96 given its assumption that the site was acceptable.

92 A list of the extra provision relied upon is cited at §84 of the Council’s Closing Submissions Inquiry document ESBC.16 93 CD12.2, §1.2.1 94 A list of the sites is contained at §86 Council’s Closing Submissions. 95 Cambridge report CD12.1, p.35 96 Mrs Hodson in cross-examination on the basis that the site was suitable in its own right.

57 7.59 The scheme is clearly not acceptable in terms of the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan, given its location outside the settlement boundary. Equally, the provision of a school on the site – although not something for which permission is sought as part of this application – could only be acceptable in terms of policy SP8 if an overriding need for it to be located in the countryside is demonstrated. Likewise, the use of grade 2 and 3a BMV land is only acceptable97 if it is shown that lower quality land is not available. All of these matters therefore point to the need for an assessment of potential alternative sites.

7.60 Whilst the AMEC report did not find any potential sites for schools within the urban area:

• the sites were not assessed in comparison to the appeal site and at least some of those identified would not appear to be subject to the same objection in terms of agricultural land classification;

• the search criteria applied involved treating 2ha as the “absolute minimum” required for a 2FE school98. SCC’s evidence to the inquiry, however, indicates only 1.64ha is in fact required for a 2FE school. No justification been given for the more demanding size criterion applied in the report. Equally, nor is there any explanation as to why sites large enough for a 1FE school were not considered at all – which, according to SCC, would only require 0.9ha. Accordingly, additional potentially suitable sites falling within these parameters, including within the urban area, may well have been omitted;

• the assumptions in the report relating to the alleged limited capacity for expanding existing schools have not been explained or justified in the report or elsewhere99.

Relationship with identified needs

7.61 The AMEC report also acknowledged that the area including the appeal site is located “some distance from the main areas of planned growth and the LEA’s identified areas of need”100 – which suggests that the location may not be suitable, or at least the most suitable, in terms of policy SP10 of the Local Plan. This requires demonstration that a proposed school is accessible for the need which it is intended to meet. In addition SP8 requires a demonstration of an “overriding need” for a school in this location. This concern is consistent with the fact that SCC advised that “the need for a school in this location [was] driven in the main by the housing proposal”101. Assurance regarding school provision

7.62 There is nothing to ensure that a school will be delivered on the site even if the appeal is allowed. In particular, there is nothing within the UU which

97 In accordance with Framework §112 98 CD12.2, §2.3.1 99 Ibid, §1.2.1 100 Ibid, §4.5.1 101 CD3.4, p.2

58 requires it to be delivered or which would prevent the housing on site from being constructed and occupied if a school were not – for any reason – to come forward.

7.63 There are also a number of potential impediments to the delivery of the school – including the need to obtain planning permission for it and the need for a sponsor willing to establish and run the school to be identified and approved by the Secretary of State. Nothing, apparently, has been done in either respect thus far. In particular, a grant of permission cannot be assumed to be inevitable, or even likely, given the conflict arising from the site’s location outside the settlement boundary and the lack of evidence to show that the criteria for a school to be permitted in those circumstances are met.

Capacity of the school

7.64 The Appellant has referred to the potential for a 2FE school to be accommodated on the site. However, it is clear that even if the issues described above are overcome, the school would in the first instance be 1FE. Furthermore, although there might be sufficient land to expand the school to 2FE in future, this is clearly not the intention at present and a number of issues would in any event arise, which have yet to be considered, much less resolved – e.g. there has been no assessment of the highways implications of a 2FE school and, as already noted, there is an absence of evidence to demonstrate how a school in this location would be suitable in terms of its relationship with the LEA’s areas of need.

7.65 Accordingly, the scale of the suggested “wider benefit” could at most be assessed as equivalent (potentially) to 0.5FE. Furthermore, since the maximum extent of the shortfall even on the face of the AMEC report, is - 0.3 FE, the benefit (if it can be regarded as one) provided by the appeal incorporating provision for a primary school is extremely small. In conclusion, no weight – or at best, very limited weight – should be given to the alleged benefit of the development in terms of enabling (potentially) a primary school to be provided on site.

7.66 For all the reasons set out above, the Council respectfully invites the Secretary of State to dismiss the appeal. The Case for Save our Stretton (SOS)

8.1 This summary contains all material points in relation to the case of Save our Stretton. It is taken from the submissions made and evidence given on behalf of SOS and from other documents submitted to the Inquiry.

8.2 Some 1906 people voted yes for the Stretton Neighbourhood Plan (SNP)102. The SNP plan demonstrates that Stretton wants to take an active part in developing a plan for the future of the parish. It is a plan that conforms with the ESLP and will build 436 houses in Stretton. The appeal development is in conflict with the made SNP.

102 CD 7.4

59 8.3 We have heard a lot of evidence that demonstrates that East Staffordshire has a 5 YHLS. SOS think ESBC are being a little too pessimistic in their calculations considering the significant windfall numbers that they have achieved.

8.4 SOS is gratified that everyone agrees that the appeal site comprises over 20 hectares of BMV land103. As such this is a significant amount that has weight in the planning balance. There is no detailed evidence provided to dispute this is grade 2 land and we have seen that there is only a very small percentage of Grade 2 land in the East Staffordshire area104. This represents a scarce resource that we should protect and keep for future generations.

8.5 A key concern for SOS has been the limited consultation105 which has failed to find all the harm and was not used to improve the application or to ensure the harm has been mitigated. There are important points raised in the Community involvement process on flooding, schools, agricultural land, landscape and ecology. These are items which, if followed up, could have helped assess the harm properly and given the Appellant the choice to bring forward effective mitigations.

8.6 SOS has looked at the proposal in a detailed manner because that is where we see the problems. This level of scrutiny is necessary for the current Stretton residents and for the future Stretton residents if this appeal is allowed.

Education Provision

8.7 The two key areas which we think clearly demonstrate this application is unsustainable are in education and traffic. There is an email SCC which confirms that building houses without a school on this site it is unsustainable106. This demonstrates that you cannot measure sustainability by distance to amenities but you need to consider the capacity of those amenities and more than that, SCC said that you cannot just take offsite funds if there is not a detailed plan107.

8.8 It was confirmed that the County Council made a positive decision not to complete a traffic survey for a 2 FE Primary School. So there is no evidence this school could be extended and so this possibility should have no weight. We have heard about the need for Primary School places in the area, but that did not prevent the County Council bringing forward its own 500 house application at Glenville Farm108 without a school. That is clearly a site where the County Council could put a school if it needed one.

8.9 If it is so much of a problem SOS questions why SCC is not the discussing alternative options with ESBC and why SCC seem happy to wait until they know the result of this appeal. If it is so much of a problem, why is there no confirmed timeline for the Primary school to be built and no conditions

103 CD 8.1 104 ESBC5 and CD 12.14 105 See Statement of Community Involvement at CD 1.16 106 SCC consultation response to previous application for 425 houses at CD 12.8 p 232-234 107 Ibid 3rd paragraph of page 2 108 ESBC.15

60 linking house-building a school becoming available. There are no detailed plans for a school. We just have some land safeguarded. There has been no assessment of car parking issues and no confirmation that when flood ditch and drainage mitigation measures are put in place, there would be enough space for this school.

8.10 As SCC have said they need 1.65 hectares for a school site, assuming the site is perfect, with no difficulties and is fully useable. This is not known for sure. All of this points to a lot of uncertainty.

8.11 It was thought that 50% of the houses would be built before the school is available. There is no evidence to explain where the children from the first houses would go to school in the interim. There is nothing from the SCC in its Position Statement to address this. In fact we now are not even sure that a school would be in existence after 50% of the houses are built, as we know there is no condition to that effect.

8.12 If a development of houses, without a school, is unsustainable, how can it be sustainable to build 50% of the houses, before a school is available. We are told that if the primary school was built, it would be located between strategic sites; one of these is the Council’s own site at Glenville Farm. It is located between strategic sites as a crow flies. However, as we have seen on the walking isotherm, Glenville Farm is mostly over two kilometres from the appeal site. Therefore a school on the appeal site would not be well located and the distance between any school and the Glenville Farm development would lead to even more school traffic.

8.13 SOS has specifically asked about the provision of school places for special needs children and has had no answer at all on that topic. No provision is proposed so that aspect of the proposal is unsustainable. SOS has said many times that De Ferrers School is full. Recently there were 524 applications for 350 places starting this September and that does not include future demand from the 950 house Beam Hill site located near the school.

8.14 There is a serious lack of secondary provision in East Staffordshire and SCC’s potential solution is 5 miles from Stretton. That school is dependent on the Secretary of State to give approval which must come quickly or the opening date is at risk. We are told that De Ferrers Academy will take the children but there is no plan and no timescales. The engagement has been with SCC and not with the De Ferrers Academy. This is important as the De Ferrers Academy determines its own catchment policy.

8.15 There was an excellent opportunity for the Appellant to engage with the Academy Principal after his response to the community involvement process and his offer to meet the Appellant. They chose not to follow that up, so we have no confirmation from De Ferrers that they would take any additional pupils arising from the appeal proposal.

8.16 There are no concrete plans at all, so accepting a financial contribution, in lieu of actual provision, is not sustainable. It was not considered sustainable previously when the Appellant proposed monies for off-site provision for a Primary School. SOS contends that with all of the

61 uncertainty surrounding this matter, we should not add even more houses to make the education provision problem worse.

Highway Safety

8.17 SOS has stressed throughout the Inquiry the levels of concern from Stretton residents on traffic and road safety. The concern is that the old road structure would struggle to cope with the additional traffic from the proposed houses in addition to the 436 being built in Stretton.

8.18 SOS is pleased that the traffic surveys it produced109 were accepted by Mr Jackson as valid110. We contend that the SATURN software model can be flawed, if that data entered into the system is flawed then it can lead to false or erroneous conclusions: ‘Garbage in leading to garbage out’. This has already been seen when this application’s initial traffic model needed to be corrected. It was a modelling error, not the fault of the Appellant which demonstrates that without correct data errors occur.

8.19 The traffic surveys provided by the SOS group cast doubt on the data fed into the SATURN model, which can cause errors in the output. Mr Jackson said that the model has routing algorithms and updated junction information amongst other things that can explain the difference with our surveys. However this assumes that the initial flows in the system are correct and that local routing logic is applied correctly. SOS question this, as the data from our traffic surveys on Rolleston Road shows traffic flow is heavily influenced by school traffic. So why would congestion in Stretton stop people dropping their children off at school?

8.20 On the approach to the A38, SOS has explained that travelling up Derby Road, where there is a right of way, is a less stressful, simpler journey than alternatives. We see no reason why people currently using this route would divert to more difficult routes.

8.21 SOS has not tried to ambush this inquiry with this concern. We had a meeting with SCC in June 2014 and later so did the parish council. Our statement of case raised the concern, as has the evidence of Mr Lamb which included all the traffic survey data. This has provided plenty of time for people to investigate. There is nothing in the agreed Position Statement between the Appellant and SCC to indicate that the SOS concerns have been investigated and are invalid.

8.22 If the data is incorrect, the full impact will have been understated and the proposed mitigation would not address the harm and may lead to severe problems. The A38 improvement will be compromised if extra traffic proceeds down the Derby Road onto the A38. It would increase the queuing time on the approach from Claymills Road which in turn could potentially cause traffic to back up to the Church Road junction and cause major congestion outside the school.

109 Contained within the written statement of Mr Lamb. 110 In cross-examination Mr Jackson accepted that the traffic survey data of SOS was a reasonable representation of the existing traffic situation.

62 8.23 SOS contends that it is not known that the proposed A38 improvement scheme is fit for purpose. The potential improvement at the Church Road cross roads were presented by the Appellant to SCC but we have no confirmation from SCC that the proposal would be accepted.

8.24 Converting the current Church Road junction into a signal controlled one on its own was not a good enough solution, as it would leave little capacity. The option to make The Green two-way would revert to the approach used in the 1980s when Stretton was much smaller and The Green was changed to one-way for safety reasons. As there has not been a road safety audit on this proposal we do not know if this is a safe solution. This junction is already an example where driver frustration leads to near misses and we have seen another Inspector’s view111 that such a situation could cause more safety problems with additional traffic.

8.25 With no clear view as to which traffic improvements will happen in Stretton we cannot be sure that traffic problem will be mitigated. Therefore we cannot be satisfied that the concerns on road safety raised by the Heads of Fountains School and William Shrewsbury School will be resolved.

8.26 SOS raised concerns about Craythorne Road north and how children from Rolleston would get to a school on the appeal site and how children from the development would be safe walking to the adventure playground in Rolleston. This was a concern echoed by Rolleston Parish Council.

8.27 Craythorne Road North to Rolleston has no speed limit, no pavement, no lights and has flooded and it is a serious safety concern. The purported solution of assuming that parents should drive their children to the school for safety reasons is not sustainable. The proposed use of a few passing places has not been subject to a road safety audit so as to say this is satisfactory mitigation.

8.28 Making this road wider, adding street lights and a pavement, resolving the flooding issues and applying a speed limit would solve this problem but it is not proposed. SOS really believe this is a serious safety issue and the harm needs to be properly mitigated.

8.29 Road safety concerns were raised after the recent accidents in Stretton and on the A38 and during this Inquiry we had another accident at the junction of Craythorne Road and Bitham Lane. The A38 concerns were discussed and it was confirmed that Highways England are carrying out a safety review. SOS also mentioned the concerns of the local MP, Andrew Griffiths, that this is not the right time to approve more houses until these issues are resolved.

Landscape Issues

8.30 On landscape matters there is no detailed explanation why several views have been said to have a low sensitivity for pedestrians, even though they are regularly used for leisure walking.

111 SOS evidence p12, point 3.17

63 8.31 The Appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)112 confirms that there is a need for the judgments to be reasonable and based on clear and transparent methods so that the reasoning applied can be traced and examined by others. SOS contends that there is not a clear and transparent method for the conclusions as to Moderate Adverse assessments on the views from Craythorne Road.

8.32 June Kirkland gave evidence to the Inquiry on behalf of SOS113. She explained about the Bulwaulk and how it has been an important part of Stretton history. It is not disputed that people have been using the Bulwaulk for 60 years. An application for a right of way to be designated has been submitted to SCC. The panoramic views from the Bulwaulk were not considered and we do not believe the landscape harm has suitably been assessed.

Other Matters

8.33 On ecology we know that the ecology report114 does not consider the Bulwaulk and again that the concerns raised by people in the community involvement were not considered. We do not believe the harm has suitably been assessed.

8.34 On flooding SOS has seen the OPUS report which repeatedly claimed that no evidence of flooding was provided. However, many people commented on that in the community involvement process. There are several photographs115 of flooding from Bitham Lane, Craythorne Road, Stretton Allotments and from recent rainfall.

8.35 The initial assessment proposed a sustainable urban drainage system in the lowest point of the site as the solution but that is now the location of the proposed school. The location of the school would potentially create more risks to the people living in Bitham Lane and Craythorne Road who have raised flooding concerns. It is not known if the resolution of any potential flooding issues would require a large reduction in school land to provide ditch mitigations. This in turn could impact on the land available for a school site and might mean that the School could not meet the minimum space requirements.

8.36 The proposed access points from Craythorne Road into the site have not been discussed with the local residents. This is a failing as the residents may have specific local knowledge that may impact the design. SOS has highlighted concerns about flooding issues down Craythore Road and we know the latest OPUS flooding assessment did not have the revised access proposals with the updated details of the road changes. In addition the positions of existing trees may impact the solution and again these concerns are not resolved.

8.37 In relation to other concerns on lack of parking places in the village and the pressure on the medical centres, SOS points out that no responses on

112 CD 1.5, paragraph 2.24. 113 Mrs Kirkland has submitted a proof of evidence 114 CD 1.8 115 Inquiry document SOS 3

64 the concerns raised in the community involvement. SOS also mentioned concerns about the design of development and the need to maintain the character of Craythorne Road. This is another concern not addressed.

8.38 SOS has identified many issues and we have not seen them resolved at this Inquiry. The harm has not been properly assessed and the mitigations are not sufficient. SOS maintains that the development proposed in unsustainable and is in conflict with the ESLP and the SNP. For all of the above reasons it is requested that the Secretary of State be recommended to dismiss the appeal.

Other Third Party Oral Submissions

Rolleston Parish Council

8.39 The Chairman of Rolleston Parish Council made oral representations to the Inquiry. The Rolleston Parish boundary is a short distance from the appeal site and the Parish Council has objected in writing to the proposal. The site is not included in either the ESLP or the SNP as a site for development and it is outside the settlement boundary. Development on the site would result in the loss of good quality agricultural land which is grade 2 and has produced strong crop yields.

8.40 The development would bring increased traffic from the appeal site, a large proportion of which would travel to Rolleston on Dove along Craythorne Road. There have been several incidents along this stretch of road, including one fatality. The scheme would also result in increased traffic travelling towards the A38 through the Bitham Lane/Church Road junction and in the other direction through the Bitham Lane/Rolleston Road intersection to Tutbury and the A50. This latter junction is an accident blackspot. Increased traffic flows could jeopardise the rural riding school in the vicinity making it hazardous for riders along the country lanes.

8.41 The Parish Council is also concerned about coalescence between Stretton and Rolleston on Dove and resists any reduction in the green gap between the two especially given that the Council has sufficient housing land supply. Finally the Parish Council contends that there is a distinct lack of secondary school provision which would result in a significant number of Rolleston on Dove children being displaced from De Ferrers Academy and bussed to Branston. The Parish Council requests that the appeal be dismissed.

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

8.42 Mr Windmill from the Staffordshire branch of CPRE attended the Inquiry to make representations. He submitted two written statements116 of his objections on planning and policy grounds and elaborated on them in his oral evidence. CPRE object to the proposal on the basis that the site is unallocated in the ESLP which was adopted in 2015 and which would have undergone an extensive examination process. The Council has demonstrated a 5 YHLS using criteria in the Framework and has met all

116 Inquiry documents 3P.2 and 3P.3

65 legal and procedural requirements in terms of its local plan. The local plan Inspector made it clear that the site should not be allocated.

8.43 CPRE objects in principle to the development of a greenfield site in the absence of any evidence of need. There are not sufficient material considerations to overcome the ESLP policy objections.

8.44 In terms of housing CPRE contends that this appeal should not be an opportunity to re-examine matters which have already been subject to scrutiny by the Local Plan Inspector. ESBC have not made an allowance for new windfall sites which are an important contributor to the housing land supply chain. Greenfield windfall sites are not required to meet targets in this instance.

8.45 In terms of completions/delivery rates it is the position of CPRE that developers sometimes hold back sites or delay development for their own purposes. Homes must be delivered through a plan led system otherwise there would be a free for all approach. CPRE requests that the appeal be dismissed.

Written Representations

8.46 There have been many other written representations objecting to the proposal at both application stage and at appeal stage. Over 1117 letters were received by the Council following two rounds of consultation. Many of the letters of objection repeat the concerns set out above by others and support the Council’s case.

8.47 In particular Rolleston Parish Council and Stretton Parish Council have written to object on the basis of the site’s location outside the settlement boundary, highway objections and the lack of educational infrastructure. The risk of coalescence between Stretton and Rolleston is raised. Other concerns relate to the effect upon local services and amenities and the loss of green space and lack of open space and inadequate bus service provision.

Planning Conditions

9.1 A schedule of agreed conditions was submitted by the Council and Appellant117 and was the subject of two discussion sessions at the Inquiry. Following the first discussions an amended schedule118 was submitted. I am satisfied that all of the conditions set out in Annex B hereto are reasonable and necessary and I would recommend their imposition in the event that the Secretary of State is minded to allow the appeal.

9.2 Using the same numeration as that in the suggested conditions schedule I shall comment upon the conditions. Some conditions have been amended or amalgamated for clarity, precision, elimination of duplication and having taken account of advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have also re- ordered the conditions.

117 ESBC.3 118 ESBC.13

66 9.3 A masterplan to deal with phasing and the location of key areas of development, including the location of the 1.69 hectares of safeguarded land is necessary to ensure the proper planning of the site (1). Time limits for submission of reserved matters and commencement of development need to be imposed. To encourage development to come forward in a timely manner it was agreed that a shorter time limit should be imposed in relation to the first phase of development (2, 3 and 7). It is necessary to secure development in accordance with the submitted plans and, in the event that access is acceptable, in accordance with the access plans. (4 and 5)

9.4 It is important to limit the development to no more than 385 dwellings (6) and to control the details which come forward as part of the reserved matters application (8, 9). A noise impact assessment is also required in relation to each phase to ensure satisfactory living conditions (10) and parking areas and garages need to be secured in the interests of highway safety (11, 14 and 15). A series of off-site highway improvement works would be necessary as a result of the development and these are secured via a Grampian style condition (12). Further design details are required in relation to the access provision (13).

9.5 Conditions would be needed to control activities and operations during the construction phase and the hours of construction as well as dust control measures (16, 17 and unnumbered final condition). A condition requiring site investigation in relation to contamination is required so that any contamination may be satisfactorily remediated (18). A condition requiring the investigation of archaeological matters is necessary to protect those interests (19). Protection measures in relation to trees, habitats, protected species and nesting birds are also required (20, 21, 22 and 23).

9.6 The development would need to be carried out in accordance with the measures set out in the Flood Risk Assessment as well as securing a drainage strategy and to control the rate of development with regard to foul drainage (24 and 25). The finished levels on the site need to be controlled as does landscaping and the provision of open space (26, 27, 28 and 29). Finally it is important to secure the implementation of a travel plan to encourage sustainable modes of transport (30).

Planning Obligations

9.7 The executed unilateral undertaking (UU)119 made in accordance with section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 199O secures the provision of affordable housing on-site, as well as a financial contribution to affordable housing off-site. It also secures the payment of financial sums in relation to both secondary and primary school provision, as well as the provision of 1.6 hectares of land for a school site.

9.8 The UU further provides for a financial sum to be paid into the Transport Strategy Contribution towards improvements set out in the Burton Integrated Transport Strategy with specific projects earmarked in Stretton. It also secures the provision of a Travel Plan and open space and a play

119 GDL.28

67 area on the appeal site as well as a general contribution to refuse operations. The Appellant raises no objections to any of the contributions sought.

9.9 Document ESBC.4 sets out the Council’s justification for each of the contributions sought in accordance with the policy tests set out in the Framework and the statutory test in regulations 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.

9.10 The provision of affordable housing is in line with the adopted ESLP requirements in policy SP17 and the Council’s Housing Choices Supplementary Planning Document. The position regarding educational infrastructure was explored in full at the Inquiry. The education contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and are directly related to it and reasonably related in scale and kind. The offer to provide a 1.69 hectare site for transfer to the County Council will depend upon my findings in relation to the dispute regarding any future deficit.

9.11 The highways contributions are agreed between the relevant highways authorities and are specifically designed to mitigate the effects of the development on the local highway network. They are necessary and reasonable and appropriate in scale and kind. Similarly the provision of a Travel Plan is designed to make the development acceptable and to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of travel in accordance with local and national policy objectives.

9.12 Open space, play areas and landscaping are required to meet the needs of residents on the site and are proportionate to the scale of development proposed. The requirements are in accordance with ESLP policy SP32 and the Council’s Open Space Supplementary Planning Document. The contribution towards refuse contribution is designed to fund recycling facilities by contributing toward a recycling bin for each property.

9.13 Overall I am satisfied that the obligations in the UU (with the exception of the school site which I shall return to) meet the tests in CIL regulation 122 and I would recommend that they be taken into account in assessing the appeal.

9.14 The Council also gave evidence to the Inquiry as to the number of pooled contributions in relation to highways and education. The highways contributions in the UU are specifically for the Stretton ward and there have been no other contributions made towards highways improvements in this ward. There have been no other relevant financial contributions towards primary school places in the area in which the appeal site is located. There have been two other relevant contributions to the de Ferrers Academy which is the academy which would receive the secondary school contribution. I am satisfied that none of the financial contributions fall foul of the pooling restrictions in regulation 123 CIL regulations and as such they can be taken into account.

68 9.15 At the start of the Inquiry there were a number of disputes between the Appellant and the Council and SCC regarding the drafting of the UU120. Many of these disputes regarding the mechanics of the agreement fell away, with the exception of one remaining dispute regarding the release of individual plot purchasers from the binding obligations in the executed UU.121

9.16 Clause 5.6 of the UU confirms that the deed shall not be enforceable against owner-occupiers or tenants (other than in relation to on-site affordable housing provisions). A conditionality clause is included at clause 5.7 deleting clause 5.6 in the event that the Secretary of State considers it to be unreasonable and concludes that no weight should be attached to the UU.

9.17 The Council contends that it is inappropriate to release individual purchasers/tenants where there are ongoing obligations in the deed such as education and highways payments and in the Travel Plan provisions. A fundamental legal tenet of planning obligations is that they should run with the land so as to be binding on the successors in title of the original parties. Any planning obligation is registered as a local land charge and would become known to any potential plot purchaser. The Appellant is concerned that this would be off-putting to purchasers and their mortgagees.

9.18 In this case it is important to look at the terms upon which the financial contributions are to be made. The off-site affordable housing contribution is to be made in four tranches before occupation of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of the market housing. It is important to look at the commercial risk to the Council of a developer not honouring these payments. In this instance it is reasonable to assume that there would be a reasonable profit in the provision of 20% of market housing such as to provide the developer with a commercial incentive to make the payment. Any failure to meet the obligation would be apparent on 20% occupation (or the other points thereafter) and the Council could take steps to enforce against the developer.

9.19 The combined education payments are to be paid in a number of tranches; 10% prior to development, 30% before occupation of 20% of the housing, 30% to be paid prior to occupation of 40% of the dwellings and the balance prior to occupation of 60% of the dwellings. Again this is a reasonably tight timescale in terms of the financial contribution being front-loaded on the development. The education contribution would be paid in full before 60% of the houses had been occupied which would provide adequate security for the Council.

9.20 Finally the highways contribution would be paid in instalments with 10% prior to commencement on any phase and the balance on that phase to be paid prior to 50% occupation.

120 Set out at GDL.21 and ESBC.11 121 GDL.28, UU executed 10 June 2016.

69 9.21 Having regard to the above I conclude that the commercial risks to the Council of exempting plot purchasers from the obligation are very limited. The contributions are spread evenly across the development which further reduces the risk. In other words this is not a case where the financial contribution is made at the end and where the developer could sell off most of the houses and not make payment. It would be apparent that a breach had occurred if there was non-payment at any of the trigger points and the Council could take action. I also bear in mind that the Council confirmed that it had never taken action against individual plot purchasers which I do not find surprising.

9.22 Finally the provision of a Travel Plan is secured by condition prior to the occupation of the 50th dwelling. It will set out objectives, targets, mechanisms and measures to achieve targets. Given the nature of this requirement it would not be possible or reasonable to enforce travel plan measures against an individual occupier in any event.

9.23 I therefore conclude that it is reasonable to allow the plot purchaser exemption provisions in clause 5.6 of the UU to remain. I would recommend that the UU be taken into account with clause 5.6 intact. I note that this is an approach recommended previously.122

122 GDL.25, report to Secretary of State Land at Church Lane, Wistaton.

70 Inspector’s Conclusions

In this section the numbers in [subscript] refer to preceding paragraphs

10.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that, in dealing with proposals for planning permission, regard must be had to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that if regard is to be had to the development plan for any determination then that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

10.2 In this case the Council and Appellant are broadly agreed that the proposal is contrary to the development plan [6.8, 6.8, 7.2, 7.11, 7.13]. There are then a series of material considerations relevant to a final assessment and planning balance. Those considerations include national policy advice in the Framework, in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the need to maintain a 5 YHLS; education considerations including the extent of any unmet general need within the borough and the degree to which the proposal would make a positive contribution to it and the loss of BMV agricultural land. In addition SOS raises concerns in relation to highways, landscape and other issues which I shall also consider.[8.17-8.38]

10.3 I shall first assess the proposal against the development plan and then go on to examine the other material considerations, before giving my overall conclusions and recommendation.

Conformity with the development plan

10.4 The development plan for the area containing the appeal site includes the adopted ESLP and the ‘made’ SNP. It is common ground that the proposal conflicts with ESLP policy SP8 because it is located outside the settlement boundary. One of the exceptions within SP8 allows for facilities outside settlement boundaries, as long as they are for use by the general public and on sites close to an existing settlement which are reasonably accessible. It is agreed that the site fulfils the second limb of this criterion in that it is on the edge of the settlement and it is reasonably accessible.[5.2, 5.3] Whether or not the provision of a school site constitutes the ‘provision of facilities’ is a separate and disputed matter.

10.5 In its sixth exception SP8 further allows infrastructure development outside settlement boundaries where there is an overriding need for the development to be in the countryside. The explanatory text confirms that the definition of infrastructure is to be construed widely and includes education facilities.[6.7]

10.6 I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the proposal, in terms of the provision of land for educational purposes, gains support from these exceptions in policy SP8 for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is not possible to dis-aggregate the provision of safeguarded land from the wider residential scheme. It is clear that the appeal scheme is primarily for the provision of housing. The offer to transfer land for the purposes of providing a new

71 school was motivated123 by the need for the residential scheme to mitigate its impact on educational provision.[3.1,8.7]

10.7 The offer of land may result in provision over and above that required to mitigate the demands resulting from the housing. However the extent of any forecast deficit in primary school provision is in dispute as is the appropriateness of the appeal site as a location for a new primary school. I shall return to these matters later. In addition there is a requirement to demonstrate an overriding need for the development to be located in the open countryside, which the Council argue has not been demonstrated.[7.10]

10.8 In the meantime, irrespective of any findings on the above disputes, the promise within the UU is for land to be transferred to the SCC for the purposes of a school site124. As it relates to a transfer of land I do not accept that the offer constitutes the provision of facilities in the second exception in SP8 (my emphasis). Further I doubt that it constitutes ‘infrastructure’ within the meaning in the sixth exception of SP8 and expounded upon in the explanatory text. Even if it did, the relative proportions of safeguarded land to be transferred (1.69ha) as against the remainder of the site for housing (21.57ha125) points to this being a housing-led scheme.

10.9 It is clear therefore that the proposal is contrary to SP8. This is an important key strategic policy which seeks to balance the need to protect the countryside, with recognition that the rural economy and tourism is a vital part of the Borough’s economy126.

10.10 ESLP policy SP2 sets out the settlement hierarchy and confirms that development will be directed to the main towns. It is agreed that Stretton forms part of the Burton upon Trent urban area which is classified as a main town in SP2.6.4 The policy clearly states that ‘new development should be concentrated within the settlement boundary of the Main Towns………as shown on the Proposals Map’.

10.11 The Appellant does not expressly accept that the proposal is in conflict with SP2 given the location of the site adjacent to the settlement boundary and the wording of the policy127. In particular Mrs Hodson advocates that the inclusion of the word ‘should’ in the policy text does not imply that all development must be within the settlement boundary. Mrs Hodson further contends128 that there is some support from this policy given the agreement that the site is in an accessible location on the edge of the settlement boundary of a main town.[6.4, 7.11]

10.12 However the explanatory text to the policy clearly sets out the importance attached to directing development to the most sustainable places having regard to the hierarchy. The settlement boundaries assist in defining those main towns and villages in the hierarchy and in providing clarity as to where

123 CD12.8, SCC consultation response to 425 houses proposal 124 UU definitions clauses schedule 3 125 Total site area is 23.36ha as set out at §3.1.1 SCG 126 ESLP §3.24, CD 7.1 127 Mrs Hodson examination in chief and proof of evidence §5.1.8 128 In cross-examination by Mr Hunter

72 development will take place129. When the policy text is read as a whole, supported by the explanatory text, I consider the most sensible meaning to be that the development requirement should be within the settlement boundaries. Given the location of the appeal site outside the settlement boundary I conclude that the proposal is contrary to this policy.

10.13 Neither do I accept that the location of a site on the edge of, but outside a settlement boundary and in an accessible location, garners support from this policy. A site outside the settlement boundary is a site within the open countryside and falls to be assessed accordingly against other relevant plan policies.

10.14 SP4 of the ESLP guides the distribution of housing growth throughout the plan period. The text of the policy assigns a ‘development requirement’ to the various settlements and goes on to record that ‘The Development Requirement assigned to the Main Towns and Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements will be delivered within settlement boundaries or in accordance with a Made Neighbourhood Plan’. The Appellant points to the explanatory text which states that ‘The majority of sites contributing to the development requirement will be brownfield. Greenfield may be acceptable in accordance with Strategic Policy 1 and Detailed Policy 3’130.

10.15 The wording of the policy text is absolutely clear; the development requirement will be either within the settlement boundary or in accordance with a neighbourhood plan. I do not consider that the explanatory text revises or adds to that wording in any way. It is merely a supplement to the body of the text to explain the thinking behind it. Given that the appeal site is outside the boundary and not allocated in the SNP it follows that the proposal is contrary to policy SP4.

10.16 ESLP policy SP1 is an overarching policy promulgating the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It sets out 15 broad ranging criteria against which proposals should be assessed with a view to deciding whether ‘a development proposal is as sustainable as possible’. Of the 15 criteria the Council contend that the scheme offends only one; namely the requirement to safeguard the long term capability of BMV land. The Appellant agrees that this criterion is breached but that the weight to be attached to this factor should be assessed by reference to the Council’s historic approach to BMV land.[6.22-6.26,7.13]

10.17 At this point it is sufficient to conclude that the loss of BMV land means that the proposal would be contrary to one of the 15 criteria in SP1 used to assess proposals. I shall consider this matter further in the context of the Framework’s guidance on BMV.

10.18 In terms of the SNP131 it is agreed that the proposal would be contrary to policy S1 given its location outside the settlement boundary which is replicated from the ESLP proposals map.[6.8,7.13]

129 §§3.14 to 3.18 CD 7.1 and in particular §3.17 regarding the ‘benefits of identifying specific settlements’ providing a ‘clear approach for communities, setting out where development will take place over the plan period’ 130 Ibid §3.37 131 CD 7.1

73 Conclusions on conformity with the development plan

10.19 The proposal is contrary to ESLP policies SP8, SP2 and SP4 as well as SNP policy S1 because of its location outside the settlement boundary. These are key strategic policies sitting at the heart of each of the development plans and are tasked with directing development to appropriate locations. In addition the proposal would be contrary to one element of ESLP SP1 as a result of the loss of BMV land.

10.20 Having regard to the nature and scale of the proposal and the strategic nature of the development plan policies breached, I conclude that the proposal is not in conformity with the development plan as a whole.

The Five Year Housing Land Supply

10.21 The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and requires local authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing (the 5 YHLS). Paragraph 49 confirms that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing will not be considered up-to-date if an authority cannot demonstrate a 5 YHLS.

10.22 The Council and Appellant are agreed that ESLP policies SP2, SP4 and SNP policy S1 are all policies concerned with the supply of housing132. I also agree with this assessment. It follows that, in the absence of a 5 YHLS, these particular policies will be considered out-of-date. I now turn to consider the question of the 5 YHLS.

10.23 ESLP policy SP3 identifies a minimum housing requirement of 11,648 dwellings over the plan period. The stepped trajectory means that the minimum annual housing requirement is 466 dwellings per annum for the years 2012-2018 and 682 dwellings per annum for the remainder of the plan period.4.2 The latest position is set out in the Council’s ‘31 March 2016 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement’133 which details completions for the first four years of the plan period totalling 1315 as against a local plan target of 1864.

10.24 The parties are agreed that the calculation of the 5 YHLS should be carried out using the same methodology as that employed by the Local Plan Inspector.[5.5,5.6] This involved the application of a 20% buffer (in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework) to the base requirement and the shortfall. The respective calculations of the Council and Appellant are set out in evidence134.

10.25 The Council has adopted the Sedgefield approach in its calculation of a 5 YHLS and therefore aims to deal with any undersupply within the first five years of the plan period135. This results in a new five year requirement of

132 Mrs Hodson proof of evidence §§5.1.9, 5.1.21, 5.1.28, 5.1.54 and Mrs Kurihara in cross-examination 133 Appendix 1 to Rebuttal Statement of Mrs Kurihara 134 For the Council in appendix 2 to the rebuttal proof of Mrs Kurihara and for the Appellants at Inquiry document GDL.05 135 Melissa Kurihara proof of evidence §§5.17-5.26

74 3574 houses when the buffer is added, with any under-delivery still to be factored in. This much is agreed.

10.26 As previously indicated the dispute between the parties centres upon two key matters; first is the method by which completed properties are counted and the second is the deliverability of the housing sites relied upon by the Council in its supply chain.[7.16,7.17, 6.15 and 6.16] Completions

10.27 The Council calculates that some 1315 dwellings have been completed in the first four years of the plan period up to March 2016, leading to an under- delivery of 549 dwellings. The Appellant calculates the completions at 1045 putting the under-delivery at 819 units. The disparity between the two completions figures is further increased by application of the 20% buffer.

10.28 The Council uses a number of sources to identify completions136, including building control records, supplemented by Officer site visits during which a Council Officer carries out a visual inspection of the site and counts the number of completed units. Sometimes discussions are held with site managers. Completed units are taken to include those houses which are obviously lived in but also those with a completed external structure which are capable of being lived in.

10.29 The background information on the 31 March 2016 position statement explains that there was a data cleanse of the Council’s housing data during October and November 2012. At that time the Council moved from a desk based calculation of supply to one based on twice yearly site visits. The explanation was that ‘this approach represents the most up to date and accurate way of assessing the way in which housing permissions move through the construction phase to completion’.

10.30 The Appellant has used the information contained within the DCLG ‘Live Tables’ on the P2 quarterly house-building returns. Both parties point out potential deficiencies in the approach of their opposite number.[6.17,6.18,7.20-7.23]

10.31 There is no prescribed approach to the counting of completions in national policy or national guidance. This is evidenced by a variety of approaches being taken by different authorities137 and by the difference between the parties in this case. To my mind the question to be asked is: is the approach which has been used reliable and has the authority been consistent in the application of that approach? The need for a consistent approach is self- evident given that monitoring returns are produced on an annual basis and if the methodology changes in the intervening periods then the figures could be skewed.

10.32 The DCLG tables collate returns from building control records and are used to provide estimates of house-building activity138. The returns are sent in on a quarterly basis and the tables updated to ensure accuracy. The purpose of the returns is to give a broad picture of the number of new houses built on a

136 A full explanation of the methodology is set out in the email contained at GDL.02 137 Explained by Mrs Kurihara during examination in chief. Also Mrs Hodson confirmed in cross-examination that every authority does something different. 138 GDL.01, first paragraph.

75 national basis. This represents a proportionate approach in terms of the information requested from local planning authorities to enable central government to track house-building rates. I see nothing wrong with using the tables as a device for counting completions at a local level for the purpose of the calculation of housing land supply figures.

10.33 However, a Council seeking to collate information on completions for the purposes of calculating a 5 YHLS may also want the most up-to-date information in terms of the number of houses completed. To that end, it may be prepared to expend more resources in the pursuit of more detailed information and as such I consider the use of site visits to supplement other information to be an entirely reasonable approach. The Appellant139 accepted that there was no allegation of double-counting but maintains that houses were being counted before they should have been.

10.34 There is no definition of a ‘completed’ house in planning guidance or policy. If a house is, to all intents and purposes, fully built as evidenced by a letter box, house number, bins140 then it is perfectly reasonable to say it is completed within the ordinary meaning of that word. I do not agree that a completions certificate is a pre-requisite to ‘completion’ in these circumstances. It may be a pre-requisite for other things, such as obtaining a mortgage, but that is not material here. For these reasons, I conclude that the method used by the Council is sufficiently precise and robust and that the Council have provided a clear explanation as to how the figures are arrived at.

10.35 More importantly, the method used by the Council was the same method as that used in calculating completions before the Local Plan Inspector. It did not attract any adverse comments from either the Inspector or other participants. I have already referred to the importance to be attached to maintaining a consistent methodology when monitoring takes place on an annual basis. To change the method of counting completions at this point would risk skewing the figures and would render a comparison with previous statistics more difficult and less meaningful. I see no reasonable basis for changing the method of counting completions at this point in time.

10.36 It follows therefore that I prefer the Council’s figures on completions over those of the Appellant. The consequence of this finding is that the Council’s housing requirement figure of 4,235 in terms of the 5 YHLS is also to be preferred.[7.18] The deliverability of sites

10.37 To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years.141 Robust, up to date evidence is required to support the deliverability of sites and constraints such as the provision of infrastructure will also have

139 Mrs Hodson in cross-examination and in response to the Inspector’s questions 140 GDL.02- Mrs Kurihara’s analysis 141 Footnote 11 of §47.

76 to be considered. The size of sites and their respective build out rates, as well as the time needed to commence development, will also be important factors in assessing the deliverability of sites.142

10.38 Each of the experts143 made points regarding the assessment of deliverability. The Council assert that, given the recent adoption of the ESLP, the starting point must be the LP Inspector’s finding in his 7 October 2015 report144 that there was a 5 YHLS. The Council relies on advice in the PPG that a section 78 appeal is not the forum to revisit arguments about supply given the short time which has elapsed since the LP Inspector’s report.[7.16]

10.39 On behalf of the Appellant it was pointed out that a full year of monitoring has taken place and that the mere fact of adoption of the ESLP in October 2015 does not absolve the Council from its duty to demonstrate a 5 YHLS.[6.15]

10.40 Both contentions are valid. It is a material consideration of significant weight that some 9 months ago, following a full and proper examination, my colleague Inspector made findings about individual sites and about the overall supply. I consider that those findings create an assumption that there is a 5 YHLS unless there is significant and clear evidence to the contrary, including a material change in circumstances since the LP examination. This applies equally to the findings about individual sites. Indeed I note that the deliverability of 16 sites was in dispute at the LP examination and the Inspector made individual findings on those sites. Many of those sites feature in the current dispute between the parties in this appeal.

10.41 However I also accept that the availability of the 5 YHLS position statement now means that there is 12 months more data available in terms of completions. In addition, the passage of time is a relevant factor in considering the likely timing of completions on a site.

10.42 There is a dispute between the Council and Appellant regarding the deliverability of houses on some 18 sites.[6.19-6.217.24-7.29] A summary of the disputes are set out in the tables within the Council’s closing and those appended to the Appellant’s closing. More detailed analysis is set out on a site by site basis within the evidence of the Appellant and the Council.145 I now turn to consider those individual sites.

10.43 I shall deal firstly with the large sites with planning permission and recognise at the outset that in such cases the starting point is an assumption that the site is considered deliverable unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

10.44 Land South of Branston: this is a large sustainable urban extension site with outline planning permission for up to 660 dwellings in phases. The first phase of 64 dwellings is under construction and a second reserved matters approval has been given for a second phase of 204 dwellings. The first phase is well under way with construction started on the second phase. The dispute

142 PPG Reference ID: 3-031-20140306. 143 Mrs Kurihara (MK)for the Council and Mrs Hodson (JVH) for the Appellants 144 CD7.3: extracts from the LP Inspector’s report. 145 Appendix 9 to proof of JVH and Appendix 2 to the rebuttal proof of MK

77 is regarding the rates of delivery. The LP trajectory estimated some 80 dwellings per annum (dpa) from this site.

10.45 The Appellant has applied a delivery rate of 36dpa to this site based on a telephone exchange with a Senior Surveyor at the developer company. The Appellant confirms that there is only one developer. The Council has an email from the agent confirming a build out rate of 50dpa. The build out rate of phase 1 works out at around 64 dwellings in a 26 month period from the date of approval of reserved matters to the anticipated date of completion. This represents clear evidence as to a realistic rate of delivery. For this reason I accept the Appellant’s rate of delivery and 61 units shall be removed from the 5 YHLS.

10.46 Beamhill/Upper Outwoods Farm: outline planning permission was granted for 950 dwellings on this site in August 2013. The ESLP trajectory assumed a build out rate of 80dpa commencing in year 2018/19. The planning consultants146 confirm this completion rate remains realistic. Whilst the Appellant has produced a letter from the promoter with slightly different predictions, this letter147 does not contradict the estimates supplied by the planning consultants. It further indicates that they are ‘well progressed with a developer’ on the scheme and confirms that 80dpa is not an unreasonable figure. Whilst reserved matters applications in relation to dwellings are outstanding there is no clear evidence that there are substantial constraints which would jeopardise the approval of reserved matters or the projected date for completion of the first dwellings. There is no clear evidence to overturn the assumption of 80dpa or the projected time for commencement of development. The Council’s figures are preferred.

10.47 JCB Pinfold Street: a large site with outline planning permission for 257 dwellings. The LP anticipated a delivery rate of 40dpa commencing in 2018/19. The outline permission requires all landowners to enter into a section 106 agreement. The Appellant contends that the site is not now deliverable, given that one of the freehold owners of the Bridge Street Industrial site is not prepared to enter into the agreement. I further note that the Council has chosen not to exercise its powers under the Compulsory Purchase Act148.

10.48 The Bridge Street Industrial Estate is a small, self-contained site located just behind phase 1 (the retail store) of the much larger, wider site. The agents acting on behalf of the freehold owners of the industrial estate confirm that ‘at this moment’ his clients have not signed an agreement and they will not do so until ‘commercially acceptable terms for the sale of the land can be agreed’. This does not indicate a refusal to sell; it merely represents a negotiating position held at this time. The assumed trajectory is relatively modest and I do not accept that there is clear evidence that the site is undeliverable or will not come forward at the assumed rate. The Council’s figures are preferred.

146 Sigma Planning letter 8 March 2016 to the Council at p36 to MK appendix 2. 147 GDL.06 148 GDL.18

78 10.49 Forest Road: the Secretary of State granted planning permission for up to 300 dwellings on this site in 2014. The Council’s anticipated completions from this site represent an increase on those assumed in the LP trajectory. I note that the site requires groundworks due to its steep topography. The Appellant relies on projections made by the agents acting at outline stage. The email from Rushton Hickman regarding a start date does not contradict the Council’s assumed completions rate.

10.50 The Council have predictions from both the current agents at reserved matters stage and the house developer. In particular the house builder’s projections149 as to completions are detailed, up-to-date and specific and I see no reason not to rely upon them. By contrast the letter from Bellway at GDL7 is dated 1 June 2015 and gives a broad estimation as to ‘sales figures’ on Burton sites. The Council’s figures are adopted.

10.51 Branston Locks: this is a very large mixed use strategic site with outline planning permission for 2500 dwellings, employment, education, leisure and healthcare uses. Reserved matters are yet to be approved. The permission contains a restriction on developing only 300 houses until such time as strategic highways works have been completed. A further condition effectively prevents occupation of any part of the development which generates over a specified threshold of vehicle movements. Other infrastructure works are also required.

10.52 The Council has revised its delivery expectations from this site downwards from the LP trajectory, in line with estimates from the agent acting on behalf of the land promoter and owner. The Appellant also spoke to the same agent who confirmed that there was no appointed developer as yet. However, the estimates given to the Council were in response to a specific questionnaire about the contribution to the 5 YHLS for monitoring purposes and I am satisfied that they are up-to-date and reliable.

10.53 General issues regarding the provision of infrastructure and the complexities of developing a large site were known to the LP Inspector at the time of his assessment. I note that the highway works, to Branston junction and Branston Lane, are due to commence in May 2016 with a completion date of June 2017. There is no materially new or significantly different information which would cause me to doubt the information provided by Jones Lang LaSalle. Whilst the Appellant contends that further time has elapsed since the LP Inspector’s consideration of this matter, it is clear that matters are progressing. The estimates provided by Jones Lang LaSalle were provided as at 10 March 2016 from a senior person familiar with the site and current progress and I consider the figures to represent the best information available. The Council’s figures are preferred.

10.54 Demontfort Way: is a site with planning permission for up to 10 dwellings and is in the hands of a private landowner. The Appellant questions the deliverability of this site on the basis that there is a ransom element but this is not mentioned by the agent in either of his emails to the Council and Appellant150. What is clear is that the agent and his clients were conscious

149 Bellway email 18 April 2016 at p. 58 to MK appendix 2. 150 JVH site 8 and MK page 80 of appendix 2

79 that there may be changes in Government policy regarding the requirement for affordable housing and tariff style planning obligations from small sites. That change has now occurred and contributions will not now be sought from developments of 10-units or less.[1.10]

10.55 In the circumstances I consider that this change, as indicated by the agent, ‘may improve the sale value of the site’ inducing the landowner to sell to a developer. As such I consider the deliverability of the site to be a realistic prospect and can see no reason to demur from the Council’s assumptions which have moved the delivery expectations one year further on to 2017/18.

10.56 Barton Marina: was granted outline planning permission for up to 75 dwellings. The Appellant’s evidence is that following market research, the developer has submitted a second application for 54 units but has also submitted reserved matters in relation to the outline permission ‘as a back stop position’ to keep the permission alive. The outline permission was won at appeal, this together with the submission of reserved matters, indicates to me that the developer is intent on developing out this site, albeit that a scheme for 54 units is preferred.

10.57 The application for 54 units has not been decided but the outline permission has already established the principle of residential development on the site. Whilst I note that ward councillors have opposed development of the site, given all of the above factors, I consider that the prospects of a planning permission being granted for a reduced scheme are likely to be favourable. Even if they are not, this is a developer who has expended time and money to gain an outline planning permission at appeal and has submitted a reserved matters application to keep that permission alive. The email from Cameron homes refers to the 71 unit scheme not being a ‘preferred position’. There is no indication that the scheme is not viable or not deliverable, just that the 54 unit scheme is preferable.

10.58 As requested by the parties I visited this site. Whilst development has not commenced there are house-builder’s flags on the site which advertise a forthcoming development. All of this points to the positive intentions of the developer with regards to the site.

10.59 With regards to timing I note that the LP trajectory anticipated this site delivering in years 2017/18 and 2018/19. Even if there is some slippage to account for the second application, the units on a 54 house scheme could still comfortably be delivered within the 5 year period. I conclude that the Council’s approach of reducing the delivery from this site from 75 to 54 units is a pragmatic and realistic one.

10.60 Roycroft Farm, Uttoxeter: gained planning permission on appeal for up to 140 houses in January 2015. Approval for reserved matters was given on 19 January 2016 for two phases of development. There are two pieces of written evidence before the Inquiry, an email from Lioncourt Homes to the Appellant151 confirming a start on site date of March 2016 and an anticipated sales rate of 6 houses per quarter. It is notable that the writer confirms that they are hoping for a quicker rate of sales. The emails from Lioncourt Homes

151 JVH appendix 9, site 10, page 10.2

80 to the Council152 confirm that phase one will start to be developed over the next 12 months with phase 2 following thereafter. The second email confirms that they are looking to build out the site in the next two to three years.

10.61 The email to the Appellant refers to sales which is not necessarily the same as completions. The Appellant has translated these comments to a delivery rate of 6 dwellings in the first year 2016/17 and then 24 thereafter. However, in my experience a site is marketed as soon as development commences with houses sold ‘off plan’ if necessary. If the Appellant’s figures are based upon projected sales I see no reason why a figure of 24 should not be used in the first year after commencement of development. In any event the information provided to the Council is specific and is from the Design Manager who has responded to a specific request about completions. I place more reliance on the communications to the Council because of this and I see no reason to depart from the Council’s projected completions figures.

10.62 Tutbury Road/Harehedge Lane/Glenville Farm: this is a site allocated in the ESLP which was granted planning permission in December 2015 for 500 units. The Appellant points to a Grampian condition requiring the completion of a section 106 agreement and the fact that SCC, as landowners, are not actively marketing the site to reduce the LP trajectory figures from 55 to 20. This indicates that they accept that some completions will be achieved within the 5 year period but it is the rate of those completions which is challenged.

10.63 This is a site with planning permission which the SCC has now confirmed is in the hands of its property partner PENDA153. Condition 2 requires that an application for reserved matters approval of the first phase of 110 dwellings should be made not later than December 2017154 and that development should begin not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. This will provide an impetus for the commencement of development. The LP trajectory estimated some 40 dwellings of the 500 dwellings would be completed in the last year of the five year period. The business of estimating completions is based on judgments and I do not consider that there is any fresh evidence to change the estimates in the LP trajectory155.

10.64 The following sites are from table B in the Council’s 5 YHLS Position Statement and they are sites with a resolution to approve subject to completion of a section 106 agreement.

10.65 Land at Pennycroft Lane: this is a Council owned site which is currently tenanted by two commercial occupiers. The Council have appended an email from its own Enterprise Manager confirming that it will be delivered within 5 years. Mrs Hodson spoke to the same person who also confirmed that it was the Council’s intention to sell the land and that it did not want to pay compensation to relocate the tenants. A section 106 agreement has now been signed and planning permission granted for 49 dwellings.

152 MK appendix 2, pages 71-72 153 P.33 MK appendix 2 154 Being two years from the date of the outline planning permission. 155 Save for the deletion of 15 units from the supply as at 2016/17 agreed by both parties.

81 10.66 The LP trajectory estimates that this site will deliver 20 dwellings in 2018/19 and a further 29 dwellings in 2019/20. The LP Inspector was aware of the commercial occupation of the site156. There is no evidence to suggest that the site cannot be delivered. Even if the tenancy issues take longer to resolve and there is slippage on the timetable, the expectation was that the site would deliver in years 3 and 4 of the 5 year cycle. Therefore even with slippage I consider that completion of the units on the site within 5 years remains a realistic prospect.

10.67 Land north of Rocester: has a resolution to grant planning permission for 53 dwellings subject to completion of a section 106 agreement. The resolution was made in August 2014 and the Appellant points to a long delay in its completion indicating a lack of will to bring the land to market. It is also contended that the affordable housing will now have increased given the site’s location outside the settlement boundary.

10.68 However, the scheme architects confirmed to the Council that the section 106 is nearing completion157. Also in response to the Council’s 5 YHLS questionnaire, the landowners, JCB, have confirmed that the figure is deliverable indicating an intention to proceed with development. The site is a greenfield site and there is no evidence to suggest that there are physical or legal impediments to its delivery. Given that it is for 53 units and the section 106 will result in the issue of a planning permission, I conclude that it is likely to be delivered within the five year period.

10.69 Eyes Farm, Rocester: has been the subject of a resolution in January 2014 to grant permission for 18 dwellings subject to completion of a section 106 agreement. The Appellant points out that an agreement has still not been executed. Mrs Hodson believes that there is a ransom strip forming part of the site with a dispute between two landowners and properties still occupied on the site but there is no documentary evidence to support this.

10.70 By contrast the Council has had confirmation158 from planning consultants acting on behalf of Radmore Homes who suggest that the agreement is nearing completion and that preliminary discussions have already taken place with regard to a reserved matters application. A screenshot from the website of Radmore Homes advertises the site with ‘more details to follow of 16 super new homes to be commenced in the coming months’. The Council have moved the completions one year forward to 2017/18 from the LP Trajectory.

10.71 There is no clear or substantial evidence to suggest that occupation is a barrier to development. The Council have moved the delivery expectations forward but this would seem sensible in light of the current position. Again I conclude that this site is deliverable and the Council’s assumed completion dates are realistic.

10.72 Howard Transport, Clays Lane: had a previous outline planning permission for residential development was which granted in July 2011. The site was marketed, unsuccessfully, and the permission lapsed because of a failure to submit reserved matters details. The Council resolved to grant planning

156 CD7.3 §99.9 157 Email Jim Malkin to ESBC confirming his conversation will Hill Dickinson solicitors. Page 75 MK Appendix 2. 158 MK appendix 2, pages 77-79.

82 permission for a second outline permission for 86 dwellings subject to a section 106 agreement.

10.73 Mrs Hodson’s consultancy is the agent for the landowner and she confirmed that the site is still in use as a haulage depot and the bungalow on the site is occupied by an elderly relative. She believes that there are difficulties in developing the site because the land level to the rear of the site has to be raised to meet flood risk requirements. In addition she gives details of increased contributions159 which are affecting the attractiveness of the site to develop.

10.74 The Council has produced an email from Mrs Howard which confirms that they are hoping to develop the site and are waiting for their solicitor to deliver a section 106 agreement for signing160.

10.75 The site has a history, with a previous outline permission for residential development falling by the wayside. It is not a straightforward development site. It is evident that there are a number of hurdles to overcome before development commences, the section 106 agreement needs to be signed, the reserved matters application submitted and approved and the site needs to be vacated and then placed in the hands of a developer/housebuilder.

10.76 I am conscious that the current landowner is not a developer/housebuilder. In circumstances where a residential permission has previously lapsed and where the site is difficult to build out and where there are increased financial burdens in terms of the section 106 contributions there is a question as to whether or not there remains a realistic prospect of this site delivering new homes within 5 years. Certainly the Council’s assumed expectations indicating 20 new homes in 2017/18 appear somewhat optimistic. I shall exclude this site from the 5 year supply for these reasons (ie minus 86 units.)

10.77 I now turn to consider those sites in the 5 YHLS which are allocated sites within the ESLP but where no planning application has yet been submitted161.

10.78 Churnet Farm, Rocester: a previous application was withdrawn because of heritage issues but the developers have indicated to the Council that they expect the housing to be delivered on the site commencing within the next 12 to 18 months, subject to the planning process. This is an allocated site and in including it in the LP trajectory, the LP Inspector was aware of the issues. Whilst another monitoring year has passed, it is clear that matters are progressing in that an application has already been submitted and, although it was withdrawn, the developer’s letter confirms its continued intentions. In addition Mrs Kurihara gave evidence162 that there have been recent discussions with English Heritage to resolve matters. This site still has a realistic prospect of completion within the next 5 years.

10.79 Bargates Molson Coors and High Street, Burton: these are two sites in the town centre. The Bargates site is owned by the Council and is currently in use as a car park. The Molson Coors site is in active use as a brewery. In

159 GDL.08 note 160 MK appendix 2 p. 93 161 Table D 5 YHLS position statement 162 Examination in chief

83 2010 the whole site was unsuccessfully marketed as a mixed use site163. More recently the Council has been in talks with a major developer interested in buying the site164 but it would appear that these talks have broken down165. The Council anticipates the provision of 40 units within 5 years from the car park site. The Council’s Enterprise Manager confirms166 that the site will be delivered within 5 years. Whilst the wider site may be more problematic167, the car park use is easily displaced and I consider that anticipated completions from this part of the site remain a realistic prospect for delivery within the next 5 years.

10.80 Molson Coors Middle Yard: This is a large town centre site which is currently in use as the main transport depot for a brewery. It is an allocated site in the LP168 although a planning application has not been submitted. Nonetheless the landowner has confirmed that 100 units will be delivered on the site in 5 years. In addition pre-application discussions have been held throughout 2015. The site remains a realistic prospect for the delivery of 100 units within 5 years.

10.81 Derby Road, Burton: this is a site earmarked for 250 homes with some 40 homes to be delivered in the last year of the 5 year period according to the LP Trajectory. It is a long thin site along the Derby Road corridor in multiple ownerships and active commercial and industrial uses. There has been no activity or progress with a view to developing the site. Given the passage of time and the complications of multiple ownerships, I am not persuaded that this remains a realistic prospect for delivery within the 5 year period. I shall deduct 40 units from the supply.

10.82 College Fields, Rolleston: this site has a protracted planning history set out fully at ESBC.6. It has been through the appeals process and following a legal challenge is back before the Secretary of State for redetermination. The LP Inspector supported the allocation of the site and included some 100 units in the 5 YHLS. Even though the site does not have the benefit of a planning permission, the factors before me are not materially different to those on which the LP Inspector made his determination. At the time of the LP examination the Inspector was aware that the proposal had been recommended for approval and was subject to a redetermination by the Secretary of State. This remains the case today.

10.83 In response to the delay caused by redetermination the Council has adjusted the delivery expectations and moved them forward by one year, such that the site would be completely delivered in year four. Therefore even allowing for a further 12 months slippage the site will be delivered in five years.

Conclusions on Five Year Housing Land Supply

10.84 I have concluded that the Council’s methodology in terms of counting completions is reasonable and that for the sake of consistency it is to be

163 GDL.09 164 ESBC.02 165 GDL.26 166 MK appendix 2, p.20 167 The LP Inspector confirmed that a modification to the policy wording would enable the two sites to come forward separately CD7.3, §81.12 168 See policy SP11 and §§3.87-3.91 ESLP

84 preferred over the Appellant’s methodology. This means that the current five year housing land requirement (incorporating the buffer and the past under- delivery) is 4235 dwellings, equating to an annual requirement of 847 dwellings.

10.85 I have then made a series of findings in relation to the deliverability of individual sites within a 5 year period. The consequence of those findings is that I have removed some 187 units169 from the 5 YHLS. Using the Council’s figures I have simply deducted 187 from the housing supply and divided this by the annual requirement170. The outcome is a current housing land supply of some 5.5 years.

10.86 The Appellant has pointed out that the Council has changed the basis of its assessment in that previously some sites of 10 or more units were not individually assessed but pooled and a 10% lapse rate applied. In its latest position statement the Council has requested information on and assessed all sites of 10 or more units. The delivery from some sites has been reduced in accordance with the information received. This does not represent a change in methodology; rather it is the Council applying its resources to achieve more accurate information regarding likely delivery.[7.27]

10.87 The Appellant highlights the past performance of the Council and the failure to meet its annual trajectory every year since the start of the plan period. However the LP Inspector based his assessment on completions up to March 2015. The position on actual completions for the first 3 years of the local plan was known and was before the LP Inspector when he concluded that the provision was acceptable and there was a 5 YHLS on the basis of a stepped trajectory. The only new data on completions before me is the data for one year up to March 2016. This last year has resulted in the delivery of 459 units which is very close to the target of 466 dpa.

10.88 The LP Inspector described the calculation of the 5 YHLS by way of the proposed stepped trajectory as ‘cautiously conservative’ and indicated that the Council could demonstrate a sufficient HLS. His prediction was that the Plan would start to bring forward well in excess of its average annual housing requirement within 2.5 years of adoption171.

10.89 In short, the under-delivery position for the first 3 years was known to the LP Inspector at the time of his conclusions. The additional information before me indicates that the Council has now, to all intents and purposes, met its annual delivery target for the 12 months ending March 2016. This does not indicate a worsening of the position on that which was before the LP Inspector, rather it indicates that in the fourth year of monitoring the ESLP annual target is now close to being met and in line with previous expectations.

10.90 I have concluded that the Council has a 5 YHLS. The ESLP is recently adopted and is in conformity with the Framework. As such there are no other

169 Relating to the sites at Land south of Branston (61 units), Howard Transport (86 units) and Derby Road, Burton (40 units). 170 (4852-187)/847=5.5 years 171 CD7.3, §115.

85 reasons advanced for the policies within the plan being out-of-date. I shall return to this matter in my conclusions.[7.28]

The Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land

11.1 The total land area occupied by the appeal site is some 22 hectares. The site falls within an area depicted on the provisional MAFF Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) sheets as being of grade 2 quality.172 The only detailed agricultural land quality data available is in relation to a site known as Upper Outwoods Farm. This land has been subject to a planning application accompanied by a detailed agricultural land quality assessment. The assessment sets out the proportions of the site deemed to be BMV land173and there is a clear correlation between the assessment and the indicative grading on the ALC maps. This provides some degree of confidence in the ALC maps.

11.2 Following the Council’s determination the Appellant has produced two maps174 which distinguish between areas of grade 2 and sub-grades 3a and 3b soils on the appeal site. These maps are not supported by other empirical data indicating soil sampling, although Mrs Hodson confirmed in her oral evidence that they are based on trial hole borings. In any event they depict a large swathe of grade 2 land in the centre of the site surrounded overwhelmingly by soils of sub-grade 3a.

11.3 It is accepted that the proposal would result in the irreversible loss of this BMV and as such it would be contrary to 1 of the 15 criteria in ESLP SP1. In addition SP8, responsible for controlling development outside settlement boundaries sets out a requirement to have regard to the need to maintain land of high agricultural value for food production.[6.22, 6.23]

11.4 The Framework also requires that the economic and other benefits of BMV land are taken into account in decision-making. By virtue of the land area involved and the scale of housing proposed, I consider that the loss of 23 hectares of BMV constitutes a significant development.175 In such circumstances the Framework directs that where development of such land is demonstrated to be necessary, planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference.

11.5 An assessment as to the weight to be given to this matter depends on a number of other contextual factors. I have already made a finding that the Council has a 5 YHLS. Consequently at this moment in time the requirement to have an appropriate supply of land available for housing does not translate to a pressing need to release additional sites176.

11.6 The Appellant points to other sites containing BMV land which have been allocated as development sites177and to other sites not allocated which were allowed on appeal. However the allocated sites came about in circumstances where the Council was seeking to ensure a 5 YHLS and to make strategic

172 Mr Kernon proof of evidence §1.4 173 Some 18.2%, Mr Kernon Appendix KCC5 174 CD12.14 175 This conclusion accords with the views of Natural England in its consultation response CD3.2 176 Accepted by Mrs Hodson in cross-examination 177 Sites at Branston Locks and Glenville Farm, ESBC.14 and ESBC.15

86 allocations. Other appeal sites will have been decided on their particular merits having regard to a series of other material considerations. I also note that the SHLAA did not refer to the existence as BMV land as a barrier to development on the appeal site. However these matters do not negate the policy requirements to have regard to the question of BMV when assessing the suitability of the current proposal.[6.24, 6.25]

11.7 It is also useful to look at the relative rarity of the resource when assessing what its loss would mean. The Appellant’s Agricultural Land Quality report178 appends a map showing the predicted extent of BMV land in the Burton upon Trent area. It concludes that the agricultural quality of the appeal site is likely to be typical of much of the land around Burton upon Trent179. However that map depicts a swathe of BMV land running from the north-east corner of the administrative district to the south west. It is notable that a significant proportion of the land depicted as BMV in that map extract has already been developed. By contrast a large proportion of the agricultural/greenfield land to the west of the appeal site is not indicated as BMV land and has not been developed. I note that some of that land lies in the floodplain or comprises natural forest which would preclude development. Having regard to all of these matters and the indicative maps I accept Mr Kernon’s assessment that the majority of directions in which expansion could occur is likely to be on land which is not predicted to be of BMV quality.[7.31- 7.32]

11.8 A table produced by Mr Kernon provides details of the relative proportions of different grades of agricultural land in East Staffordshire, Staffordshire and England. 180 Interpreting the data is somewhat difficult because the grade 3 category includes both grade 3(a) BMV land and grade 3(b) non-BMV land. It is however fair to say that in East Staffordshire grade 2 BMV land is a relatively scarce resource at 2.9%. It is more common across Staffordshire at 11% and more common across England as a whole where some 20% of land is grade 1 or 2.

11.9 Finally the Appellant points to the fact that the appeal site is ‘enclosed’ in that it is surrounded by development and in multiple ownerships. However, it has a field access and is of a significant size such that its location would not preclude its use for arable purposes. Many agricultural land-holdings contain different parcels of land separated from the main farm enterprise and comprised of land in different ownerships. I do not see these matters acting as a barrier to an agricultural use.[6.25]

11.10 In conclusion, I am satisfied that BMV agricultural land is a reasonably scarce resource in East Staffordshire by virtue of the proportion of BMV in the district and because of the amount of BMV which already appears to be in non-agricultural use. It has not been demonstrated that the development is necessary. As such the development is contrary to paragraph 112 of the Framework, as well as ESLP policy SP1. Having regard to all of the above matters I conclude that some weight should be attached to the harm caused by the loss of BMV land.

178 CD 8.1 179 Ibid §3.1 180 ESBC.5

87 Educational Provision

11.11 ESLP policy SP10 sets out the Council’s objectives in relation to educational provision and strategic allocations for new primary school provision. It confirms that the Council will work in partnership with SCC to bring forward new schools and that such proposals will be required to demonstrate a need for the development and a role within a wider strategy. Any proposal will also need to show that the location is accessible for the need it is intended to meet. The objective is carried forward into SP9 regarding Infrastructure Delivery and Implementation which specifically mentions educational infrastructure.

11.12 The Framework confirms that the Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. It provides that great weight should be given to the need to create, expand or alter schools and encourages Local Planning Authorities to take a pro-active, positive and collaborative approach.

11.13 It is agreed between the parties that the extra demands placed on secondary schools by the proposed development could be adequately mitigated or met by the financial contribution to secondary school provision secured by the UU. In addition the financial contribution towards primary school provision (adjusted to recognise the land contribution)181 is also agreed.

11.14 The Council and Appellant are further agreed that the development would result in a need for 81 additional primary school places equivalent to 0.5 form of entry (FE). The Appellant contends that, in the face of a deficit in primary schools places, the provision of 1.69 hectares of land would enable a 1FE primary school to be built, with sufficient land available for an extension to 2FE. It contends that any additional provision over and above 0.5 FE would be a net benefit of the scheme and should attract positive weight in the overall planning balance.

11.15 As previously recorded there is agreement between the Appellant and SCC (as Local Education Authority) regarding the offer of a school site and these matters are set out in the two position statements before the Inquiry.[5.12-5.20] The dispute between the Council and Appellant revolves around whether the provision of 1.69 hectares of land for educational purposes is appropriate having regard to the existence and extent of any deficit and the location of the site, as well as the likelihood of a school being delivered on the site. I turn now to consider those matters.

11.16 The Position on Primary School Need and Capacity: the position of SCC is that the demand for primary school places in Burton upon Trent will start to exceed supply from 2015. It further states that, if left unaddressed, this trend will continue to rise to a deficit of around 9.6FE to 11.6FE by 2030/31. The Council’s position is that whilst there is a primary school deficit across Burton, the identified need will be addressed by new and completed provision and planned future provision.182

181 §1.2.4 Education Statement of Common Ground 182 Proof of evidence of Ms Miller (AM) §1.42

88 11.17 The evidence on primary school need and capacity is contained within a series of studies. The first of these is the Council’s own high level infrastructure study183 which was commissioned to inform the Local Plan preparation and to provide a broad overview of future infrastructure requirements. Following this the Borough Council (ESBC), together with SCC, jointly commissioned a study of school capacity in Burton upon Trent (The Cambridge Report).184 The Borough Council also commissioned its own Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).185 A further study was subsequently prepared on behalf of the SCC to assess sites which may be suitable for future provision (The AMEC report)186.

11.18 The reports each set out different figures in relation to a forecast deficit, in part due to the application of different assumptions. The purposes for which, and circumstances in which, each report was commissioned assist in understanding the projections. Mrs Miller was the only witness to give oral evidence on this matter supported by her proof of evidence. It was evident that she was closely involved with the commissioning process187 and had a clear grasp of the facts and figures informing each strategic piece of work.

11.19 It is relevant to note that the Cambridge Report was intended to be part one of a two part exercise in which firstly the extent of the future need was forecast having regard to scenarios with and without housing growth. Then, at stage two, options for meeting that need were to be examined. The second part of the Cambridge Report did not proceed. In her oral evidence Mrs Miller confirmed that the AMEC report was commissioned by SCC because it felt that need had not been addressed through the Local Plan process and that the intention of the AMEC report was to conduct a school sites search exercise.

11.20 The Cambridge Report forecast that, in the absence of additional provision and taking account of planned housing growth, the deficit in primary school places would rise from -2.5FE in 2016 to -9FE in 2030.188 This compares to a projected deficit of -10.5FE in the IDP report. Mrs Miller explained that the difference in these figures is as a result of different baselines/starting points on capacity. Four new planned primary schools189 were included in the Cambridge Report as part of the existing capacity but were not included in the IDP report as part of the baseline capacity, instead they were included as part of the supply. The Cambridge study divided the borough’s schools into 5 primary clusters. Cluster area 1 relates to North Burton and it is projected to have a deficit of -5.3FE at 2030 (included in the overall deficit of -9.0FE).

11.21 The AMEC report confirms that the evidence on need was drawn from the two earlier reports.190 It records a deficit of between -9.6FE to -11.6FE in primary school provision across Burton to 2030/31. The deficit figures were predicated upon the Cambridge study deficit figure of -9.1FE, with an

183 East Staffordshire Infrastructure Study Part 1, Roger Tym and Partners, Final Report June 2012. AM appendix A. 184 CD12.1 185 Prepared by ARUP. AM appendix B. 186 CD12.2 187 The Borough Council led the preparation and management of the tender process in relation to the Cambridge Report, AM §1.8 188 Appendix C 189 New St Modwens site, Scientia Academy, Christchurch Infants and River View Primary School. 190 CD12.2 §1.2.1

89 additional 5% allowance for surplus capacity. The Council do not dispute that a 5% allowance should be included in the deficit figures but they say there is no evidence to explain the upper figure of -11.6FE.

11.22 I have examined the figures in table 3.20 of the Cambridge Report and looked at them in light of the explanatory text on page 37. From the table it is evident that in 2030/31, with new housing, the total number of projected reception pupils will be 1317. There will be a shortage of 276 places equivalent to -9FE. The text explains this much and then goes on to say that an allowance for a 5% surplus to ensure a degree of parental choice has not been factored in. The text then says that allowing for this surplus would require an additional 342191 reception places. It would appear that the 5% allowance has been applied to the total number of reception pupils (1317) to give a surplus of 66 additional places for flexibility. The 66 places have then been added to the projected shortfall (276) thus increasing it to 342. A requirement for 342 additional places equates to -11.4FE192.

11.23 The above explanation as to how the figure of -11.4FE has been arrived at seems to me the most logical one based on the information in the Cambridge Report. There is a clear correlation between the mathematical calculations and the end figure and I am satisfied that the interpretation which I have placed upon the explanatory text is the most logical one.

11.24 I further note that a 5% allowance does not appear to have been applied to the IDP study projected deficit of -10.5FE. In principle I consider such an allowance to be pragmatic and logical and in accordance with planning objectives seeking to ensure sufficient choice. Applying such an allowance would increase this IDP identified deficit further.193

11.25 The AMEC Report further assumes that an allowance for additional housing arising as a result of windfall sites has not been taken into account and therefore increases the deficit by a further 1FE to -12.5FE. This matter was in contention. The Cambridge Report sets out the forecast with housing and records the development allowance of 10,284 units in the plan period ‘comprising allocated sites and windfalls’.194

11.26 In her oral evidence Mrs Miller confirmed that her instructions were that windfalls would be an important part of the supply of housing and it was important that they were captured in the figures. She confirmed that her instructions to the Cambridge Report consultants were to assume 1000 units representing windfalls across Burton and to divide those houses across the five clusters. Mrs Miller also reiterated that it was not the job of the AMEC consultants to revisit the question of capacity forecasting but to identify possible sites to meet the forecasted demands. Her evidence about this matter was compelling and supports the comments in the report referred to above. I therefore do not accept that the increase in the requirement from 11.5FE to 12.5FE as set out in the AMEC study is justified.

191 This is calculated as 5% surplus on the total number of reception pupils ie 5% x 1317=65.85 192 Based on an assumption of 30 pupils per 1FE (PAN numbers at page 6 Cambridge report) 193 I have not undertaken this exercise because the ARUP tables provide cumulative pupil numbers rather than numbers in reception classes. 194 First paragraph, page 35 Cambridge Report and appendix D.

90 11.27 In light of these findings I conclude that the adjusted forecast need figure of 11.5FE is to be preferred. This brings me to the question of planned additional provision.

11.28 The amount of provision already made or planned is set out in Mrs Miller’s proof of evidence.195 As recorded above, whilst the Cambridge Report treated four of the schools as part of the baseline/supply, the IDP report counted these 4 schools as part of the future provision. In addition further projects have come forward. The Council has been consulted on a proposal to increase Mosely Academy by 0.5FE but this is at a very early stage and I consider that no real reliance can be placed on it. In the week prior to the Inquiry the Council has resolved to grant planning permission for a 2FE primary school on land off Aviation Lane, Henhurst Hill.

11.29 A recent planning permission for housing granted at Red House Farm was accompanied by a UU securing an off-site contribution towards the 1FE school proposed at Henhurst Ridge thus creating a 2FE school. The likelihood is that the offered provision will come forward.

11.30 In terms of the Cambridge Report the future/planned provision and the additional unplanned provision amounts to 10.28FE.196 However I have already found that no real reliance can be placed on the Mosley Academy consultation which reduces the total provision to 9.78FE. I have now reached the point where it is clear that there is a disparity between the likely forecast deficit/future requirement of -11.5FE and the planned and additional provision to be made in the plan period of 9.78FE.

11.31 I therefore conclude that during the plan period there is likely to be a need for additional primary school provision over and above that which is currently programmed. As such any additional provision which emanates from the appeal proposal, over and above the 0.5FE necessary to meet the requirements of the development itself, would go some way to meeting the deficit in numerical terms. I now turn to consider the appropriateness of the appeal site as a location for a new primary school.

11.32 The Location of the School: at the outset the Borough Council acknowledge that greenfield sites are a better option for the provision of additional educational infrastructure197. It is clear that in the event of a 1FE school being built that one half of the pupils would come from the appeal site. Two other strategic developments198 are within half a mile of the appeal site and amount to some 600 dwellings.

11.33 The AMEC report examined the suitability of sites and came up with six ‘areas with potential’. The appeal site was one of the sites examined and it was concluded that the site is away from main growth locations and the LEA’s areas of need but that it remained in an area of growth between two strategic allocations and would serve the catchment households required with relatively sustainable distances.199

195 Table 1 and Table 2. 196 §85, Council’s closing submissions. 197 AM §1.9 198 Guinevere Avenue and Land at Tutbury Road & Rolleston Road. Addendum Statement of Common Ground. 199 §4.2.1. Page 20

91 11.34 However, the parameters of site selection were set at a minimum of 2 hectares when in fact SCC acknowledges that a site area of 1.1ha would be required for a 1FE primary school and an absolute minimum of 1.65hectares for a 2 FE primary school.200 In addition there is no comparative exercise between the potential sites in terms of agricultural land quality which could prefer lower quality land over BMV land. On this basis I acknowledge that other sites could have been discounted which, had different parameters been applied, might be suitable for future provision. In addition those sites may also be on land which is not BMV land.

11.35 I note that the site is located within the SCC Burton 1 Primary School cluster which is projected to experience the largest deficit. It is also to be the recipient of the largest amount of planned provision.

11.36 Irrespective of any comparative exercise, it is apparent that the school site would be in a relatively accessible location on a site which is located in an area of growth between two strategic allocations.

11.37 The Likelihood of Delivery: the planning application was amended to reduce the number of proposed houses and include an area of safeguarded land. The Appellant then submitted updated technical reports, including a revised Transport Assessment, to assess the impacts of a 1FE primary school and the housing201. Initial objections on highways grounds were subsequently addressed by a series of off-site highway improvements which rendered the development acceptable to the Council and relevant Highways Authorities.

11.38 No assessments have been carried out as to the combined impact of a 2FE primary school and the housing. Given that there were previous objections on highways grounds which had to be addressed, there is no guarantee that an extension of a 1FE primary school to a 2FE school would be acceptable in planning terms.

11.39 The Council points out that there is no mechanism to ensure that a school will be built on the site. The UU contains a covenant on behalf of the Owner promising to offer to transfer the school site to SCC. Whilst there is nothing to compel SCC to accept the transfer, given its co-operation with the Appellant and the agreed position statement it would seem likely that such a transfer would proceed.

11.40 Following any transfer there would be the matter of obtaining planning permission. In relation to this matter it is only possible to acknowledge that, if this appeal succeeds there does not appear to be any unsurmountable objections, in planning terms to the delivery of a 1FE primary school. The same cannot be said for a 2FE primary school given the previous difficulties with regard to highways objections and the fact that the Transport Assessment has not modelled the position with a 2FE primary school. In any event the intention appears to be the delivery of a 1FE school with a possibility of further expansion.

200 Consultation response email 3 November 2014 at appendix A to Education Statement of Common Ground. 201 §1.2.3 Education Statement of Common Ground.

92 Conclusions on Educational Provision

11.41 Having regard to all of the evidence I have concluded that it is likely that there will be a net deficit in primary school provision to 2030/31 after planned and anticipated provision has been made. The offer of a school site would meet the demands of the development in terms of primary school provision and would make a small contribution to reducing this deficit. It would be located on the edge of a settlement, in an accessible location close to two other strategic sites. Whilst I acknowledge the possibility of other sites not on BMV, those sites are not before me.

11.42 Pragmatically Mrs Miller acknowledges that the Borough Council is not concerned where education provision goes provided it meets genuine need, is located close to that need and mitigates its impact. It does object to bringing additional housing forward to meet this aim.202 This seems to me to be an entirely reasonable proposition. However, I have found that there is likely to be a deficit and this deficit would exist irrespective of the housing on the appeal site coming forward. In these circumstances it appears to me that any additional provision over and above 0.5FE would go to meeting the deficit.

11.43 On balance I conclude that the proposal would provide a benefit in terms of primary school provision. I am further satisfied that there is a strong likelihood of the transfer of school land taking place if development were to proceed. However at this moment in time some degree of reliance can only be placed upon the provision of a 1FE school given the uncertainties surrounding a 2FE school. It is reasonable to assume that the proposal would result in a benefit in terms of a likely future contribution of 0.5FE towards meeting that deficit.

11.44 The Minister of State for Housing and Planning has set out that supporting housing development to increase housing supply, and providing a high quality school place for every child, are two of the Government’s top priorities.203 The Appellant contends that great weight should be given to the need to ensure the sufficient schools are available. I agree with this to the extent that this is a reiteration of national policy objectives in paragraph 72.

11.45 Given these conclusions it follows that I am satisfied that the obligation contained in the UU regarding the transfer of the school site satisfies the tests in the Framework and in regulation 122 and it should be taken into account in the final determination.

11.46 In terms of the weight which ought to be attached to any educational benefits arising as a result of the proposal, it is relevant to have regard to all of the considerations set out above. The projected deficit over the plan period is relatively small as a proportion of the overall requirement. It is also evident that the search parameters applied may have restricted the consideration of sites. In addition school sites which have not been planned for have previously come forward as windfalls, such as the recent Red House Farm appeal.

202 AM §1.36 203 Minister’s letter to Local Authority Chief Executives at GDL13

93 11.47 The 0.5FE contribution which the appeal proposal would make represents a small proportion of the additional future requirement of 11.5FE which must be found. It would make a relatively modest contribution to the gap between planned and identified possible future provision and the additional requirement. Having regard to all of these matters I conclude that a limited amount of weight should be accorded to this benefit. In coming to this view I have had regard to the Secretary of State’s views in the Bideford case.204 In that case the entire proposal was for a school in circumstances where there was an acknowledged need and where there was a lack of other suitable alternative sites.

Other Matters

Highways

11.48 The ‘Save our Stretton’ group (SOS) raise a series of concerns about the effects of the proposals on the local highway network and the transport assessments. These include concerns about implications for traffic safety on the Church Road junction, Craythorne Road North and the A38. SOS point out that the road structure in the centre of Stretton is historic and struggles to cope with the demands of modern traffic flows. An example of this is the staggered junction next to the Church and the one way system introduced at The Green for safety reasons. [8.17-8.29]

11.49 On behalf of SOS, Mr Lamb gave evidence about the Church Road junction being a main thoroughfare at the heart of the village. He pointed out that the junction limitations result in delays with drivers seeking to pull out quickly into emerging gaps. The situation, he says, is exacerbated by schoolchildren walking along narrow pavements on their way to William Shrewsbury and de Ferrers school. Mr Lamb also raised questions about the Appellant’s modelling of the impact on the junctions given the inputs into the model. SOS sought to sense check some of the outputs from the SATURN model used by undertaking its own traffic surveys at key locations.

11.50 Mr Jackson, the Appellant’s appointed Highways expert205 gave oral evidence to the Inquiry and was cross-examined by SOS on highway matters. He confirmed that prior to the application being submitted the Appellant’s experts had engaged in preliminary discussions with SCC (as local Highways Authority) and Highways England (HE) responsible for the strategic network. Both SCC and HE instructed the Appellant’s highways consultant to use the Burton SATURN model. This is an area model for Burton to include the major junctions and validated by traffic count data. The model is produced by Atkins but owned by SCC and is used to assess the effect of major development on the highway network.

11.51 The parameters and methodology to be utilised in assessing the effects of the appeal proposal were agreed by both SCC and HE. The trip rates assumed and applied to the model were rates provided by SCC. The work resulted in the Transport Assessment206 of June 2014 submitted with the planning application. In their consultation responses to the application both SCC and

204 CD10.15 Bideford SoS & IR 205 Ashley Helme Associates 206 CD1.6

94 HE raised initial objections to the scheme and required further modelling and information. A revised Transport Assessment (TAS) was submitted in July 2014 to assess the amended scheme for 385 dwellings and a single form 207 entry primary school. [6.32-6.34]

11.52 HE have responsibility for the wider strategic road network and determined that mitigation works were required in relation to study junction 5 as a result of the proposed development.208 This scheme has been designed209 and agreed and subject to an independent Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, the findings of which were also agreed. The off-site highway works are the subject of conditions. Following the submission of revised details both SCC and HE removed their objections to the proposal subject to off-site highway works being secured and other conditions imposed on any grant of planning permission. The agreements reached between the Appellant and both SCC 210 and HE are set out in the two position statements. [5.21-5.29]

11.53 The mitigation proposals also include a financial contribution of £830 per dwelling towards the Burton Transport Strategy which is intended to make improvements along the main routes through Stretton. A Travel Plan, to be secured by condition, was included in the final TA and agreed with SCC. In 211 addition SCC approved the site access arrangements. [6.38]

11.54 I turn now to consider the objections of SOS. The first concern is in relation to the data inputs into the SATURN model. It is clear that any modelling is sensitive to the data fed into it and any discrepancies could lead to erroneous conclusions. Mr Lamb points out that the initial Transport Assessment and appendices was resubmitted after an error. However Mr Jackson confirmed that the error was in an output file which locked one of the figures and the error was not associated with inputted data.212

11.55 The model is based on data from 2012 projected forward to reflect traffic growth to 2026 and with additional traffic from the development modelled and fed into the figures. SOS conducted its own traffic surveys in relation to vehicles turning into Bitham Lane from Rolleston Road from the north and south and in relation to traffic travelling from Derby Road onto the northbound A38.213

11.56 Mr Jackson believed that the traffic surveys of SOS were not dissimilar to the modelled figures and he accepted the figures were likely to be representative of current traffic flows. However he pointed out that the model relies on verified baseline data from 2012 which is projected forward to 2026. Therefore a comparison with survey data at a different point in time is problematic. In addition the traffic predicted from the development is loaded onto the network and into the model. The model then makes various adjustments assuming driver response and re-routing due to pockets of congestion and network changes.

207 CD8.4.1 208 Claymills Lane/A15121 Derby Road/A38 Northbound on/off slip roads. 209 Drawing number 1324/40/A 210Highways Statement of Common Ground with Highways England and Highways Statement of Common Ground with Staffordshire Council. 211 Depicted on drawing number 1324/30/C 212 During cross examination by Mr Lamb. 213 SOS proof of evidence of Mr Lamb §3.12 and 3.21

95 11.57 The traffic flow on A38 northbound coming from Derby Road is predicted to be lower in 2026, post development, than the current survey figures. However I accept Mr Jackson’s explanation that additional congestion and network changes are likely to influence driver behaviour and result in re- routing. It is also notable that the model does not predict an overall decrease in traffic at the A38/Claymills Lane junction at 2026 post-development but instead predicts an overall increase as would be expected.

11.58 With regard to the Bitham Road/Rolleston Road junction, Mr Jackson explained that he queried the model output figures with Atkins. This was because one of the outputs assumed a zero rate traffic flow in relation to cars turning from the northern end of Rolleston Road into Bitham Lane. The explanation is that because of development to the west, at Beamhill, there is predicted to be an increase in traffic at the junction and increased flows along Bitham Lane. This in turn would result in vehicles travelling north to south finding alternative routes and the model predicted that vehicles travelling south would divert to Dovecliffe Road. Mr Jackson did however accept that local traffic, for example parents dropping children off at school, would be unlikely to divert. In any event the model again predicts an overall increase, in 2026 and post development, of about 19% in the AM peak hour and 23% in the PM peak hour at the Bitham Lane/ Rolleston Road junction.214

11.59 The SATURN model has been verified and is owned by SCC and accepted by HE. The parameters and data inputs were also stipulated by SCC and HE and the outputs accepted by both. The explanation regarding the differences in traffic volumes between the modelled flows and Mr Lamb’s sense testing surveys has been adequately explained by Mr Jackson. I am satisfied that the modelling represents a reasonable predictive tool upon which assessments regarding the impact of development can be made.

11.60 It is evident that at times, such as the AM peak, there is some congestion on the local road network. I saw this for myself outside the William Shrewsbury Primary School on Church Road. It is indisputable that additional development on Craythorne Road would add to the traffic on the local network. The question is not whether the congestion is acceptable per se but whether or not that congestion has reached or is likely to reach levels which are harmful to highway safety such as to make the proposed development unacceptable.

11.61 In 2026 the TAS confirms that the Bridge Street arm of the Bridge Street/Main Street junction is predicted to operate above capacity in the AM peak without the development. This situation would be exacerbated with traffic from the development. Similarly two arms of the junction are predicted to operate above capacity, in the PM peak, at the 2026 baseline situation215. At the request of SCC the Appellant’s highways experts modelled 2 options setting out highway modifications to address these matters. The improvement schemes would ensure that the junction would largely operate within capacity at 2026 with projected growth and traffic from the development216.

214 This is the 2026 figure compared to the 2012 baseline. See appendix 3 Mr Jackson’s proof of evidence. 215 Ie without development 216 With the exception of the Hillfield Lane arm

96 11.62 SCC was satisfied that the various options illustrated that a satisfactory scheme could be devised to address congestion and on this basis agreed a financial contribution of somewhere in the region of £319,000 towards the Burton Transport Strategy would be earmarked for the Stretton ward. This strategy proposes improvements along Bitham Lane, Bridge Street, Church Street and Claymills Road which are the main highway routes in Stretton. The feasibility of these mitigation works at study junctions 3 and 4 have been produced to SCC.217

11.63 The appeal proposal also relies upon the introduction of passing bays on Craythorne Road which is a narrow road, without a footway or street lighting, running to the north of the development.218 This would result in an improvement along this stretch of the road leading to Rolleston on Dove. Based on information from SCC education department it was assumed that 7% of pupils to any new primary school on the site would come from Rolleston on Dove219. On this basis SCC and the Appellant’s highways consultant are agreed that the development would not significantly increase pedestrian movements along Craythorne Road to the north of the site. I accept this as a reasonable assumption on the evidence available and conclude that the proposal would not materially increase traffic along the section of Craythorne Road to the north of the site.

11.64 SOS has referred me to the conclusions of a fellow Inspector in an appeal decision in Worcestershire.220 In that appeal the Inspector concluded that whilst the junction in question did not have a bad safety record, there was an increased risk of accidents in the future. However this was due to a significant increase in queue length and waiting times. This would not be the case here. In this appeal the TA has been undertaken in accordance with the SCC model and the proposal has been deemed acceptable in highway terms subject to the off-site highway improvement works and agreed contributions. There is no substantive evidence before me to persuade me that the conclusions of SCC and HE are incorrect.

11.65 SOS also contends that a number of accidents have taken place in the Stretton Area and on the A38 and that the TAS only uses accident data for a limited period221. Newspaper extracts have been provided in relation to accidents along the A38 as well as a report that there is to be a major review into safety on the A38. Firstly the reports are about accidents along the length of the A38 through Burton as opposed to any specific connection to study junction 5. I have already considered the effects of development on the junction onto the A38 and the necessary measures to address additional traffic travelling through that particular junction.

11.66 The additional traffic generated by the development and travelling along the A38 would be, in all probability, a very small proportion of the total traffic travelling along that main arterial route. I conclude that the additional traffic from the development would be unlikely to materially affect highway safety on that route.

217 SOS 8 Email SCC to Ashley Helme Associates dated 15 October 2014. 218 Indicated in principle on drawings 1324/30 revision C and 1324/37 at CD8.4.5 and CD8.4.6 219 Mr Jackson explained that this was 12% of the 60% of pupils due to come from areas off-site. 220 Appeal reference APP/P1805/A/14/2225584: Land at Whitford Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. 221 1/11/2010 to 31/10/2013.

97 11.67 Secondly the accident data used in the TAS covered a three year period for each of the study junctions and was agreed with SCC and is typical of many transport assessments. As Mr Jackson explained it is usual to look for clusters of accidents or recurring patterns in them so as to identify deficiencies. In his oral evidence Mr Jackson confirmed that in the 3 year period up to 2013 covered in the TAS there has been 21 accidents. This compares with most recent accident data from May 2012 to April 2015 in which there were 24 accidents which is not materially different.

11.68 Access onto the appeal site would be via two access points from Craythorne Road referred to as the northern access and the southern access. The alignment of the accesses would facilitate an internal access road through the site which is intended to be the main route from the southern end of Craythorne Road to its northern end. The existing stretch of Craythorne Road between the two points would effectively be used for access to serve those existing properties. In addition the portion of Craythorne Road between the southern access point and Bitham Lane would be widened and a pedestrian crossing introduced on Bitham Lane is also proposed.

11.69 The re-alignment of the carriageway at the northern access point would remove the ‘notorious’ bend which SOS expressed concern about. It is evident that access to all properties would be maintained and at the Inquiry a condition was discussed to secure further details of the accommodation works and means of access.222 Having carefully examined the proposed access plan and conducted my site visit I am satisfied that the proposed new access roads would not impinge on an existing trees on the appeal site. Finally SOS raise concerns about the southern access road being used as a drop off zone for school children on the proposed school site but this could be controlled by waiting restrictions. In any event this is a matter which would have to be considered on any planning application for a new school.

11.70 Conclusions on highways issues: for all of the above reasons I conclude that the impacts of development on the highways network could be satisfactorily addressed by the off-site highway works proposed and by the financial contribution towards the Burton Transport Strategy. The designed access to the site is acceptable and I would recommend approval of this matter.

Landscape

11.71 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment223 was submitted with the scheme and the Council and Appellant are agreed on various matters with regard to landscape impact and these are set out in the SCG. Their principal agreement is that the wider impacts would not be severe and the appeal proposal would have a minor adverse to negligible impact on the area in landscape and visual terms at year 15. SOS takes issue with the landscape conclusions in a number of respects.[8.30-8.32]

11.72 The LVIA has been produced in accordance with GLIVIA 3 which acknowledges that whilst there is some scope for quantitative measurements,

222 Suggested condition 12 in the schedule ESBC.16 223 CD1.5

98 much of the assessments must rely on qualitative judgments.224 SOS point out that the Council did not have the LVIA checked by a landscape expert.

11.73 The appeal site lies within the Needwood and South Derbyshire Claylands’ National Character Area and the local landscape character type ‘Settled Plateau Farmlands’. The site does not have any national designation and lies on the north-western edge of Stretton.

11.74 The eastern edge of the site nestles into Craythorne Road as the road winds its way up to Rolleston on Dove from the south. This boundary is framed by field hedgerows interspersed with boundary trees and some wide verges as the road bends a corner. The southern site boundary is bordered by the rear gardens of the houses which line Bitham Lane. The former golf club lies to the east. An internal ancient hedgerow along a footpath, known as the Bulwaulk, separates the two main fields which make up the site.

11.75 Within the setting of a wider rural landscape the site is reasonably well- contained and somewhat removed from that wider rural landscape. Loss of the site to housing development would dramatically change the site and its immediate environs. However, the impact of development on the landscape in its own right would be limited by virtue of the site’s location within that landscape and its location adjacent to existing development. I am satisfied that the assessment of minor adverse to negligible impact on the landscape as a natural resource is a reasonable one.

11.76 The consideration of the site is somewhat different in terms of an assessment on the visual effects of the development, having regard to the significance of the effect upon various receptors. The Appellant’s description is of a site which is surrounded on all sides by development. Whilst this may be factually correct it does not necessary convey a true impression of the site in visual terms.

11.77 The site comprises a large area of agricultural land which is clearly enclosed by housing on its eastern and southern boundaries. The golf site is not readily apparent from either within the appeal site or from vantage points along Craythorne Road. In addition, from Craythorne Road the rolling topography of the appeal site and intervening hedgerows limit views much beyond the appeal site’s far western boundary such that the site does not read as an enclosed piece of agricultural land but as the edge of a rural landscape. This is a relevant when it comes to assessing the significance of the effects on visual amenity.

11.78 SOS point out that Craythorne Road is an important recreational route for walkers and indeed it is included as part of the route for one of the parish walks in the Neighbourhood Plan.225 Turning into Craythorne Road from Bitham Lane, a walker experiences an almost immediate change from the tightly knit housing on both sides of Bitham Lane to the open aspect on the western side of Craythorne Road. The houses are set back and the lack of a footway enhances the tranquil, rural feel of Craythorne Road. Its location on the edge of the settlement indicates to me that it is likely to be a route

224 §1.17 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition. 225 CD7.4, Appendix V, walk 2.

99 popular with local walkers and used to access the wider footpath network and local walks such as the Jinny Trail. In addition, the length of Craythorne Road is such that walkers would experience the open aspect to the west for an appreciable time as they walked along its length.

11.79 For all of these reasons I conclude that the assessment in the LVIA in terms of the visual impact on transient receptors along Craythorne Road has been underestimated. I consider that these receptors are of high sensitivity and that the effects in the long term would be moderate adverse because the rural aspect would be permanently lost along a recreational route and replaced by the edge of a housing development, albeit with landscaping and hedgerow retention along that boundary.

11.80 SOS also gave evidence as to the history of the Bulwaulk and its importance to local people.226 This is an informal footpath along the ancient hedgerow which divides the two fields of the appeal site. Ms Kirkland explained that the walkway has been there for very many years and was based on an ancient system of three agricultural fields in rotation. She further confirmed that, to her knowledge, the footpath has been used by Stretton residents for over 80 years.

11.81 Whilst the Appellant has indicated a willingness to incorporate a walkway through any proposed development, it is inevitable that the development would change the experience of walkers along this path. The footpath is not a public right of way although an application for a modification order227 has been submitted to and acknowledged by SCC. Whilst the Bulwaulk has evidently enjoyed by residents, their future use of the footpath is not guaranteed.

11.82 The LVIA also assesses the effect of development from other viewpoints surrounding the site but these are not controversial. It is right to record that in these other viewpoints, there would only be partial or glimpsed views of the development from the wider surrounding area. In relation to these remaining viewpoints the LVIA characterises any harm at year 15 as none, negligible or minor adverse at its highest. I conclude that this is a fair assessment of the effects.

11.83 Conclusions on Landscape issues: Bringing all of the above together I conclude that, whilst there would be no material harm to the wider landscape there would be moderate harm to the visual amenity of pedestrian receptors along Craythorne Road for the reasons set out. Having regard to the extent of the walking route involved and its proximity to the village and the likelihood of its use by villagers, I conclude that limited weight should be attached to this harm in the final planning balance.

Flood risk

11.84 The appeal site is in flood zone 1 and a flood risk assessment was submitted with the planning application.228 The assessment acknowledges that the proposal would increase the chances of local flooding due to hard surfacing in

226 Proof of evidence of June Kirkland 227 SOS.10 228 CD1.11

100 the development facilitating quicker runoff during periods of heavy rainfall. The report concludes that development can be accommodated on the site without increasing flood risk elsewhere by mitigating all identified long term residual flood risks in the area. This would be achieved by the incorporation of a sustainable urban drainage system which would reduce peak run off and attenuation storage, as well as surface water discharge via land drains.

11.85 The Environment Agency, SCC and the Council have no objections to the proposal on grounds of flood risk subject to conditions to secure the above matters.229 The various reports confirm that balancing ponds would be best placed on the lowest, eastern corner of the site to utilise the gently sloping topography. SOS raises concerns that this is the area now indicated to be reserved for the school site.230 However the reserved land is a relatively small portion of the land on the eastern boundary and the two requirements are not mutually exclusive. The CIRIA document231 quoted by Mr Lamb does not preclude the use of surface water basins near to primary schools but instead indicates appropriate safety measures to be taken.

11.86 I further note that the UU shows the general location of the school site and confirms that the exact position will be determined in accordance with any planning permission.232

11.87 The SOS group contend that evidence of localised flooding on Craythorne Road and the golf course were submitted to the Appellant and disregarded. It is clear however that the solution proposed is designed to result in a situation where surface water runoff rates are certainly no greater than existing rates and may result in some reduction. I conclude that, subject to the suggested conditions, an appropriate design solution could be achieved, which would not prejudice the school site coming forward and would not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

Other matters

11.88 Local residents and SOS asserted that provision has not been made in relation to local special needs schools but this is not a position taken by the local education authority. People also raised concerns about the effects of development on healthcare and other services but again there is nothing other than anecdotal evidence before me. Given the location of the site and the existing degree of separation between Rolleston and Stretton I am satisfied that the development would not result in coalescence of the two settlements.

11.89 An ecological survey was commissioned and an Aboricultural Assessment submitted with the application.233 Two relatively small sections of hedgerow would be lost with the development but the majority would be retained thus retaining existing habitat. I am satisfied that the effects of development would not prejudice ecological interests subject to the two suggested

229 Suggested condition 24 ESBC.16 230 Plan showing s106 school land appended to the UU. 231 CIRIA RP992 THE SuDS Manual Update: Health and Safety Risk Assessment Principles for SUDS at p. 27 Graham Lamb proof of evidence. 232 UU definitions clause, page 27. 233 CD1.8 and CD1.9

101 conditions to protect retained habitats and protected species and to adhere to an agreed planting scheme.234

11.90 SOS also raised concerns about the community engagement exercise undertaken by the Appellant. It is clear that a public consultation exercise was undertaken both by the Appellant and by the Council during two rounds of consultation. This is evident from the large numbers of representations. It is clear that local residents have engaged with the planning process at various stages and indeed this is apparent from the Rule 6 status afforded to the SOS group and the full part it has played at the Inquiry.

Overall Conclusions

12.1 At the start of my conclusions I set out the exercise to be undertaken. I have concluded that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole because of the nature and scale of the scheme and the strategic nature of the policies offended.[10.1-10.3, 10.20-10.21]

12.2 I have examined the question of whether the Council has a 5 year supply of housing land and concluded that it does. Therefore the relevant provision in paragraph 49 of the Framework is not engaged. In addition, the ESLP and SNP are both recently adopted and made and there is no suggestion that policies are otherwise absent, silent or out-of-date for other reasons. Both plans have been found to be sound and therefore consistent with national objectives in the Framework, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development.[10.22-10.91]

12.3 The section 38(6) duty enshrines in statute the primacy of the development plan. As an essential component of the ‘plan-led’ system, it is also reiterated in the Framework235. The duty has variously been described as a ‘presumption in favour of the development plan’236 and ‘a priority to be given to the development plan in the determination of planning matters’237.

12.4 The Framework is of course a material consideration to which substantial weight should be attached. Paragraph 14 recites the presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what it means for decision-taking. The proposal does not accord with the development plan and relevant policies are not absent, silent or out-of-date, therefore the first and second bullet points of paragraph 14 do not apply here. Given my findings, it follows that, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and tip the balance in favour of development, then planning permission should be refused.

12.5 The Framework seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing. However the objective of boosting housing significantly is not simply to be applied in a vacuum without regard to other objectives. Rather it is to be viewed in the context of the overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development. That is precisely what paragraph 49 of the Framework envisages.

12.6 The Appellant’s socio-economic report refers to the population growth in East Staffordshire since 1991 but this growth and future projected growth has

234 Suggested conditions 21 and 22 ESBC.16 235 §§11, 12, 196 236 Lord Hope of Craighead in City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 WLR 1447 237 Ibid Lord Clyde

102 been considered through the LP examination process when decisions were made as to the most appropriate locations to accommodate such growth. It is also notable that the aim of significantly boosting housing supply set out in paragraph 47 is directed at plan-making activities and a requirement to fully assess needs before allocating sites and then maintaining a sufficient supply. In other words the vehicle intended to deliver the much needed boost to supply is the plan-led system itself. The consequences of failing to deliver and maintain a sufficient supply of housing are clearly set out in paragraphs 49 and 14.

12.7 I now turn to examine the other relevant material considerations. In doing so it is useful to group those considerations into the three dimensions which make up sustainable development.

An Environmental Role

12.8 The proposal would result in the development of a greenfield site contrary to national objectives in relation to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. It would also result in the loss of 22 hectares of BMV land which is a reasonably scarce resource in East Staffordshire. I have found that some weight should be attached to the harm caused by the loss of this BMV land.[11.1-11.10]In addition I have concluded that a limited amount of weight should be attached to the harm to the visual amenity of the area in landscape terms.[11.82]

12.9 The Appellant contends that public access to the Bulwaulk would be secured and it is a factor in support of the proposal. However, the nature of the Bulwaulk would completely change from a footpath in an open countryside setting to a footpath within a housing estate. I do not consider that this would represent a net benefit of any material weight. The provision of green infrastructure on the site and sustainable urban drainage are matters required to ensure that the proposal is satisfactory. I am not satisfied that they would result in material net additional benefits over and above the retention of a green field.

A Social Role

12.10 The proposal would result in a benefit238 due to the likelihood of net additional 0.5FE primary school provision over and above that required to meet the demands of the development. I have concluded that this would make a modest contribution to the acknowledged need and should attract limited weight.[11.46]

12.11 The proposal would also result in market housing and affordable housing in an accessible location as well as the provision of open spaces and cycle ways. The parties are agreed that the provision of affordable housing attracts substantial weight in the planning balance.239 However this should be viewed in the context of my finding that the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. I consider it to be a reasonable assumption that the sites identified in that supply are also likely to make a contribution in terms of market and affordable housing. Those sites were only recently allocated

238 CD2.4 Socio-Economic Sustainability Statement 239 SCG §6.6.3

103 through the recent development plan process and were examined in light of a national policy presumption in favour of sustainable development.

An Economic Role

12.12 The proposal would result in construction jobs and other economic benefits over the lifetime of the development. It would contribute to growth in the area and would generate Council Tax revenue. Whilst contributions are to be made under the UU these are intended to mitigate the effects of the development and render it acceptable in planning terms. Such payments do not constitute benefits in the planning balance.

12.13 The Appellant also contends that the Council would receive a New Homes Bonus but no schemes upon which the bonus would be spent have been identified. In accordance with the advice in the PPG240 it would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the potential for the development to raise money for the Council in the absence of evidence to demonstrate how that money would be used to make this particular development acceptable in planning terms.

The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

12.14 The Appellant contends that the proposal constitutes sustainable development and that this is a material consideration which outweighs any conflict with the development plan and points to the grant of planning permission. A recent High Court judgment, the Wychavon case241, and the Red House Farm appeal decision242are relied upon in support of this approach. The Red House Farm decision is cited as being particularly relevant given that it is a recent decision in similar circumstances in the same local planning authority area as the present appeal.

12.15 In this case the ESLP and the SNP make up the development plan and both indicate that development should not be allowed on the appeal site. Both of these plans have been recently adopted, having been tested through the examination process and deemed to be sound and in accordance with the principles of sustainable development enunciated in the Framework. Therefore paragraph 14 of the Framework does not apply.

12.16 The failure to accord with the development plan as a whole is a significant matter indicating that planning permission should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case there are other benefits and dis-benefits of the proposal. When these material considerations are weighed in the balance I am quite satisfied that they do not overcome the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan. I conclude that planning permission should not be granted.

12.17 In coming to the above view I have had regard to the approach recommended by the Appellant. The Council has also referred me to the Renew case243 which was determined at the same time. On the face of it the difference between the two cases appears to be one of the approach to the

240 Reference ID: 21b-011-20140612 241 Wychavon Developments Ltd [2016] EWHC 592 (Admin) 242 Land off Lower Outwoods Road, Burton upon Trent. Appeal reference: APP/B3410/W/16/3142808 243 Cheshire East BC v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 571 (admin)

104 application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and its relationship to paragraph 14.

12.18 Mr Justice Jay in the Renew case confirmed his view that paragraph 14 is about process, not outcome and that ‘a decision maker will only know if a proposal is sustainable or not by obeying the processes mandated by the paragraph. An integral part of the process is a positive weighting in favour of sustainable development in the sense that the proposal will be assessed as such unless the planning harm clearly and significantly outweighs the planning gain’. (my emphasis)

12.19 Mr Justice Jay indicates that the question as to whether or not a proposal is sustainable development can only be answered by carrying out the exercise outlined in paragraph 14. In the Wychavon case Mr Justice Coulson sets out the relevant approach at paragraphs 20-25 as follows:

’20. In my view, in the sort of circumstances that arose in the present case, the correct approach required the decision-maker to ask a number of questions in sequence.

21.First: is there is a development plan? It is only if there is a development plan that s.38(6) of the 2004 Act comes into play.

22. Second: if there is a development plan, is it absent or silent or are relevant policies out-of-date? That question needs to be asked in order to see whether the approach set out in the second bullet point of paragraph 14 comes into play.

23. Third: if there is a development plan which is not silent and/or relevant policies are not out-of-date, then the decision-maker has to decide whether or not the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan. If it is in accordance with the plan, the proposed development must be approved without delay.

24. Fourth: if the proposed development is not in accordance with the development plan then the decision-maker has to undertake the balancing exercise referred to in s.38(6). In other words, the decision-maker must start with the statutory priority of the development plan, and therefore a presumption against granting planning permission, and balance against that, other material considerations that may indicate the contrary result. That is also in accordance with paragraphs 11 - 13 of the NPPF.

25. Fifth: if the development plan is silent or the relevant policies are out-of-date then the decision-maker must grant permission unless one or other of the two alternative limbs in the second bullet point in paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies.

12.19 The approach which I have applied above is consistent with the steps outlined by Mr Justice Coulson in the Wychavon case. Mr Justice Coulson further comments that ‘it is quite wrong to say that a presumption in favour of sustainable development does not exist in the NPPF outside paragraph 14’.244 This seems unsurprising given that the Framework states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is a golden thread or theme running through the whole of this instrument of government policy.

244 Ibid §41

105 12.20 However, the overarching objective of achieving sustainable development does not, in my view, equate to a separate test which sits outside the statutory presumption and process enshrined in section 38. Instead the consideration of the development plan and other material considerations, (including the Framework and its objectives and the presumption in favour of sustainable development) effectively lead to a judgment which will either be permissive of development which is sustainable or preclude development which is not.

12.21 On behalf of the Appellant245 it was accepted that in any separate examination of sustainability it was relevant to consider the conformity with an adopted development plan which itself was in conformity with the Framework.

12.22 In the circumstances of this case, even if I were to apply the approach advocated by the Appellant the recommendation would remain one of dismissal. This is because a freestanding consideration of the three dimensions of sustainable development would lead me to the conclusion that the proposal does not equate to sustainable development because it would result in the unfettered release of a greenfield site, the loss of BMV and some harm to visual amenity to which I have attributed limited weight. The other benefits outlined do not cumulatively outweigh these dis-benefits.

12.23 Finally, I have considered the Red House Farm appeal decision. The Council inform me that it has issued instructions for the appeal decision to be challenged by an application for judicial review. It is not for me to pre-judge the outcome of any proceedings in the High Court and as such the appeal decision remains a material consideration in my determination. However the Secretary of State will wish to satisfy himself as to the position regarding that piece of litigation at the time of his determination.

12.24 That appeal was for residential development on a greenfield site outside the settlement boundary in the Council’s administrative area. Therefore the same development plan policies are at play and it was common ground that the Council had a five year housing land supply. However the case did not involve the loss of BMV and therefore the planning balance was different. In addition I note that the above appeal was determined by written representations and it may be that the points raised before me were not put to that Inspector. In particular I note that he was made aware of the Wychavon case but not the Renew case. I have made my recommendation addressing the issues raised between the parties and ventilated fully at the Inquiry.

245 Mrs Hodson in cross-examination.

106 Recommendation

13.1 For all of the above reasons I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

13.2 If the Secretary of State is minded to disagree with my recommendation, Annex A lists the conditions that I consider should be attached to any permission granted.

Karen L Ridge

INSPECTOR

107

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr John Hunter Of Counsel Instructed by the Solicitor to East Staffordshire Borough Council (ESBC) He called

Mr Tony Kernon BSc(Hons) Principal, Kernon Countryside Consultants Ltd MRICS FBIAC

Mrs Anna Miller MSc Planning Manager, ESBC BSc(Hons) Dip.TP MRTPI

Ms Melissa Kurihara MLPM Principal Planning Consultant, Urban Vision MRTPI

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Paul Cairnes, Queens Instructed by Gladman Developments Ltd Counsel

He called

Mr Benjamin Jackson Director, Ashley Helme Associates Ltd BEng(Hons) MSc MCIHT

Mrs Janet Hodson Principal, JVH Town Planning Consultants Ltd BA(Hons) Dip.TP MRTPI

FOR SAVE OUR STRETTON:

Mr Graham Lamb Local resident Mrs June Kirkland Local resident

INTERESTED PARTIES

Mr Sanderson Chairman Rolleston Parish Council

Mr Windmill CPRE

Mr Abberley Local resident

108

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE INQUIRY

Documents submitted by ESBC

ESBC.1 Opening remarks on behalf of the Council. ESBC.2 Extract from Burton Mail ‘Deal for Bargates site’. ESBC.3 Draft schedule of conditions. ESBC.4 Statement of CIL compliance. ESBC.5 Statement of Agricultural Land Quality in England, Staffordshire and East Staffordshire from Kernon Countryside Consultants. ESBC.6 College Fields timeline setting out chronology of events. ESBC.7 Appeal decision APP/B3410/W/15/3140446, Nene House, Uttoxeter Road, Kingstone, Uttoxeter dated 27 April 2016. ESBC.8 Hunston Properties Ltd v SSCLG & St Albans City and District Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1610. ESBC.9 Bloor Homes V SSCLG & Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin). ESBC.10 Extract ‘Council of Mortgage Lenders Answers for England and Wales’. ESBC.11 Copy letter Staffordshire County Council regarding Unilateral Undertaking dated 3 May 2016. ESBC.12 SSCLG decision letter re Land East of Broad Road, Hambrook, Chichester, West Sussex dated 25 April 2016. ESBC.13 Schedule of suggested conditions. ESBC.14 Committee report re Branston Locks, Lawns Farm, Branston Road, Tatenhill, Staffordshire dated 21 October 2013. ESBC.15 Committee report re Glenville Farm, Tutbury Road, Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire dated 27 October 2015. ESBC.16 Closing submissions on behalf of the Council.

Documents submitted by the appellants

GDL.01 Live Tables and explanatory text – Housing Evidence Base documents. GDL.02 Correspondence JVH and ESBC re Completions. GDL.03 Correspondence re Council Tax Starts. GDL.04 Screenshot re Housing Evidence Base Documents. GDL.05 JVH note re Requirement and Supply. GDL.06 Hallam Land letter regarding Beamhill Road 22 April 2016. GDL.07 Bellway letter regarding Burton on Trent sales rates dated 1 June 2015. GDL.08 JVH note regarding Howard Transport and particulars from AR Argyle. GDL.09 Email Philip Hickman to JVH Planning dated 21 April 2016 and Bargates particulars. GDL.10 EBSC planning responses regarding school sites at Tatenhill and Henhurst Ridge. GDL.11 Wychavon DC v SSCLG v Crown House [2016] EWHC 592 (Admin). GDL.12 Opening statement. GDL.13 Brandon Lewis Letter on school funding dated 9 February 2016. GDL.14 Focal Research Ltd- Delivery Rates on UK’s Top 10 Housebuilders.

109 GDL.15 Draft unilateral undertaking. GDL.16 Appeal decision Lower Outwoods Farm, Burton upon Trent APP/B3410/W/16/3142808. GDL.17 Red House Farm masterplan. GDL.18 Article on JCB compulsory purchase order dated 27 January 2016 GDL.19 St Modwen Developments v SSCLG v East Riding of Yorkshire [2016] EWHC 968 (Admin) GDL.20 Extract from Building Bulletin 103. GDL.21 Table depicting areas of disagreement on Unilateral Undertaking. GDL.22 List of locations and supporting maps detailing sites the Inspector is requested to visit. GDL.23 Map showing public rights of way in the vicinity of the appeal site. GDL.24 Minutes from Stretton Parish Council meeting dated 2 February 2016. GDL.25 Inspector’s Report to SoS on Land at Church Lane, Wistaton, Crewe, Cheshire appeal reference APP/R0660/A/14/2213505. GDL.26 Newspaper report ‘Discussions break down over Bargates land sale’ dated 3 March 2016. GDL.27 Appellant’s closing statement. GDL.28 Office copy entries from the land registry in relation to appeal site land.

Documents submitted by Save our Stretton

SOS.01 Appeal Decision- land south of Dereham Road, Mattishall, Norfolk. Reference APP/F2605/W/15/3027972. SOS.02 IMcH Planning and Development Consultancy Planning Statement in relation to Guinevere Avenue, Stretton. SOS.03 Photographs entitled ‘Craythorne Road after heavy rain’. SOS.04 Photographs entitled ‘Church Road Schools Traffic’. SOS.05 Opening Statement. SOS.06 Bundle of documents submitted to aid cross-examination of Mr Jackson. SOS.07 Email Ashley Helme Associates to Geoff Evenson dated 15 October 2014. SOS.08 Bundle of documents to aid cross-examination of Mrs Hodson. SOS.09 Email Rebecca Buckley to Andrew Dunum dated 16 May 2016. SOS.10 Closing Statement.

Documents submitted by other interested parties

3P.1 Statement from Mr Stuart Abberley.

3P.2 Representation 1: Planning Policy on behalf of The Campaign to Protect Rural England (Staffordshire).

3P.3 Representation 2: Housing on behalf of The Campaign to Protect Rural England (Staffordshire).

3P.4 Extract CPRE report ‘Set up to fail: why housing targets based on flawed numbers threaten the countryside’, submitted by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

110 3P.5 Extract CPRE report ‘Getting Houses Built’, submitted by CPRE.

3P.6 Explanatory note relating to the Highway Sum in the section 106 agreement, submitted on behalf of Staffordshire County Council.

3P.7 East Staffordshire Borough Integrated Transport Strategy 2014-2031, submitted by Staffordshire County Council.

3P.8 District Integrated Transport Strategies ‘Report on the Outcome of the Consultation Process 2011/12’ submitted by Staffordshire County Council.

111 CORE DOCUMENTS

Folder 1

CD1- Application Documents 1.1 Application letter, forms and Certificates 1.2 Location Plan (including Application Red Line) 1.3 Development Framework Plan 1.4 Design and Access Statement 1.5 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 1.6 Transport Assessment and Appendices 1.7 Travel Plan 1.8 Ecological Appraisal 1.9 Arboricultural Assessment 1.10 Site Investigation

Folder 2 CD1- Application Documents (continued) 1.11 Flood Risk Assessment 1.12 Noise Assessment 1.13 Archaeolgical DBA 1.14 Foul Drainage Analysis 1.15 Air Quality 1.16 Statement of Community Involvement 1.17 Socio-economic Sustainability Assessment 1.18 Planning Statement

Folder 3 CD2- Documents submitted post application 2.1 Development Framework 5191-l-02_L 2.2 Design and Access Statement 5191-May 2015-D 2.3 Transport Assessment 1324-6-TAS 2.4 Socio-economic Statement May 2015 2.5 Planning Statement Final May 2015 2.6 Sports Facilities Audit 2.7 Flood Risk Assessment J-D1021-R05

CD3- Correspondence with Local Planning Authority 3.1 Affordable Housing 3.2 Agricultural Land Quality - Natural England Response 16.07.15 3.3 Case Officer 3.4 Education 3.5 Highways England 3.6 Highways Authority 3.7 Environment Manager 3.8 Environmental Health 3.9 Flood Risk Planning 3.10 Severn Trent Water 3.11 Sport England 3.12 EIA Screening letter

112 CD4- Committee Report and Minutes 4.1 Officer's Report 21.07.15 4.2 Planning Committee Minutes 21.07.15 4.3 Update Report of the Head of Service

CD5- Decision Notice 5.1 Decision Notice 23.07.15

FOLDER 4 CD6- Relevant Correspondence- Post Submission of Appeal CD 6 Intentionally blank

CD7 -The Development Plan 7.1 East Staffordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 (October 2015) 7.2 East Staffordshire Policies Map - Inset Map 1 (Burton upon Trent and District) 7.3 Extracts of the Local Plan Inspector's Report (October 2015) 7.4 Stretton Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2031 (February 2016) 7.5 Briefing Note (09.07.15) Ashley HelmeReport of the Independent Examiner (November 2015) 7.6 County Council Hearing Statement to EIP 7.7 Local Plan Inspector's Interim Findings (October 2014)

CD8- Documents submitted Post Application 8.1 Agricultural Land Quality Report - LRA 15.02.16 8.2 Arboricultural Assessment rev A FPCR - January 2016 8.3 Addendum Noise Assessment - Wardell Armstrong (21.07.15) 8.4.1 Transport Assessment 1324/2/C July 2014 (Ashley Helme) 8.4.2 Transport Assessment 1324/2/C July 2014 (Ashley Helme) App F + drawings 8.4.3 Briefing Note (09.07.15) Ashley Helme 8.4.4 1324/40 Rev A - Claymills Junction - Indicative Improvements 8.4.5 1324/37 Craythorne Road proposed passing bay scheme 8.4.6 1324/30 Rev C - Proposed site access arrangements

CD9- Evidence Base for the Development Plan 9.1 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (April 2014) 9.2 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2014 - Craythorne Road, Stretton 9.3 ESBC Note on 5 Year Land Supply Methodology 30.09.15 9.4 Note on Methodology Used in Determining Historic Housing Windfall rate, and in Putting Forward a Future Likely Windfall Allowance in the 5 Year Housing Supply Calculation (January 2014) 9.5 Gladman Representations on the East Staffordshire Local Plan Pre- submission consultation 9.6 East Staffordshire Local Plan EIP Hearing Statement Matter 7 Housing Land Supply – Gladman 9.7 Regeneris on behalf of Gladman Day 5 Part 1 Hearing Statement 9.8 East Staffordshire Local Plan EIP Hearing Statement Day 5, Part 2 Gladman 9.9 East Staffordshire Local Plan EIP Hearing Statement Alternative (Omission) Sites - Land at Craythorne Road

113 9.10 East Staffordshire Local Plan EIP Housing Supply/Trajectory Addendum paper Gladman 9.11 Impact of DCLG Household projections April 2015 9.12 Housing Choices SPD (April 2016) 9.13 Waste, Storage and Collection Guidance Document (2012) 9.14 Open Space Supplementary Planning Document (2010)

FOLDER 5 CD10- Relevant Appeal Decisions 10.1 Land at Southwell Road, Farnsfield, Nottinghamshire. APP/B3030/W/15/3006252 10.2 Land to the east of Hardingstone, north of Newport Pagnell Road, Northampton. APP/V2825/A/14/2228866 10.3 Land at The Asps, bound by Europa Way (A452) to the east and Banbury Road (A425) to the west. APP/T3725/A/14/2221613 10.4 Land south of Hare Street Road, Buntingford, East Hertfordshire. APP/J1915/A/14/2220854 & APP/J1915/A/14/2220859 10.5 Land off Worcester Road, Drakes Broughton, Worcestershire. APP/H1840/W/15/3008340 10.6 Land at Hill Top Farm, By-Pass Road, Northwich, Cheshire. APP/A0665/W/14/3000528 10.7 Land east of Wellesbourne Road and north of Wasperton Lane, Barford. APP/T3725/A/14/2215618 & APP/T3725/A/14/2222805 10.8 Money Hill, Land north of Wood Street, Ashby-de-la-Zouch. APP/G2435/A/14/2228806 10.9 Land off Rosemary Lane, Leintwardine, Herefordshire. APP/W1850/W/15/3006428 10.10 Land at Fountain Lane, Davenham, Cheshire. APP/A0665/A/14/2226994 10.11 Land at Berkeley Farm, Swindon Road, Wroughton. APP/U3935/W/15/3035660 10.12 Land north of Long Copse Lane, Westbourne, Emsworth. APP/L3815/W/15/3003656 10.13 Land west of Beech Tree Close, Oakley, Basingstoke APP/H1705/W/15/3005729 10.14 Land east of Mount Hindrance Farm, Chard APP/R3325/A/13/2209680 10.15 Steart Farm, Bideford APP/W1145/A/14/2228356 & APP/W1145/A/14/2228355 10.16 39 Highwood Road, Uttoxeter APP/B3410/W/15/3132685 10.17 Land between Ashflats Lane and A449 mosspit, Stafford APP/A/14/2217578 10.18 Land Bounded by Gresty Lane, Rope Lane, Crewe Road and A500, Crewe APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 10.19 Land at Whitford Road, Bromsgrove APP/P1805/A/14/2225584 10.20 Land South of New Moor arm and East of North End, Southminster APP/X1545/A/14/2224678 10.21 Agricultural land to both the north and south of Mans Hill, Burghfield Common, Reading, Berkshire APP/W0340/A/14/2226342 10.22 Land at Tilehurst Lane, Binfield, Bracknell, Berkshire APP/R0335/A/14/2219888 10.23 Land off Muxton Lane, Muxton, Telford APP/C3240/W/15/3010085 10.24 Abbey Road, Syresham, Northamptonshire APP/Z2830/W/14/3000537 10.25 Land off Station Road, Ivinghoe, Buckinghamshire APP/J0405/W/15/3002218

114 10.26 Land to the rear of 10 Gorse Lane, Bayston Hill, Shropshire APP/L3245/W/15/3127978 10.27 Land south of Leadon Way, Ledbury, Herefordshire APP/W1850/W/15/3009456

CD11 Relevant Judgments 11.1 Woodcock Holdings Limited v Secretary of State Judgement [2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin) 11.2 Cheshire East BC & SSCLG v Renew Land Developments [2016] EWHC 571 (Admin) 11.3 Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes v SSCLG and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 168

FOLDER 6 CD12- Other Documents 12.1 Cambridge Education - School Planning Study Part 1 12.2 AMEC SCC Burton upon Trent School Site Search 12.3 PPG Extract - Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessments 12.4 The Save Our Stretton report (June 15) 12.5 East Staffordshire Borough Integrated Transport Strategy 2014 – 2031 12.6 Henhurst Ridge Primary Traffic Assessment (attached) 12.7 Branston School Proposals (attached) 12.8 The General Application Correspondence Files - Electronic copy only 12.9 Stretton Allotments Flood Consultation 12.10 East Staffs Housing Pipeline (sites with planning permission as at 30.03.15) 12.11 East Staffs Housing Pipeline (sites with planning permission as at 30.09.15) 12.12 Extracts from East Staffordshire Local Plan (Examination) Revised Sustainability Appraisal December 2014 12.13 Correspondence between JVH Planning and ESBC re Annual Monitoring - expected site delivery details 12.14 Soils and Agricultural Land Quality - Maps 2 + 3 (Land Research Associates)

115

Annex A- List of Acronyms

BMV Best and most versatile agricultural land

CD Core Document

CIL Community Infrastructure Levy

CPRE Campaign for the Protection of Rural England dpa Dwellings per annum

ESBC East Staffordshire Borough Council

ESLP East Staffordshire Local Plan

FE Form of Entry (in relation to schools provision)

5YHLS Five year housing land supply

GLIVIA3 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Version 3

LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

SCC Staffordshire County Council

SCG Planning Statement of Common Ground between the Council and Appellant

SOS Save our Stretton (a rule 6 party)

TA Transport Assessment

UU Unilateral Undertaking

116

ANNEX B

List of Recommended Conditions in the event that the Secretary of State is minded to allow the appeal and planning permission is granted.

Approved Plans

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved access drawing ref: 1324/30 Rev C (March 2014) and the Site Location Plan drawing no. 2012-016-005 (dated 29.11.13)

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out substantially in accordance with the principles of the Design and Access Statement ref 5191-May 2015-Rev: D.

3. The development hereby permitted shall comprise no more than 385 dwellings.

Time Periods

4. Prior to commencement of the development a Masterplan covering the whole site must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Masterplan must include details of a) Any phasing of the development; b) Street layout of the primary access roads through the site; c) Location of housing areas, including distribution of affordable housing across the phases/site; d) The location of the 1.69ha of safeguarded land for the provision of a primary school; e) Areas of public open space; f) Areas of equipped play; g) Areas of surface water attenuation; h) Areas of landscaping; i) Details of access to the school site; j) Details of plot and site boundaries.

All Reserved Matters submissions in relation to the development hereby approved shall conform to the principles of the approved Masterplan.

5. For each phase of development, details of appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins on that phase of development and the development shall be carried out as approved.

6. Application for approval of reserved matters for the first phase of development must be made not later than the expiration of 2 years from the date of this permission and the development on that first phase of development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (i) the expiration of 2 years from the date of this permission, (ii) the expiration of 2 years from the final approval of the reserved matters for that first phase or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

7. Application for approval of reserved matters for all subsequent phases of development must be made not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission

117 and the development must be begun on each subsequent phase of development not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

(i) the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, (ii) the expiration of 3 years from the final approval of the reserved matters for that particular phase or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reserved matters

8. There can be no development on any phase of the development hereby permitted until details of boundary treatments, including materials, finishes, heights and sections (where there are changes in topography) for each plot of that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation/use of the part of the phase to which it relates.

9. There can be no development on any phase of the development hereby permitted until details of all road construction, street lighting and highways drainage, including longitudinal sections and an implementation programme for that phase of development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development on that phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

10. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a Noise Impact Assessment, together with details of any noise mitigation measures and an implementation programme, for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development.

11. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling to which it relates, accesses, parking and turning areas for that dwelling shall be provided in a bound material in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority at reserved matters stage. The bound material shall have a high degree of porosity to reduce the amount of surface run-off. The accesses, parking and turning areas shall thereafter be made available at all times for these purposes and retained thereafter.

Highway Improvements

12. No development shall commence until schemes for offsite highways works, to include a timetable for their implementation and details of their ongoing maintenance and management, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted schemes shall include the following: a) all accommodation works for No’s 86, 84, 82, 80 and 78 Craythorne Road as indicated in principle on submitted drawing no. 1324/30 Rev C (the southern access); b) all accommodation works for No’s 18, 8, 6, 4 Craythorne Road as indicated in principle on submitted drawing no. 1324/30 Rev C (the northern access); c) a scheme for the widening of Craythorne Road and footway provision between Bridge Street and the southern access as broadly indicated on submitted drawing number 1324/30 Rev C ; d) 5 (no.) passing bays on Craythorne Road as indicated in principle on drawings numbered 1324/30 Rev C and 1324/37; e) a new pedestrian crossing on Bitham Lane as indicated in principle on drawings numbered 1324/30 Rev C and 1324/37.

118 13. No occupation on the development shall take place until and unless a detailed design scheme, as illustrated on drawing 1324/40 Rev A, has been submitted, approved and constructed to the written satisfaction of the planning authority.

14. Details required pursuant to Reserved Matters shall indicate at least 3(no.) car parking spaces available at all times within the curtilage of each 4 and 5 bedroomed dwelling.

15. Details required pursuant to Reserved Matters shall include minimum internal dimensions of 6.0m x 3.0m for single garages. These shall be retained for the parking of motor vehicles and cycles. They shall at no time be converted to living accommodation without the prior express permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Construction Management

16. No development of any phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan incorporating a Construction Method Statement for that phase of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the demolition and construction period for that phase of the development. Subsequent phases of development will require separate Construction Method Statements for the phase of the development to which they relate. The Construction Method Statement shall provide for:

a) Details regarding the loading / unloading and storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development, b) Provision of parking for vehicles of site operatives and visitors; c) Construction traffic access including the routing of construction vehicles to and from the site including measures to mitigate the impact on the local highway network. The measures shall include the timing of movements to avoid traffic congestion and the exclusion of Rolleston on Dove; d) Temporary traffic management measures to maintain free flow of traffic on the surrounding road network; e) Arrangements for turning vehicles; f) Loading and unloading of plant and materials; g) Method of prevention of mud being carried onto the highway, including wheel washing facilities; h) The control of construction noise; i) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction (including sheeting); j) Pedestrian and cyclist protection on the surrounding road network; k) A scheme for recycling / disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; l) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding and boundary treatments including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; m) An implementation programme; n) A permanent contact on site and/or traffic manager as a main contact point for all enquiries or issues; o) Details of the location of any site compounds.

17. No development of any phase of the development hereby permitted (including demolition and ground works) shall take place outside the following hours of operation.

• 08.00 – 18.00 hours Monday – Fridays, • 09.00 – 14.00 hours on Saturdays, • No works to take place on Sundays, public and Bank Holidays.

119

18. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed and site specific plan of dust mitigation measures must be submitted to the Planning Authority (drawing on but not limited to the proposed measures outlined in the Air Quality Assessment by Wardell Armstrong dated June 2014). The plan must cover each stage from demolition, earthworks, construction and track-out in line with the principles set out in “IAQM Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction (2014)”. Commencement of the development must not take place until the dust mitigation plan has been approved by the Council and the development of each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Site investigation/contaminated land

19. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a contaminated land assessment, covering the whole site, to include the investigation of gas migration, and associated remedial strategy together with an implementation programme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study that shall detail the history of the site uses and a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to investigations commencing on site. Any site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology. A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a remediation strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any remediation works commencing on the site.

Remediation works for each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the approved methodology and best practice guidance. If during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and a remediation scheme and implementation programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Remediation works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Upon completion of the works of each phase, a closure report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The closure report for each phase shall include details of the remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology; details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria; and details of what waste materials have been removed from the site.

20. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until an archaeological survey covering the whole site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No phase of the development shall take place until a programme of archaeological works for that phase has been implemented in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning authority.

Tree protection measures

21. The development on each phase of the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with recommendations of the approved FPCR Arboricultural Report dated January 2016 and tree retention plan reference 5191-A-03 Rev C submitted with

120 the application. No phase of development shall begin until details of the means of protecting trees and hedges within and immediately adjacent to the site of that phase, including protecting root structure from injury or damage prior to or during the development works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved protection measures shall be implemented before any works on that phase are carried out and retained during building operations and furthermore, no excavation, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut or laid or soil, waste or other materials deposited so as to cause damage or injury to the root structure of the retained trees or hedges.

Habitat Protection Measures

22. No phase of the development shall begin until details of the means of protecting retained habitats on site for that phase, identified in the submitted FPCR Ecological Appraisal report dated January 2014, and a scheme of habitat creation for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The planting scheme for habitat creation should use only native species and accord with the aspirations of the East Staffordshire Borough Council Green Infrastructure Study and the Staffordshire BAP. The approved protection measures shall be implemented before any works are carried out on that phase and retained during building operations, and habitat creation shall be implemented prior to the occupation of that phase and all measures shall be retained thereafter.

Protected Species

23. Before any development or other operations commence on each phase of the development, a) within one month of the planned commencement of works, an assessment of that phase for evidence of badgers; and b) during the latest survey season prior to the planned commencement of works, an assessment of that phase for evidence of Great Crested Newts; shall be undertaken by a licensed ecologist. A copy of the assessment report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The reports shall contain any necessary mitigation works required, and a timescale in which works are to be undertaken. If found to be present, no development shall commence on that phase until a mitigation strategy had been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Nesting Birds

24. No clearance of trees and shrubs in preparation for (or during the course of) development shall take place during the bird nesting season (March - August inclusive) unless a bird nesting survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to establish whether the site is utilised for bird nesting. Should the survey reveal the presence of any nesting species, then no development shall take place within those areas identified as being used for nesting during the period specified above.

Flooding and Drainage

25. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Opus International Consultants ref J-D1021-R05 dated May 2014.

No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a flooding and drainage strategy, covering the whole site, has been submitted to and approved in

121 writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Strategy should include details of the mitigation of all potential impacts of flood risk and a satisfactory surface water design. The scheme should address the following matters:

a) The provision of an adequate and agreed point of discharge of surface water for the whole site, including an agreed discharge rate. It is proposed the this will be to the Severn Trent sewer and ST are currently modelling the downstream system in order to recommend a proposed discharge rate; b) Based on the agreed discharge rate, that an adequate amount of floodwater attenuation storage is incorporated into the layout of the site ; c) The development shall include a perimeter drain or ditch, where necessary, to prevent water running off the site and affecting adjacent properties d) Any potential additional overland flows from upstream areas (including runoff from Craythorne Road) shall be considered in the design of the surface water system; e) The proposed system shall incorporate sustainable drainage techniques f) The system shall ensure that the development itself and downstream areas will not be adversely affected by flooding as a result of the development; g) The system shall ensure that adequate measures are in place to allow the future maintenance of any drainage systems by an appropriate body over the lifetime of the development; h) The system shall ensure that the proposed school site will not be undermined by the discharge of waters from the developments adjacent.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved flooding and drainage strategy.

Foul Drainage

26. No more than 25 dwellings will be occupied within the first 18 months from the date of this permission. This will allow time for the statutory undertaker to carry out any necessary measures to the foul and sewage waste system arising from the development of the site.

Levels

27. No development shall take place, and no site works related to the development hereby approved shall be carried out, until details of all slab levels and garden levels and any regrading proposed to the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Landscape Implementation

28. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a Landscape Management Plan of that phase, indicating a scheme for the long-term management of open space, green infrastructure and planting within the public realm and details of biodiversity management has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The open space, green infrastructure and planting shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved Landscape Management Plan.

29. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping for each phase shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following first occupation of the dwellings on that phase or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of that phase of the development; die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with

122 others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Open Space

30. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of an open space strategy for the whole site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The open space strategy shall include a short term maintenance management plan for all areas of open space; all materials to be used in hard landscaping and all fencing and walling. The open space strategy shall be implemented in full on each phase of development in accordance with the approved phasing scheme and shall thereafter not be used for any purpose other than as stated.

Travel Plan

31. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling, an Interim Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Thereafter and prior to the occupation of the 50th dwelling, a Final Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This Final Travel Plan shall include objectives, targets, mechanisms and measures to achieve targets and implementation timescales, monitoring and review provisions and provide for the appointment of a travel plan co-ordinator. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved Travel Plan.

END OF CONDITIONS

123 www.gov.uk/dclg

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial Review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000). The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed. SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS The decision may be challenged by making an application for permission to the High Court under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act). Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act With the permission of the High Court under section 288 of the TCP Act, decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application for leave under this section must be made within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision. SECTION 2: ENFORCEMENT APPEALS Challenges under Section 289 of the TCP Act Decisions on recovered enforcement appeals under all grounds can be challenged under section 289 of the TCP Act. To challenge the enforcement decision, permission must first be obtained from the Court. If the Court does not consider that there is an arguable case, it may refuse permission. Application for leave to make a challenge must be received by the Administrative Court within 28 days of the decision, unless the Court extends this period. SECTION 3: AWARDS OF COSTS A challenge to the decision on an application for an award of costs which is connected with a decision under section 77 or 78 of the TCP Act can be made under section 288 of the TCP Act if permission of the High Court is granted. SECTION 4: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the day after the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible.

124

Appendix 2: Appeal decision Land between Ashflats & A449, Mosspit, Stafford APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

125

Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 30 July 2014 Site visits made on 1 August and 30 October 2014 by Keith Manning BSc (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 3 December 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578 Land between Ashflats Lane and A449 Mosspit, Stafford ST18 9BP • 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 Milwood Land (Stafford) Ltd against the decision of Stafford Borough Council. • The application Ref 13/19524/OUT, dated 23 October 2013, was refused by notice dated 21 February 2014. • The development proposed is residential development for up to 320 dwellings.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural and Preliminary Matters

2. The inquiry sat on 30 and 31 July 2014, before being adjourned to be completed, sitting also on 28 and 29 October 2014. I conducted two separate accompanied site visits, the first to look at the site and its surroundings, the second to look at the proposed access, specifically.

3. The appellant supplied a document list sub-divided into three sections a-c. I have utilised this to list what are effectively all core documents referred to as necessary under the appropriate sub-division and Roman numeral. Documents submitted during the course of the inquiry are referenced ID1, ID2 etc.

4. The application is in outline form with all matters reserved save for access. The master plan accompanying the application is purely illustrative.

5. The description of the proposed development changed between application and appeal reflecting, inter alia, the Council’s original request to remove reference to the number of dwellings. As a consequence of discussions and agreements during the course of the inquiry, I adopt the above description for the purposes of this decision. The proposed development necessarily includes the demolition of Lawford House to accommodate the access works.

6. The Residents’ Action Group is a Rule 6 party.

7. A completed planning obligation in the form of a S106 planning agreement dated 28 October 2014 was submitted at the inquiry. It variously provides for 30% Affordable Housing, ‘Targeted On Site Additional Open Space’, Travel Plan arrangements and a financial contribution in respect of its monitoring and review, financial contributions in respect of; sports facilities, transport strategy

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 126 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

implementation contributions, mitigation measures relevant to the Cannock Chase SAC and primary and secondary education.

8. A Statement of Common Ground concerning planning matters (PSoCG)1 was agreed between the Council and the appellant. The Ash Flats Residents’ Action Group (‘the Action Group’), a Rule 6 party, was not party to the agreed matters therein.

9. Prior to the resumption of the adjourned inquiry, a Statement of Common Ground concerning highways matters (HSoCG)2 was agreed between the Staffordshire County Council (SCC) and the appellant. Again, the Action Group was not party to this.

10. Highways matters are not in contention between the Council and the appellant. However, bearing in mind the Action Group’s request that I should determine the appeal as if the application had been made to the Secretary of State in the first instance, and its obvious concern in respect of the proposed access, I requested that the appellant should make highways expertise available to the inquiry and that the relevant witness should attend my second site visit. An officer of the SCC, the highways authority, also made himself available at the appropriate time.

11. A supplementary proof of evidence by the appellant’s planning witness was circulated shortly before the resumption of the inquiry, but this was formally withdrawn by the appellant at resumption and I place no weight on its content.

Main Issues

12. I consider the main issues to be as follows:-

• Would the proposed development accord with the intentions of the development plan, or would it harmfully conflict with and undermine those intentions?

• If the latter is the case, are there material considerations that, potentially, would outweigh the conflict with the development plan?

• Does the Council have an adequate supply of housing land?

• Are there any other matters, including those raised by third party objectors, which would affect the conclusions to be drawn on any of the above issues?

• On balance, does the proposed development represent sustainable development for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework?

13. I canvassed these issues at the inquiry and the parties were in broad agreement that they encompassed the relevant considerations.

1 ID1 2 ID12 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 127 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

Reasons

The site and its surroundings and the proposed development

14. The site is described in detail in the PSoCG but in brief comprises a low-lying area of essentially rural land bounded at the southern extremity of Stafford town by the M6 and the West Coast main railway line to form an elongated triangle of countryside abutting the main urban area in the vicinity of Moss Pit. Although pastoral in appearance, it cannot be described as tranquil, being heavily dominated by the constant and pervasive influence of the M6, which is periodically supplemented by the passage of trains along the main railway. It is traversed by a public footpath which links Ashflats Lane to the A449 via a rail footbridge and Acton Gate. The latter includes a ribbon of housing development along the main road but immediately to the south the land between the railway and the A449, as far as Junction 13 of the M6, is dominated by warehousing and other commercial development.

15. The residential area associated with Ashflats Lane and Barnbank Lane at the northern end of the appeal site contains houses of varying age and is pleasantly suburban in character. The A449 (Mosspit) rises from the housing at Acton Gate towards a bend in the road which accommodates a bridge over the railway and then falls past Lawford House towards the junction with Barnbank Lane. Between Lawford House and Barnbank Lane, the junction with Gravel Lane provides one of the access routes into the residential area to the north.

16. The illustrative masterplan indicates how the proposed development would fit into this context. Emergency access only for vehicles would be provided off Ashflats Lane; whereas the regular vehicular access to the site would be via a priority junction between Gravel Lane and the bridge over the railway, facilitated by the demolition of Lawford House and earthworks to achieve the correct levels at the junction, where the A449 is elevated relative to the proposed housing to the south. Between the proposed housing and the M6 a linear mound would be raised, topped by an acoustic fence and a narrower feature to mitigate sound would be created alongside the railway. A balancing lake would be created at the southern extremity of the appeal sit together with an associated area of habitat for biodiversity. An additional area of land controlled by the appellant outside the application site and outside the Council’s administrative boundary (defined by the Pothooks Brook in this locality) is indicated as “potential additional open space”.

17. Although it is clear that a significant part of the circa 13.8 hectare site would necessarily be devoted to the mitigation of disturbance potentially caused by the railway and more particularly the M6, I have no specific evidence to suggest that 320 dwellings could demonstrably not be accommodated in an acceptable fashion within the balance of the site, i.e. the net developable area, bearing in mind the range of densities which can be contemplated within usual parameters. I consider the reserved matters process would be perfectly adequate to ensure an acceptable standard of development within the ceiling of 320 dwellings applied for, precisely because it is an upper limit and not a fixed number. In the context of a potential reserved matters application and the ‘without prejudice’ discussion of potential planning conditions which took place, the appellant agreed that a maximum of four storeys would be an acceptable

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 128 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

constraint upon its ambition to achieve a development up to the specified ceiling.

18. I am conscious that the Inspector who heard objections to the previous (2001) Local Plan in effect considered the appeal site to be outside the confines of the town and part of the countryside.3 Although the Inspector’s concern was specifically with a smaller area of land within the appeal site, the meaning is clear and, as a statement of geographical fact I have no reason to disagree. However, I am also conscious that the M6 and the railway are in themselves dominating linear features that sharply define the whole of the appeal site by forming significant boundaries between it and the largely rural area beyond.

Accordance with the development plan

19. The Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 (PSB) was adopted on 19 June 2014 shortly before the inquiry opened. The Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD), which will complement the PSB to complete the planning framework for the Borough, has yet to be adopted. 4 Nevertheless, the PSB has replaced all saved policies of the Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001.

20. The Council’s original decision to refuse the application was made while those saved policies were still extant and it is common ground that policy HOU3 of the former local plan and the former Residential Development Boundaries defined therein are no longer part of the development plan and are not relevant to this appeal decision. I have no reason to take a different view.

21. It is also common ground that the former local plan policy HOU3 has no equivalent replacement in the PSB, albeit the policy referred to as Spatial Principle 7 (SP7) addresses the intended location of new development, including new housing development.

22. Paragraph 35 of the Inspector’s report on the PSB records that the level of housing provided for therein is not intended as a maximum figure, which might constrain other sustainable and acceptable developments from coming forward. This principle forms part of the common ground between the Council and the appellant.5

23. The full range of PSB policies considered relevant by the Council and the appellant is set out in Section 4 of the PSoCG and I specifically refer to these only to the extent that is necessary for the purposes of this decision.

24. It seems to me that the main area of contention between the Council and the appellant in respect of the proposal vis-à-vis the development plan and its intentions centres on SP7, the former alleging conflict and the latter claiming accordance.

25. It is an issue which must therefore be directly confronted in some depth, as the newly adopted development plan is the starting point and accordance with it would (following the statutory requirement reflected in paragraph 14 of the Framework) trigger the presumption in favour of sustainable development and require that permission be granted for the proposed development, unless material considerations were to indicate otherwise.6

3 Doc 6 paragraphs 6.16.1 – 6.16.4 4 ID1 paragraph 6.g. 5 Ibid. paragraph 6.d. 6 National Planning Policy Framework – footnote 10 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 129 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

26. Conversely, in line with the duty imposed by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, conflict with the newly adopted PSB would require rejection of the appeal unless material considerations (including national policy set out in the Framework) were to indicate otherwise.

27. The Council sought to argue that the proposed development fails to meet the relevant criteria set out in the second part of SP7, a policy which, inter alia, anticipates the current time lag between adoption of the PSB and the subsequent adoption of the SADPD and, where relevant, neighbourhood plans.7 Prior to the establishment of Settlement Boundaries (within which most new development is to be confined8) these same criteria are to be used to assess the acceptability or otherwise of individual proposals such as the development at issue in this case.

28. In respect of the second part of the policy, the Council offers no argument that the proposal fails to comply with any of the listed criteria a) to j) save for criterion f) and criterion i), which respectively concern the special character of areas and the loss of locally important open space or other community facilities. However, this is largely a matter of submission rather than evidence.

29. Criterion f) seeks to protect the special character of areas and refers specifically, albeit not exclusively, to important open spaces and views, designated heritage assets and locally important buildings. There is no evidence to suggest that any such specific features that have in any formal document been identified by the Council would be adversely impacted upon by the proposed development. As I have noted, the area around the application site is visually pleasant insofar as it is an agreeable mix of suburban and rural. It is also locally distinctive in the way that places are by virtue of having their own particular mix of topography, buildings and vegetation. However, the use of the term in a policy of this nature must to my mind denote something out of the ordinary which would be adversely affected, in principle, by change in the form of new development, as opposed to ensuring that such change is executed in a manner which observes normal standards of acceptable design and development.

30. Any other interpretation would result in the policy effectively blocking much new development in the context of a development plan which plainly intends to accommodate significant growth, including the use of greenfield sites for this purpose. Moreover, the policy as drafted is not inconsistent with the intentions of the Framework, which itself highlights that development and consequential change is acceptable unless recognised important characteristics and protective designations should prevail to prevent such change. I have no compelling evidence to suggest that the characteristics of the appeal site are in themselves sufficiently special to prevent, in principle, needed development properly executed.

31. Likewise, criterion i) to my mind sets a bar that is sufficiently high to demand some formal recognition and the view cannot be taken that open agricultural land is necessarily regarded as de facto locally important open space. If that were the case, the development of such land would almost invariably conflict with the policy criterion. Nor do I consider it can realistically be argued that the appeal site performs a separation between development on the southern

7 PSB explanatory text paragraph 6.65 8 Ibid. paragraph 6.64 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 130 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

fringe of Stafford in the vicinity of Ash Flats Lane and the residential and commercial development at Acton Gate that is recognised to be of overriding importance. I have no evidence of any strategic policy to that effect.

32. Bearing in mind the key diagram for Stafford town in the PSB, the appeal site does appear relevant to the green infrastructure network referred to in policy N4 of the PSB. However, I have been presented with no clear evidence that it is to be site-specifically protected as such in its entirety. Moreover, I am conscious that part k. of that policy requires that all new development to which the central concept of the policy is relevant is to be set within a “well designed and maintained attractive green setting” and I see no reason in principle why development on the scale proposed in this instance could not achieve that end, especially if the necessary mitigation of potential disturbance from the motorway and railway were to be designed with that in mind.

33. For these reasons, I do not consider the proposal would conflict significantly or unacceptably with the intentions underlying criteria f) and i) of SP7. Nor do I have any cogent evidence to demonstrate unacceptably harmful conflict with any of the other criteria listed in this part of the policy.

34. However, policies are to be taken as a whole in the context of the development plan as a whole and the listed criteria are but one part of that exercise. I therefore consider it necessary to interpret SP7 by reference to all its relevant parts and, in the first instance, the contextual cross-reference to other parts of the PSB is influential to the extent that Spatial Principles SP2, SP3 and SP4 (all agreed to be relevant in the PSoCG) articulate the plan’s intention to apportion development between settlements with boundaries ultimately drawn to accommodate it accordingly. The first paragraph of SP7 specifically singles out housing development in this context.

35. It can reasonably be inferred from SP2 and SP3 read together that, for sustainability, the County town of Stafford should accommodate the bulk of the total quantum of development planned for to 2031 and SP4 is specific in the case of housing development that year on year around 70% of the Borough’s requirements should be met there, the aim being to thereby achieve 7,000 new completions in Stafford of the 10,000 new dwellings required overall.

36. I am of course conscious that the housing requirement is not to be regarded as a ceiling and that the plan’s strategy would not be undermined if Stafford, as the top settlement in the “Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy” improved upon the planned performance, in contrast to the trend identified by the Council which tended to undermine the intentions of the previous local plan, as explained in paragraphs 6.41 – 6.45 of the PSB. On the face of it, the intention to re-balance the distribution of housing in favour of Stafford Town weighs in favour of the proposal at issue and, furthermore, it is very clear that to accommodate its needs, including at Stafford, the Council is accepting of the fact that greenfield sites will have to be developed for housing.

37. Nevertheless, the final paragraph of SP7 reflects the intention of the Framework that, within the context of the important policy objective to boost significantly the supply of housing, the effective use of brownfield land is to be encouraged. This is a core principle of the Framework and the logical corollary, which finds expression in that final paragraph of SP7, is to discourage the unnecessary use of greenfield sites. This is stated in the following clear terms:-

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 131 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

“Development proposals should maximise the use of brownfield redevelopment sites within the Borough’s town and villages to reduce the need for greenfield sites. Only where insufficient sites on previously developed land, in sustainable locations, are available to meet new development requirements should greenfield sites be released.” (The emphases are mine.)

38. This, it seems to me, is a fundamental tenet of the strategic plan for the Borough of Stafford, the PSB, recently examined and found to be sound in the context of relevant national policy expressed in the Framework. That finding in itself is a material consideration of critical importance in support of the principle.

39. The principle is plainly free-standing and applies perforce to the development at issue even though settlement boundaries are not yet defined and all the criteria a) to k) of policy SP7 can, in my view, be satisfied by it.

40. In other words, the final paragraph is not simply a well-intentioned wish added in for its own sake; it is central to the success of the policy and the plan as a whole (as is clear from the intention to re-use brownfield land where possible listed under point i. in the Spatial Vision statement of the PSB). It is not, however, as was confirmed to me at the inquiry9, a sequential approach (i.e. ‘brownfield first’). Indeed, given the early reliance on the largely greenfield Strategic Development Locations (SDLs), the PSB would be internally contradictory if it was intended to be deployed in that way. Rather it is, on its face, a clear preference for the use of brownfield land for development. Moreover, it is a clear preference that is now enshrined as a policy principle of the adopted development plan and I am obliged to follow it in this case unless it is demonstrably the case that insufficient brownfield sites are available in sustainable locations to meet the plan’s development requirements.

41. Patently, the plan’s development requirements cannot be met on brownfield land alone. If that were the case, the PSB would not be promoting SDLs that are to serve a very significant proportion of the development needs of Stafford Town and the borough as a whole. However, the PSB must be taken as a whole and it makes specific provision to meet its total requirements for Stafford Town, i.e. 7,000 dwellings and 90 hectares of employment land,10 inter alia by identifying SDLs to the west, north and east of the town.

42. In the case of housing the March 2013 balance of dwellings required in Stafford Town11 to meet the plan’s intentions, after a 10% discount had been applied to existing commitments, stood at 5,233.

43. Policies identified as Stafford 2, 3 and 4 (SDLs north, west and east of the town) respectively provide for 3,100 dwellings, 2,200 dwellings and 600 dwellings so as to provide for a total of 5,900 new homes, comfortably meeting the requirement for the town as a whole, overwhelmingly on land that is classified greenfield (and assessed as not being of sufficient environmental value to be ruled out by the intention behind point i. of the Spatial Vision). These strategic allocations have been made because it is necessary to do so if the PSB strategy, including that for Stafford Town itself, is to be delivered.

9 Inspector’s question to Mr Stoney 10 Tables at paragraphs 6.53 and 6.58 respectively of the PSB 11 Table at paragraph 6.53 of the PSB www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 132 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

44. Hence, despite a preference for using brownfield land for development needs, substantial greenfield development is anticipated and planned for. Against that background the suggestion that, in the context of the Framework intention to significantly boost the supply of housing, and the recognition that the requirements for Stafford are not to be regarded as a maximum, further greenfield development on the edge of the town, notably at the appeal site, would not be significantly harmful in policy terms appears, at first sight, credible. However, I consider that to be a superficial interpretation of the PSB and national policy.

45. My reasons are as follows: First, despite its emphasis on housing delivery, the Framework promotes an explicitly plan-led system and the PSB has just been adopted following thoroughgoing independent examination. It is the single most important articulation of planning policy locally. The fact that the PSB is but one part of the eventual completed development plan does not diminish its importance or relevance. Case law is clear on that point.12

46. Secondly, the recognition that the housing requirement is not a ceiling is an essentially permissive stance. Exceeding the requirement is clearly optional. If, for example, a large brownfield windfall materialised which would blight the local area if left undeveloped, there would be no good policy reason not to welcome housing development, if that were an appropriate solution in all other respects. The same cannot be said of greenfield development over and above what is needed to satisfy the PSB requirements. That in my view is the clear meaning of the final paragraph of policy SP7. It cannot be the intention of the plan to facilitate the development of greenfield land without any form of policy restraint, even pending the adoption of the SADPD and neighbourhood plans. It would be contrary to the intentions of the plan on its face and those of the Framework in any event, which seeks to accommodate development generally whilst, inter alia, boosting housing supply, in a plan-led fashion at the same time as making effective use of brownfield land resources.

47. The fact of the matter is that the insufficiency of brownfield sites in Stafford to accommodate planned requirements has been addressed through the PSB itself, for the duration of the plan period at least, by the allocation of the SDLs. Further, unforeseen, development of brownfield land within Stafford would simply serve to boost housing supply further without offence to the PSB strategy, whereas unnecessary use of greenfield land resources would not sit well with the intentions of the strategy. On the contrary, it would tend to undermine those intentions, especially if it were to be on a significant scale.

48. This conclusion begs the question of the correct yardstick against which to measure “insufficient” for the purposes of the final paragraph of SP7. In my view logic dictates that it can only be the provisions of the PSB itself, on its own terms and not the Framework requirement to maintain a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, which is a separate, albeit material, matter.

49. My reasons for concluding thus are straightforward. First, the policy is not exclusively concerned with making housing land available, or necessarily available within five years; it applies to all development needs, furthermore over a 20 year period. The application of the development plan policy should not therefore be confused in the first instance by erroneously focusing on the

12 Bloor Homes East Midlands Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 754 (See discussion set out in paragraphs 42-64) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 133 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

important material consideration of the Framework’s intentions in respect of deliverability of housing land over any particular five year period. (This could, in theory, be varied at any time during the currency of the adopted plan in any event.) The crucial question is: Does the plan make adequate provision for its new development requirements in sustainable locations, such that additional land (including greenfield land if necessary) is not required to satisfy its basic requirements?

50. The answer in this case, certainly as far housing is concerned, is plainly ‘yes’. The plan makes ‘available’, in the sense it intends, sufficient housing land for Stafford Town (and the Borough as a whole). That is not just my conclusion, but clearly, and importantly, that of the Inspector who examined the PSB. Had he not concluded thus, he would not have found the plan to be sound in the terms required by the Framework.

51. Given that the PSB provides in that sense for sufficient housing land and that the needs of Stafford Town specifically are satisfied by it, then (irrespective of any additional brownfield sites that may well contribute acceptably to the achievement of housing delivery to 2031 in excess of the basic requirement) further greenfield land release in Stafford is not, in principle, necessary and is not therefore permitted by the terms of policy SP7.

52. The PSB Inspector was careful to eschew spurious precision as regards the housing development trajectory, as is evident from paragraph 39 of his report,13 and the SDLs appear to be generous in aggregate. However, the latter point simply serves to reinforce the conclusion that further greenfield land release for housing in Stafford Town is not necessary for the purposes of the PSB and, although the proposed development is not on the scale proposed at the SDLs, neither would it be a small or relatively insignificant increment of greenfield housing development. On the contrary, it would represent a substantial deployment of greenfield land resources over and above what is currently required or allocated in the plan period.

53. For the above reasons I have no hesitation in concluding that the proposed development does not accord with the intentions of policy SP7 or the development plan as a whole and that it would, moreover, harmfully conflict with and undermine those intentions.

54. In drawing that conclusion, I am conscious that the Inspector who determined a recent appeal at Gnosall14 found that the greenfield housing development proposed in that case accorded with the criteria of the second part of SP7 but did not explicitly address the final paragraph and I am not party to any submissions that may have been put to him in that respect. In any event, Gnosall is identified as a Key Service Village in policy SP4 which seeks to distribute 12% of the total housing requirement to such locations and, in the context of more than 50015 new housing sites being required in the eleven Key Service Villages, less development is anticipated in those that are constrained by Green Belt, compensated by more in those such as Gnosall, which are not. Moreover, it is also clear from explanatory paragraph 6.40 of the PSB that such villages will generally have to experience most new development required outside the existing built up areas.

13 CD a vii 14 ID17 15 Table at 6.53 apportions new provision of 537 housing plots to Key Service Villages www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 134 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

55. The situation addressed by the Inspector in that case was therefore materially different from that prevailing in this case and conflict with the policy only arises, as I have explained, in those situations where the development of greenfield land is unnecessary to the objects of the plan. In my judgement the two situations are not therefore directly comparable and my colleague’s finding of compliance with SP7 in no sense requires me to reach the same conclusion in this case. The policy must be applied with discrimination according to the circumstances of the settlement in the PSB hierarchy.

Material considerations

56. Although I have concluded that there is clear conflict with the intentions of the development plan, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that this appeal be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

57. National policy in the form of the Framework, and guidance in the form of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) are self-evidently material considerations of significant weight. Therefore, whilst the development plan, including its housing figures, spatial strategy and intended settlement hierarchy and apportionment of development requirements between settlements is, and must remain, the starting point, its influence on the outcome of this appeal is necessarily tempered by these considerations, and others, including the Government’s growth agenda.

58. The weighing of material considerations in the context of the policies set out in the Framework and the guidance of the PPG is fundamental to determining whether or not the proposed development should proceed. The planning balance must address the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, the presumption in favour of which is set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework.

59. Whether or not that presumption is engaged, in a case such as this, where I have concluded that there is clear conflict with the development plan, depends on whether or not relevant policies are out-of-date. For housing developments that assessment encompasses the important consideration of whether or not the local planning authority can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.16

60. For these reasons I conclude, notably because the land availability situation is in dispute, that there are material considerations which have the potential to outweigh the conflict with the development plan I have identified. Whether or not they should do so is a matter I return to in the planning balance following my assessment of the full range of main considerations, including the housing land situation.

Housing land supply

61. PPG advises that… “Up-to-date housing requirements and the deliverability of sites to meet a five year supply will have been thoroughly considered and examined prior to adoption [of a development plan], in a way that cannot be replicated in the course of determining individual applications and appeals.”

16 Framework paragraph 49 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 135 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

62. On the other hand, PPG goes on to advise that… “Demonstration of a five year supply is a key material consideration when determining housing applications and appeals. As set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, a five year supply is also central to demonstrating that relevant policies for the supply of housing are up-to-date in applying the presumption in favour of sustainable development.”

63. Housing land availability for the purpose of applying national policy is frequently portrayed by participants in appeal proceedings as an absolute; i.e. simply a matter of fact. In my experience it is not. It necessarily involves informed judgements about the prospects for a multiplicity of sites and that judgemental factor can be very significant in situations where, as here, reliance is placed on a small number of large allocations. The circumstances of this particular inquiry, and the arguments put, necessitate a detailed and unavoidably discursive consideration of practice, principle and probability.

64. The first footnote to paragraph 47 of the Framework defines deliverability for the purposes of five year supply and the starting assumption is that sites with planning permission are deliverable unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years. This can only mean built out as permitted, because “implementation” of permission in a legal sense requires simply a material start that effectively secures permission indefinitely. Allocations and, where evidence is supportive, windfalls, may also be included in the supply.

65. In this case, the PPG advice regarding examination of the land supply in the context of the adoption of a development plan is especially pertinent. The conclusions of the Inspector who examined the PSB are unequivocal. Paragraph 39 of his June 2014 report is as follows…..

“Although SBC cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land, this will be rectified when the Plan is adopted, particularly with the allocation of the SDLs, as confirmed in the latest housing trajectory [MM104]; regular updating of the housing trajectory and 5-year supply will help to ensure that the Plan is effective. The revised housing trajectory is only intended as a broad estimate of timescales for housing delivery, using information provided by developers to estimate delivery rates at specific sites.”

66. Paragraph 40 indicates that, on the basis of evidence, the proposed housing provision, including the SDLs on which significant reliance is placed, is sustainable, viable and deliverable. It notes that the first 5-year period will be boosted by a 20% increase in housing supply land supply, identifying sites for over 3,100 dwellings during this initial period. It also notes, amongst other things, that no allowance is made for windfall sites, and some commitments are discounted by 10%. This, he concluded, gave further flexibility.

67. In short, he reported that he was confident that, upon adoption of the PSB (as it happened, promptly, in the same month) the Council would have a robust five-year supply of deliverable housing sites to cater for objectively assessed needs through the medium of an adopted development plan. In the absence of truly compelling evidence to the contrary, it would not be for me to take an alternative view.

68. In any event, the content and tenor of the PPG advice I have quoted above discourages the constant questioning of such findings in appeal proceedings

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 136 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

notwithstanding the clear importance of maintaining a five-year supply once established, a necessity clearly recognised by the PSB Inspector in paragraph 39 of his report, which refers to regular updating. Moreover, paragraph 47 of the Framework itself, in seeking to boost significantly the supply of housing, advocates that local planning authorities should…… “identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing requirements……” (The emphasis is mine.)

69. For the reasons set out below, I consider it reasonable to conclude, as a matter of practice, that it is too early to assess with any reliable degree of precision whether or not the Council in this instance is failing in its endeavour to maintain a five year supply. The Annual Monitoring Reports should reveal the reality of the situation in due course, moving forward from the base established, in effect, at March 2014, albeit retrospectively addressed in the context of the newly adopted PSB, through the Council’s document calculating the five year supply as at 31 March 2014.17 (This was published in June 2014.)

70. The Inspector who determined an appeal at Cold Meece18 since the PSB was adopted considered that, given the PSB had only recently been adopted…

“it is not entirely unreasonable to expect a settling in period during which the Council’s policies and new site allocations will begin to take effect. This is particularly so given the step change in housing delivery which the Council is seeking to achieve. Therefore whilst dwellings may not yet be being completed and offered for sale on some of the larger sites, based on the information before me, it seems reasonable to expect that this will occur during the five year period. Furthermore the publication of an updated land supply statement is evidence that the Council are actively monitoring the situation and is willing to keep the supply of housing under review so as to identify additional sites if necessary in order to address any shortfall.”

71. Those observations are, in my view, apposite. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that, at its core, the Framework promotes a genuinely plan-led system, within which an important object is to boost significantly the supply of housing to meet objectively assessed needs. In default of those needs being delivered through the medium of an up-to-date development plan, paragraph 14 enables decisions on planning applications to be taken in the context of the broader policy embodied in the Framework taken as a whole, including, through paragraph 49, the granting of permission for housing in circumstances where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

72. However, ad hoc reappraisals, by any party, outside the regular annual monitoring promoted by the Framework in the context of a plan-led system are not in my view encouraged or endorsed by PPG insofar as it continually emphasises annual monitoring in the context of plan-led supply. In other words, the statement within it that “Demonstration of a five year supply is a key material consideration when determining housing applications and appeals” is a statement that needs to be understood in its proper context, i.e. the Framework and the PPG taken together and as a whole. The latter also states that… “the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that locally authorities should identify and update annually (My emphasis) a supply of specific

17 CD a xvii 18 ID18 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 137 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their requirements. Therefore local planning authorities should have an identified five year supply at all points during the plan period. (Also my emphasis) Housing requirement figures in up-to-date adopted local plans should be used as the starting point for calculating the five year supply. Considerable weight should be given to the housing requirement figures in adopted local plans which have successfully passed through the examination process, unless significant new evidence comes to light. It should be borne in mind that evidence which dates back several years, such as that drawn from revoked regional strategies, may not adequately reflect current needs.”

73. Thus identified needs in recently adopted local plans should not be lightly set aside but it is clear also that identified supply at the time of adoption should be accorded considerable weight and should not be lightly discounted. I conclude thus because the PPG not only advises that consideration of five year supply can be considered and examined prior to adoption in a way that cannot be replicated in consideration of applications and appeals but precedes the point about the five year supply being a key material consideration with the words “By taking a thorough approach on an annual basis, local planning authorities will be in a strong position to demonstrate a robust five year supply of sites.” (My emphasis.)

74. Moreover, under the question “How often should an assessment be updated?” the PPG says “The assessment of sites should be kept up-to-date as part of local authorities monitoring report and should be updated yearly. ” (my emphasis)

75. It does go on to say that… “It should only be necessary to carry out a full re- survey of the sites/broad locations when development plans have to be reviewed or other significant changes make this necessary (e.g. if a local planning authority is no longer able to demonstrate a five year supply of specific deliverable sites for housing)” but the latter circumstance is to my mind, given the context provided by PPG, clearly set in the context of annual monitoring rather than ad hoc review by any party, whether by the local planning authority itself or an individual applicant or appellant. Conceivably, events such as the unexpected refusal of permission on an allocated site critical in itself to the on-going supply may conspire to indisputably transform the land supply situation indicated in any particular annual assessment. This would necessitate a fundamental re-appraisal prior to the next one, but a function of the relevant trajectory would be to indicate sensitivity to such an occurrence and the Council in this case has not recorded any such radical disruption to the trajectory from 31st March 2014 taking on board the adopted PSB.

76. On its face, the term “at all points during the plan period” must, clearly, in a literal sense require a five year land supply to be demonstrated at any particular point in any given year. However, given the heavy emphasis on annual and essentially plan-led monitoring in the PPG, commencing with a sound adopted plan, and bearing in mind the timescale of plans, the clear inference is that annual monitoring to demonstrate a robust five year supply should indicate a clear probability that at any point in the forthcoming year pending the next review, there will in reality be a five year supply. This appears to me common sense. Development management on a day-to-day basis would become all but impossible if the five year supply, which is intrinsically dynamic and approximate, had to be continuously, as opposed to

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 138 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

periodically, updated and re-assessed. Moreover, the flow off and flow on to the record of land availability of sites (albeit lapse of permission per se need not lead to automatic exclusion) and new permissions, quite apart from changing assumptions and aspirations by developers and landowners in response to immediate circumstances, has the potential to vary the supply in either direction at any point in time. This is a characteristic that could potentially lead to what could be seen as capricious decision making between systematic and methodologically consistent annual assessments. That would not be in accordance with Framework intentions regarding predictability and efficiency.19

77. The appellant asserts that there is no basis in the Framework or PPG for the Inspector who determined the Cold Meece appeal endorsing a settling in period following the adoption of a plan. However, the tenor and content of the PPG advice analysed above is, to my mind, strongly supportive of such an approach. It seems to me that, as a matter of principle and common sense, an adopted plan must be given an opportunity to show it is working before corrective measures are introduced in response to monitoring evidence which demonstrates they are needed. It is the logical corollary of rigorous examination of the statutory plan followed by adoption and regular monitoring thereafter.

78. In this case, the development plan is neither absent nor silent and, bearing in mind that it has so recently been found to be sound and adopted, the burden of proof on appellants to demonstrate that relevant policies are out-of-date is to my mind a heavy one. I accept that the plan is as yet incomplete, but that does not negate its immediate relevance to the proposed development at issue, which, for reasons previously detailed, I consider to be in conflict with its intentions. In such circumstances, the Council, local people, landowners, developers and others should reasonably expect it to be deployed as a “practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency”.20

79. In short, in the period between adoption and the first annual post-adoption review of housing land availability in Stafford, at least, there can only sensibly be a working assumption that (unless something radical has happened to frustrate the planned-for delivery of housing, or there is compelling empirical evidence that, for example, it is unreasonable to expect the large sites relied upon to deliver at broadly the assumed rates in the circumstances of the relevant region or housing market area, over the relevant period) the anticipated trajectory holds good.

80. This inquiry amply illustrates the difficulties (recognised in PPG, as previously indicated) of attempting to depart from such reasonable reliance on a sound and recently adopted plan and systematic annual monitoring of the type anticipated and advocated by the Framework and PPG. Moreover, I am not satisfied, given the above context, that it is demonstrably the case that the Council does not have a five year deliverable supply of housing land at the present time, notwithstanding that considerable information purporting to contradict the Council’s own conclusions in that respect has been adduced and that the appellant notes the broad trajectory examined for the purposes of the

19 Framework paragraph 17 20 Ibid. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 139 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

PSB ran from April 2013, whereas the current monitoring year commenced in April 2014.

81. In outline, the position is as follows: In general, I am satisfied that the Council’s approach to the 20% buffer it applies and the Sedgefield approach is logical and correct. The intention of such a buffer is to compensate in a robust fashion for past under-delivery and the Sedgefield approach aims to eliminate that failing within the first five years of the plan period. The picture would be artificially distorted and inconsistent with that adopted for the purposes of the PSB if an alternative approach were to be deployed. As a matter of best practice, as the appellant points out, the buffer is generally to be applied first but in this case, bearing in mind the compensatory factors (considered below) in respect of the likely reality of land supply, I do not consider this to be critical. It is perhaps regrettable that the Council’s land supply as at 31st March 2014 was not made available until June and perhaps understandable that the appellant was inclined to focus on what was known by the summer of this year. Nevertheless, the consequence of such an approach is that like is not being compared with like and the information degenerates into little more than a series of snapshots of a dynamic set of circumstances as opposed to systematic measurement and calibration of the land supply situation at a regular annual date, as the Framework and PPG clearly intend.

82. That said, it is necessary for the purposes of this appeal to form a view as to the current situation and the Council’s statement of five year land supply as at 31st March 2014 seems to me an appropriate starting point. The Council reasonably accepts that some inaccuracies regarding particular small sites suggests a reduction in that component of around 8% over and above the 10% discount applied across the board in that category and that the large sites component ought reasonably to be reduced by approximately 1.75% (on the basis of information emerging since March 2014.) It is noteworthy that a 10% discount is already applied to large sites where specific information from developers is unavailable, but I see no justification for doing so in those instances where the Council is in receipt of relevant information from the developer. The SDLs are potentially more problematic because they are by definition very large sites that are prone to unforeseen delays as a consequence of unexpected interruptions to necessary infrastructure provision, market capacity factors which may vary over time and phasing provisions that may not materialise as planned owing to these and other factors.

83. Nevertheless, although there is a wealth of correspondence from varying sources focusing on particular difficulties at particular times, there is little in the way of detached systematic consideration of delivery rates over a sustained period on comparable schemes in the region and therefore the Council has little option other than to rely on the best estimates of developers’ representatives which can differ from other such estimates, obtained at different times and through different channels but nevertheless adduced for the purposes of the inquiry. Moreover, such information, which is typically hedged by qualifications, rarely has the status of commitment in the manner of contracted projects. Such contradictory estimates, judgements and assertions, which include soft information such as reported telephone conversations, are of limited utility in appeal proceedings. The limitations of such evidence only serve to underline the desirability and wisdom of reliance primarily on the more rounded assessments and broader understanding which can be distilled from

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 140 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

the examination of the development plan itself, certainly in the early days following the conclusion of that process.

84. Empirical evidence can subsequently expose trends and events that may not have been foreseen when the relevant assumptions and judgements by all concerned were made. These may indicate either faster or slower rates of delivery than anticipated, with consequences for the five-year land supply and in terms of corrective responses if this is shown to be faltering. In my experience, development plan allocations can be made in the spirit of hopefulness as far as timing is concerned, achieving the spatial outcome sought over a longer timescale than originally hoped for, often due to circumstances outside the local planning authorities’ control, and a healthy scepticism is therefore sometimes warranted in reviewing claims of timely delivery.

85. However, from all I have seen, heard and read, including the report of the PSB examination, I consider Stafford’s revised claims articulated in the paper produced for the inquiry21 outside the annual monitoring framework (i.e. taking account of events since March 2014) and in response to the document submitted by the appellant22 to be as reasonably realistic as can be expected in the absence of empirical evidence, including market-focused assessments over an adequate period of time, to the contrary. And it is noteworthy that a variety of planning permissions and reserved matters applications in the SDLs are contemporaneously being granted and considered and development is already commencing, albeit in a small way in the current year, in the northern and eastern SDLs. Certainly there appears to be no lack of developer enthusiasm.

86. While I accept that all sites are important in the context of five year land supply, the submissions regarding evidence to the effect that some of the Council’s small sites records are or could be erroneous regarding commencement or even lawfulness given the need to discharge conditions and the claimed absence of records thereof adds little to my understanding, in that verification would impractically involve visiting all such disputed sites and interrogating all disputed records in a forensic fashion. The more practical approach would be the narrowing down of areas of factual disagreement on the basis of agreement between the parties that plainly did not occur.

87. There are matters yet to be addressed in the Council’s monitoring of the 5 year supply if improved consistency and transparency are to be achieved year on year as the five-year supply is monitored and it seems irrational not to include a windfall element given the Council’s track record in that respect, or indeed, from henceforth, a C2 element given the advice of the PPG in that respect. While I therefore understand the appellant’s criticism that the Council apparently now seeks to introduce such elements in an attempt to reinforce its claim, in the face of challenge, that there is a five year supply, I do not accept that such elements may be discarded as immaterial for present purposes. The fundamental intention of the five year requirement is to consistently prevent needed house-building in any particular area being frustrated by lack of a range opportunity to accommodate a variety of house-builders and market sectors in a variety of locations. The fact that the Council for its own reasons conservatively chooses not to include such a contribution in its annual statement but nevertheless seeks to add it in on an ad hoc basis in response to

21 ID4 22 Appendix X to Mr Stoney’s proof of evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 141 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

an ad hoc challenge does not negate its potential contribution, albeit I accept that an approach which is as consistent, comprehensive and as transparent as possible is to be preferred.

88. More fundamentally, however, the fact that the appellant’s detailed review of material relevant to the Council’s five year land supply is based on what is apparently known or conjectured at various dates in the summer of 2014 makes a true comparison between Mr Stoney’s Appendix X and the Council’s March 2014 assessment impossible, albeit the Council’s response to that seems to me a proportionate and reasoned response. Cognisance of those criticisms levelled by the appellant which the Council felt to be justified reduces the supply from the 5.43 year supply calculated at 31 March 2014 to 5.3 years supply over the period August 2014 – July 2019.

89. However, as I have noted, like is not being compared with like and bearing that factor in mind and also that the intention of a five year supply, as I have also noted, is to prevent frustration of the market; it seems legitimate to me, in attempting to divine the reality of the situation in the context of an ad hoc exercise to depart from the strict constraints of the Council’s chosen methodology and consider urban sites deemed ‘deliverable’ from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) of 2013 in the manner suggested by the Council’s paper submitted at the inquiry.23 This source of supply is not precluded by the Framework or PPG in circumstances where such sites have a tradition of coming forward and is confined to the Stafford urban area and excludes any such sites elsewhere in the Borough. If added to the Council’s agreed reduction in this context to 3,547 plots (c5.3 years supply) this would increase it back to c5.6 years supply (3,547 + 225 = 3772: 3772/672 = c5.6). This to some extent mitigates the “loss of headroom” claimed by the appellant’s planning witness in relation to small and large sites with planning permission.24 Unquantified C2 development would also tend to push the supply in the same direction, albeit there is no sense of the magnitude of that legitimate component of supply.

90. In practice, therefore, I consider the reality of whether or not there is a five year supply of deliverable housing turns on the likely performance of the SDLs. Inevitably, this is to a degree speculative and imprecise. Moreover, it goes directly to the conclusions of the Inspector who endorsed the PSB for adoption on the basis that the SDLs were a major component in addressing the Council’s need to identify a five year supply.

91. Despite the Council’s apparent reservations, there is no evidence to suggest that the developers involved in the SDLs regard the proposed development as in any way threatening to their delivery and, as I have noted, there appears to be a notable enthusiasm for and confidence in their ability to progress them, as is it appears from submissions to the PSB examination hearing.25

92. I have carefully considered the PSB Inspector’s report and in this context those sections which address the 4 SDLs are particularly relevant. Paragraph 58 sets the scene and paragraphs 61 – 85 and 86 – 100 respectively encompass his conclusions regarding the three Stafford SDLs and the smallest one identified at Stone. Paragraph 68 is particularly pertinent and includes the observation

23 ID5 24 Appendix x to evidence of Mr Stoney 25 Doc 21 submission on behalf of Hallam Land re Stone SDL www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 142 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

that… “there is little conclusive evidence which suggests that the anticipated timescales for delivering these SDLs are unduly optimistic or unrealistic.” On the contrary, the Inspector noted, supporting evidence and developer assessment confirm viability and deliverability.

93. Bearing in mind my previous comments regarding the hope invested in large allocations, the danger of treating developer comment as commitment, and the fact that divining the trajectory of their development in any event involves a degree of conjecture by all concerned, there must certainly be an element of “seeing is believing”, but in this case the PSB has only just been adopted and it would be in my view premature and unjustified to doubt what was, in the round, concluded as a result of its examination. I have no doubt that in terms of detailed year on year assumptions some SDLs may stall or slow over the course of time.26 Equally, I have no reason to doubt that others may accelerate, especially if market conditions hold good or improve. But, as yet, no clear verified trend can be discerned as to which is the predominant tendency, and my colleague’s observations27 regarding a “settling in period” remain pertinent in this context, as do those of the PSB Inspector regarding the generality of the housing trajectory and the need to update it regularly to assist the effectiveness of the PSB.28 These factors also give weight to the PPG advice regarding consideration of the land supply in the context of development plan examinations prior to adoption, rather than in the context of appeal proceedings.

94. I do appreciate that the trajectories set out in the Council’s revised assessment appear ambitious, with trajectories for individual SDLs rising to 200, 190, 132 and 70 dwellings per annum for the Northern, Western, Eastern and Stone SDLs respectively over the next five years. However, I have no rigorous empirically based market evidence that such planning assumptions for Stafford as a whole (where growth is the explicit intention) are, in the context of the region or Strategic Housing Market Area, unachievable. (If that were the case, it would in any event simply add weight to the Council’s reservations that the appeal site could divert some demand away from the SDLs.) The assumptions have been recently examined and found to be sound and I have no compelling evidence to suggest that market circumstances or expectations have radically altered since.

95. Clearly, if the housing market generally were to suffer a sudden collapse, as experienced in 2008, then those assumptions would have to be radically reconsidered and lapses in performance would be subject to the corrective mechanism built into Framework policy regarding 5 year supply, but as of now, I am not persuaded by the totality of evidence before me that the assumed trajectory for the SDLs is fundamentally wide of the mark. Moreover, the planned SDLs are in my view sufficiently varied and dispersed around the town and the borough to avoid the worst risks of over-concentration and over- reliance for housing delivery purposes.

96. Assessing a five year land supply is plainly not an exact science. There is, moreover, no closely prescribed methodology sufficient to eliminate individual judgement by practitioners. That judgemental element, which is essentially a balance of probability, is therefore inescapable. In the round, taking all that

26 Appendix x to evidence of Mr Stoney re Stone SDL 27 ID18 paragraph 22 28 CD a.vii. Paragraph 39 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18 143 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

has been put to me into account, I do not consider the Council to now be in comfortable surplus as far as the five year land supply is concerned. There are factors tending to erode that which was quantified at 31 March 2014, concerning small and large sites, but there are also factors which, in real terms are likely to make for additional supply, which is compensatory. Moreover, evidence concerning the SDLs is insufficiently compelling to convince me that the planning assumptions tested through the PSB examination and most recently by the Council in reviewing the position are fundamentally wide of the mark. On that basis, I consider the Council, on the balance of probability, currently has, in real terms relevant to the wide range of developers who might wish to utilise it for house building, a five year land supply in the sense intended by the Framework. But there is little room for complacency. Further planned allocations through the Site Allocations DPD and neighbourhood planning process will need to be brought forward expeditiously if monitoring over the next year or so indicates that expectations are not being met.

97. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the Framework read together with the PPG advice, and the very relevant and recent adoption of the PSB, the apparent potential marginality of the real supply of deliverable sites around the five year mark demonstrated by the Council does not in my view engage the intention behind paragraph 49 of the Framework that an inadequate supply of housing land should render relevant policies for the supply of housing out-of-date. In all the circumstances, it would be extraordinary if that were to be the case. The Council has engaged with the spirit and practice of the plan-led system to identify opportunities for housing development, including on greenfield sites, and the PSB has been specifically endorsed in terms of the initial five year supply resulting.

98. Careful and systematic monitoring, as national policy intends, will be essential to identify any slippage from the position achieved and corrective action in those circumstances would be needed. But, on the all the evidence available to me, I do not find that to be a circumstance which prevails at the present time. The development plan, whilst not yet complete, cannot be considered out-of- date at this juncture as far as the adequacy of the planned housing land supply is concerned.

Other matters

99. A range of other matters were raised by third party objectors to the proposed scheme of development but, as is clear from the officer’s report and the PSoCG, there are no ‘technical’ objections from relevant consultees. Moreover, there are no concerns or qualifications from such sources that could not be addressed by scheme design at reserved matters stage and/or the imposition of planning conditions, together with the execution of an appropriate form of planning obligation, and I am content that impacts on the amenity of adjacent residents can adequately be addressed through design and relevant conditions.

100. The decision does not turn on such matters, notwithstanding that I consider it afresh, but one matter does merit more specific comment in view of the very evident concern of local residents; and that is the proposed access.

101. The highways authority (SCC) and the Council are both satisfied with the single priority junction proposed, supplemented by an emergency access

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 19 144 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

arrangement. Especially bearing in mind the comments of the Inspector29 who considered objections to the 2001 Local Plan, that visibility is impeded by the alignment of the (railway) bridge, I accept that the proposed access appears counter-intuitive.

102. Nevertheless, given the content of the HSoCG agreed between the highways authority and the appellant, the fact that junction design with appropriate sightlines for the measured road speeds is achievable, as I observed during my site visits, and that no expert evidence was adduced to demonstrate otherwise, I am unable to conclude that there is a sustainable highways reason for refusal in this instance. Both the appellant’s highways expert and the equivalent representative of the SCC explained that relevant criteria for the circumstances of the highway are met and that their judgement is (with the measures proposed to reinforce the tendency of northbound traffic approaching the bridge to slow down) the proposed junction would operate safely and efficiently. I have no reason, on the basis of the evidence available to me, to substitute an alternative judgement.

103. There are of course benefits of an economic nature, reinforced by the growth agenda, that must be weighed in the balance and social benefits including the affordable housing content of the proposed scheme. These are identified by the appellant.30 The environmental gains claimed by the appellant, including a potential gain in biodiversity, are to my mind of lesser weight, bearing in mind that the site, although in many respects unremarkable, nevertheless represents an attractive expanse of rural land on the southern fringe of Stafford, albeit compromised in terms of tranquillity by the pervasive influence of the M6 and the railway.

104. I have no evidence sufficient to persuade me that the site is in an inherently unsustainable location.

The Planning Balance

105. I have concluded that, because it involves the unnecessary development of greenfield land, the proposed development would conflict with and harmfully undermine the intentions of the development plan, as articulated in the final paragraph of SP7 considered in the context of the recently adopted PSB as a whole.

106. I have also concluded that the development plan is neither absent nor silent, and that relevant policies are not out of date because, all things considered, at the present time, it is not demonstrably the case that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable sites in the sense intended by the Framework. Paragraph 49 of the Framework is not, therefore, currently engaged.

107. I am conscious that the overall housing figures in the PSB are not intended to be a ceiling, but the unfettered release of substantial greenfield sites such as the appeal site cannot, logically, be the intended corollary of that. If it were, the final paragraph of SP7 would not say what it does.

29 ID6 paragraph 6.16.4 30 Evidence of Mr Stoney www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 20 145 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

108. The presumption in favour of sustainable development articulated in paragraph 14 of the Framework, again, does not endorse the unfettered release of greenfield sites that are ‘technically’ unobjectionable. Sustainability is measured against the Framework as a whole and, at its heart, the core principles include the principle that development should be genuinely plan-led.

109. Whether or not a development is genuinely plan-led is therefore an important facet of sustainability, albeit one that is not necessarily decisive in itself. This reflects the statutory position that applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This principle is clearly embodied in paragraphs 196 and 197 and in the core principles of the Framework.

110. The Framework, through paragraph 14, does provide for decisions to be made in the absence of an up-to-date plan including, through paragraph 49, the release of land for housing where plan policies on housing land supply may not be considered up-to-date. That is not the case here.

111. The Framework clearly endorses the use of greenfield land resources where necessary, whilst encouraging the effective use of previously-developed land. This is a core principle of the Framework, as is the preference for land of lesser environmental value when allocations for development are made, where this is consistent with other policies of the Framework.

112. It is too simplistic, therefore, to assert that the proposed development should in any event be seen in the context of the Framework’s intention to significantly boost the supply of housing, as presented at paragraph 47. Read in the context not only of the Framework as a whole, but also within the confines of the paragraph itself, it is plain that, whenever the development plan is up-to-date in this respect, the primary intention is for such a boost to be delivered through the plan-led system.

113. This seems to me precisely the course the Council has adopted, as is abundantly clear from the Inspector’s report on the PSB. The development plan also interprets, inter alia through policy SP7, the balance to be struck locally as regards the use of greenfield and brownfield land resources.

114. Given all of the above, I am obliged to accord substantial weight to the conflict with the development plan (and the related conflict with the intentions of the Framework) that I have identified. That conflict concerning the unnecessary deployment of greenfield land resources significantly detracts from the sustainability credentials of the proposed development.

115. I recognise that there are benefits, both socially and economically, associated with the proposed development, notably its contribution to growth, the potential for affordable housing provision and, in simple terms, its potential to boost the supply of housing generally.

116. Such benefits are by no means insignificant. Moreover, the proposed development has other attributes which weigh positively in its favour in the balance of considerations determining sustainability. Nevertheless, given the substantial weight that must be accorded to the PSB at the present time, these do not, for the reasons I have given, outweigh the clear conflict with its intentions regarding the use of greenfield land which I have identified.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 21 146 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

117. For that reason, having taken into account all other matters raised in the cases of the parties, including numerous appeal decisions and legal rulings, I consider the proposed development not only conflicts harmfully with important intentions of the development plan but also, on balance within the context of and as a result of that conflict, fails to represent sustainable development for the purposes of the Framework. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Keith Manning

Inspector

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 22 147 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Timothy Leader of Counsel

He called Simon Wood MRTPI, Urban Vision

John Holmes BA (Hons) MRTPI, Stafford Borough Council

FOR THE APPELLANT: Hugh Richards of Counsel

He called Stephen Stoney BA (Hons) MRTPI, Wardell Armstrong LLP Timothy Russell BSc (Hons) MIHT, Croft Transport Solutions (called at my request)

FOR THE ASHFLATS RESIDENTS’ ACTION GROUP: Paul Windmill BA Hons, MRTPI (Rtd)

Mr Windmill gave expert evidence on behalf of the Group, supported by topic based statements from the following local residents:-

Brian Hodges Gwyneth Hodges Charles Barratt Susan Moore Leonore Ashwell Kay Crosby Patrick McGurk

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Councillor Geoff Rowlands, on behalf of all three Manor Ward Councillors

The following local residents gave statements in their own right:-

Maureen Alecock Graham Tummey

Paul Hurdus MSc MILT MIHT, representing Staffordshire County Council, the highways authority, spoke at my request

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 23 148 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

INQUIRY DOCUMENTS

ID1 Statement of Common Ground ID2 Appellant’s opening statement ID3 Council’s opening statement ID4 5 year housing land supply statement with August 1st 2014 base ID5 Extract from 3013 SHLAA re sites in Stafford Town urban area ID6 Extract from Inspector’s report on Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001 ID7 Email trail ending Barry Herrod to John Holmes 17 May 2013 @ 14:19 ID8 Statement by Councillor Geoff Rowlands ID9 Assembly of topic based statements from individual local residents ID10 Draft planning obligation ID11 Draft conditions (31 July 2014) ID12 Highways Statement of Common Ground (29 September 2014) ID13 Updated draft conditions (submitted by appellant 13 October 2014) ID14 Email Mr Windmill to Mr Ryder dated 26 September 2014 and response by Croft Transport Solutions ID15 Letter from ‘Housing Plus’ to inquiry dated 9 September 2014 ID16 S106 Planning Agreement dated 28 October 2014 ID17 Appeal decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2210911 (Gnosall) ID18 Appeal decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217183 (Cold Meece) ID19 Appeal decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2220297 (Stone) ID20 Letter from Lodders Solicitors re; option agreements dated 20 September 3013 ID21 Copy of submission by Wardell Armstrong LLP (Stephen Stoney) to examination of the Plan for Stafford Borough ID22 Email exchange re: St Georges Hospital site between Shropshire Homes and Stafford Borough Council 6 & 7 October 2014 ID23 Extract from Manual for Streets ID24 Extract from Staffordshire Residential Design Guide ID25 Extracts from Design Manual for Roads and Bridges ID26 Stage 1 Road Safety audit prepared by Merebrook Consulting Limited ID27 Manuscript agreement between main parties as to site’s potential capacity to accommodate dwellings taking account of anticipated constraints ID28 Closing statement by the Ash Flats Residents Action Group ID29 Closing submissions of the Local Planning Authority ID30 Closing submissions on behalf of the appellant with court transcript [2014]EWHC 754 appended (Bloor Homes v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 24 149 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

CORE DOCUMENTS

a. ‘Core Documents’ i. National Planning Policy Framework ii. National Planning Practice Guidance iii. West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 11 Revision iv. The Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 v. Stafford Borough Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments 2009 – 2013 inclusive vi. Examination of the Plan for Stafford Borough – Inspector’s Recommendations for Further Main Modifications – 17/12/2013 vii. Inspector’s Report on the Examination of the Plan for Stafford Borough – 11/06/2014 viii. Stafford Borough Council – 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement 2013 ix. Stafford Borough Council – Statement of 5 Year Housing Land Supply – 31st January 2014 x. Stafford Borough Council – Application Committee Meeting Minutes – 21/02/2014 xi. Stafford Borough Council Application Decision Notice – 24/02/2014 xii. Appellant Statement of Case – April 2014 xiii. Appellant Proof of Evidence – July 2014 , including Appendices; A – Application officer report – 14/02/2014 B – SCC Highways correspondence – 29/05/2014 xiv. C - Planning Appeal decision – APP/H1840/A/13/2203924 – Offenham xv. D - Planning Appeal decision – APP/R0660/A/13/2196044 – Elworth Hall Farm xvi. E - Planning Appeal decision – APP/Y3425/A/12/2172968 – Former Castleworks, Castle Street, Stafford xvii. F – Stafford Borough Council – Statement of 5 Year Housing Land Supply – 31st March 2014 xviii. X – Appellant 5 Year Housing Land Supply Assessment – June 2014, including sub appendices 1 & 2. Y – Paul Shaw Proof of Evidence xix. Appellant Draft Statement of Common Ground – SBC Amended – 29.07.2014 xx. Appellant proposed draft Conditions – 18/06/2014 xxi. The Plan for Stafford Borough – Whole Plan Viability Report – (EIP – D52) - August 2013 xxii. Levvel Deliverability and Viability of the Northern and Western SDL Locations Report – July 2013

b. Planning Application 13/19524/OUT Documents i. Application form ii. Design and access statement iii. Planning support statement iv. Air quality assessment v. Archaeological assessment vi. Ecological appraisal vii. Flood risk assessment viii. Geotechnical assessment ix. Landscape and visual impact assessment x. Noise survey

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 25 150 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

xi. SAC assessment xii. Statement of community involvement xiii. Topographical survey – sheets 01/02/03 xiv. Transport Assessment xv. Watercourse modelling xvi. Tree quality survey xvii. Utility assessment xviii. Draft heads of terms – section 106 xix. Location plan xx. Context plan xxi. Green space plan xxii. Illustrative circulation plan xxiii. Illustrative constraints plan xxiv. Illustrative masterplan xxv. Proposed priority access plan – 0199-01-A

c. Other Documents i. Stafford Borough Council Application – 12/17747/OUT – Officer Report – 17/04/2013 ii. Stafford Borough Council Application – 13/19249/OUT – Officer Report – 12/02/2014 iii. Stafford Borough Council Application – 13/19249/OUT – Officer Report – 21/02/2014 iv. Stafford Borough Council Application – 13/19771/FUL – Officer Report – 05/03/2014 v. Stafford Borough Council Application – 13/19694/OUT – Officer Report – 05/03/2014 vi. Stafford Borough Council Application – 13/19249/OUT – Officer Report – 06/03/2014 vii. Stafford Borough Council Application – 13/19605/FUL – Officer Report – 17/03/2014 viii. Stafford North SDL – Taylor Wimpey correspondence – 30/06/2014 ix. Stafford North SDL – Statement of Common Ground (EIP – E97) – 14/11/12 x. Stafford North SDL – Maximus Policy Stafford 2 Statement (EIP – M4/10b) – 15/10/13. xi. Stafford North SDL – Akzo Nobel Policy Stafford 2 Statement (EIP – M4/5a) – 15/10/13 xii. Stafford North SDL - Working Party meeting – minutes (EIP – E94) – 20/06/13 xiii. Stafford North SDL - correspondence (EIP – O1.20) – 13/05/14 xiv. Stafford North SDL - Stafford Borough Council Briefing Note – 08/05/14 xv. Stafford North SDL - submission (EIP – M4/5b) – 15/10/13 xvi. Stafford West SDL – St Modwen Developments submission (EIP – M4/7a) – 15/10/13 xvii. Stafford West SDL – Bellway correspondence – 01/07/2014 xviii. Stafford West SDL – Taylor Wimpey correspondence – 04/07/14 xix. Stafford East SDL – Memorandum of Agreement – (EIP – E99) – 2012 xx. Stafford East SDL – Working Party meeting minutes – (EIP – E96) – 2012/13 xxi. Stafford East SDL – Application 13/18697/OUT Planning Statement – May 2013

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 26 151 Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578

xxii. Stone SDL – Wardell Armstrong correspondence – (EIP – O1.22) - 13/06/14 xxiii. Stone SDL – Statement of Common Ground – (EIP – E98) – 2012 xxiv. Stone SDL – Wardell Armstrong Statement – (EIP – M5/8a) – October 2013 xxv. Stone SDL – Wardell Armstrong correspondence – 30/06/2014 xxvi. Stafford Borough Council 5 Year Supply Statement (31st Jan 2014) – Mr Shaw correspondence – 14/02/2014 xxvii. Planning Application 13/19524/OUT & other matters – correspondence to Stafford Borough Council – (Head of Law & Administration/Head of Planning & Regeneration/Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration)– 20/02/2014 xxviii. Stafford Borough Council 5 Year Supply Statement (31st Jan 2014) – correspondence from Stafford Borough Council – (Senior Forward Planning Officer) - 20/02/2014 xxix. Stafford Borough Council 5 Year Supply Statement (31st Jan 2014) & other matters – correspondences to Stafford Borough Council - (Head of Law & Administration/ Legal Services Manager/Head of Planning & Regeneration/Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration) – 21/02/2014/25/02/2014/28/02/2014/13/03/2014/24/03/2014 xxx. Stafford Borough Council 5 Year Supply Statement (31st Jan 2014) – correspondence from Stafford Borough Council (Forward Planning Manager) – 26/03/2014 xxxi. Stafford Borough Council 5 Year Supply Statement (31st March 2014) – correspondences to Stafford Borough Council (Forward Planning Manager) – 05/06/2014/11/06/2014 xxxii. Stafford Borough Council 5 Year Supply Statement (31st March 2014) – correspondences from Stafford Borough Council (Forward Planning Manager) – 09/06/2014/12/06/2014

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 27 152

Appendix 3: Appeal decision Land bounded by Gresty Lane, Crewe APP/R0660/A/13/2209335

153

Mr Stephen Bell Our Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 GVA Your Ref: Norfolk House 7 Norfolk Street Manchester 19 January 2015 M2 1DW

Dear Sir,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY HIMOR GROUP LIMITED LAND BOUNDED BY GRESTY LANE, ROPE LANE, CREWE ROAD AND A500, CREWE - APPLICATION REF: 13/2874N

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Geoffrey Hill BSc DipTP MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 22 July and 27 August 2014 into your clients’ appeal against the failure of Cheshire East Council (“the Council”) to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline permission for residential development, retirement/care village, local centre, community building, primary school, public open space, allotments, structural landscaping, access arrangements and demolition of existing structures in accordance with application ref: 13/2874N, dated 12 July 2013. 2. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 17 December 2013, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because it involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.

Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed, and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.

Procedural matters

4. An application for costs by HIMOR Group Ltd (IR1.1) is the subject of a decision letter being issued separately by the Secretary of State.

154 5. As recorded by the Inspector at IR1.3, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Planning) wrote to him on 14 July 2014 asking him to give special attention to the evidence put forward by the parties on the five year housing land position across Cheshire East (see paragraphs 13-14 below). 6. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 in respect of the planning appeal (IR1.4). Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State is content that the ES complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the appeal proposals.

Matters arising after the close of the inquiry 7. The Secretary of State has had regard to the correspondence received from Andy Gracie, Mrs S Harrison, R J Taylor and Jayne Puller, which was submitted too late to be considered by the Inspector. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these representations but, as they do not raise new matters that would affect his decision, he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties. However, copies can be made available on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. The appellants’ agents also wrote to the Secretary of State on 28 November and 11 December 2014 concerning the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan (CELP - see paragraph 9 below) and expressing concern that the Council had not responded to their correspondence on the matter. The Secretary of State did not consider it necessary to circulate that correspondence as he is fully informed of the developments on the CELP (see paragraph 9 below).

Policy considerations 8. In deciding this appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 (BCNRLP), which was adopted in 2005. 9. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELP) (IR3.3). This was submitted for formal examination in May 2014 Hearing sessions took place in late September and early October 2014. However, following an adjournment of the hearings in October 2014 the Development Plan Inspector provided his views on the soundness of the submitted CELP. The examination has been temporarily suspended, while the Council undertake additional work to address the findings. The plan process is ongoing and the Secretary of State has taken this into account in the determination of this appeal as set out in the reasons below. 10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework – March 2012) and the subsequent planning guidance (2014), as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended.

155 Main issues 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR10.1. Development Plan and sustainable development 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most relevant Development Plan policies are those referred to at IR10.4-10.11. He also agrees with the Inspector’s “interim” conclusion at IR10.12 that the appeal scheme does not accord with the saved policies of the BCNRLP. However, for the reasons given at IR10.13-10.17, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR10.17 that, whereas the BCNRLP housing supply figures and, by association, policies to restrict the extent of built-up area, are now out-of-date, this does not mean that all policies of BCNRLP must be considered out-of-date but that they should be taken into account according to their “fit” with the Framework. 13. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider carefully the Inspector’s findings on the various elements of sustainability: development in the countryside (IR10.19-10.24); Green Gap (IR10.25-10.32); best and most versatile agricultural land (IR10.33-10.34); historic hedgerows (IR10.35-10.39); and accessibility/provision of facilities (IR10.41- 10.42). Overall, he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR 10.43 that, for the most part, the appeal scheme is unlikely to be any more harmful to the countryside than any other scheme around the periphery of Crewe and that it would fulfil the social, economic and environmental roles of sustainability as identified in the Framework. However, the Secretary of State also shares the Inspector’s reservation (IR10.44) about the extent to which the proposed scheme intrudes into the present Green Gap (see paragraph 17 below). Five-year housing land supply 14. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of full, objectively assessed housing need (FOAN) at IR10.45-10.64, the requirement for a buffer (IR10.65-10.71) and the Inspector’s analysis of the backlog (IR10.72-10.79), the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR10.63 that, for the time being, it would be reasonable to accept that the FOAN for Cheshire East should be that given in the CELP, with the application of a buffer of 20%. However, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s approach of including the allowances for each year’s backlog in the overall sum to which the buffer should be applied as he sees this as double-counting. He considers that it would be more appropriate to add the figures for the backlog once the figure for each year’s need has been adjusted to include the buffer. This would result in a slightly lower total requirement for each year but, nevertheless, one to which he considers that a 20% backlog should be applied. 15. Turning to the Inspector’s analysis of housing supply (IR10.80-10.93), the Secretary of State notes that the Council’s estimates are inconsistent, and he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR10.91 that the Council’s understanding of whether there has been a persistent under-supply is not well founded. He therefore also agrees with the Inspector (IR10.92) that, adopting a 20% buffer, the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of available sites in accordance with the expectations of the Framework and guidance: and he further agrees that the appropriateness of a 5% buffer and of the Council’s view of the number of building sites currently available are contentious. However, the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector (IR10.93)

156 that, before deciding whether it is appropriate to allow the appeal, it is also necessary to consider whether the scheme represents sustainable development. Effect on surrounding road network 16. For the reasons given at IR10.94-10.104, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR10.105 that, although the proposed scheme would have some negative impacts on the local highway network, the residual cumulative impacts would not be sufficiently severe to justify refusal of planning consent on those grounds. Prejudice to identification of housing sites and Green Belt extension in emerging CELP 17. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments at IR10.106-10.115, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR10.116 that the appeal scheme would be acceptable on the proposed site but for the loss of part of the Green Gap that lies between Crewe and Shavington. The Secretary of State acknowledges the Council’s view that growth should not overwhelm the independent character of Crewe, including the desirability of maintaining a separate identity for its satellite villages (IR10.117-10.119). The Secretary of State agrees that it remains the case that the CELP Green Belt proposals are the subject of an examination and now subject to further work, so that the principle of an enlarged Green Belt and the extent over which restrictions should apply are far from settled. However, as the Inspector sets out in IR10.121, the Green Belt proposals seek to maintain and carry forward the policy of separation which has been embodied in the Green Gap policy; and he agrees (IR10.120-10.121) that the Green Gap policy has successfully achieved that, with local support, since 2001. Therefore, having taken full account of all the remaining points set out by the Inspector at IR10.122-10.126, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR10.127 that allowing this appeal in advance of the resolution of the Green Belt issue through the CELP, would undermine the plan-making process. Planning balance 18. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments at IR10.141-10.148, the Secretary of State agrees with him that, as identified at IR10.143-10.144, there are a number of benefits deriving from the scheme as well as other aspects which would not be unacceptable. However, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR10.145) that most of these benefits would not be unique to the appeal site and, like the Inspector, he has gone on to weigh them against the arguably premature loss of part of the Green Gap between Crewe and Shavington (IR10.146). Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State acknowledges that the Green Gap has been part of a long established and well-recognised local policy which forms a part of sustainable development (IR10.147). Therefore, while he accepts that the idea of an extended Green Belt around Crewe may be uncertain, he also agrees (IR10.148) that a decision to allow development on the appeal site could reasonably be seen to pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the Local Plan Examination.

Conditions 19. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions set out in the Appendix to the IR and the Inspector’s comments on them at IR9.1-9.13. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector as bring appropriate if he were to grant permission are reasonable and necessary and would meet the tests of

157 the Framework and the guidance. However, he does not consider that these overcome his reasons for refusing the appeal.

Obligations 20. The Secretary of State has considered the terms of the Planning Agreement and Unilateral Undertaking as described at IR9.14-9.25, and he agrees with the Inspector that, subject to the caveat at IR9.24, these could be regarded as meeting the Framework tests and complying with the CIL Regulations. However, he does not consider that these overcome his reasons for refusing the appeal.

Overall Conclusions 21. Overall the Secretary of State considers that whilst the proposed scheme can be seen as sustainable development providing much needed housing, deferring a commitment to the reduction of an Area of Green Gap in advance of the resolution of that matter through the Local Plan Examination also represents a sustainable approach to development in accordance with the terms of the Framework. Whereas the scheme does have many benefits, the adverse impacts of approving the development resulting in the premature permanent loss of part of this Green Gap area outweighs the presumption in favour of sustainable development that might otherwise pertain.

Formal Decision 22. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. He hereby dismisses your clients’ appeal and refuses planning permission for residential development, retirement/care village, local centre, community building, primary school, public open space, allotments, structural landscaping, access arrangements and demolition of existing structures at land bounded by Gresty Lane, Rope Lane, Crewe Road and the A500 road, Crewe, in accordance with application ref: 13/2874N, dated 12 July 2013.

Right to challenge the decision 23. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter. 24. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Council. A notification e-mail / letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the decision. Yours faithfully Jean Nowak

JEAN NOWAK Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

158

Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Geoffrey Hill BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date: 27 October 2014

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

CHESHIRE EAST COUNCIL

APPEAL BY

HIMOR GROUP LTD.

159

CONTENTS

Page

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms iii

Case Details and Summary of Recommendation 1

1 Procedural Matters 1

2 The Site and Surroundings 2

3 Planning Policy 4

4 The Proposals and Putative Reasons for Refusal 4

5 The Case for Cheshire East Borough Council 6

6 The Case for HIMOR Group Ltd 32

7 Points Raised by Interested Persons 56

8 Written Representations 57

9 Conditions and Obligations 58

10 Conclusions 62

11 Recommendation 90

List of Appearances 91

List of Documents 92

List of Plans 105

Appendix: Planning conditions 107

160

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BMV Best and most versatile agricultural land (ie Grades 1, 2 and 3a)

BCNRLP Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 dpa Dwellings per annum

CELP Cheshire East Local Plan (ie the draft Local Plan)

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

ES Environmental Statement

FOAN Full, objective assessment of need

GBSOG Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps (as proposed in CELP) ha Hectare

HLS Housing Land Supply

HMP Housing Market Partnership

LVIA Landscape Visual Impact Analysis m metres

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

ONS Office for National Statistics para paragraph

PPG Planning Practice Guidance

RS Regional Strategy for the North West

SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

TA Transport Assessment

161 File Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 Land bounded by Gresty Lane, Rope Lane, Crewe Road and A500, Gresty, Crewe • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by HIMOR Group Ltd., against Cheshire East Council. • The application Ref 13/2874N is dated 12 July 2013. • The development proposed is described as “residential development (up to 880 units), retirement / care village (Use Class C1, C2, C3), local centre (Use Classes A1 – A5; D1- D2; B1), community building, primary school, public open space, allotments, structural landscaping, access arrangements and demolition of existing structures”. Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed.

1. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1.1 An application for costs was made by HIMOR Group Ltd., against Cheshire East Borough Council. That application is the subject of a separate Report.

1.2 The appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State by a direction made under Section 79 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, dated 17 December 2013. The reason for the direction is that the appeal involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units, or on a site of over 5 hectares, which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and crate high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.

1.3 The then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Planning) – Nick Boles MP – wrote to me on 14 July 20141, asking that I give special attention to the evidence put forward by the parties on the five year housing land supply position across Cheshire East.

1.4 The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES). Responses from statutory consultees are included in the pre-appeal correspondence submitted with the appeal questionnaires and in any subsequent correspondence and the evidence given to the inquiry. This information, together with other evidence submitted to the inquiry, constitutes the environmental information which meets the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 20112 .

1.5 No statement of common ground had been concluded between the parties by the time the inquiry opened; either before the 4 week period specified in the

1 Letter on Appeal file 2 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011: SI 2011 No.1824

162 Inquiry Procedure Rules, nor subsequently in the weeks between that date and the opening of the inquiry.

1.6 The inquiry was held at the South Cheshire College, Dane Bank Avenue, Crewe. The inquiry opened on 22 July and sittings were held for eight days, with an adjournment on Friday 1 August. The inquiry was adjourned so as to allow time for the parties to conclude two planning obligations made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I made an accompanied visit of the site and it surroundings on 4 August.

1.7 The completed planning obligations were submitted by post on 27 August and I was able to close the inquiry in writing on the same day.

2. THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The application site is shown on Plan A.1 (CD 2.3). It comprises some 43.44 hectares (ha) of mainly agricultural land to the south of Crewe. The site is about 1½ miles from the central area of Crewe.

2.2 The site is bounded on the north by Gresty Lane, a narrow road of a generally rural character, with well-established hedges across the site frontage. The western side of the site is alongside Rope Lane, and the eastern edges are hedged field boundaries, set back one field from Crewe Road (B5071). To the south, the site is set back from the A500 generally by the width of one field.

2.3 The site is mostly flat. Swill Brook runs south-north in a shallow valley across the western part of the site. The site is currently mostly down to agricultural use, either grazing or the growing of a cereal crop. The site is divided by well-established hedges into several fields, with gaps of 3-4 metres (m) in the hedges in places to allow agricultural access between the fields. Across part of the southern edge of the site is a small wooded area or copse. Mature trees stand within the hedges and as individual trees in some of the fields. Brook Farm is the only built development on the site; this is approached by a short, tree-lined drive off Gresty Lane. There are four small – medium sized agricultural barns or implement sheds in front of a bungalow, which is the farm house.

2.4 Around the site, adjacent to the north-east corner is a group of commercial or industrial buildings, which accommodate building contractors and a garden and pet centre business. To the west of this is a group of houses or cottages fronting Gresty Lane. Further to the west along Gresty Lane is a bridge over Swill Brook. On the western side on the Rope Lane frontage, protruding into the site is Green Farm, which comprises a group of agricultural buildings and a house. A day nursery business (Rope Green Farm Day Nursery) occupies some of these buildings. Adjacent to the south-east corner of the site is the Alexandra Soccer Centre; a coaching facility for footballing, with covered accommodation and all-weather pitches surrounded by high fences and with floodlighting on columns.

2.5 In the immediate surroundings adjacent to the north-west corner of the site, at the junction of Rope Lane and Gresty Lane, is a bridge which carries Rope Lane over the railway line. The bridge is narrow and traffic is controlled to alternate flow working by traffic lights. At this point Rope Lane stands above

163 the level of the surrounding land and views can be had down into the site and over land to the north-east and south-west.

2.6 Along the western side of Rope Lane opposite the appeal site - from north to south – there is a modern medical centre, a sports or leisure centre, with all- weather pitches, high fences and lighting columns some 12 m high, and Shavington High School – a modern school building. Rope Lane has a semi- urban character along this length, with a relatively straight carriageway between curbs, footways and a signed cycleway, and grassed verges. In the vicinity of the school entrance are lengths of railings (to prevent pedestrians straying onto the carriageway) erected along the edge of the footways and on an island in the centre of the road.

2.7 Travelling south, Rope Lane rises up gently on to a bridge over the A500. The A500 is a modern two-lane dual carriageway, acting as a southern by-pass for Crewe. The A 500 is in a cutting at this point, with well-established trees on the sides of the cutting. The A500 continues eastwards, generally parallel to the southern site boundary. For the most part the road is in cutting, except where it crosses the course of Swill Brook, where it is at approximately on the same level as the adjacent land.

2.8 The A500 passes under a bridge which carries Crewe Road (B5071) over the dual carriageway. The A500 is in cutting at this point, with trees on the sides of the cutting and adjacent to the bridge. Travelling north along Crewe Road from the bridge is a triangular field on the western side, which lies between the road and the eastern boundary of the appeal site. There is mature hedge some 3 m or so high along this frontage. On the opposite side of Crewe Road is generally continuous built development of mid-20th century housing, with a large public house at the point where Crewe Road meets Gresty Lane and Crewe Road turn to the east.

2.9 Parallel to Gresty Lane, a railway line runs east-west, which is in places raised on embankments, notably to cross Swill Brook. North of the railway line is the southern edge of the main built-up area of Crewe, with relatively modern housing estates and an area of railway sidings and workshop buildings.

2.10 From the public house noted above, Crewe Road continues east and then turns north to pass under the railway line at Gresty Bridge. Here the B5071 is known as Gresty Road. North of the railway, Gresty Road passes between industrial buildings, railway workshops and houses, About 200 m south of the Nantwich Road (A534) Gresty Road forks off to the right, and the A5020 continues as South Street to meet the Nantwich Road.

2.11 Shavington village lies to the south of the A500. Late 20th century housing and bungalows stand on the west side of Rope Lane right up to the bride over the A500. Land on the east side of Rope Lane is currently being developed for housing. South and east of this development site is the main body of Shavington, which is a substantial village with a range of shops and services and a primary school.

2.12 In the wider area, features which are referred to in this appeal include the A534 corridor as it passes east-west through the centre of Crewe. To the east of the Gresty Road junction with Nantwich Road is Crewe railway station,

164 where the road crosses the railway line on a bridge. The road at this point is known locally as Station Top. To the east of Station Top is a modern roundabout (known as the Crewe Arms Roundabout) which forms a junction with Macon Way, Weston Road and the eastern arm of the A534. To the west of the Gresty Lane junction, Nantwich Road is an urban shopping and commercial street.

2.13 East of the appeal site on the north side of the A500 is farmland either side of extensive railway sidings at Basford. This is an area known as Basford West. An access route into this land (the Basford West Spine Road) is currently under construction from a roundabout on the A500. To the east of the sidings is another roundabout on the A500, which has an as yet unused north facing ‘tail’ into the land adjacent to the railway sidings (Basford East). This will be the junction with the Crewe Green Link Road South. Appendix 1 of Document JT 2(i) is a plan showing main road routes and junctions.

3. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The development plan for the area comprises the saved policies of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 (BCNRLP), which was adopted in 2005 (CD 4.1, Proposals Map Document CEC 21). The Secretary of State’s Saving Direction is dated 14 February 2005 (CEC 24). This indicates that the BCNRLP policies for the purposes of this appeal are ‘saved’ polices. Relevant polices are referred to in this report.

3.2 The policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are relevant to read alongside the BCNRLP, as is the advice in the government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

3.3 The Council is preparing a replacement for BCNRLP - the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CD 6.1). This replacement local plan was submitted in March 2014 for formal examination. This local plan is referred to in this report as the CELP.

4. THE PROPOSALS AND PUTATIVE REASONS FOR REFUSAL 4.1 The planning application is for outline planning permission, with all matters except access reserved for subsequent consideration. The scheme is supported by a Spatial Design Code and illustrative Masterplan and Phasing Plan. The original application plans and supporting documents are listed at the end of this report as Plans A.1–A.8

4.2 The illustrative plans were revised after the application had been made to Cheshire East Council – as detailed in the covering letter to The Planning Inspectorate of 12 May 2014 (CD 3.1). At the inquiry the revised documents were accepted as the revisions would not materially affect the interests of relevant landowners or other interested persons.

4.3 The plans and supporting design code which form the subject of the application are Plan A.1 (Site Location Plan), Plan A.2 (Application Site Plan), Plan A.9 (Outline Parameters Plan Rev E), Plan A.10 (Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming General Arrangement Rev A), Plan A.11 (Crewe Road Access

165 General Arrangement RSA Amendments) supported by Plan A.12 (Illustrative Masterplan Rev D) and A.13 (Spatial Design Code May 2014). All application plans are found amongst the Core Documents – as noted in the List of Plans appended to this Report.

4.4 The Illustrative Masterplan (Plan A.12) shows an access point on Crewe Road close to the Alexandra Soccer Centre and a second access point on Rope Lane, north of Green Farm. A spine road runs through the site, between the two access points. Up to 880 houses are proposed arranged around squares and residential roads off the spine road. Small parks, greens and playing fields are shown adjacent to, or amongst, the residential areas. A primary school and associated playing fields are shown in the south-western corner of the site, and a community hall, public house and retail centre are shown in the north-west corner of the site. The area of woodland along part of the southern boundary of the site is shown to be retained, as is much of the present network of hedgerows. An area either side of Swill Brook as it runs across the site is shown to be kept free of built development.

4.5 The appeal is against the Council’s failure to issue a decision on the application within the prescribed period. However, the Council resolved that, had it been able to determine the application, it would have been refused for the following reasons:

1 The proposed residential development is unsustainable because it is located within the Open Countryside, where according to Policies NE.2 and RES.5 of the adopted Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan there is a presumption against new residential development. Such development would be harmful to its open character and appearance, which in the absence of a need for the development should be protected for its own sake. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land supply in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. Consequently, there are no material circumstances to indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan.

2 The proposal would result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and given that the Authority can demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for the development, which could not be accommodated elsewhere. The use of the best and most versatile agricultural land is unsustainable and contrary to Policy NE.12 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework

3 The proposal is located within the Green Gap and would result in erosion of the physical gaps between built up areas as well as adversely affecting the visual character of the landscape, and given that there are other alternatives sites, which could be used to meet the Council's housing land supply requirements, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy NE.4 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and the emerging Core Strategy.

4 The proposal would involve the removal of an "important" hedgerow as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Policy NE5 of the local plan states that the Local Planning authority will protect, conserve and enhance the natural conservation resource where, inter alia, natural futures such as hedgerows are, wherever possible, integrated into landscaping schemes on

166 development sites. In the absence of overriding reasons for allowing the development and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NR3 of the adopted Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011.

5 The proposed development would not represent economically and socially sustainable development as there is no identified local need for the care provision. There is already an over-supply of such care provision in the locality which exceeds the needs for the current and future generations. The development would therefore be considered contrary to NPPF paras 7, 17 and 50.

6 The applicant has failed to demonstrated a safe and satisfactory means of access to the site, contrary to the provisions of Policy BE3 (Access) of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 The Transport Assessment submitted with the application under-estimates the likely traffic impact of the development, which in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority would have a severe residual impact on the local road network, contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8 Due to its scale the proposed development would impact on a wide area and is considered to be so substantial, and significant, that granting permission could prejudice the emerging Local Plan by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the Plan. It is also located in an Area of Search for proposed Green Belt in the emerging Local Plan and would predetermining decisions in respect of that policy. It is therefore contrary to advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and The Planning System: General Principles.

4.6 Prior to the inquiry, the Council accepted that not all of its putative reasons for refusal could be maintained and agreed that two of these - Reasons 5 and 6 - should be withdrawn (see Document CEC 7).

5. THE CASE FOR CHESHIRE EAST BOROUGH COUNCIL The appeal site

5.1 Forty-three hectares is a large area of land. The site lies in open countryside beyond the settlement boundary of Crewe, to the north of the Crewe- Nantwich railway which itself lies to the north of Gresty Lane. The site is in productive agricultural use, for both arable and livestock farming. It has a very good network of hedgerows and a significant number of mature trees. The site contains ‘important’ hedgerows protected by the Hedgerow Regulations.

5.2 The site shares key characteristics identified in the National Character Assessment, Cheshire Landscape Character Area and the Lower Farms and Woodlands Landscape Character Type within LWF: 7 Barthomley Character Area. Those characteristics are: gently undulating land, fields with hedged boundaries and occasional hedgerow trees.

167 The emerging Local Plan Strategy

5.3 The Examination of the CELP is scheduled to begin its hearings on 16 September 2014. This follows extensive public consultation on various iterations of options, alternative strategies, and range of potential sites. The appeal site has never been a preferred option in any of the consultation stages.

Whether the proposed scheme could be regarded as sustainable development

5.4 The Council takes the view that the proposed development would not represent a sustainable form of development when tested against the saved policies of the Local Plan as a whole or the NPPF as a whole. BCNRLP already expressly embraced the principles of sustainable development (referred to as “prosperity”, “quality of environment” and “quality of life”3), now referred to in the NPPF as the “three dimensions” of sustainability (respectively, economic, environmental, social).4

5.5 The saved policies support housing development within settlements. But they do restrict development in the open countryside, and do seek to prevent it in the Green Gap where the proposed built development and/or change of use of land would erode the Gap or adversely affect the visual character of the landscape, unless there is no alternative. Further they do restrict it on ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land where there are alternative locations of lower quality.

5.6 Paragraph 215 of NPPF advises that, in respect of development plan policy in the circumstances pertaining in this case, “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

5.7 The objective of protecting the character and amenity of the open countryside, which underpins BCNRLP Policy NE.2 is consistent with one of the core planning principles of NPPF5. The appeal site lies within the Green Gap identified in BCNRLP Policy NE.4. The Green Gap policy is also consistent with the NPPF which acknowledges different roles of different areas, supporting communities within rural area6, the adopted plan provides “clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where”7, and identifies “land where development would be inappropriate”8. BCNRLP Policy NE.12 is consistent with paragraph 112 of the NPPF and the PPG (Natural Environment).

3 CD 4.1 paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 4 Paragraph 1.11 5 NPPF Paragraph 17, bullet point 5 6 NPPF paragraph 17 7 NPPF paragraph 154 8 NPPF paragraph 157

168 5.8 The proposed housing development, albeit not economic development itself, will support economic growth and provide affordable housing in a location which is accessible to the services and facilities of Crewe. However, the existence of a 5 year supply of deliverable housing, and the existence of alternative sites outside of the Green Gap, means that there is no need to permit development in the open countryside or on best and most versatile agricultural land, let alone in the Green Gap.

5.9 NPPF advises that Local Plans should “identify land where development would be inappropriate”9 – which the Council has consistently done in respect of Green Gap policy. NPPF also advises that the exceptional circumstances required to justify the extension of the North Staffordshire Green Belt to the south of Crewe may be demonstrated, for example, where “normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate” 10. Here there is an overlap with the purpose of Green Gap policy. The fact that development pressure persists, indeed is occasionally successful (e.g. the site in Rope Lane allowed on appeal) shows that Green Belt policy is needed to emphasise that the proposed development of the appeal site is wholly inappropriate.

5.10 A Green Belt would help to check what would otherwise result in the unrestricted sprawl of Crewe, preventing merger of Crewe and Nantwich and Crewe and Shavington, as well as safeguarding the countryside from encroachment11. Both the Green Gap and a proposed Area of Search for Green Belt are supported by independent consultants Envision; their report forms part of the evidence base of the CELP. This is all to be tested through the Local Plan examination process, but none of the foregoing suggests that the proposed development constitutes sustainable development. Moreover, the prematurity of this appeal cuts directly across advice in the PPG.

5.11 The highways impact would also be severe, contrary to para 32 of the NPPF. Ironically, the impact of the proposed development on top of nearby allocated Basford East - an important part of the justification for government funding of the Crewe Green Link Road - has not been assessed in detail in the Transport Assessment (TA).

5.12 Looking at the development plan as a whole and the NPPF as a whole, the proposed development is not considered to constitute sustainable development.

5.13 Turning now to the relationship between sustainable development and paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Paragraph 6 of the NPPF states that the policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system.

5.14 In William Davis Ltd v. SSCLG12 Lang J accepted Treasury Counsel’s submission on behalf of the Secretary of State and concluded that

9 NPPF paragraph 157 10 NPPF Paragraph 82 11 NPPF Paragraph 80 12 [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin) 11th October 2013

169 “[i]t would be contrary to the fundamental principles of [the] NPPF if the presumption in favour of development in paragraph 14 applied equally to sustainable and non-sustainable development.”

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by Sullivan LJ on 24 February 2014. It was not stated by the learned judge that Lang J’s finding and interpretation of paragraph 14, as recorded above, was incorrect. Contrast the position in Hunston where Sullivan LJ granted permission to appeal, not because he thought that the appeal had real prospects of success but because important issues of interpretation of paragraph 47 of the NPPF were involved. Paragraph 14 is of course of importance to decision-making.

5.15 For the appellant, a number of High Court decisions were referred to, but none expressly dealt with the point before the Court, and decided, in Davis.

5.16 The decision of Patterson J (Dartford) became available at the inquiry on 30 July. The decision had been noted in the Droitwich decision but it appears that the judgment had not been formally published until 30 July. Patterson J, whilst rejecting the elevation of the dicta in Davis to a formulaic approach, said:

“I agree with Lang J in her conclusion that it would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the NPPF if the presumption in favour of development, in paragraph 14, applied equally to sustainable and non-sustainable development. To do so would make a nonsense of Government policy on sustainable development.”

5.17 Thus it is still necessary to consider whether development is sustainable. It may be noted that Treasury Counsel submitted that

“sustainable development is about seeking an overall net positive contribution to economic, social and environmental gains together.”

An overall net positive contribution involves a weighing of harm and benefit rather than a paragraph 14 test (significantly outweigh). Whatever the precise test is, the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development whichever test is applied, for the reasons set out above and in Mr Haywood’s evidence.

5.18 Those reasons include the fact that the site is located within a Green Gap. Lindblom J observed in Bloor13 that:

“On any sensible view, if the development would harm the Green wedge by damaging its character and appearance or its function in separating the villages of Groby and Ratby, or by spoiling its amenity for people walking on public footpaths nearby, it would not be sustainable development within the wide scope drawn for that concept in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF.”

5.19 Turning now to the particular sub-topics identified:

Green Gap

5.20 The appellant contends that no adverse view was expressed by the Local Plan Inspector in 2003 14 so far as concerns the appeal proposal. The Inspector

13 CD 10.7 14 CD 4.4

170 simply left detailed boundaries and adequacy of separation to another day when housing need required such issues to be considered. A proper reading of the report shows that these are mistaken contentions. The Inspector was reviewing Green Gap Policy (as he noted at p.182, para 115.2.3). The conclusions of that review are set out in chapter 14 of the report (pp 13 and ff).

5.21 The objections to the Green Gap policy fell into 3 main categories: (1) extend the area of Green Gap (2) objection to principle of Green Gap policy (3) exclude specific areas (see p.14 para 14.2.1). The justification for the policy and the extent of the Green Gap is set out in paragraphs 14.2.2 – 6.

5.22 It was noted that the post-war growth of Crewe had engulfed small villages (14.2.2). There was still a visible openness between the two towns but action was necessary to prevent the erosion of the gap. The Council was right to seek a tighter level of control than that afforded by open countryside policies, but instead of requiring “very special circumstances” to be shown to justify a breach of policy, the wording was changed to be “no loss of Green Gap land except for necessary development which cannot be located elsewhere” (page 3, para 2.3, final Recommendation).

5.23 The Council was right, the Inspector said, not to look in detail at “the edges of the built-up areas” i.e. to include land up to the settlement boundary – those edges should not be allowed to be “nibbled away” otherwise the edges would soon lead to the gap being eroded cumulatively. If there were a specific need to consider the detailed edge along the settlement – if there were a housing need – then the detailed edge could be looked at in the context of ensuring that an adequate separation remained. (14.2.5). He was satisfied that the general extent of the Green Gap had been correctly identified in the vicinity of (inter alia) Green Farm, Rope Lane (14.2.6).

5.24 He recommended the following addition to the reasoned justification:

“the building of principal traffic routes through the narrow gaps between the settlements has the potential to increase pressure for new development up to and along these routes. That pressure is already manifest in the Green Gaps, justifying a stricter level of development control to ensure continuing separation of the settlements.”

5.25 The appeal site constitutes far more than a “nibble”: far more than a small amount of development on the edge of the settlement boundary. The appeal site, which comes up to the A500 near Rope Lane, would plainly have been inconsistent with all of the above and would not have been considered acceptable.

5.26 The Inspector returned to the issue of Green Gap when addressing objection sites for housing. Specifically with regard to the part of the Green Gap with which this appeal is now concerned (limiting this area further to between Rope Lane and Crewe Road) the Inspector commented (para 115.2.3 on page 182) that “virtually every single piece of open land either side of the A500 bypass is the subject of objection”. The Inspector recommended that no modification be made to the Plan:

171 “... I believe the Green gap Policy (NE.4) to be a most important part of the Council’s strategy, and I agree with the Council that the site is within one of the more sensitive areas of Green Gap between Shavington and Crewe. The proposal to include the land as a residential allocation would, in my view, result in a significant intrusion into the open countryside between the two settlements. It is also an area under intense pressure for development ... I do not accept that other areas of Green gap are not contained to the extent that this site is ... (p.172 para 106.2.2)

5.27 The Local Plan Inquiry Inspector clearly did not think that the A500 would provide adequate separation. He also clearly took the view that a 6 ha site (compared to the current appeal site of 43 ha) would be a significant intrusion into open countryside even though a contained site.

5.28 Other sites in this vicinity were also considered at the Local Plan Inquiry. One was a site of nearly 8 ha on the northern edge of Shavington for approximately 230 dwellings (p.180 para 114.2.2). There were views across the site from several viewpoints, including part of an established employment area:

114.2.3 “I consider that sites within the Green Gap should only be considered if land cannot be found elsewhere to meet the CRSP housing requirement ....”

He went on to consider the effect of development on the Green Gap.

“If this were to be permitted, there is little to prevent further pressure, leading to the whole area up to the A500 being built over. This is precisely why the Green Gap Policy is, in my view, an essential component of the Plan’s strategy. For these reasons I do not support the allocation of this site for residential development.” (114.2.4).

5.29 Another site was land to rear of 187A Crewe Road, Shavington. This was part of the larger objection site above (see 115.2.1). Part of that site already had planning permission for residential development. Here the Inspector supported Green Gap policy (115.2.2):

“development should not compromise the separate identity of villages to the south of Crewe town, and I am particularly concerned that there is considerable pressure between Shavington and Crewe ...” (ibid)

“[T]he recent opening of the A500 bypass ... will increase pressure in the vicinity of its junction with the Crewe Road. That much is clear from the fact that virtually every single piece of open land either side of the A500 bypass is the subject of objection ...it is my conclusion that this part of the Green Gap is particularly fragile, and vulnerable to development pressures.... (115.2.3)

“The objectors argue that the site is not readily visible ... This is true ... However, this is not in itself a reason for recommending a residential allocation in this vulnerable location. It could lead to further development pressure on adjacent land, leading ultimately to the A500 bypass forming the northern limit to Shavington. This would not accord with the general thrust of policy at local and structure plan level, which seeks to maintain the separate identity of Shavington.”

5.30 That is, the conclusion that inappropriateness of release from the Green Gap was separate from, and irrespective of, housing need; the A500 bypass was considered to be an entirely inappropriate separation and would not maintain the separate identity of Shavington.

172 5.31 For the appellant at this inquiry, reference was made to two objection sites considered by the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector at Sydney Road15 and Land north of Crewe Green roundabout16 on the Haslington side of Crewe. The Council contend that these areas of land are not directly comparable to the land between Crewe and Shavington.

5.32 It is important to note that Green Gap policy has a separate function to that of countryside protection policy; namely, the maintenance of the separation of Crewe from nearby villages and Nantwich, and thus the openness of the gaps between. This function has been supported by the previous Local Plan Inspector, and particularly with reference to the part of the Green Gap with which this inquiry is concerned (i.e. Crewe/Shavington). As already mentioned, where there is erosion of this Gap and/or harm to the visual character of the landscape, the policy is that exceptions should only be made where it can be demonstrated that no suitable alternative location is available. Although there may be the need to accommodate further housing outside settlement boundaries, this does not mean that it must be permitted on this Green Gap site. Other sites exist; CELP shows that there are many alternative locations outside the Green Gap.

5.33 In the very recent Hunters Lodge Hotel appeal decision17 (in the Haslington Green Gap) the Inspector found the openness and undeveloped character of the area to be visually important and of a distinct physical area even though not of exceptional landscape quality in its own right.18 Further,

“even though the actual percentage reduction in the distance of the edge of the built up area of Crewe to that of Haslington may not be high, I conclude that the physical form of the development would make the open area materially narrower and would add to coalescence.” 19

5.34 The Inspector noted the Council was proposing to permit development on two sites in the Green Gap but he observed that this was part of work taken within a plan-led process, and that the appellant had not put forward a case that there was no suitable alternative location available.20

5.35 It is not correct to accept that Policy NE.4 should be regarded as out-of-date if NE.2 is out-of-date. This is not only because of NE.4’s separate function but because Policy NE.4 is not a “housing supply policy” within the meaning of paragraph 49 of the NPPF.21 At the 2003 Local Plan Inquiry objection sites for housing were rejected on freestanding Green Gap grounds. The Davis22 and Barwood23 cases now show that it was also incorrect to characterise this

15 CD 4.4 page 173 and ff 16 CD 4.4 page 208 and ff 17 CEC 22. Note that this site is shown on HG 7 (plans of comparison sites) 18 p.5 para 23 19 Para 24 20 Para 26 21 BH 2 Appendix 6: Barwood (Ouseley J) and Appendix 7: Davis (Lang J) 22 BH 2 Appendix 7, para 47 23 BH 2 Appendix 6, para 47

173 Green Gap policy as a housing supply policy in the context of para 49 of the NPPF and the then agreed lack of a 5 year supply (para 6).

5.36 The appellant seeks to rely upon the decision letter in Mountsorrel24 to argue that, since the Area of Local Separation policy in that case was considered to be a policy for the supply of housing, then the Green Gap policy in this case should likewise be considered. There are two important points to make concerning that decision. First, the point made by the Inspector in that report, and accepted by the Secretary of State, was that the particular policy represented “an absolute ban on open market housing in the ALS”25. NE.4 clearly allows for exceptions.

5.37 Secondly, and related to the first point, the Inspector was referred to Colman,26 but Bloor27 had not been decided at that point (and there is no reference in the Secretary of State’s subsequent decision letter to suggest that he was aware of it when the decision letter was issued only a few weeks later). Here Policy NE.4 does permit countervailing benefits to be weighed (so too does NE.2). Lindblom J, in Bloor puts the Colman dicta in their proper context. It is submitted that the Mountsorrel decision does not support the appellant’s case here.

5.38 Development of the appeal site would leave only a sliver of undeveloped land between the appeal site and the houses on, and to be built on, Rope Lane. In effect only the A500 would separate Crewe from Shavington at this point. No one suggests that the A500 would provide an adequate Green Gap. It is difficult to see how this could, by contrast, justify a Green Belt designation in the remainder of the area between Crewe and Shavington. A permission now would inevitably preclude the land being included in the Area of Search for Green Belt.

5.39 The vulnerability of this part of the Green Gap is very evident. The arguments the appellant has presented to the inquiry were rejected by the Local Plan Inspector in 2003, and the vulnerability to which that Inspector referred has not lessened. It would be a serious mistake – and one for which future generations would rightly condemn us - to allow a huge ‘bite’ to be taken out of this vulnerable part of the Green Gap. Wistason and Rope now read as part of Crewe; the appeal scheme would effectively join Crewe and Shavington.

5.40 The alleged absence of housing land supply should make no difference to the application of Green Gap policy to the appeal site. Green Gap policy is that exceptions should only be made where there is no alternative. It was not suggested that areas outside the Green Gap did not exist which could accommodate 880 dwellings (or any part thereof). Plainly the Green Gap comprises a relatively small part of land which lies beyond the settlement boundary of Crewe (let alone other settlement boundaries).

24 CD 9.15 25 p42, para 8.19 26 CD 10.8 para 22 27 CD 10.7 para 186

174 Loss of open countryside

5.41 BCNRLP Policy NE.2 treats all land outside settlement boundaries as open countryside and permits only restricted categories of development in the open countryside. RES.5 similarly restricts housing development in the open countryside. There is common ground that the proposed development would be in breach of these policies.

5.42 The objective of protecting the character and amenity of the open countryside is consistent with one of the core planning principles of NPPF (paragraph 17, bullet point 5); and this consistency has been recognised both in respect of BCNRLP policies and similar Congleton Borough policies in numerous decision letters in the past 2 years.28 The environmental objective does not cease simply because Policy RES.1 makes housing provision only for the period 1996-2011. There is no suggestion, either, that there has been any material physical change to the site since adoption of the Plan in 2005.

5.43 This site is not “open countryside” on a purely policy basis i.e. just because it lies outside the settlement boundary. It is, in large part, physically and aesthetically part of the open countryside.

5.44 The landscape witnesses at this inquiry differed as to the extent of the influence of Crewe on the appeal site. There is also a difference in view as to the extent to which, for example, development along Rope Lane has suburbanised the appeal site or this part of the Green Gap. Even if the view were taken that a “tipping point” has been reached, it hardly assists the appellant’s case to argue that the development of the appeal site tips that balance.

5.45 It is appropriate to consider the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed scheme. The development would have a significant adverse impact on a localised area of the much-wider LWF 7 Character Area. The principle that this can justify a reason for refusal is demonstrated by the Sandbach Road North, Alsager decision letter29. That decision also confirms that the fact that a site does not have a formal landscape designation does not mean that planning permission cannot be refused on landscape grounds. In this appeal the Green Gap policy, by reference to the criterion/test of adverse harm to the visual character of the landscape, includes this as an additional issue (where otherwise there is no other relevant landscape policy). The Landscape Visual Impact Analysis accepted that the designation as Green Gap increased the sensitivity of the landscape to development.30 Openness is key feature and characteristic of the Green Gap.

28 BH 1 and BH 2: Loachbrook Farm, Congleton (2012) para 9 (Appendix 7); Congleton Road, Sandbach (2013) para 15 (Appendix 8); Sandbach Road North, Alsager (2013) para 16 (Appendix 9); Hassall Road, Alsager (2013) para 11 (Appendix 10); Crewe Road, Crewe (2014) para 18 (Appendix 11); The Moorings, Congleton (2014) paras 27-28 (Appendix 12); Rose Cottages, Brereton Heath(2014) para 9 (Appendix 13); Elworth Hall Farm, Elworth, Sandbach (2014) para 11 (Appendix 16). See now, too, Dunnocksfold Road, Alsager decision (14 July 2014) paras 18 and 30; 144 Audlem Road, Nantwich (25 July 2014) para 19; Close Lane, Alsager (29 July 2014) para 12. 29 CD 9.4 30 CD 2.10 page 11-23, para 11.88

175 5.46 There is common ground that the visual envelope of the site is relatively restricted: this necessarily increases the impact of the proposed development on that visual envelope, particularly where such a large proportion of the appeal site would be developed (and/or perceived to be developed). The appeal scheme would change arable and animal farming in the open countryside to a ‘garden suburb’ with housing, school (including its car parking, fenced grounds, lighting etc.), main distributor and other residential roads and pavements, retail shops, public house, allotments and their associated paraphernalia. This would be a significant change to the existing local landscape character.

5.47 It is acknowledged that there is some development on and around the site, for example on the west side of Rope Lane, but the proposed development will suburbanise this road further. If it is considered that a tipping point has been reached then that is a reason why permission should not be granted.

5.48 It is not correct to believe that the visual impact of the scheme would be limited. Views across the area would not be just hedgerows with the perception of openness beyond, but there would also be significant stretches with clear views of the developed area across the appeal site31; the view from either would substantially (and adversely) change. The significance of the degree of change would be “high”, rather than “medium” as claimed for the appellant. Similar points apply to Photo viewpoints 2, 3 and 4.

5.49 The site would also be seen from Crewe Road. The appeal scheme would leave an undeveloped parcel of land between Crewe Road and the appeal site. The hedgerow along this frontage has for the last few years been left unmanaged. This currently creates a more substantial screen for views towards the appeal site, but previously the hedge has been trimmed to a lower height (see the Google Streetscene view produced by Mr Gomulski32). Moreover, if the appeal site were granted permission there would be little purpose in the continued Green Gap designation on this area of land (only an east-west rather than north-south axis remaining).

5.50 There would be impacts of substantial/moderate significance and those impacts have been understated by the appellant. BCNRLP Policy NE.4 requires that development should be refused where there would be adverse harm unless there is no suitable alternative. It is common ground that there would be adverse harm and the appellant has not suggested that there were insufficient non-Green Gap sites such that it was necessary to accommodate 880 or any part thereof on this Green Gap site.

Best and most versatile agricultural land

5.51 The proposal would also involve the significant loss of ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (BMV), contrary to BCNRLP Policy NE.12, which is consistent with both the NPPF33 and the PPG.34 That is, land within

31 Mr Gomulski’s Viewpoint 1: Appendix 2 to JG 2. 32 JG 2 Appendix 2, final page 33 Para 112 34 8-026

176 agricultural land classification categories 2 and 3a. The appellant has not shown that there are no other sites of lesser agricultural quality or otherwise as required by Policy NE.12 and NPPF paragraph 112. It was accepted at the inquiry that land adjacent to the northern / north eastern quadrant of Crewe would be considered to be inferior in quality. The ES considered the loss of 12.5 ha BMV to be of medium significance,35 although that is on an assumption that 20 ha would be of high significance. The NPPF/PPG provide no guidance on this point.

5.52 38.7 ha of this land is farmed, and wheat is grown on the Grade 3b land. The fact that there are a number of tenants (and that the principal occupation of the occupant of some 24 ha is drainage work) does not in any way alter the fact that the land is in productive use, even though it is not all 3a or 2.

5.53 This putative reason for refusal is pursued on the basis that there is a 5 year supply of housing. If there is not such a supply it remains a material consideration to be weighed in the balance with other harms. The Council is prepared to weigh agricultural land value against wider needs, but here there is no such countervailing need to lose this Green Gap land from agriculture.

Loss of important hedgerows

5.54 There are important hedgerows running across the site. The importance derives from two separate bases, and not on the single basis (parish boundary) identified and assessed in the ES. One of the hedgerows on the appeal site marks the boundary between pre-1850 parishes or Townships. Other hedgerows are recorded on the Tithe Map 1839-4036 as an integral part of a field system. These are ‘important’ within the meaning of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, as the hedgerows have been in existence for 30 or more years. The fields form part of what the former Cheshire County Council’s Historic Landscape Characterisation Assessment described as ancient or post- mediaeval fieldscapes.37 Because the ES only assessed the parish boundary hedgerow it is considered that the impacts on important hedgerows are understated and are significant, such that their loss would be contrary to BCNRLP Policy BE.16 (man-made archaeology) and the reasoned justification to Policy NE.5 (landscape features).

5.55 It was accepted that that there would be some 17-18 breaches of the important hedgerows (of which 4 related to the parish boundary), with lengths varying between about 5m up to (in one instance) 20 m. Document HG 22 shows the extent of important hedgerow would need to be removed: over half a kilometre (520 m) of hedgerow comprising 34 breaches of the important hedgerows, even on an indicative plan which does not appear to show 880 dwellings.

5.56 These hedgerows have historical and to some extent archaeological interest (it is agreed that the distinction is necessarily blurred). The hedgerows have some communal and aesthetic interest. The fieldscape in large part dates

35 CD 2.10 Chapter 16, p.16-13 para 16.47 36 Environmental Statement Appendix 12, Figure 12.11 37 Ibid, Figure 12.2

177 back to 16th century. Although this may not be unique to the site, this does not undermine their importance within the Regulations. Whilst reference was also made to guidance for good management38, this guidance is predicated upon satisfaction first of the Hedgerow Regulations: “in addition to any statutory controls”. Thus future management does not justify their loss.

Whether there is a 5 year housing land supply

5.57 The Council believe that there is a 5 year housing land supply. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF advises 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.”

5.58 It follows that, if a 5 year supply can be demonstrated, paragraph 49 does not require relevant policies for the supply of housing to be considered not up-to- date.

5.59 The relevant part of paragraph 14 of the NPPF for the purpose of this appeal is:

“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; ...”

5.60 Lindblom J in Bloor Homes39 gave guidance on the interpretation of the meaning of the words “absent” and “silent” in this context. The development plan is plainly not absent: the saved policies of the CNBP are extant.

5.61 The development plan is not silent either in the sense that it “contains a body of policy relevant to the proposal being considered and sufficient to enable the development to be judged acceptable or unacceptable in principle”. It provides, for example, that housing development should generally take place within settlement boundaries and not in the open countryside beyond settlement boundaries and not in the Green Gap (see test in BCNRLP Policy NE.4).

5.62 Relevant policies are not out-of-date; for example the Green Gap policy. This is not changed by the fact that policy RES.1 does not make specific provision for housing post 2011. There is disagreement as to whether “relevant policies” means ‘all’ or ‘any’.

5.63 There are potentially 3 ways in which a policy could be out-of-date. (i) It could be time-expired, having an end date - but Policy NE.2 has no end date. Countryside protection continues. (ii) If the policy were not consistent with the NPPF – here policy NE.2 has consistently been held to be consistent with

38 CD 6.11, page 89 39 CD 10.7 - [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (19 March 2014) para 45 and ff

178 the NPPF (paragraph 17 bullet point 5). (iii) If there were no 5 year supply and the policy were a housing supply policy (paragraph 49) – here the Council is of the view that there is a 5 year supply so paragraph 49 is not engaged.

5.64 Even if it were engaged, NE.2 is a housing supply policy “to the extent that”, to use the phrasing both of Lewis J in Cotswold40, of Lindblom J in Bloor (2014) and the wording of the background document supporting the consent to judgment in the Sandbach Road North, Alsager case41, it sought to restrict the supply of housing, although Ouseley J in Barwood42 expresses the position more broadly.

5.65 In Cotswold Lewis J. (27/11/13) referred to (para 16) Policy 19 of the Local Plan. That restricted development, including housing development, outside existing development boundaries.

(para 72) “Thirdly, the Secretary of State did not err in disregarding Local Plan Policy 19. The second sentence of paragraph 49 of the Framework says that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply. Miss Sheikh submits that Local Plan 19 restricts development, including housing development, and so is not a housing policy for the purposes of paragraph 49 of the Framework. The short answer is that Local Plan Policy 19 is a policy relating to the supply of housing (amongst other developments). It restricts development, including housing, development. As the inspector correctly held, applying the Framework, Local Plan Policy 19 should be disapplied “to the extent” that it “seeks to restrict the supply of housing”: see paragraph 14.44 of the report in the Highfields appeal”.

5.66 It is acknowledged that if there is no 5 year supply, BCNRLP Policies NE.2 and RES.5 are out-of-date but only in terms of their geographical extent. But for Policy NE.4 the position is markedly different. In William Davis Ltd v. SSCLG and North West Leicestershire Council43 (11/10/13) (Lang J) said:

“52. Central to this Inquiry is saved policy E20, Green Wedge, which states that "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect or diminish the present open and undeveloped character of the Coalville-Whitwick-Swannington Green Wedge, identified on the Proposals Map. Appropriate uses in the Green Wedge are agriculture, forestry, minerals extraction and outdoor sport and recreation uses. Any built development permitted within the Green Wedge will be limited to minor structures and facilities which are strictly ancillary to the use of the land for these purposes. [underlining added]

47. [Note – this is the order of the numbered paragraphs as they appear in the judgment]

The Claimants sought to argue that Policy E20 should have been treated as one of the "[r]relevant policies for the supply of housing" within the meaning of NPPF, paragraph 49 because the restriction on development potentially affects housing development. I do not consider that this is a correct interpretation of paragraph 49. Paragraph 49 is located in the section of the NPPF dedicated to housing and it

40 CD 10.5 - [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) (27 November 2013) 41 CD 9.4 42 CD 10.3 - [2014] EQHC 573 (Admin) (10 March 2014) 43 High Court challenge to Secretary of State’s Decision on Appeal Ref: APP/G2435/A/11/2158154

179 refers to policies for "the supply of housing", of which there are many in local, regional and national plans. It was agreed that the housing policies in the Development Plan in this case, were out-of-date by virtue of paragraph 49 (see the DL, paragraph 22). However Policy E20 does not relate to the supply of housing, and therefore is not covered by paragraph 49. I was shown numerous Inspectors’ decisions in which paragraph 49 had been applied but these were distinguishable from this case because the policies related specifically to housing. There were a couple of exceptions, but insofar as Inspectors have applied paragraph 49 to policies which did not relate to housing, I respectfully suggest that they did so in error. In my view the implementation provisions in Annex 1 govern policies which are not specifically related to housing, not paragraph 49.”

5.67 In South Northamptonshire v. Barwood Land (10th March 2014)44 Ouseley J. was concerned with Policy EV2 which stated:

“planning permission will not be granted for development in the open countryside ...” (exceptions did not include residential development) (para 38)

5.68 The judge at paragraph 47 contrasted “such very general policies”, which he concluded were housing supply policies (without any qualification such as “to the extent that”)

“designed to protect specific areas or features, such as gaps between settlements, the particular character of villages or a specific landscape designation, all of which could sensibly exist regardless of the distribution and location of housing or other development.” (underlining added)

5.69 Consistently with both Davis and, now, Barwood, the Green Gap in the present case clearly as a matter of law and judgment must fall within the category of not being a “policy for the supply of housing” within paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Irrespective of countryside policy NE.2, the need to keep Crewe and Shavington separate stands. As contended above (paragraph 5.35) Policy NE.4 is not a policy for the supply of housing.

5.70 Even if paragraph 14 applies (on whatever basis) in this case the adverse impacts are considered significantly and demonstrably to outweigh the benefits and, on the same or lesser test, the proposal is considered to be unsustainable development.

5 year supply - summary of events

5.71 The issue of a 5 year supply has loomed large in Cheshire East at inquiries over the last 12 months, following the publication in March 2013 of the Council’s SHLAA (the base date of which was 31 March 2012).

5.72 In October 2013 Inspector Mr Major45 in two decisions took the view that a 5 year supply had not been demonstrated (on the basis of 1,150 dpa base requirement and post Hunston High Court decision46, and the need for an additional requirement of a 20% buffer) and allowed one appeal47 and

44 CD 10.3 45 Decisions in respect of Congleton Road, Sandbach (CD 9.3) and Sandbach Road North, Alsager. 46 See e.g. CD 9.3 page 4 footnote 2; 47 Now by consent agreed to be quashed

180 dismissed the other. It is interesting to note that a number of sites which he did not think appropriate to include in the 5 year supply are in fact coming forward as predicted.48 Little particularity was given and this gave rise to difficulties for all parties. The Secretary of State in respect of the Abbey Road site in Sandbach also issued a decision letter in October 201349, having redetermined a previously quashed decision following written representations (only). He ultimately expressed the requirement as a range, lying somewhere between a 5% and 20% buffer but again did not address sites in any detail.

5.73 The Council therefore properly and reasonably decided to reconsider its Housing Land Supply (HLS) position in the light of these decisions, to reassess each site and sought the input of the Housing Market Partnership (HMP), albeit against a background where the 2012 SHLAA had led to threats of a judicial review. Also, developers/land promoters who are active in the HMP are, in the real world, and on the evidence, necessarily both keen to talk up prospects of delivery50 of their sites when promoting them but also prone collectively to downplay the prospects of delivery when HLS is at issue, in the teeth of a rapidly improving economic outlook over the last 18 months.

5.74 On 12 December 2013 Inspector Mr Clark then issued a decision letter concerning Hassall Road, Alsager51. He considered that a 5% rather than a 20% buffer was appropriate but took the view that a 5 year supply had not been demonstrated. Some appellants have since suggested that the Inspector based this upon the existence of a contingency; but this is not how it is expressed. Very little detail was given in respect of sites.

5.75 In the meantime, i.e. pending the review from October 2013 to February 2014, the Council did not contest, for the purposes of five individual appeals only, that it could demonstrate a 5 year supply. A workshop with the HMP was held on 19 December 2013 and written representations were also subsequently received.

5.76 In February 2014 the Council published a HLS Position Statement (base date 31 December 2013) whose purpose was to reflect the Council’s reconsideration of its position in the light of the October decisions and in the light of current evidence and also to accompany the Plan’s housing trajectory.52 It sets out the 5 year supply position for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019 (not 1 January to 31 December in any year).

5.77 More recently, the Council has sought also to reflect the HLS guidance given in the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) published on 6 March 2014. Firstly, the PPG supports the use of Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) projections as a starting point to establish the housing requirement. Secondly, the PPG provides guidance, inter alia, that when assessing whether there has been a record of persistent under-delivery

48 e.g. Albion Chemical Works (para 38); Basford East (para 27) 49 CD 9.1 50 See CD9.3 para 24 51 CD 9.6 52 Submitted plan, p.414 Figure E.1

181 (within the meaning of paragraph 47 of the NPPF) it is indeed appropriate, as the Council has consistently argued, to consider more than the last 5 years, and to look at a longer period to reflect the peak and not just the trough (e.g. caused by the economic downturn) of the housing market cycle. This militates in favour of a 5% buffer in the circumstances pertaining to Cheshire East.

5.78 Thirdly, the PPG permits the counting of completions of housing for older people and students. Until receipt of the 144 Audlem Road, Nantwich decision53, the Council considered this had the potential to affect the amount of the housing backlog and therefore the housing requirement; as well as, again, supporting the Council’s contention that it does not have a record of persistent under-delivery of housing. Fourthly it permitted windfalls to be included.

5.79 At the outset of the present Inquiry, the PPG had only been considered briefly in two recent decisions. The first concerned Elworth Hall Farm, Elworth near Sandbach in the former Congleton Borough54. The decision letter is dated 11 April 2014. The PPG was published only after the inquiry had closed; written representations were subsequently required by the Inspector. Short written representations were made by both respective parties in respect of the PPG55. At that stage the Council had not been able to investigate at all the implications of the older persons/students accommodation and the implications of C2 and student accommodation, in terms of the overall reduction in backlog, and the requirement had not been assessed. The decision is the subject of challenge by the Council in the High Court.

5.80 The Inspector did, however, support the figure of 1,150 despite arguments that it should be higher. He also accepted that the particular windfall allowance was appropriate.

5.81 It should be noted that there have been numerous inquiries since the Elworth Hall Farm inquiry.56

5.82 The second decision concerned land off Dunnocksfold Road, Alsager dated 14 July 2014 (95 dwellings)57. The Inspector accepted, in the light of the PPG, that a 5% buffer was appropriate but concluded that a 5 year supply could not be demonstrated: unfortunately this latter view was reached on the assumption that a requirement of 1,350 dpa58 represented the Council’s view

53 HG 15 54 CD 9.5 55 GCS 1 Appendix 25 56 Weston Lane, Shavington inquiry (1-4 April). That inquiry is part-heard and resumes on 16 September 2014; subsequently at the Close Lane, Alsager inquiry (29 April–2 May); Land west of Audlem Road, Audlem (7 May - ); Hind Heath Road, Sandbach (3 June -); 144 Audlem Road, Nantwich (10 June–13 June); Moorfields (17 June - ); Crewe Road, Haslington (1 July - ); Shavington East, Crewe (13 July - ). 57 Appendix 3, Stock’s rebuttal proof of evidence (Document GCS 2) 58 Because of the proposed stepped housing provision, the figure of 1,350 is the proposed housing requirement (reflecting the proposed policies) not the FOAN. The FOAN has not in any event been tested yet

182 of its full objective assessment of need (FOAN) (NPPF paragraph 47). In fact the FOAN figure for the plan period in the submitted Plan is 1,180 dpa.

5.83 Since the beginning of the inquiry, four further appeal decisions have been issued. Two of these are of particular relevance to the point at issue here, but do not give a consistent analysis of the situation. The decision relating to 144 Audlem Road, Nantwich59 expresses the views (i) that the FOAN is 1,350; (ii) that a 20% buffer is applicable; and that (iii) consequently a 5 year supply cannot be demonstrated. The decision on the Close Lane, Alsager inquiry accepted that the FOAN was 1,150, and 20% was applied. Mr Stock has prepared a note of matters which affect the views expressed/assumptions made in respect of supply60. When coupled with the evidence on lead-in times given to this inquiry Mr Stock is of the view that there is a 5 year supply.

Requirement

5.84 As regards the calculation of the 5 year requirement, as is clear from the various decision letters included in the various appendices of the witnesses, the view has hitherto been taken by the Secretary of State and his Inspectors that the Regional Strategy (RS) figure of 1,150 dwellings per annum (dpa) is the most appropriate figure to use at the present time when calculating the 5 year housing requirement base figure.

5.85 The Secretary of State in Abbey Road61 considered the RS figure to be appropriate: not only because that figure was the only figure that has been tested through examination but by reference, too, to the DCLG 2011 Interim Household Projections. Further, he considered that “the use of the RS figure will not undermine the Council’s aspirations for growth in its emerging LP.”

The Hunston judgment62

5.86 Hunston63 requires the decision-maker, where the Local Plan Strategy has not been adopted, to consider the FOAN of the area unaffected by policy considerations (upwards or downwards). This is referred to in South Northamptonshire Council v. SSCLG and Barwood Land and Estates Ltd [2014] EWHC 573 (Admin) (10 March 2014) (Ouseley J paragraphs 30-34)64.

“30. In my judgment the crucial point to take from the Hunston case is how to interpret paragraph 47 (i) of the NPPF, relating the requirement for a full objective assessment of housing needs in the housing market area to the subsequent qualification that that be done so far as is consistent with the policies in the Framework, before the Local Plan is produced, reconciling or balancing the two aims.

59 Document HG 15 60 Document CEC 27 61 CD 9.1 62 As Sir David Keene observed in the Court of Appeal (para 4): “Unhappily, as this case demonstrates, the process of simplification [in the NPPF] has in certain instances led to a diminution in clarity.” 63 CD 10.2 64 CD 10.3

183 32. A revoked RSS is not a basis for the application of a constraint policy to the assessment of housing needs, because it has been revoked and cannot be part of the Development Plan. The same would be true of an out of date Local Plan which did not set out the current full objectively assessed needs. Until the full, objectively assessed needs are qualified by the policies of an up to date Local Plan, they are the needs which go into the balance against any NPPF policies. It is at that stage that constraints or otherwise may apply. It may be problematic in its application, but that is how paragraph 47 works.

33. In principle, what is said about full objectively assessed housing needs must apply where the revoked RSS figure was based on growth projections or policies which went beyond a full objective assessment of housing needs. In practice, it may be more difficult to judge the extent to which those objectively assessed needs in the housing market include or exclude a former growth strategy in a revoked or out of date plan. But that remains a planning judgment.”

(underlining added)

5.87 Gallagher65 is entirely consistent with Hunston. Hunston establishes the importance of considering FOAN in a s.78 inquiry where a local plan is yet to be adopted. It did not directly address the full meaning of FOAN because it was not an issue. In that case it may be observed that the 688 dpa figure was the DCLG projection. The figure Hunston argued for at the inquiry was for 720 dpa66 “to take account of vacancies, second homes and the like”. There is no reference to what Gallagher refers to as “policy on” considerations.

5.88 In Gallagher the judge was considering a challenge to the adoption of the Solihull Local Plan and it was argued that the housing provision made in the plan was not supported by any figure for FOAN (para 36).

5.89 Understandably and importantly the judge defined the relevant terms:

“As a preliminary point, it will be helpful to deal briefly with the different concepts and terms in play.

a. Household projections: These are demographic, trend-based projections indicating the likely number and type of future households if the underlying trends and demographic assumptions are realised. They provide useful long- term trajectories, in terms of growth averages throughout the projection period. However, they are not reliable as household growth estimates for particular years: they are subject to the uncertainties inherent in demographic behaviour, and sensitive to factors (such as changing economic and social circumstances) that may affect that behaviour. Those limitations on household projections are made clear in the projections published by the Department of Communities and Local Government (“DCLG”) from time-to-time (notably, in the section headed “Accuracy”).

b. Full Objective Assessment of Need for Housing: This is the objectively assessed need for housing in an area, leaving aside policy considerations. It is therefore closely linked to the relevant household projection; but is not necessarily the same. An objective assessment of housing need may result in a different figure

65 CD 10.4 Gallagher Homes Limited, Lioncourt Homes Limited v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council[2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) 66 CD 10.1 para 19 quotation from para 27 of Inspector’s decision letter

184 from that based on purely demographics if, e.g., the assessor considers that the household projection fails properly to take into account the effects of a major downturn (or upturn) in the economy that will affect future housing needs in an area. Nevertheless, where there are no such factors, objective assessment of need may be – and sometimes is – taken as being the same as the relevant household projection.

c. Housing Requirement: This is the figure which reflects, not only the assessed need for housing, but also any policy considerations that might require that figure to be manipulated to determine the actual housing target for an area. For example, built development in an area might be constrained by the extent of land which is the subject of policy protection, such as Green Belt or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Or it might be decided, as a matter of policy, to encourage or discourage particular migration reflected in demographic trends. Once these policy considerations have been applied to the figure for full objectively assessed need for housing in an area, the result is a “policy on” figure for housing requirement. Subject to it being determined by a proper process, the housing requirement figure will be the target against which housing supply will normally be measured. (underlining added)

5.90 The primary submission (paragraph 73) was that market and affordable housing needs should have been assessed - as required by paragraph 75 of NPPF. Here they have been67. At paragraph 81 the judge noted that the Inspector had confused ‘policy off’ housing needs with ‘policy on’ housing requirement targets. Thus, properly understood, Hunston, Barwood and Gallagher are consistent, and the Gallagher definition of FOAN is the law.

5.91 Reference was made to the Droitwich decision.68 Paragraph 8.45 of the Inspector’s report is consistent with the above analysis: migration and economic considerations etc., can be taken into account, but that case does not suggest that policy-on economic growth is relevant to FOAN.

5.92 It is wrong to refer to former RS policy as being policy constrained. Properly understood in context paragraph 1.3 of the CELP does not mean that it was. RS Policy was that the three boroughs which now comprise Cheshire East should provide for their needs (see e.g. RS Policy MCR3) and the CELP merely notes the Green Belt restraint to meeting policy-on growth.69 The RS figure of 1,150 dpa was thus not policy affected, whether upwards or downwards. As Mr Stock makes clear, ‘policy on’ growth was directed in particular to the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations rather than to the Green Belt in what is now Cheshire East.

5.93 In any event, para 3-030 of the PPG, properly interpreted, advises that where there is no robust (which must mean objective and tested) recent assessment of housing needs, the DCLG household projections should be used as the starting point. 1,150 dpa sits well with the 2011-based projections of 1,050 dpa. The 2013 2011-based interim household projections expressly replace the 2008 projections.

67 See eg CEC 19A page 22 and ff; and CEC 19B page 11 Figure 3.1, pp 43 and ff. 68 SB 4, Appendix 2 69 BH 2 Appendix 10, page 3

185 5.94 For the appellant, it is argued that reliance should be placed on the figure of 1,350, derived from the submitted Plan. However, this would not only be contrary to the Abbey Road decision, but would be a serious misapplication of Hunston. It is clear that that figure (or more accurately the figure of 1,200 to 2014/15, 1,300 thereafter to 2019/20)70 “also factors in the Council’s aspirations for employment led growth”71 and thus constitutes the (higher) housing requirement rather than the FOAN.

5.95 Applying the definitions provided in the Gallagher case to the figures in the CELP Background Paper on Population Projections and Forecasts (March 2014), it is clear that the ‘FOAN’ figure is in the Council’s view 1,050 to 2021; 1,180 over the whole plan period to 2030; and that the ‘housing requirement’ figure (i.e. the ‘policy on’ figure) is 1,200-1,300 for the relevant 5 year period with which this appeal is primarily concerned. The FOAN is not agreed by the Council to be 1,350.

5.96 The figures are not only untested and disputed (too high as well as too low) they are fundamentally also policy-affected: i.e. they reflect an economic growth policy which would require significant Green Belt release, which has yet to be upheld by the independent inspector, as well as actual growth and the delivery of significant infrastructure.

5.97 Moreover, the appellant disputes the validity of the CELP figures themselves. This inquiry is not the forum for that debate, as recognised both by the Launceston Inspector’s decision72 and, of course, by the Court of Appeal in Hunston73. The best objective evidence available at the moment is the figures derived from the DCLG.

5.98 The Council has put before the inquiry its response74 to questions raised by the CELP Inspector not because it seeks to argue the merits of the points but simply to show the current inquiry that the Council has points to make. Table 2.175 sets out the key FOAN assumptions76 and the document addresses all of the Inspector’s points including paragraph 2a-019 of the PPG. The Council has relied on the figure of 1,18077. The most recent decision (Close Lane, Alsager) takes the view that 1,150 is robust too.

5.99 As to backlog, the difference between the parties in terms of amount derives directly from the base requirement.

70 Policy PG1: CELP page 60 71 Ibid, Para 8.8, page 61 72 GCS 1, Appendix 11, para 49 73 Para 26 74 CEC 19A and CEC 19B 75 CEC 19A pp12-13 76 Note that they show why 2008 projections are not reverted to in this case for the post 2021 period: the 2008 projections were pre economic downturn, only reflect the 2001 census and for the reasons set out on page 13, supported by Professor Holmans (another of his documents is relied upon by the Appellant) 77 GCS 1 Appendix 18, April 2014 document, the substance of which is consistent with Gallagher/FOAN but one needs to bear in mind the pre-Gallagher terminology.

186 5.100 As to a buffer, the Council’s case is clearly supported by two recent appeal decision letters78 and by the PPG which expressly refers to peaks and troughs. It has to be noted that the PPG postdates Cotswold. An attempt was made to undermine the Dunnocksfold Road decision79 but the Inspector was correct to refer to “the historic and cumulative robust long term record of delivery.” The February Position Statement includes the table of annual completions since 200380. This shows that for seven consecutive years there was a cumulative surplus of completions over requirement.

5.101 A more appropriate view of the ‘peaks and troughs’ has to cover a period of some 10 years, to include allowance for the economic downturn, the problems of finance for developers and purchasers. Moreover, the evidence is that many thousands of dwellings have been permitted in the last four years alone. There is no shortage of choice and competition, indeed in the vicinity of the appeal site, there are the Basford West and Basford East sites, Shavington Triangle and Shavington East, Crewe Road, Crewe and another two sites in the Gresty area. In nearby Nantwich, Kingsley Fields also has resolution to grant permission (subject to s.106).

Supply

5.102 The parties have put before the inquiry various notes including a disputed sites paper.81 What is notable in this case is the search for certainty rather than realistic prospects (e.g. Gunco site, Chelford Cattle Market). Adherence to SHLAA 2013 lead-in times is applied to virtually every site in the teeth of the clear and dramatic evidence of market revival in the past 15 months or so, as evidenced in Mr Stock’s Table 8.182 The appellant’s approach is wholly unrelated to reality: e.g. Loachbrook Farm, Kay Metzeler – which have now actually commenced. Again, Basford East now has a planning application entirely in line with the progress the Council has correctly envisaged based on a thorough knowledge of all the sites. The 144 Audlem Road Inspector recognised83 that

“not only are significant efforts being made by the Council to address delays in dealing with reserved matters and agreements, but also that there is an increasing level of positivity and willingness among developers to build out housing sites; some optimism is reasonable.”

5.103 As regards build rates, there is common ground in respect of sites of up to 200 dwellings. The Council takes the position that where it has evidence that more than one developer (or builder outlet) is likely to develop the larger sites then the build rate should be higher than assumed for the 200 dwelling plus category.84

78 Hassall Road and Dunnocksfold Road 79 Para 52 80 Table 1, page following paragraph 1.25 81 CEC 13 82 GCS 1, page 17 83 Page 9, Para 51 84 See too CEC 17 p.28 paragraph 83 and footnote 48

187 5.104 Confidence in the delivery of sites where the Council has made a resolution to permit development subject to the conclusion of a s.106 planning obligation is demonstrated by how many sites have had the s.106 obligations signed since the February Position Statement. In respect of draft strategic sites, the Council has shown its continuing preparedness to grant permission for such sites85, and it only seeks to include contributions from a restricted number of (many) strategic sites within its 5 year calculation in defined circumstances set out in the Position Statement. In summary, the Council believes that it can demonstrate a 5 year supply.

The effect of the proposed development on the free flow of traffic on the surrounding road network

5.105 The proposed development is considered likely to give rise to severe traffic impacts, contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The principal concern is the impact of this development on junctions close to the railway station in the A534/Nantwich Road and Crewe Road/Gresty Road corridors.

5.106 The railway station is an important and busy destination. Six railways converge on Crewe which have resulted in restrictions for the circulation of traffic around Crewe. The restrictions (including height) caused by the Gresty Road railway bridge are apparent from the video evidence shown to the Inquiry86. At present there are queues of traffic on Gresty Road in the am peak, when it can take 8½ minutes to reach the A534 junction from the bridge. The situation is exacerbated by there being only a single lane each way over the bridge outside the station (known as ‘Station Top’) on Nantwich Road, and the short two-lane exit from the Macon Way/Weston Road (“Crewe Arms”) roundabout almost immediately narrowing to a single lane heading westwards. Compounding the traffic problems in this locality are two pedestrian crossings, bus stops and a taxi drop-off area. Only a few hundred metres to the west of the station entrance lies a ‘Y’ or triangular configuration of junctions: the Mill Street/South Street and A534/ Gresty Road junction(referred to at this inquiry as Junction 5) and the Gresty Road/South Street/Catherine Street junction at the centre of the ‘Y’ (referred to as Junction 4)87.

5.107 The Council has two main concerns. The first is that the Crewe SATURN traffic model (2006 base) did not validate well with traffic growth applied to 2013 against 2013 observed flows at these nearby junctions, and have had to be adjusted by the appellant for the 2015 base year to achieve validation, but the appellant has used the unadjusted traffic flows as the basis for the 2030 forecast year.

5.108 It is common ground that the model did not validate well against the GEH criterion and had to be manually adjusted in order to replicate the observed turning movements. The appellant argues that the TA88 did not use the

85 Position Statement: Stock, Appendix GCS 1 and Rebuttal proof 86 Document GM 3 87 See map appended to the back of Document HG 01, for locations of Junction 4 and 5 and to Plan Insp.1 for larger scale map 88 CD 2.11 Appendix 8 Transport Assessment Volume 1 Text and Plans, p.34 para 8.15

188 adjusted data for 2030 forecasting because of “the additional changes occurring within the period to 2030, particularly in relation to development assumptions, and the influence this will have on traffic movements.” However, both the 2015 and 2030 modelling include the – yet to be constructed - Crewe Green Link Road South scheme and the Basford West Spine Road. Apart from some more recent planning permissions (e.g. Crewe Road, Crewe and Shavington East) all other consented development is in the model.

5.109 The Council’s position is that there was no justification for not using the 2015 adjusted figures as the starting point for the 2030 forecasts. However, the 2006 base year flows are known to be in error (based on comparisons of the growthed 2006 base year to 2013 levels compared with 2013 observations). A forecast to 2030 based on these flows would not be reliable; it would be more robust to use the 2013 data. Moreover, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges89 clearly warns as to the dangers inherent in models based on data more than five to six years old and advises that a “present year validation should be presented” and obviously then used for future year forecasts.

5.110 The appellant referred to Table 4.5 of the 2011 Model Forecasting Report90 but readily accepted that this table concerns the growth within the matrix (groups of zones which form sectors) but does not tell us what the % figures translate to in terms of numbers and does not assign traffic to a particular junction or corridor – so it says nothing about how many vehicles will be using the Crewe Road/Gresty Road corridor. The Council’s approach has been to consider total trip ends (i.e. trips) for the whole model area (Crewe and Nantwich91) and this shows only low to moderate growth (9-10%) over 15 years (2015-2030) – i.e. not of particular significance.

5.111 Despite the concerns as to the modelling having been raised in the October 2013 draft consultation response, the appellant has not presented any sensitivity test i.e. run the model for 2030 on the basis of the 2015 adjustments. Moreover, the 2013 counts undertaken on behalf of the appellant in March 2013 at nine junctions were only of turning movements, not of queues and delays. The Council’s witness’s experience, based on four years’ highways advisory work for the Council in the Crewe area is that the queues and delays at junctions 4 and 5, the Station Top and Gresty Road corridor are much worse than assumed for 2015.

5.112 The 2015 modelling assumes that the Basford West Spine Road and Crewe Green Link Road South (CGLRS) are both open in 2015. The CGLRS will give some relief in the corridor – it is estimated this at 151 am movements and 126 pm movements as a result of the CGLRS. However, the corridor itself ought to be busier overall with Basford West traffic also being assumed in the

89 CEC 03, Volume 12 Section 2 Part i Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas, Appendix B Local Model Validation Report, paragraph B9.1 90 CD 11.7, p.4.9 91 Note, for completeness, that the whole of Nantwich area is given only 2 zones, so that is why the model is referred to, for the purpose of the A51 corridor, more accurately as a Crewe model.

189 model. This ought to mean higher impacts on the Crewe Road/Gresty Road corridor than the relief offered by the CGLRS. Yet the 2015 junction modelling outputs presented by the appellant do not fully reflect congestion issues that are even now apparent.

5.113 The second of the Council’s main concerns is that the appellant’s modelled flows do not include all consented or likely flows and therefore impacts on the junctions are understated. The Council takes the view that the 2030 forecasts are light – i.e. they underestimate traffic – by some 84 am two-way traffic movements and 165 pm two-way movements.

5.114 Even leaving aside the Council’s two main concerns, the impacts in terms of delay are unacceptable and there are no adequate mitigation measures for these junctions.

5.115 Mr McKinney’s Tables (proof of evidence Tables 4-7 and Rebuttal proof Tables 1-8) are agreed92. These show that the proposed development would worsen traffic conditions and give rise to considerable delays. This is even without the use of adjusted 2015 traffic data as the basis for 2030 forecasts which it is believed would be likely to increase further the delays forecast.

5.116 Further, Mr McKinney’s analysis of the overall delay at the Mill Street/South Street/Nantwich Road junction (Junction 5), drawn from the Appendices accompanying the TA, was also not disputed. This shows that that junction would be the subject of delays of 128 seconds per vehicle93 (an increase of 50 seconds from 78 seconds94) in the 2015 am peak hour with development, compared to the 2015 pm peak hour base. This level of delay would be unacceptable.

5.117 If there were considered to be a solution, the Council would be seeking an appropriate financial contribution. The problem with the Gresty Road/Nantwich Road corridor is that physically there is little scope for improvement beyond the limited works at South Street which are already proposed and funded, and beyond the Scoot enhancement/UTMC measures already planned and taken into account.

5.118 In respect of Junction 4, the appellant’s witness admitted that there must be improvements but Mr McKinney’s Tables show that the junction has unacceptable impacts even before the signalling, and that the signalling makes things even worse.

5.119 For the appellant it was argued that the Council is implicitly prepared to put up with such levels at certain junctions (not, however, be it noted Junction 5) in its strategic modelling work (a more recently constructed Saturn model than used by Mr Thompson in his TA work) in order to accommodate the Local Plan Strategy. Therefore 128 seconds delay at Junction 5 should also be considered acceptable. Nevertheless, even that degree of delay is likely to be

92 GM 1 and GM 4 93 CEC 06 extract from TA Appendix M39 94 CEC 05 extract from TA Appendix L46

190 higher if the 2015 adjusted flow figures had been used as the basis of 2030 forecasts.

5.120 A number of development/distribution scenarios have been tested in respect of the emerging Local Plan Strategy. A scenario (No.2) including development of the appeal site (and additional land up to Crewe Road, totalling 1,261 dwellings) was considered but (a) this scenario is not being pursued (b) more importantly, development now permitted or likely to come forward in the Crewe Road corridor already equals that figure (and of course the lower figure of 261 assumed in other options). The Mitigation and Impacts95 report moreover notes that additional detailed modelling of specified junctions (including the Mill Street junction) may be necessary.

5.121 As mentioned the 1,261 (and 261) have already been permitted even before the current appeal site. Also, the 128 seconds delay per vehicle at that junction must be seen in context that further substantial development is yet to be permitted and represents more than a contribution of only about ⅛th of the total development tested in Options 2 and 5. It is not correct therefore to assert that the level of delay is implicitly acceptable.

Whether a grant of planning permission for the proposed scheme would unacceptably prejudice the preparation and adoption of the emerging Local Plan, with particular regard to distribution of housing sites and identification of a Green belt extension

5.122 The Local Plan Examination is scheduled to begin its hearings in September. This follows extensive public consultation. There has been an Issues and Options paper in 2010, a Place Shaping Consultation in 2011 followed by preparation and consultation on government-funded Town Strategies in 2012, consultation on Preferred Options (two documents entitled, respectively, Development Strategy and Emerging Policy Principles in February 2013; consultation on additional sites submitted by developers, land promoters or landowners in May 2013; consultation on a Pre-Submission Core Strategy in Autumn 2013, and consultation on the Local Plan Strategy submission document this Spring. The appeal site has never been a preferred option in any of the foregoing.

5.123 The appeal site is, without question, large – over 43 ha – and a significant amount of housing (and other development) is proposed: approximately three quarters of the annualised average housing figure of 1,150 dpa set out in the former RS. For the appellant is was agreed that it is their contention that the site should be allocated instead of preferred sites; not that the appeal site should only be in addition to the others. This should be tested at the Local Plan Examination.

5.124 Significantly, too, the appeal site falls not only outside the settlement boundary of Crewe96 but is within long-established Green Gap. Quite apart from obvious and inevitable landscape/visual impacts, this substantial

95 CD 11.21 and CD 11.22: Cheshire East Transport Models Review – Summary Highway Impacts and Mitigation Proposals for Local Plan Strategy. May 2014 96 this runs to the north of the railway line and thus north and not on the edge of Gresty Lane

191 development would considerably erode, indeed further erode, the physical gap between Crewe and Shavington.

5.125 The submitted CELP includes the appeal site in an Area of Search for an extension of the North Staffordshire Green Belt to the south, west and east of Crewe. This current appeal seeks to pre-empt the outcome of the Examination. The issue as to whether the appeal site should be included in an Area of Search for Green Belt, or (the second preference) whether the appeal site should form part of a Strategic Gap, should be considered and resolved at the Examination, where all parties with an interest can have their views considered, not at a s.78 appeal. It is accepted for the appellant that the “necessary debate” on “the merits (or otherwise) of including the appeal site and adjoining land within an extended area of Green Belt” must take place through the Local Plan process.97

5.126 Prematurity has not been a reason for objection taken by the Council at the ten or more inquiries held since the receipt of the Secretary of State’s decision in the Abbey Road, Sandbach in October 2013.98 The PPG issued in March 2014 advises that a Plan which has been submitted for examination is to be regarded as at an “advanced stage” of the process. It is clear that the government wished to make it clear that local authorities in their discretion99 may refuse on the basis of prematurity since by this stage there will have been considerable public consultation and work. Even though there may be objections to the plan such that it may not attract substantial weight, the point is that weight is not the issue, it is the prejudging of a local plan inquiry which is the anathema of NPPF policy (paragraph 160). The Council consider, consistently with the PPG test100, that it is justified in this case in taking the prematurity objection. The proposed provision of 880 dwellings etc., in one location, and in this Green Gap/proposed Green Belt Area of Search, is so substantial that the plan-making process would be undermined by the predetermination now of the scale and location of new development which is central to the emerging Local Plan.

5.127 The Council takes the view that it can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing in accordance with government policy. But even if the view were taken that it could not, the granting of permission for this development on this Green Gap site, rather than elsewhere on sites outside the Green Gap, in advance of the imminent examination, is not considered to be justified.

5.128 The Council has acted both lawfully and reasonably in being prepared to grant planning permission for certain strategic sites in advance of the Local Plan. As regards the Kingsley Field site, when the officer’s report101 refers to the site being identified as a preferred site, “the development of the site is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle …” this is addressing the prematurity

97 IR 2, paragraphs 2.7 and 2.10 98 Paragraph 33: GCS 1, Appendix 2 99 Fox Strategic Land High Court decision: BH 1, Appendix 10 paragraphs 47-50 100 21b- 014 101 HG 20, Page 42 Conclusions section

192 concern, as members would be well aware of their own policy. In a plan-led system in the absence of adopted site allocations to grant planning permission on sites which have made it to an advanced stage of the local plan process is “the next best thing” and far preferable to ad hoc planning.

5.129 It was entirely inappropriate for this appeal to be brought to an inquiry. The CELP was submitted to the Secretary of State on 20 May 2014. For the appellant it was conceded that the necessary debate on the merits (or otherwise) of including the appeal site and adjoining land within an extended area of Green Belt must take place through the Local Plan process. This entirely supports the Council’s putative reason for refusal on this point alone.

The Planning Balance

5.130 The legal requirement is provided by s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase 2004 Act: the decision should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There is agreement that important policies are breached in the development plan. It cannot be said that the proposal is in accord with the development plan as a whole. There would be an important breach of Green Gap policy, and other sites outside the Green Gap exist in any event. CELP policy does not assist the appellant, nor does the highways issue (a reason for refusal in its own right) nor do the loss of best and most versatile land and loss of important hedgerows.

5.131 The appellant refers to benefits; and there are undoubtedly benefits in terms of the provision of needed affordable housing and other benefits (as opposed to necessary mitigation). However, the appellant was not able to say how many dwellings he would expect to have been completed by December 2018 (the end of his 5 year period). This hardly amounts to a compelling argument to grant permission to assist with the 5 year supply. There would be no harm, yet considerable benefit to the public interest and fairness to all those who invest in the local plan process, if the appellant were left to argue their case to be a strategic housing site rather than an Area of Search for Green Belt and instead of other sites, or to be allowed in addition.

5.132 Finally, a point was made that few members of the public had been present during the inquiry. Firstly, members of the public were encouraged to, and did all, speak on the first day. Secondly, a number of speakers drew attention to the significant level of opposition. The Chairman of Rope Parish Council also spoke and presented informed and considered evidence. There were other memorable contributions made on the first day by interested persons. Representatives of members of the public therefore did attend and it would be wholly wrong to assume that local people were supportive. The letters at application stage - and since - show that they are not.

6. THE CASE FOR HIMOR GROUP LTD. 6.1 The Council argued that the appeal scheme would breach the development plan policies, but there are many examples where the Council has either granted planning permission or allocated land in breach of BCNRLP Policies NE.2, NE.4, RES.5 and NE.12. In this appeal it was argued that the Council

193 can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, but when the Council’s preferred sites in the emerging Local Plan are being considered the presence of a 5 year land supply has not prevented support for grant of planning permission; most recently at the Shavington Inquiry102.

6.2 The Council’s own traffic studies carried out to examine and justify sites selected in the emerging Local Plan (CELP) demonstrate that at the key junctions identified in this appeal, there would be a worse performance caused by the sites selected. The same work shows that Junction 5103 can handle without difficulty more traffic than is generated by this scheme. Here the Council argues that the appeal scheme would be premature, but this matter is not even addressed in a Committee Report supporting release of a site for 1,100 homes at Kingsley Fields104.

6.3 The reason for this apparent inconsistency is said to be that weight has been afforded to the as yet untested CELP. However, this also could be seen as profoundly unfair, and the Council’s criticism of the appeal scheme as hypocritical.

Development plan

6.4 The development plan consists of the saved policies of the BCNRLP. However, those policies are only saved by virtue of the Secretary of State’s Saving Letter105 and it is essential that those policies are read subject to the caveats set out in that letter. The letter expected a prompt adoption of a new Local Plan. This has not happened. Of greater importance is the requirement to have regard to up-to-date policy which in 2014 must include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). There is also Court authority on the correct interpretation of the NPPF, as is discussed below.

6.5 The statutory requirement in s.38(6) of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Act remains, but there are important material considerations in the form of up-to-date guidance which indicates that the decision needs to be made other than in accordance with the BCNRLP. NPPF para 215 requires policies of the development plan to be tested for consistency with the Framework and weight afforded to those policies according to the degree of compliance with the Framework. This was the issue before Kenneth Jones J in the Colman decision.106 In that case the court tested various development plan policies against what the learned judge called the “cost/benefit” approach of the Framework.

“16. For reasons that are apparent from the foregoing analysis it was common ground at the inquiry and in this appeal that the Inspector had first to identify and analyse the relevant policies in the development plan and, secondly, to determine the extent, if any, to which a relevant policy was consistent with the NPPF. The

102 HG 14 103 See plan attached to Document HG 1 104 HG 20 105 CEC 24 106 CD 10.8

194 central ground of challenge in this appeal is that the Inspector failed properly to analyse a number of relevant policies and also reached conclusions on consistency that were wrong. Also the challenge was presented under two separate heads. The points are closely interlinked, and I shall deal with them together. I shall look in turn at the relevant policies.”

“19. … ‘Policy SP CO1

Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness

The distinctive qualities and features of Devon’s Landscape Character Zones, illustrated in Map 5, should be sustained and enhanced … Policies and proposals within each part of Devon should be informed by and be sympathetic to its landscape character and quality.’ (My emphasis)”

“21. LP Policy ENV1 states:

‘Policy ENV1 (Development in the Countryside) Development in the countryside will only be permitted where:

A rural location is required.

It provides economic or social benefits to the local community: and

It protects and enhances its beauty, the diversity of its landscape and historic character, the wealth of its natural resources and its ecological, recreational and archaeological value.’”

“22. These policies are, in my view, on their own express terms far removed from the ‘cost/benefit’ approach of the NPPF. The policies as such do not permit any countervailing economic or similar benefit to be weighed in the scales. A submission that such benefits may be implicitly taken into account would be immediately rejected as running directly contrary to both the language and rationale of the relevant policies. Mr. Cocks QC sought to meet this formidable objection by submitting that such benefits, recognised as central to the NPPF, would always constitute a ‘material consideration’ relevant to the grant of development permission, and should, therefore, be ‘read into’ the relevant policies.

23. I reject that argument on two grounds. First, the NPPF in referring to ‘relevant policies’ is plainly directing the mind of the decision maker to the express terms of the relevant policies and requiring the decision maker to compare, for consistency, the express terms with the ‘cost/benefit’ approach of the NPPF. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is a fundamental and long established principle of planning law that something identified as a ‘material consideration’ (such as the putative economic and environmental benefit in the present context) is conceptually distinct from considerations in the development plan and does not ceteris paribus carry the same weight as an aim or consideration identified in the development plan itself. It is, therefore, essential, both analytically and in policy terms, to separate objectives or considerations specifically set out in the development plan from something else that can count only as another ‘material consideration’. Mr Cocks’ argument confounds elements that fall within different relevant categories, and which have a different character for planning purposes, and it cannot rescue the inconsistency that is obvious on its face between the relevant policies and the NPPF.”

6.6 It is necessary to carry out that exercise in relation to the BCNRLP policies relied upon to justify refusal in this case.

195 6.7 However, the BCNRLP itself makes clear that is it not intended to guide development decisions after 2011. The plan explains at para 1.1107

“This Replacement Local Plan has been prepared by Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council in accordance with the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. The Plan covers the whole of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich and it relates to development up to the year 2011.”

It follows that the housing policies in the adopted BCNRLP are out of date. This has knock-on effects on policies NE.2 and RES.5 which were both written in the knowledge that there was sufficient land to accommodate housing development identified in the plan up to 2011. This is an express finding of the Close Lane, Alsager Inspector decided that these policies were out of date in so far as they constrain development108.

NE.2: Countryside and RES.5: Housing Provision in Countryside

6.8 These policies protected the countryside from unnecessary development. They were policies written in 2005 before Planning Policy Statement 3 was issued, (itself now superseded by NPPF), which created a step-change away from protecting greenfield land and towards an emphasis on housing delivery. Accordingly, the housing policies of the BCNRLP identified sufficient land to last until 2011 and policies NE.2 and RES.5 “closed the door” to prevent further release.

6.9 We are now beyond 2011 and these policies are out of date irrespective of the 5 year supply position (see Close Lane, Alsager decision, para 11)

“… As such, post 2011, these settlement boundaries and SZLs would have the effect of constraining development, including housing, within these settlements. The restrictions imposed upon development within the open countryside, outside the settlement boundaries, within Policies NE.2 and RES.5 of the Replacement Local Plan, are therefore clearly time expired and should be considered out of date. …”

6.10 However, the Inspector also rightly observed109, pursuant to the duty to assess policies for compliance with NPPF para 215 (as explained in Colman), that the part of the policies which sought to protect the character and amenity of the countryside was consistent with the Framework.

6.11 In this appeal, the appellants accept that the effect of the proposal on the character and amenity of the countryside is a factor which needs to be taken into account, but only as part of the overall balance that NPPF para 14 requires to be undertaken. The Burgess Farm decision demonstrates that even development which severely affects the character of the countryside can nevertheless be sustainable.110

107 Local Plan para 1.1 108 Appeal Decision 2203282 - Document HG 17 109 at para 12 110 CD 9.10 - see para 21 of Decision Letter

196 NE.4: Green Gap

6.12 The appeal site is within the defined Green Gap, as defined in BCNRLP Policy NE.4. Insofar as this policy seeks to prevent settlements merging it is consistent with the Framework. However, if the policy is interpreted without consideration of its effects and benefits to prevent any housing development in the Green Gap, then it would not be Framework compliant. It would be wrong to regard NE.4 as setting up an irrebuttable, in principle presumption against housing development within the Green Gap for the following reasons.

6.13 Firstly, the Rope Lane Inspector111 did not treat the Green Gap as an in principle “no go area” for housing. Secondly, the Council has itself granted planning permission for a total of no less than 345 dwellings on four separate Green Gap sites,112 so it cannot have regarded Green Gap as a “no go area”. Much has been made of the 2003 Local Plan Inquiry Inspector’s comments about “nibbling” of the Green Gap yet the Council has issued permissions or made allocations in the Green Gap despite what he said. This appears to be inconsistent on behalf of the Council. Thirdly, the Council intends to allocate a Strategic Site (150 houses) at Crewe Green at the narrowest part of the Green Gap between Crewe and Haslington.113 The BCNRLP Inquiry Inspector said this was one of the vulnerable Green Gap locations. This allocation materially narrows this vulnerable gap, yet it is regarded as acceptable by the Council.

6.14 The correct approach to a policy of this nature, which intends to keep separate two settlements, is as set out in the Rothley / Mountsorrel decision.114 In that case the relevant policy was an Area of Local Separation (ALS) Policy CT/4 – designed to keep Rothley and Mountsorrel separate. The proposal involved erection of 250 dwellings and the Inspector approached the policy in this way

“8.17 Therefore, I agree with the Council that Policy CT/4 does not clearly conflict with the NPPF and I give it due weight, even though the NPPF does not specifically refer to ALS. But that does not mean that all land within existing ALS in the Borough should be permanently sterilised from development; instead, I consider that each case for development within an ALS should be considered on its merits. Policy CT/4 cannot be given full weight because it represents an outright ban on open market housing within the ALS, without the possibility of any countervailing benefit outweighing the prohibition.” 115

6.15 The Inspector went to consider whether CT/4 was policy for the supply of housing and concluded that it was. The Inspector noted conflicting opinion on the matter in the Davis116 case and the Cotswold117 case and then reached this conclusion:

111 CD 9.17 112 BH 2 Appendix 13 113 see chart of applications / allocations 114 CD 9.15 115 CD 9.15 IR para 8.17 116 [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin)

197 “8.19 If a choice were essential, which it is not, the SoS is invited to prefer the approach in Cotswold because the control mechanism in Policy CT/4 is clearly very relevant to the supply of housing: it represents an absolute ban on open market housing in the ALS. The effect of Policy CT/4 is therefore very relevant to the supply of housing. The approach taken in Coalville is correct to point out that paragraph 49 of the NPPF is within the housing section. However, that section presumes that there will be adequate housing provision in the plan. This is clearly not the case here and paragraph 49 needs to be read with this in mind. Furthermore, the limits to development and ALS (and Green Wedge) boundaries were all drawn in the CBCLP 2004 reflecting housing needs up to 2006 only. Housing needs are obviously greater in 2013 and the emerging CS acknowledges that the ALS boundaries will have to be redrawn as part of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD process. This also serves to demonstrate the direct link between ALS and provision of housing.”118

6.16 At paras 11 and 13 of the Decision Letter the Secretary of State (SofS) agreed with this thought process:

“11. For the reasons given at IR8.10-8.22, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR8.24 that the appeal proposal would accord with a wide range of development plan policies but that there would be limited conflict with Policy CT/4 (development in Areas of Local Separation (ALS)) to which he gives some weight (see paragraph 13 below). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that, as agreed by the parties (IR8.23), the appeal site is in a sustainable location for housing development. “

“13. Like the Inspector (IR8.31), the Secretary of State accepts that, if the appeal succeeds, there would be a reduction in openness and the character of the existing ALS between Mountsorrel and Rothley would be changed. However, he also agrees with the Inspector at IR8.39 that, for the reasons given at IR8.32-8.38, the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area or undermine the planning purpose or overall integrity of the wider ALS. He also agrees that the countervailing environmental benefits, including those arising from the landscaping proposals in the appeal scheme master plan and the careful design of the relief road to include significant areas of new planting, more than outweigh the loss of ALS and the limited landscape harm caused by the loss of green field land.

6.17 The South Northamptonshire case was decided 10 March 2014119 and leaves this assessment untouched because this is an exercise of planning judgement by both the Inspector and the SofS:

“48. However, once the Inspector has properly directed himself as to the scope of paragraph 49 NPPF as he did here, the question of whether a particular policy falls within its scope, is very much a matter for his planning judgment. In this case, the policy clearly falls within the scope of the phrase and the Inspector was fully entitled to reach the conclusion on it which he did.”

6.18 The correct test therefore in this case is the test as approved by the SofS in the Charnwood case, i.e. will the appeal proposal:

117 CD 10.5 118 ibid para 8.19 119 BH 2, Appendix 6

198 “… significantly harm the character and appearance of the area or undermine the planning purposes or overall integrity of the wider ALS (Green Gap).”

This test must itself sit within the overall balancing exercise of NPPF para 14 such that any adverse environmental impacts would need to be weighed against any benefits including environmental, social and economic ones.

6.19 As to the impact of the proposed scheme on the Green Gap and the character and appearance of the landscape, that would be limited.

6.20 Putative Reason for Refusal No.3 contends that the proposed development of the appeal site would conflict with BCNRLP Policy NE.4 Green Gaps, and be contrary to (unidentified) parts of the Framework and the emerging Local Plan.

6.21 The appeal site is not now, has not ever been, and is not proposed to be defined in any development plan as an area of any acknowledged landscape quality. It forms part of a wider area on the southern edge of Crewe where current development plan policy seeks to restrict development in the open countryside generally and in the 'Green Gap' between Crewe and (inter alia) Shavington. These policies are proposed to be retained / reaffirmed in the CELP, which also advances the prospect of the extension of the extant Green Belt to include the appeal site and adjacent land. HIMOR have made representations in respect of these policies and have provided a critique of the CELP’s Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps (GBSOG) methodology and conclusions.

6.22 In terms of landscape character, the appeal site and the surrounding area is typified by the key characteristics of the Lower Farms and Woodland landscape type and the Barthomley Character Area (LFW 7) as defined in the Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment.

6.23 Where the parties differ is in respect of the assessment of landscape and visual effects. The Council contend that the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development have been underplayed primarily because a 'best case' has been assumed in relation to the retention and formation of landscape structure/ green infrastructure. The appellant contends that the submitted Landscape Visual Impact Analysis (LVIA) has set out clearly the 'worst case' in terms of the scale and nature of the proposed development and has then assessed realistically and objectively, on the basis of the submitted Illustrative Masterplan, the landscape and visual effects of that development, and indicates how the existing landscape structure / green infrastructure could be retained and developed.

6.24 Within the LFW7 area, the appeal site forms a discrete tract of land defined by Crewe to the north, Crewe Road to the east, Rope Lane to the east and Shavington to the south. The impacts of the development of the appeal site on landscape character would be limited, only be significant at the local level and only at certain development stages. The development of any other major site within LFW7 will be likely to have the same effects. Although the effect of the proposed development on landscape character would be evident and irreversible, this would be so for the development of any greenfield site on the edge of Crewe.

199 6.25 On account of the physical proximity of the appeal site to the existing urban edge of Crewe, and the visual containment of the appeal site, it is well suited for development, as acknowledged in the most recent SHLAA for Cheshire East.

6.26 The submitted LVIA sets out, in text and tabular form, an assessment of the visual effects of development.

6.27 Development of the scale contemplated in the appeal application will inevitably have some visual effects. Those effects will be experienced on the immediate site edges, from Gresty Lane (between Rope Cottages and Rope Lane - some 860m) and from Rope Lane (between Gresty Lane and Rope Green Farm - some 250m). Details of the separation distances are given in Document IR2, Plan 3. The visual effects only arise from a limited area and from a limited number of viewpoints. Although the change in the views from sections of adjacent roads will be substantial, particularly in the early stages of site construction and development, this does not amount to a compelling objection to the appeal proposals.

6.28 The existing linear width of separation that obtains between the southern edge of Crewe and the northern edge of Shavington will be reduced, although that reduction will be limited in scale and, in terms of public perception will only arise in respect of the passage between the two settlements along Rope Lane (the passage along Crewe Road will be unchanged).

6.29 There is existing (and visually significant) built development on both sides of Rope Lane within the existing gap, which affects the perception of settlement separation. Whilst it is indisputable that the development of the appeal site would entail the southern edge of Crewe coming closer to Shavington, the development of the appeal site would not materially (or adversely) reduce the physical or perceived separation of Shavington and Crewe along Rope Lane. The residual gap that would remain would perform at least the same functions as the existing gap. Considered against the objectives sets out in the GBSOG, the residual green gap would:

• continue to protect the settings and separate identities of Crewe and Shavington;

• retain the existing settlement pattern and thus maintain openness (both actual and perceived) between the two settlements; and

• retain - and as a consequence of the proposed development enhance - the physical and psychological benefits arising from open land near settlements.

As a consequence development of the appeal site would not significantly adversely affect the functional effectiveness of the gap between Crewe and Shavington.

6.30 In respect of putative reason for refusal No.3 it is contended that there are no sustainable bases for objection to the appeal proposals.

200 NE.12: Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land (BMV)

6.31 The appeal site includes areas of land within categories 2 and 3a, which Policy NE.12 seeks to safeguard. A breach of this policy cannot of itself justify refusal for several reasons. Firstly, because the Council has granted permission for 1,100 houses involving loss of 24 ha of BMV at Kingsley Fields. Secondly, appeal decisions show that BMV is to be considered within the overall balance and none of the appeal decisions have required (as the policy does) that land of a lesser quality is not available. The Council has not required the sites it prefers to pass this policy test. Thirdly, the expert evidence in this case shows that the eastern half of the site has no BMV at all; the western side has non BMV mixed in with BMV in every field, the BMV fields are small and affected by the hedgerows which affect their farmability, no present use of the land takes advantage of the BMV status (eg it is not used to grow maize or potatoes), and the site is not viable as an agricultural holding.

6.32 Accordingly, the effect of BMV is no more and no less than a consideration to be taken into account in the overall balance. The policy is not consistent with NPPF in so far as it represents an outright ban on development. The appellant has always accepted that BMV, as an “environmental” role, must be given weight in the decision making process. However, the expert evidence in this case shows that despite the substantial area involved, the practical value of the BMV in this case is very limited.

NE.5 / BE.16 / Hedgerows

6.33 The Council originally argued for a breach of NE.5 in its putative reason for refusal and switched to policy BE.16 in its Statement of Case.

6.34 The only expert evidence on the matter at this inquiry came from Mr. Morton. It is noteworthy that the Cheshire Shared Services has not objected120.

6.35 The hedgerows are not designated assets. As non-designated heritage assets the level of impact on them will be “low or negligible” and their significance will not be harmed. Housing will bring about inevitable change to the setting of the hedgerows. There would also be countervailing benefits with the appeal scheme. There would be public access to the heritage asset where none presently exists; the hedgerows would be managed, and there would be protection within the scheme of some of the marl pits121. This is a material environmental consideration. There will be some limited harm to the hedgerows but this must be counterbalanced first by the environmental advantages noted above, and thereafter by the social and economic advantages.

6.36 Turning now to the main considerations identified at the start of the inquiry.

120 CD 8.11 121 CD 6.11 at p 69

201 Will the proposed scheme fulfil the three roles for sustainable development identified at para 7 of the Framework, having regard to relevant development plan policies

6.37 As noted at paragraph 8 of NPPF, the three mutually dependent roles of sustainable development are economic, social and environmental.

6.38 The Council’s case against this appeal scheme is principally based (its prematurity case apart) on allegedly unacceptable effects on the environmental role of sustainable development. In this respect there is little attempt to weigh the social and economic benefits: this is dealt with in one paragraph of Mr Haywood’s proof (para 10.24). This approach is not consistent with the advice in NPPF para 8, which requires all three strands to be considered together. This failure is a fundamental flaw in its analysis because, as noted above (paragraph 6.11), the Burgess Farm decision122 demonstrates that even serious environmental harm can be outweighed by countervailing benefits.

6.39 Not only is the Council’s approach flawed, it is inconsistent. It has issued planning permissions for several sites where the same breaches of development plan policy are over-ridden simply because the proposal is included in an as yet untested emerging Local Plan (CELP). The Council is using the saved BCNRLP policies in order to hold back development it does not want whereas “pet” sites pass through the development plan analysis process unscathed. This cynical use of saved development plan policies has been criticized elsewhere;

“It seems to me that the ‘Saving Letters’ make clear the contingent basis upon which the policies were saved, namely the requirement in the decision making process to have regard to up-to-date policies, such as the former PPS3, which requires a 5 year land supply. These ‘material considerations’, now include the NPPF, which means that it is simply not good enough to regard saved policies as an opportunity to refuse rather than grant planning permission. The Council’s approach is at odds with the requirement in the Saving Letters. Relevant policies in the WCSP and the WDLP must be viewed in the context of paragraph 215 of the NPPF. Importantly, there is an obligation to consider the development plan in the light of any absence of a 5 year supply which predated the NPPF and can be traced back to 2006.” 123

6.40 All of the development plan policies must first be assessed against the para 215 test and, as has been seen above, all are to a greater or lesser extent in conflict with NPPF. In terms of sustainable development, the operation of NPPF para 14 is obviously important in this case.

6.41 With the exception of Lang J DBE in the Davis case, it is clear that para 14 creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of grant of planning permission. Several judgments have established this: Sales J Tewkesbury124 paras 20, 49

122 CD 9.10 123 CD 9.2 Appeal Decision in respect of Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne, Worcestershire (APP/H1840/A/12/2171339) (24 August 2012) 124 CD 10.10

202 Parker J Colman125 para 5 Lindblom J Bloor126 para 44 Patterson J Dartford127 para 52-54.

It will be noted that in the Dartford case the SofS was a defendant to a Local Planning Authority challenge to a permission issued by one of his Inspectors. His Counsel, Mr Honey, is reported at para 48 of the judgment as arguing against the interpretation of Davis - argued at that appeal by the Local Planning Authority and repeated by Cheshire East Council at this inquiry:

“The first defendant contends that the two stage test contended for by the claimant is misconceived”

6.42 It is clear that the SofS, despite arguing through Mr Maurici for the interpretation that he did in Davis, no longer wishes to suggest that para 14 involves a two stage test. The fact that the SofS expressly referred to the Dartford decision in the Droitwich decision letter (at para 12) puts the matter beyond (sensible) argument.128

6.43 The Council’s planning witness accepted that there is no vehicle within the Framework for separate assessment of sustainable development and the balancing exercise in para 14 itself would require all policies of the Framework to be considered – which is the obvious way to determine whether a development is sustainable or not. Paragraph 14 includes the requirement to consider the balance of how sustainable development is to be determined

6.44 The SofS is clearly not following the decision in Davis as evidenced by the Droitwich decision129. The Inspector’s Report says:

“8.19 Turning to the question as to whether the development is sustainable, given that Policies SR1 and GD2 are out of date and time expired I consider this development falls to be considered under paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The Inquiry heard argument from the Council that a strained interpretation of the paragraph 14 presumption should be applied. The Council stated that it relied upon the judgement of Mrs. Justice Lang in William Davis and other v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others where the judge added an extra ‘gloss’ on paragraph 14 NPPF. At paragraph 37 of that judgment she ruled that a development must be found to be sustainable before the presumption applies.

8.20 In my view this is an incorrect interpretation of that paragraph. First, the wording of paragraph 14 does not support this view. The paragraph clearly relates to all ‘development proposals’ it does not qualify this with an extra test of sustainability. It is therefore wrong to read such a test into the paragraph. The test also ignores the balancing exercise in paragraph 14. It is that exercise which determines whether or not development is sustainable. In the ‘Lang’ interpretation there is no identified means of which sustainability can be assessed. Secondly, the

125 CD 10.8 126 CD 10.7 127 HG 19 128 SB 4 Appendix 2: Droitwich 129 SB 4 Appendix 2: SofS Decision Letter and Inspector’s Report for Droitwich

203 weight of High Court authority runs contrary to Lang J’s view. The judgements at Stratford, Tewkesbury and North Devon demonstrate the correct reading of paragraph 14. Three High Court judges have disagreed with Lang J. Given this and the clear wording of paragraph 14, I consider that there is no extra test of sustainability included in paragraph 14, not least because the other three judges’ interpretation enables sustainable development to be measured within the balance of paragraph 14.

6.45 The SofS agreed with this analysis in his Decision Letter.

“12. Turning to the question as to whether the development is sustainable, the Secretary of State notes the arguments set out at IR8.19-8.20 in relation to the interpretation and application of the presumption under paragraph 14 of the Framework in the case of William Davis. The Secretary of State also notes the recent decision in Dartford Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Landhold Capital Limited where Mrs. Justice Patterson rejected elevating William Davis to a formulaic sequential approach to paragraph 14 of the Framework. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State finds the relevant policies for the supply of housing are out of date (IR8.24) and therefore the presumption applies, and that the evidence (IR8.21-8.23) demonstrates that the Appeal A scheme is sustainable in terms of economic, environmental and social benefits.”

6.46 In conclusion on this point, the reliance upon Davis is an unnecessary diversion.

6.47 The presumption in favour of sustainable development does apply here because firstly, relevant policies of the development plan are out of date; and secondly, there is no 5 year supply of housing land. The Council’s witness notes that

“Whilst some relevant Development Plan policies are out of date (importantly Local Plan Policy RES.1 which gives the housing requirement figures for the period to 2011), other very relevant policies – NE.2, NE.4, NE.12 and RES.5 – are extant and up to date and I consider this in more detail below.” 130

6.48 The witness argued that the word “all” should be read into this phrase so that para 14 only applies if “all relevant policies are out of date”. This cannot be right. It would involve an appellant having to identify each and every relevant policy (a finding which would doubtless be disputed by the Local Planning Authority). The operation of NPPF para 49 demonstrates that it is not necessary to allude to every relevant policy because if there is no 5 year supply then;

“Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date”

6.49 It is accepted that this means para 14 is put into play. It would be illogical if relevant policies other than housing being out of date should not have the same effect. It is also the fact that if the plan does not cater for housing beyond 2011 then its housing policies are obviously out of date on that basis too, irrespective of the 5 year position. The witness accepted that if it was found inappropriate to read into the wording of para 14 the word “all” before

130 BH 1 para 5.13

204 “relevant policies” (which it obviously is not least because it is not there) then the presumption would apply in this case.

6.50 The recent Close Lane decision131 has established that NE.2 and RES.5 are out of date. The Council’s witness accepted that the BCNRLP was out of date in that there was no policy to direct where the annual 1,000 plus (minimum) houses required in the CELP from 2010 onwards should be located. It follows that, irrespective of what the 5 year supply provision is, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies in this case.

Operation of NPPF para 14.

6.51 It is accepted that there are no “footnote 9” specific policies132 applicable in this case. Green Gap policy is not a “specific policy” in terms of footnote 9. This means that there is a presumption that permission should be granted unless the disadvantages of so doing clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.52 The disadvantages have been identified above by reference to the BCNRLP policies. To those must be added “Prematurity” which will be addressed below.

6.53 The benefits of the scheme are as set out in Mr Bell’s evidence133. These are: the creation of up to 880 new dwellings, 30% affordable homes, specialist accommodation for the elderly, the development would be accessible to Crewe urban area with its jobs and services, employment opportunities during the construction stage and thereafter in the local services, the creation of a new community focus, provision of play space and other green infrastructure, opportunities for enhanced biodiversity, the opportunity for a highly attractive development, additional educational opportunities at primary school level and finally an estimated £1.5 million per annum New Homes Bonus income. These represent benefits over all three strands of sustainability.

6.54 It is worthwhile to look in particular at the delivery of Affordable Housing. The CELP Examiner has noted that the annual requirement for Affordable Housing in Cheshire East Council is 1,401. The CELP cannot deliver anything like that amount. In those circumstances delivery of over 200 Affordable Housing dwellings is a very substantial matter. A moment’s reflection of what these figures mean in real terms to those hundreds of people who are in inadequate accommodation and in desperate wait for a decent home is worthwhile. This decision has the potential to be truly life changing for them.

6.55 Prematurity is discussed more fully below but the key question is what harm to the CELP process would be caused by a grant of permission now? Much of the Council’s case has turned on the alleged inability of the CELP / Site Allocations process to create new Green Belt if permission were to be granted. Even if it were legally permissible to create new Green Belt, the Envision work has demonstrated that a width of 275m between Basford West – Shavington

131 Document HG 17 132 Footnote 9 at paragraph 14 of NPPF 133 SB 1, p 115, para 16.13-16.15

205 is sufficiently wide for a new Green Belt. There is no reason, therefore, why the land left free from development could not be put in the Green Belt if Environ’s / Cheshire East Council’s approach were correct. As is argued below, it is not.

6.56 This is a proposal where the advantages are so substantial that they outweigh the disadvantages, most of which are inevitable disadvantages of development in the Crewe area (Policies NE.2, NE.12) and in so far as Green Gap is a constraint, it has been breached by other schemes when it suits the Council – for example at Crewe Green in the Crewe – Haslington Gap which, as is stated above, the 2003 Local Plan Inspector found to be a sensitive gap.

6.57 It is submitted that the proposal does represent sustainable development.

Is there a 5 year land supply?

6.58 The answer to this question is obvious to all but the Council. There is not a 5 year supply – as evidenced by three appeal decisions issued during July of this year; all of which confirmed that Cheshire East Council has no 5 year supply:

Site Hearing Date Appeal Decision

Dunnocksfold Road (Doc GCS 2 Appendix 3) February 2014 14 July 2014

Audlem Road (Doc HG 15) June 2014 25 July 2014

Close Lane (Doc HG 17) May 2014 29 July 2014

6.59 To conclude whether a 5 year land supply exists it is necessary to consider the constituent parts of the assessment procedure: i) what is the full, objectively assessed need (FOAN), ii) what buffer should be applied, and iii) what is the correct supply figure?

6.60 Before embarking on that consideration it is helpful to note what is agreed. Firstly, the backlog is to be addressed using the “Sedgefield” method and not the “Liverpool” method, i.e. within the next five years, rather than spread out across the whole plan period (see Document CEC 14). Secondly, C2 figures are no longer to be included in the equation (CEC 16).

FOAN

6.61 The Council’s case is set out in a matrix form in Document CEC 18 (b). It alleges that 1,180 is the FOAN and that it is only the economic adjustments which bring the figure up to 1,350 pa (averaged over the whole plan period). The Council bases its approach on its interpretation of Gallagher134 and Hickinbottom J’s reference to “policy off” and “policy on” and in particular his definition at para 37:

“(iii) Housing Requirement: This is the figure which reflects, not only the assessed need for housing, but also any policy considerations that might require that figure to be manipulated to determine the actual housing target for an area. For example, built development in an area might be constrained by the extent of land which is

134 CD 10.4

206 the subject of policy protection, such as Green Belt or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Or it might be decided, as a matter of policy, to encourage or discourage particular migration reflected in demographic trends. Once these policy considerations have been applied to the figure for full objectively assessed need for housing in an area, the result is a ‘policy on’ figure for housing requirement. Subject to it being determined by a proper process, the housing requirement figure will be the target against which housing supply will normally be measured.”

It is said that this “policy on” process is equivalent to the “economic adjustments” made in the decision matrix prepared for the CELP.

6.62 This approach to the FOAN is wrong for the following reasons. The above quotation - para 37 (iii) - is obiter dicta: it does not form part of the decision making process on this ground. Hickinbottom J expressly purported to be following, as he was obliged to, the Court of Appeal decision in Hunston135. That decision does not make a “policy off” or “policy on” distinction. Hunston simply says at para 25 that adjustment needs to be made to the FOAN, made necessary by footnote 9 policies or other policies in the Framework.

“… That qualification contained in the last clause quoted is not qualifying housing needs. It is qualifying the extent to which the Local Plan should go to meet those needs. The needs assessment, objectively arrived at, is not affected in advance of the production of the Local Plan, which will then set the requirement figure.”

The Court of Appeal decision therefore envisages a reduction and not an increase through the operation of “policies set out in this Framework”. Within the section of his judgement dealing with FOAN Hickinbottom J repeatedly refers to the operation of para 47 in the context of constraints (see paras 94, 99) despite what he refers to at para 37 (iii).

6.63 The full objectively assessed need ought to represent the full extent of what any Local Planning Authority intends to deliver by way of housing supply. That will be based on a wide range of factors, including: demographic projections, local vacancy figures, second homes, Affordable Housing needs, economic aspirations, migration (in or out), economic signals and Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMAA) data. This is not a complete list of factors which need to be brought into consideration. When all factors have been addressed, this figure will represent the FOAN. The flaw in the Council’s analysis is that it gives special status to just one element, namely economic growth: there is no justification within the text of NPPF for treating this as a separate process, the Council’s witness accepted.

6.64 It is the FOAN figure which must then be checked against policies in NPPF. The Court of Appeal describe what went wrong in Hunston:

“I have some sympathy for the inspector, who was seeking to interpret policies which were at best ambiguous when dealing with the situation which existed here, but it seems to me to have been mistaken to use a figure for housing requirements below the full objectively assessed needs figure until such time as the Local Plan process came up with a constrained figure.” 136

135 CD 10.2 136 CD 10.2 at para 26

207 In this case the Council does not propose to reduce the FOAN figure having regard to NPPF policies but to increase it. The Court of Appeal decision makes clear that this secondary process can only serve to “constrain” the figure.

6.65 Para 8.8 of the reasoned justification to Policy PG 1of CELP describes the additional 27,000 dwellings as meeting “the full objectively assessed needs”. In that declaration of what is the FOAN (which is now resiled from for 5 year supply reasons) the Council regards jobs growth as part of that process

“As a minimum, the Plan aims to meet the full objectively assessed need for an additional 27,000 dwellings that is predicted to arise in Cheshire East over the 2010-2030 period. This need is based on forecasting work using the latest Government projections and also factors in the Council’s aspirations for employment led growth, which seeks to deliver additional housing to enable a rate of jobs growth that averages 0.4% a year. …” 137

At this inquiry, the Council did not wish to abide by that statement, so as to avoid the consequences of admitting 27,000 is the FOAN in the context of a 5 year supply calculation at appeals such as this.

6.66 It is noted that the Close Lane Inspector138 declined to use the 1,350 figure because (a) it “has not yet been tested at a Public Inquiry” (para 31); (b) RS figures are “the only housing figures which have been subject to public scrutiny” (para 32); and (c) “The 2011-based Interim Housing Projections, projected forward to 2030, indicate that an average annual increase in dwellings of 1,180 over the plan period. This is not dissimilar to the figure of 1,150 in the RS. As such, despite the appellant’s concerns, I consider that the figure of 1,150 is representative of the objectively assessed housing needs within CEC at the present time…”.

6.67 This analysis falls into conflict with Hunston in the following ways – following each of the three steps above. Firstly, for development control purposes an Inspector at a s.78 appeal must arrive at a FOAN in the absence of the Local Plan process even though it will not have been objectively assessed other than by the Inspector carrying out the necessary development control role. This is the finding of Hunston para 26, and Gallagher para 88(ii). Therefore the fact that the 1,350 figure has not been tested at CELP Examination is not of itself relevant. It is correct that the RS figures were subject to public scrutiny but that does not obviate the requirement to calculate the FOAN in 2014.

6.68 The Household Projections are only part of the FOAN exercise as the Council’s own evidence at this inquiry accepted:

“This clearly suggests that objectively assessed need will not be too far from the household projections and may indeed be one and the same (albeit not automatically so). It does not suggest that the ‘elaborate’ processes associated with Local Plan housing requirements (such as economic modelling, market indicators and such like) are associated with such calculations.” 139

137 CD6.1, page 61 138 HG 17 139 GCS 1, para 6.19

208 Furthermore, the figure put before the CELP Examiner is the Council’s case as to what the FOAN is. Others believe the FOAN is higher and that will be tested at the CELP Examination.

6.69 In conclusion on this point, the correct FOAN is at least 1,350 dpa until such time as the Local Plan Examiner reports, potentially with a higher figure. The thought process of the Audlem Road Inspector at para 34-36 is correct (save that the minimum figure of 1,260 is based on an as yet untested “stepping” policy). The Appeal Decision for land North of Moorfields (Document HG 24) also concludes that the FOAN is 1,350 140.

6.70 As advised by the Town and Country Planning Association, when calculating the housing need, it is necessary to go back to apply the 2008 household projections, and not simply carry forward the 2011 as the 2011 figures reflect a period of economic recession; the 2008 figures are a better reflection of economic prosperity and would balance the ‘trough’ of 2008 against previous ‘peaks’.141

6.71 If 1,350 is the FOAN then the Council accept they have no 5 year supply. The overall summary table shows that if 1,350 dpa is used then the 5 year requirement is 10,146 if a 5% buffer is seen to be appropriate, or 11,596 if a 20% buffer is applied. The Council’s highest supply figure is 9,652.142 Therefore, there is no 5 year supply even if 5% buffer is used and the Council’s supply figure is used without any reduction.

What buffer should be applied?

6.72 The buffer does not represent a penalty, nor does it impose additional housing requirements. It simply requires that housing should be “moved forward from later in the plan period.” Whether there has been a “record of persistent under delivery” is a finding of fact that needs to be made. Nearly all findings of fact in previous decisions (including the SofS’s at Abbey Road) have found 20% buffer to be appropriate. 6.73 The Council places much reliance upon the PPG and its reference to peaks and troughs. The following four decisions have addressed the issue of the correct buffer since PPG was issued: Elworth Hall Farm CD 9.5 Dunnocksfold Road SB 4 App 7 144 Audlem Road HG15 Close Lane HG17

All of these Appeal Decisions addressed the PPG. Elworth Hall Farm, which was the first, expressly refers to PPG at para 22. All have decided that 20% was the correct buffer except Dunnocksfold Road. The Inspector’s thought process in that appeal is explained at paras 49-53. At para 52 she observed

140 HG24, para 22 141 HG 09 “New estimates of housing demand and need in England 2011-2031” 142 CEC 14

209 “I consider the current undersupply should be considered alongside the historic and cumulative robust long term record of delivery.”

6.74 However, this observation is contradicted by the facts. The CELP Inspector sets out the facts in his letter to the Council at para 1 (a) (v)143

“The 2012 AMR indicates that an average of 1,032 dwellings were completed between 2002-2012, compared with the former RSS requirement of 1,150/yr; …”

The long term record is therefore far from “robust” – it is a record of under supply even during the peak years following 2002.

6.75 The Dunnocksfold Road Inspector referred to improvements in recent years but consideration of the Council’s updated position statement on completions 25th July 2014144 shows that the figures have not increased to even RS levels. In 2013-14 there was a deficit of -487, and in 2012-13 there was a deficit of -498. Given this history of performance, the appropriate buffer is 20%.

What is the supply figure?

6.76 The Inspector in the Close Lane decision undertook a very detailed analysis of supply indeed from paragraphs 49-84. In these 8 pages of detailed analysis she explains why the supply figure is only 6,534 excluding student dwellings. Mr Bell (the appellant’s witness) has updated this figure having regard to recent permissions issued and other factors, and considered that the update figure would still be well below his own 7,903 which has convinced him that his estimate is very robust.

6.77 The Council’s approach is far removed from the interactive role between local planning authorities and the development industry which is promoted in PPG.145 The Council’s witness criticised the house building industry for failing to agree the Council’s figures, but it was the Council which moved the goalposts. It moved away from the position in the 2012 SHLAA to when it started losing appeals by reason of absence of a 5 year supply. By the simple expedient of reducing lead-in times, and presuming there would be more than one developer on the site, it could dramatically increase supply on paper (but not in reality). This process was noted and inherently disapproved of in the Abbey Road decision.146

“28. … The Secretary of State is also not persuaded by the evidence submitted to him that the Housing Market Partnership has endorsed the methodology and conclusions of the updated SHLAA. This further undermines his confidence in the updated SHLAA findings. Having considered these matters very carefully, the Secretary of State is of the view that the Council has not demonstrated a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites against even the most favourable assessment of the 5 year housing requirement. The Secretary of State finds this a factor weighing in support of the proposed development.”

143 SB 4 Appendix 5 144 CEC 16 145 see PPG 3 - 023 146 CD 9.1. Note that at this Inquiry CEC alleged it has a supply of 9,771 dwellings

210 6.78 The process was taken further by the Council in its Housing Position Statement which was considered and rejected in the Elmworth Hall Farm decision.147 The Close Lane Inspector (para 59) also expresses concern about CEC’s approach:

“59. Although it would appear that the Council’s approach set out in its Position Statement accords with the guidance in the PPG in that it includes indicative lead-in times and build out rates for the development of different scales of sites and makes an allowance on the largest sites for several developers to be involved, I am concerned that, on the basis of the evidence before me, these figures are not supported by local evidence of past lead-in times and build out rates or on substantial evidence of the involvement of 2 or more developers on larger sites, or by the experience of the local housebuilding industry. Indeed, in my opinion, they would appear to be a little over optimistic. Indeed, I consider that the lead-in times and build rates, put forward by the appellants would more accurately reflect past trends and those anticipated by the housebuilding industry. Furthermore, I concur with the appellants’ view that the inclusion of a higher build rate to reflect the presence of 2 or more developers on a site should only be applied where there is substantial evidence that this would be the case.”

6.79 The full details of the appellants’ case is set out in the evidence and within the boxes in the relevant tables. The overall conclusion which the SofS is invited to reach is one shared by every Inspector who has had to determine a contested 5 year housing land supply: the Council is exaggerating its supply. At Close Lane the Inspector found the difference between what she found to be the supply (6,534) was not hundreds but thousands below what the Council alleged it to be. For the purpose of this Inquiry Mr Bell’s figure of 7,903 is robust and conservative. Sniping at findings at particular sites simply avoids the big picture: an exercise such as this must take a balanced view and Mr Bell has said he has followed the approach previously agreed in the SHLAA process.

Conclusion on 5 Year Supply

6.80 The table at HG 13 demonstrates that the Council has a supply of between 3.4 (20%) to 3.9 (5%) year’s supply of available housing land. The Close Lane Inspector found it to be 3.45 years148 even when using the FOAN figure of 1,150. This being so, the presumption in favour of development is created in this case.

Free Flow of Traffic on the Highway Network

6.81 On this issue, as in others, The Council has applied different standards for the appeal scheme, than the standards it uses to gauge acceptability in relation to the CELP sites.

6.82 It is alleged that this proposal will cause unacceptable delays so as to be “severe” in terms of para 32 of NPPF. When the Junction Delay Plots in Appendix C of the Transport Models Review149 are studied it is apparent that

147 CD 9.5 148 HG 17 para 84 149 CD 11.21 and CD 11.22: Cheshire East Transport Models Review – Summary Highway Impacts and Mitigation Proposals for Local Plan Strategy. May 2014

211 the Council is content for the purposes of its CELP to consider a 5 minute delay “broadly acceptable”:

“The residual impact on the highway network with the mitigation in place is considered to be broadly acceptable.”150

The delays referred to are colour coded. A delay of 30-120 seconds is coded green and 120-300 sec delay is orange. Only delays above 300 seconds (5 minutes) go into the red colours.

6.83 Even if the Council relies on the figures produced in their highway witness’s Rebuttal at Tables 1 to 8 (Document GM 4) the maximum delay on one arm of either Junction 4 or Junction 5 in only 185 seconds (Table 8). Most of the delays are less than 120 seconds, i.e. still “green”.

6.84 It is clear that, based on the standards against which the Council wishes to test its emerging CELP sites, as set out in CDs 11.21 and 11.22, the appeal proposal does not have unacceptable consequences on the highway network. These studies place particular importance on the performance of “key junctions.”151 If that is a suitable touchstone, not only is the impact of this development not “severe” it is at least “broadly acceptable”. It is probably better than “broadly acceptable” because Junctions 4 and 5 exhibit delays which are mostly within “green” as assessed by the Council.

6.85 This putative reason for refusal should never have been raised or maintained, which helps to explain the obfuscation and evasion which is subject of separate complaint in the costs application. The Council has not satisfied its duty under para 187 of NPPF at all. This expects

“Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning Authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.”

In this appeal the Council has taken the opposite course and looked for problems. Examples of this approach are noted below.

6.86 The Council has raised a persistent complaint about use of the transport model and the appellant’s witness’s over reliance upon it. This contrasts with CD 11.21 (part of the evidence base of the CELP) at page 8 where it is said:

“The 2006 base highway model was used to run the tests in order to be consistent with previous assessments. It should be noted that analysis of traffic count data collected between 2004 and 2013 indicates that there has been limited growth in traffic. The 2006 base model therefore adequately reflects the current situation.”

6.87 At the inquiry the Council sought to rely upon the video evidence showing existing traffic conditions. This is contradictory of the guidelines set out in its

150 CD 11.21 page 13 151 CD 11.21 page 12

212 own documentation which require planned infrastructure improvements to be taken into account152.

“… It is important to note that this ‘do minimum’ situation will therefore usually include improvements to the network compared to the existing situation. This ‘do minimum’ position is the appropriate position to compare the impact of the developments to, as these improvements would have happened regardless of any other considerations. …”

This is another example of the flawed approach taken by the Council in assessing the traffic implications of the proposed scheme.

6.88 Junction 5 is alleged to be a “problem” location (A534 Nantwich Road / A5019 Mill Street / B5071 South Street) and yet tests on this junction show no problems at all, or any other junctions in traffic from South Crewe / Rope – see Table 5.1 CD 11.22 p 28. In Option 6153 - which is characterised as “destruction testing” of the highway network in Crewe – this assumes a total of 2,391 new dwellings154 concentrated to the south of Crewe with traffic coming through Junction 5. However, whilst other junctions around it are all noted as “red”, Junction 5 remains green. If this is so, then why should it now be argued that Junction 4 would “collapse” were the appeal scheme to go ahead?

6.89 The Council’s letter155 in response to queries raised by the appellants in Document HG 08 is a further example of evasion of the simple truths contained in CD 11.21 and CD 11.22. That is, the letter does not accept, or even acknowledge, that a delay of up to 300 seconds is factored into the local plan transport modelling as being acceptable.

6.90 The appellant’s witness was criticised for not reality checking his work to 2030, only doing so to 2015. He says the 2015 test is justified because at that date all traffic from the site is put onto the network. This approach is acceptable on a trunk road and should be here, too

“27. Where the overall forecast demand at the time of opening of the development can be accommodated by the existing infrastructure, further capacity mitigation will not be sought.”156

Even if that approach were not acceptable, the Council has itself carried out forecasts to 2030.

“As noted previously patterns of movement are established for the existing situation ‘base year’ and for one or more future years ‘forecast years’. In this case a year

152 CD 11.21 page 3 153 CD 11.21 Table 2.1 page 3 154 370 dwellings at site Ref.3 – Basford West; 300 dwellings at Site Ref.9 – Shavington East; 360 dwellings at Site Ref. 10 Shavington Triangle; 1,361dwellings at Site Ref. 11 – South Crewe – Rope – see CD 11.22 Table 2.1 page 3. 155 CEC 33 156 HG 04 para 27

213 close to the final year of the Local Plan (2030) has typically been used for the forecasts.”157

6.91 Junction 4 is not a key junction in the Council’s testing, and the appellant’s witness has said more traffic would pass through that junction than Junction 5 - which is a key junction. Be that as it may, the s.106 unilateral undertaking offers a contribution of £250,000 towards new traffic lights. These will, it is accepted, cause some new delay but will improve the overall operation of the junction. The undertaking also allows the offered money to be spent on alternative traffic management measures to improve flow through this junction if traffic lights are not seen to be the preferred solution. Whether the Council chooses to do the work is a matter for them. It is the appellant’s contention that there is a workable solution to any problem that may arise at this junction.

6.92 The Council’s view is that traffic from south of Crewe creates insoluble problems at Junction 4. However, can this be right? Why did this not come up in the models for the CELP? Why were no solutions sought for such supposed problems? If there were to be such problems then Crewe would be “closed for business” for any development to the south.

6.93 The s.106 package is intended to address and mitigate the impacts. It has been confirmed through the Council’s CIL Regulations Compliance Statement (Document CEC 23) that the £955,000 offered for improvements to Crewe Green Roundabout is now regarded as necessary and CIL compliant.

6.94 This proposed development, together with its package of mitigations, will not cause unacceptable delays, still less severe delays on the adjacent highway system.

Prematurity

6.95 The Council’s case on prematurity essentially rests on two points: firstly, 880 is an excessively large amount of dwellings to come forward outside of the development plan process, and secondly that release of the site would prejudice consideration of the site for inclusion in the Green Belt.

880 too much?

6.96 The SofS decisions at Bishops Cleeve (two sites totalling 1,000) and more recently at Droitwich 158(two sites totalling 700 plus 200 bed care homes) demonstrate there is no upper limit to releases outside of the development plan process. Males J explained in Tewkesbury159why local planning authorities who do not have a 5 year supply should not be surprised if such releases occur:

“64. In my judgement these matters are capable of being read together as a coherent whole. They demonstrate that, for the future, development plans prepared by local planning authorities in accordance with the national policy principles set out

157 CD 11.21 page 2 158 SB 4, Appendix 2 159 CD 10.10

214 in the NPPF, including the provision of a five year housing land supply, will represent the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and that it may well be difficult to obtain permission for developments which are not in accordance with such plans. However, they do not suggest that greater weight should be accorded to the views of local authorities who do not have such a development plan (or during the one transitional period, a development plan produced in accordance with the PCPA 2004) over and above whatever weight would be appropriate pursuant to the long established prematurity principle. Nor do they cast any doubt on the fact that, pending the adoption of local development plans, individual planning applications will continue to be dealt with, where appropriate by the Secretary of State, applying existing principles.

6.97 HIMOR Group (the appellants in this case) has objected to the inclusion of some of the sites in the submitted CELP. However, HIMOR and others suggest that 27,000 new dwellings is insufficient by way of allocation and the figure should be higher by thousands. If these objections prove to be correct then the Council will need to seek additional sites. Crewe could be the starting point for identifying locations for such additional sites given the emphasis on its growth and the fact it is a major town in east Cheshire.

6.98 In any event, the Framework promotes the boosting of housing delivery and if it is found (as other Inspectors have) that the Council has no 5 year supply it follows that there is a need for additional supply now.

Green Belt

6.99 To argue prematurity on the grounds that the site is within an area identified as potentially being included in the Green Belt is completely misconceived for a variety of reasons. The CELP will not allocate Green Belt land, it only seeks to establish the principle of creation of new Green Belt. The CELP will only be able to do so if the Examiner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justifying the creation of new Green Belt exist.

6.100 The test of necessity is critical here: why is it necessary to have Green Belt now? The Council’s future aspirations are somewhat schizophrenic. The map showing the area for search for the new Green Belt in the CELP160 at page 73 clashes with the map at page 42 of Cheshire and Warrington Matters: A Strategic and Economic Plan for Cheshire and Warrington161, which shows an expanding Crewe, and the supporting text boasts

“Unconstrained land for growth - both homes and employment”

If the whole Green Belt Area of Search as promoted in CELP became Green Belt Crewe would effectively be straightjacketed against future development to the south, east and west by Green Belt. The Council cannot ride horses going in opposite directions at the same time.

6.101 In any event, the actual identification of Green Belt will not take place until the Site Allocations document is adopted. That process will not be commenced until after the CELP is adopted in (perhaps) September 2015. In

160 CD 6.1 161 CD 6.15

215 which case, the Site Allocations plan is too far off to be prejudiced by this proposal.

6.102 The Envision Study which put forward the suggested expansion of Green Belt expressly advises at 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 of the study162 that the existing narrow gaps between Crewe and Shavington are adequate for Green Belt purposes. Whilst it is accepted that the Green Belt could be extended further to the south in some locations, the gap between existing built development at Shavington and proposed development at Basford West (270 m) cannot be increased. The text says that this gap is wide enough for Green Belt purposes. If that is so, Mr Reid’s Plan 3163 demonstrates that a similar or wider gap can be maintained elsewhere. If planning permission is granted the allotments shown in the Masterplan (Inquiry Plan A.12) could be included within the Green Belt and a new Green Belt boundary produced if necessary.

6.103 If the area of search164 for Green Belt is compared with the development sites map (Document HG 7) it becomes clear that the Council is proposing development, or granting development, at not less than four locations within the proposed Green Belt Area of Search: Sydney Road, Crewe Green (which is also in a Green Gap), Shavington Triangle and East Shavington. This is excused on the basis that these are the Council’s preferred sites in an as yet untested plan.

6.104 Finally, there is the example of Kingsley Fields, a 1,100 dwelling development where Nantwich Town Council argued the scheme was premature.165 Not only did Cheshire East Council not refuse that proposal on the ground of prematurity, the Committee Report did not even address the topic of prematurity. This is seen as a display of double standards.

6.105 The appeal scheme is an appropriate, necessary and a timely opportunity to address a continuing shortfall in Cheshire East’s 5 year housing land supply. The allegation of prematurity is not made out on either of the two bases discussed above.

Additional matters raised by interested persons

6.106 A written response has been provided to matters raised by interested persons, both at the inquiry and in the written representations.166 For the most part, these objections were not supported by relevant statutory consultees. In some other instances the objectors are simply unaware of the details of the proposal. There is no justification for elevating any of these matters to main issues and such matters as have been raised should not prevent grant of planning permission.

162 CD 7.5 163 IR 3 164 CD 6.1 page 73 Fig. 8.2 165 HG 20 166 HG 21

216 Overall Conclusions on the Appellant’s Case

6.107 This proposal enjoys the benefit in favour of grant of permission created by paragraph 14 of NPPF whether or not there is a 5 year land supply. There is no sound reason for withholding planning permission. If the SofS concludes that there is no 5 year supply, the case for release of necessary housing becomes compelling.

7. POINTS RAISED BY INTERESTED PERSONS 7.1 Below are additional points raised by interested persons at the inquiry.

7.2 Concern was expressed over the purpose of Mr Boles’s letter, addressed to the Planning Inspector. Housing figures should be examined and endorsed through the local plan process; it should not be the role of this planning inquiry to establish housing growth figures. The letter is seen as an unwelcome intervention in the process. There is a fear that the letter was written to bias the Inspector in favour of supporting development.

7.3 The Green Gap is a lung for the area and it should not be narrowed or reduced simply to the road corridor of the A500.

7.4 This is not one of the preferred sites in the emerging Local Plan. The Local Plan is being drawn up by local elected representatives and it should not be overruled through the appeal process. This is a very unpopular proposal locally; all local residents are opposed to it. Building in the Green Gap between Crewe and Shavington would create a continuous sprawl, especially if seen together with other developments in this area. It would overpower and destroy the existing village character of Shavington. The village would become more urban in character. If this scheme is allowed, it will be harder to resist increments, and the creation of an additional access on to Crewe Road.

7.5 The local roads are only narrow lanes and there should be no additional traffic, which would lead to insurmountable problems of gaining access into Crewe. There are long delays at present, particularly along Gresty Lane at Gresty Bridge and northwards to Mill Lane and South Street. Ideally, the bridge over the railway at Station Top needs to be widened to carry the greater traffic flows along the Nantwich Road corridor. However, this would cost some £10 million and could not be funded by this proposed scheme.

7.6 The additional traffic would increase the risk of accidents on the local roads, especially between vehicles and pedestrians on the narrow lanes, many of which do not have adequate footways. Pinch points on the carriageways often require vehicles to mount the footways so as to pass each other, which could put children walking to school at risk of injury. The risk would be all the greater if families on the proposed development took their children to school by car; thereby adding to the congestion and the chance of conflicting movements on the roads. Ideally the carriageways should be 6.7m wide to cope with the anticipated levels of traffic; here the lanes are in the order of 5m wide, or even narrower in places, such as 4m where Gresty Lane crosses Swill Brook.

217 7.7 The diversion of Crewe Road through the proposed development would bring heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) through the new housing areas, which would not represent an attractive situation for the residents. Also, the proposed new junction on Crewe Road might not represent the easiest or safest design to accommodate private cars and the turning movements of HGVs.

7.8 Installing additional traffic lights on Rope Lane close to the existing lights at the bridge over the railway would lead to confusion and congestion. There ought to be a Pelican crossing over Rope Lane to link the proposed scheme with the schools on the opposite side of Rope Lane. Reducing speed limits would contribute to improving safety for pedestrians.

7.9 Additional traffic would add to air pollution.

7.10 Swill Brook runs across the site and into housing areas to the north, including through domestic gardens. Maintenance of the watercourse is a continuing problem for local residents, especially where the Environment Agency has limited resources to dedicate to this work. The river has flooded over local gardens in the past and some houses nearby are at risk of being inundated at times of high flood levels. There is concern that the proposed drainage and flood attenuation measures will not be effective. However, it is accepted that, subject to planning conditions, adequate safeguards could be put in place.

7.11 Services and utilities in the local area are at capacity at the moment and it is doubted if enhancements will come forward in time to serve the additional houses.

7.12 The proposed primary school should have its own directly associated parking area, which would not require parents to park on the roads. Also, the playing field ought to be more closely related to the school buildings.

8. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Further points are noted below which were raised in the written representations.

8.2 The site is Green Belt land. Brownfield land should be taken for development before green field sites such as this.

8.3 Local wildlife will be disturbed, including bats, owls, birds of prey, Great Crested Newts, badgers and foxes.

8.4 The site is within a flood plain and is regularly flooded by Swill Brook. This, in itself, makes the site inappropriate for built development. Hard surfaces within the new development will only make the situation worse, preventing absorption of surface water and directing it into overloaded watercourses.

8.5 There is a need to retain land for food production.

8.6 The construction works will bring noise, mud and dust to existing local residents.

8.7 The scheme will exacerbate problems of finding parking spaces at local centres and in Crewe town centre.

218 8.8 There is no need for a retirement village – there is more than enough accommodation for elderly persons in the locality.

8.9 A new pub on the site is unlikely to be either necessary or viable.

9. CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS Planning Conditions

9.1. In the event that the appeal is to be allowed, it will be necessary to attach planning conditions to the permission. Suggested conditions were discussed at the inquiry and an agreed list of draft conditions was submitted.167 I comment on the suggested conditions below, bearing in mind the advice and guidance contained in paragraph 206 of NPPF and Section 21a of PPG - Use of Conditions.

9.2. A list of recommended conditions is included as an Appendix to this Report. The list represents my considered conclusions on the suggested scope and wording of the suggested conditions aired at the inquiry.

9.3. It is necessary to attach conditions establishing the timescale for the commencement of development and the submission of details for subsequent approval (Conditions 1-3). It is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning (Condition 4).

9.4. The development is proposed to be constructed as a number of phases. It is necessary to ensure that the details of the development for each phase and the timing of implementation of such matters as landscaping in each phase are specifically considered to ensure a high standard of development (Conditions 5-7). In the interests of ensuring a high quality design and maximising sustainability, smaller details of the location and materials for the construction of walls and fences for the houses, and facilities for the management of domestic waste should be considered as integral to the design of the development (Conditions 37-38).

9.5. To ensure that properties both on the application site and in the neighbouring areas are properly protected from the risk of flooding from Swill Brook it is necessary to require prior consideration and approval of design details for surface water drainage and foul drainage, as well as finished floor levels for the buildings on the application site (Conditions 8-11).

9.6. It is possible that parts of the site have been subject to contamination in the past. In which case, it is necessary to require a scheme of investigation to be carried out prior to the commencement of development in any phase, and that appropriate remediation is carried out before any of the buildings are occupied (Condition 12). In the same vein, previous use of the site may have left archaeological evidence which should be identified, noted and properly recorded before construction works commence (Condition 27).

167 Document HG 16

219 9.7. The site can be approached via roads which pass through established residential areas, and construction works on the site have the potential to disturb existing residents, or new residents of the scheme as each phase is successively completed. It is therefore reasonable to require compliance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (Condition 13).

9.8. In order to encourage use of sustainable modes of transport, and to minimise the use of private cars, it is reasonable to require the submission of Travel Plans both for the residential elements of the scheme and for the commercial/business elements. Similarly, it is appropriate to facilitate and encourage the use of electric vehicles to minimise use of fossil fuels for transport. To encourage and facilitate safe walking and cycling, details of footpaths and cycle routes and associated signage should be subject to prior approval (Conditions 14-16, 31-32).

9.9. Local residents and businesses, both in the vicinity of the site and on the site as development progresses across the various phases, should be safeguarded from the risk of harm to their quality of life by reason of poor air quality and disturbance from excessive noise. It is reasonable to require the development to proceed in accordance with appropriate protocols (Condition 17).

9.10. The site is largely undeveloped countryside at present and there is the likelihood of wildlife interest on the site, notably along the course of Swill Brook, the marl pit ponds and in the hedgerows. In order to minimise the loss of such ecological interest and to safeguard and retain as much as possible, it is necessary to require details of schemes for works which would affect such interests to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in detail (conditions 18-22).

9.11. The scheme has been promoted on the basis that it would include a significant amount of open space, retained trees and hedgerows, and new landscaping planting. To ensure that proper safeguards are included for the trees and hedges to be retained, and that new planting is carried out in accordance with an agreed programme and schedule of species, it is necessary to require prior approval of detailed working practices and planting regimes for these aspects of the development, together with a programme for the creation and laying out of the amenity area, allotments and play spaces (Conditions 23-26).

9.12. To ensure that the shopping centre remains as a local facility, in proportion to the development which it is intended to serve and not impinging upon the vitality and viability of other retail developments in the locality, it is necessary to impose an upper limit on the amount of retail floor space (Condition36). The proposed commercial premises have the potential to be disturbing to those who occupy the houses near to these uses. It is necessary therefore to establish limits for noise emissions, smells and external lighting, to safeguard the living conditions of local residents (Conditions 33-35).

9.13. Only the main access arrangements for the development are submitted for approval at this stage. In which case, in order to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with current standards of highway design and safety, it is necessary to require the submission of details of the construction of the access points (Condition 28). In order to minimise the risk of generating excessive traffic through junctions in the centre of Crewe, it is

220 necessary to impose thresholds on the extent of occupation of the site until particular strategic elements progress of wider highway network, as well access points into the site itself, have been completed and brought into use (Conditions 29-30).

Planning Obligations

9.14. Two planning obligations have been submitted, made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; one is a planning agreement (Document HG 29), the other a unilateral undertaking (document HG 30).

9.15. The planning obligations need to be assessed against the tests set out at paragraph 204 of NPPF.

Planning agreement

9.16. The Agreement offers funding for affordable housing, primary education and open space/recreation provision. These are matters which are directly related to the development being proposed and are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Indeed, having regard to the offered contributions for education provision and recreation provision, this directly corresponds with what is being proposed in the planning application.

9.17. The Council’s Compliance Statement (Document CEC 23) and subsequent correspondence (CEC 34) explain in detail what the development plan policy context is for requiring such contributions, and gives a justification for the amount being offered. The sums being put forward for the various elements are seen to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development, by reference to the Council’s published policies and standards on the proportion of affordable housing, costing of education provision and amount of recreation space for a new residential development. It is clear what the offered contributions would be used for.

Unilateral undertaking

9.18. The unilateral undertaking proposes six financial contributions. Again, the Council’s Compliance Statement addresses the relevance, need and scale of the offered contributions having regard to what is being proposed in the planning application and the likely implications of the scheme.

9.19. Four elements of the undertaking relate to off-site highway improvements; either physical works or traffic regulation orders. £590,000 is offered for works to Cheerbrook Roundabout and £955,000 for works to Crewe Green Roundabout168. The Cheerbrook Roundabout is to the west of the appeal site, where the A500 and A51 meet. This is part of the A51 corridor, where the transport modelling says traffic from the appeal site would exacerbate present delays at peak periods. Similarly, the appeal scheme would add to the traffic using the already heavily used Crewe Green Roundabout, to the east of the appeal site where the A534 and A5020 join. The offered contributions are therefore put forward as funding for amelioration to take account of the additional traffic generated by the appeal scheme over and above the

168 See Plan Insp.2

221 alterations to these junctions planned to accommodate the traffic impact associated with the growth allowed for in CELP.

9.20. In the same spirit of amelioration or mitigation, £15,000 is offered to fund the costs of promoting a traffic management scheme on Crewe Road, to address any possible highway safety implications of increased traffic in the vicinity of the appeal site. This could include a Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the present speed limit of 40mph.

9.21. £250,000 is offered for improvements to the South Street /Catherine Street / Gresty Road junction (Junction 4). The Council dispute whether any works are possible to this junction which would achieve a satisfactory amelioration for the additional delays which it says would be generated by the appeal scheme. Indeed, the Council’s Compliance Statement does not address this aspect of the offered contributions. Nevertheless, the sum is offered to be used flexibly; either for the installation of traffic lights, or any other measures which are likely to lead to an improvement.

9.22. In order to encourage use of alternatives to the private car for journeys, the undertaking offers a £150,000 annual subsidy for a bus service for the first 5 years of the development, as well as £80,000 towards the costs of supporting sustainable transport. Suggested Conditions 14 and 15 require the submission of Travel Plans for residential and commercial development on the scheme

9.23. If it is not possible to implement or enforce any of the elements of the offered contributions (in particular the £250,00 for the South Street/Catherine Street/Gresty Road junction – Junction 4), Clause 6.2 of the undertaking confirms that such a failure will not invalidate any other provisions of the undertaking.

9.24. Although the Council is unwilling to accept that the £250,000 offered for improvements to Junction 4 is appropriate, the evidence at the inquiry was that whereas the proposed scheme would be likely to exacerbate the current (or modelled) delays at this junction, some works would bring forward an improvement were the junction to be left as it is. If the Secretary of State accepts that this would be so, then all of the elements of the offered undertaking can be regarded as meeting the three tests of NPPF paragraph 204.

9.25. If the Secretary of State does not consider that the £250,000 contribution for works to Junction 4 is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, then Clause 3.3 of the undertaking states that excluding this would not negate the other elements of the offered undertaking.

222 10. CONCLUSIONS Main Considerations

10.1 Taking into account the putative reasons for refusal, the evidence given at the inquiry and the written representations, there are four main considerations to be addressed in this appeal. These are:

1. Whether the proposed scheme would fulfil the three roles for sustainable development identified at paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework; in particular, having regard to the development plan policies relating to intrusions into a Green Gap, loss of countryside, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and loss of ancient hedgerows.

2. Whether there is a 5 year housing land supply in the local authority area and how this may impinge upon the applicability of current development plan polices.

3. The effect of the proposed development on the free flow of traffic on the surrounding road network.

4. Whether a grant of planning permission for the proposed scheme would unacceptably prejudice the preparation and adoption of the emerging Local Plan, with particular regard to distribution of housing sites and identification of a Green Belt extension.

10.2 Each of these main considerations is discussed in turn below. The numbers in square brackets [n.nn] are references to preceding paragraphs in this Report.

Introduction

10.3 As required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and acknowledged at paragraphs 11, 12 and 196 of NPPF, the starting point for determination of this appeal is to consider whether the proposed scheme accords with the development plan policies. The development plan for this area comprises the saved policies of the BCNRLP, which was adopted in 2005 [3.1].

10.4 Policy NE.2 categorises all land outside the defined settlement boundaries of Crewe and its satellite villages as open countryside [5.32]. In the open countryside Policy RES.5 seeks to restrict new house building to infilling within an existing built-up frontage, or housing which is considered essential to meet the needs of an agricultural or forestry worker [5.41].

10.5 The underlying objective of Policy NE.2 is to safeguard the countryside both for agricultural production, and for its character and attractiveness [5.7]. The appeal site is clearly separated from the present built-up area by the railway line running just to the north of Gresty Lane [2.9]. It is an area in active agricultural use, but perhaps not very intensively [2.3]. There are views into and across the site and it can be seen as part of the rural countryside, albeit with a major dual carriageway (the A500) to the south [2.7], some built development adjacent to its north-eastern corner[2.4], and a semi-urbanised character immediately to the west along Rope Lane [2.6].

223 10.6 It is agreed by both parties to the appeal that the site lies outside the settlement boundaries of Crewe and that the proposed scheme would not fall within the allowances of Policy RES.5 [5.41].

10.7 Policy NE.4 establishes Green Gaps in the open countryside so as to ensure the continued separation between Crewe and neighbouring towns and villages. The extent of the Green Gaps is defined on the Proposals Map (Document CEC 21). It is accepted by both parties that the appeal site lies within the defined Shavington / Weston / Crewe Green Gap [5.7, 6.12].

10.8 There is, therefore, no disagreement that the proposed scheme does not comply with these policies of the development plan.

10.9 The site includes some agricultural land which falls within categories 2 and 3a; which is the best and most versatile agricultural land [5.51, 6.31]. Policy NE.12 seeks to resist the loss of such land unless the need for it is supported in the Local Plan, that the development could not be accommodated on land of lower quality, and that on balance the benefits in terms of sustainability outweigh the loss of good quality agricultural land. Here the land is not identified for development in the Local Plan. Again, on the face of it, there is direct conflict with the policies of the development plan on this point [5.51, 6.31].

10.10 The site is crossed by several well-established hedgerows, one of which marks a township or parish boundary, and others are field boundaries from th the 19 century which pre-date the Inclosure Acts (ie before 1845) [5.54]. These are, therefore, ‘important hedgerows’ in terms of the Hedgerow Regulations169. The Council’s putative reasons for refusal refer to Policy NE.5 and that policy’s wish to retain hedgerows, but that policy is primarily concerned with safeguarding nature conservation interest and habitats. At the inquiry it was agreed that the relevant BCNRLP policy is BE.16, which seeks to protect sites of known or presumed archaeological interest [6.33]. Where possible, the expectation is that (amongst other matters) the design of the development avoids unnecessary damage to the archaeological remains that are considered worthy of preservation in situ.

10.11 The hedges are not archaeological remains, nor are they designated heritage assets, and therefore, in simple terms, there is no conflict with either Policy NE.5 or Policy BE.16 [6.35]. However, and having regard to paragraph 135 of NPPF, this is not to disregard the significance of these as ‘important hedgerows’, and this is a consideration which will need to be weighed in the balance.

10.12 The interim conclusion to be reached at this point is that the proposed development does not accord with the policies of the development plan, and it is therefore necessary to consider whether there are material considerations which would justify making a decision otherwise. This leads into the first of the main considerations.

169 SI 1997 No.1160 Countryside: The Hedgerow Regulations 1997

224 1. Whether the proposed scheme would fulfil the three roles for sustainable development identified at paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework; in particular, having regard to the development plan policies relating to intrusions into a Green Gap, loss of countryside, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and loss of ancient hedgerows.

10.13 The primary point is the situation raised at paragraph 14 of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This establishes the principle of favourable consideration being given to sustainable development. Paragraph 14 goes on to say that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, then planning permission should be granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

10.14 In this case, the BCNRLP was written to guide development decisions up until 2011 [6.7]. The saving direction issued by the Secretary of State in 2005 recognised this and endorsed the role of BCNRLP as a development policy document, until such time as it was replaced, with the expectation that a replacement plan would be quickly prepared [6.4]. The Council is preparing the CELP as a replacement for BCNRLP, but this is at only a fairly early stage in the adoption process, it having now been submitted for formal examination, with the hearing sessions for the Examination programmed to begin in September 2014 [5.3].

10.15 Because BCNRLP was formulated to accommodate the planned level of growth up until 2011, policies to manage the distribution of new development around Crewe must now be considered out of date, both in terms of the amount of growth to be planned for, and the limits BCNRLP places on the extent of the built-up areas.

10.16 Paragraph 49 of NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development and “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”. I turn to the matter of housing land supply in greater detail below but, if the Secretary of State accepts that there is not a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, this adds strength to the argument that at least some of the BCNRLP policies - insofar as they control the identification and release of land for housing development - cannot be regarded as up-to-date, and this would support the positive presumption put forward in NPPF paragraph 14.

10.17 Paragraph 215 of NPPF allows weight to be attached to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this case, whereas the BCNRLP housing supply figures and, by association, policies to restrict the extent of built up area, are now out of date this does not mean that all policies of BCNRLP must be considered to be out of date. The relevance of other policies can be taken into account, according to their ‘fit’ with NPPF.

225 10.18 With these caveats in mind, the policy conflicts noted above are considered topic-by-topic below.

Development in the open countryside

10.19 The site is seen by the Council to be in the open countryside and hence Policy NE.2 should be applied. ‘Open countryside’ for the purposes of this policy is defined as the areas outside the defined limits of built-up development [5.41]. Because the housing supply figures and the associated limits of built-up are out of date, the corollary of this is that the area over which Policy NE.2 applies has to be seen to be flexible in order to accommodate the future planned growth for Crewe and the surrounding area [5.66].

10.20 In this context, as an area of land adjacent to the present limit of built development, the appeal site could be regarded as potentially one of the areas where the next period of planned growth for Crewe could take place. In the circumstances envisaged in NPPF paragraph 215, it would be rational to accept that the boundary of the area over which Policy NE.2 applies is no longer fixed. That is, if there is a justifiable need to release land for further development, NE.2 cannot be regarded as a bar to such releases. It would not be appropriate to dismiss this appeal solely on the basis that the proposed development would not meet the criteria for built development in the countryside set out in Policy NE.2 and RES.5.

10.21 Although the appeal site is seen as part of the countryside, it is relatively contained visually [5.46, 6.27]. It is not a prominent site in the landscape, and it is not seen in long-distance views. Development on this site would be seen from the adjacent roads – notably Rope Lane and Gresty Lane [6.27], but it would not be readily seen from the A500, and it would be separated from Crewe Road on its eastern side by an undeveloped field and hedges on the edge of the site and along the Crewe Road frontage [2.8]. It is proposed to retain as much as possible of the present hedgerows and individual trees on the site, and advance planting can be specified ahead of the commencement of development, to soften the visual impact of new buildings as they are introduced across the site.

10.22 This is not a designated or protected landscape [6.21]; it is not an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, nor has it been subject to any local landscape protection policies. It is within the LFW7 Barthomley Character Area, as identified in the Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment document [5.2, 6.22]. This character area extends widely around Crewe. As is the case with the consideration of the other likely effects of this scheme on the countryside, the landscape impact here would be little different – if at different at all – to that on other sites around Crewe [6.24]. The Council accept that other green field sites – also within the same landscape character area - will need to be taken for development to meet the levels of growth looked for in CELP [5.32].

10.23 The visual impact of this new development would be medium (the appellant’s view) or high (the Council’s view), [5.45, 5.46, 5.48]. The difference between the parties on the seriousness of the impact appears to be one of degree, rather than a fundamental disagreement. Both accept that the development would represent a loss of countryside and the new development would be seen. The main point is that the new development would be visible as an

226 urban extension, albeit one with carefully considered screen and landscape planting. It was accepted by the Council’s witness that new development does not have to be invisible. It is also agreed between the parties that whilst irreversible, the effect would be localised [6.24].

10.24 That being so, the degree of change in this context - next to the present urban edge of Crewe and with a semi-urbanised street scene in Rope Lane [2.6] - the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the countryside should not be an overriding objection if it is seen to be necessary to meet housing needs. This point is explored further below, under an examination of the 5-year housing land supply.

Green Gap

10.25 The proposed development would intrude into the present separation between Crewe and Shavington / Weston, which Policy NE.4 seeks to maintain [5.7, 6.12]. The Green Gap policy is more than a policy which seeks to restrict housing supply [5.32], and its purpose is not simply to safeguard the countryside – that is the purpose of Policy NE.2. This was accepted by the Secretary of State to be the role of similar Green Wedge policy as discussed in the Coalville, North West Leicestershire appeal170 [5.35, 5.66]. The objective of NE.4 is to prevent the merger of Crewe with (amongst other places) Shavington; to retain the separate identities of each of the settlements. In this case the Council, strongly supported by local residents [7.3, 7.4], wishes to ensure that Shavington is not merged into the urban area of Crewe and that the character of the village should be protected.

10.26 At the inquiry it was confirmed that there is no published report or study which analyses the character of Shavington, nor is there any published supplementary planning guidance which identifies key features of the village or its setting which have to be regarded as essential features to be safeguarded and protected.

10.27 Plan 3 in document IR 2 shows the separation distances [6.27], and Plan 1 in Document IR 1 shows the extent of the Green Gap which would exist, taking account of the appeal scheme and other development permitted nearby. The degree of separation at present varies between 860m and 250m [6.27]. At the western end, there is built development on the western side of Rope Lane almost right up to the bridge over the A500 [2.11].

10.28 North of the bridge over the A500, along Rope Lane are the school, the leisure centre and the Medical Centre which can be seen as semi-urbanising elements tenuously linking Shavington and the southern edge of Crewe [2.6], although the railway line and the bridge over the railway represent a distinct physical divide, and there is no obvious visual connection between the street scene of Rope Lane and the more intensive urban development north of the railway [2.9].

10.29 The proposed scheme would bring built development within 240m of the edge of Shavington on the eastern side of Rope Lane. This distance takes into

170 Appeal Ref: APP/G2435/A/11/2158154

227 account the planning permission granted on appeal on the eastern side of Rope Lane, adjacent to the present housing. The appeal scheme would be perceived as a southern advance of the Crewe built up area towards Shavington, and would almost halve the present separation in terms of liner distance.

10.30 Further east, the degree of separation is presently between about 809m and 890m, and this would be reduced to between 320m and 520m. Having said that, the A500 is an undeveloped (apart from the road itself) corridor between the two settlements, with the width of a field between the A500 and the southern edge of the proposed scheme, and a swathe of agricultural land approximately 150m – 300mwide between the northern edge of Shavington and the A500. There would also be established hedges along the edges of the cutting which the A500 runs through, as well as hedges and the small wood along the appeal site boundary, and hedges around the fields to the south of the A500 [2.3, 2.7]. This physical divide, together with the hedges, would maintain a level of visual separation between the appeal scheme and the present edge of Shavington.

10.31 In the north-east corner of the site, the proposed new development would come to within 280m of the nearest buildings in Shavington on Crewe Road. This should be seen in context of the proximity of Shavington to the Basford West development area, on the northern side of A500 and to the east of Crewe Road, Here the Council has recently approved development (February 2014)171 which would come to within about 270m of the northern edge of Shavington [5.101].

10.32 Taking these points together, the proposed scheme would not result in the built up areas of Crewe and Shavington being merged; there would be a degree of separation both in terms of measured distance, and visual separation because of the fields and hedges [6.28, 6.29]. The A500 corridor, although in cutting for most of its alignment in this locality, would also mark a divide between the two settlements. However, notwithstanding the measured separation distances, the tree and hedge screening and the linear divide of the A500, it is clear that the local residents consider that the proposed development would unacceptably erode the sense of separation between Crewe and Shavington [7.4]. It is this perception of separation which underlies the purpose of Policy NE.4. This point needs to be weighed in the overall planning balance.

Best and most versatile agricultural land

10.33 As noted above, parts of the site are within the higher agricultural land classifications of 2 and 3a. However, this is not of great agricultural significance. The higher grades are found across parts of a number of parcels or fields, and no one field is made up of land only in one or other of the higher grades. Farming practice is to select a crop which suits the lowest grade in any one field; there are practical difficulties of growing a higher performance crop on one part of a field, and another crop on the remainder.

171 Site CS2 in the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CD 6.1) pp191-194.

228 In which case, for practical purposes, the appeal site cannot be regarded as overall representing greater than 3b grade land [6.31].

10.34 The appellant did not present evidence to demonstrate that all other options have been exhausted, to show that it is not possible to accommodate additional urban development at Crewe on land of a lower grade [5.51]. Having said that, the majority of land around Crewe is within the best and most versatile categories and it would be difficult not to use such land if the town is to develop and expand to the degree envisaged in the CELP. It would be unreasonable to argue that the appeal should be dismissed for this reason.

Historic hedgerows

10.35 The important hedgerows are not designated heritage assets [6.35], but their significance should not be disregarded. The hedges do have some historic and cultural significance in that one hedge crossing the site - approximately east-west and then turning southeast - marks an ancient parish boundary, and others delineate a field pattern which characterised the countryside prior to the Inclosure Acts [5.54].

10.36 Nevertheless, the hedges are not unique; they are fairly typical of the countryside hereabouts and it is highly likely that any land taken for urban expansion around Crewe would have a similar pattern of hedgerows with a similar cultural and historical significance.

10.37 It is proposed that as much of the hedgerows as possible should be retained within the development. The rationale for this is partly to retain and respect contribution the hedges make to the landscape, partly to give some structure to the scheme and to delineate phases of the development, and partly to provide screening and to visually break up the development. That is, the hedges would not be entirely lost and it would still be possible to follow their routes and to recognise and interpret their historical or cultural relevance, albeit in a different (urbanised) context [6.35].

10.38 Gaps will need to be created in the hedges to permit the construction of the main spine road through the scheme, and to form access points into the residential areas. Document HG 22 is a plan showing the present hedges superimposed on an outline of the illustrative Masterplan layout. This estimates that some 520m of hedge would be lost from an overall total of 4,022.93m – or 12.93% removed [5.55]. However, that calculation has seemingly not taken into account gaps which currently exist in the hedges at various points to allow access between fields [2.3]. But even allowing for that, and subject to the actual details and design to be considered as reserved maters, the scheme would probably result in the loss of some 10% of the existing hedges.

10.39 In view of the fact that development anywhere else around Crewe is likely to take land with similar hedges of similar age and significance, it would be disproportionate to regard this alone as justification for dismissing the appeal.

Other sustainability considerations

10.40 Should the scheme be thought to be acceptable in terms of the four topics discussed above, it would be relevant - whether following the Davis judgment

229 or not - to come to an overall view on whether the scheme could be regarded as sustainable development [5.14].

10.41 In terms of accessibility, the site is reasonably close to the centre of Crewe, which has a good range of shops and services. The residents on the site would have access to employment opportunities within Crewe on established and proposed industrial estates and business parks. Crewe station is within 1½ - 2 miles of most of the appeal site, and there are good rail services to other main centres in the Midlands and the North-West [2.1]. The scheme includes an obligation to support a local bus service and there is an obligation to produce Travel Plans for both the residential and commercial developments on the site which, amongst other matters, would encourage walking and cycling [9.22]. That is, the scheme offers realistic opportunities for access to a wide range of goods and services locally and without the need to rely upon use of private cars. This could be regarded as fulfilling an economic and an environmental role.

10.42 Within the scheme there are proposed to be a local centre for shops and a community hall. The Illustrative Masterplan also shows a public house and a primary school, plus a number of play areas and small greens or parks and community allotments [4.4, 5.46]. On the opposite side of Rope Lane – that is, almost immediately adjacent to the appeal site – are a secondary school, a modern sports or leisure centre and the Medical Centre [2.6]. The scheme thus offers the opportunity for the residents to form a community which could be self-sufficient for at least local social, recreational educational and cultural purposes. This could be seen as meeting the social role of sustainable development. The scheme would include some employment in the local shops and services and in the retirement / care village, and these shops and services would fulfil a social and an economic role.

10.43 Drawing together these elements of the first main consideration, on the basis that, for the most part, the proposed development is unlikely to be any more harmful to the countryside than any other scheme around the periphery of Crewe, and the CELP is anticipating growth which would inevitably require such areas for development, the appeal scheme cannot be dismissed for these reasons alone; the environmental harm the appeal scheme would cause to the countryside could be regarded as ‘neutral’ in this context. The appeal scheme is put forward as one where the principles of sustainable development underlie the design ethos and the scheme could be regarded as fulfilling the social, economic and environmental roles for sustainable development, as identified at paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

10.44 The one reservation is the extent to which the proposed scheme intrudes into the present Green Gap, which is perhaps not a concern about sustainability, but more a matter of strategic policy. This point is addressed below in an assessment of whether the scheme would be regarded as premature, having regard to the evolution of CELP.

230 2. Whether there is a 5 year housing land supply in the local authority area and how this may impinge upon the applicability of current development plan polices.

Full, objectively assessed need

10.45 The first stage in considering whether the Council has a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites is to come to a view on what is the full objective assessment of need (FOAN).

10.46 In the absence of a figure for the FOAN which has been tested through a local plan Examination, it is necessary at a s.78 appeal to consider what the FOAN might be [5.86, 6.67]. Having said that, a s.78 inquiry is not able to give a thorough examination of competing claims as to what the FOAN actually is. To arrive at a definitive conclusion on the FOAN it is necessary to explore the validity or relevance of all of the various statistical inputs, assumptions and methodologies. From the evidence at this inquiry, it is disputed as to whether this should also take into account a plan’s economic strategy, employment forecasts and affordable housing needs - ie the ‘policy on’ influences.

10.47 Whatever factors have to be seen to be necessary to determine the FOAN, the full evidence base to support such competing claims, and the range of expertise needed to explore and test the claims was not present at the inquiry for this appeal. That discussion might also need to consider whether the CELP’s interpretation of what FOAN encompasses accords with the Hunston [5.86 etc., 6.62 etc.] and Gallagher judgments [5.88 etc., 6.61etc.]. Indeed, the Gallagher judgment indicates that arriving at the local plan requirement is a three-stage process starting with a forecast of need, progressing through to a calculation of the FOAN and then setting the requirement. The appropriate forum for that exercise is the local plan Examination, and it would be neither helpful nor adequately justified for a decision in this appeal to pre-empt the outcome of that Examination by coming to what might be regarded as the definitive figure for the FOAN (or perhaps the requirement) on the basis of the limited evidence and fairly narrow discussion heard at this inquiry.

10.48 The Gallagher judgment sets out three concepts or stages in determining the amount of housing which should be applied to establish a local plan’s housing strategy. According to Gallagher, the FOAN is not just a projection of household formation, it also has to take into account the likelihood of matters such as a major upturn in the economy. The FOAN is then the basis for further adjustments to take account of policies which could either constrain that figure, or reflect ambitions for growth over and above simple statistical projections, arriving at a requirement figure. Paragraph 47 of NPPF expects a local plan to meet only one of the three concepts – the FOAN. That is, whether the eventual local plan requirement figure may be greater (or lesser) than the FOAN is seemingly not relevant when applying the test of the first paragraph of paragraph 47. Having said that, it should be noted that the Gallagher judgment and its three-step concept post-dates the publication of the NPPF (and the submission of CELP for Examination) and has perhaps introduced an element of uncertainty as to which figure - ie the FOAN or the

231 subsequent requirement figure - should be used to address the expectations of paragraph 47.

10.49 Looking at what the FOAN figure might be, what the Council says itself is the FOAN in the recently submitted draft CELP should be pertinent. The Council has put that figure forward after proper consideration of the relevant factors and consultation with the various stakeholders, and the Council would be defending that figure at the Examination as one which is correct, justified and reliable. In these circumstances, it is hard to understand why the Council put forward evidence at this inquiry to disassociate itself from the figure promoted as the FOAN in its own draft local plan and, indeed, to actively argue against that figure being the one which has to be taken into account in this appeal.

10.50 Whilst the Council at this inquiry argued that the FOAN should be lower than the CELP figure, it is clear that others believe it should be higher [5.96]. This is shown in the questions which the Inspector conducting the local plan Examination has asked of the stakeholders in order to explore the differences of view172. Nevertheless, as noted above, it is necessary for the purposes of this appeal to come to a view on what should be regarded as the FOAN on the basis of the evidence presented at this inquiry.

FOAN for the purposes of this appeal

10.51 Reference was made to a number of High Court decisions and the Court of Appeal Decision in Hunston which – amongst other matters - looked at how to determine the FOAN [5.86].

10.52 The point made in Hunston is that, whereas the housing figures in the RS may be the ones which have been most recently tested at an examination, these are not necessarily the reliable basis for decision making – time has moved on since the RS examination and, indeed, the RS has been revoked [5.86].

10.53 For the purposes of this inquiry, the Council argued that the DCLG household projections for Cheshire East produce a figure of 1,050 dpa to 2021, and this should be taken as the FOAN [5.95]. However, that figure has to be open to question, not least because the CELP establishes a new strategic vision and puts forward housing and economic growth aims to meet that vision, which depends upon a greater housing provision than a simple statistical household projection.

10.54 Paragraph 47 of NPPF states that the Council should use the evidence base of the local plan to ensure that it meets the FOAN for market and affordable housing. The CELP still has to be scrutinised at Examination and therefore the figures put forward in the CELP cannot be accepted as conclusive at this stage; objections have been lodged that the figures are too great and – perhaps more significantly – the figures are not high enough173.

172 Document SB4, Appendix 5 173 The Inspector conducting the Examination has queried the justification for a figure of 1,350 per annum, wondering whether this would be sufficient to meet the employment growth strategy of the

232 10.55 However, Strategic Priority 2 of CELP174 is a commitment to providing the FOAN for the Borough. The submitted CELP is based on a projected minimum requirement of 27,000 houses over a 20 year period 2010- 2030175, which is an average of 1,350 per year. Paragraph 8.8 of CELP plainly states that the 27,000 figure is the FOAN [6.65]. It is therefore curious – if not inconsistent – that having submitted the CELP for examination in May 2014 [5.129], the Council appeared at this inquiry (two months later) arguing that it is not correct to regard an annual figure of 1,350 as the FOAN for the purposes of this appeal.

10.56 Much discussion took place over whether the Council was putting forward a realistic alternative figure at this appeal. The Court of Appeal decision in Hunston determined that the housing need was an assessment to be made irrespective of the effect of other policies [5.86]. In that case (in St Albans) it was judged that when assessing the housing need figure the constraints Green Belt policy would impose on the ability to meet that calculated need should be disregarded. That is, housing need is the ‘policy off’ figure, and housing requirement would be the ‘policy on’ (ie constrained) figure.

10.57 The current advice at paragraph 2a-004 of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is that an assessment of need should not take constraints into account. This would correspond with the High Court judgment in Gallagher. That is, housing need is a ‘policy off’ figure [5.89, 5.90]. But Gallagher also says that a need figure which has been arrived at simply by applying household projections is not the FOAN.

10.58 The Council argued that the policy off figure for Cheshire East is 1,150 dwellings per year. This is the RS requirement which is the only figure which has been through a public examination [5.84]. It also corresponds closely with a projection of households up to 2030, based on the 2013 Office for National Statistics (ONS) household projections [5.93]. PPG notes that household projections is the appropriate starting point for calculating housing need, but the PPG goes on to note that the household projection-based estimate may require adjustment to take into account factors which are not reflected in past trends. PPG paragraph 2a-016 points out that ONS 2011 based projections only cover a period up to 2021; projections beyond 2021 would need to consider if different trends would be likely after that year. This would correspond with recent academic views published by the Town and Country Planning Association (Document HG 9) [6.70].

10.59 At this point it is appropriate to look at whether performance against the BCNRLP is a reliable indicator of what is required under current planning expectations (as given in in NPPF). The housing figures in BCNRLP were derived from the RS. The RS was based on a strategy which sought to focus or concentrate growth in the main urban areas of Merseyside and Greater Manchester [5.92], which inevitably resulted in a constrained figure for Crewe

plan and if it would produce the required number of affordable houses (see Document SB 4, Appendix 5, point vi). 174 CD 6.1 page 51 175 CD 6.1, Policy PG 1 and paragraph 9.4

233 and Nantwich which did not reflect the actual potential for growth and the associated need locally. The DCLG 2003 based projections for the RS period (after the draft RS had been submitted for examination) produced a figure of 1,300 private household per annum for Crewe and Nantwich Borough176. This supports the view that the 1,150 RS figure has to be seen as a constrained figure. That is, because past trends have been used as the basis for housing projections, the projections now need to be adjusted to take account of previous supressed demand.

10.60 At the inquiry the Council maintained that, because of economic conditions locally, it is appropriate to use the same assumptions used for the household formation projections up to 2021 into the period up to 2030. That may be so, but this is a point which is more appropriately argued at the Examination into the CELP, where the full range of views – and the data to support those views – would be before the Inspector. As commented above, it is not appropriate at a s.78 inquiry, where only two parties are represented, to come to firm conclusions on the assumptions made, methodology used and eventual reliability of the various projections.

10.61 Whereas, according to Hunston, the ‘policy on’ figure has to be regarded as the housing need, in practice this would seem to be a figure which has been arrived at by applying established or higher-level policies and which has the effect of supressing or constraining the requirement [6.62]. Following the advice in PPG, formulating a housing requirement for a local plan needs to take account of economic modelling, market factors etc., [6.63], and has to take account of previous ‘policy on’ constraints and how those have influenced past performance, before applying these factors and influences to arrive at a figure which reflects the needs of the local authority area.

10.62 The ‘policy on’ adjustment would only be applied at that stage, and – as was the case in Hunston – seemingly only where this is likely to lead to the need to adjust the need figure downwards to arrive at a requirement which would be achievable given the constraints. It would be inconsistent with paragraph 150 of NPPF - which says that local plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities - to accept that matters such as migration and demographic change, economic modelling, market factors, and growth aspirations are part of the ‘policy on’ stage of identifying the housing requirement. Such factors are part of the process of identifying the “vision and aspiration”. Gallagher says that ‘policy on’ could lead to a figure higher than the FOAN. In this case there are no overriding ‘policy on’ factors (such as Green Belt, National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designations) [6.51] which would require the housing need assessment to be adjusted downwards on the basis that it was not possible to accommodate the aspirations which have been factored into the preparation of the local plan. The CELP does envisage some adjustments to the Green Belt boundaries, but this is not perceived to be an overriding constraint affecting the ambitions of the Council.

176 Document SB4, Para 3.11

234 10.63 Taking account of the above, and in particular noting what the CELP itself says is the FOAN, until such time as the CELP figures have been tested at Examination and carried forward in to an adopted local plan, it would be reasonable to accept that the FOAN for East Cheshire is the figure given in the CELP; that is, an average of 1,350 dwellings per annum. Accordingly, this should be taken as the basis for assessing the 5-year housing land supply. To accept the lower figure of 1,150 would imply acceptance of, or possibly support for, a housing strategy outcome that is below one which is adjusted for historic economic downturns or supressed needs, and which would not reflect the aspirations of the local plan prepared by the Council.

10.64 If the figures in the CELP are to be taken as the basis of assessing whether the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply, Policy PG 1 and paragraph 8.19 of the CELP sets out a phased ‘ramping up’ of the housing supply provision, with 1,200 dwelling per year given as the figure for 2010-2015 [5.94]. With 27,000 as the overall 20-year aspiration, this would require a rate of supply increasing progressively from 1,200, to 1,300, then 1,400, and finally 1,500 per annum over four successive 5-year periods. However, this phased incremental strategy has not been tested at Examination and, it was noted at the inquiry, this approach is the subject of objections [5.96].

5% or 20% buffer

10.65 Paragraph 47 of NPPF requires a buffer of sites to be available, above the number of sites needed to satisfy the FOAN. This should be 5% where the availability of sites is sufficient to meet the FOAN. Where there has been a persistent under delivery of housing the buffer should be increased to 20%.

10.66 The housing supply (or delivery as it is termed in NPPF) is the number of completions over a given period. The approach in NPPF suggests that, even if sufficient sites had been made available, if these were not built out at a rate which corresponds with the FOAN, then the response to this is to make a greater number of sites available, giving a greater opportunity for sites to be completed and for overall performance not to be distorted or depressed by sites being left undeveloped, or built-out at a slower rate.

10.67 In this context, the 20% is not be interpreted as a penalty; as explained in NPPF, it would only draw forward allocations which would otherwise be programmed later into the plan period [6.72]. That is, it only seeks to boost the rate of supply within the planned FOAN, not to increase the total number overall.

10.68 The Council argued that housing construction has been supressed by economic recession and market conditions, and recent past performance does not necessarily indicate what can – or should – be achieved. It was argued that performance over a longer period should be taken as the indicator of what should be a realistic assessment of what can be achieved, in that this would even out troughs and peaks in the housing supply [5.77]. This would be consistent with PPG advice at paragraph 3-035.

10.69 It is true that the recent economic recession does not represent a typical period in the economy where finance to support house construction and purchases has been constrained. It may therefore, be unfair to treat the

235 period from 2009 – 2014 as representative of a ‘normal’ rate of completions in Cheshire East. A longer view would give a fairer indication.

10.70 Figures produced by the Council at the inquiry (Document CEC16) show that 10,400 houses were completed over the period 2005-2014, an annual average of 974. Looking at this performance on a year-by-year basis, the period 2003-2010 has to set against a delivery target of 1,150 – the figure set by the RS in BCNRLP - and thereafter against the delivery target of 1,350 in CELP. Taking the Council’s table CEC16 and applying the 1,350 figure against the relevant years gives the following results:

Table 1 – Performance against local plan housing numbers (CELP average)

Completi BCNRLP / Under/ Cumulative % of plan ons CELP over figure Year provision 2003/04 1,264 1,150 114 114 110% 2004/05 1,287 1,150 137 251 112% 2005/06 1,498 1,150 348 599 130% 2006/07 1,295 1,150 145 744 113% 2007/08 1,365 1,150 215 959 118% 2008/09 741 1,150 -409 550 64% 2009/10 634 1,150 -516 34 55% 2010/11 466 1,350 -884 -850 34% 2011/12 535 1,350 -815 -1,665 39% 2012/13 652 1,350 -698 -2,363 48% 2013/14 663 1,350 -687 -3,050 49% Total to 10,400 13,450 -3,050 -3,050 77% 2013/14 Average 974 1,223

10.70 From Table 1 it can be seen that the completions exceeded the development plan requirement over the period 2003-2008. Thereafter, performance dipped dramatically such that against the 1,350 figure between only 34% and 49% was completed in any one year. The drop in performance against the development plan expectation since 2008 can be explained by the impact of the recession, but even taking an average over the 11 year period recorded in the table above, only 77% of the development requirement has been delivered.

10.71 There has been a period of six consecutive years (2008-2014) where there has been a shortfall. Whereas these years correspond with the period of the economic recession, this is a continuous six-year period where delivery has been significantly below expectations (from 64% down to as low as 34%). This shows that the record of under-delivery has been consistent and therefore it would be appropriate to apply a buffer of 20%.

236 Backlog

10.72 To this calculated supply figure has to be added the backlog of dwellings not completed. Paragraph 3-035 of PPG acknowledges that a variety of factors may be relevant in assessing which buffer should be applied. Indeed, the guidance acknowledges that there is no universally applicable test or definition of under delivery, and hence there is scope for discretion over how this is to be assessed, depending on the circumstances and local history of delivery. With no firm guidance on methodology on how to conclude on whether the 5% or 20% buffer should be applied, it may be helpful to assess the situation by using the data in a variety of formulations.

10.73 The Council contend that the net backlog is 1,763 dwellings, based on performance since April 2003 – March 2013 and assessed against the RS requirement of 1,150 dwelling per year. Using the Council’s figures set out in Document CEC16, this figure rises to 2,250 by March 2014.

10.74 The appellant argues that the backlog is 2,913 dwellings, derived from shortfall against the CELP average figure of 1,350 dwelling per annum over the period the emerging local plan is intended to apply (April 2010 – December 2013 – 3 years, 9 months). The information on CEC16 allows that figure to be up-dated for four full years, which would come to 3,084.

10.75 Using Table 1 set out above, the backlog over the period used by the Council, but using the RS/BCNRLP figure of 1,150 until 2010, and the CELP figure of 1,350 thereafter, the backlog is 3,050 – a very similar figure to that argued by the appellant.

10.76 Document HG 13 (produced by the appellant) notes that the Council had claimed 487 completions as an allowance against C2 / student accommodation. The appellant does not accept this in their summary of housing land supply because to include it would not be consistent with the advice in PPG177 that an allowance can only be made for this type of accommodation if it is specifically factored into the local plan. At the inquiry the Council accepted that the local plan does not make specific allowance for C2 / student accommodation and it was not factored in to the July 2014 update of the Position Statement (Document CEC 16).

10.78 The approach favoured by PPG178 is that the shortfall should be made up in the first five years, rather than spread over the whole plan period. That is, the five year supply requirement is 1,350 x 5 = 6,750 + 3,050 = 9,800 +20% (1,960), gives a total 5 year requirement of 11,760. This represents 2,352 dwellings per year over the next five years.

10.79 Table 2 below sets out the same analysis, but applied to the CELP Policy PG 1 incremental approach. With 1,150 per year for 2009-2010 (the RS/BCNRLP period) and 1,200 per year for 2010-2014, the situation is not so severe, with completions of 10,400 against a total requirement of 12,850, which gives a cumulative backlog of 2,450 (10,400 would represent 81% of the reduced

177 PPG paragraph 3-037 178 PPG paragraph 3-035

237 requirement). This would still trigger the need for a 20% buffer as 2,450 would be a persistent (i.e. six consecutive years 2008-2014) shortfall during the 11 year period of 19%. The 5 year requirement would be 1,150 + (4 x 1,200) = 5,950 +2,450 = 8,400 + 1,680 (20%): a total 5 year requirement of 10,080. This would represent 2,016 dwellings per year over the next five years. However, because this incremental approach is subject to objections at the local plan Examination this alternative analysis has to be regarded with considerable reserve.

Table 2 – Performance against local plan housing numbers (CELP incremental strategy)

Completi BCNRLP / Under/ Cumulative % of plan ons CELP over figure Year provision 2003/04 1,264 1,150 114 114 110% 2004/05 1,287 1,150 137 251 112% 2005/06 1,498 1,150 348 599 130% 2006/07 1,295 1,150 145 744 113% 2007/08 1,365 1,150 215 959 118% 2008/09 741 1,150 -409 550 64% 2009/10 634 1,150 -516 34 55% 2010/11 466 1,200 -734 -700 39% 2011/12 535 1,200 -665 -1,365 45% 2012/13 652 1,200 -548 -1,913 54% 2013/14 663 1,200 -537 -2,250 55% Total to 10,400 12,850 -2,450 -2,450 81% 2013/14 Average 974 1,168

Housing supply

10.80 Paragraph 158 of NPPF says that housing need in a local authority area should be prepared in the context of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), and this should be used in conjunction with the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to establish realistic assumptions about the deliverability of potential sites to meet the identified need.

10.81 The Council’s latest assessment of the supply position is shown in document CEC 15. This gives a figure of 9,652 sites either with planning permission, under construction, allocated sites likely to come forward within the next five years (ie the SHLAA sites) and an allowance for windfalls. However, this assessment has not been arrived at in discussion and agreement with the industry through the Housing Market Partnership [6.79].

10.82 Evidence given by the appellant was that there has been no agreement on matters such as the realistic build-rate on sites with permission or likely to come forward, either on account of the number of builders who might be

238 working on a larger site, or the rate of construction on other sites. The 2013 SHLAA applied a build rate of 50 dwellings per annum on sites of over 200 dwellings, or 30 dwellings per annum where only one builder is involved. For 2014 the Council has unilaterally adopted different assumptions about lead-in times and build rates.

10.83 The Council’s evidence (Document GCS 1, paragraph 8.1) gives the Council’s view of build rates – which is an average of 13 completions per year for sites of 10-49 dwellings, 26 per year for sites of 50-100 dwellings, and 30 per year for sites of over 100. However, the Council’s 2014 Position Statement has been prepared using rates which are higher than this. The support for this is seen in the views of developers at recent planning inquiries, where start dates and build rates have been much more optimistic. Looking at other large sites across the north-west, higher build rates have been achieved in places such as Warrington and Chorley, where (for instance) there may be a larger overall market demand.

10.84 The stance taken at this inquiry differs from the Council’s December 2013 Position Statement on both build rates and lead-in times. The latest rates agreed between the industry and the Council are given in the 2013 SHLAA. Up-dating the 2013 SHLAA, and using the same assumptions, the appellant comes to a supply figure of 7,903 sites. The appellant characterises this as “more realistic yet still ambitious”.179 Against the annual requirement of 2,352, 7,903 represents 3.36 years land supply. If the Council’s assessment of supply of 9,652 is used, this would represent 4.10 years land supply.

10.85 If the CELP incremental approach is taken as the basis for assessing the situation then there is an annual requirement of 2,016 (10,080 over 5 years). In which case, 7,903 represents 3.92 years and 9,652 represents 4.78 years.

10.86 The Council’s latest view on the number of available sites has to be treated with some caution. Firstly, developers appearing at inquiries are likely to be more optimistic about start dates and rates of completions if they are seeking permission in areas where it is thought that the completions rate has fallen below the local plan requirement or the SHMA assessment. They may be keen to promote the view that their site would be available to make an early and significant contribution to the shortfall. Secondly, the market condition in other locations (Warrington and Chorley are referred to in the Council’s evidence) may not be comparable to Cheshire East. The SHLAA process is intended to produce an agreed estimate of availability, and the value of a unilateral interpretation has to be limited or questionable. Having said that, it is not a predictive process, but does no more than produce a ‘best guess’ based on experience, local knowledge and past performance.

10.87 Even allowing for the fact that performance on particular sites can vary from the SHLAA base assumptions in any one year, and evidence showing that specific sites in Cheshire East have recently had short lead-in times for the commencement of development, the Council’s unilateral stance is contrary to the advice in PPG which states that the preferred approach to assessing housing land availability should through the mechanism of the SHLAA. This

179 (Document SB 4, paragraph 5.17).

239 being so, and using the figures based on the SHLAA put forward by the appellant, at the time of this inquiry there was a shortfall of 3,857 available sites (11,760 – 7,903). Even with the alternative incremental approach the shortfall would be 2,177 (10,080 – 7,903).

10.88 There are two scenarios which would be seen as giving a 5-year supply within Council’s availability figure of 9,652. The first is based upon the up-dated Position Statement which the Council presented at the inquiry (Document CEC 16). That relies upon the RS/BCNRLP figure of 1,150 remaining as the requirement throughout and applying a 5% buffer. That calculates as 1,150 x 5 = 5,750 + 2,450 = 8200 + 410 (5%) = 8,610, or 1,722 per annum. Against that, 9,652 represents 5.6 years supply.

10.89 The second scenario is if the incremental strategy of CELP is used and a 5% buffer is applied. That scenario would give a figure of 5,950 + 2,450 = 8400 + 420 (5%) = 8,820, or 1,764 per annum. Against that, 9,652 represents 5.47 years supply.

10.90 The appellant’s supply figure of 7,903 - which has been derived by a methodology in line with the PPG approach - would leave a shortfall of 707 (or 4.58 years supply) against the first scenario and 917 (or 4.48 years supply) under the second.

10.91 However, for the reasons set out above, the RS/BCNRLP figures are not relevant after 2011 and the CELP incremental approach should be regarded with a degree of caution. Also, the Council has been selective in accepting the PPG guidance in how it justifies its view of availability; whereas it accepts that it should not now include an allowance for C2 housing, it does not accept that it should follow the SHLAA agreed approach to assessing availability. Furthermore, it would be quite a flexible interpretation of the NPPF and PPG advice to regard six consecutive years of shortfall, and an overall performance over an 11 year period of between 77% and 81% against requirement, as anything but persistent under-supply. In my view, the Council’s position on housing supply has been inconsistent in how it conforms with NPPF and PPG guidance, and its understanding of whether there has been a persistent under-supply is not well founded.

10.92 That is, on the basis that whatever figure given in the CELP is used (1,350 or the incremental 1,200), under either approach and adopting a 20% buffer, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of available sites in accordance with the expectations and guidance of NPPF and PPG. This would trigger the presumption in favour of sustainable development given at paragraph 49 of NPPF. Two scenarios – where a 5% buffer is applied – could meet the Council’s estimate of presently available sites; but there are considerable doubts about whether 5% is the appropriate buffer and whether the Council’s view of the number of currently available building sites is justifiable. In my view, neither of these contentions is robust.

10.93 The paragraph 49 presumption reinforces the situation discussed above that the relevant adopted policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. However, whether it is appropriate to allow the appeal and grant planning permission also requires consideration of whether the

240 scheme represents sustainable development. It also needs to be considered against the caveat in paragraph 14 of NPPF noted at paragraph 10.13 above.

3. The effect of the proposed development on the free flow of traffic on the surrounding road network.

10.94 The appeal site lies to the south of Crewe. Access to the town would be, at least in part, via Crewe Road and Gresty Road (B5071), to where it joins the Nantwich Road (A534) in the centre of the town, close to the railway station. Traffic would also disperse onto the wider road network along the A500 and A51 towards Nantwich, and to the east towards the M6 along the A534 and A5020. At the inquiry it was accepted that, with contributions offered through s.106 planning obligations, improvements could be made to junctions on the A51 / A500 (Cheerbrook Roundabout) and the A534 / 5020 (Crewe Green Roundabout) to accommodate the traffic generated by the appeal scheme. The submitted undertakings include such contributions [9.19]. However, what remained at dispute was whether the B5071 corridor (Gresty Road/South Street) could accommodate the additional traffic without creating unacceptable delays for road users.

10.95 No development plan policy was cited in the putative reason for refusal (No.7), but paragraph 32 of NPPF is referred to. The relevant part of paragraph 32 requires that where new development is being proposed consideration should be given as to whether improvements could be made to the transport network to cost effectively limit significant impacts of development. It goes on to say that only where the residual cumulative impacts are severe should development be prevented.

10.96 Gresty Road is a typical urban road, with one lane of traffic in each direction for most of its length. As it approaches Nantwich Road, Gresty Road forks off to the right at a point opposite the junction with Catherine Street (referred to as Junction 4 at the inquiry), with the main flow of B5071 northbound traffic (as indicated by road markings) continuing along South Street to its junction with Nantwich Road / Mill Street – (referred to as Junction 5 at the inquiry) [5.106].

10.97 There is a degree of disagreement over how the relevant traffic model has been calibrated to portray traffic in 2030. This has given rise to disagreement over how much additional traffic would pass along Gresty Road. However, it is accepted by the appellant that the proposed scheme would increase the traffic flow along B5071 and through the two junctions. The disagreement is fundamentally as to whether the residual additional delay – after taking into account all other alterations to the traffic network around Crewe – would be so severe as to be unacceptable.

10.98 These junctions are heavily used at present – as confirmed by local residents either at the inquiry or in the written representations [7.5]. Along the Nantwich Road traffic is also congested in the vicinity of Junction 5 – slowing the free-flow of traffic out of South Street / Gresty Road. Nantwich Road traffic is notably slow because of the width of the A534 over the railway at the station (known locally as Station Top) and the amount of traffic passing through the Nantwich Road / Macon Way / Weston Road roundabout (known as the Crewe Arms Roundabout) immediately to the east of Station Top

241 [2.12]. It can take 8½ minutes to travel the ½ mile northwards from the Gresty Bridge (where the B5071 passes beneath the railway line) to the Nantwich Road in the morning peak [5.106]. Understandably, local residents do not want their journey times unreasonably extended as a consequence of the appeal scheme.

10.99 Considerable changes are due to be introduced to the local highway network in advance of committed or planned new development. Construction has just started on the Basford West Spine Road, and work is due to start in the foreseeable future on the Crewe Green Link Road South, which will link the A500 east of the railway line to the present Crewe Green Link Road (A5020) at Crewe Green Roundabout [5.108]. The design of these new roads has not taken into account the possibility development on the current appeal site, but they will offer some alternative routes for journeys into Crewe from the south; thereby potentially relieving some of the traffic from Gresty Road.

10.100 The Council calculate that, allowing for the completion of Basford West Link Road and Crewe Green South Link Road the appeal scheme would result in delays in the order of 128 seconds per vehicle at Junction 5 – which is an increase of 50 seconds over the present 78 second delay noted in the Transport Assessment which supported the planning application. This, it argues, would not be acceptable [5.116].

10.101 However, this position would be inconsistent with the Cheshire East Transport Models Review Highway Impacts and Mitigation study which is one of the inputs to the preparation the CELP. This modelled the traffic impact of various distributions of development around Crewe, to test if the highway network could cope. Key junctions across the network were identified and the impact of additional traffic was graded from dark Green (up to 0-30 seconds delay), light Green (30-120 seconds delay), Yellow (120-300 seconds delay), Orange (300-600 seconds delay) and Red (more than 600 seconds delay.

10.102 Option 2 included 1,261 houses at south Crewe /Rope (including the appeal site), and Option 6 was seen to be “testing the network to destruction”, with the traffic for 2,391 dwellings to the south of Crewe through the B5071 corridor. The modelling identified Junction 5 as a key junction (but not Junction 4). The results of the modelling showed that the effect on the B5071 corridor would be up to 120 seconds (ie a ‘light Green’ categorisation) [6.82, 6.83].

10.103 That modelling was for strategic purposes and might be regarded as too coarse to assess the impacts on specific junctions. More detailed evidence was presented at the inquiry, which addressed the likely impact on Junctions 4 and 5. This shows that the maximum delay on one arm of Junction 5 would be 185 seconds, with other arms experiencing 177 and 174 second delays (the present maximum delay is 108 seconds). 185 seconds would be more than a 3 minute delay on a junction which has a modelled two minute cycle time. However, taking account of the Impact and Mitigation study, the Council has accepted that delays of up to 5 minutes (300 seconds) would be acceptable [6.82, 6.89].

242 10.104 The appellants acknowledge that the additional traffic would exacerbate the delays at the Junction 4, but contend that traffic lights – or, if traffic lights are not seen to be beneficial, some other means of traffic management - would offer some improvement. The Council disagree that traffic management at this junction would be sufficient mitigation to justify withdrawing its objections to the appeal scheme. However, in the event that the appeal is allowed, the appellants have offered a contribution towards the installation of traffic lights, or an alternative type of management, such that delays are minimised [6.91]. In any event, even with delays of 185 seconds, this would be within what the Council regard as “acceptable” for local plan purposes [6.82, 6.89].

10.105 Drawing these points together, allowing for the relief to local traffic conditions which would be introduced by Basford West Link Road and Crewe Green South Link Road, the residual impact of the proposed development would be additional delays to traffic at junctions in Gresty Road. Nevertheless, the junction which is said to be most affected (Junction 4) is not seen to be a key junction for traffic modelling purposes in the Impacts and Mitigation study. That is, although the proposed scheme would have a negative impact on the free flow of traffic through Junctions 4 and 5, the residual cumulative impacts would not be severe, and accordingly permission should not be refused on the grounds of an unacceptable impact on the local highway network.

10.106 The matter of prematurity is addressed at paragraph 21b-014 of PPG.

10.107 As noted above, the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan (BCNRLP) was written to cover the period up to 2011 [10.15]. The plan is therefore, for structural and strategic purposes at least, out of date and has to be replaced. Cheshire East Council has commenced preparation of the Cheshire East Local Plan (CELP). The CELP has been through several stages of drafts and public consultation and has reached the point where a draft has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination [3.3]. That Examination has now commenced, with hearing sessions due to commence in September.

10.108 NPPF emphasises that the planning system should be “genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings”180. It goes on to say that local plans should reflect the vision and aspirations of local communities181. The expectation is that local plans should “indicate broad locations for strategic development”182 and “identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental or historic significance”183. That is, the initiative for identifying locations for new

180 NPPF paragraph 17: 1st bullet point. 181 NPPF paragraph 150 182 NPPF paragraph 157: 4th bullet point 183 NPPF paragraph 157: 7th bullet point

243 development and, just as importantly, where development should not take place, ought to lie with the local community. There is no neighbourhood plan either adopted or in preparation for Shavington and the surrounding area, and thus it is CELP, as endorsed by the democratically elected Members of the Council, which represents the most up-to-date expression of local preferences and intentions – albeit only as a draft plan going through Examination.

10.109 There is a tension where there is no adopted up to date local plan – as in this present case. In this appeal I have come to the view that the Council cannot demonstrate that it has a 5-years supply of deliverable housing sites, which would trigger the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at paragraph 49 of NPPF.

10.110 The key phrase here is the need to assess whether relevant policies of the BCNRLP (my emphasis) can be considered out of date. With BCNRLP housing numbers intended to carry forward the intentions of the Regional Strategy, and then only until 2011 that aspect of the plan is clearly out of date and so too are any policies which identify areas for new development and – as a corollary – those areas where development should be resisted.

10.111 However, it would not be correct to consider these restrictive policies wholly irrelevant. Whereas Policy NE.2 is a policy which seeks to resist development in the open countryside, that is still an objective which is in accordance with the core planning principles of NPPF184. That is, the restrictive urban boundary will have to be pulled back to allow more development to take place in appropriate locations where it is justified by an assessment of need and supply. In those locations Policy NE.2 would no longer apply. But beyond those new development locations, Policy NE.2 would, having regard to paragraph 215 of NPPF, remain relevant.

10.112 The Council recognises this circumstance and has itself allowed significant new development in locations which are covered by Policy NE.2. The most significant of these which was referred to at this inquiry was a planning permission for 1,100 new dwellings at Kingsley Fields [5.101]. Similarly, a number of housing developments have been allowed on appeal recently by Planning Inspectors in places which had been subject to Policy NE.2 protection. That is, neither the Council - nor Planning Inspectors - have adopted an ‘in principle’ embargo on new development until such time as the CELP has been adopted. Neither would it be correct to do so in view of the lack of a 5-year land supply, and the possibility that, in response to representations made against the CELP, modifications may have to formulated, publicised and examined before a final version of the Plan could be adopted. When that might be is not known, but it is clearly going to be several months into the future.

10.113 I have come to the view that development of the proposed site would not result in unacceptable harm to the countryside – if only on the basis that the site is no more and no less prominent or sensitive than perhaps many, if not most, other urban fringe locations around Crewe. The Council is keen to

184 NPPF paragraph 17: 5th bullet point

244 promote Crewe as a centre for economic growth [6.65] and hence – in general terms - the loss of peripheral sites such as this is inevitable, however much local residents may wish it were not so.

10.114 For similar reasons I have also come to the view that the consequent loss of some of the best and most versatile agricultural cannot be a bar to permitting development in this sort of location. And I come to the same view on the potential of the proposed scheme to change the context of, and the permanent loss of a proportion of, the ‘important hedgerows’. Again, such changes may be matters for regret and should, if at all possible, be avoided if there are other sites which can meet the immediately identified need.

10.115 The proposed scheme would have an impact on the capacity and free-flow of the local highway network but this can, for the most part, be mitigated by off-site works along the A51 and A534. There is likely to be a noticeable adverse impact on the free-flow of traffic through junction 4 and 5 (as discussed above), but this too can be at least ameliorated by traffic management works. In any event, the degree of additional delays would be within what the Council have acknowledged to be “acceptable” in the work which has contributed to the evolution of the Local Plan.

10.116 All of the above would point to it being acceptable to permit the appeal scheme – but for the one reservation noted at paragraph 10.44 above: the loss of part of the Green Gap which lies between Crewe and Shavington.

10.117 The CELP is portrayed as a plan which seeks to promote Crewe as a priority growth centre [6.65], but the Council holds the view that growth should not overwhelm the recognisable independent character of Crewe. This philosophy extends to the towns and villages around Crewe, where the CELP seeks to retain and maintain a degree of separation between Crewe and its satellite settlements. This would be for urban design (or countryside protection) reasons, and for social or cultural reasons where those living in the satellite areas wish to maintain a separate identity; they do not wish to see their village absorbed into a larger urban area [7.4].

10.118 To support this aim, CELP includes a draft policy which would maintain and strengthen the separation. It is proposed that the Green Belt to the south east of Crewe (ie the North Staffordshire Green Belt around Stoke on Trent) should be extended so that it includes a wide swathe of land to the south and south-west of Crewe, and to the east [5.125]. This would prevent Crewe and Nantwich merging together, and would also place villages, including Shavington within the Green Belt. This is included in CELP only as a proposal for an Area of Search for Green Belt extensions: no proposed Green Belt boundaries are included in CELP. As paragraph 8.54 of CELP explains, this seen to be a matter for the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document. This is set out at Policy PG 3 of CELP and Figure 8.2 (document CD 6.1).

10.119 At present, the divide between Crewe and its satellite settlements is maintained by the Green Gap policy of BCNRLP (Policy NE.4), the extent of

245 which is shown on the BCNRLP Proposals Map185. CELP Policy PG 3 effectively seeks to convert these Green Gaps into an integral part of the Green Belt, thereby strengthening the policy objective of maintaining separation.

10.120 At the inquiry it was made clear that the CELP Green Belt proposals are the subject of representations to be considered at the CELP Examination. Furthermore, the CELP is only seeking to establish an area of search at this time. That is, both the principle of an enlarged Green Belt and the extent over which such restrictions should apply are far from settled. It may be that the exceptional circumstances that paragraph 83 of NPPF requires to justify a change in the Green Belt boundaries will not be demonstrated [6.99]. In which case, in view of the draft status of the CELP and the uncertainty over the viability of the Plan’s wishes for an extended Green Belt, let alone the precise extent, this cannot be given much weight in this appeal.

10.121 However, as noted above, the Green Belt proposals seek to maintain and carry forward the policy of separation which has been embodied in the Green Gap policy (BCNRLP Policy NE.4). That policy has an established pedigree in that both the principle and its boundaries were endorsed by the Inspector who conducted the Local Plan inquiry in 2001. It is a popular policy locally and one which has – for the most part – been supported and applied since at least 2001.

10.122 The Green Gap policy is not simply a housing restraint policy. It is a policy which seeks to retain a sense of separation between settlements which is more than just preventing built development; it is, to a large degree, a policy which seeks to satisfy a social, cultural or even psychological desire held by residents in the satellite settlements. Accordingly, Policy NE.4 need not be considered out-of-date in the terms of paragraph 14 of NPPF; its objectives and purpose are still valid and the Council seek to carry this forward into the CELP (albeit as a proposed Green Belt policy). Such an objective (if not the actual policy) is in accordance with paragraphs 154 and 157 of NPPF. In this context it would be premature to release Green Gap sites to meet an arguably short-term shortfall in housing land supply as it would result in the permanent loss of the present sense and extent of separation. The status, retention and geographical extent of the Green Gaps are for the CELP Examination to assess.

10.123 There is no consistent width for the Green Gap as it is defined around Crewe on the BCNRLP Proposals Map (Document CEC 21). The degree of separation between Shavington and Basford West (shown as allocation site E.3.1 on CEC 21) is in the order of 250 m; which is similar to the degree of separation which would remain should the appeal scheme be developed. That is, a Green Gap of this width is not seen to be incompatible with the objectives of Policy NE.4.

10.124 It is relevant to note that the Council has itself agreed to permit development in advance of the adoption of CELP, and on sites where there has been local opposition and where representations have been made. The

185 Document CEC 21

246 most blatant of these is at Kingsley Fields for 1,100 houses [5.101]. The Council did not feel constrained to resist or withhold a decision on that scheme on grounds of prematurity [6.104]. Also, CELP proposes development on land which is presently within a Green Gap – at Sydney Road [6.103]186 - and hence development in a presently defined Green Gap is not wholly unacceptable to the Council.

10.125 Inspectors have allowed on appeal development on Green Gap sites, including one on Rope Lane, Shavington187, south of the A500 which is in the Green Gap in the vicinity of this appeal site; but it should be noted that that appeal decision pre-dates the submission version of CELP. Development has been allowed on appeal more recently (1 August 2014) on land north of Moorfields, Willaston – also within a Green Gap188. That is, release of significant areas of land for housing which are not in accord with BCNRLP, and may, or may not, accord with draft proposals of CELP have been approved by the Council and Inspectors.

10.126 Whereas other sites in the Green Gaps have been granted planning permission, either on appeal or by the Council, these have been mostly for smaller scale schemes and which would not have such an obvious impact on the scale and purpose of the Green Gaps on those localities as the present appeal scheme.

10.127 To conclude on this fourth main consideration, it is my view that to allow the appeal and permit the proposed development would undermine the plan- making process insofar as it concerns the proposed Green Belt (and the interim retention of Green Gap policy NE.4), in that it would predetermine the location of new development (or its corollary - prevent the confirmation of an area where development will not be permitted) which could be seen to be central to an emerging local plan which has been submitted for examination. Whether reducing the width of the Green Gap here, to match that in other locations around Crewe, would be acceptable in principle should be a matter for the CELP Examination. In which case, planning permission for the appeal scheme would be premature.

Other Matters

10.128 Interested persons raised a number of points, either at the inquiry or in written submissions. I comment below on those which have not already been addressed in this Report.

10.129 It was claimed that the site is within the Green Belt [8.2]. The site is accepted by all parties to the appeal to be in a Green Gap, but it is not in the North Staffordshire Green Belt. That is, it is not covered by Green Belt policies nor do the particular considerations set out at paragraphs 79-92 of NPPF apply in this case.

186 Document CD 6.1, Site CS 5, pp 207-209 187 Document GCS 1, Appendix 3 188 Document HG 24

247 10.130 It was argued that the Green Gap between Shavington and Crewe is a lung for the area [7.3]. Other than it being undeveloped at present, the appeal site does not have public access for recreation or even walking on public footpaths. The site’s value as a ‘lung’ is therefore limited, for practical purposes, to only it being part of a visual break between Shavington and Crewe.

10.131 Any increase in traffic has the potential to add to air pollution. Crewe is being proposed as a centre for growth in the CELP and an increase in air pollution attributable to the expansion of the urban area could be an inevitable consequence of that strategy. If that is a supportable strategy overall – and it is one being actively promoted by the Council – then an increase in air pollution cannot be regarded as an overriding objection.

10.132 The highway concerns relating to the width of, and pedestrian safety on, the roads close to the appeal site expressed by local residents are not supported by the Council’s highway evidence. The proposed scheme takes into account the likely increase in traffic on local roads and provision is made for improvements to matters such as footpaths in the vicinity of the school.

10.133 The developer is aware of the potential flood risk associated with Swill Brook and the scheme is designed to avoid exacerbating present problems. Planning conditions on a planning permission for the scheme can require the prior consideration of details of flood protection on the site and the need to avoid any potential consequent impacts in the wider area.

10.134 Service providers were consulted as part of the application process and these had the opportunity to point out if they would not be able to support the proposed scheme, or that developer contributions would be required to accommodate any increased demand. No specific evidence – in terms of current capacity and numbers of users - was brought to the inquiry by those raising these points to demonstrate which services are at capacity.

10.135 The application is only in outline and details such as proximity to the school of parking areas and playing fields are matters which can be addressed at detail stage.

10.136 The opportunity to take brownfield sites before a greenfield site will be explored at the Local Plan Examination. Having said that, it is unlikely that all of the development needs within the CELP area could be met solely on brownfield land. The loss of greenfield land per se cannot be regarded as an overriding objection to the proposed scheme.

10.137 The appeal site is open countryside at present and it is highly likely that it supports some wildlife. The applicant is aware of that possibility and has made accommodation for appropriate mitigation of both legally protected and unprotected species as part of the scheme. This can be reinforced through planning conditions.

10.138 A planning condition can be attached to a planning permission for the scheme to ensure minimal disturbance to local residents arising from works associated with the construction phase.

248 10.139 More development in and around Crewe will almost certainly bring an increased demand for goods and services in the town. The capacity of town centre car parks to adequately meet that increased demand is not a matter for this planning application; that is a general concern which the Council would have to keep under review having regard to its expressed support for a growth strategy for Crewe.

10.140 Whether a pub or retirement village is needed is a commercial judgement for the developer. It is not a planning matter if it is thought that the scheme includes what some think to be commercially unviable elements.

Planning Balance

10.141 Whereas paragraph 49 of NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of a 5-year land supply, that presumption has to be considered in the context of the caveat given at paragraph 14 of NPPF, which says that, where the relevant development plan policies are out-of-date, then permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the polices in the Framework as a whole.

10.142 The Council has been prepared to permit development on other sites identified in the draft CELP and those decisions could also be seen to be premature. However, the sites have been consulted upon and gained support – albeit many are still the subject of unresolved representations. The appeal site is not included as a preferred site in CELP, and therefore does not have the same degree of support locally.

10.143 As noted above, I consider that the proposed scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to the countryside and ‘important hedgerows’, no unacceptable loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, and the traffic impact would be acceptable, allowing for the offered mitigation. Whereas the scheme would narrow the present separation between Crewe and Shavington, more than 200m separation would remain, with the visual and psychological separation reinforced by the route of the A500 dual carriageway.

10.144 Particular benefits claimed for the proposed scheme are noted in Document SB 1 at paragraph 16.13. In summary, these are a contribution to the supply of deliverable housing sites within the 5 year period, so as to help address the shortfall. There would be between 231 and 264 affordable homes – of which there is a notable shortfall in Cheshire East. There would be specialist accommodation for the elderly. The development would be close to Crewe and would minimise journeys for access to goods, employment and services; all of which would be supported by a subsidised bus service. The scheme would include facilities to support the community on the development, including shops, a pub, a primary school, recreation provision, allotments and some employment in a care village. The public would have access to what are categorised as ‘important hedgerows’. The scheme would generate a New Homes Bonus income of £1.5 million per annum [6.53].

249 10.145 Many of these points would indeed be benefits, but these would not be unique to this location. That is, houses, affordable homes, community facilities and associated jobs could be the outcome of development on almost any large site around Crewe. Some of the claimed benefits are simply support for needs arising from the development itself, or mitigation for harm which would only arise if the development is permitted. If the development is not permitted then no mitigation would be necessary.

10.146 The benefits, however extensive they are, have to be weighed against the arguably premature loss of part of the Green Gap between Crewe and Shavington, which might be best considered in the context of the overall strategy of the CELP and its proposal to at least retain the Green Gaps, or possibly upgrade them as part of a Green Belt extension around Crewe.

10.147 The idea of an extended Green Belt around Crewe may be very uncertain at this stage, but the Green Gap has been part of a long established and well- recognised local strategic policy shaping the area in which people live, and establishing areas where it is not appropriate to build. That principle is included in NPPF as being part of sustainable development. CELP does not propose significant re-drawing the Green Gap boundaries in order to release land for development – unlike the circumstances at Rothely / Mountsorrel [6.14, 6.15].

10.148 The question remains of whether the shortfall in housing land supply is so acute that it justifies the premature permanent reduction of this area of Green Gap at this time. The retention, role and extent of the Green Gaps and possible extension of the Green Belt are points which are to be explored at the current Local Plan Examination. A decision to allow development here could reasonably be seen to pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the Local Plan Examination. Having said that, it cannot be overlooked that the Council itself has allowed development elsewhere around Crewe on Green Gap sites [6.13].

Overall Conclusion

10.149 Drawing all of the above points together, the proposed scheme can be seen to be sustainable development. The social role would be represented by more housing, including affordable housing, community facilities and play areas. The economic role would be represented by jobs and investment during the construction phases and the provision of shops and services thereafter. The environmental role would be represented by good accessibility, minimal landscape intrusion, provision of additional landscape planting, maintenance of important hedgerows and management of the flood risk from Swill Brook. But deferring a commitment to the reduction of an area of Green Gap in advance of the conclusion of the Local Plan Examination could also represent sustainable development, according to paragraphs 154 and 157 of NPPF, in the context of what is said at paragraph 6 of NPPF.

10.150 Whereas the scheme can be seen to include many benefits, it is my view that these do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the adverse impacts of approving the development.

250 10.151 The balance is very close and can be reduced quite simply to a choice between the premature permanent loss of part of this Green Gap area and the rejection of an opportunity to address a shortfall in housing land supply. In my view, for the reasons set out above, it would be in accordance with both the NPPF and PPG to regard a planning permission for this proposed development as premature and the appeal should be dismissed.

10.152 If the Secretary of State disagrees with this view, then planning conditions – as discussed at Section 9 of this report and listed in the Appendix – should be attached to a planning permission.

10.153 As noted above [9.24, 9.25] the Section 106 unilateral undertaking includes a contribution of £250,000 for improvements to Junction 4. Whereas installing traffic lights may not be the appropriate response to managing increased flows through this junction, it is very likely that other management measures could be designed to minimise delays and improve traffic flows, and it would be reasonable and related to the development being permitted if the offered contribution were endorsed by the Secretary of State.

11. RECOMMENDATION File Ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2209335

11.1 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. Geoffrey Hill

INSPECTOR

251 APPEARANCES

For the Local Planning Authority: Mr Richard Humphreys QC Instructed by Borough Solicitor He called:

Mr Gerard McKinney BA(Hons) Director: PTB Transport Planning Ltd., MSc MCILT assisted for video evidence by Mr Andrew Sellors Principal Transport Planner: Jacobs Mr Jan Gomulski BA(Hons) BA Principal Landscape Architect MTP Mr Graham Christopher Stock Partner: Deloitte BA(Hons) MA MRTPI AIEMA Mr Ben Haywood BA(Hons) MA Major Applications Team Leader MBA MRTPI MCMI Mrs P Evans Solicitor for Cheshire East Council Mr J Cullen Solicitor for Cheshire East Council

For the Appellant: Mr Jeremy Cahill QC Instructed by Stephen Bell, Turley Planning He called: Mr John Thompson BEng MIHT Project Director: SK Transport Planning Ltd CMILT Mr Iain Reid DipTP DipLD Director: Iain Reid Landscape Planning Ltd MRTPI MLI Mr David Richard Lewis Managing Director: David Hughes Hughes BSc(Hons) FBIAC Agricultural Consultancy Ltd

Mr Richard Morton MIfA Principal Heritage Consultant: Cotswold Archaeology

Mr Stephen Bell BA(Hons) Director: Turley Planning MTPL MRTPI

Interested Persons: Sir Philip Craven Local resident Mr George Ray Local resident Mr B Silvester Councillor, Cheshire East Borough Council

252 Mr D Brickhill Councillor, Cheshire East Borough Council Mr B Squirrell Chairman, Rope Parish Council Mr R Farrington Local resident

DOCUMENTS

PROOFS OF EVIDENCE

For Cheshire East Borough Council witnesses

Mr Gerard McKinney GM 1 Proof of evidence including an “Executive Summary” GM 2 Volume of appendices to proof of evidence GM 3 2 x DVDs of morning and evening peak traffic movements GM 4 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices Mr Jan Gomulski JG 1 Proof of evidence JG 2 Volume of Appendices to proof of evidence JG 3 Summary proof of evidence Mr Graham Christopher Stock GCS 1 Proof of evidence including summary and appendices GCS 2 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices Mr Ben Haywood BH 1 Proof of evidence BH 2 Volume of Appendices to proof of evidence BH 3 Summary proof of evidence BH 4 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices

For HIMOR Group witnesses

Mr John Thompson JT 1 Proof of evidence

JT 2 (i) (ii) 2 Volumes of appendices to proof of evidence JT 3 Summary proof of evidence JT 4 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices Mr Iain Reid IR 1 Proof of evidence including Summary and Conclusions

253 IR 2 Volume of appendices to proof of evidence IR 3 Supplementary (rebuttal) proof of evidence with appendix Mr Richard Morton RM 1 Proof of evidence including Concluding Statement Mr David Richard Lewis Hughes DH 1 Proof of evidence including Conclusions Mr Stephen Bell SB 1 Proof of evidence SB 2 Volume of appendices to proof of evidence SB 3 Summary proof of evidence SB 4 Rebuttal proof of evidence with appendices

SUBMITTED TO THE INQUIRY AS CORE DOCUMENTS

Section CD 1. EIA Scoping CD 1.1 Request for a EIA Scoping Opinion (GVA, 4 March 2013) CD 1.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (GVA, March 2013) CD 1.3 Cheshire East Council Formal Scoping Response (Cheshire East Council, 7 June 2013)

Section CD 2. Original Application Documents (July 2013) CD 2.1 Application Covering Letter to Cheshire East Council (GVA, 12 July 2013) CD 2.2 Application Forms, Certificates and Notices (12 July 2013) CD 2.3 Site Location Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P001) CD 2.4 Application Site Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P002) CD 2.5 Outline Parameters Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P031 Rev D) CD 2.6 Indicative Phasing Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012-019-P034) CD 2.7 Spatial Design Code (e*SCAPE, July 2013) CD 2.8 Illustrative Masterplan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P021 Rev C) CD 2.9 Indicative Phasing Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012_019_P034) CD 2.10 Environmental Statement: Volume 1 – Main Text (GVA, July 2013) CD 2.11 Environmental Statement: Volume 2 – Technical Appendices (GVA, July 2013)

254 CD 2.12 Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary (GVA, July 2013) CD 2.13 Planning Statement (GVA, July 2013) CD 2.14 Statement of Community Involvement (GVA, July 2013) CD 2.15 Design and Access Statement (e*SCAPE, July 2013) CD 2.16 Sustainability and Climate Change Statement (RSK, 5 July 2013) CD 2.17 Outline Utility Strategy (WSP, July 2013) CD 2.18 Officer’s Report to the meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on 5 March 2014 CD 2.19 Minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on 5 March 2014

Section CD 3. Amended Application Documents (May 2014) CD 3.1 Covering letter to Planning Inspectorate (Turley, 12 May 2014) CD 3.2 Outline Parameters Plan (e*SCAPE drawing no 012-019-P031 Rev E) CD 3.3 Illustrative Masterplan (e*SCAPE drawing no. 012-019-P021 Rev D) CD 3.4 Gresty Oaks Spatial Design Code – May 2014 (e*SCAPE ref. 12/019/004/Final) CD 3.5 Covering letter to Planning Inspectorate (Turley, 22 May 2014) CD 3.6 Stage 1 Road Safety Audit: Proposed Accesses Crewe Road and Rope Lane, Crewe (Waterman Aspen, April 2014) CD 3.7 RSA Stage 1 Designer’s Response (SK Transport Planning, May 2014) CD 3.8 Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming Arrangement (SK Transport Planning drawing no. SK21220-004 Rev A) CD 3.9 Crewe Road Access General Arrangement RSA Amendments (SK Transport Planning drawing no. SK21220-010) CD 3.10 Addendum to the Environmental Statement (Turley, June 2014)

Section CD 4. Development Plan CD 4.1 Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 – Written Statement (February 2005) CD 4.2 Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 – Proposals Map (February 2005) CD 4.3 Secretary of State’s Saving Direction (Government Office for the North West, 14 February 2008)

255 CD 4.4 Inspector’s Report of Public Local Inquiry into Objections to the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 (Planning Inspectorate, 5 November 2003)

Section CD 5. National Policy Documents and Guidance CD 5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (Communities and Local Government, March 2012) CD 5.2 Extracts from Planning Practice Guidance (Communities and Local Government, March 2014) CD 5.3 ‘Planning for Growth’ Written Statement to Parliament, The Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State for Decentralisation (23 March 2011) CD 5.4 Laying the Foundations: a housing strategy for England (Communities and Local Government, 21 November 2011) CD 5.5 ‘Housing and Growth’ Written statement to Parliament, The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Communities Secretary (6 September 2012) CD 5.6 HS2 Plus: A Report by David Higgins (March 2014) CD 5.7 Plan for Growth (HM Treasury, March 2011)

Section CD 6. Other Local Documents CD 6.1 Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Submission (Cheshire East Council, March 2014) CD 6.2 Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Policies Map (Cheshire East Council, March 2014) CD 6.3 Interim Planning Policy: Release of Housing Land (Cheshire East Council, February 2011) CD 6.4 Interim Planning Statement on Affordable Housing (Cheshire East Council, February 2011) CD 6.5 Crewe: High Growth City Prospectus, September 2013 CD 6.6 Vulnerable and Older People’s Housing Strategy (Cheshire East Council, May 2014) CD 6.7 North West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (Government Office for the North West, September 2008) CD 6.8 The North West Plan: Submitted Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of England – Technical Appendix (North West Regional Assembly, January 2006) CD 6.9 Cheshire East Housing Strategy: Moving Forward 2011-2016 (Cheshire East Council CD 6.10 Ambition for All: Cheshire East’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2010 to 2025 (Cheshire East Council, 2010)

256 CD 6.11 The Cheshire Historic Landscape Characterisation (Cheshire County Council and English Heritage, November 2007) CD 6.12 Shaping our Future: A Development Strategy for Jobs and Sustainable Communities (Cheshire East Council, 2013) CD 6.13 Cheshire East Local Plan – Pre-Submission Core Strategy – Schedule of Representations by HIMOR Group Ltd (December 2013) CD 6.14 Representations on behalf of HIMOR Group in respect of Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Submission (April 2014) CD 6.15 Document IR 3 (Cheshire and Warrington Enterprise Partnership, March 2014) CD 6.16 Mr Adrian Fisher’s Rebuttal Evidence to Audlem Road inquiry (PINS ref. APP/R0660/A/13/2204723) (undated) CD 6.17 Appendices to Mr Adrian Fisher’s Rebuttal Evidence to Audlem Road inquiry (PINS ref. APP/R0660/A/13/2204723) (undated) CD 6.18 Officer’s Report to the meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on 9 December 2013 in respect of Land to the north east of Sydney Road, Crewe (LPA ref. 13/2055N)

Section CD 7. Evidence Base Documents CD 7.1 Draft Crewe Town Strategy (Cheshire East Council, August 2012) CD 7.2 Cheshire East Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 Update (September 2013) CD 7.3 Draft Core Strategy & CIL Viability Assessment (NCS, October 2013) CD 7.4 All Change for Crewe: High Growth City (Cheshire East Council, September 2013) CD 7.5 New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gap Study (Envision, September 2013) CD 7.6 Cheshire East Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Update (Cheshire East Council, February 2013) CD 7.7 Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement (Cheshire East Council, December 2013) CD 7.8 Local Plan Strategy: Housing Background Paper (Cheshire East Council, March 2014) CD 7.9 Local Plan Strategy Background Paper: Population Projections and Forecasts (Cheshire East Council, March 2014) CD 7.10 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Cheshire East Council, March 2014) CD 7.11 Green Infrastructure Action Plan for Crewe (TEP for Cheshire East Council, 2013)

257 CD 7.12 All Change for Crewe: A Prospectus for Crewe (Cheshire East Council, March 2012)

Section CD 8. Correspondence Pre-Application CD 8.1 CPRE Cheshire Letter of Support (CPRE, 7 January 2013) CD 8.2 Local Planning Authority Pre-Application Advice (Cheshire East Council, 17 April 2013) CD 8.3 Places Matter! Design Review Report (Places Matter!, 28 May 2013) Post-Application CD 8.4 Local Planning Authority Receipt of Application (Cheshire East Council, 16 July 2013) CD 8.5 Places Matter! Design Response (Places Matter!, 19 July 2013) CD 8.6 Crewe Town Council (29 July 2013) CD 8.7 Cheshire East Council Landscape Architect (26 September 2013) CD 8.8 Cheshire East Council Public Rights of Way (1 August 2013) CD 8.9 Cheshire East Council Greenspace (7 August 2013) CD 8.10 Councillor Brian Silvester, Willaston & Rope Ward UKIP Councillor (9 August 2013) CD 8.11 Cheshire East Council Archaeologist (13 August 2013) CD 8.12 Natural England (14 August 2013) CD 8.13 Cheshire East Council Environmental Health (15 August 2013) CD 8.14 Willaston Parish Council (20 August 2013) CD 8.15 Environment Agency (21 August 2013) CD 8.16 Rope Parish Council (22 August 2013) CD 8.17 Shavington Cum Gresty Parish Council (26 August 2013) CD 8.18 Cheshire East Council Countryside Access Officer (28 August 2013) CD 8.19 Cheshire East Council Trees & Forestry (4 September 2013) CD 8.20 Environment Agency (23 September 2013) CD 8.21 Cheshire East Council Strategic Highways and Transport Manager (16 October 2013) CD 8.22 Cheshire East Council Education (17 October 2013) CD 8.23 Applicant response to Consultee Comments (GVA, 18 October 2013) CD 8.24 Applicant response to Draft Consultation Response of the Strategic Highways and Transportation Manager (SK Transport Planning, 21 October 2013)

258 CD 8.25 United Utilities (29 November 2013) CD 8.26 Cheshire East Council Nature Conservation (undated)

Section CD 9. Relevant Secretary of State / Appeal Decisions CD 9.1 SoS Decision in respect of Land off Abbey Road and Middlewich Road, Sandbach, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/10/2141564) (17 October 2013) CD 9.2 Appeal Decision in respect of Land between Station Road and Dudley Road, Honeybourne, Worcestershire (APP/H1840/A/12/2171339) (24 August 2012) CD 9.3 Appeal Decision in respect of Land north of Congleton Road, Sandbach, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/13/2189733) (18 October 2013) CD 9.4 Appeal Decision in respect of Land off Sandbach Road North, Alsager, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/13/2195201) (18 October 2013) CD 9.5 Appeal Decision in respect of Elworth Hall Farm, Dean Close, Sandbach, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/13/2196044) (11 April 2014) CD 9.6 Appeal Decision in respect of Hassall Road, Alsager, Stoke-on-Trent (APP/R0660/A/12/2188001) (12 December 2013) CD 9.7 Appeal Decision in respect of Land at Crewe Road, Crewe, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/12/2170820) (29 January 2014) CD 9.8 Appeal Decision in respect of Land at Gresty Green, Gresty Green Road, Shavington, Crewe (APP/R0660/A/12/2194875) (3 February 2014) CD 9.9 Appeal Decision in respect of Land off The Moorings, Congleton, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/12/2188/604) and Land off Goldfinch Close and Kestrel Close, Congleton, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/12/2188605) (3 February 2014) CD 9.10 SoS Decision in respect of Land at Burgess Farm, Hilton Lane, Worsley, Manchester (APP/U4230/A/11/2157433) (16 July 2012) CD 9.11 Appeal Decision in respect of Land opposite Rose Cottages, Holmes Chapel Road, Brereton Heath, Congleton (APP/R0660/A/13/2192192) (12 February 2014) CD 9.12 Appeal Decision in respect of Land between Leasowes Road and Laurels Road, Offenham, Worcestershire (APP/H1840/A/13/2203924) (7 February 2014) CD 9.13 Appeal Decision in respect of Land South of Moira Road, Ashby-de- la-Zouch (APP/G2435/A/13/2192131) (30 May 2013) CD 9.14 SoS Decision in respect of Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire (APP/F1610/A/11/2165778) (13 February 2013)

259 CD 9.15 SoS Decision in respect of Land off Mountsorrel Lane, Rothley, Leicestershire (APP/X2410/A/13/2196928 and APP/X2410/A/13/2196929) (8 April 2014) CD 9.16 Appeal Decision in respect of Land East of Wolvey Road, Three Pots, Burbage, Leicestershire (APP/K2420/A/13/2202261) (3 January 2014) CD 9.17 Appeal Decision in respect of Rope Lane, Shavington, Crewe, Cheshire (APP/R0660/A/12/2173294) (28 November 2012) CD 9.18 Report to the SoS for Transport relating to Cheshire East Borough Council (Crewe Green Link Road South) Compulsory Purchase Order 2013 (DPI/R0660/13/14) (3 September 2013)

Section CD 10. Relevant High Court / Court of Appeal Judgments CD 10.1 High Court judgment in respect of Hunston Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and St Albans City and District Council [2013] EWHC 2678 (Admin) (5 September 2013) CD 10.02 Court of Appeal judgment in respect of Hunston Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWCA Civ 1610 (12 December 2013) CD 10.3 High Court judgment in respect of South Northamptonshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Barwood Land and Estates Limited [2014] EQHC 573 (Admin) (10 March 2014) CD 10.4 High Court judgment in Gallagher Homes Ltd and Lioncourt Homes Ltd v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) (30 April 2014) CD 10.5 Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Fay and Son Limited; Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hannick Homes and Development Limited; The Queen on the application of Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Hannick [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) (27 November 2013) CD 10.6 Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Cornwall Council [2012] EWHC 914 (Admin) (4 April 2012) CD 10.7 High Court judgment in respect of Bloor Homes East Midlands Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (19 March 2014)

260 CD 10.8 High Court judgment in respect of Anita Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, North Devon District Council, RWE Npower Renewables Limited [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin) (9 May 2013) CD 10.9 South Northamptonshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Robert Plummer [2013] EWHC 4377 (Admin) (10 December 2013) CD 10.10 Tewkesbury Borough Council v SoS, Comparo Limited, Welbeck Strategic Land LLP [2013] EWHC 286 (Admin) (20 February 2013)

Section CD 11. Traffic and Highways Documents CD 11.1 Guidance on Transport Assessment (Department for Transport, 2007) CD 11.2 Local Sustainable Transport Fund Bid (Cheshire East Council) CD 11.3 From Rail Town to High Speed Rail City: A Vision for Crewe (Cheshire East Council, July 2012) CD 11.4 North West Sustainable Checklist (North West Development Agency) CD 11.5 Local Transport Plan 3: 2011 – 2026 (Cheshire East Council, 2011) CD 11.6 Travel Planning Guidance (Cheshire East Council) CD 11.7 Forecasting Report: Crewe Green Link Road South Transport Model (MVA, 2011) CD 11.8 Local Authority Major Schemes Development Pool: Expression of Interest – Crewe Green Link Road South (Cheshire East Council) CD 11.9 Crewe Green Link Road South: Best And Final Funding Bid (Cheshire East Council, 2011) CD 11.10 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD42/95 Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions (Department for Transport, January 1995) CD 11.11 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD50/04 The Geometric Layout of Signal Controlled Junctions and Signalised Roundabouts (Department for Transport, November 2004) CD 11.12 Manual for Streets (Department for Transport, 2007) CD 11.13 Manual for Streets 2 (Department for Transport, 2010) CD 11.14 Making Residential Travel Plans Work (Department for Transport, 2005) CD 11.15 Smarter Choices: Influencing the way we travel (Department for Transport, 2005) CD 11.16 Making Personal Travel Planning Work: Case Studies (Department for Transport, 2007)

261 CD 11.17 Providing for Journeys on Foot (Institution of Highways & Transportation, 2000) CD 11.18 Planning for Public Transport in New Developments (Institution of Highways & Transportation, 1999) CD 11.19 TRICS Good Practice Guide (JMP, 2012 and 2013) CD 11.20 National Travel Survey Table NTS0502 (Department for Transport, 2012) CD 11.21 Cheshire East Transport Models Review: Summary Highway Impacts and Mitigation Proposals for Local Plan Strategy – Final (Cheshire East Council, May 2014) CD 11.22 Crewe: Cheshire East Local Plan Impacts and Mitigation Strategy – Final (Cheshire East Council, May 2014) CD 11.23 Crewe Station Car Park Transport Assessment (MVA) CD 11.24 Update Report to the meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on 6th November 2013 CD 11.25 Technical Note 1: Trip Generation and Assignment (SK Transport Planning, 5th March 2013) CD 11.26 Technical Note 2: Revised Trip Generation Method (SK Transport Planning, 27th March 2013) CD 11.27 Basford West Residential Transport Assessment (Waterman Transport & Development Ltd, January 2013) CD 11.28 CEC Officer’s Report to Strategic Planning Board meeting on 14 August 2013 in respect of Basford West CD 11.29 Extracts from ARCADY 6 User Guide (for drive-on-the-left) (TRL Limited, 2004)

Section 12. Landscape and Visual Impact Documents CD 12.1 Extracts from Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013) CD 12.2 Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland (The Countryside Agency / Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002) CD 12.3 National Character Area Profile 61: Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain (Natural England, April 2014) CD 12.4 Extracts from Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment in respect of Lower Farms and Woodlands (LFW) Landscape Character type and LFW 7: Barthomley Character Area (Cheshire County Council, November 2008) CD 12.5 National Infrastructure Planning Advice Note 9: The Rochdale Envelope (Planning Inspectorate, 2012)

262 Section CD 13. Appeal and Inquiry Documents CD 13.1 Appeal Form CD 13.2 Appellant’s Statement of Case (GVA, November 2013) CD 13.3 LPA’s Statement of Case (Rule 6 Statement) (Cheshire East Council, undated) CD 13.4 Appellant’s Supplementary Statement of Case (Turley, March 2014)

HIMOR GROUP DOCUMENTS

HG 1 Mr Jeremy Cahill QC Opening Statement HG 2 Draft s.106 Unilateral Undertaking (superseded by Document HG 23) HG 3 Draft s.106 Agreement (superseded by Document HG 18) HG 4 Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 HG 5 Note confirming application plans and supporting documents HG 6 Copy of circular letter of Councillor B Silvester HG 7 Plans of comparison sites HG 8 Letter sent to Local Plan Examination team 23/07/14 HG 9 Paper from Town and Country Planning Association – “New estimates of housing demand and need in England 2011-2031” HG 10 DCLG updating household projections to 2011 base HG 11 6 plans identifying heritage assets, landscape features, historic field boundaries HG 12 Schedule of 5 year housing land supply HG 13 5 year housing land supply summary HG 14 Appeal decision: Crewe Road, Shavington - 2210660 HG 15 Appeal decision: 144 Audlem Road - 2204971 HG 16 Draft planning conditions HG 17 Appeal decision: Close Lane - 2203282 HG 18 Certified copy of s.106 Agreement (superseded by Document HG 29) HG 19 High Court decision – Dartford Borough Council [2014] EWHC 2636 (Admin) HG 20 Committee report relating to Kingsley Fields application HG 21 Written response to written representations made by interested persons prior to the inquiry opening HG 22 Plan of hedgerows across site and potential areas of loss

263 HG 23 Draft s.106 Unilateral Undertaking (superseded by Document HG 30) HG 24 Appeal Decision: Land North of Moorfields – 2211721 HG 25 Mr Reid’s note in response to Mr Gomulski’s post-completion assessment (Document CEC 31) HG 26 Mr McKinney’s technical note HG 27 Mr Thompson’s response to Mr McKinney’s note (Document HG 26) HG 28A Appeal Decision: Land off Hind Heath Road – 2212992 HG 28B Costs Decision on application by Richborough Estates Partnership LLP, for Appeal 2212922 HG 29 Certified copy of s.106 Agreement HG 30 s.106 Unilateral Undertaking

CHESHIRE EAST BOROUGH COUNCIL DOCUMENTS

CEC 1 Mr Richard Humphreys QC opening statement CEC 2 Core Document CD 2.11 extract: Environmental Statement Volume 2 Technical Appendices (GVA 2013) - Appendices H, I, J, K CEC 3 Extract from Design Manual for Road and Bridges (appendix B – Local Model Validation Report) CEC 4 Identity of extracts from Mr Mc Kinney’s DVD clips identifying times and locations CEC 5 Extract from Transport Assessment appendix L CEC 6 Extract from Transport Assessment appendix M CEC 7 Letter withdrawing putative reasons for refusal 5 and 6 CEC 8 Sites of objections to 2003 Local Inquiry Plan CEC 9 Extract from Short Titles Act 1896 CEC 10 Copy of Hedgerow Regulations Guidance 1997 CEC 11 Hedgerow Regulations 1997: S1-1997-1160 CEC 12 Summary of Council’s Housing Land Supply Position 25th July 2014 CEC 13 Schedule of disputed sites: agreed note 25th July 2014 CEC 14 Summary of Council Land Supply position 25th July 2014 CEC 15 Summary of Council Land Supply position 25th July 2014; tables 90, 91 and 100 CEC 16 Updated position statement on completions 25th July 2014

264 CEC 17 Closing submissions on appeal 2204971 on behalf of CEBC (R Humphreys QC) CEC 18 Closing submissions on behalf of the appellant for 144 Audlem Road (V Fraser QC) CEC 19A Response to CEBC local plan Inspector’s request for further information 18th July 2014 CEC 19B Annex to go with 19A CEC 20A Correspondence relating to Bovis Homes and Richborough Estates (Build Rates) CEC 20B Correspondence relating to Bovis Homes and Richborough Estates (Build Rates) CEC 20C Correspondence relating to Bovis Homes and Richborough Estates (Build Rates) CEC 21 Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 Proposals Map CEC 22 Appeal Decision 2203883 – Hunter’s Lodge Hotel CEC 23 CIL Statement CEC 24 Saving Direction for Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan policies CEC 25 Extracts from 2003 Local Plan Inspector’s Report identifying objection sites CEC 26 Written response to HIMOR Group’s application for costs (filed in the Costs Application folder on the Appeal File) CEC 27 Note prepared by Mr Stock on Close Lane decision CEC 28 Noted prepared by Mr McKinney and Mr Thompson on traffic modelling CEC 29 Note prepared by Mr Stock on unimplemented planning permissions CEC 30 SHLAA period 4-year schedule – which includes an element of double counting CEC 31 Mr Gomuilski’s post-completion landscape impact assessment of the proposed scheme CEC 32 Plan showing application for proposed next phase of Rope Lane development. CEC 33 Response to Letter sent to Local Plan Examination team 23/07/14 (Document HG 08). CEC 34 Letter of 22 August 2014 explaining the justification for the figure included in the s.106 Agreement for the primary school.

265 CORRESPONDENCE and DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PERSONS

3P 1 Letter from Ivan Rowley with 4 photographs 3P 2 Letter from Ian Rowley 3P 3 e-mail from Sue Higgins 3P 4 e-mail from John Hancock 3P 5 Letter from Mr Squirrell – Rope Parish Council 3P 6 Lancashire Residential Road Guide put in by Mr G Ray

PLANS Plans A.1 – A.13 are found in Section 2 of the Core Documents – as noted in the list below.

Initial Application Plans CD No.

Plan A.1 012_019_P001 Site Location Plan CD 2.3

Plan A.2 012_019_P002 Application Site Plan CD 2.4

Plan A.3 012_019_P031 Rev D Outline Parameters Plan (superseded by CD 2.5 Plan A.9)

Plan A.4 SK21220 -004 Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming General Arrangement (Plan 4) (superseded by Plan A.10)

Plan A.5 SK21220 -002 Rev A Crewe Road Access General Arrangement (Plan 5)

Illustrative documents supporting the application

Plan A.6 012_019_P021 Rev C Illustrative Master Plan (superseded by CD 2.8 Plan A.12)

Plan A.7 012_019_P034 Indicative Phasing Plan CD 2.9

Plan A.8 Spatial Design Code July 2013 (superseded by Plan A.13) CD 2.7

Amended drawings (not part of original application)

Plan A.9 012_019_P031 Rev E Outline Parameters Plan CD 3.2

Plan A.10 SK21220 -004 Rev A Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming CD3.8 General Arrangement Plan

Plan A.11 SK21220 -010 Crewe Road Access General CD 3.9 Arrangement RSA Amendments

266 Amended illustrative documents supporting the application

Plan A.12 012_019_P021 Rev D Illustrative Master Plan CD 3.3

Plan A.13 Spatial Design Code, May 2014 CD 3.4

Plans prepared by the Inspector to identify locations referred to in this Report

Plan Insp.1 Extract from Google Maps of A534 corridor through central Crewe, identifying Junction 4 and Junction 5.

Plan Insp.2 Ordnance Survey map extract identifying Crewe Green Roundabout and Cheerbrook Roundabout

267 APPENDIX

PLANNING CONDITIONS

General

1. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the Reserved Matters") shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

2. Application for approval of the Reserved Matters for the first phase of the development shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission and, for the remainder of the development hereby permitted, not later than five years from the date of this permission.

3. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or no later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the Reserved Matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the following plans and documents, unless other conditions on the permission indicate otherwise:

Drawing No. Title 012-019-P001 Site Location Plan 012-019-P002 Application Site Plan 012-019-P031 Rev E Outline Parameters Plan SK21220-004 Rev A Rope Lane Access and Traffic Calming General Arrangement SK21220-010 Crewe Road Access General Arrangement RSA Amendments 012-019-P021 Rev D Illustrative Masterplan Spatial Design Code May 2014

Phasing, Levels and Materials

5. The first Reserved Matters application shall include a scheme of phasing for the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless amended by a subsequent Reserved Matters application. The phasing scheme shall identify those areas of structural landscaping to be implemented within each phase, and the timing of such implementation relative to the construction of the built development within that phase.

6. No development within a phase shall commence until details of existing ground levels, proposed ground levels and the level of proposed floor slabs for that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in

268 writing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

7. No development within a phase shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of boundary treatments and the external surfaces of the dwellings / buildings to be erected as part of that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Drainage

8. No development within a phase shall commence until such time as a scheme to limit the surface water runoff generated by that phase and to manage the risk of flooding from overland flow of surface water has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented for each phase of development prior to the first occupation of that phase.

9. No development within a phase shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of foul water from that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. For the avoidance of doubt, surface water must drain separately from the foul and no surface water will be permitted to discharge directly or indirectly into the existing public sewerage system. The approved scheme shall be implemented for each phase of development prior to the first occupation of that phase.

10. The development shall not cause any alteration in existing ground levels within the 1 in 100 year flood outline as shown in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by Enzygo dated July 2013 ref SHF.1026.001.R.001.A), without prior authorisation of the local planning authority

11. No development within a phase shall commence until details of the finished floor levels of all proposed dwellings / buildings within that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The finished floor levels are to be set at a minimum of either;

a. the 1 in 100 year flood level including an allowance for climate change and 600mm freeboard to account for uncertainty; or

b. the 1 in 100 year flood level including an allowance for climate change and 30% blockage of the railway line culvert

whichever is the greater, based upon the flood level at the corresponding cross section (as detailed in Table 6.9 and 6.10 of the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Enzygo dated July 2013 ref SHF.1026.001.R.001.A).

Development shall take place in accordance with the approved scheme for that phase.

Environmental protection

12. No development within a phase shall commence until a Phase II contaminated land investigation for that phase has been carried out and the results submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

269 If the Phase II investigation for that phase indicates that remediation is necessary, then a Remediation Statement for that phase shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Remediation Scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

If remediation is required within any phase of development, prior to the first use or occupation of any part of that phase of development a Site Completion Report detailing the conclusions and actions taken at each stage of the works, including validation works, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

13. No development within a phase shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The plan shall include details of:

a. the hours of construction work and deliveries; b. area(s) for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; c. area(s) for the loading and unloading of plant and materials; d. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; e. wheel washing facilities; f. any piling required including, the method (best practicable means to reduce the impact of noise and vibration on neighbouring sensitive properties), hours, duration, prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affected properties; g. the responsible person (e.g. site manager / office) who could be contacted in the event of complaint; h. mitigation measures in respect of noise and disturbance during the construction phase including vibration and noise limits, monitoring methodology, screening, a detailed specification of plant and equipment to be used and construction traffic routes; i. a scheme to minimise dust emissions arising from demolition / construction activities on the site. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development; j. waste management. There shall be no burning of materials on site during demolition / construction.

Development shall take place in accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan for that phase.

14. No dwelling within a phase shall be occupied until a Residential Travel Plan has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Travel Plan shall include, inter alia, a timetable for implementation and provision for monitoring and review. The measures contained within the approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented, in accordance with the approved scheme of monitoring and review, as long as any part of the development is occupied.

270 15. No commercial building shall be occupied until an Individual Travel Plan for that building / occupier has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Travel Plan shall promote alternative / low carbon transport options for staff and shall include suitable and measurable targets with the aim to reduce transport related emissions. The approved Travel Plan(s) shall be monitored and enforced throughout the use of the development.

16. No development within a phase shall commence until details of the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure to be installed within that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved infrastructure relating to that property has been fully installed and is operational. The approved infrastructure shall be installed in accordance with the approved details thereafter be retained.

17. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Air Quality Impact Assessment and Noise Assessments, submitted as Chapters 9 and 10 of the Environmental Statement (GVA, July 2013).

Ecology

18. No development within a phase that will adjoin Swill Brook or Valley Brook, or ponds to be retained, shall commence until a scheme for the provision and management of buffer zones alongside Swill Brook (8-metre wide), the un- named tributary of Valley Brook (5-metre wide) and the retained ponds has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include:

(i) plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone(s), including cross-sections clearly showing the water, buffer zone and development;

(ii) details of any proposed planting scheme in proximity to the watercourses;

(iii) details demonstrating how the buffer zone(s) will be protected during the course of development and construction, and how the zone(s) will be managed / maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and a named body responsible for management and the production of detailed management plan;

(iv) details of any proposed footpaths and boundary treatments. Thereafter the development of each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme(s) and any subsequent amendments shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

The buffer zone(s) shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping.

19. Notwithstanding the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) chapter 15 Ecology, any future Reserved Matters application shall be supported by a revised Ecological Mitigation Strategy including updated surveys for barn owls and bats, which shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the ES. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved revised Strategy.

271 20. No clearance of trees, shrubs or hedgerows in preparation for (or during the course of) development shall take place during the bird nesting season (1 March -31 August inclusive) unless a nesting bird survey has been carried out by a suitably qualified person and the results submitted to the local planning authority. Should the survey indicate the presence of any nesting species, then no development shall take place within 4 metres of the nests during the period specified above.

21. No development within a phase which may affect Great Crested Newts and / or their habitat (by reference to the findings of the Environmental Statement, July 2013), shall commence until a detailed Great Crested Newt mitigation strategy for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved strategy for that phase, with any amendments agreed in writing.

22. Application(s) for approval of Reserved Matters for each phase of the development shall include a Protected Species Mitigation Method Statement for that phase. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved Method Statement for that phase.

Trees, landscape and open space

23. No development within a phase shall commence until a detailed landscaping scheme for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include the positions of all existing trees and hedgerows within and around the site, indications of any to be retained together with measures for their protection during the course of development, also the number, species, heights on planting and positions of all additional trees, shrubs and bushes to be planted. The scheme shall define the timing of implementation relative to the construction of the built development (including advanced planting) and include a management method statement for the completed landscaping.

24. Subject to the provisions of condition 23, all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the landscaping scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

25. No development within a phase shall commence (including any tree felling, tree pruning, demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction and/or widening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery) until a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The Method Statement(s) shall include details of the following:

a. a scheme (hereinafter called the approved Protection Scheme) which provides for the retention and protection of trees, shrubs and hedges growing on or adjacent to the site, including trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order currently in force, or are shown to be

272 retained on the approved layout, which shall be in place prior to the commencement of work;

b. the implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved Protection Scheme. The approved Protection Scheme shall be retained intact for the full duration of the construction of the development hereby permitted and shall not be removed without the prior written permission of the local planning authority;

c. a detailed Treework Specification and details of the implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved Treework Specification;

d. the implementation, supervision and monitoring of all approved construction works within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected. No excavations for services, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles, deposit or excavation of soil or rubble, lighting of fires or disposal of liquids shall take place within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the approved Protection Scheme;

e. the timing and phasing of arboricultural works in relation to the approved development.

Development shall take place in accordance with the approved Method Statement for that phase.

26. The first Reserved Matters application shall include an Open Space Scheme showing all areas of open space to be provided within that phase including, where relevant, allotments, public amenity open space and equipped children’s play area. The scheme shall also include details of the location, layout, size, timing of provision, proposed planting, location and specification of boundary structures, play equipment and materials.

Archaeology

27. No development within a phase shall commence until a written scheme of archaeological investigation for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme for that phase.

Highways

28. Prior to the commencement of the development, construction details of the proposed access points from Crewe Road (as set out on drawing no. SK21220- 010) and Rope Lane (as set out on drawing no, SK21220-004 Rev A) shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

29. Construction of the access to the site from Crewe Road (as shown in outline on drawing no. SK21220-010) shall not commence until such time as the Basford West Spine Road has been completed and brought into use.

30. No more than 350 dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until the Crewe Road access (as shown in outline on drawing no. SK21220-010) has been constructed and brought into use.

273 31. No development within a phase shall commence until details of pedestrian and cycle signage for that phase has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include signage for shared routes for pedestrians and cyclists through the site and a timetable for implementation. The approved scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable for that phase.

32. As part of the Reserved Matters applications for phases of development fronting Gresty Lane, details of the proposed pedestrian / cycleway accesses on Gresty Lane, and of any new, altered or closed access to Gresty Lane shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of the relevant phase of development hereby permitted.

Commercial uses

33. Prior to the occupation of any of the commercial uses hereby permitted, a scheme identifying noise emission limits for external fixed plant based on BS4142:1997 shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. All external fixed plant shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved scheme.

34. No commercial uses which would involve the handling, preparation and cooking of food shall become operational until a scheme of odour / noise control detailing the filtration and extraction system to control the discharge of odours and fumes arising from food handling, preparation and cooking has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved control measures shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter.

35. Prior to installation, details of any external lighting to be installed on the commercial premises hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the location, height, design and luminance of any lighting and minimise potential harm to amenity caused by light spillage on adjoining properties. The lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.

Retail floorspace

36. The total gross floorspace to be used for the purposes of uses within Class A1 (retail) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) shall not exceed 2,500 sq metres (gross).

Other matters

37. No development within a phase shall commence until details of the proposed bin storage facilities for that phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The details shall ensure that bins are stored securely, and provide facilities for both recyclable and household waste storage. No dwelling shall be occupied until the bin storage facilities for that property have been constructed and are available for use in accordance with the approved details.

38. No development within a phase shall commence until details of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected within that

274 phase have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. No dwelling within that phase of the development shall be occupied until the boundary treatment relating to that dwelling has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. The approved boundaries shall thereafter be retained as approved.

275

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT

These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).

The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed.

SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS; The decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).

Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act

Decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged under this section. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date of the decision.

SECTION 2: AWARDS OF COSTS

There is no statutory provision for challenging the decision on an application for an award of costs. The procedure is to make an application for Judicial Review.

SECTION 3: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the report of the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local- government

276

Appendix 4: Deliverable supply tables (large sites and allocations)

277 Deliverable Large Sites with planning Approval Total Site Application no. within 5 permission date Capacity 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 years 6 months 6 months Samas Roneo, Glossop Road, HPK/2014/0665 (outline) 13.04.15 93 30 30 30 15 105 Gamesley Shepley Street, Glossop HPK/2013/0056 (full) 30.04.13 44 15 19 34

HPK/ 2012/0007 (outline) 04.04.12 Holehouse Mill, Chisworth 22 0 HPK/2015/0145 (RM) 27.10.15 HPK/0003/9366 (outline) 09.08.02 Waterswallows, Buxton 331 25 50 50 25 150 HPK/2005/0539 (RM) 02.03.06 HPK/2013/0625 (outline, 120) HPK/2015/0563 (RM phase 1, 21 27.10.14 Land to the rear of Hallsteads, approved) 20.04.16 104 14 30 30 30 104 Dove Holes HPK/2016/0488 (RM phase 2, 83 23.01.17 pending) Land off Hallsteads, Dove HPK/2013/0417 (outline, 80) 31.10.13 83 15 30 30 30 8 83 Holes HPK/2016/0484 (RM, 83) 30.01.17 Octavia Gardens, Manchester HPK/2011/0282 (outline) 27.05.11 105 12 12 Road, Chapel-en-le-Frith HPK/2013/0657 (RM) 12.05.14 HPK/2012/0322 (outline) HPK/2013/0577 19.12.12 Forge Works, Chinley (RM phase 1, 91 approved) 29.05.13 182 15 30 30 30 30 14 149 HPK/2016/0313 (RM phase 2, 91 pending) Federal Mogal, Chapel-en-le- HPK/2012/0408 (full) 07.11.13 164 15 6 21 Frith Land off southern end of Long HPK/2013/0320 (outline) 19.12.13 105 15 30 30 30 105 Lane, Chapel-en-le-Frith HPK/2015/0497 (RM) 23.12.15 Dinting Road, Dinting HPK/2015/0692 (outline) 09.09.16 113 15 30 30 30 8 113

The Panhandle site, Graphite HPK/2014/0067 (outline) 15.05.14 44 30 14 44 Way, Hadfield HPK/2013/0327 (outline) 12.06.14 G6 North Road, Glossop 150 15 30 30 30 20 125 HPK/2015/0120 (RM) 21.07.15 G31 Land at Charlestown HPK/2013/0597 (outline, 100) 17.03.14 97 30 30 30 7 97 Works, Glossop HPK/2016/0520 (RM 97 pending) Land at Burlow Road, Buxton HPK/2014/0403 (outline) 11.11.14 275 25 50 50 25 150

278 Deliverable Large Sites with planning Approval Total Site Application no. within 5 permission date Capacity 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 years 6 months 6 months Land at Manchester Road, HPK/2014/0210 (outline, 49) 07.08.14 47 17 30 47 Chapel-en-le-Frith HPK/2016/0217 (RM, 47) 07.10.16 B20,21,22 Foxlow Farm, HPK/2013/0603 (outline) 04.11.14 445 25 50 50 25 150 Harpur Hill Road, Buxton C9 Land south of Macclesfield HPK/2014/0119 (outline) 07.05.15 107 30 30 30 17 107 Road, Whaley Bridge Land at Redcourt, Hollincross HPK/2014/0174 (full) 05.08.14 22 22 22 Lane, Glossop B1 Batham Gate Road, Peak HPK/2015/0174 (full) 21.07.15 27 9 18 27 Dale Church Lane, New Mills HPK/2013/0483 (full) 23.04.15 21 5 12 17

Woods Mill HPK/2015/0571 (full) 01.07.16 57 30 27 57

G19 Dinting Road / Dinting HPK/2015/0412 (outline) 27.05.16 65 30 35 65 Lane G2 Paradise Street, Hadfield HPK/2015/0329 (full) 01.02.16 12 8 8

Land at Brown Edge Road, HPK/2014/0372 (full) 16.03.15 53 30 23 53 Buxton HPK/2015/0113 (full, 52) Surrey Street Resubmission (for 51 units 28.04.16 51 30 21 51

pending as of 28.09.16) Total 117 412 483 420 345 119 1,896

279 Deliverable Approval Total Site

Allocations and other sites Application no. 6 6 within 5 date Capacity 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 years months months

G2 Paradise Street, Hadfield 16 4 4

G3 Roughfields, Hadfield 102 30 15 45

G12 Bute Street, Glossop 30 15 8 23

G13 Hawkshead Mill, Glossop 31 7 15 9 31

G20 Dinting Lane 50 13 13

G25 Land off Melandra Castle 35 15 20 35 Road, Gamesley G32 Adderley Place 130 15 15

Bridge Mills, New Road, 81 21 15 36 Tintwistle Wooley Bridge, Hadfield 31 16 15 31

C3 Derby Road, New Mills 107 15 15

C5, C6, C17, C18 Ollersett Lane, Pingot Road, Laneside 239 13 13

Road, New Mills C13 Buxton Road, Chinley 13 7 6 13

C15 Britannia Mill, Buxworth 50 30 20 50

C16 Furness Vale A6 39 7 30 2 39

C20 New Mills Newtown 15 4 4

Marsh Lane, New Mills HPK/2016/0476 18.01.17 37 20 17 37

B6 Hardwick Square South, 30 7 13 20 Buxton B7 Market Street Depot, 24 7 17 24 Buxton B10 Land off Dukes Drive, 338 25 25 50 Buxton B27 Harpur Hill College 105 30 30 30 15 105 Campus B31 Spring Gardens, Station 30 7 12 19 Road, Buxton Granby Road, Buxton 74 37 37 74

Total 0 85 220 109 132 150 696

280